Can DnD beyond change the generic NPC term from thug to something else, such as mobster. Thug is generally used as a epithet against people of color. And before you answer that you are just using the term given by WoC, that wouldn't be a good reason not to.
it's the other way around.
I never did and don't know anyone who would associate the word "thug" with "people of color". "thug" is as generic as it comes.
If people in your area started associating those things there must be a different reason. It's surely not DnD's fault. Don't mix subcultures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Polish wizard from Italy (Central Europe Time - GMT+1).
From a British perspective, Thug means a lout/yob/ruffian, that kind of thing, with no racial connotations whatsoever. Interesting thread!
Never forget back when I used to smoke while working in LA, innocently telling my colleagues I was 'popping outside for a fag.' The looks on their faces of abject disbelief as to what I said is something I will never forget! I never made that mistake again!
To be clear, 'fag' in the UK is a slang word for a cigarette.
George Floyd protests: What do 'thug', 'white privilege' and 'ally' mean?
Its dictionary definition is "a violent person, especially a criminal," but it has become a loaded term when referring to black people.
A journalist who had traced the history of the word, told the BBC in 2015 that "thug" was brought to Western society from India in 1897, later used by politicians and in the media, even reclaimed by hip-hop artists such as Tupac and Bone Thugs-N-Harmony.
With your spelling of the word 'color' in your earlier post, I'm assuming you aren't British. I can assure you that, in the UK at least, thug has no racial connotations. In the UK, you can be a thug, no matter your background, class, colour, sexuality, gender, religion, etc. I agree that this might not be the case in all countries.
With your spelling of the word 'color' in your earlier post, I'm assuming you aren't British. I can assure you that, in the UK at least, thug has no racial connotations. In the UK, you can be a thug, no matter your background, class, colour, sexuality, gender, religion, etc. I agree that this might not be the case in all countries.
For 90+% of Americans, it doesn't have a racial connotation either. I didn't even know that anyone thought that.
And based on the articles that the OP linked it has only been used to refer to race specifically by rappers and racists (mostly by "allies," but same thing), otherwise it has been used to refer to rioters and criminals as it is defined. And some politicians who refered to rioters as thugs decided to apologize because said violent criminals happened to also be black.
With your spelling of the word 'color' in your earlier post, I'm assuming you aren't British. I can assure you that, in the UK at least, thug has no racial connotations. In the UK, you can be a thug, no matter your background, class, colour, sexuality, gender, religion, etc. I agree that this might not be the case in all countries.
For 90+% of Americans, it doesn't have a racial connotation either. I didn't even know that anyone thought that.
And based on the articles that the OP linked it has only been used to refer to race specifically by rappers and racists (mostly by "allies," but same thing), otherwise it has been used to refer to rioters and criminals as it is defined. And some politicians who refered to rioters as thugs decided to apologize because said violent criminals happened to also be black.
Look Dx, you're wrong.
You should educate yourself on this topic much further before continuing to post and showing your blatant and willful ignorance on the topic.
The origins of using the word "Thug" as a racist dog whistle to denote people of color doing "bad things". Started in the US in the1860s(civil war era) via documented new york times articles, continued into the 1960s when it was used in british film to call people of Indian descent "Indian Thuggees" and then someone like Tupac started to reappropriate the word since it had been more recently used specifically toward black people.
“White folks see us as thugs, I don’t care if you think you’re a lawyer, if you’re a man, if you’re an African American, if you’re whatever the f--- you think you are. We’re thugs and n-----s to these MF.”
Tupac took the words and started to change how they meant toward people of color from people of color. It's the same way other, much worse racial insults have much different meanings inside a community than when it is uttered from outside a community.
Yes, in the US it has a far heavier connotation toward black people, but it is a racist dog whistle. Just because you don't "get" the fact that it is, doesn't mean that it isn't.
Here is some starter reading. As a FYI, according to the last US Census, 12.6 percent of the US population was black. So even if refuse to believe ANY of the preceding information, your totals are off. Don't forget that Census data toward minority groups is usually heavily flawed too as they don't get the representation needed often enough to ensure proper tallying.
If people in your area started associating those things there must be a different reason. It's surely not DnD's fault. Don't mix subcultures.
Wizards is first and foremost an American company. Considering two days ago they just banned 7 Magic: The Gathering cards for racism, including one called invoke prejudice, which had an internal id of 1488 which is a calling card of white supremacists. I'm not saying it's their "fault". I'm not saying it's D&D Beyonds' fault, they just license the content to people like us so we can enjoy something in our free time that allows us to gather and have fun as a group. However, I think that things should change.
