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

[S'mon]

Looking at the now-closed thread, I have two more comments:

1. Posting a bunch of racist-looking pictures excerpted from the GAZ is really making it easy for racist sh*tposters to use them for their own nefarious ends, isn't it? I can see a definite likelihood of a Streisand effect here.

2. There was discussion near the end of 'Orwellian Thought Policing'. Starting a petition to have a book withdrawn from sale is not 'Orwellian Thought Policing' IMO. But misusing the concept of a '+' thread and attempting to restrict the terms of debate in the manner attempted by the OP certainly did look like 'Orwellian Thought Policing' to me, and I'm glad Morrus shut it down.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Looking at the now-closed thread, I have two more comments:

1. Posting a bunch of racist-looking pictures excerpted from the GAZ is really making it easy for racist sh*tposters to use them for their own nefarious ends, isn't it? I can see a definite likelihood of a Streisand effect here.

2. There was discussion near the end of 'Orwellian Thought Policing'. Starting a petition to have a book withdrawn from sale is not 'Orwellian Thought Policing' IMO. But misusing the concept of a '+' thread amd attempting to restrict the terms of debate in the manner attempted by the OP certainly did look like 'Orwellian Thought Policing' to me, and I'm glad Morrus shut it down.

As the person who attached the label of Orwellian Thought Policing (don't think that was the exact wording, but close enough), let me clarify something. I fully the support the opportunity for someone to put up a petition like this. I will never stand in the way of someone expressing their opinion. I certainly didn't say that posting the petition was Orwellian. What I did was give my opinion on the result of that ask; if successful, the result would be Orwellian. A successful result from this petition attaches the opinions of a singular person (or at best a very tiny group of people) to a published work. To me, this is censorship and yes, thought policing. Pretty large difference between this and what you just ascribed to my posts.

If the petition is successful, this isn't beneficial to society IMO. Is there a benefit to putting up this petition even if it fails? I will entertain that debate.

My position in that debate would be that the Streisand effect would be at play here i.e. even if in failing as a petition, the end result is negative

 

[Justice and Rule]

But, therein lies the point. It's not really your job to "get past misconceptions". At least, not a big part of your job. If you believe people are misunderstanding the points in the petition, then the petition is written poorly. It is being interpreted in a way that you don't believe is correct, but, even after trying to clarify, people are still not buying your interpretation.

So, at that point, you have two choices. Dig in and keep trying to "correct the mistakes" of others, which is what you've been doing for many pages now with many different poeple. Or, you rewrite the petition and either drop the issue entirely, or find a rephrasing that is acceptable to others.

My point is, it doesn't matter one whit if you are 100% right or not. It doesn't matter. Because people do not believe that they are wrong. I certainly don't believe that my interpretation is mistaken. Being right isn't the point. Getting people to support your view is the point.

So, you have to decide, which is more important; being right or working with people to gain support?

No offense, but it takes two to tango. I feel like this misses a lot of discussion about this thread and the nature of the critiques against it (many of which have literally talked about taking down the piece, editing the piece, or censoring it). At a certain level, it's also on the people commenting to be accurate, too, which is what I've been pleading for. I really don't care if they sign or not, but watching people constantly get what is actually in the petition wrong, honestly or not, has been what I've been trying to have a discussion about.

If you want to discuss more about this in private, where I can probably give more detailed thoughts, sure. But honestly I'm done discussing it here.

You mean a single D&D board with 239,943 members?

The original thread had 235 replies and 12k views, this one has 327 replies and 9k views...

I mean, active board members? Are they all going to this forum, clicking on this topic? Further, are all those views repeats by people commenting or...?

I'm not saying the petition is perfect, but I find this sort of thing to be the wrong way of viewing how board traffic actually works.

As the person who attached the label of Orwellian Thought Policing (don't think that was the exact wording, but close enough), let me clarify something. I fully the support the opportunity for someone to put up a petition like this. I will never stand in the way of someone expressing their opinion. I certainly didn't say that posting the petition was Orwellian. What I did was give my opinion on the result of that ask; if successful, the result would be Orwellian. A successful result from this petition attaches the opinions of a singular person (or at best a very tiny group of people) to a published work. To me, this is censorship and yes, thought policing. Pretty large difference between this and what you just ascribed to my posts.

