I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
And that is why we should follow EN-World's lead on this. And adopt 'Schmorp' as the replacement term for race or species.
As a completely made up word is the only possible one which is free from historical baggage.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
The thing I key in on here is the accusation that Gary Gygax was intentionally racist in his works. Is there proof you have of his works being steeped in "racist intent"? Or is it just that there are "races" that have defined lines (instead of blurring) and that certain "races" get along, others may be tolerant and still others are intolerant of certain "races"? As I have stated before, friction, tension, drama, these are the tools for drama and stories. In a game about good vs evil, the lines of good creatures vs evil creatures is not racist intent, it's creating content for DMs to use in story telling of the nature of good vs evil. Still, I would like to know what proof there is of "racist intent". Tolkien has orcs and Uruk hai that are purely evil. Is that racist? They are big and muscular and dark skinned. Is that racist? Elves seem generally uncaring of humans (presumably due to past slights in their interactions), is that racist? Dwarves and elves, as well. Is that racist? Maybe distrust and stubborn dislikes and animosity and even some racial strife make for stories that are interesting. Just because there are issues of race in a story doesn't make the story itself racist (or game). True, there is a spectrum to look at. Is the content attempting to condone racism or promote it or is it neutral (simply presenting the issues) or even against racism while using racial tensions to that end? I always saw D&D as the latter. There is racial tension, but the players/characters are almost always working against those forces or, if a more neutral party, work to avoid those issues while getting wealthy and powerful. Gold, magic and fame are the main goals of the game, after all. If you aren't interested in the game or don't like the content, then play Monopoly or cards or something.
Pallutus - Pray tell, why would I bother to answer you when you keep asking the same questions over and over again, keep getting answered, and then so clearly post in a way evidencing that you only want to stir up trouble with questions but do not have any interest in learning the answers?
Feel free to do your own research on the subject. You’ll find that Gygax did things like quote a general actively giving an order of genocide. You’ll see that he spoke about “biological determinism” which is the more modern buzzword for (often racially charged) eugenics. You’ll see early modules’ depictions of races like orcs were heavily influenced by racial stereotyping of tribal societies. You’ll see one of his other early partners (and son—the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree) is actively making a game where the rulebook says “some races are better than others”, and where the son has effectively said he is making the game in part because he is unhappy with Wizards for removing the racism he and his father put into the game.
I have already addressed why Tolkien is different… including in the very post you quoted, so I won’t be bothered to address that point again.
But the intention is what matters. Maybe, seriously, if no one is trying to offend you - don't be offended.
That's... Not how it works. If I say something rude and hurtful, it isn't suddenly polite because I didn't mean to hurt anyone. The argument that intentions speak louder than actions is nonsensical. So is the argument that a word cannot be offensive if the person throwing it around does not intend offense.
+1 to BoringBard. The notion that it's impossible to ever be harmful unintentionally, or that nothing should be done to prevent unintentional harm, is frankly nonsensical.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
I agree with what you say about intent existing on a spectrum, and I do think that the impact of one's words and actions matter.
I think what I, and others, are in part reacting to is that being offended also exists on a spectrum. That to some degree people are also responsible for their own feelings and traumas. That we can't remove all the rocks and pebbles from the world and that people need to take some responsibility to put on a pair of boots when interacting with the world.
On one end you could have explicitly racist, homophobic, etc. language where the user of that language is at fault for using it. On the other end you could have someone with an emotionally abusive past who hasn't dealt with their trauma blaming everyone else who says something that reminds them of their past or triggers painful emotions as being at fault.
I don't think I'm really able to effectively get across what I'm trying to say. But I think some of us put responsibility more on the individual to manage their own attitudes, while others put a greater emphasis on changing the world. I think both have their places and both have merit.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
I agree with what you say about intent existing on a spectrum, and I do think that the impact of one's words and actions matter.
I think what I, and others, are in part reacting to is that being offended also exists on a spectrum. That to some degree people are also responsible for their own feelings and traumas. That we can't remove all the rocks and pebbles from the world and that people need to take some responsibility to put on a pair of boots when interacting with the world.
On one end you could have explicitly racist, homophobic, etc. language where the user of that language is at fault for using it. On the other end you could have someone with an emotionally abusive past who hasn't dealt with their trauma blaming everyone else who says something that reminds them of their past or triggers painful emotions as being at fault.
I don't think I'm really able to effectively get across what I'm trying to say. But I think some of us put responsibility more on the individual to manage their own attitudes, while others put a greater emphasis on changing the world. I think both have their places and both have merit.
