Extra credits for this question , lol 

Most important for using orcs, goblins and gnolls without racism: Don't ever associate orcs, goblins and gnolls with human ethnicities, because that would be really racist!!!

When the enemy won't respond peacefully, the players must fight. This crosses all imagined boundaries. The trick is the reasoning, and magic makes it easier. It may seem like hand-waving, but if the intent is a combat encounter and little more, sometimes, you must hand-wave it away.

Imagine a story where a good dragon has gone rogue because it is being compelled. The dragon is protecting the BBEG and will not (cannot) stop. The players' options are very limited.

Now, imagine a story where a good dragon has been tricked into being rogue by a BBEG. The dragon can be reasoned with. The players' options expand, but so does the story and the time it takes to tell it. You can't hand-wave how the dragon was tricked as one of the options of resolution requires knowledge of that.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Not only is this not new, it is something that was baked into the game by people who based those characters -- outside the little art used that you shared -- on how they saw different kinds of people in the real world. 

On purpose. 

Your disbelief is not evidence of that being wrong.

AEDorsay, in general I find you a thoughtful poster and agree with many of your opinions, but by the same token as the above, your failure to cite sources is also not evidence that this is true.  'It's a well known and popular fact' doesn't cut it when you're making accusations.

Reasonable minds clearly can and do disagree on whether the old material constitutes anything more than shortsighted and unthoughtful adaptation of century-old colonialist tropes.  That this is hurtful is undeniable, but the idea that the hurt was in any way intentional is a bridge too far without well-sourced evidence.

Quote from DMZ2112 >>

That this is hurtful is undeniable, but the idea that the hurt was in any way intentional is a bridge too far without well-sourced evidence.

Who said it was intentional? Hard baked prejudices that show up in media are often unintentionally hurtful.

Eh, it’s pretty well accepted from what I’ve seen that Gary Gygax had some thoughts on tribal cultures and how other cultures should deal with them.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Who said it was intentional? Hard baked prejudices that show up in media are often unintentionally hurtful.

"With intention" is how I read "people... based those characters... on how they saw different kinds of people in the real world. On purpose."

I see your interpretation as well, and if that's all AEDorsey meant, I'd be satisfied with a clarification.

You can make a case that a lack of intention does not soften the blow, but that's not my point.  My point is that we shouldn't be levying accusations against people without providing evidence, as the rules of this community state.

I’ve seen it accepted in a couple different threads that Gary Gygax had some specific thoughts about tribalism and tribal cultures when he was designing the races. I cannot presently provide APA cited sources for your review as I’m at work and using my phone for this, but this is not a new or fringe idea from what I’ve seen in this community.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I cannot presently provide APA cited sources for your review

 Mocking a perfectly reasonable request for corroboration in line with forum guidelines doesn't exactly strengthen the case.

Quote from DMZ2112 >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Not only is this not new, it is something that was baked into the game by people who based those characters -- outside the little art used that you shared -- on how they saw different kinds of people in the real world. 

On purpose. 

Your disbelief is not evidence of that being wrong.

AEDorsay, in general I find you a thoughtful poster and agree with many of your opinions, but by the same token as the above, your failure to cite sources is also not evidence that this is true.  'It's a well known and popular fact' doesn't cut it when you're making accusations.

Reasonable minds clearly can and do disagree on whether the old material constitutes anything more than shortsighted and unthoughtful adaptation of century-old colonialist tropes.  That this is hurtful is undeniable, but the idea that the hurt was in any way intentional is a bridge too far without well-sourced evidence.

My gratitude for the kind words.

It is not my custom to cite sources, nor to appeal to popular knowledge, unless it supports an element of a larger concept that I am addressing, on social media. This is because often, in conversations such as this, I am treading a fine line between what I do for a living and what I feel like noting without having to sink into the rabbit hole that is my life's work.

I do not work for free -- not to win an argument, not to sway a person, not to drive home a point. It is not merely about me, as it it represents an ongoing effort to model behaviors and effect change on a grand scale.I operate under formal debate methods, normally, not collegiate ones, and the only time I normally cite something is when I am writing for a journal or proffering lessons in a course I am lecturing on.

If you choose not to believe, me, fine. That is your right. You can look it up yourself, and I spend enough of my time writing a response already and do not have the time to look up a seies of evidentiary results for the benefit of someone who is not providing me with some sort of compensation fo that time. It smacks of many things, among them poor form and lack of broad familiarity with the subject, but mostly it is just kinda rude. I mean, why should I be pushed to into a redux of already argued stuff?

