When you change your language because bullies are using words as insults, the bullies win. Words like idiot and ******** were originally magical terms to refer to learning disorders (people with autism or ADHD would have qualified and they are by no measure less intelligent than the people who would later use these terms as insults), and bow these are considered "bad words" because the new meaning became the only meaning.
I can't say I agree. Bullies "win" when they harm others. They continue to "win" when they convince others that a harmful activity is justified. Bullies "lose" when we move forward as a society and recognize the need to stop committing harmful acts. I don't see it as a great win for bullies that we have a cultural stigma against certain words I won't repeat.
They "win" because we stopped using the word correctly, so the word only has the new negative meaning. Now you can't even argue and say they are wrong "he isn't a thug, he is a businessman," you can only admonish them for treating race as a negative "he may be a thug, but that is no reason to be hateful."
We are not the ******** for using words according to their dictionary definition in fiction just because some other ******** use the word incorrectly in real life. (Especially when it appears to be not common place or used only in certain hate circles (which is probably why for most of us this is the first we are hearing it is a problem)).
Again, I don't see bullies gaining anything from our abandonment of certain co-opted words. And I'm not calling anybody an *******. However, the fact that a person hearing this association for the first time doesn't really justify using it in this way in the future. For instance, in Russian there is a relatively non-controversial word used in reference to black people that doesn't translate directly. They may not know that certain analogous words in the U.S. are taboo because they may not be aware of the despicable history of race relations in the U.S. However, a Russian who learns English and comes to understand this history should be expected not use those words in English. Not knowing doesn't make a person an *******. But once it's known, it's in service to the marginalized community to change our behavior.
And in this case, it's not specific to any "hate circles". Public figures of all stripes have used "thug" as a dog-whistle for decades, and continue to do so, in order to drum up racial animus. Once we collectively decided that it's wrong to generalize about entire racial groups, racists used words like "thug" to do so knowing that their audience would hear "black people", but that the dictionary definition offered them plausible deniability. I contend that these bullies "win" when they are allowed to use these coded words to avoid having their beliefs exposed and challenged. Anyway, we can disagree about this, but I'd recommend anybody interested should learn from those who are members of targeted communities rather than engaging in armchair politics.
As for a replacement, how about bully, minion, ruffian, troubleshooter, henchman, hired muscle, crook, punk, etc? 4e used minion extensively to denote enemies with 1 hp that were designed to be expendable.
I like henchman as a replacement or hired muscle. Bully and punk could both cause issues. Ruffian is out for a couple reason. One because there's the redbrand ruffian and further because it's description is "Redbrand ruffians are petty thugs and ruthless enforcers skilled at intimidation and violence. They work for money and have no scruples." So that just compounds the original issue.
Oh man, now you're getting into a whole nother issue. But I get your point. Which is enforcing what you said earlier that someone will be able to find offense in whatever way you describe a "ruthless enforcers skilled at intimidation and violence. They work for money and have few scruples." No matter what you name it, the monster itself is inherently offensive.
To the whole point about the evolution of language: the very word in question has evolved from a slur-like insult, to the common vernacular of “a violent person, especially a criminal.” it’s even more recent evolution into has come about because, at least in the United States, those most commonly referred to “a violent person, especially a criminal. ie- Thug” happen to predominantly be people of color.
The “good ol’ U. s. of A” has approximately 5% of the global population, yet it’s prisons house approximately 20% of the world’s inmate population, and the vast majority of those inmates are people of color, and the mentally/socially challenged. Every politician was a prison in their district gets to count all of those inmates as “constituents,” but all of those inmates were disenfranchised (no longer allowed to vote) the moment they were convicted or pushed into a plea bargain because the alternative is often worse if you’re poor.
Let's just be glad that no body uses orc, ogre, goblin, hag, or fae offensively. Wait...
Well at least no one gets offended by sword and firearms... Crap.
