Quote from: VisionStorm;1140683I agree. People who refuse to give their money to, associate with or promote those who treat them like shit and/or promote an antagonistic political agenda are 100% the same as those who go out of their to--not only disassociate with--but attempt to outright cancel and smear people or products that merely fail to conform with their political agenda (sometimes in a strictly superficial or entirely subjective way). These two things are 100% analogous and not in any conceivable way falsely equivalent.

Oh please. There is a lot of smearing and canceling people here who are perceived to be SJW in the RPG field. It's so routine it's like a sport around here. SJW is wrongthink around here, and any publisher which appears to embrace SJW thoughts are considered wrongthink which should be cancelled and smeared. Any writer or artist who is also a SJW is to be smeared and canceled too. And their products are "fired" and their companies are "fired" by those who are against SJWs.

It is the same place, it's just uncomfortable for you to face that fact.

Fuck all y'all for telling me what I should and should not buy based on anything other than whether the product itself is good or not for my tastes and needs. Fuck SJWs for telling me not to buy Vornheim because Zak is bad even though Vornheim is a helpful product for my games. Fuck you guys for telling me not to buy 5e because Jeremy Crawford is bad even though 5e is a good helpful product for my games.

Fuck you guys for your moralizing and orthodoxy while you pretend it's not moralizing and orthodoxy.  Sell me on the RPG product being good or bad, not the author or publisher and your personal ethical stances about them.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1140683I agree. People who refuse to give their money to, associate with or promote those who treat them like shit and/or promote an antagonistic political agenda are 100% the same as those who go out of their to--not only disassociate with--but attempt to outright cancel and smear people or products that merely fail to conform with their political agenda (sometimes in a strictly superficial or entirely subjective way). These two things are 100% analogous and not in any conceivable way falsely equivalent.

Wait a minute, you dont think they are the same at all!  o_O

Quote from: Shasarak;1140688Wait a minute, you dont think they are the same at all!  o_O

You guys are just arguing essentially about percentages. You think SJWs are x% worse at moralizing to others than you. As if that makes it "OK" that you're x%  better, even though you're still doing what they do just to a lesser degree. All of you are making the same "It's good to be intolerant of the intolerant" argument to justify your bad behavior.

Quote from: Mistwell;1140687Oh please. There is a lot of smearing and canceling people here who are perceived to be SJW in the RPG field. It's so routine it's like a sport around here. SJW is wrongthink around here, and any publisher which appears to embrace SJW thoughts are considered wrongthink which should be cancelled and smeared. Any writer or artist who is also a SJW is to be smeared and canceled too. And their products are "fired" and their companies are "fired" by those who are against SJWs.

It is the same place, it's just uncomfortable for you to face that fact.

Fuck all y'all for telling me what I should and should not buy based on anything other than whether the product itself is good or not for my tastes and needs. Fuck SJWs for telling me not to buy Vornheim because Zak is bad even though Vornheim is a helpful product for my games. Fuck you guys for telling me not to buy 5e because Jeremy Crawford is bad even though 5e is a good helpful product for my games.

Fuck you guys for your moralizing and orthodoxy while you pretend it's not moralizing and orthodoxy.  Sell me on the RPG product being good or bad, not the author or publisher and your personal ethical stances about them.

Like I was saying, I am in complete agreement. These two groups are obviously two sides of the exact same coin. When one group of people goes out of their way to promote their political agenda and involuntarily deputize the whole of society and all industries within it--and even imagine transgressions in various works of FICTION (such as RPG books) that aren't really there and persecute people for imaginary crimes--and then another group says "STOP!" and refuses to budge an inch without ever pushing their own politics, but merely opposing those insistent on ramming their politics down everyone else's throats and refusing to support them or their allies who enable them. Those two groups are obviously the same thing and operating under the exact same motivations and moralizing framework. And there is no distinction between them whatsoever.

One side is equally as guilty as the other and they're both trying to boycott and cancel, and force things on others in equal measure without distinction between the two. Fuck both these identical sides for equally moralizing and equally telling us not to buy RPG books for the exact same reasons!

Quote from: Shasarak;1140688Wait a minute, you dont think they are the same at all!  o_O

I have no clue what you’re talking about. I’m being completely ingenuous here, just like Mistwell!

Yes to all of that, Mistwell and VisionStorm.

The thing I'll give to rpgsite, though, is that while you might be insulted and attacked, you won't be moderated or banned for wrongthink. An important distinction, I'd say.

Let's leave aside the question of motivation and look exclusively at action. There are four actions:

1) Deciding not to buy a product;
2) Deciding not to buy a product and recommending others also not buy it;
3) Deciding not to buy a product and attempting to prevent others from being able to buy a product; and
4) Deciding not to buy a product and attempting to punish those who do buy it or enjoy it.

These are different actions. They do not have the same consequences for you, others, or the product maker.