At this point I kind of want them to change the word just so that I don't have to keep seeing people talk about how it is coded language used by a select minority of individuals to mean something other than what the rest of the world thinks it means. Especially when "violent people, especially criminals" in the world are currently looting and burning businesses, assaulting people, and just generally being a danger to the public all in the name of race.
So how about we try to think of a good name for the NPC statblock mostly used in game for petty criminals, hired muscle, aggressive citizens, etc that hasn't been used yet;
How about hoodlum or hooligan, the closest synonyms?
Bully sounds a little childish, but could work.
Or goon maybe, since that is usually their role and works on 2 levels.
Maybe something a little edgy like blackheart (I'd save that for something cooler though).
Or has/is every word used to describe violent people too racially charged because racists use them too?
It has to be generic enough that it doesn't specifically mean criminal or evil, but should relate to violent activity.
It actually means "violent person, especially a criminal."
But things only have the meaning we assign to them. When it is not used to refer to a race or anything about a race, it is not racist. Only when it is used to refer to a race in some way, is it racist. The game and it's community do not use it to refer to race. It's usage by few does not define its meaning to many.
That is the exact same way of thinking as someone who says that if 1 rock was in water then all rocks are wet, or if 1 person of a race is a thug then all people of that race are thugs. I am fully opposed to that way of thinking, and don't think that way. Because of that, I can't see this term as racist. I'm sorry for the people who can't see the term as anything but.
It actually means "violent person, especially a criminal."
But things only have the meaning we assign to them. When it is not used to refer to a race or anything about a race, it is not racist. Only when it is used to refer to a race in some way, is it racist. The game and it's community do not use it to refer to race. It's usage by few does not define its meaning to many.
That is the exact same way of thinking as someone who says that if 1 rock was in water then all rocks are wet, or if 1 person of a race is a thug then all people of that race are thugs. I am fully opposed to that way of thinking, and don't think that way. Because of that, I can't see this term as racist. I'm sorry for the people who can't see the term as anything but.
[REDACTED]
Presenting two contradictory points in the same statement while trying to alter the argument means that on principle people are inclined to either believe one piece or the other. That is the whole point of the straw-man argument. You never want to address the fundamental issue. You just want to dismiss it because you don't believe it has merit. Which, sadly, is the same type of dismissal people who hate this word due it's meaning received.
Sposta, there is any number of terms. Soldier, mercenary, thief, vagabonds, etc. You can find plenty of terms that aren't don't have a history of hurt.
Notes: Please keep posts respectful, constructive, and on-topic.
Sposta, there is any number of terms. Soldier, mercenary, thief, vagabonds, etc. You can find plenty of terms that aren't don't have a history of hurt.
None of those names have anything to do with the “violent criminals” that the Monster is meant to represent. Also, Soldier and Mercenary are already being used as PC backgrounds, and Thief is a Rogue subclass so those names would cause confusion. And a “vagabond” is an itinerant homeless person, or “Drifter” and not so much a “violent criminal.” What other names do you suggest to represent a “violent criminal” as a name for an NPC type monster?
To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with your opinion, merely asking for suitable replacement suggestions so that people might agree on one.
The only opinion you care about is yours, so why do you continue to post? If you want to have a discussion, have a discussion. If you want to rant on with a diatribe, look in the mirror and you'll find someone who cares about your opinions. While you're posting though, I'll do others the benefit of replying to your words. However strawman your fallacies become.
That is an ad hominem attack. I have not seen him use a straw man argument either, at least not on this page. A straw man argument is when a person is pretending to refute a particular argument from the other side when the other side did not actually make that particular argument.
As for the word itself, I agree that people should use a little more tact and be careful when choosing their choice of words. However, people also need to keep in mind that language varies from place to place as well as in context and audience. In this case, not everyone who hears the word automatically think black person. I will avoid using the word out of respect, but I find this level of blanket censorship to be extreme and stifling, and it is not something I agree with.
I swore off this thread, but it looks like somebody painfully pulled it out of a welcome grave. Suffice it to say that I'll be reporting every ad hominem and patiently waiting for the mods to lock it up.
Especially when "violent people, especially criminals" in the world are currently looting and burning businesses, assaulting people, and just generally being a danger to the public all in the name of race.
Looting is not done in the name of "race". Looting is done in the name of the looters. Organized groups associated with the protests have NEVER supported, endorsed, or encouraged looting. The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. I can't believe this still needs saying.
It actually means "violent person, especially a criminal."
But things only have the meaning we assign to them. When it is not used to refer to a race or anything about a race, it is not racist. Only when it is used to refer to a race in some way, is it racist. The game and it's community do not use it to refer to race. It's usage by few does not define its meaning to many.