Well at least there isn't anything actually bad that is reasonable to get upset about like torture and slavery. Wait that is in there. But no one complains. So actual dark real world subjects is fine, but mundane terms used correctly aren't?
I give up, let's just invent a new language to write fantasy games with. If there is a problem with using a synonym for criminal to describe a criminal because minorities get called every synonym for criminal by a few thousand racists and a few hundred thousand activists, we will just use some other word like "Esjedubayoo" to refer to refer to the unlikable humanoids that cause problems for commoners.
Changing language into something milquetoast and generic for the sake of preventing offense is far more oppressive and far more dangerous to the human experience than the usage of the word itself, especially when the word in question has far more connotations than a perceived racial one. Homogenization is destructive, and it's very clear people in this thread treat Orwell's works as instruction instead of something to avoid. and honestly, people who find themselves offended over certain words that have multiple connotations are telling on themselves as that appears to be how they view minorities.
This is just as idiotic as the current kerfluffle over orcs over on Twitter.
Let's just be glad that no body uses orc, ogre, goblin, hag, or fae offensively. Wait...
Didn’t you hear? There is a movement by certain “Gamers of Color” to have any and all racial ability modifiers erased, that any and every “Sentient Race” as defined by the capability of language get an errata to be “wholly civilized” so that no sentient race is ever described as “savage,” and that the Drow no longer be referred to as “dark elves” in official publications because “why should the ‘dark’ ones have to be evil and live underground?”
Changing language into something milquetoast and generic for the sake of preventing offense is far more oppressive and far more dangerous to the human experience than the usage of the word itself, especially when the word in question has far more connotations than a perceived racial one. Homogenization is destructive, and it's very clear people in this thread treat Orwell's works as instruction instead of something to avoid. and honestly, people who find themselves offended over certain words that have multiple connotations are telling on themselves as that appears to be how they view minorities.
This is just as idiotic as the current kerfluffle over orcs over on Twitter.
Maybe it's oppressive to you, but you probably aren't the type of folk who are targeted by these folks. I'm not going to say that the n-word isn't offensive because it hasn't been used against me. Not to mention the fact that the goal isn't homogenization. There are simply other words to use. As for "telling on themselves", I shouldn't even respond to that comment. Suffice it to say that maybe, just maybe, my opinions are informed by my association with others of the aforementioned groups.
I'm confused by some of the reactions on this thread. It seems like some people are saying it shouldn't matter. It's just a label applied to a monster in a fantasy game. So if it doesn't matter than why wouldn't you support the name change?
Which makes more sense? Let it ride because it doesn't matter. Go through the process to make changes throughout the system because it doesn't matter.
If the usage of the word doesn't matter, then the effort to make the change is equally pointless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Well, not necessarily. If one person says "I think we should change X thing" and another says "X thing doesn't matter to me", then that's a different situation from both people saying "X thing doesn't matter to me."
As to the OP, I understand where you're coming from and can't say I disagree, but as far as DDB goes they are literally unable to make that sort of change because of contractual obligations. If they were to do that, they could potentially get in some *very* serious trouble...
Changing language into something milquetoast and generic for the sake of preventing offense is far more oppressive and far more dangerous to the human experience than the usage of the word itself, especially when the word in question has far more connotations than a perceived racial one. Homogenization is destructive, and it's very clear people in this thread treat Orwell's works as instruction instead of something to avoid. and honestly, people who find themselves offended over certain words that have multiple connotations are telling on themselves as that appears to be how they view minorities.
This is just as idiotic as the current kerfluffle over orcs over on Twitter.
Maybe it's oppressive to you, but you probably aren't the type of folk who are targeted by these folks. I'm not going to say that the n-word isn't offensive because it hasn't been used against me. Not to mention the fact that the goal isn't homogenization. There are simply other words to use. As for "telling on themselves", I shouldn't even respond to that comment. Suffice it to say that maybe, just maybe, my opinions are informed by my association with others of the aforementioned groups.
