Quote from: yosemitemike on December 12, 2023, 10:26:12 PM
It's pretty obvious.  The fact that women outnumber men in marketing and advertising disproves the idea that bias is suppressing the participation of women in marketing and advertising. 

How does it prove that? Are most lawyers criminals? Is a butcher a cow?

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 04:34:11 PM
How does it prove that? Are most lawyers criminals? Is a butcher a cow?

I worked for a marketing company for 12 years; it's like 99% women and a few dudes who think like women, for the most part. Marketing is about convincing people to buy worthless crap, which means if you want to make any money you do whatever it takes or the client fires you. Bullshit woke marketing doesn't sell anything; it placates the morons on social media, alienates the people with money, and pisses off your clients because the dollars just don't appear in their ledgers.

Anyway, the notion that women are suppressed in marketing is absurd on its face. Dudes will buy beer if a hot girl in bikini is in an ad because he wants to be with the girl, and girls will also buy the beer because they want to be the bikini girl. Years and years of research has proven this. Woke morons crying about it on Twitter doesn't make this false. At all.

RE: lawyers, yes, they are in fact all criminals.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 04:34:11 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 12, 2023, 10:26:12 PM
It's pretty obvious.  The fact that women outnumber men in marketing and advertising disproves the idea that bias is suppressing the participation of women in marketing and advertising. 

How does it prove that? Are most lawyers criminals? Is a butcher a cow?

I have no idea what argument you are even trying to make with this nonsense.  Here's the bottom line.  Marketing and advertising are female dominated professions so, obviously, the participation of women in these professions is not being suppressed.  If there are more men than women in a profession. then obviously women are not being kept out of that profession.  How does it prove that?  Are you simple? 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 13, 2023, 02:44:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 13, 2023, 12:35:22 PM
If you want to say that WotC is a soulless corporation churning out generic content where every third book has a token progressive inclusion hidden somewhere in it, then fine. If you want to say that WotC is represents progressive values, then I'm going to disagree.

...
The rulebooks: Removing race because raicismism, removing races because some asshole said it was a minstrel (meaning black people), subreptitiosly changing the text in the PDFs, hiring politikal komissars (sensitivity readers AKA censors)... Woke

Including combat wheelchairs... Woke

I'm sure you'd love to focus in just the one thing, but we're not talking about just the one book here, we're talking about WotC being woke, I think I've made my case, you're free to disagree but you can't deny the evidence.

I can deny the evidence if it's wrong. Specifically - where in any WotC product is there a combat wheelchair? I know Pundit claimed that the combat wheelchair was in Candlekeep Mysteries, but I bought that book and found no combat wheelchair and no wheelchairs of any kind in either the text or illustrations.

I understand you classify based on your own test - i.e. even the smallest nod to wokism (you said 1% was too much), and the work is tainted - and that's your preference. Still, for clarity in communication, I'd want to know what the vast majority of the gaming content of a book is like.

For me, what I care about in an RPG book is how useful the gaming content is for my gaming. If something is 99% useful material and 1% dreck, I'll ignore the 1% and use the rest. I usually ignore more than 1% of a game book in any case.

Quote from: jhkim on December 14, 2023, 06:41:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 13, 2023, 02:44:36 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 13, 2023, 12:35:22 PM
If you want to say that WotC is a soulless corporation churning out generic content where every third book has a token progressive inclusion hidden somewhere in it, then fine. If you want to say that WotC is represents progressive values, then I'm going to disagree.

...
The rulebooks: Removing race because raicismism, removing races because some asshole said it was a minstrel (meaning black people), subreptitiosly changing the text in the PDFs, hiring politikal komissars (sensitivity readers AKA censors)... Woke

Including combat wheelchairs... Woke

I'm sure you'd love to focus in just the one thing, but we're not talking about just the one book here, we're talking about WotC being woke, I think I've made my case, you're free to disagree but you can't deny the evidence.

I can deny the evidence if it's wrong. Specifically - where in any WotC product is there a combat wheelchair? I know Pundit claimed that the combat wheelchair was in Candlekeep Mysteries, but I bought that book and found no combat wheelchair and no wheelchairs of any kind in either the text or illustrations.

I understand you classify based on your own test - i.e. even the smallest nod to wokism (you said 1% was too much), and the work is tainted - and that's your preference. Still, for clarity in communication, I'd want to know what the vast majority of the gaming content of a book is like.

For me, what I care about in an RPG book is how useful the gaming content is for my gaming. If something is 99% useful material and 1% dreck, I'll ignore the 1% and use the rest. I usually ignore more than 1% of a game book in any case.

The adventure was made wheelchair accessible.  The actual combat wheelchair was a free release as part of the promotional effort for Candlekeep.  WOTC adapted it from a homebrew done by a disability "advocate."