No, this is basically what I said it was. It's a petition: they can choose to accept it or not. If they are convinced, that's not Orwellian thought-policing, that's just someone making a choice. It's how free speech works. It does not matter if it's one person, a few people, or everyone. If a lot of people don't like it, they can attach their own petition to it and try to change it back! But really, attaching the opinions of a singular person is not the downfall of free speech. Rather, we call that a foreword.

And with that, I exit the thread.

 

[S'mon]

It's unfortunate that GAZ10 went astray. The Gazeteer series often did a great job of respectfully adding real-world elements to them. As an adult, I became an Arabic linguist in the Navy and knew many Persian linguists. GAZ2 Emirates of Ylaruam is shockingly respectful towards Arabs and Persian culture at a time when it would have been very easy to go the other way.

I do think that if you're Shia you might not be too happy about how GAZ2 presents the Kin (Shia) faction as pretty much the bad guy faction, as opposed to the good guy Preceptor (Sunni) faction. Of course the USA was and is allied with Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia and opposed to Shia-ruled Iran, so it wasn't surprising. But it certainly took a different tack from Master of the Desert Nomads/Temple of Death, with its Ayatollah Khomeini BBEG.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

No, this is basically what I said it was. It's a petition: they can choose to accept it or not. If they are convinced, that's not Orwellian thought-policing, that's just someone making a choice. It's how free speech works. It does not matter if it's one person, a few people, or everyone. If a lot of people don't like it, they can attach their own petition to it and try to change it back! But really, attaching the opinions of a singular person is not the downfall of free speech. Rather, we call that a foreword.

You keep completely missing my point and mischaracterising what I'm saying. All I am saying is that asking a publisher to edit/slap a warning on/etc. a product is telling the general public that your very specific views are more important than anyone else's. You are asking a 3rd party to gatekeep the purchase of this product based on your personal opinions. That is the Orwellian aspect of this petition. Let others make up their own minds about things.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about declaring this content right or wrong (because I think it is wrong), it's about the correct way, in a democratic society, to express one's views. That way is not to dictate to others what they should think through mechanisms like attaching screeds to a product. Just about everyone already knows the product itself is terrible and insensitive. No one needs you to schoolteacher the rest of the world about it though and cordon anyone off from examining it. Trust that individuals can make their own decisions without your own personal supervision.

 

[Mecheon]

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about declaring this content right or wrong (because I think it is wrong), it's about the correct way, in a democratic society, to express one's views. That way is not to dictate to others what they should think through mechanisms like attaching screeds to a product. Just about everyone already knows the product itself is terrible and insensitive. No one needs you to schoolteacher the rest of the world about it though and cordon anyone off from examining it. Trust that individuals can make their own decisions without your own personal supervision.

As a counterargument though, does not not inply that, by offering this product without any sort of commentary or anything like that on it not exactly provide the best look? Frankly I think there's other things that need this well before GAZ10 (cough cough OA cough), but likewise just throwing something out there and presenting it as it is without any commentary is almost basically saying "I accept this for what it is and support it". Which, on GAZ10, y e a h....

I disagreed with the sheer depth of the other thread and with the slap dash "We're going to apply this to everything from well known problematic content" to "A DMs screen" disclaimer that WotC put in place, but, offering GAZ10 without any warning or anything attached to it? That's Not A Good Look any way you slice it. It needs something and while what's there isn't as in-depth as I'd prefer, its at least something

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

And with that, I exit the thread.

And let me remind you that this petition has zero traction. I'm hoping this fact penetrates your thought bubble and gives you better clarity on the strength of your position.