It's oppressive to anyone who values autonomy. And you cannot, in any meaningful way, turn around and say the goal isn't homogenization when words are deliberately eliminated from the language to make it smaller and more generic. The entire point of it is to eliminate individualistic tendencies of any sort. Again, read Orwell's writings, particularly Animal Farm and 1984, and then perhaps you should start questioning the motives of those who wish to control language in this manner. Yes, language changes, but it changes organically rather than through the kind of blunt force currently trying to be wielded by postmodern philosophers whom you, likely unwittingly, represent here. Language tends to, over time, become simpler, unless you're German in which case descriptors become ever-more silly.
There are other words. And it is not up to you, or anyone else, even the minorities who claim to have a problem with them, to try and tell others to change them. To do so is profoundly arrogant; it's the actions of aristocrats and authoritarians to do so. I'd urge you to apply a little critical theory to your own ideas here and question who ultimately benefits. Here's a hint: Not you, and not the affected groups you think to defend.
Changing language into something milquetoast and generic for the sake of preventing offense is far more oppressive and far more dangerous to the human experience than the usage of the word itself, especially when the word in question has far more connotations than a perceived racial one. Homogenization is destructive, and it's very clear people in this thread treat Orwell's works as instruction instead of something to avoid. and honestly, people who find themselves offended over certain words that have multiple connotations are telling on themselves as that appears to be how they view minorities.
This is just as idiotic as the current kerfluffle over orcs over on Twitter.
Maybe it's oppressive to you, but you probably aren't the type of folk who are targeted by these folks. I'm not going to say that the n-word isn't offensive because it hasn't been used against me. Not to mention the fact that the goal isn't homogenization. There are simply other words to use. As for "telling on themselves", I shouldn't even respond to that comment. Suffice it to say that maybe, just maybe, my opinions are informed by my association with others of the aforementioned groups.
It's oppressive to anyone who values autonomy. And you cannot, in any meaningful way, turn around and say the goal isn't homogenization when words are deliberately eliminated from the language to make it smaller and more generic. The entire point of it is to eliminate individualistic tendencies of any sort. Again, read Orwell's writings, particularly Animal Farm and 1984, and then perhaps you should start questioning the motives of those who wish to control language in this manner. Yes, language changes, but it changes organically rather than through the kind of blunt force currently trying to be wielded by postmodern philosophers whom you, likely unwittingly, represent here. Language tends to, over time, become simpler, unless you're German in which case descriptors become ever-more silly.
There are other words. And it is not up to you, or anyone else, even the minorities who claim to have a problem with them, to try and tell others to change them. To do so is profoundly arrogant; it's the actions of aristocrats and authoritarians to do so. I'd urge you to apply a little critical theory to your own ideas here and question who ultimately benefits. Here's a hint: Not you, and not the affected groups you think to defend.
Honestly this diatribe sounds like that of somebody who read these books in high school and failed to think about the generality of the message. If you insist on name-dropping Orwell, consider that you've essentially inverted his message. The political impetus behind both books was to caution against towards allowing powerful figures, governments, corporations, and majority factions to suppress speech used to criticize, extend an intrusive surveillance state, and revise history. On the contrary, the case at hand is a minority attempt to strip away the deniability of powerful figures who use derogatory and coded speech to strike down at the underprivileged. Consider that our collective decision to eschew and stigmatize use of the n-word didn't erase the existence and knowledge of that word, nor did it impede autonomy or range of thought and speech, nor was it pushed by a cabal of "postmodern philosophers"--it was a collective affirmation of the humanity of PoC who suffered for centuries under a barbarous regime that de-humanized them.
I'm finished with this thread. This discussion is clearly unproductive, and it's probably going to be locked anyway.
It occurs to me that the problem lies not with D&D, WotC, or even the word “thug” itself. The problem lies with the members of the PLM (Politicians, Lawyers, and Media) who have disproportionately used the word to describe the low-income and POC demographics.