Intent is an interesting thing. It is not magical, and it is not always conscious. Many folks like to think it is, but in analysis and experimentation it proves itself not so -- especially in cases where stigmatization is present. but just as important, if I say "go look up the statements of folks involved in those session regarding different minorities, women, et cetera et cetera" I am, in fact, providing a citation, even though common internet practice refuses to see it as such having had it taught tot hem by people like me in schools withou trealizing that part of the basis for that is to teach them how to go look up stuff for themselves.

Lastly, I will note that the tropes in question are actually far older than a century in most cases. I suspect it shocks people to realize how much of it is holdovers from the 1400 to 1500's.

Quote from DMZ2112 >>

  I just want someone to give me the opportunity to come to my own conclusions based on the evidence they've seen, instead of being asked to rely on their interpretation blind.  Which seems pretty reasonable, to me, if I'm being honest.

I will note that this is quite reasonable. The catch is that my evidence is based in an extremely thorough understanding of the mechanism by which stigmatization, racism, similar ostracising social elements,and the like function, develop, operate, and are engaged with -- as well as how they are used.

I mean, ultimately, my evidence would be the body of work of the folks who were unnamed. (which I stress because I did not name folks, though I mean, should I drop the whole deep friendship with the author of the Empire of the Petal Throne or what? Sure, sure, g by a and all, but smoke and fire and all that rot).  So, if you are looking for something recorded in, say, some forum from the 90's on the wayback machine, or some dragon magazine article, or whatever, I cannot give those to you, since I am not pulling it from a given contextual quote, but from knowing the systems in play and how they operate and then a strong critical analysis of the work itself in the context of the larger social oppression schema.

It takes intent to write the original description of orcs. Stigmatization has a really fascinating way of operating, and is unavoidable -- even in my own work, I see it sneak in, sometimes far too late and well after the fact.

You are fine to ask, but what you expected may not be what I can give you, because I don't look at it from a social media perspective, but rather from what I do for a living. I mean, I could probably do a course in it, lol, but who gonna pay for it?

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from DMZ2112 >>

  I just want someone to give me the opportunity to come to my own conclusions based on the evidence they've seen, instead of being asked to rely on their interpretation blind.  Which seems pretty reasonable, to me, if I'm being honest.

 

I will note that this is quite reasonable. The catch is that my evidence is based in an extremely thorough understanding of the mechanism by which stigmatization, racism, similar ostracising social elements,and the like function, develop, operate, and are engaged with -- as well as how they are used.

I mean, ultimately, my evidence would be the body of work of the folks who were unnamed. (which I stress because I did not name folks, though I mean, should I drop the whole deep friendship with the author of the Empire of the Petal Throne or what? Sure, sure, g by a and all, but smoke and fire and all that rot).  So, if you are looking for something recorded in, say, some forum from the 90's on the wayback machine, or some dragon magazine article, or whatever, I cannot give those to you, since I am not pulling it from a given contextual quote, but from knowing the systems in play and how they operate and then a strong critical analysis of the work itself in the context of the larger social oppression schema.

It takes intent to write the original description of orcs. Stigmatization has a really fascinating way of operating, and is unavoidable -- even in my own work, I see it sneak in, sometimes far too late and well after the fact.

You are fine to ask, but what you expected may not be what I can give you, because I don't look at it from a social media perspective, but rather from what I do for a living. I mean, I could probably do a course in it, lol, but who gonna pay for it?

You're also talking to someone who just made it pretty clear they'll ignore evidence on other issues if it suits them and who compared gun safety laws to the Satanic panic, so I'm not sure there's anything you could actually produce that would be enough

Quote from AntonSirius >>

 

You're also talking to someone who just made it pretty clear they'll ignore evidence on other issues if it suits them and who compared gun safety laws to the Satanic panic, so I'm not sure there's anything you could actually produce that would be enough

well, I, um, err...

Nope, not gonna go down that derail.  It is enough I am a living embodiment of an existential threat equal to thermonuclear weapons. True story.

Quote from AEDorsay>>

If you choose not to believe, me, fine. That is your right. You can look it up yourself, and I spend enough of my time writing a response already and do not have the time to look up a seies of evidentiary results for the benefit of someone who is not providing me with some sort of compensation fo that time. It smacks of many things, among them poor form and lack of broad familiarity with the subject, but mostly it is just kinda rude. I mean, why should I be pushed to into a redux of already argued stuff?

Intent is an interesting thing. It is not magical, and it is not always conscious. Many folks like to think it is, but in analysis and experimentation it proves itself not so -- especially in cases where stigmatization is present. but just as important, if I say "go look up the statements of folks involved in those session regarding different minorities, women, et cetera et cetera" I am, in fact, providing a citation, even though common internet practice refuses to see it as such having had it taught tot hem by people like me in schools withou trealizing that part of the basis for that is to teach them how to go look up stuff for themselves.

Lastly, I will note that the tropes in question are actually far older than a century in most cases. I suspect it shocks people to realize how much of it is holdovers from the 1400 to 1500's.

