Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dragonlance Brings New Options to D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8747050" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>You seem to have completely lost the thread of the discussion, because nothing you are saying applies to anything I said in this thread. I have never once advocated for censorship*</p><p></p><p>So, let's refresh you. </p><p></p><p>People said that we should not recreate media that included things which, from multiple posters, were mocking those who are neurodivergent. Gully Dwarves, Tinker Gnomes, Fizban. The specific example doesn't matter for the overall point. </p><p></p><p>Mortus called upon the argument which gets trotted out every single time we say "we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of this decades old piece of media". Which is that we cannot and should not tell people to "change their artistic expression" because these people aren't real, they are fictional, and if we don't let people fully express any and all ideas that are "artistic expressions" then we will have the death of art. No one will make art, because no one will want to offend and everyone will sit reading blank pages in grey featureless rooms (I'm using hyperbole, I know they did not say that directly, but they left a vaguely threatening "Spreading a message for artists to alter or compromise their artistic expression hurts us all." so I'm fine being hyperbolic) </p><p></p><p>I dislike this argument. I hate this argument. Because it says that you can never critique anything, because criticism kills art. If you tell someone something they did was bad, and that they shouldn't do it again, all art dies and the world is left bereft. ADDITIONALLY, it claims to make a distinction. That having a "fictional" character who is say, Green, and they were enslaved by... let's say Orange people, and they should have been enlsaved by those orange people because it was better for the green people, because they can't self govern is perfectly okay. After all, no real people are green or orange, so I could be saying anything, it is all artistic expression and no one should ever be able to tell me "boo" about that, or all art might die. </p><p></p><p>Then you came in. And you started making claims that we can interpret any piece of art as anything, so no interpretations hold any weight. It is all just our own bias, and we shouldn't critique anything from any perspective but from the perspective it was written from. </p><p></p><p>But then you kept tying yourself in knots, making arguments that drifted further and further from the point, until now you are advocating that we shouldn't censor existing work. </p><p></p><p>Well, go back to the top of the argument. It was never about censoring existing work. It was about NOT recreating a work making the same mistakes it made 40 years ago. It was about telling the writers "hey, this idea you had decades ago? It aged poorly. Many see it as offensive. It probably isn't a good idea to double down on making it this way. Maybe you can find a better way" </p><p></p><p>Mild critiques. Not assassination attempts to silence political speech, like you made examples of. Not burning books. Not accusing them of being horrible people who deserve to be shamed. The simple idea that we can tell artists "We don't think content like that is appropriate any more and we don't want it. We don't think these matters are for comedy which only punches down." </p><p></p><p>If a publisher decides not to publish my book because they don't think it will sell. That isn't censorship. You can't force them to publish a book. You cannot compel speech. And that means you have to accept that we can say "No, we don't think this is right" without hounding us about the death of art because we are censoring people. Art will continue. Art has always continued. Art has survived over twelve thousand years of human history. It can survive a mild "do better" from time to time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>*Unless you define censorship as saying, before a work is published, "you shouldn't make that". If that is censorship to you, then Hollywood is one of the most censored locations for media on the planet. Because they have entire departments devoted to "you shouldn't make that" based on sales, common sense, legally binding contracts, ect. </p><p></p><p>I don't define censorship that way. That isn't what censorship is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8747050, member: 6801228"] You seem to have completely lost the thread of the discussion, because nothing you are saying applies to anything I said in this thread. I have never once advocated for censorship* So, let's refresh you. People said that we should not recreate media that included things which, from multiple posters, were mocking those who are neurodivergent. Gully Dwarves, Tinker Gnomes, Fizban. The specific example doesn't matter for the overall point. Mortus called upon the argument which gets trotted out every single time we say "we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of this decades old piece of media". Which is that we cannot and should not tell people to "change their artistic expression" because these people aren't real, they are fictional, and if we don't let people fully express any and all ideas that are "artistic expressions" then we will have the death of art. No one will make art, because no one will want to offend and everyone will sit reading blank pages in grey featureless rooms (I'm using hyperbole, I know they did not say that directly, but they left a vaguely threatening "Spreading a message for artists to alter or compromise their artistic expression hurts us all." so I'm fine being hyperbolic) I dislike this argument. I hate this argument. Because it says that you can never critique anything, because criticism kills art. If you tell someone something they did was bad, and that they shouldn't do it again, all art dies and the world is left bereft. ADDITIONALLY, it claims to make a distinction. That having a "fictional" character who is say, Green, and they were enslaved by... let's say Orange people, and they should have been enlsaved by those orange people because it was better for the green people, because they can't self govern is perfectly okay. After all, no real people are green or orange, so I could be saying anything, it is all artistic expression and no one should ever be able to tell me "boo" about that, or all art might die. Then you came in. And you started making claims that we can interpret any piece of art as anything, so no interpretations hold any weight. It is all just our own bias, and we shouldn't critique anything from any perspective but from the perspective it was written from. But then you kept tying yourself in knots, making arguments that drifted further and further from the point, until now you are advocating that we shouldn't censor existing work. Well, go back to the top of the argument. It was never about censoring existing work. It was about NOT recreating a work making the same mistakes it made 40 years ago. It was about telling the writers "hey, this idea you had decades ago? It aged poorly. Many see it as offensive. It probably isn't a good idea to double down on making it this way. Maybe you can find a better way" Mild critiques. Not assassination attempts to silence political speech, like you made examples of. Not burning books. Not accusing them of being horrible people who deserve to be shamed. The simple idea that we can tell artists "We don't think content like that is appropriate any more and we don't want it. We don't think these matters are for comedy which only punches down." If a publisher decides not to publish my book because they don't think it will sell. That isn't censorship. You can't force them to publish a book. You cannot compel speech. And that means you have to accept that we can say "No, we don't think this is right" without hounding us about the death of art because we are censoring people. Art will continue. Art has always continued. Art has survived over twelve thousand years of human history. It can survive a mild "do better" from time to time. *Unless you define censorship as saying, before a work is published, "you shouldn't make that". If that is censorship to you, then Hollywood is one of the most censored locations for media on the planet. Because they have entire departments devoted to "you shouldn't make that" based on sales, common sense, legally binding contracts, ect. I don't define censorship that way. That isn't what censorship is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dragonlance Brings New Options to D&D
Top