That is the exact same way of thinking as someone who says that if 1 rock was in water then all rocks are wet, or if 1 person of a race is a thug then all people of that race are thugs. I am fully opposed to that way of thinking, and don't think that way. Because of that, I can't see this term as racist. I'm sorry for the people who can't see the term as anything but.
Actually, words are frequently used in ways that convey different meanings to different groups. The fact that you don't see the word as frequently problematic doesn't mean much if you're not a member of a group who's specifically been targeted by such language. That lack of awareness is not a justification.
Take another example--"globalist". Globalist has a benign dictionary definition, but it's frequently been used throughout modern history to link the Jewish community with some fanciful conspiracy so as to justify our ostracism, degradation, and murder. In a perfect world, a politician would be able to harmlessly refer to supporters of globalization, trade, and interconnectedness as globalists. But the world isn't perfect. To anti-Semites, it's red meat. To Jewish folks, it's a reminder that many many people can't tolerate our existence, let alone treat us as neighbors. If you use the word globalist casually, Jewish people will see you as a schmuck at best, but more likely a threatening anti-Semite.
In a perfect world, we would all understand thug as a neutral way to refer to violent people. But in this world thug is red meat to racists, and a painful reminder to Black people of our brutal history and shockingly unjust and unequal present.
So how about we try to think of a good name for the NPC statblock mostly used in game for petty criminals, hired muscle, aggressive citizens, etc that hasn't been used yet;
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.
Add tough, troublemaker, criminal, vandal, enforcer, goon, outlaw, cutthroat, bandit, bruiser, miscreant, rapscallion, scoundrel, hellion, rowdy... seriously this isn't hard. Even the word blackguard is appropriate here, in its original meaning.
I will avoid using the word out of respect, but I find this level of blanket censorship to be extreme and stifling, and it is not something I agree with.
Respect is exactly the point, not censorship. Censorship is not about suppressing a word, but suppressing expression of an idea. Changing the word we use to refer to a violent person isn't preventing anybody from expressing their meaning in an Orwellian sense. The guy back on page 2 didn't catch that. The point is to a) support the inclusion of Black people in the hobby, and b) distinguish people who respect others from those who either don't care, or are just plain racist. The point is not to stop people from expressing a view about violence.
I think there's a damaging and unproductive belief held by many of the public that anti-racists want censorship. What we really want is to a) ensure that politicians and everyday people are informed about the consequences of their words and b) remove the plausible deniability of politicians who hide their true beliefs and manipulate the public by relying on veiled language. Racists should feel free to spew their racism and get shot down publicly, but they should not be able to hide their views when scrutinized.
As i have previously stated, We support constructive debates.
These debates CANNOT break the forum rules, specifically 2c. Spamming and Trolling (Flaming) and 2e. Posting Unsuitable Content. Please do not use your posts to attangonise other users or outright attack them rather than their points of view.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the thread that.
D&D Beyond accurately mirrors the content published by Wizards of the Coast. If Wizards of the Coast should publish any errata documentation for this content, we will update D&D Beyond with those changes.
Respect is exactly the point, not censorship. Censorship is not about suppressing a word, but suppressing expression of an idea. Changing the word we use to refer to a violent person isn't preventing anybody from expressing their meaning in an Orwellian sense. The guy back on page 2 didn't catch that. The point is to a) support the inclusion of Black people in the hobby, and b) distinguish people who respect others from those who either don't care, or are just plain racist. The point is not to stop people from expressing a view about violence.
I think there's a damaging and unproductive belief held by many of the public that anti-racists want censorship. What we really want is to a) ensure that politicians and everyday people are informed about the consequences of their words and b) remove the plausible deniability of politicians who hide their true beliefs and manipulate the public by relying on veiled language. Racists should feel free to spew their racism and get shot down publicly, but they should not be able to hide their views when scrutinized.
Supporting inclusion, distinguishing respect, and informing people of the consequences are all things I agree with, but I heavily disagree with censoring a word to achieve those goals. I cannot think of a better solution so I will go along with it, but it is heavy handed and extreme. Censoring a word is not a measure that should be used at all in my opinion, but if it is to be used, then the censoring should be temporary and limited in scope, and the measure as a whole should be used sparingly.
As for removing the plausible deniability of politicians who use veiled language, I do not think censoring words is the right way to address that issue. If veiled language and ambiguity is the issue, then assume politicians mean the worst and call them out on it. Make them apologize for their poor choice of words and have them restate their words so that there is no ambiguity in what they mean. If they repeatedly use a poor choice of words, then they can be treated the same as racists, sexists, or whatever other forms of jerks. The best way to tackle veiled language is to make politicians apologize for it and have them restate things in clearer language.