 You are absolutely right, of course; 'centuries-old' would have been more appropriate.

You are fine to ask, but what you expected may not be what I can give you, because I don't look at it from a social media perspective, but rather from what I do for a living.

And yet here we are, on social media.

If you said to me, "M. A. R. Barker stone cold said to my face that Hitler had the right idea," that'd be excellent first-hand evidence, and quite sufficient to my expectations, even though anyone can go to his Wikipedia page and find links to his involvement in Holocaust denial.  I don't expect people to write footnoted dissertations, I just expect them to not rely on vague generalities.  I don't think "Eh, it's pretty well accepted," serves anyone.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

You're also talking to someone who just made it pretty clear they'll ignore evidence on other issues if it suits them and who compared gun safety laws to the Satanic panic, so I'm not sure there's anything you could actually produce that would be enough

Okay, in a straining effort to give you the benefit of the doubt, did you mean to write what you wrote, or did you mean to write "someone... who compared the safety of gun deregulation to the claims of the Satanic Panic?"  Because I wasn't comparing anything, but I did state that those are two things I do not believe are true despite public opinion.

I'm unaware of having ignored any evidence.

Quote from DMZ2112 >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

You're also talking to someone who just made it pretty clear they'll ignore evidence on other issues if it suits them and who compared gun safety laws to the Satanic panic, so I'm not sure there's anything you could actually produce that would be enough

Okay, in a straining effort to give you the benefit of the doubt, did you mean to write what you wrote, or did you mean to write "someone... who compared the safety of gun deregulation to the claims of the Satanic Panic?"  Because I wasn't comparing anything, but I did state that those are two things I do not believe are true despite public opinion.

I'm unaware of having ignored any evidence.

You're right, I did misread your post on the previous page, but largely because I don't think what you believe to be "pretty well accepted" in America is actually pretty well accepted. The loudest positions politically are not necessarily the majority ones

Quote from AntonSirius >>

You're right, I did misread your post on the previous page, but largely because I don't think what you believe to be "pretty well accepted" in America is actually pretty well accepted. The loudest positions politically are not necessarily the majority ones

I am comfortable with that criticism.

Quote from DMZ2112 >>

Quote from AEDorsay>>

If you choose not to believe, me, fine. That is your right. You can look it up yourself, and I spend enough of my time writing a response already and do not have the time to look up a seies of evidentiary results for the benefit of someone who is not providing me with some sort of compensation fo that time. It smacks of many things, among them poor form and lack of broad familiarity with the subject, but mostly it is just kinda rude. I mean, why should I be pushed to into a redux of already argued stuff?

It's not a question of belief; you've given me no reason to question your honesty.  But the reason to be rigorous, in a word, is because you don't know who is reading.  I'd like to think I understand (and share) your intentions, and likewise that our perspectives are similar, but I don't think it is fair to inculcate new supporters without a basis in evidence, and I believe any opposition is inflamed by an absence of evidence.  Both of those things happen readily in this crucible.  I'm sure it's not lost on you how much the people on the other side of these arguments trade in unsupported statements made with confidence -- what does it avail us to stoop to doing the same?  The data is on our side, we should use it.

I don't make these requests flippantly, about every assertion; I make them specifically about ad hominems, because I genuinely believe that attacking people and not ideas costs us credibility.  That's Peaceful Resistance 101, at least how I was taught.

Intent is an interesting thing. It is not magical, and it is not always conscious. Many folks like to think it is, but in analysis and experimentation it proves itself not so -- especially in cases where stigmatization is present. but just as important, if I say "go look up the statements of folks involved in those session regarding different minorities, women, et cetera et cetera" I am, in fact, providing a citation, even though common internet practice refuses to see it as such having had it taught tot hem by people like me in schools withou trealizing that part of the basis for that is to teach them how to go look up stuff for themselves.

I'm a scientifically trained academic and an old gamer; I've done the legwork, and I was present for some of the oft-cited conversations besides.  What I've seen doesn't rise to the level for me that it does for you, but that's immaterial.  We've both derived our own opinions from first-hand sources, and others should be permitted to do the same.

If we don't take the responsibility, who will?

I accept the psychological truth of your point regarding intent, but I simply don't believe it should be permitted to extend to social order.  If we can be condemned for the way our brains are wired, that is bad news for the mentally ill and neurodivergents everywhere.

Lastly, I will note that the tropes in question are actually far older than a century in most cases. I suspect it shocks people to realize how much of it is holdovers from the 1400 to 1500's.

 You are absolutely right, of course; 'centuries-old' would have been more appropriate.

 

You are fine to ask, but what you expected may not be what I can give you, because I don't look at it from a social media perspective, but rather from what I do for a living.