The problem with this argument is that, as applied to the present case, it ignores the very simple question of least cost avoidance - who is best situated to remove the underlying problem in the most reasonable and effective manner possible. On one side, you have the company that owns the product using a word that has been charged through the decisions made in that very product; on the other you have uncounted individuals who would have to give Wizards another chance and accept Wizards’ saying “I know this term has been used problematically by us in the past, we are still going to use it but do not mean it in the same way TSR did (please ignore that we have made these kinds of promises in the past and followed them up with offensive content).”
This is not a fringe case where there can be a reasonable “who should hold the responsibility” discussion - all that is being asked is for Wizards to change one word to a similar word when they are already making changes for a new edition, balanced against a massive campaign of education, reinterpretation, and forgiveness. That is about as unbalanced a set of costs in a least cost avoider analysis as one can get.
I'm not sure you should even make that argument when, in my country at least, therapy costs money. And not pocket change, either. In many places, it's simply not available at all. And even when it is, there's a lengthy discussion to be had about the various ways we're conditioned against using it. People literally die because they think going to therapy is for weaklings. If you still want to play the Personal Responsibility Card after considering all that, then frankly, I have nothing more to say to you.
Feels smart, right? I really destroyed this person with Facts and Logic. I'm sure that's the end of it.
But wait.
Y'all wanna read the damn title of the thread? We're not here to discuss whether moving away from "race" is a good idea. It's happening. Get over it. It LITERALLY isn't up for discussion. This is supposed to be about whether "species" works for you, and if you have a better suggestion.
Everybody who's taking the time, like I did at the start of this post, to argue back against "race"-ists (low blow? I plead the goddamn fifth), remember: They've already derailed the discussion at least once. Usually twice or three times. They do not respect the purpose of the thread. They evidently don't respect their fellow humans. Do you really think they respect the conventions of honest debate? They're not here to play fair. If they were, they wouldn't have brought up the issue in the first place! So what ARE they trying to do? I'm gonna leave that as an exercise for the reader. I think you know, you just haven't realized it yet.
---
I recommended "zorp" earlier, partially in jest, but now I've also seen "schmorp" suggested. I think that's funny. I'm gonna go read that thread too.
New here. How do you I unsub from this thread to stop receiving notifications?
In the desktop version of the site, there's a button at the top right-hand corner of the page called "Tools." Hit that, and it's in the drop-down menu there.
New here. How do you I unsub from this thread to stop receiving notifications?
If you're still here and on mobile, put it into landscape and it will let you access the tools option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
I agree with what you say about intent existing on a spectrum, and I do think that the impact of one's words and actions matter.
I think what I, and others, are in part reacting to is that being offended also exists on a spectrum. That to some degree people are also responsible for their own feelings and traumas. That we can't remove all the rocks and pebbles from the world and that people need to take some responsibility to put on a pair of boots when interacting with the world.
On one end you could have explicitly racist, homophobic, etc. language where the user of that language is at fault for using it. On the other end you could have someone with an emotionally abusive past who hasn't dealt with their trauma blaming everyone else who says something that reminds them of their past or triggers painful emotions as being at fault.
I don't think I'm really able to effectively get across what I'm trying to say. But I think some of us put responsibility more on the individual to manage their own attitudes, while others put a greater emphasis on changing the world. I think both have their places and both have merit.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree in principle. Someone, somewhere will be offended no matter what, and sometimes we have to suck up our sensibilities. I've even argued as such on the forum.
Still, I don't think that really applies here. The case is pretty one sided. We're talking about a word that is wrongly used from the very beginning, that's loaded with a lot of unsavoury history, even in the rough context it is used, that creates conversations that are very close to that history, and did I mention it was wrongly applied in the first place? Against that we have people getting offended because "how dare you change a word in a book that hasn't even been written yet, to another word that is much more accurate, has been used since before 5e even started (and without complaint) and has been recognised by D&D to be more accurate since at least AD&D2e".
I get your point. I understand, I really do. I even agree in principle. But this isn't the hill to die on for that argument, it's just too cut and dry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
And that is why we should follow EN-World's lead on this. And adopt 'Schmorp' as the replacement term for race or species.
As a completely made up word is the only possible one which is free from historical baggage.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
And that is why we should follow EN-World's lead on this. And adopt 'Schmorp' as the replacement term for race or species.
As a completely made up word is the only possible one which is free from historical baggage.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
I agree with what you say about intent existing on a spectrum, and I do think that the impact of one's words and actions matter.
I think what I, and others, are in part reacting to is that being offended also exists on a spectrum. That to some degree people are also responsible for their own feelings and traumas. That we can't remove all the rocks and pebbles from the world and that people need to take some responsibility to put on a pair of boots when interacting with the world.
