Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8945174" data-attributes="member: 6778210">That's not specific, though, and [USER=2013]@The Sigil[/USER] 's list don't seem like incredible deal-breakers. Like, again, I think people should individually address the list because most of these objections make no sense to what is actually being proposed.This has been a project for [USER=6688049]@Dungeonosophy[/USER] for a while, so that feels like a bad read on the actual situation. And in general, these sorts of things have always been getting energy because people want to see Wizards doing better because they are such a big part of the industry.It's not getting cancelled, the original poster just wanted more effort and explanation put into explaining and educating people on why this is wrong. I find the whole "stop selling pre OneD&D stuff" to be looking for a reason to fear actually looking at their back catalog. Has Wizards been quick to remove old content like this before? Given that no one is asking for removal, why would that be the solution now? I feel like people are looking for reasons not to entertain this rather than engage with what is actually being asked.Do we really, really think that's the same as this? Like, really?I think the OP wanted to have actual discussion on the topic, not just a bunch of people reactively posting without reading what they actually suggested. For example, there are a bunch of people claiming that they want to reedit or censor the work, which is flatly false. However, you wouldn't know it from the discussion because many of these people just post and don't correct themselves or get corrected. It's a very frustrating way to have a discussion, I suspect.The petition literally calls for none of that, please actually read it.This is not a specific objection, it is literally a general objection. Not only that, there's literally no call for "cleansing" anything, so this is just a gigantic strawman.Again, read the list. Explain where you see anything trying to "cleanse all old materials", because it literally does not exist. This is all just a kneejerk response to someone wanting to change something.It won't happen if you don't try. People wanted to give up on the OGL fight, too, and how bad did that look? This is just circular and self-defeating. Also if it's just "one obscure example", then why do you seemingly care so much?I thought we weren't doing slippery slopes, but hey, here we are just sliding all the way down. We've had this argument over and over and over ad infinitum. Where do you stop? Who knows, because who knows anything of the future. We're constantly judging and reevaluating things. This is not an objection to what is actually being done, but an objection to doing literally anything on the topic.This was your first one. Is there proof that it's going to suddenly shut down all old sales? Do we know that, or are you just scaremongering?Given how little the investment returns in the first place, they could probably get more significant good-will than continuing to collect a small amount of profits on a racist book.I didn't say that's why they were banning it, I was pointing to the context of its usage in the actual fiction. There is a difference in what is being said, in the same way Huck Finn is different than a minstrel show. You are focused on the people behind the banning while I'm looking at the actual work.In this case, this is not some kind of contextual piece for the time. It's literally a piece that is using racial stereotypes for bad comedy. That is not the same, nor should it be treated as such.And yet you still can't directly address the actual listed stuff and have to make up stuff about "cleansing". Most of your list is not specific objections, but literally broad proclamations, two of which are just declaring that this can't work and the other asking where they would stop. None of that is specific. Look at the list proposed: with those specific suggestions, what is the problem?Are either of those openly racist for comedy reasons? I don't remember, but am I getting older...The problematic nature of Mockingbird is largely in language, less so in subject. That is not the case here, where the subject itself are racial stereotypes put on to fantasy races for the purposes of comedy. When you look at why a book is offensive, you have to look at what it is doing and why it is doing it.But even still, no one wants to ban/edit/cleanse this book anyways, so are we objecting to a more specific warning piece and Wizards actually attempting to examine their back catalog? Because it feels like that's something they should do. You can put a general disclaimer about racism, but there are books out there that are less obvious where people won't understand what is offensive or why it might be offensive (I feel like Oriental Adventures is a good example). Explaining more specifically what is wrong with these books helps to educate people going forwards and help people not fall into those traps.</blockquote>

Verification