If one wants to argue that the four actions are morally identical, then one must have a moral framework that says that action and consequences are irrelevant. That seems to be what Mistwell is arguing: only intent (moralizing) matters and hence right-wingers who do #1 and SJWs who do #4 are morally identical. I won't argue with Mistwell on that, he is entitled to whatever moral philosophy he espouses and he lays it out well.

I will say that I, personally, consider the nature of an action and its consequences to be morally relevant. Therefore I draw a sharp distinction between each category. I frequently engage in #1 on the basis of personal grudges, e.g. I don't give money to people who hate me. But I try not to do #2 even against people who hate me; I only offer public critique on the merits of the product itself ("this is a bad product" not "this product was made by a bad person"). I try never to do #3 or #4 at all.

Quote from: Mistwell;1140687Fuck all y'all for telling me what I should and should not buy based on anything other than whether the product itself is good or not for my tastes and needs.

Nobody is telling you what to buy or play. Have fun choking down as much WotC/Paizo/Chaosium/etc bullshit as you can.

The discussion has been for people who are sick of the woke garbage to consider other options.

If you're happy with woke garbage, enjoy! There's a cornucopia of woke nonsense offered by publishers big and small for those who want that in their purchases.

And nobody here is cancelling the woke fucks. This isn't even about boycotts. It's about shifting personal economics and attention.

It's simply discussing the concept of "Hey, good RPG products are being made by people who don't hate us. Let's give them our money, time and energy instead."

Quote from: Mistwell;1140687Oh please. There is a lot of smearing and canceling people here who are perceived to be SJW in the RPG field. It's so routine it's like a sport around here. SJW is wrongthink around here, and any publisher which appears to embrace SJW thoughts are considered wrongthink which should be cancelled and smeared. Any writer or artist who is also a SJW is to be smeared and canceled too. And their products are "fired" and their companies are "fired" by those who are against SJWs.

It is the same place, it's just uncomfortable for you to face that fact.

Fuck all y'all for telling me what I should and should not buy based on anything other than whether the product itself is good or not for my tastes and needs. Fuck SJWs for telling me not to buy Vornheim because Zak is bad even though Vornheim is a helpful product for my games. Fuck you guys for telling me not to buy 5e because Jeremy Crawford is bad even though 5e is a good helpful product for my games.

Fuck you guys for your moralizing and orthodoxy while you pretend it's not moralizing and orthodoxy.  Sell me on the RPG product being good or bad, not the author or publisher and your personal ethical stances about them.

Nobody here is telling you to do anything. Your whining about how rpgsite is just like the SJWs! gets funnier everytime I see it, because you're obviously just pissed off and blindly flailing, hoping to score a point.

It's not the same behavior. I can't discuss ACKs products on SJW rpg sites without a ban, but I can discuss and promote WoTC products here. Also I've seen props given here to a couple RPG authors who may be considered 'left', but decide to keep all politics out of their products and discussion groups. For the typical SJW if you're apolitical then you're just another right winger.

Quote from: Mistwell;1140676Yes. I know. That seems to be the prominent opinion around here. It's coming from the same place as liberals who are boycotting companies for what they perceive as wrongthing. It's just each side thinks different stuff is wrongthink. And I don't give a damn about what either side thinks is wrongthink.

You missed half the quote; had I not been around here more than a couple days, I'd have assumed you only read the first paragraph, rather than think you were making a (poor) strawman to make a point.  Refresher below.

Quote from: LiferGamer;1140665Even if I like the product I will no longer give money to a company that flips the bird to customers that are guilty of 'wrongthink'.  

Now if they have a 'neutral' public face, I don't necessarily care what they do or believe; as long as it doesn't 'bleed into' the product where it feels out of place/jarring.  If their alleged medieval fantasy game is actually post-modern commentary and Burger Kings Kids Klub one-of-everything-diversity where it doesn't make sense, I'm out.  Likewise, if its Sons of Jesus Bible studies Battles, hard pass.

Quote from: Mistwell;1140687
Fuck all y'all for your personal ethical stances about them.

Fuck you in particular for deliberately cherry-picking and misrepresenting what people ARE saying.

Quote from: amacris;1140732Let's leave aside the question of motivation and look exclusively at action. There are four actions:

1) Deciding not to buy a product;
2) Deciding not to buy a product and recommending others also not buy it;
3) Deciding not to buy a product and attempting to prevent others from being able to buy a product; and
4) Deciding not to buy a product and attempting to punish those who do buy it or enjoy it.

These are different actions. They do not have the same consequences for you, others, or the product maker.

If one wants to argue that the four actions are morally identical, then one must have a moral framework that says that action and consequences are irrelevant. That seems to be what Mistwell is arguing: only intent (moralizing) matters and hence right-wingers who do #1 and SJWs who do #4 are morally identical. I won't argue with Mistwell on that, he is entitled to whatever moral philosophy he espouses and he lays it out well.