On one end you could have explicitly racist, homophobic, etc. language where the user of that language is at fault for using it. On the other end you could have someone with an emotionally abusive past who hasn't dealt with their trauma blaming everyone else who says something that reminds them of their past or triggers painful emotions as being at fault.
I don't think I'm really able to effectively get across what I'm trying to say. But I think some of us put responsibility more on the individual to manage their own attitudes, while others put a greater emphasis on changing the world. I think both have their places and both have merit.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree in principle. Someone, somewhere will be offended no matter what, and sometimes we have to suck up our sensibilities. I've even argued as such on the forum.
Still, I don't think that really applies here. The case is pretty one sided. We're talking about a word that is wrongly used from the very beginning, that's loaded with a lot of unsavoury history, even in the rough context it is used, that creates conversations that are very close to that history, and did I mention it was wrongly applied in the first place? Against that we have people getting offended because "how dare you change a word in a book that hasn't even been written yet, to another word that is much more accurate, has been used since before 5e even started (and without complaint) and has been recognised by D&D to be more accurate since at least AD&D2e".
I get your point. I understand, I really do. I even agree in principle. But this isn't the hill to die on for that argument, it's just too cut and dry.
To be clear on this particular issue I think the change is a good one. On past threads about racism in D&D I've argued that a large part of the problem is the differing meanings of race in the game vs in the real world and have regularly suggested species as an alternative term. Sometimes in those discussions I've had pushback from some on the side in favor of the change on this thread against my suggestion.
My point was really more of a general statement, with the intent to temper what I see as well intentioned efforts to make the world safer from taking things too far and forgetting each of our own responsibility to manage our emotions.
I also strongly suggest you actually read the thread. There is one side that is getting upset and offended over the use of a word, and it's not the side that thinks that using the word "species" is a positive step forward.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Both sides are wrong. And I'm 100% serious. We cannot keep discussing the words, when it's really the intentions that matter.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
And that is why we should follow EN-World's lead on this. And adopt 'Schmorp' as the replacement term for race or species.
As a completely made up word is the only possible one which is free from historical baggage.
+1 for schmorp because I like the way it sounds
I vote for zorp. English needs more Z-words.
Zorp works well because it's easier to type than schmorp
Also when I punch "schmorp" into Google I get weird FNaF OCs but with "zorp" it's just a weird lizard man and lizards are cool
An alternative to zorp or schmorp is 'Player Entity'
Ideal and boring game language. Doesn't have any history of being used by far right and eugenicist movements. No one can be offended by it. And its meaning is nice and clear.
An alternative to zorp or schmorp is 'Player Entity'
Ideal and boring game language. Doesn't have any history of being used by far right and eugenicist movements. No one can be offended by it. And its meaning is nice and clear.
But it's so broad. Player entity sounds like it refers to the whole character. We need something that refers specifically to the collection of biological traits that the character has.
I like species, but I'd be willing to accept the silliness of zorp in order to satisfy the intersection of biologists and pedants who play D&D.
An alternative to zorp or schmorp is 'Player Entity'
Ideal and boring game language. Doesn't have any history of being used by far right and eugenicist movements. No one can be offended by it. And its meaning is nice and clear.
But it's so broad. Player entity sounds like it refers to the whole character. We need something that refers specifically to the collection of biological traits that the character has.
I like species, but I'd be willing to accept the silliness of zorp in order to satisfy the intersection of biologists and pedants who play D&D.
I like species as well, and it's the word I'd pick given the choice as it's most accurate. But the sad thing is that the word has been used by eugenicists and white supremacists in the past and so many people still have issues with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The great irony here—had you bothered to spend just a fraction of the time you spent on your long, dismissive, posts reading the thread, you would see that intentions have been discussed. On one side of the debate there is Wizards, which recognises a large part of its game was steeped in the racist intent of Gygax and other early founders. It was, for example, discussed that intention is solely what divides Tolkien’s (who stood up against the Nazi persecution of Jews and against apartheid in his homeland) use of race from that of TSR (where the modules are infested with the harmful stereotypes of the founders who were—and some who still are—fairly outspoken in their racism).
Now, I am sure your response will be that historical intent cannot taint future intent - a response you would surely be given to try and save face, as your decision to not read and skip right to attempting to feel smugly superior to both sides backfired and made you look a bit the fool.
I will save you the time - that answer likewise comes off rather poorly, since it ignores how intent works. Intent is not a black and white issue - it is a gradient issue where one might have different levels of culpability depending on their intentions. At the top, you have the person acting purposefully - they know their actions will cause a negative consequence and are taking their actions specifically to garner that negative consequence. From your posts, it looks like you are only considering purposeful intent and ignoring any striation under that.