Asking WotC to choose a synonym for thug as a replacement doesn’t change the endemic problem of discrimination. Everyone is super quick to slap a label on anything different because once it’s labeled, it is identifiable as “other/not us,” and therefore “less than.”
And what have we done to combat this problem? less than nothing, which is to say made the situation worse. In the past 10 years I have heard people identify themselves with more labels than in the 30 years before that combined.
I won’t run the risk of speaking to this issue with POC, as I check the “Caucasian” box on government forms. However, I am a member of the LGBT demographic, so I feel safe siting my examples there. Did anyone notice that they added a “Q” to the end of that acronym in the past decade? Or how now we have 30+ “Genders” (I honestly lost track a while ago)? Why am I mentioning these specific example you might ask? Here’s why:
The traditional definition of Queer is “strange, unusual, or unexpected.” People used it as a euphemism for “non-heteronormative,” it eventually grew into a slur, and recently the comunity has embraced the term as a form of “accepted self identification.” There are 7,000,000,000+ people on the planet and growing (despite Mother Nature’s best effort to fight the infection). The statistical probability of other people being “like you” is so high that nobody could possibly be inordinately “strange or unusual” because of, well anything.
Gender did not used to mean “sex.” Your “sex” is a simple binary m/f system as dictated by the aforementioned Mother Nature. Gender was traditionally defined as “one’s roll in society as dictated by their sex.” If you were “sex: male” then your gender was “Head of Household/Bread Winner” or going further back in history as “Hunter/Gatherer.” If you were “Sex: female” then your gender would have been “Homemaker/Mother, or going further back “Farmer.”
So now, instead of resisting people’s efforts to label us (“us” as in the LGBT comunity, but I suspect that the example still holds true across demographics) as “strange, unusual, and ‘other,’” we have made their efforts to discriminate against us easier. Now, instead of a collective comunity, it feels more like a loose conglomerate of separate communities. (Does anybody remember the Articles of Confederation? Look how fast that got replaced in the grand scheme of human history.)
Why do we not strive for a genderless society (no expected societal role dictated by a chance of which sperm broke the egg fastest) where nobody is treated as “other?” Wouldn’t that be better?
My point is, instead of trying to get a game publisher to select “an acceptable synonym for thug,” we should be putting our efforts towards stopping the PLM from painting whole communities of people as “‘thugs’ ie: violent persons prone to criminal behavior” because of something as arbitrary as what colored skin a person has. (Whether you personally believe God chose to paint people different colors, natural selection made different traits beneficial under various circumstances, a combination of the two, or something else entirely is irrelevant.)
If a word is to be considered hate speech then it should be considered hate speech regardless of who uses it. If you think its racist to be called anything by someone of a different color, then it should also be bad for someone of the same color to use it. It can not be a term of endearment between friends and an insult from strangers if you want progress. Either its an insult or its not.
If a word is to be considered hate speech then it should be considered hate speech regardless of who uses it. If you think its racist to be called anything by someone of a different color, then it should also be bad for someone of the same color to use it. It can not be a term of endearment between friends and an insult from strangers if you want progress. Either its an insult or its not.
I have to disagree with you on this point. A word cannot be intrinsically hateful, only it’s usage can. When my friends say that “[they] identify as queer” that is not "hate speech” even if I am personally offended by the label. When someone says “That’s as queer as a three-dollar bill,” that is also not hate speech. The guys who repeatedly shouted that word dawn at me as I laid on the ground in the fetal position trying to protect my vital organs from their physical assault, that was effing hate speech.
The problem lies not with the word “Thug,” nothing to do with the word’s dictionary definition, not with its use in the context of a D&D “monster.” The problem has everything to do with how the overuse of the word in a completely separate context as a way of labeling a group/groups of people as “other/less than.” That’s is hat needs to be changed so that the word Thug no longer has that same connotation for the offended people’s.