I will say that I, personally, consider the nature of an action and its consequences to be morally relevant. Therefore I draw a sharp distinction between each category. I frequently engage in #1 on the basis of personal grudges, e.g. I don't give money to people who hate me. But I try not to do #2 even against people who hate me; I only offer public critique on the merits of the product itself ("this is a bad product" not "this product was made by a bad person"). I try never to do #3 or #4 at all.

This is good, but I'm pretty sure that this is one of the few forums where you can do action 1a)

1a) Deciding not to buy a product and explaining to those interested in reading it, why you made that decision;

Quote from: amacris;1140732Let's leave aside the question of motivation and look exclusively at action. There are four actions:

1) Deciding not to buy a product;
2) Deciding not to buy a product and recommending others also not buy it;
3) Deciding not to buy a product and attempting to prevent others from being able to buy a product; and
4) Deciding not to buy a product and attempting to punish those who do buy it or enjoy it.

These are different actions. They do not have the same consequences for you, others, or the product maker.

If one wants to argue that the four actions are morally identical, then one must have a moral framework that says that action and consequences are irrelevant. That seems to be what Mistwell is arguing: only intent (moralizing) matters and hence right-wingers who do #1 and SJWs who do #4 are morally identical. I won't argue with Mistwell on that, he is entitled to whatever moral philosophy he espouses and he lays it out well.

I will say that I, personally, consider the nature of an action and its consequences to be morally relevant. Therefore I draw a sharp distinction between each category. I frequently engage in #1 on the basis of personal grudges, e.g. I don't give money to people who hate me. But I try not to do #2 even against people who hate me; I only offer public critique on the merits of the product itself ("this is a bad product" not "this product was made by a bad person"). I try never to do #3 or #4 at all.

Very well said. This is by and large my position also.
I am less charitable and think Mistwell's position comes across as wrongheaded at best, cynical Alinskyite tactics ("Always hold them to their own standards") at worst.

I will confess to buying 2e's 25th anniversary edition of house of strahd soley for the map of castle ravenloft.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1140768I will confess to buying 2e's 25th anniversary edition of house of strahd soley for the map of castle ravenloft.

Oh! Public confessional!

I confess that I recently ordered POD of the Premium Reprints of the 1e PHB, MM, and DMG, as I lost my originals in one of my two broke-as-hell games purges a couple of decades ago.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1140438Unfortunately for them I'll not turn down a good product even if the author murders trans-tiefling kittens for fun on live tv. If Hitler himself made a decent module (mein kampf is unreadable trash and not a module) I'd play that shit too, same for stalin or even satan. There is a certain sense of relevance that must apply for me, what an author does in their spare time is to me completely irrelevant. Putting woke pride parades in the gaming product would be relevant and a reason to boycott, putting promotion of real world racial superiority of some sort in the product would be relevant; the author saying stupid shit outside of that, or beating their wifes son, or donating money to whatever is simply not relevant. Putting an admonition in the product that i should support either hitler or stalin would be relevant.

I will not acknowledge as valid the notion that one should be able to cancel production of a product because of things not relevant to that product. Adults are expected to keep their personal beliefs separate from their professional duties, not demand the duties change to dovetail with the beliefs; (a cop might believe all trans people should be exterminated but is expected to treat them the same as any other person, to view it any other way demands thought policing) I expect a similar paradigm in producing gaming content; shit not directly relevant to the game or its products gets dismissed, "oh pundit once said a mean thing about gays we must no longer allow his products to be sold"...uh no, unless he said it IN the gaming product I don't care and you should be forced to buy his product to atone for the attempt at thought policing.

I hope this is all relevant and in line with the topic and doesn't cross the no-politics line.

I would ideally like this to be my stance as well, but unfortunately I couldn't live up to it.  I really wanted the Maze of the Blue Medusa, for example, but didn't buy it for a long time because I didn't like the idea of putting money in Zak S's pocket.  I just recently did get it by telling myself that I was putting money in the pocket of Patrick Stuart.  I really don't like the idea of giving my money to someone who is repugnant to me, even if the product that person produced is a good one.

I am having this same problem right now with Shadow of the Demon Lord.  I have been searching for a new fantasy RPG and was in the process of settling on Shadow of the Demon Lord, went to Schwalb Entertainment's website and saw his post of the receipt for his donation to the bail project.  The game may be great, but I can't stomach the idea of giving him more money to donate to BLM.  Besides which, I find posting the receipts of your donations on your website to be a disgusting display of self aggrandizement and virtue signaling.  I make donations now and then to causes I find worthy, but I don't feel the need to trumpet them to the world.

However, I do stop at the point of cancelling or censoring someone.  While I may not personally want to buy a game made by someone I have problems with, I absolutely don't want that person's games to be taken off the shelves or off Drivethrurpg.