Quote from: BadApple on December 14, 2023, 07:07:48 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 14, 2023, 06:41:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 13, 2023, 02:44:36 PM
Including combat wheelchairs... Woke

I can deny the evidence if it's wrong. Specifically - where in any WotC product is there a combat wheelchair? I know Pundit claimed that the combat wheelchair was in Candlekeep Mysteries, but I bought that book and found no combat wheelchair and no wheelchairs of any kind in either the text or illustrations.

The adventure was made wheelchair accessible.  The actual combat wheelchair was a free release as part of the promotional effort for Candlekeep.  WOTC adapted it from a homebrew done by a disability "advocate."

This is false. The adventure in question is "The Canopic Being" by Jennifer Kretchmer. The entrance to the dungeon is down a ladder. Page 173, "Below the trapdoor is a 5-foot-diameter stone-walled well with a sturdy wooden ladder. The well descends 20 feet before opening up into a 40-foot-square chamber whose walls and floors are worked stone." The dungeon interior does have ramps, but it is based on Egyptian tombs, which in the real world also have ramps.

Also, WotC have never released any adaptation or promotion of a combat wheelchair that I've seen. There is a homebrew combat wheelchair by Sara Thompson, but it was never adapted or released by WotC. If you have the release, then please link it.

I know relatively little about the wheelchair accessible dungeons side of things. That said, I personally would roughly classify as woke that which is based around preferring active unequal treatment on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, or similar such immutable categories, with the exclusion of more traditional racism, sexism, and the like for obvious reasons (the woke play different favorites). Typically with the intention of correcting a perceived imbalance, though I won't include intent as a hard part of the equation. Specific types of inequality under the law are arguably woke trends expressed politically. (ex: Race based financial aid to farmers that doesn't factor in need, existing for a time under the Biden administration before the courts struck it down.)

What then makes a corporation woke? I'd say that sure, hiring for authorship with race as a required credential would qualify, and WotC indeed does that, and has mentioned doing that specifically as part of its advertising. Likewise, supporting through product sales various causes with firm woke affiliations, while trumpeting such causes as a matter of corporate concern. If a bundle goes to equity, which is by definition unequal treatment on the basis of inherent qualities, then that counts for me. The corporation is woke, even if the product may not contain explicit messaging. I do personally think a lot of WotC and other corporate products are dog whistles to that crowd, with things like Thirsty Sword Lesbians going a smidge beyond that probably. But that aside, I do actually think that censorship with woke values in mind (ex: getting rid of the words tribe and slavery, for affiliated reasons) produces products that are, while perhaps not woke in messaging, censored in a woke manner by a woke corporation. Who if you fund them, will likely spend said money at least in part on furthering said ideology. And it may eventually come to damage the hobby and the inclusivity of its culture too. Such as by passing limits on who is and is not welcome at your table, and what can and cannot be said there, with a distinction of by who, or rather what held identity, espouses these positions, as given by the book's very rules. (Looking at you, Rokugan.) Or by determining who can and cannot speak at conventions on the basis of what political creed they follow. Or by banning roughly half of America from major forum sites like RPG.net on account of their being roughly Republican.

That said, sure I'm concerned about the rise of woke values more generally within the corporate sphere. With the caveat that obviously they have a right to speak their piece and to free speech as well. Doesn't mean I have to like or agree with what they say, or support their products, but I will absolutely give them that. That said, when race is a requirement for authorship I'm concerned and think it crosses a line. When hiring emphasizes immutable characteristics, whether with hopeful intentions or otherwise, I am concerned and feel it can go too far. When owned pdfs are edited without their owners' active consent, I find it deceptive and sketchy business practice. When alleged statistical sales and profitability are misleading, and market distortion occurs, in conjunction with notable online corporate censorship and libel, well... I dislike the former bits, and think the latter two items might actually be the sort of things that should be actively addressed. When this is all government subsidized via current law listing ESG as the ONLY alternative to profit in investing other folks' money, that potentially matters. And with things like all of that, it becomes more than just an issue of folks writing things in books that I don't like, and hence me just being recommended not to buy them.

Quote from: KindaMeh on December 14, 2023, 07:41:20 PM
I know relatively little about the wheelchair accessible dungeons side of things. That said, I personally would roughly classify as woke that which is based around preferring active unequal treatment on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, or similar such immutable categories, with the exclusion of more traditional racism, sexism, and the like for obvious reasons (the woke play different favorites). Typically with the intention of correcting a perceived imbalance, though I won't include intent as a hard part of the equation. Specific types of inequality under the law are arguably woke trends expressed politically. (ex: Race based financial aid to farmers that doesn't factor in need, existing for a time under the Biden administration before the courts struck it down.)