Changing language into something milquetoast and generic for the sake of preventing offense is far more oppressive and far more dangerous to the human experience than the usage of the word itself, especially when the word in question has far more connotations than a perceived racial one. Homogenization is destructive, and it's very clear people in this thread treat Orwell's works as instruction instead of something to avoid. and honestly, people who find themselves offended over certain words that have multiple connotations are telling on themselves as that appears to be how they view minorities.
This is just as idiotic as the current kerfluffle over orcs over on Twitter.
Maybe it's oppressive to you, but you probably aren't the type of folk who are targeted by these folks. I'm not going to say that the n-word isn't offensive because it hasn't been used against me. Not to mention the fact that the goal isn't homogenization. There are simply other words to use. As for "telling on themselves", I shouldn't even respond to that comment. Suffice it to say that maybe, just maybe, my opinions are informed by my association with others of the aforementioned groups.
It's oppressive to anyone who values autonomy. And you cannot, in any meaningful way, turn around and say the goal isn't homogenization when words are deliberately eliminated from the language to make it smaller and more generic. The entire point of it is to eliminate individualistic tendencies of any sort. Again, read Orwell's writings, particularly Animal Farm and 1984, and then perhaps you should start questioning the motives of those who wish to control language in this manner. Yes, language changes, but it changes organically rather than through the kind of blunt force currently trying to be wielded by postmodern philosophers whom you, likely unwittingly, represent here. Language tends to, over time, become simpler, unless you're German in which case descriptors become ever-more silly.
There are other words. And it is not up to you, or anyone else, even the minorities who claim to have a problem with them, to try and tell others to change them. To do so is profoundly arrogant; it's the actions of aristocrats and authoritarians to do so. I'd urge you to apply a little critical theory to your own ideas here and question who ultimately benefits. Here's a hint: Not you, and not the affected groups you think to defend.
Honestly this diatribe sounds like that of somebody who read these books in high school and failed to think about the generality of the message. If you insist on name-dropping Orwell, consider that you've essentially inverted his message. The political impetus behind both books was to caution against towards allowing powerful figures, governments, corporations, and majority factions to suppress speech used to criticize, extend an intrusive surveillance state, and revise history.
Consider for a moment what you've just said, and look at the social and cultural reality right now. Now read on.
On the contrary, the case at hand is a minority attempt to strip away the deniability of powerful figures who use derogatory and coded speech to strike down at the underprivileged.
Your perspective is extremely overrepresented in tech firms, universities, entertainment, and is a significant part of the news media. You are the mainstream. You are the empire. You are part of the powerful figures you are talking about here. And right here, in this thread, you want to use an appeal to authority to achieve the end goal of changing language. Let's go back to what you said about Orwell's writings.
The political impetus behind both books was to caution against towards allowing powerful figures, governments, corporations, and majority factions to suppress speech used to criticize, extend an intrusive surveillance state, and revise history.
You are guilty of supporting basically all of this.
@IamSposta - Gotcha! I did misunderstand. Thanks for the clarification.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Again, I don't see bullies gaining anything from our abandonment of certain co-opted words. And I'm not calling anybody an *******. However, the fact that a person hearing this association for the first time doesn't really justify using it in this way in the future. For instance, in Russian there is a relatively non-controversial word used in reference to black people that doesn't translate directly. They may not know that certain analogous words in the U.S. are taboo because they may not be aware of the despicable history of race relations in the U.S. However, a Russian who learns English and comes to understand this history should be expected not use those words in English. Not knowing doesn't make a person an *******. But once it's known, it's in service to the marginalized community to change our behavior.