Censoring words on the other hand is just treating the symptoms at best, and it does not address the underlying issue, which is veiled language. Politicians could simply move on to another word like animal, criminal, garbage, etc., and it just does not make sense to keep censoring word after word when they move on to something else.
Supporting inclusion, distinguishing respect, and informing people of the consequences are all things I agree with, but I heavily disagree with censoring a word to achieve those goals. I cannot think of a better solution so I will go along with it, but it is heavy handed and extreme. Censoring a word is not a measure that should be used at all in my opinion, but if it is to be used, then the censoring should be temporary and limited in scope, and the measure as a whole should be used sparingly.
As for removing the plausible deniability of politicians who use veiled language, I do not think censoring words is the right way to address that issue. If veiled language and ambiguity is the issue, then assume politicians mean the worst and call them out on it. Make them apologize for their poor choice of words and have them restate their words so that there is no ambiguity in what they mean. If they repeatedly use a poor choice of words, then they can be treated the same as racists, sexists, or whatever other forms of jerks. The best way to tackle veiled language is to make politicians apologize for it and have them restate things in clearer language.
Censoring words on the other hand is just treating the symptoms at best, and it does not address the underlying issue, which is veiled language. Politicians could simply move on to another word like animal, criminal, garbage, etc., and it just does not make sense to keep censoring word after word when they move on to something else.
I don't see a contradiction in our beliefs. Nobody's saying we should expunge the word thug from collective memory, that we should throw people in jail for using it, or anything else so heavy-handed. Similarly, we remember the n word for its history but have simply decided that it's inappropriate for use, but there's no law proscribing its use.
Switching one word for another in a given context is not censorship. We're still trying to express the same thing.
I don't see a contradiction in our beliefs. Nobody's saying we should expunge the word thug from collective memory, that we should throw people in jail for using it, or anything else so heavy-handed. Similarly, we remember the n word for its history but have simply decided that it's inappropriate for use, but there's no law proscribing its use.
Switching one word for another in a given context is not censorship. We're still trying to express the same thing.
But the word is not on the level of the N word, and I do not think it is appropriate to treat it as an insult or curse word. When most people hear the word, they do not connect the word to race, they connect it to crime. Treating the word as if it were were a racial insult when most people do not think of the word that way is extreme and heavy handed. If racists had used any other code words like animal, criminal, or garbage, are we supposed to replace those words with other words too?
Simply deciding a word is inappropriate for use without looking at the context in the way it is used is not right. Asking a politician to stop using the word on issues that have a strong connection to the black community is fine. On the other hand, asking the word to be replaced in D&D is extreme and heavy handed, especially when the word was never even used in a racial context here before.
Banning, removing, replacing, etc. a word is still censorship. It is not on the level of censoring an idea, but it is still censorship none the less. When we bleep curse words on TV and radio or replace its written form with $4!# or whatever other symbols, that is censorship. Replacing the word in D&D because some people do not like the word is censorship; while the background, context, and reasoning for censoring the word is different from censoring a curse word, some people want them to be treated the same, which is something I disagree with.
Methinks you're trying way too hard to disagree with me, when fundamentally we agree. We agree that it is a good idea to be respectful with language and actions.
But the word is not on the level of the N word, and I do not think it is appropriate to treat it as an insult or curse word. When most people hear the word, they do not connect the word to race, they connect it to crime. Treating the word as if it were were a racial insult when most people do not think of the word that way is extreme and heavy handed. If racists had used any other code words like animal, criminal, or garbage, are we supposed to replace those words with other words too?
Sure. General rule is that if you're not willing to even say or type a word, it's a bad word. But your second sentence misses my point, and mis-characterizes my prescription. The average non-Black person can intend to use the word thug in a benign way, but the word may have a different meaning to a Black person. That's a good enough reason to use a different word in the context of a game that's actively dealing with a history of exclusion, especially in this case, where the consequences of switching the word are nil.
The idea that this is somehow equating the word thug with a curse word is not what I'm getting at. If you play in a group and happen not to have any Black players, and you feel comfortable in the knowledge that using the word is non-controversial in your group... then fine whatever, use it all you want. Nobody cares about policing the speech you share with your private group. The calculus is a bit different for game developers trying to appeal to a wide audience, many of whom have a different understanding of that word.
Simply deciding a word is inappropriate for use without looking at the context in the way it is used is not right. Asking a politician to stop using the word on issues that have a strong connection to the black community is fine. On the other hand, asking the word to be replaced in D&D is extreme and heavy handed, especially when the word was never even used in a racial context here before.
