D&D General Why a PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content is a Bad Idea

[Voadam]

There are still people thinking that the OP wants to rewrite or censor the book, which is demonstrably false but still gets traction.

I think the fact that the the post is titled "PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content" would reasonably be taken to indicate a petition to actively stop the content in one way or another such as through either blocking it or revising it. The fact that the OP in that thread does not state what his petition is for, he only links to it and suggests reading his 42 page report does not take away from that impression. So with nothing direct in the original thread OP but the title to stop hurtful conduct, I find those as understandable assumptions for people who have read his post.

The actual petition, once you get to the petition part after the statement of objections to the original material, factually is for more amendatory type measures and not petitioning to stopping hurtful content. So given all that I think these are unfortunate but to be expected reactions to the phrasing of the thread.

 

[MGibster]

If the petition ever gets any momentum (doubtful), then they will simply remove GAZ10 from sale.

Bingo. And I think that's deliberate and the petition is more about sticking it to WotC than being inclusive.

 

[Raiztt]

Bingo. And I think that's deliberate and the petition is more about sticking it to WotC than being inclusive.

Currently standing at 14 signatories (obviously/of course).

 

[ReshiIRE]

Disclaimer: I support the petition and generally think moves like this, when they generate productive discussion and action, are good.

• A petition like this isn't censorship even if it was calling to completely remove the original product
• People, especially random people, asking a private organisation to change parts of a work they did is not censorship
• Censorship is in the vast majority of cases done by governments or extremely large organisations that have government like abilities
• Calling this petition an attempt at censorship is deeply harmful, and that people's reactions to this are part of a large problem on the internet where people take freedom of expression to an absurd degree (as in, argument from absurdity). Criticising something and saying "this should be changed or commented on because it does real world harm" is denounced as censorship. It feels like an automatic "I win" button in an argument - because no one wants to be accused of censorship - regardless of what exactly is being proposed or what the content in question is
• Following on from this point, it minimises actual censorship in the real world by casting such a wide net that actual attempts at censorship start to appear less abhorrent or abnormal as many, many other things are called 'censorship' when their effects are much smaller
• So much of the issue with people's reaction to this is how power is portrayed. This petition and discussion has been made out to be this grossly dangerously powerful thing that if enacted would cause untold damage. Despite the fact that even were this petition quite popular, it can only succeed with the consent of WoTC - the current publisher - themselves. It's more than likely this petition will never be enacted and unlikely to ever appear on WoTC's radar. Though... discussing it and being so hostile to it has somewhat increased the chance it would have power
• Accusations of thoughtcrime again appear to act as a 'I win this discussion' button and are ironically a way of attempting to silence another's complaints by dismissing their criticism and suggestions as some sort of awful action
• In general - freedom of expression has often been twisted online to become this gross thing where criticising someone for their awful thing and suggesting they fix it, and fix their works, becomes this act of gross evil - when criticising someone's work is the most important aspect of freedom of expression

 

[Voadam]

Disclaimer: I support the petition and generally think moves like this, when they generate productive discussion and action, are good.

• A petition like this isn't censorship even if it was calling to completely remove the original product
• People, especially random people, asking a private organisation to change parts of a work they did is not censorship
• Censorship is in the vast majority of cases done by governments or extremely large organisations that have government like abilities
• Calling this petition an attempt at censorship is deeply harmful, and that people's reactions to this are part of a large problem on the internet where people take freedom of expression to an absurd degree (as in, argument from absurdity). Criticising something and saying "this should be changed or commented on because it does real world harm" is denounced as censorship. It feels like an automatic "I win" button in an argument - because no one wants to be accused of censorship - regardless of what exactly is being proposed or what the content in question is
• Following on from this point, it minimises actual censorship in the real world by casting such a wide net that actual attempts at censorship start to appear less abhorrent or abnormal as many, many other things are called 'censorship' when their effects are much smaller
• So much of the issue with people's reaction to this is how power is portrayed. This petition and discussion has been made out to be this grossly dangerously powerful thing that if enacted would cause untold damage. Despite the fact that even were this petition quite popular, it can only succeed with the consent of WoTC - the current publisher - themselves. It's more than likely this petition will never be enacted and unlikely to ever appear on WoTC's radar. Though... discussing it and being so hostile to it has somewhat increased the chance it would have power
• Accusations of thoughtcrime again appear to act as a 'I win this discussion' button and are ironically a way of attempting to silence another's complaints by dismissing their criticism and suggestions as some sort of awful action
• In general - freedom of expression has often been twisted online to become this gross thing where criticising someone for their awful thing and suggesting they fix it, and fix their works, becomes this act of gross evil - when criticising someone's work is the most important aspect of freedom of expression

I think you are definitionally wrong on what censorship is and simply defining it as the censorship subset of government censorship.

Censorship definitionally is simply suppressing speech.

American First Amendment Free Speech protection is protection against government censorship and not private censorship.

Private parties attempting to suppress objectionable speech are definitionally trying to get speech censored, whether through government or non-government means.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Okay, to be clear, I was talking about a subset of censorship, as defined by the complete technical definition.

But people conflate government and private censorship all the time, especially when referring to freedom of expression. And generally, when people talk about censorship, we talk about government censorship near exclusively; because otherwise we'd start talking about, say, moderation actions on this board as censorship.

Or rules in game groups about what content we do and do not want to include as censorship.

And while yes there are obviously powerful private groups that do attempt to censor people from say, publishing criticism, etc., I think that:

a) comparing those efforts to this and calling this also censorship would be wrong
b) those enter into a grey area generally, especially since the methods often used to attempt censorship are pretty damn illegal.