The other layers look at whether you intended to take an action you knew or should have known would harm others, the names of these levels generally divided in decreasing order of severity into “knowingly”, “reckless”, and “negligent” intent.
TSR likely was acting either purposefully or high up on the “knowingly” side of the spectrum - they either actively wanted to include their racism in the game, or acted so brazenly that, if that was not their specific goal, it was such an obvious outcome that it seemed like their specific goal.
Wizards is not as high up on that spectrum - but they are on the spectrum. They have the specific knowledge that their game’s terminology is rooted in racism; they have the knowledge that countless academics have written on how these origins continue to alienate a part of their player base; they have countless anecdotes from players about how the game’s charged terminology causes them discomfort; they have the abject racism demonstrated by their players on threads like this that show the problems persist.
Wizards might not be purposefully harming anyone, but they are intentionally promulgating terminology that they know brings harm to their players. That intentional decision to further promote something they are aware harms their players does, in fact, ascribe a degree of culpability. Wizards understands that - it is why they are trying to excise terms and elements of D&D charged with the game’s historically problematic politics.
And that is why we should follow EN-World's lead on this. And adopt 'Schmorp' as the replacement term for race or species.
As a completely made up word is the only possible one which is free from historical baggage.
The thing I key in on here is the accusation that Gary Gygax was intentionally racist in his works. Is there proof you have of his works being steeped in "racist intent"? Or is it just that there are "races" that have defined lines (instead of blurring) and that certain "races" get along, others may be tolerant and still others are intolerant of certain "races"? As I have stated before, friction, tension, drama, these are the tools for drama and stories. In a game about good vs evil, the lines of good creatures vs evil creatures is not racist intent, it's creating content for DMs to use in story telling of the nature of good vs evil. Still, I would like to know what proof there is of "racist intent". Tolkien has orcs and Uruk hai that are purely evil. Is that racist? They are big and muscular and dark skinned. Is that racist? Elves seem generally uncaring of humans (presumably due to past slights in their interactions), is that racist? Dwarves and elves, as well. Is that racist? Maybe distrust and stubborn dislikes and animosity and even some racial strife make for stories that are interesting. Just because there are issues of race in a story doesn't make the story itself racist (or game). True, there is a spectrum to look at. Is the content attempting to condone racism or promote it or is it neutral (simply presenting the issues) or even against racism while using racial tensions to that end? I always saw D&D as the latter. There is racial tension, but the players/characters are almost always working against those forces or, if a more neutral party, work to avoid those issues while getting wealthy and powerful. Gold, magic and fame are the main goals of the game, after all. If you aren't interested in the game or don't like the content, then play Monopoly or cards or something.
Pallutus
Pallutus - Pray tell, why would I bother to answer you when you keep asking the same questions over and over again, keep getting answered, and then so clearly post in a way evidencing that you only want to stir up trouble with questions but do not have any interest in learning the answers?
Feel free to do your own research on the subject. You’ll find that Gygax did things like quote a general actively giving an order of genocide. You’ll see that he spoke about “biological determinism” which is the more modern buzzword for (often racially charged) eugenics. You’ll see early modules’ depictions of races like orcs were heavily influenced by racial stereotyping of tribal societies. You’ll see one of his other early partners (and son—the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree) is actively making a game where the rulebook says “some races are better than others”, and where the son has effectively said he is making the game in part because he is unhappy with Wizards for removing the racism he and his father put into the game.
I have already addressed why Tolkien is different… including in the very post you quoted, so I won’t be bothered to address that point again.
+1 to BoringBard. The notion that it's impossible to ever be harmful unintentionally, or that nothing should be done to prevent unintentional harm, is frankly nonsensical.
I agree with what you say about intent existing on a spectrum, and I do think that the impact of one's words and actions matter.
I think what I, and others, are in part reacting to is that being offended also exists on a spectrum. That to some degree people are also responsible for their own feelings and traumas. That we can't remove all the rocks and pebbles from the world and that people need to take some responsibility to put on a pair of boots when interacting with the world.
On one end you could have explicitly racist, homophobic, etc. language where the user of that language is at fault for using it. On the other end you could have someone with an emotionally abusive past who hasn't dealt with their trauma blaming everyone else who says something that reminds them of their past or triggers painful emotions as being at fault.
I don't think I'm really able to effectively get across what I'm trying to say. But I think some of us put responsibility more on the individual to manage their own attitudes, while others put a greater emphasis on changing the world. I think both have their places and both have merit.