This comment seems to imply that Black folks must be able to leave their experiences in the political sphere, and check them at the door when they start playing D&D. If I were to encounter some manipulative villain in the monster manual named "globalist", I wouldn't be okay with that despite the fact that this isn't a political context. For me, and people of my heritage, the context may be different but the word still evokes pain and isolation. I'm not trying to accuse, by any means. That's just how the statement comes off.
Banning, removing, replacing, etc. a word is still censorship. It is not on the level of censoring an idea, but it is still censorship none the less. When we bleep curse words on TV and radio or replace its written form with $4!# or whatever other symbols, that is censorship. Replacing the word in D&D because some people do not like the word is censorship; while the background, context, and reasoning for censoring the word is different from censoring a curse word, some people want them to be treated the same, which is something I disagree with.
The guy who was commenting on this a month or so ago seemed to think that I was some sort of authoritarian conspirator who hates free thought. On the contrary some forms of censorship are benign and not really relevant for slippery slope arguments.
Here's some general guidelines for when I believe censorship is a bad thing:
It's enforced, particularly by a group in power
There are meaningful penalties for using censored language, beyond people thinking you're an *******
It makes expressing certain thoughts difficult, particularly those at odds with a group or individual in power
It's associated with a surveillance mechanism extending the censorship to your private life
In this case, the "censorship" I'm advocating is replacing one word with any number of others. WotC has no power to sanction you if you choose to use the word in your private games, and it in no way prevents your ability to express the nature of a violent criminal. Further, the group of people on whose behalf this request is being made are historically and presently underprivileged, not a group in a position to imprison you. Even in the "political sphere", using the word thug doesn't entail any such penalties, and I doubt anybody really thinks it should. But that doesn't mean we a) should continue to use the word, and b) that people have to think well of you after you use it.
I have no doubt that by me making this post, plenty of folks out there who've read half of the sparknotes of 1984 in high school are going to think I'm some sort of fascist authoritarian. But like I've said, people, particularly Americans, have a very poor understanding of the messages Orwell tried to communicate beyond what they want to believe he was saying.
Methinks you're trying way too hard to disagree with me, when fundamentally we agree. We agree that it is a good idea to be respectful with language and actions.
I think we agree on the fundamentals, but we disagree with where the line is drawn. I think it is okay to enforce higher expectations and standards on politicians because their words and actions carry a lot of weight, and you want to tackle all the ambiguities, loopholes, possible misinterpretation, etc. when discussing policy, because slacking off on the discussion could translate into laws that were intentionally poorly written so the law can be abused. However, I am less inclined to hold companies and other people to the same standards, especially when the context is very different.
This comment seems to imply that Black folks must be able to leave their experiences in the political sphere, and check them at the door when they start playing D&D. If I were to encounter some manipulative villain in the monster manual named "globalist", I wouldn't be okay with that despite the fact that this isn't a political context. For me, and people of my heritage, the context may be different but the word still evokes pain and isolation. I'm not trying to accuse, by any means. That's just how the statement comes off.
That is a good point. Being able to explore politics, religion, discrimination, inequality, death, social justice, and other heavy topics in a D&D campaign is what makes the experience far more engaging and rewarding (at least for some of us), so asking people to check out their real life experiences does not sound reasonable, especially if people are playing in a campaign with heavy parallels to real world issues. And I agree that words still contain extra baggage and meaning even if the speaker did not intend for those words to have them.
I still disagree with replacing the word, but I can see where you are coming from. I still would not support Wizards replacing the word, but I am less opposed to the move now.
WoTC now needs to work on D&D.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/depictions-racism-magic-2020-06-10
it's the other way around.
I never did and don't know anyone who would associate the word "thug" with "people of color". "thug" is as generic as it comes.
If people in your area started associating those things there must be a different reason. It's surely not DnD's fault. Don't mix subcultures.
Polish wizard from Italy (Central Europe Time - GMT+1).
From a British perspective, Thug means a lout/yob/ruffian, that kind of thing, with no racial connotations whatsoever. Interesting thread!
Never forget back when I used to smoke while working in LA, innocently telling my colleagues I was 'popping outside for a fag.' The looks on their faces of abject disbelief as to what I said is something I will never forget! I never made that mistake again!
To be clear, 'fag' in the UK is a slang word for a cigarette.
George Floyd protests: What do 'thug', 'white privilege' and 'ally' mean?
Its dictionary definition is "a violent person, especially a criminal," but it has become a loaded term when referring to black people.
A journalist who had traced the history of the word, told the BBC in 2015 that "thug" was brought to Western society from India in 1897, later used by politicians and in the media, even reclaimed by hip-hop artists such as Tupac and Bone Thugs-N-Harmony.