And in this case, it's not specific to any "hate circles". Public figures of all stripes have used "thug" as a dog-whistle for decades, and continue to do so, in order to drum up racial animus. Once we collectively decided that it's wrong to generalize about entire racial groups, racists used words like "thug" to do so knowing that their audience would hear "black people", but that the dictionary definition offered them plausible deniability. I contend that these bullies "win" when they are allowed to use these coded words to avoid having their beliefs exposed and challenged. Anyway, we can disagree about this, but I'd recommend anybody interested should learn from those who are members of targeted communities rather than engaging in armchair politics.
As for a replacement, how about bully, minion, ruffian, troubleshooter, henchman, hired muscle, crook, punk, etc? 4e used minion extensively to denote enemies with 1 hp that were designed to be expendable.
I like henchman as a replacement or hired muscle. Bully and punk could both cause issues. Ruffian is out for a couple reason. One because there's the redbrand ruffian and further because it's description is "Redbrand ruffians are petty thugs and ruthless enforcers skilled at intimidation and violence. They work for money and have no scruples." So that just compounds the original issue.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
Henchman? Well now that's a whole other issue. (I'm being facetious - but only a little.)
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Oh man, now you're getting into a whole nother issue. But I get your point. Which is enforcing what you said earlier that someone will be able to find offense in whatever way you describe a "ruthless enforcers skilled at intimidation and violence. They work for money and have few scruples." No matter what you name it, the monster itself is inherently offensive.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
To the whole point about the evolution of language: the very word in question has evolved from a slur-like insult, to the common vernacular of “a violent person, especially a criminal.” it’s even more recent evolution into has come about because, at least in the United States, those most commonly referred to “a violent person, especially a criminal. ie- Thug” happen to predominantly be people of color.
The “good ol’ U. s. of A” has approximately 5% of the global population, yet it’s prisons house approximately 20% of the world’s inmate population, and the vast majority of those inmates are people of color, and the mentally/socially challenged. Every politician was a prison in their district gets to count all of those inmates as “constituents,” but all of those inmates were disenfranchised (no longer allowed to vote) the moment they were convicted or pushed into a plea bargain because the alternative is often worse if you’re poor.
My point is, changing the word used in D&D from the literal word in the dictionary for what it means will change nothing. Changing the hearts and minds of the voter base who elected such notables figures as: the guy who thought that injecting disinfectants might cure CV-19, the guy who thought an old man was as a small bird, and the guy who claimed to have signed a contract with everyone and took over the government. (I say “claimed” because I have no idea who signed on behalf of “The Party of the Second Part, ie ‘America,’” but it sure as heck wasn’t me. The first I heard of it was after he said the deal was done.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Let's just be glad that no body uses orc, ogre, goblin, hag, or fae offensively. Wait...
Well at least no one gets offended by sword and firearms... Crap.
Well at least there isn't anything actually bad that is reasonable to get upset about like torture and slavery. Wait that is in there. But no one complains. So actual dark real world subjects is fine, but mundane terms used correctly aren't?
I give up, let's just invent a new language to write fantasy games with. If there is a problem with using a synonym for criminal to describe a criminal because minorities get called every synonym for criminal by a few thousand racists and a few hundred thousand activists, we will just use some other word like "Esjedubayoo" to refer to refer to the unlikable humanoids that cause problems for commoners.
Changing language into something milquetoast and generic for the sake of preventing offense is far more oppressive and far more dangerous to the human experience than the usage of the word itself, especially when the word in question has far more connotations than a perceived racial one. Homogenization is destructive, and it's very clear people in this thread treat Orwell's works as instruction instead of something to avoid. and honestly, people who find themselves offended over certain words that have multiple connotations are telling on themselves as that appears to be how they view minorities.
This is just as idiotic as the current kerfluffle over orcs over on Twitter.