What then makes a corporation woke? I'd say that sure, hiring for authorship with race as a required credential would qualify, and WotC indeed does that, and has mentioned doing that specifically as part of its advertising. Likewise, supporting through product sales various causes with firm woke affiliations, while trumpeting such causes as a matter of corporate concern. If a bundle goes to equity, which is by definition unequal treatment on the basis of inherent qualities, then that counts for me. The corporation is woke, even if the product may not contain explicit messaging. I do personally think a lot of WotC and other corporate products are dog whistles to that crowd, with things like Thirsty Sword Lesbians going a smidge beyond that probably. But that aside, I do actually think that censorship with woke values in mind (ex: getting rid of the words tribe and slavery, for affiliated reasons) produces products that are, while perhaps not woke in messaging, censored in a woke manner by a woke corporation. Who if you fund them, will likely spend said money at least in part on furthering said ideology. And it may eventually come to damage the hobby and the inclusivity of its culture too. Such as by passing limits on who is and is not welcome at your table, and what can and cannot be said there, with a distinction of by who, or rather what held identity, espouses these positions, as given by the book's very rules. (Looking at you, Rokugan.) Or by determining who can and cannot speak at conventions on the basis of what political creed they follow. Or by banning roughly half of America from major forum sites like RPG.net on account of their being roughly Republican.

That said, sure I'm concerned about the rise of woke values more generally within the corporate sphere. With the caveat that obviously they have a right to speak their piece and to free speech as well. Doesn't mean I have to like or agree with what they say, or support their products, but I will absolutely give them that. That said, when race is a requirement for authorship I'm concerned and think it crosses a line. When hiring emphasizes immutable characteristics, whether with hopeful intentions or otherwise, I am concerned and feel it can go too far. When owned pdfs are edited without their owners' active consent, I find it deceptive and sketchy business practice. When alleged statistical sales and profitability are misleading, and market distortion occurs, in conjunction with notable online corporate censorship and libel, well... I dislike the former bits, and think the latter two items might actually be the sort of things that should be actively addressed. When this is all government subsidized via current law listing ESG as the ONLY alternative to profit in investing other folks' money, that potentially matters. And with things like all of that, it becomes more than just an issue of folks writing things in books that I don't like, and hence me just being recommended not to buy them.

"But this book!" Jhkim probably.

If you take race, gender, sexuality into consideration in your hiring practices IDGAFF what your intentions are, it's discrimination and in the US (and my country) illegal. It's not that it can go too far, it has already crossed the line into "No, GFY".

WotC IS Woke, because of all of those and then some, IDGAFF if their books contain 1% wokery or none, why should I support a corporation that hates me for my skin color, religion, sex and sexuality?

And no Jhkim, "there's only 1%, there's no X" isn't proof it isn't woke, you keep trying to deflect to one book and point that it isn't, it has ONLY 1% or it doesn't have X, as if any of that (even if true) cancels all of the above, hint: It doesn't.

Quote from: jhkim on December 14, 2023, 07:40:37 PM

Quote from: BadApple on December 14, 2023, 07:07:48 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 14, 2023, 06:41:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 13, 2023, 02:44:36 PM
Including combat wheelchairs... Woke

I can deny the evidence if it's wrong. Specifically - where in any WotC product is there a combat wheelchair? I know Pundit claimed that the combat wheelchair was in Candlekeep Mysteries, but I bought that book and found no combat wheelchair and no wheelchairs of any kind in either the text or illustrations.

The adventure was made wheelchair accessible.  The actual combat wheelchair was a free release as part of the promotional effort for Candlekeep.  WOTC adapted it from a homebrew done by a disability "advocate."

This is false. The adventure in question is "The Canopic Being" by Jennifer Kretchmer. The entrance to the dungeon is down a ladder. Page 173, "Below the trapdoor is a 5-foot-diameter stone-walled well with a sturdy wooden ladder. The well descends 20 feet before opening up into a 40-foot-square chamber whose walls and floors are worked stone." The dungeon interior does have ramps, but it is based on Egyptian tombs, which in the real world also have ramps.

Also, WotC have never released any adaptation or promotion of a combat wheelchair that I've seen. There is a homebrew combat wheelchair by Sara Thompson, but it was never adapted or released by WotC. If you have the release, then please link it.

I never looked at Candlekeep myself.  I quit looking at the new WOTC books after Tasha's.  I do remember there being a lot of marketing for Candlekeep and there were references to it being "the first official wheelchair accessible adventure" and such.  Polygon and The Nerdist covered it at the time so I'm sure the articles are still around.  I remember the four page 8.5x11 pamphlet at the LGS being passed around for the wheel chair and it looked official.  None of it appealed to me so I didn't look very carefully.

For me, the funniest thing about it all was the image of someone climbing a wall with a rope while being seated in a wheel chair.  Why wouldn't you pull yourself up without the chair and then pull up the chair?