It was used widely to describe black people involved the Baltimore riots in 2015, and the use of the word still hurts today.
"They may as well just have the balls, have the bottle to say the N-word," says Natasha March.
"Racism hasn't changed, it's just become more discreet, clever, manipulated, gaslighted, and thrown back at us."
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-52892949
With your spelling of the word 'color' in your earlier post, I'm assuming you aren't British. I can assure you that, in the UK at least, thug has no racial connotations. In the UK, you can be a thug, no matter your background, class, colour, sexuality, gender, religion, etc. I agree that this might not be the case in all countries.
For 90+% of Americans, it doesn't have a racial connotation either. I didn't even know that anyone thought that.
And based on the articles that the OP linked it has only been used to refer to race specifically by rappers and racists (mostly by "allies," but same thing), otherwise it has been used to refer to rioters and criminals as it is defined. And some politicians who refered to rioters as thugs decided to apologize because said violent criminals happened to also be black.
Look Dx, you're wrong.
You should educate yourself on this topic much further before continuing to post and showing your blatant and willful ignorance on the topic.
The origins of using the word "Thug" as a racist dog whistle to denote people of color doing "bad things". Started in the US in the1860s(civil war era) via documented new york times articles, continued into the 1960s when it was used in british film to call people of Indian descent "Indian Thuggees" and then someone like Tupac started to reappropriate the word since it had been more recently used specifically toward black people.
“White folks see us as thugs, I don’t care if you think you’re a lawyer, if you’re a man, if you’re an African American, if you’re whatever the f--- you think you are. We’re thugs and n-----s to these MF.”
Tupac took the words and started to change how they meant toward people of color from people of color. It's the same way other, much worse racial insults have much different meanings inside a community than when it is uttered from outside a community.
Yes, in the US it has a far heavier connotation toward black people, but it is a racist dog whistle. Just because you don't "get" the fact that it is, doesn't mean that it isn't.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004736/
https://www.newsweek.com/brief-history-word-thug-326595
https://scroll.in/article/964130/thugs-the-indian-history-of-the-word-that-donald-trump-used-to-describe-george-floyd-protesters
Here is some starter reading. As a FYI, according to the last US Census, 12.6 percent of the US population was black. So even if refuse to believe ANY of the preceding information, your totals are off. Don't forget that Census data toward minority groups is usually heavily flawed too as they don't get the representation needed often enough to ensure proper tallying.
Wizards is first and foremost an American company. Considering two days ago they just banned 7 Magic: The Gathering cards for racism, including one called invoke prejudice, which had an internal id of 1488 which is a calling card of white supremacists. I'm not saying it's their "fault". I'm not saying it's D&D Beyonds' fault, they just license the content to people like us so we can enjoy something in our free time that allows us to gather and have fun as a group. However, I think that things should change.
At this point I kind of want them to change the word just so that I don't have to keep seeing people talk about how it is coded language used by a select minority of individuals to mean something other than what the rest of the world thinks it means. Especially when "violent people, especially criminals" in the world are currently looting and burning businesses, assaulting people, and just generally being a danger to the public all in the name of race.
So how about we try to think of a good name for the NPC statblock mostly used in game for petty criminals, hired muscle, aggressive citizens, etc that hasn't been used yet;
Or has/is every word used to describe violent people too racially charged because racists use them too?
It has to be generic enough that it doesn't specifically mean criminal or evil, but should relate to violent activity.
But things only have the meaning we assign to them. When it is not used to refer to a race or anything about a race, it is not racist. Only when it is used to refer to a race in some way, is it racist. The game and it's community do not use it to refer to race. It's usage by few does not define its meaning to many.
That is the exact same way of thinking as someone who says that if 1 rock was in water then all rocks are wet, or if 1 person of a race is a thug then all people of that race are thugs. I am fully opposed to that way of thinking, and don't think that way. Because of that, I can't see this term as racist. I'm sorry for the people who can't see the term as anything but.
So what term do you suggest WotC uses in place of Thug?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
[REDACTED]
Presenting two contradictory points in the same statement while trying to alter the argument means that on principle people are inclined to either believe one piece or the other. That is the whole point of the straw-man argument. You never want to address the fundamental issue. You just want to dismiss it because you don't believe it has merit. Which, sadly, is the same type of dismissal people who hate this word due it's meaning received.
Sposta, there is any number of terms. Soldier, mercenary, thief, vagabonds, etc. You can find plenty of terms that aren't don't have a history of hurt.
None of those names have anything to do with the “violent criminals” that the Monster is meant to represent. Also, Soldier and Mercenary are already being used as PC backgrounds, and Thief is a Rogue subclass so those names would cause confusion. And a “vagabond” is an itinerant homeless person, or “Drifter” and not so much a “violent criminal.” What other names do you suggest to represent a “violent criminal” as a name for an NPC type monster?