Your job in a democratic society is to have opinions and make them known. What is not your job is to take actions that stifle the ability of others to have their own opinions. You say: 'I think this is terrible because of X, Y and Z'. What you don't do, is take actions that harm the ability of others to have their own ideas.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

As a counterargument though, does not not inply that, by offering this product without any sort of commentary or anything like that on it not exactly provide the best look? Frankly I think there's other things that need this well before GAZ10 (cough cough OA cough), but likewise just throwing something out there and presenting it as it is without any commentary is almost basically saying "I accept this for what it is and support it". Which, on GAZ10, y e a h....

I disagreed with the sheer depth of the other thread and with the slap dash "We're going to apply this to everything from well known problematic content" to "A DMs screen" disclaimer that WotC put in place, but, offering GAZ10 without any warning or anything attached to it? That's Not A Good Look any way you slice it. It needs something and while what's there isn't as in-depth as I'd prefer, its at least something

For sure. I was thinking about that earlier. Something along these lines is fine IMO:

That is a bit strong, but hey quick Google search. Maybe 'Mature content'. That way, parents aren't buying something unintentionally inappropriate for their kids. And if anyone is worried that reading something might trigger something from their own life experience, they get advance warning.

 

[Irlo]

You keep completely missing my point and mischaracterising what I'm saying. All I am saying is that asking a publisher to edit/slap a warning on/etc. a product is telling the general public that your very specific views are more important than anyone else's. You are asking a 3rd party to gatekeep the purchase of this product based on your personal opinions. That is the Orwellian aspect of this petition. Let others make up their own minds about things.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about declaring this content right or wrong (because I think it is wrong), it's about the correct way, in a democratic society, to express one's views. That way is not to dictate to others what they should think through mechanisms like attaching screeds to a product. Just about everyone already knows the product itself is terrible and insensitive. No one needs you to schoolteacher the rest of the world about it though and cordon anyone off from examining it. Trust that individuals can make their own decisions without your own personal supervision.

Here's where I disagree with much of what you've been saying:

• No petition will compel a publisher add an addendum that they don't want to add. If the publisher chooses to add it, that's their right and a part of their own freedom of speech.
• No addendum will dictate to others what they should think. It would be an expression of someone's ideas, not a compulsion to accept them.
• No addendum or disclaimer will gatekeep the purchase of a product (except in circumstances that don't apply here -- such as when disclaimer prohibits the sale of the product to minors).
• No addendum will harm the ability of others to form their own ideas.
• No one would be cordoned off from examining the content.

People are just not at all that weak-minded.

And let me remind you that this petition has zero traction. I'm hoping this fact penetrates your thought bubble and gives you better clarity on the strength of your position.


Your job in a democratic society is to have opinions and make them known. What is not your job is to take actions that stifle the ability of others to have their own opinions. You say: 'I think this is terrible because of X, Y and Z'. What you don't do, is take actions that harm the ability of others to have their own ideas.

Yes, the petition has very little traction. There are lots of reasons for that, I'm sure. I didn't sign it. But I didn't not sign it because it's anti-democratic or stifling of free thought. I have other reasons. Lack of signatures doesn't in itself support the idea that the prevailing opintion is that petition's goals are anti-democratic or Orwellian.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Here's where I disagree with much of what you've been saying:

• No petition will compel a publisher add an addendum that they don't want to add. If the publisher chooses to add it, that's their right and a part of their own freedom of speech.
• No addendum will dictate to others what they should think. It would be an expression of someone's ideas, not a compulsion to accept them.
• No addendum or disclaimer will gatekeep the purchase of a product (except in circumstances that don't apply here -- such as when disclaimer prohibits the sale of the product to minors).
• No addendum will harm the ability of others to form their own ideas.
• No one would be cordoned off from examining the content.

People are just not at all that weak-minded.

Look at it this way: why is individual X's addendum the one to be added? Why is this specific person the one to be granted the right to address the wrongs of the published work?

No, people are not that weak-minded. The entirety of my point. So why is a document, attached to a published work, with a single opinion attached to it, necessary to warn others of the dangers of the published work? Let others make up their own minds about what is right or wrong about the product. If anyone has an opinion about the product, they can create a blog, or find whatever other medium suits them to broadcast that opinion. To take that extra step to place a gate on the product with one's own opinions... that's where I get yikes-ed out.