The problem with this argument is that, as applied to the present case, it ignores the very simple question of least cost avoidance - who is best situated to remove the underlying problem in the most reasonable and effective manner possible. On one side, you have the company that owns the product using a word that has been charged through the decisions made in that very product; on the other you have uncounted individuals who would have to give Wizards another chance and accept Wizards’ saying “I know this term has been used problematically by us in the past, we are still going to use it but do not mean it in the same way TSR did (please ignore that we have made these kinds of promises in the past and followed them up with offensive content).”
This is not a fringe case where there can be a reasonable “who should hold the responsibility” discussion - all that is being asked is for Wizards to change one word to a similar word when they are already making changes for a new edition, balanced against a massive campaign of education, reinterpretation, and forgiveness. That is about as unbalanced a set of costs in a least cost avoider analysis as one can get.
New here. How do you I unsub from this thread to stop receiving notifications?
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I'm not sure you should even make that argument when, in my country at least, therapy costs money. And not pocket change, either. In many places, it's simply not available at all. And even when it is, there's a lengthy discussion to be had about the various ways we're conditioned against using it. People literally die because they think going to therapy is for weaklings. If you still want to play the Personal Responsibility Card after considering all that, then frankly, I have nothing more to say to you.
Feels smart, right? I really destroyed this person with Facts and Logic. I'm sure that's the end of it.
But wait.
Y'all wanna read the damn title of the thread? We're not here to discuss whether moving away from "race" is a good idea. It's happening. Get over it. It LITERALLY isn't up for discussion. This is supposed to be about whether "species" works for you, and if you have a better suggestion.
Everybody who's taking the time, like I did at the start of this post, to argue back against "race"-ists (low blow? I plead the goddamn fifth), remember: They've already derailed the discussion at least once. Usually twice or three times. They do not respect the purpose of the thread. They evidently don't respect their fellow humans. Do you really think they respect the conventions of honest debate? They're not here to play fair. If they were, they wouldn't have brought up the issue in the first place! So what ARE they trying to do? I'm gonna leave that as an exercise for the reader. I think you know, you just haven't realized it yet.
---
I recommended "zorp" earlier, partially in jest, but now I've also seen "schmorp" suggested. I think that's funny. I'm gonna go read that thread too.
In the desktop version of the site, there's a button at the top right-hand corner of the page called "Tools." Hit that, and it's in the drop-down menu there.
Tools menu, unsubscribe.
If you're still here and on mobile, put it into landscape and it will let you access the tools option.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree in principle. Someone, somewhere will be offended no matter what, and sometimes we have to suck up our sensibilities. I've even argued as such on the forum.
Still, I don't think that really applies here. The case is pretty one sided. We're talking about a word that is wrongly used from the very beginning, that's loaded with a lot of unsavoury history, even in the rough context it is used, that creates conversations that are very close to that history, and did I mention it was wrongly applied in the first place? Against that we have people getting offended because "how dare you change a word in a book that hasn't even been written yet, to another word that is much more accurate, has been used since before 5e even started (and without complaint) and has been recognised by D&D to be more accurate since at least AD&D2e".
I get your point. I understand, I really do. I even agree in principle. But this isn't the hill to die on for that argument, it's just too cut and dry.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
+1 for schmorp because I like the way it sounds
[REDACTED]
I vote for zorp. English needs more Z-words.
To be clear on this particular issue I think the change is a good one. On past threads about racism in D&D I've argued that a large part of the problem is the differing meanings of race in the game vs in the real world and have regularly suggested species as an alternative term. Sometimes in those discussions I've had pushback from some on the side in favor of the change on this thread against my suggestion.
My point was really more of a general statement, with the intent to temper what I see as well intentioned efforts to make the world safer from taking things too far and forgetting each of our own responsibility to manage our emotions.
Zorp works well because it's easier to type than schmorp
Also when I punch "schmorp" into Google I get weird FNaF OCs but with "zorp" it's just a weird lizard man and lizards are cool
[REDACTED]
An alternative to zorp or schmorp is 'Player Entity'
Ideal and boring game language. Doesn't have any history of being used by far right and eugenicist movements. No one can be offended by it. And its meaning is nice and clear.
But it's so broad. Player entity sounds like it refers to the whole character. We need something that refers specifically to the collection of biological traits that the character has.
I like species, but I'd be willing to accept the silliness of zorp in order to satisfy the intersection of biologists and pedants who play D&D.
I like species as well, and it's the word I'd pick given the choice as it's most accurate. But the sad thing is that the word has been used by eugenicists and white supremacists in the past and so many people still have issues with it.