REHowardfanatic wrote:This current trend in media, in general, and D&D/gaming, in specific, has nothing to do with inclusivity. I thought that point had been made and agreed upon.
This is me disagreeing.
The marketing experts on this thread (me included) have responded in support of this. LGBT issues are huge in marketing right now. And it's not driven by corporate senses of inclusivity. If you believe large corporations are motivated by something other than profit, your position could use some work IMO.
Far, far too many diverse groups were left out of the grandiose bull&h!t sidebar for that to be true even by the most liberal of all possible definitions.
Aergraith wrote:That doesn't really make any sense. The sentiment is worthless because it's not encyclopedic?
This is a blatant strawman. No one is asking that it be encyclopedic. WotC/Paizo has painfully singled out one group (LGBT) for inclusion, but not others. There's quite a big area between one group and encyclopedic.
Aergraith wrote:Politically neutral in this case seems to mean GLBT people are okay as long as we don't discuss them or portray them in our games. The tenor of this whole thread seems to have some kind of dog whistle double meaning.
I think you're missing the obvious corollary here. People would be commenting on the exploitative nature of any group they chose to single out for inclusion. It only seems like this to you because they only singled out LGBT. NObody on this thread is singling out LGBT, but only responding to the fact that WotC chose to. Does that makes sense? If they had pushed some other marketing message that was awkward in the same way, people would call them out on it. Then someone could accuse that person of saying that particular issue is fine as long as it's not mentioned. Also, the words "dog whistle" are a dog whistle as far as I'm concerned. It's a loaded term that accuses someone of saying thing with double speak in a way that only others similarly bigoted would understand. It's accusatory but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's a current buzzword and I've seen others use it without realizing its connotations.
Oh-- Do not call others prejudiced because you do not agree with them. It is prejudiced to do so.
Aergraith wrote:I see what you did there. Wait, no, what?
I felt your words were accusing prejudice. But that's just my opinion.
This is my last post on this thread, which I started. As a joke. Thank you, intenet for proving once again that you possess all the humor of a bloody knife being wiped on a dead girl's dress.
Aergraith wrote:Um, you are welcome? I am not sure what to say to that.
Yeah, I"m not sure what ot say either.
Aergraith wrote:I thought WoTCs attempt was awkward, but I start twitching when I see people getting upset about the general sentiment; the idea that as far as we can say such a thing in a game book, this is a safe place for all types of people. Whatever you've heard about our community, our ideal is that you are welcome at our table.
First, I don't think anyone on this thread has gotten upset, and certainly not about "the general sentiment" which I think we all strongly support. I'm curious who you're talking about as far as getting upset and "making you twitch". Second, Oh if only that is what they had done. I wish they had done that. Rather than exploit a current hot marketing tactic. I think it would have achieved exactly the goal you and I both agree on (gaming should be inclusive!) without singling out one particularly hot marketing demo to make WotC appear to be engaging in lazy bandwagon marketing at best and blatant exploitation at worst. Fortunately for WotC most people are not yet wise to this and take it as wotc hopes, as an olive branch to disenfranchised gamers without stopping to question why they only offered one olive branch where there are dozens of misunderstood demographics that are easily turned off gaming due to perceived prejudice in the hobby.