Didn’t you hear? There is a movement by certain “Gamers of Color” to have any and all racial ability modifiers erased, that any and every “Sentient Race” as defined by the capability of language get an errata to be “wholly civilized” so that no sentient race is ever described as “savage,” and that the Drow no longer be referred to as “dark elves” in official publications because “why should the ‘dark’ ones have to be evil and live underground?”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Maybe it's oppressive to you, but you probably aren't the type of folk who are targeted by these folks. I'm not going to say that the n-word isn't offensive because it hasn't been used against me. Not to mention the fact that the goal isn't homogenization. There are simply other words to use. As for "telling on themselves", I shouldn't even respond to that comment. Suffice it to say that maybe, just maybe, my opinions are informed by my association with others of the aforementioned groups.
I'm confused by some of the reactions on this thread. It seems like some people are saying it shouldn't matter. It's just a label applied to a monster in a fantasy game. So if it doesn't matter than why wouldn't you support the name change?
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
That logic fails.
If it doesn't matter, why push for a name change?
Which makes more sense?
Let it ride because it doesn't matter.
Go through the process to make changes throughout the system because it doesn't matter.
If the usage of the word doesn't matter, then the effort to make the change is equally pointless.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Well, not necessarily. If one person says "I think we should change X thing" and another says "X thing doesn't matter to me", then that's a different situation from both people saying "X thing doesn't matter to me."
As to the OP, I understand where you're coming from and can't say I disagree, but as far as DDB goes they are literally unable to make that sort of change because of contractual obligations. If they were to do that, they could potentially get in some *very* serious trouble...
It's oppressive to anyone who values autonomy. And you cannot, in any meaningful way, turn around and say the goal isn't homogenization when words are deliberately eliminated from the language to make it smaller and more generic. The entire point of it is to eliminate individualistic tendencies of any sort. Again, read Orwell's writings, particularly Animal Farm and 1984, and then perhaps you should start questioning the motives of those who wish to control language in this manner. Yes, language changes, but it changes organically rather than through the kind of blunt force currently trying to be wielded by postmodern philosophers whom you, likely unwittingly, represent here. Language tends to, over time, become simpler, unless you're German in which case descriptors become ever-more silly.
There are other words. And it is not up to you, or anyone else, even the minorities who claim to have a problem with them, to try and tell others to change them. To do so is profoundly arrogant; it's the actions of aristocrats and authoritarians to do so. I'd urge you to apply a little critical theory to your own ideas here and question who ultimately benefits. Here's a hint: Not you, and not the affected groups you think to defend.
Honestly this diatribe sounds like that of somebody who read these books in high school and failed to think about the generality of the message. If you insist on name-dropping Orwell, consider that you've essentially inverted his message. The political impetus behind both books was to caution against towards allowing powerful figures, governments, corporations, and majority factions to suppress speech used to criticize, extend an intrusive surveillance state, and revise history. On the contrary, the case at hand is a minority attempt to strip away the deniability of powerful figures who use derogatory and coded speech to strike down at the underprivileged. Consider that our collective decision to eschew and stigmatize use of the n-word didn't erase the existence and knowledge of that word, nor did it impede autonomy or range of thought and speech, nor was it pushed by a cabal of "postmodern philosophers"--it was a collective affirmation of the humanity of PoC who suffered for centuries under a barbarous regime that de-humanized them.
I'm finished with this thread. This discussion is clearly unproductive, and it's probably going to be locked anyway.
It occurs to me that the problem lies not with D&D, WotC, or even the word “thug” itself. The problem lies with the members of the PLM (Politicians, Lawyers, and Media) who have disproportionately used the word to describe the low-income and POC demographics.
Asking WotC to choose a synonym for thug as a replacement doesn’t change the endemic problem of discrimination. Everyone is super quick to slap a label on anything different because once it’s labeled, it is identifiable as “other/not us,” and therefore “less than.”
And what have we done to combat this problem? less than nothing, which is to say made the situation worse. In the past 10 years I have heard people identify themselves with more labels than in the 30 years before that combined.