And yet here we are, on social media.

If you said to me, "M. A. R. Barker stone cold said to my face that Hitler had the right idea," that'd be excellent first-hand evidence, and quite sufficient to my expectations, even though anyone can go to his Wikipedia page and find links to his involvement in Holocaust denial.  I don't expect people to write footnoted dissertations, I just expect them to not rely on vague generalities.  I don't think "Eh, it's pretty well accepted," serves anyone.

There are many valid points here, and my comments to follow are not intended to detract from them though they may appear to do so.

It is a relief to hear you are trained academic. I am, as well, though my particular thoughts on academia are likely why I will never have tenure and forever be "that cool gal we can get to lecture endlessly".

i have, in assorted places, laid out my many personal intersections, and at least once noted that y rather extensive education is a direct result of having played D&D, lol.

I have spent most of this century in contract work, and so I can be seemingly mercenary in my requirements on social media that I be paid for my work and my time. Even in my current role, I am known to be grousing a tad at the way that creep has struck my role even as circumstances reduced my pay (but increased my costs), and this is always on my mind. I teach young TGD folk to always get compensated, always get paid. I teach the same to young PoC folks as well, because the time of any given individual is of greater value than the legal tender, but more importantly a unit of compensation needs to have a value to the recipient.  That is, you ain't always gotta get money, but you should get something for the time, energy, labor, and so forth of any interaction.

My reason is ultimately really simple. For several hundred years PoC have been expected to do and perform labor to counter such misinformation and harm and to do so without recompense -- and even within the communities there is a desire to do so to reduce harm and provide truth and such.  The catch is that that labor has never been rewarded, and to cite one of the most famous samples of those who do such stuff: you get what you pay for/you get out what you put in.

Suddenly, when confronted with the fact that one must pay for something one is expecting and often feeling entitled to for free (for the time of the other person is not considered valuable, the knowledge of the other is not, and really, in a lot of these cases, the person themselves are not), it creates a marked dissonance that is essential, especially when dealing with stigmatized population issues around which the members of the dominant social body is emprivileged and empowered to adopt a defensive state, thus ensuring that "getting through to them" will fail.

And that is when operating with a presumption of good faith, which as I am sure you know is a rarity in these subjects due in part to the underlying nature of how stigmatization and these oppressive systems function in any social media space.

Since the AOL and Compuserve chatroom and forum days, I can count on one hand the number of persons who were acting in bad faith that I have reached, and I know the specific circumstances of each of the four times (the most recent beign Tumblr).  And, ultimately, those changes in their lives did little perceptible to improve the overall space.  I am not fond of whack a mole, and before college I did stuff for the army so my knee jerk response is usually to blow the darn mole holes up.

Not that doing so is a complete waste of time mind you -- I need not be paid in coin -- sometimes just being able to get a good snark in is worth it, lol.

But in this case, while I do agree that "well it is pretty well accepted" is a piss poor statement (that I don't recall having used, myself) and appeal to vox populi, I do have to ask myself what is the reward here?  

I am certain that you have spent time on your response greater than a minute. I respect that time, hence my own lengthy responses that I know annoy the hell out of people. But...

Is it worth it to me to spend the time to take something I know can be found online in some degree or other as minor exemplars that, over time, prove a pattern and can establish a pragmatics basis for the supposition when the amount of time and effort to explain all of that is going to get in the way of me diving into the history I have to clean up of 2300 years for my game world and enjoying discussions where I can just turn my freaking brain off for a bit and think about something that isn't so close to what I do as to be inseparable?

Well...

... I mean, no offense meant, but I don't have enough time interacting on here to determine if it is worth it for that particular bit.  And then there is the kicker that this side conversation we are having is ultimately derived from a non-sequitur because the question shouldn't be "can I provide citations (appeal to authority), but can I support it through my own work as laid out here, in the field of debate.

And I mean, yeah, I can, but hellfire and tarnation! That gonna be a lot of labor for no reward when I still gotta pay these dang nabbit California Light bills! And it is a side bit in a larger and more germane question; a nitpicking, if you will, like my centuries comment.

and so it goes.

Quote from AEDorsay>>

My reason is ultimately really simple. For several hundred years PoC have been expected to do and perform labor to counter such misinformation and harm and to do so without recompense -- and even within the communities there is a desire to do so to reduce harm and provide truth and such.  The catch is that that labor has never been rewarded, and to cite one of the most famous samples of those who do such stuff: you get what you pay for/you get out what you put in.

But in this case, while I do agree that "well it is pretty well accepted" is a piss poor statement (that I don't recall having used, myself) and appeal to vox populi

I think we're falling into a bit of a conceptual hole here. The discussion is veering off of topic into more talking about debate philosophy, which might be its own thread.