To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with your opinion, merely asking for suitable replacement suggestions so that people might agree on one.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That is an ad hominem attack. I have not seen him use a straw man argument either, at least not on this page. A straw man argument is when a person is pretending to refute a particular argument from the other side when the other side did not actually make that particular argument.
As for the word itself, I agree that people should use a little more tact and be careful when choosing their choice of words. However, people also need to keep in mind that language varies from place to place as well as in context and audience. In this case, not everyone who hears the word automatically think black person. I will avoid using the word out of respect, but I find this level of blanket censorship to be extreme and stifling, and it is not something I agree with.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I swore off this thread, but it looks like somebody painfully pulled it out of a welcome grave. Suffice it to say that I'll be reporting every ad hominem and patiently waiting for the mods to lock it up.
Looting is not done in the name of "race". Looting is done in the name of the looters. Organized groups associated with the protests have NEVER supported, endorsed, or encouraged looting. The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. I can't believe this still needs saying.
Actually, words are frequently used in ways that convey different meanings to different groups. The fact that you don't see the word as frequently problematic doesn't mean much if you're not a member of a group who's specifically been targeted by such language. That lack of awareness is not a justification.
Take another example--"globalist". Globalist has a benign dictionary definition, but it's frequently been used throughout modern history to link the Jewish community with some fanciful conspiracy so as to justify our ostracism, degradation, and murder. In a perfect world, a politician would be able to harmlessly refer to supporters of globalization, trade, and interconnectedness as globalists. But the world isn't perfect. To anti-Semites, it's red meat. To Jewish folks, it's a reminder that many many people can't tolerate our existence, let alone treat us as neighbors. If you use the word globalist casually, Jewish people will see you as a schmuck at best, but more likely a threatening anti-Semite.
In a perfect world, we would all understand thug as a neutral way to refer to violent people. But in this world thug is red meat to racists, and a painful reminder to Black people of our brutal history and shockingly unjust and unequal present.
I did this weeks ago. Can this thread burn yet?
Add tough, troublemaker, criminal, vandal, enforcer, goon, outlaw, cutthroat, bandit, bruiser, miscreant, rapscallion, scoundrel, hellion, rowdy... seriously this isn't hard. Even the word blackguard is appropriate here, in its original meaning.
Respect is exactly the point, not censorship. Censorship is not about suppressing a word, but suppressing expression of an idea. Changing the word we use to refer to a violent person isn't preventing anybody from expressing their meaning in an Orwellian sense. The guy back on page 2 didn't catch that. The point is to a) support the inclusion of Black people in the hobby, and b) distinguish people who respect others from those who either don't care, or are just plain racist. The point is not to stop people from expressing a view about violence.
I think there's a damaging and unproductive belief held by many of the public that anti-racists want censorship. What we really want is to a) ensure that politicians and everyday people are informed about the consequences of their words and b) remove the plausible deniability of politicians who hide their true beliefs and manipulate the public by relying on veiled language. Racists should feel free to spew their racism and get shot down publicly, but they should not be able to hide their views when scrutinized.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
AlumniGood Afternoon,
As i have previously stated, We support constructive debates.
These debates CANNOT break the forum rules, specifically 2c. Spamming and Trolling (Flaming) and 2e. Posting Unsuitable Content.
Please do not use your posts to attangonise other users or outright attack them rather than their points of view.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the thread that.
Thankyou, and have a great weekend.
[ 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.
Supporting inclusion, distinguishing respect, and informing people of the consequences are all things I agree with, but I heavily disagree with censoring a word to achieve those goals. I cannot think of a better solution so I will go along with it, but it is heavy handed and extreme. Censoring a word is not a measure that should be used at all in my opinion, but if it is to be used, then the censoring should be temporary and limited in scope, and the measure as a whole should be used sparingly.
As for removing the plausible deniability of politicians who use veiled language, I do not think censoring words is the right way to address that issue. If veiled language and ambiguity is the issue, then assume politicians mean the worst and call them out on it. Make them apologize for their poor choice of words and have them restate their words so that there is no ambiguity in what they mean. If they repeatedly use a poor choice of words, then they can be treated the same as racists, sexists, or whatever other forms of jerks. The best way to tackle veiled language is to make politicians apologize for it and have them restate things in clearer language.