I won’t run the risk of speaking to this issue with POC, as I check the “Caucasian” box on government forms. However, I am a member of the LGBT demographic, so I feel safe siting my examples there. Did anyone notice that they added a “Q” to the end of that acronym in the past decade? Or how now we have 30+ “Genders” (I honestly lost track a while ago)? Why am I mentioning these specific example you might ask? Here’s why:
The traditional definition of Queer is “strange, unusual, or unexpected.” People used it as a euphemism for “non-heteronormative,” it eventually grew into a slur, and recently the comunity has embraced the term as a form of “accepted self identification.” There are 7,000,000,000+ people on the planet and growing (despite Mother Nature’s best effort to fight the infection). The statistical probability of other people being “like you” is so high that nobody could possibly be inordinately “strange or unusual” because of, well anything.
Gender did not used to mean “sex.” Your “sex” is a simple binary m/f system as dictated by the aforementioned Mother Nature. Gender was traditionally defined as “one’s roll in society as dictated by their sex.” If you were “sex: male” then your gender was “Head of Household/Bread Winner” or going further back in history as “Hunter/Gatherer.” If you were “Sex: female” then your gender would have been “Homemaker/Mother, or going further back “Farmer.”
So now, instead of resisting people’s efforts to label us (“us” as in the LGBT comunity, but I suspect that the example still holds true across demographics) as “strange, unusual, and ‘other,’” we have made their efforts to discriminate against us easier. Now, instead of a collective comunity, it feels more like a loose conglomerate of separate communities. (Does anybody remember the Articles of Confederation? Look how fast that got replaced in the grand scheme of human history.)
Why do we not strive for a genderless society (no expected societal role dictated by a chance of which sperm broke the egg fastest) where nobody is treated as “other?” Wouldn’t that be better?
My point is, instead of trying to get a game publisher to select “an acceptable synonym for thug,” we should be putting our efforts towards stopping the PLM from painting whole communities of people as “‘thugs’ ie: violent persons prone to criminal behavior” because of something as arbitrary as what colored skin a person has. (Whether you personally believe God chose to paint people different colors, natural selection made different traits beneficial under various circumstances, a combination of the two, or something else entirely is irrelevant.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If a word is to be considered hate speech then it should be considered hate speech regardless of who uses it. If you think its racist to be called anything by someone of a different color, then it should also be bad for someone of the same color to use it. It can not be a term of endearment between friends and an insult from strangers if you want progress. Either its an insult or its not.
I have to disagree with you on this point. A word cannot be intrinsically hateful, only it’s usage can. When my friends say that “[they] identify as queer” that is not "hate speech” even if I am personally offended by the label. When someone says “That’s as queer as a three-dollar bill,” that is also not hate speech. The guys who repeatedly shouted that word dawn at me as I laid on the ground in the fetal position trying to protect my vital organs from their physical assault, that was effing hate speech.
The problem lies not with the word “Thug,” nothing to do with the word’s dictionary definition, not with its use in the context of a D&D “monster.” The problem has everything to do with how the overuse of the word in a completely separate context as a way of labeling a group/groups of people as “other/less than.” That’s is hat needs to be changed so that the word Thug no longer has that same connotation for the offended people’s.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Consider for a moment what you've just said, and look at the social and cultural reality right now. Now read on.
Your perspective is extremely overrepresented in tech firms, universities, entertainment, and is a significant part of the news media. You are the mainstream. You are the empire. You are part of the powerful figures you are talking about here. And right here, in this thread, you want to use an appeal to authority to achieve the end goal of changing language. Let's go back to what you said about Orwell's writings.
You are guilty of supporting basically all of this.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
AlumniGood Afternoon
As Sedge Reminded on page one. We support Healthy and Constructive Debates.
Those debates however cannot cross rule 2e, As stated below.
Please keep it clean.
Thanks
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] - [ Homebrew Rules ] - [ D&D Beyond FAQ ] - [ Homebrew FAQ ] - [ Homebrew Video Tutorials ]
Standard "free" content is restricted to the D&D 5th Edition Basic Rules, SRD, and other free content.