TSR Problematic Faves and Early D&D

[Kurotowa]

I appreciate the distinction you are making, but not sure if it would really solve the problem.

One group will say, "This causes harm, so needs to be changed."

Another group will say, "But does it really cause harm? And what changes?"

And we just shift the same dynamic to a new word: offense to harm.

It's not meant to be a solution by itself. To put things in D&D terms you're choosing between two passageways; a debate about harm is a challenging gauntlet that leads to the desired goal if you can overcome the trials, and a debate about offense is a false passage meant to lure adventurers into a series of lethal traps before stopping in a dead end. One isn't easy, but the other goes nowhere at all.

 

[Mercurius]

It's not meant to be a solution by itself. To put things in D&D terms you're choosing between two passageways; a debate about harm is a challenging gauntlet that leads to the desired goal if you can overcome the trials, and a debate about offense is a false passage meant to lure adventurers into a series of lethal traps before stopping in a dead end. One isn't easy, but the other goes nowhere at all.

I agree that one leads nowhere (see: "ENWorld, last month"). "Harm" is still quite unclear, but may provide WotC with more solid grounding, able to make clear distinctions.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, I'm not sure that 'harm' is a ton better than 'offense'. Harm is kind of like 'nice', it covers a whole lot of ground. IDK.

 

[Hussar]

And both are traps. Saying that "someone is offended" makes it easy to dismiss them as thin skinned and emotional. Saying that "content is offensive" sends you into a labyrinth of trying to make rules about why not all offenses are equal, or else be forced to put the inevitable complaints about openly LGBT couples featuring in a story on the same footing as sexism or ethnic stereotypes.

Making it about offense at all is a dead end. What we have to ask instead is, "Does this do harm?" As I tried to illustrate in my post, these derogatory depictions do real quantifiable harm to people. If BLM isn't your cup of tea here's another example. Doctors are less likely to take women's statements of symptoms seriously because of cultural stereotypes of women being emotional and unreliable. Studies have repeatedly shown that women have higher rates of being denied necessary care because doctors didn't think they were really that bad off. When I was young one of my parent's friends died because the hospital sent her home to "sleep it off".

The entire debate has to be shifted away from either the giving or taking of offense, otherwise all we'll get is a list of forbidden naughty words without any change in the attitudes or actions those words indicate.

I can get behind this 100%.

I remember in uni doing a class on legal ethics. Now, I went to a Catholic university, so, obviously abortion was a VERY touchy subject. But, the professor framed the discussion very differently than the standard good/bad, right/wrong thing. ((I'm going to put this next bit in spoiler tags as it's kinda political, but, not terribly))

Spoiler

The professor proposed a simple show of hands. Would you allow an abortion in the circumstance. No discussion allowed. Then he put forward three circimstances: 1. An ectopic pregnancy where bringing the baby to term would almost guaranteed kill mother and child - pretty much everyone puts up their hand. 2. A rape case involving incest. Most people put up their hand, but, significantly less. 3. A woman decides that she is going on holiday in Mexico in 6 months and doesn't want to look bad in a bikini. At this point even the die hard pro-choice folks are cringing

He then asked, does the government have the right to ask why someone might want an abortion? He turned discussion away from the, frankly unending, discussion of abortion into a discussion about privacy.

I think you are proposing something similar here. Instead of trying to "prove" that people (or even "enough people" ) are offended by something, why not focus on the potential impact that the work has. If the work is presenting something that perpetuates a stereotype, for example, then maybe it's time for a bit of a rewrite. OTOH, if it's something that's just kinda bit icky because of when it was written, then, well, maybe a disclaimer is good enough.

Good thought.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Yeah, I'm not sure that 'harm' is a ton better than 'offense'. Harm is kind of like 'nice', it covers a whole lot of ground. IDK.

I hate the word "offended" now because so many people fake being offended just to get attention, which takes attention away from the people who actually deserve it. If someone can show they are truly insulted or emotionally or mentally hurt by something, then their cause is more valid. And of course, we don't even have to dispute problems that cause physical harm, though there are obviously those at both ends of the political spectrum that will dispute this. But talking about those people will make this too political of a thread.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm with you, being offended is a like a sport these days. You put parsley on my plate?! I am offended. White after Labor Day??! Offended! Meh. So in some ways 'harm' is better, but the issue I can see with it is that you can just swap for 'offended' in a lot of the same ridiculous sentences and it does the same job. It puts the onus on someone else to define and defend the 'harmful' whatever. I don't think it's enough to say it's harmful, I think you'd need to show how as well. Mind you, when you have to actually show how something is offensive, the effect is very similar. In both cases it's not enough to just use the word, and it's not enough just to feel the offense, or harm. The person who's being harmed is just as susceptible to error, misapprehension, and that sort of thing as anyone else.

Say, for example, you took a big dump on something in a book because of X, and then found out afterward that you were just completely wrong about X. I would expect a rational adult to admit that, not double down. Sadly, we are not surrounded by rational adults at all times, and people, myself included, are not good at being wrong about things.

 

[MGibster]

Say, for example, you took a big dump on something in a book because of X, and then found out afterward that you were just completely wrong about X. I would expect a rational adult to admit that, not double down. Sadly, we are not surrounded by rational adults at all times, and people, myself included, are not good at being wrong about things.

It's an unfortunate thing, but we live in an age where admitting a mistake or changing your mind is seen as a weakness by many. Where disagreement is tantamount to a line in the sand dividing us into separate camps. Hell, I've seen people tear into each other over minor disagreements when they were in agreement on the big picture.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's an unfortunate thing, but we live in an age where admitting a mistake or changing your mind is seen as a weakness by many. Where disagreement is tantamount to a line in the sand dividing us into separate camps. Hell, I've seen people tear into each other over minor disagreements when they were in agreement on the big picture.

What makes me sad is how often it gets the way of what otherwise could have been a profitable discussion and consensus decision making.

 

[Hussar]

I hate the word "offended" now because so many people fake being offended just to get attention, which takes attention away from the people who actually deserve it. If someone can show they are truly insulted or emotionally or mentally hurt by something, then their cause is more valid. And of course, we don't even have to dispute problems that cause physical harm, though there are obviously those at both ends of the political spectrum that will dispute this. But talking about those people will make this too political of a thread.

Well, presuming bad faith is never really going to result in a productive conversation. If you are presuming that "so many people" fake being offended, instead of actually taking them at their word, then, well, of course you're going to wind up chasing your own tail in every conversation because now you are insisting that anyone who is offended by something somehow has to prove that they are offended sufficiently to you.

That's just never, ever going to go well.

I mean, I got called all sorts of stuff for the recent threads about the Oriental Adventures. People figure I'm a white dude from Canada, what could I possibly be offended about. Well, the fact that I've lived most of my adult life in Asia, speak fluent Korean and Japanese, my wife is Japanese and I have mixed heritage children means that yes, things like Oriental Adventures hit VERY close to home. Am I sufficiently qualified to be offended?

Apparently not for some.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I mean, I got called all sorts of stuff for the recent threads about the Oriental Adventures. People figure I'm a white dude from Canada, what could I possibly be offended about. Well, the fact that I've lived most of my adult life in Asia, speak fluent Korean and Japanese, my wife is Japanese and I have mixed heritage children means that yes, things like Oriental Adventures hit VERY close to home. Am I sufficiently qualified to be offended?

Apparently not for some.

The sad thing is that it is probably other white folk who are saying you are not qualified because you are not actually Asian, even though they are not Asian either. I am to the Left politically, but this is too much Nanny State, where people think it is their job to tell you how you should act or feel.