Yeah, go too far is bad phrasing. I didn't mean to say that hiring discrimination of that sort is ever a positive. I was leaving an out for hiring folks more equally after bad prior practice, and correcting sketchy hiring practices if they were to do that, but that was a pretty terrible thing for me to state even inadvertently.

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 14, 2023, 06:14:41 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 04:34:11 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 12, 2023, 10:26:12 PM
It's pretty obvious.  The fact that women outnumber men in marketing and advertising disproves the idea that bias is suppressing the participation of women in marketing and advertising. 

How does it prove that? Are most lawyers criminals? Is a butcher a cow?

I have no idea what argument you are even trying to make with this nonsense.  Here's the bottom line.  Marketing and advertising are female dominated professions so, obviously, the participation of women in these professions is not being suppressed.  If there are more men than women in a profession. then obviously women are not being kept out of that profession.  How does it prove that?  Are you simple?

So if marketing execs are 90% female, does that mean they are targeting a 90% female audience? People work in marketing because their skills are useful. Actually, the reason women are so highly represented in marketing is because they are discriminated against in finance, so it's one of the few avenues open to women who are interested in executive positions.

EDIT: Anyway the numbers people are throwing around are probably way off. It's apparently closer to fifty-fifty, naturally, with men overrepresented in the highest positions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/marketing-industry-sexism-brandsplaining.html

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 08:09:27 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 14, 2023, 06:14:41 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 04:34:11 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 12, 2023, 10:26:12 PM
It's pretty obvious.  The fact that women outnumber men in marketing and advertising disproves the idea that bias is suppressing the participation of women in marketing and advertising. 

How does it prove that? Are most lawyers criminals? Is a butcher a cow?

I have no idea what argument you are even trying to make with this nonsense.  Here's the bottom line.  Marketing and advertising are female dominated professions so, obviously, the participation of women in these professions is not being suppressed.  If there are more men than women in a profession. then obviously women are not being kept out of that profession.  How does it prove that?  Are you simple?

So if marketing execs are 90% female, does that mean they are targeting a 90% female audience? People work in marketing because their skills are useful. Actually, the reason women are so highly represented in marketing is because they are discriminated against in finance, so it's one of the few avenues open to women who are interested in executive positions.

EDIT: Anyway the numbers people are throwing around are probably way off. It's apparently closer to fifty-fifty, naturally, with men overrepresented in the highest positions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/marketing-industry-sexism-brandsplaining.html

Give it a rest guys, when arguing with a cultist you can't ever win, everything can be explained with their demon of the gaps (Patriarchy), even if they can't prove anything you plug one hole and they see two new ones, reminds me of the YEC arguing against evolution.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 08:09:27 PM

So if marketing execs are 90% female, does that mean they are targeting a 90% female audience? People work in marketing because their skills are useful.

No one said anything even vaguely like that.  You can market to people who aren't just like you.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 08:09:27 PM
Actually, the reason women are so highly represented in marketing is because they are discriminated against in finance, so it's one of the few avenues open to women who are interested in executive positions.

That's false too.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1250206/gender-marketing-north-america/

You can always tell someone who is defending an ideologically motivated assumption.  Their arguments change as they are shot down but their conclusion never shifts no matter how much contradictory evidence is presented.

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 14, 2023, 09:31:11 PM
No one said anything even vaguely like that.  You can market to people who aren't just like you.

So what I hear you saying is that the demographics of who works in marketing doesn't really anything about the demographics of their audience, or what ideologies, cultural aspects, or implicit biases they may be conveying.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 14, 2023, 08:22:32 PM
Give it a rest guys, when arguing with a cultist you can't ever win, everything can be explained with their demon of the gaps (Patriarchy), even if they can't prove anything you plug one hole and they see two new ones, reminds me of the YEC arguing against evolution.

That's right. Give up now. Surrender.

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 14, 2023, 09:31:11 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 08:09:27 PM

So if marketing execs are 90% female, does that mean they are targeting a 90% female audience? People work in marketing because their skills are useful.

No one said anything even vaguely like that.  You can market to people who aren't just like you.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 14, 2023, 08:09:27 PM
Actually, the reason women are so highly represented in marketing is because they are discriminated against in finance, so it's one of the few avenues open to women who are interested in executive positions.

That's false too.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1250206/gender-marketing-north-america/

You can always tell someone who is defending an ideologically motivated assumption.  Their arguments change as they are shot down but their conclusion never shifts no matter how much contradictory evidence is presented.

You're arguing with a cultist, it's their demon of the gaps, you plug one and they see two new ones that are of course filled by Teh Patriarchy TM.

As with any cult, their demon is omnipresent, omnipotent and omnisapient but can't be falsified.