I don't think it takes away from the point I was making. There's a lot of nuance, understanding and ability to have a genuine conversation for this topic. Calling this censorship, even if technically correct, is harmful to the discussion - because the connotations and cultural understanding of censorship are different than the technical meaning of the world.

 

[Oofta]

Disclaimer: I support the petition and generally think moves like this, when they generate productive discussion and action, are good.

• A petition like this isn't censorship even if it was calling to completely remove the original product
• People, especially random people, asking a private organisation to change parts of a work they did is not censorship
• Censorship is in the vast majority of cases done by governments or extremely large organisations that have government like abilities
• Calling this petition an attempt at censorship is deeply harmful, and that people's reactions to this are part of a large problem on the internet where people take freedom of expression to an absurd degree (as in, argument from absurdity). Criticising something and saying "this should be changed or commented on because it does real world harm" is denounced as censorship. It feels like an automatic "I win" button in an argument - because no one wants to be accused of censorship - regardless of what exactly is being proposed or what the content in question is
• Following on from this point, it minimises actual censorship in the real world by casting such a wide net that actual attempts at censorship start to appear less abhorrent or abnormal as many, many other things are called 'censorship' when their effects are much smaller
• So much of the issue with people's reaction to this is how power is portrayed. This petition and discussion has been made out to be this grossly dangerously powerful thing that if enacted would cause untold damage. Despite the fact that even were this petition quite popular, it can only succeed with the consent of WoTC - the current publisher - themselves. It's more than likely this petition will never be enacted and unlikely to ever appear on WoTC's radar. Though... discussing it and being so hostile to it has somewhat increased the chance it would have power
• Accusations of thoughtcrime again appear to act as a 'I win this discussion' button and are ironically a way of attempting to silence another's complaints by dismissing their criticism and suggestions as some sort of awful action
• In general - freedom of expression has often been twisted online to become this gross thing where criticising someone for their awful thing and suggesting they fix it, and fix their works, becomes this act of gross evil - when criticising someone's work is the most important aspect of freedom of expression

Has anyone called the petition itself a call for censorship? Because this keeps coming up and I simply haven't seen it. What has been said is that there is no way WOTC is going to do what the petition asks. In the highly unlikely event that this petition gains traction they are not going to do what the petition asks, they would simply stp selling it.

If you call raising enough of a stink that it's not worth it for a company to sell a product censorship, I guess that's your prerogative. Even if it's not true, just stop throwing around accusations.

But it's also odd that you say this isn't a big deal because it will never get enough support is just odd. I agree that this petition will never amount to anything, but then why make such a production about it?

Want to discuss problematic products from D&D's past and what, if anything, can or should be done about them? No problem. Let's chat.

But this is really such an oddly specific and obscure (mole)hill to die on. I suspect that 99.5% of the people that have ever played D&D even know about GAZ10, and most of those are because of this petition.

 

[ReshiIRE]

"Has anyone called the petition itself a call for censorship? Because this keeps coming up and I simply haven't seen it."

I've heard people saying "we're not about censorship," but it's my understanding that the goal is to recreate it with the problematic content removed, which is censoring it.

But on the other thread it was suggested that problematic text should be rewritten and censored.

• What stops the OP from creating a 3PP version of Gaz 10 with everything he wants?
• The petition is calling for censorship or at least Bowdlerizing the original work.
• How about the OP create Kickstarter with only $100 buy in to pay WOTC to replace the work. Raise 2 million and Wotc will lisen

I object to censorship based on modern sensibilities, especially when looking at the entirety of the publication and the context in which it was published. This book was breaking ground at the time it was published.

Whether he wants to censor or not, is irrelevant - his/her petition, if successful, may very well lead to it.

These, to me, look like people calling the petition / the actions it will lead to censorship, and there were a few others I haven't quoted that felt like they were calling actions like this or similar to it censorship.

There may be more in the other thread.

I have quoted you in this post as well. Do you think the petition isn't censorship now, or am I misinterpreting you?

 

[Voadam]

Okay, to be clear, I was talking about a subset of censorship, as defined by the complete technical definition.

But people conflate government and private censorship all the time, especially when referring to freedom of expression. And generally, when people talk about censorship, we talk about government censorship near exclusively; because otherwise we'd start talking about, say, moderation actions on this board as censorship.

Or rules in game groups about what content we do and do not want to include as censorship.

And while yes there are obviously powerful private groups that do attempt to censor people from say, publishing criticism, etc., I think that:

a) comparing those efforts to this and calling this also censorship would be wrong
b) those enter into a grey area generally, especially since the methods often used to attempt censorship are pretty damn illegal.

I don't think it takes away from the point I was making. There's a lot of nuance, understanding and ability to have a genuine conversation in calling this censorship, even if technically correct, because the connotations and cultural understanding of censorship is different.

I think for purposes of this discussion private actions to get new sales of an RPG book universally suppressed by its publisher who holds the copyright (like the petition thread title sounds like it is going for as opposed to what the actual petition is asking for) is much more in effect and harms like government censorship (which can take the form of prohibiting the sale of a book) than like moderating posting on a single forum.

In the original 2021 thread there was a lot of talk of trying to get the book yanked from sale because of its content. I think it is appropriate to call such advocacy attempts to censor the book.

Here though the petition author is not actually petitioning for such suppression. He just unfortunately phrased his thread as if he was, which raised the issue in people responding to what he posted as opposed to his linked petition's actual specifics, and it keeps being brought up tangentially.

 

[LordEntrails]

There's a lot of nuance, understanding and ability to have a genuine conversation for this topic.

This is one thing I agree with you on. I find it interesting that @Dungeonosophy actually refuses to engage in genuine conversation about his idea.