Censoring words on the other hand is just treating the symptoms at best, and it does not address the underlying issue, which is veiled language. Politicians could simply move on to another word like animal, criminal, garbage, etc., and it just does not make sense to keep censoring word after word when they move on to something else.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I don't see a contradiction in our beliefs. Nobody's saying we should expunge the word thug from collective memory, that we should throw people in jail for using it, or anything else so heavy-handed. Similarly, we remember the n word for its history but have simply decided that it's inappropriate for use, but there's no law proscribing its use.
Switching one word for another in a given context is not censorship. We're still trying to express the same thing.
But the word is not on the level of the N word, and I do not think it is appropriate to treat it as an insult or curse word. When most people hear the word, they do not connect the word to race, they connect it to crime. Treating the word as if it were were a racial insult when most people do not think of the word that way is extreme and heavy handed. If racists had used any other code words like animal, criminal, or garbage, are we supposed to replace those words with other words too?
Simply deciding a word is inappropriate for use without looking at the context in the way it is used is not right. Asking a politician to stop using the word on issues that have a strong connection to the black community is fine. On the other hand, asking the word to be replaced in D&D is extreme and heavy handed, especially when the word was never even used in a racial context here before.
Banning, removing, replacing, etc. a word is still censorship. It is not on the level of censoring an idea, but it is still censorship none the less. When we bleep curse words on TV and radio or replace its written form with $4!# or whatever other symbols, that is censorship. Replacing the word in D&D because some people do not like the word is censorship; while the background, context, and reasoning for censoring the word is different from censoring a curse word, some people want them to be treated the same, which is something I disagree with.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Methinks you're trying way too hard to disagree with me, when fundamentally we agree. We agree that it is a good idea to be respectful with language and actions.
Sure. General rule is that if you're not willing to even say or type a word, it's a bad word. But your second sentence misses my point, and mis-characterizes my prescription. The average non-Black person can intend to use the word thug in a benign way, but the word may have a different meaning to a Black person. That's a good enough reason to use a different word in the context of a game that's actively dealing with a history of exclusion, especially in this case, where the consequences of switching the word are nil.
The idea that this is somehow equating the word thug with a curse word is not what I'm getting at. If you play in a group and happen not to have any Black players, and you feel comfortable in the knowledge that using the word is non-controversial in your group... then fine whatever, use it all you want. Nobody cares about policing the speech you share with your private group. The calculus is a bit different for game developers trying to appeal to a wide audience, many of whom have a different understanding of that word.
This comment seems to imply that Black folks must be able to leave their experiences in the political sphere, and check them at the door when they start playing D&D. If I were to encounter some manipulative villain in the monster manual named "globalist", I wouldn't be okay with that despite the fact that this isn't a political context. For me, and people of my heritage, the context may be different but the word still evokes pain and isolation. I'm not trying to accuse, by any means. That's just how the statement comes off.
The guy who was commenting on this a month or so ago seemed to think that I was some sort of authoritarian conspirator who hates free thought. On the contrary some forms of censorship are benign and not really relevant for slippery slope arguments.
Here's some general guidelines for when I believe censorship is a bad thing:
In this case, the "censorship" I'm advocating is replacing one word with any number of others. WotC has no power to sanction you if you choose to use the word in your private games, and it in no way prevents your ability to express the nature of a violent criminal. Further, the group of people on whose behalf this request is being made are historically and presently underprivileged, not a group in a position to imprison you. Even in the "political sphere", using the word thug doesn't entail any such penalties, and I doubt anybody really thinks it should. But that doesn't mean we a) should continue to use the word, and b) that people have to think well of you after you use it.
I have no doubt that by me making this post, plenty of folks out there who've read half of the sparknotes of 1984 in high school are going to think I'm some sort of fascist authoritarian. But like I've said, people, particularly Americans, have a very poor understanding of the messages Orwell tried to communicate beyond what they want to believe he was saying.
I think we agree on the fundamentals, but we disagree with where the line is drawn. I think it is okay to enforce higher expectations and standards on politicians because their words and actions carry a lot of weight, and you want to tackle all the ambiguities, loopholes, possible misinterpretation, etc. when discussing policy, because slacking off on the discussion could translate into laws that were intentionally poorly written so the law can be abused. However, I am less inclined to hold companies and other people to the same standards, especially when the context is very different.
That is a good point. Being able to explore politics, religion, discrimination, inequality, death, social justice, and other heavy topics in a D&D campaign is what makes the experience far more engaging and rewarding (at least for some of us), so asking people to check out their real life experiences does not sound reasonable, especially if people are playing in a campaign with heavy parallels to real world issues. And I agree that words still contain extra baggage and meaning even if the speaker did not intend for those words to have them.
I still disagree with replacing the word, but I can see where you are coming from. I still would not support Wizards replacing the word, but I am less opposed to the move now.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >