A Difficult Look at the Other Side of Inclusion in Gaming
This is going to be ugly. This is going to be controversial. I’m going to take a lot of flak. I’m ready for it. And be warned: if you want to call me out on what I have to say, be ready for a tough fight. It probably isn’t worth your time and its probably going to make you angry. Do not expect apologies. Also, this is a departure from my usual shtick. It is no accident that I don’t usually weigh in on social issues. So, some of my usual readers might want to give this one a pass.
I’m weighing here on the topic of inclusion and D&D, most recently discussed in Geeky Lyndsay‘s excellent and well-written article at This is My Game (hosted by ThadeousC). And I truly believe it is a well-done piece. And I agree with the spirit of the article, insofar as the spirit of the article is about treating people with respect and that the only thing required for injustice to thrive is for good people to sit idly by and do nothing. In my life, I try to stand up for those who are being treated unfairly. I’m not perfect. I won’t claim to be a paragon of virtue. But I try to be aware of what I can do. And when I fail to do what I should have done, I make a conscious effort to improve myself. That is the best that can be asked of any human being.
I’ve already made it clear why I object to the language used in Lyndsay’s post in the comments section there. It seems that, whenever the topic of inclusion in D&D comes up, it is always about a particular marginalized (or apparently marginalized group) reminding me that social inequalities exist, they are wrong, and they shouldn’t be allowed at my table. Of course inequalities exist. I’m not stupid. And my table is an environment I can control so I can make sure the inequalities don’t rear their ugly heads. I don’t disagree. What I disagree with is the division of victims of inequality and disrespect. Group A, group B, group C, they never get a fair shake, so we have to fix that.
There are two fundamental problems with this approach. First, it encourages division instead of equality. Whenever someone says “as a woman, I have a right to a safe, respectful, and comfortable environment,” that reinforces the idea that this is a unique problem to women. Or blacks. Or Latinos. Or homosexuals. Or people from New Jersey. Whatever. The correct statement is, and always will be, “as a human being, I have a right to a safe, respectful, and comfortable environment.” Second, but closely related, there is also a strong implication that if you are not a part of one of those particular, recognized groups, your problem is personal, not social. But I don’t want to flog that horse anymore except to say this: if you say you have been mistreated, you will find me a staunch ally. However, if you try draw a line between me and you and tell me that I have a moral imperative to help you because you are part of some particular group, you will mark yourself in my eyes as an unwitting part of the problem. And I won’t want to share your side.
What I do want to address is a misplaced sense of entitlement hinted at in posts like Lyndsay’s, a mistaken belief that you have a inalienable right to be a part of my social circle.
Let’s get this straight right now: this thing that we refer to as the “gaming community” doesn’t exist. It’s not an organization or a company. Its not a governed group. There are no rules for membership. Its just a whole bunch of individuals who happen to have exactly ONE interest in common: we all like to pretend to kill orcs for gold every week or so. Beyond the fact that we all have one common interest we can talk about (and talk about a hell of a lot), its not a thing. Its just thousands of little clubs and hundreds of thousands of little people all over the world. Do I want more people out there gaming? Yes. Absolutely. I want to be able to find players. I want new ideas and innovations to flow into the games we play. I want to make new friends with the same common interest. But do I have a duty to it? No. No one does. At the end of the day, those who want to “improve the community” do so because they choose to. For whatever idealistic or selfish reasons they want. But there is no duty, no moral imperative, and no enforcement, no rules for entry or exit into the community.
Why is there no duty? Because, at the end of the day, this is a game. Its a thing people to do to relax and enjoy themselves. Yes, its a social game, but I don’t need a social circle beyond three to five like-minded individuals to enjoy it. And, you know what? You don’t have any special right to join my social circle just because we both like the same game. I’m not denying you a job or a fair share of the social pie. I’m deciding who I am and am not friends with.
Let me give you an example. And let’s get away from the heavy -isms and try to keep it light, okay? Suppose me and my friends are hanging out in a bar, chatting, playing pool, or throwing darts at each other. I don’t know what people do in bars. I don’t spend a lot of time in them. Anyway, some random stranger walks up and notices we are throwing darts at each other. “Hey,” says he, “I love throwing darts at people too. Can I join in?” “Sure,” we say, “the more targets, the merrier!” And we laugh and throw darts.
Later, in the hospital emergency room, my original friends and I start quoting some insipid TV show. The Office or Friends or Seinfeld or something. And suddenly, the newcomer says “Oh, I hate that show. It makes me very uncomfortable. Can you stop referencing it?” Of course, we love that show. We throw quotes around all the time. Now, we have a choice to make: we can be inclusive and police our behavior in the name of inclusion or we can say no and the new guy can go find someone else to throw darts at next week. Morally, you might say we should probably be inclusive. Maybe you’d be right. But we have no duty to open our circle of friendship to include the newcomer if we don’t wish to. Even if its for foolish reasons.
I can already hear people screaming “that’s different!” But is it really? Why is it different? Let’s try it like this: suppose, instead, our hobby is D&D Themed Yo’ Mamma Jokes, which the newcomer feels is racially insensitive. A little more uncomfortable, yes. And to my friends and I, just as trivial as a TV show we like. The offended party, of course, doesn’t find it trivial at all. Even if the topic of race never comes up, the faux-ebonic language seems to him to be racially derisive. And he has every right to feel to that way.
The problem is, what is on the line is not a basic human right. What is on the line is the right of my friends and I to, within the privacy of our social circle, behave however we wish vs. the right of the newcomer to be a member of our social circle. And the last time I checked, no one has a god given right to be in my social circle. I get to be friends with whoever I like. These are the people I laugh and relax with. And if I feel the newcomer’s friendship isn’t worth the fact that I now feel I have to police my behavior, I have the right to that decision. I get to weigh the costs of the friendship against the benefits. And every person in the social circle gets to make that decision.
Is it dickish, insensitive behavior? The yo’ mamma jokes? Maybe, maybe not. There are arguments on both sides for that case. And frankly, if you think its dickish, insensitive behavior, you probably won’t like my answer. But that’s fine. You have the right to ignore me. Or to think of me as an insensitive dick. Or to call me one, if you really want to. I have the right to walk away, of course.
We can keep escalating. We can replace Yo’ Mamma jokes with the use of the term “gay” as an insult or the casual use of the word “rape.” And, as we do that, I will move from “I’m not sure that’s dickish” to “that’s horrible” pretty quickly. But, the problem is, I still have to defend the right of the asshole, in his relaxation and within the privacy of his social circle, to be an asshole. Because, the moment I say otherwise, I have to give up my own right to choose who my friends are and how I enjoy myself. And, ultimately, that is the problem with the “inclusion in gaming” argument. It amounts to demanding the right to ask people to adjust their behavior (however rotten) so that they can include you in their private recreation. It assumes you are somehow naturally entitled to friendship with everyone and anyone.
And this is the essence of what Lyndsay is demanding. She is demanding that people be forced to adjust their behavior to include her in their social circle. In their fun. And I don’t think she has that right. That is not because I support the idea of rape jokes, misogyny, sexual harassment, or insensitivity. I think, honestly, excluding a person so that you can continue to behave in such a way is pretty shitty behavior. And I would not have such people in my social circle. I would walk away from a group that made such a decision without looking back. But, guess what, this is their private fun. They aren’t determining public policy. They aren’t denying people jobs or incomes. They don’t get federal funding for their group. Their private fun in no way puts Lyndsay at a social disadvantage. The moment they cross that line, society as a whole, and Lyndsay as a person, have the right to demand different behavior. But around a kitchen table in a person’s home, a person has a right to be friends with whomever he likes. I would like to think that such a person wouldn’t have many friends and would quickly learn their lesson. I’d probably be wrong.
If this seems harsh, it is. If it seems unfair, it is. It is unfair that some people will use their freedom to choose their friends as a way to exclude people on irrational bases. It is terribly frustrating. And yes, without a group, you can’t enjoy D&D. But D&D is not special in that respect. And Lyndsay’s experience is not special either. I’ve waded through a lot of crap to find groups I was comfortable with. Have I been abused? Not to that extent and I won’t pretend to know what she’s gone through. I guess I am privileged. But at the end of the day, I still have to find people who I am comfortable with rather than try to force people to make me comfortable. I don’t get to demand accommodation and friendship from anyone. I can only decide which social circles I will join.
Lyndsay has the right to express her discomfort. She has the right to be heard. And she has the right to find these incidents completely uncomfortable in the first place. But she doesn’t have any special right to anyone’s friendship. Sad, unfair, harsh, but true.
It shouldn’t be this way. People should treat people with respect. People should want to include other people, rather than exclude them. There are a lot of things that shouldn’t be. But not all of the things that shouldn’t be are things that are entitlements. A person is entitled to fair opportunities to survive and to prosper. They aren’t entitled to my friendship. They get that because I want to give it. Its mine to give or withhold.
To drive my point home, I’m going to take a big risk. I’m going to step out from behind The Angry DM mask and share something that I (Scott) am deeply ashamed of. Something I have told two people in my life. Something about me that I know is wrong.
I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable around people with mental disabilities.
I know this is not rational. I know it is not right. And, because I am aware of it, I try my damndest not to show it. Not to victimize anyone with it. But it is visceral, emotional, irrational, and beyond my control. It stems from my deepest, darkest fear: my fear that through some injury or disease or accident of poor wiring, I might lose my mental faculties, my mental identity. Because that is what I associate most strongly and most deeply with my sense of self. When I see someone who has such a disability, the deep, frightened part of me sees a person who has lost a part of what makes them essentially human. And it could happen to me. And that scares the shit out of me. To me, someone with a mental disability is like a person with snakes growing out of their head to someone who is deeply terrified of snakes. I’m not trying to make an excuse. And I am not trying to diminish anyone with a mental disability. And I am not suggesting they really aren’t human or less than human. I just cannot seperate a person from that terrible, abiding fear of losing the thing that represents, to me, the core of my very being. Judge me if you will. Frankly, you cannot think worse of me for it than I think of myself. Because I know this is not fair. I know it is not right. It is a demon that I have struggled with for a long time and have never managed to get under control. And that, in itself, upsets me because I should be the master of my own rational thoughts. All of my high-minded inclusiveness fails right there because of an emotion I can’t figure out how to control and a fear I neither chose nor asked for.
And it is now public knowledge. And it is public knowledge so that I can put forth a very simple question. Put yourself in my position, if you can. Imagine your biggest, darkest fear in the shape of a human being. The person is otherwise a quality human being; friendly, charming, wonderful to be around. And it is not their fault that they represent what they do. It is an accident outside of their control. Now, imagine being told you have a duty to include them in your recreation, your relaxtion, your fun. Is that fair? To either of you? Do I not have a right to relax in an environment that is secure and comfortable for me? How can I enjoy my own fun with that hanging over my head? Should I try to include them to better myself? Isn’t that akin to turning them into a project for my own self-betterment? Can I guarantee them a comfortable environment? Can I guarantee my own body language won’t betray me, however well I manage to keep up the act? And if I can’t “get over it,” will I hurt them in the end because I have strung them along and then failed to make myself a better person?
I’m not asking whether or not it is something I should try to get past. Obviously, I think it is. But I also deserve time off from the struggle to make myself a better person just to have fun with friends, without fear of accidentally hurting someone that I know I might hurt.
In the end, we are dealing with disparate social groups. Not a community. Not a society. While some of these problems may be indicative of larger social problems, this is about personal, social circles. People have the right to choose their friends, based on whatever criteria they have. People have the right to ask others to accommodate them socially and people have the right to take offense at things that offend them. But people also have the right, in the privacy of their kitchens and basements, to say no. People have the right to choose their friends.
I will continue to say that the people who deny someone entry into their gaming circle because of prejudice or lack of respect for their fellow humans are wrong. They are being bad human beings by doing so. But, unfortunately, I also have to support their right to choose their social circle for themselves.
For as much flak as you’re gonna get for this, you should probably at least have one person backing you up. I agree completely. The hell of the thing is, in order to support the freedoms of good, awesome people… you have to support the freedom of utter bastards, too.
I think you provide a solid point. This uncomfortable situation is a social one. It sucks to be around people that say awful things. It sucks even more that if I say something about it, some either chastise me for bringing it up, or others will just sit mutely to allow another to continue their hateful speech.
However I’m not working there. I’m not doing an activity that requires my presence in order to pay the bills and put food on the table. I’m also not paying for the privilege to be there. I’m not at a convention or some other officially sanctioned event. I’m sitting around a table with ‘friends’ trying to have fun during my free time. I’m not being constrained to be there.
If I am in such a distressing social circle, I need to drop that group from my life. It sucks doing it. I might lose dear friends that are on the periphery to those I am uncomfortable with. I might even tell folks why I don’t want to be around them. But at the end of the day, I have the power to have the social relationships with people that I want to. It would be great to have people that would support me, and possibly alter their mannerisms to make me less uncomfortable. But I should not expect that treatment. Instead I should expect to make a choice by having those people in my life or not.
@Kannon: Thanks. And it is a hell of a thing. Because, honestly, my heart aches for Lyndsay that she is struggling so hard to find a group. I know that struggle, though I don’t know how much harder it is for her. And it took her a lot of courage to put that post up. She’s a brave, strong person. And I have to weigh in on the side of the assholes that keep her from enjoying something I love.
@Geek Ken: You put it very succinctly. And that’s exactly my point. I should have let you write this thing.
It is a dilemma that everyone has to face: finding a social circle you can belong to. Or creating your own. And everyone struggles with it.
excellent point that people should consider their right “as a human being” rather than “as a woman” or whatever stereotype they are. By separating themselves like that they only widen the gap
I thought your article was well-written and raised some amazing points. Everything you said is something I agree with completely. You’re also right that this is far from an easy issue.
Where things get even more interesting (for me, at least) is when you take this question of inclusiveness out into our so-called community of gamers, say, at a convention. How do we handle ourselves there? We don’t get to decide who plays in games that we run that are part of an official schedule. It is definitely possible that we will have to game with, or run a game for someone who makes use deeply uncomfortable.
I don’t have an answer for this question. I bring it up because, in those public moments of gaming, we do resemble a community and it does seem like we have a duty to be inclusive. It’s complicated and messy and, in my opinion, it bears thinking about.
@Rolling20s: Yes. That is a tough dilemma. But, let’s be fair too. That’s no longer a matter of community either. Those conventions are a business first. A marketing tool. There is money to be made. And that creates a powerful incentive to create an inclusive environment.
Moreover, people pay for admission to those conventions. And for tickets to events. If you don’t provide a safe, fun gaming environment, you are costing them something. Essentially, you are giving them an inferior product for the same money that others pay.
In short, there is a duty there. And its not entirely a moral duty, either. It is also an economic duty.
To me, its actually pretty cut and dry. Any DM who runs a sanctioned event at a public convention does have a duty to provide a proper gaming environment and the convention’s organizers have a right and a duty to enforce that. So the DM has to, ultimately, just do his best to set aside his issues. At least for the two hours or four hours in question. Is that perfect, no. People are human and some will do better than others. But the sanctioned DM has to accept his duty.
So, fair enough, and I agree that forcing inclusiveness is problematic.
What happens when you expand the circle? Different field: let’s say sports. Let’s say that professional sports is filled with people whose biggest, darkest fear is playing with or against gay men. The individual athlete has the right to that discomfort, maybe. But is there a line where you effectively are excluding gay guys from playing pro sports because that attitude is so prevailing?
@Bryant:
A sports team or competition is once again a public organization/event that anyone can freely join, and the individual cannot control. As such, like the convention mentioned above, every individual now does have the expectation (and right) that they will not be excluded unjustly, thus the people with the biases have to set aside their issues.
Unlike a gaming group or, say, a game of touch football among friends, which are private gatherings.
@Angry DM:
Thanks for writing this. I’m not sure I agree with 100% percent of it, but between this, your comments on the original article, and your comments on twitter, I think you’ve managed to express a lot of why I feel uncomfortable and/or angry when these topics come up far better than I could. And you’ve brought up some new points that I never even thought about.
Pro Sports? That’s a job not a hobby.
Let’s get this straight right now: this thing that we refer to as the “gaming community” doesn’t exist. It’s not an organization or a company. Its not a governed group. There are no rules for membership. Its just a whole bunch of individuals who happen to have exactly ONE interest in common: we all like to pretend to kill orcs for gold every week or so. Beyond the fact that we all have one common interest we can talk about (and talk about a hell of a lot), its not a thing. Its just thousands of little clubs and hundreds of thousands of little people all over the world.
I’m glad I’m not the only person saying this. I think the myth of gaming community monoculture might be related to Geek Social Fallacy #4: Friendship is Transitive.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. It sickens me the way that people like to use the race card, the gender card, the sexual orientation card, etc, to try to force other people to change their behaviors. How about this – you should treat others well because they are people, just like you, and it’s the right things to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
That being said, if you’re having to force people to be your friends, they probably wouldn’t be good friends in the first place. And it’s their right to be jerks.
I started reading this article expecting that I was going to totally disagree with you. Instead I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said.
I think you hit on a key element, and that is, we have rights because we’re human beings, not because we’re part of a particular group. When you say “As a part of a group that is at a disadvantage, I have a right to respect” it’s easy to target another group that maybe isn’t at a disadvantage (or at least at less of a disadvantage) and do the same thing at them which you are complaining about being done to yourself.
Everyone is human. Everyone is a jerkbag in some area of their life. Thanks for sharing.
@Bryant I think he already answered that question in drawing the line between the privacy of one’s circle of friends, and organized or professional events.
Greay post. I agree, we need to drop the -isms. I also agree with gaming being about a group of indviduals with one interest in common.
Gah typo, great not greay. :-/
By the way, as far as a “gaming community” goes, we do have a community, but it is by no means unified.
It’s similar to the community of NFL fans, or the “Gay Community” or whatnot. We are a community because we share an interest, and we come together to discuss that. But that doesn’t imply inclusiveness within the community, nor does it imply a unified standpoint on anything, including that shared interest.
There are plenty of NFL fans that I’d never want to hang out with, and I’m sure plenty of gay people that other gay people wouldn’t want associated with them.
Community isn’t the same thing as homogenous.
@Angry DM: I sat at my computer last night trying to express my dissidence with parts of Lyndsay’s article, but couldn’t find the right words. I’m glad you took the risk to post this, because I agree with you (and I think you’ve expressed it better than I would have).
It’s the sense of entitlement some people think they have over my private behavior.
In a way, they (people with the above mentioned sense of entitlement) are perpetuating the exact same thing they want to stop, or guaranteeing backlash at the very least (which certainly isn’t helping their cause). Marginalized groups are marginalized because people want them to be different or to accept certain behavior.
Anyways, thanks for the post.
Thanks for basically pulling together the muddled thoughts rolling around in my head after reading Lyndsay’s article yesterday. I could not have said this any better than you did. Personally, I always attempt to behave the way Lyndsay describes as correct. I believe that’s the way to act. Sounds like you feel the same. I also, however, believe that its someone else’s right to disagree with me. The problem with virtually all of the -ism arguments are that they begin with the assumption that their core belief is correct, and opposition to that core is wrong by definition. I for one am not so all knowing as to be able to state, without any chance of error, a moral absolute. I believe strongly in moral absolutes, but I grant that I could be wrong…
See…I’m already rambling off topic. This is why I could never have written this article. I can’t mentally focus on the smaller issue.
As a Christian, I get a lot of unintended flak at game tables sometimes. I occasionally get it from some of the “marginalized” groups more than the “privileged” groups. Does this make it OK? I don’t think so, but I accept that we can disagree at the table and still get along. We can even be friends. We can do that in part because I respect your right to disagree with me. That, I think is the core of treating people correctly. Agree to disagree and move past the issue to the fun stuff. If you can’t move past the issue, you need to move on. I cannot mandate your beliefs. There comes a point where I must accept or vote with my feet. That, I do control.
It would be nice if everyone believed the same things I do….wait…no it wouldn’t. How dull would that be? It would be very dull. If I want diversity, I must accept the occasional conflict.
Anyway, be excellent to each other, and PARTY ON DUDES (and dudettes).
Well said. I have a similar fear… large groups of midgets (I have no idea what the PC term for a midget is, sorry). One or two I can handle but not more than 3 or 4, I totally freak out and I have no idea why. As it happens, there’s very little chance I will be in a position where I might have to play with any midgets, never mind a group of them, so the fear rarely comes up. All I’m really saying is – I hear you man!
Wow. This got really really long. Sorry about that. It’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot. I actually don’t think you and I, and even Lyndsay, are all that far apart on most of the core issues. But there are a few points I felt were important are important to make.
I think your point about groups not having to include people is of course correct. I don’t disagree. But I’m honestly not sure what it has to do with Lyndsay’s article.
Seriously, I don’t see it. I don’t see her demanding that people include her anywhere in that article. What she IS saying is that she’s encountered some assholes, and would like to ask those who also think those people are assholes to stand up and help her when she expresses her discomfort. If the group won’t do that, or doesn’t agree with her then they of course have the right to stop playing with her, just as she has the right to do the same. But nowhere do I see her demanding that they change their behavior and include her no matter what. She just says “I think this is wrong, and it makes me uncomfortable. I’m pretty sure some other people here agree, and it would be nice to get some backup from them.” That’s all she or anyone can do. Then it’s up to the individuals involved to decide what to do with that. Personally I would hope they’d decide to change their behavior, but they don’t have to, and no one is saying they do. Not even Lyndsay.
The rest of the talk about privilege etc, is important to this discussion for two reasons. Not so much because it’s there to separate people, and say that some are more important than others but instead to point out to some that they may unintentionally make some other people uncomfortable, or may not even realize that some behaviors from others might make someone uncomfortable, and to point out that as a member of a privileged group (and most people are in some way or another, depending on the context or the particular issue, just as most people are part of a disadvantaged group in some way or another too), you may be in a better position to help come to someone’s defense and back them up when they express their discomfort.
I think a lot of people (I willing to admit, myself included the first time or two I encountered it) immediately react to any discussion of their “privilege” as an attack on them, or a way to divide them from other people. But a much better way to look at it is as the advantages you have in society that other people may not have. The real reason to recognize this is NOT so you feel guilty and like you’re being blamed for all of societies problems. You’re not. The point is so that you can be more aware of other people and the fact that they may not see things from the same perspective you do. They may not have the same advantages you do. The whole point of recognizing your own privilege is just so you can be aware of how your own behavior might affect others, to try to see things from their point of view, and to take their concerns a bit more seriously because they may have very different experiences than you.
Really its just a part of being a decent person. You should always try to put yourself in other peoples shoes, to try to be aware of how your behavior might effect others. Recognizing your own privilege is just one part of that, you should of course do this with anyone, no matter what their background, but its one that is often overlooked, and is easy to not be aware of. Your example of “Yo Mamma” jokes is perfect. To many white people it probably wouldn’t even OCCUR to them that jokes like that might make someone uncomfortable.
The use of the word “rape” in all sorts of gaming contexts is another example. I certainly didn’t even consider how it might make women feel for years and years. But once it was pointed out to me, and once I was made explicitly aware of the fact that even though generally I don’t have to worry about rape, it is a fairly serious concern for women, it made sense to me that it might make women feel uncomfortable, and I tried to stop using it. Had I not recognized my own privilege in the situation (ie Rape is not a major concern for me personally, but is for women)I might have dismissed any complaints as someone being “too sensitive” but because I do recognize that fact, I take it more seriously now.
Finally, Lyndsay was talking about sexism specifically, but I think that’s mostly for two reasons: 1)It’s a fairly common issue, and one that is easily overlooked or ignored by many who aren’t effected by it (ie jokes that might make many women uncomfortable, but which a group of men might not even think about as having that potential), and 2) Because it’s her experience, and so what she’s best equipped to write about. I think she would totally agree with you that any form of assholery should be confronted in exactly the same way, but she can best write about her particular situation (She even prefaces the whole thing by saying that while the article talks about feminism and gender issues, it’s meant to apply to all sorts of situations).
Just wanted to chime in with my support here. It’s so ergo give been saying for a while.
For me it comes back to, if you feel those people are negatively disposed to you, do you really want to spend your recreation time with them?
@Brandonshire I have to disagree with your interpretation of Lyndsay’s article. What, I believe Angry, initially took issue with, and I also have problems with, is the tone she cast the piece in. It does not seem to me that she is asking other people who feel the same to do something, she’s says, “It is the right thing to do.”. Framing it that way makes it a moral imperative, and in that light, not agreeing with her position is necessarily the wrong thing to do. I further was bothered by her statement that when someone expresses discomfort at a comment, that a person of privilege would feel this way: “There will be a strong instinct to immediately deny it…” In my eyes, that is not a fair judgment to make about her readers, and I find it marginalizing as part of her intended audience. That further makes me sense an antagonistic air, when combined with the earlier dichotomy of the right and wrong things to do.
That said, I agree with the principle that people’s feelings need to be considered and that everyone should be treated equally, but I, like many of the above commenters and Angry, feel that there are definitely gray areas to consider on where to draw the line between ensuring comfort (by removing offensive commentary) vs. ensuring comfort (by allowing everyone to express themselves).
Mostly agree with you, but some thoughts:
I don’t think GeekyLyndsay was really “demanding” anything, merely asking for some awareness & sensitivity. Certainly there is some implication of behavior, the implication of which can be offensive; so her essay did perhaps come off as a little demanding. Regardless I think you understood her intentionality but you challenged it for having a demanding tone anyway.
Identity politics are rough. I get the sense that the very nature of being in a minority position naturally results in investing emotionally in the identity of that minority – which leads to a very understandable sensitivity & focus on it that someone in a non-minority position simply isn’t going to share.
RE: the “this is a place where we relax, let our hair down and just try to have fun” thing, undoubtedly for (at least your average group of guys, but I think most everyone) involves all sorts of playful teasing, unchecked humor, and plenty of talking-without-thinking. I think that’s really an important aspect of the whole “having fun” thing. While I don’t think we should necessarily be constantly checking ourselves for potential “identity sensitivity” issues, we should of course always be checking ourselves for the perfectly straightforward “hey, is everybody else having fun?” issue. Hopefully these amount to the same thing, right?
I think it’s funny that, for all that you warn folks up front this will be a controversial article, it’s less gleefully combative than some of your crunchier posts. I very much think that’s to your credit, that you’re able to turn your attention to the people sitting around the table with penetrating insight and engaging prose.
Ultimately, I think that this article and the one it’s written in response to are both critical components of the same conversation…perhaps even continuum. You’ve quite successfully elucidated your position on the rights afforded people in general, and the rights afforded your social circle(s), where the two diagrams intersect, and where each one is impermeable.
Without someone bringing up the question of inclusion, though, there’s not the impetus for someone to make those personal distinctions. And the call for greater consciousness about what groups may feel marginalized, while dangerous for the reasons you describe (it creates prejudice by omission, it focuses too heavily on distinctions, etc.), has value because it’s often the case that someone is ignorant of the way certain words or actions are perceived by particular groups.
I struck “rape” from my casual vocabulary after a professor at my alma mater gave a very personal lecture on the emotions and memories hearing that word evoked, and how it caused her to view the students who used it. While I share your discomfort with the thought of my own mental faculties being compromised, my mother has worked in special education for most of my life (including giving home therapy to both verbal and nonverbal children with Autism) and my fiancee is a speech pathologist who has worked primarily with children with Autism or cerebral palsy (and though the latter need not affect one’s mental processing, it can profoundly reduce the intelligibility of verbal expression in a way that I’ve found personally distressing). I have gay friends and bi friends, Christian friends and Jewish friends. I myself am a mulatto who still remains the only black person many of my high school classmates will probably ever meet, and I graduated over a decade ago.
Every point of contact I’ve had with a group who might be identified by a less than complimentary appellation has altered the way I look at, and use (or more accurately, don’t use) those terms. I greatly value the friendships and relationships I’ve been able to foster due to this constant expansion of consideration. I’ve also seen the end of some friendships because our views on acceptable language differed, and when I initiated the conversation they chose the right to use terms like “fag” over the pleasure of my company.
I support a given social group’s right to use whatever form of expression has become time-honored and comfortable—and I myself enjoy the liberal use of profanity, which not every audience appreciates. However, knowing first-, second-, and third-hand the profound and immediate emotional effect certain words or even styles of vocal delivery can have on individuals, I err on the side of caution. I’ve been called a nigger, and feared for the safety of my loved ones as a result of seeing total strangers throw that term at me in public; I’ve seen family members lose their jobs, or even be falsely accused of crimes, because we happened to be the wrong kind of dark face in a wealthy white town. I have friends who’ve been beaten savagely for coming out of the wrong sort of club, or denied a fair hearing in a classroom because their skin tone and accent played into the professor’s prejudices. All of these things, and others, lead me to be very careful in the language I use and equally cognizant of the company I keep.
Which, again, is why this post is every bit as valuable to the conversation as Lyndsay’s: you remind the reader that it is their right to choose how inclusive they want their language and social atmosphere to be; Lyndsay indicates some of the reasons why an individual might feel motivated to press for greater inclusion. It’s ultimately a personal choice where one sets the goal posts, as it were.
But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t wish the dude I used to play Borderlands with wasn’t so attached to calling things “fags.”
Look. She thinks it’s the right thing to do to stand up for people who are being wronged. Is that really that controversial? It’s clear this is based on her perspective and what she thinks is right. Is it really necessary to qualify it that much? Is there ANY situation where you would think it was ok for someone to say “It’s the right thing to do?”
As for the sentence about “There will be a strong instinct to deny it…” If you want to take offense at that be my guest, but frankly that is a VERY common reaction when these sorts of issues are brought up. If that ISN’T your reaction then good for you! You’re already past that step! That’s wonderful! No need for you to feel offended by it.
But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people mention feeling uncomfortable about something, especially anything having to do with gender, race, sexual orientation, or anything else like that, that the first reaction others have is to deny that there’s a problem at all and try to put the blame on the person who is feeling uncomfortable, telling them it’s all in their head, or that they’re being “oversensitive” or any number of other such reactions. It’s really very common, I’ll admit I’ve been guilty of it at times, and if you haven’t seen it or experienced it yourself then you’re very lucky.
Honestly, I don’t understand why this article has been so controversial. It can be summed up in two sentences that I find it hard to believe this many people would disagree with: “I think it would be great if people were more inclusive when gaming. If you agree please help by standing up for others.” Seriously I’ve read it 4 times now. That’s really all she’s saying. There’s no reason to feel like she’s attacking you or anyone, or trying to FORCE anyone to change their behavior. She’s just expressing how she feels, and what she feels is right. All she’s doing is trying to persuade people to her point of view, and encourage people to stand up for that view. That’s really it. People do that all the time. Why is this controversial?
@Brandonshire: There’s no polite way to say this, but it has to be said: you’re applying a double standard.
“As for the sentence about “There will be a strong instinct to deny it…” If you want to take offense at that be my guest, but frankly that is a VERY common reaction when these sorts of issues are brought up. If that ISN’T your reaction then good for you! You’re already past that step! That’s wonderful! No need for you to feel offended by it.”
I am here saying “I am offended by this choice of language and tone” and you are telling me, basically, tough shit and suck it up. Do you see a problem there? Now, it is my right to be offended, to be made to feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, and I am asking you to respect it. And you saying “its not a problem.”
You don’t have to agree with my reasons for being offended. You don’t have even understand them. I am saying: this makes me feel alienated. It makes me feel like part of the problem, even though I want to be part of the solution. It makes me feel marginalized. Why aren’t you respecting that? Because isn’t that your point?
Because it is my point. As you said yourself, this is about respecting people and being a decent human being. About being aware of the fact that PEOPLE have different experiences, emotions, and reactions to things. What is trivial to you may not be trivial to them. Eventually, though no fault of your own, you will offend. And when someone speaks up, the decent thing to do is to be aware of it, change your language, change your tone, and move own. And when you see someone speaking up, and they are right, you should support them. Isn’t that right?
Does it matter if you are priveleged or marginalized? If the shoe is on the other foot, and I am the white, male, heterosexual being offended by a group of women players who have managed to inadvertantly offend me, is the decent thing to sit idly by? Should I speak up? Should other women speak up on my behalf?
Or hell, if its a group of guys and one of them makes a fat joke, that hits close to home for me and reminds me of my own health and self-esteem issues, does the same standard of deceny apply?
If you say no, no it doesn’t, then you and I can never see eye to eye. If you say yes, then the fact that some of these interactions are about privelege and some of them aren’t doesn’t change the point.
So why go there? Why use that tone? That language? Call out certain issues but not others? Why intentionally choose language that you admit provokes a visceral, defensive reaction in a portion of your audience that does nothing to change your argument? Do you want to talk about careless use of language? There it is, right there.
@Brandonshire Saying that the reaction is very common is foisting a stereotype on the whole group, which is part of the behavior she’s coming out against. It is as unfair as a privileged group member claiming that minority groups are oversensitive. When she started the article, she defined a group that she was addressing, and that phrase implies something about the whole group. This is why drawing divisive distinctions is problematic in the first place. If everyone were truly regarded as equals, then we could have discussions about what was offensive based on intent instead of perceptions. In my view, Lyndsay is grouping me in with people unfairly based on criteria I cannot control and that is why I was offended. I was offended because the article isn’t addressed to people who engage in that behavior, it’s to an entire group assuming that they do.
I know I’m probably damning this article by chiming in (as I was the first voice of dissent on Lyndsay’s post), but thank you for expressing more eloquently the point I was trying to make.
If the sports analogy bugs you for whatever reason, feel free to change it to amateur sports.
The question, more bluntly stated, is this: what happens when your private friendship preferences are the social norm? It’s not a matter of just your right to self-determination — which I strongly respect — it’s a question of who holds responsibility for a prevalent discriminatory society?
This is /not an easy question/. I’m not trying to trick anyone into saying that every individual with a bias has responsibility for making society better.
When you say that Bob the Bigot has the right to be an asshole in his social circle… well, sure. That’s obvious. But at that point you’re also saying that it’s OK if every single person who games is a Bob. And that’s less obvious to me.
So how do you resolve the conflict between individual rights and the desire to eradicate widespread discrimination?
@The Angry DM – You’re right. I was insensitive and careless with my phrasing. Thank you for doing the chaotic good thing and pointing it out to me. I’ll do the chaotic good thing and own up to it, and apologize. I am sorry.
I went out on my lunch break shortly after writing that post and was thinking about things a bit more. I still stand by the basic points I made, but I was letting myself get a little to heated in my reactions. I’m going to disengage from the conversation for a bit after this post as I don’t want to get angry and keep saying things carelessly when there’s no reason for that.
@Tino Galizo – You do indeed have a point, and perhaps some more careful wording could have alleviated that problem.
I don’t think her intent was to say that every man acts like this. I certainly didn’t feel that way, and as a white, male, cis-gendered, man I fit basically every criteria she had and didn’t feel like I was being blamed for anything. But clearly you did. The message I got was just that I as a member of the group “males” should probably be aware of some things, which is true. I think she was speaking to men in general, and trying to point out things that many men do, (but not all!) and asking other men to either recognize these faults in themselves, or in others, and to do something about them if they see a problem. I don’t think her intent was to say that ALL men do these things, but maybe some different wording would have made that more clear. For example perhaps a better way to phrase things would have been to say “you MAY have an urge to deny it” and to generally make it clearer that she’s speaking of things that are common, but by no means universal.
I still think it was totally reasonable for her to focus specifically on gender issues, and I don’t personally find that to be divisive in and of itself. That’s something she clearly has a lot of experience with, and is an issue that I think is in fact important to talk about specifically (rather than only talking in broad generalities about treating each-other right, which is clearly important, but sometimes it’s also important to talk about specific issues and specific problems so they are clear). Men and women are in fact distinct groups in some respects and in some contexts and behaviors and I don’t think pretending otherwise is terribly helpful. However, perhaps a little more emphasis on the fact that these same principles apply to all situations, not just male/female issues, and that this was just one example and just one issue to be dealt with would have been helpful.
I will grant that some of the wording could have better made it clear that she was talking about problems that some (maybe even many) people have and cause, but not that she meant to implicate all men.
Anyway, I’m going to disengage for a while. This has been a good discussion and I apologize to anyone I offended, and I hope we’ve all been learning things and perhaps seeing each others points of view a bit better through it this discussion. I certainly have.
This is very difficult to discuss. I’m in the position where I agree with both of you, sort of. I’m a white male (bisexual, for the record) – and I’ve experienced sexist treatment in the legal system. My father was domestically abused by my mother, and she then went on to abuse me. The last homophobic slur directed my way came from an ex-girlfriend. I’ve also had to deal with unwanted sexual comments from a much older woman, when I was barely a teenager. I’ve experienced anti-male sexist language from educators, corporation staff, even friends. I, however, am not entitled to complain about this – I do not have the ‘privelege’ to speak up against my own mistreatment, where women have the right to do so. I think we all deserve the right to complain about discrimination.
So the whole ‘male privelege’ angle falls apart, in my head. Sexism isn’t discrimination against women, it’s discrimination against any sex on the basis of that characteristic. I also think that the assumptions and generalisations made in the article are very harmful – “as someone with straight male privilege, rape is not a concern in your daily life – though male rape does happen, and is serious” is a highly contradictory message. At least 1 in 6 men are raped http://www.1in6.org/ . Rape ISN’T a female-only predicament, and yet most rape centers do not deal with men who have been raped. Nor do they like to deal with women who have been raped by other women. Would I say that women are ‘priveleged’ by having the ability to access the vast majority of services for rape? No. I’d say they had something everyone deserves.
Simultaneously, I do agree that it’s important for gamers to stand up for people who are under attack – because they are under attack, not because of their membership of a particular group. I speak up against heterophobia in my LGBT friends – it’s irrelevent that heterosexuals get ‘more privelege’. No one deserves to be attacked for a characteristic like that. As part of the staff of a gaming society, one of my jobs is to make sure people are comfortable. If someone starts discussing rape fantasies or violent thoughts they’ve been having, they’re asked to stop – and then told to. Violence is forbidden, no matter who the victim is. The key rule is that no means no.
But jokes? It’s a bad idea to start censoring people when they’re messing about. I would much prefer that joking around went both ways, than didn’t exist. Sure, the odd gay joke will be made, and I’ll make one right back. Sometimes women will make a sexist joke about men, and the reverse will happen. It’s humour. It crosses the line when people say “I’m not comfortable with this” and the response is to carry on. It’s better to respect peoples’ boundaries than to start a huge campaign against bad taste in comedy.
I think, most of all, it feels a bit awkward to jam the knife into the side of the ‘gaming community’. The assumption that we’re all male heterosexuals is a bit off (my last 7th Sea game had more bisexuals than straight people), but that’s not the point. Even if we were, gamers are hardly in a priveleged group. A hell of a lot of us are into the hobby because it’s a social environment with explicit rules. Lots of people with anxiety problems, social phobias, and other issues join gaming groups. I also notice that the people who seem to talk about unpleasant subjects, like rape, seem to be the same people who deal with psychological issues. It’s not pleasant to hear, and I always remind people to watch their words, but I feel awkward hating on a person with Asperger’s Syndrome for crossing the line socially.
Really, I think there are two points to make – a) there is a fundamental difference between “public” and “private”, in that demanding people act a certain way in their own social circles will not endear you to them; and b) that saying it is the “obligation” of males, due to their maleness, to atone via White Knighting, is a poor plan.
If I was going to sum it all up, I think my main point is that all people should be fair and polite because it’s a good thing to do, not because they’re guilty of a fluke of their birth.
@ general response to several folks:
We also need to get past this idea that we can somehow know a priori what will and will not offend. We can say using “rape” or “fag” in an inappropriate sense has such potential to offend that we should probably avoid it, but we know that BECAUSE people have spoken up and told us and we’ve respected that. The fact is, lacking telepathy, because my experiences are unique to me, I cannot know what may or may not offend you. I just can’t.
And that needs to be understood and often gets forgotten. Quite frankly, I really didn’t know until three quarters of the way through the D&D Yo Mamma Joke debacle that it was “racially insensitive.” And I’m still not sure I know why. I was belting them out as they occurred to me, but not really reading my Twitter feed until some very impolite Direct Messages came my way. And, by that time, the whole thing had kind of petered out.
The point is not to try to never offend. That isn’t going to happen. Even if you say nothing at all, someone will eventually be offended by your silence. I can’t put myself in anyone’s shoes but my own. Not fully. Not ever. I can only choose how I respond when I’m confronted.
And yet, there is often a tone of “you should have known better,” a shaming tone that I have failed as a human being for doing something I didn’t know was wrong. And this is pretty unfair. There was no intent. After you tell me how you feel, if I continue the offensive behavior, then you should be angry with me. Because, obviously I don’t care enough about your feelings to be concerned.
The concept of “starting at offended” instead of “starting with the benefit of the doubt” is one that causes more strife and more division. It puts people immediately on the defensive. And again – people – not classes or groups of people. People in general.
Both “sides” of the conversation have to be responsible for moving forward. Yes, I know you may have suffered hardships because of your gender, skin color, religion, or whatever, but assuming that I am a part of the problem instead of merely uninformed amounts to “hitting someone back first.” It still just starts fights.
@Angry
I think the best way to deal with that is this;
Person A: Blah blah blah inappropriate remark
Person B: I’m not comfortable with that
Person A: Sorry, I’ll bear that in mind
or
Person A: Blah blah blah inappropriate remark
Person B: I’m not comfortable with that
Person A: So what?
Person B files Person A in the “dick” category, and departs.
You can’t deontologically say that x remark is unacceptable – it’s all contextual. If a (particularly gay) friend of mine calls me a faggot, it’s a lot less hurtful than a stranger saying it. Same goes for sensitive topics; “the female orc barbarian starts to carry you away” might be humorous to some people, and not to others. To declare that something is always verboten as a topic is a bit mad.
Just one last quick note to tack on to my earlier comments: I talked a lot about men and women and males and females, I certainly didn’t mean to exclude trans people and anyone with a different gender identity than male or female.
If I make an Optimus Prime joke right now is that okay?
@Byrant
Wow, that is a really well-thought-out point. And I’m not sure it has an easy answer. The trouble is it first requires several other answers. I’m going to try this in several steps:
We can assume, for instance, that if I behave in a way that causes a measurable injustice, society has a right to regulate my behavior. For instance, suppose I attack someone. Or deny them a job solely on the basis of their skin color rather than their qualifications. I’m starting there because it is a place we can agree individual rights stop and social regulation takes over.
But society, so far, is good at punishing and redressing crimes. We’re less keen on how to prevent them. When someone IS attacked, we have a criminal and a civil legal system to punish the guilty and mitigate some of the harm. I’m not going to debate how well it works. For now, what matters is that its there.
However, we do accept the right of society to regulate behaviors that can potentially harm society as well. If you are caught driving drunk, you can be punished. Severely, in some places. This is a preventative measure. You haven’t actually caused any damage or destruction just by driving drunk. But you are creating a very dangerous situation that could harm others and cost society a lot. We accept drunk driving laws without batting an eye even though they are punishing people for harms not yet inflicted.
So, can we, as a society, say that you do not actually have the right to behave in, say, a racially insensitive manner in private because that reflects a predilection toward racist behavior. Can we have a “drunk driving” statute for social crimes? Moreover, when we finally develop thought reading machines, can we punish people prematurely for having racist thoughts?
If I can risk something a little more uncomfortable, let’s try this one. And I apologize if I use some trigger words here. Proceed with caution.
Suppose a woman, a friend of mine, is raped. And she tells me so. And after she tells me the whole story, I (HYPOTHETICAL ME WHO IS NOT ME BECAUSE THIS ISN’T ME) arrive at the conclusion that she put herself in a dangerous situation to begin with, that she was dressed provocatively, and she was flirting with her attacker before the rape. I genuinely care about her. I know the attacker was wrong, wrong, wrong. But I also believe that she should be more careful in the future not to “tease the animals.” So, I make a remark that she should “be more careful in the future.” Unfortunately, this only exacerbates the self-blame she is already feeling. Ashamed, she does not report the crime or seek medical attention. A rapist goes free, she ends up in a dangerous emotional state, and she may also allow health consequences go unchecked.
Without meaning to – without realizing it – with the best of intentions – I have caused irrevocable harm to a fellow human who was already in a terribly vulnerable state. Am I now complicit in the harm that has been inflicted on her? Can I be punished? Or forced to be educated? Should I be?
Now, let’s bring this to the game table. The woman is a member of my gaming group. Before the attack, we have made several casual jokes and remarks about rape. “Oh, she was asking for it,” style jokes. Perhaps she has even joined in. Or perhaps she laughs. Or perhaps she just doesn’t speak up. Or perhaps she does speak up but we ignore her. It doesn’t matter. Until one night when she is raped.
And now we have the same result: she has internalized the idea that the rape is her fault and that there is no support available. She doesn’t report it. She doesn’t admit it even to her friends. She doesn’t seek mental or medical assistance.
Now, has the innocent, private social circle hurt her? Undoubtedly. Is society worse off as a result? Yes, if for no other reason than a rapist is still running free and a woman has removed herself from society out of shame and fear.
Is the social circle complicit? Are they guilty of wrongdoing? Should they be held to account? Not for punishment, per se, but for education. What about punishment? What do they owe her?
If we say they are complicit, somehow, now we have to ask if society has a duty to prevent this scenario from happening the first place? Does society have a duty to monitor and limit social interactions that harm society? How is that even possible? Would we be willing to live like that if it were?
Honestly… I don’t know. I really don’t. I suppose, because of the points I have already made, I have to say: no, society has to stop at the door to my house and accept the risk of some harm to respect privacy and self-determination. But that means that, in order to hold that belief, I have to accept that the woman in my example is out of luck.
Or… as a society, I have to make sure that enough education and support programs are available (through public and private schools and other mandatory institutions) to undo or mitigate the risk of individual insensitive or ignorant behavior. With time and effort, those individuals will be recognized as wrong by the majority of society, and that means other people will refuse to suffer their offenses quietly. In the long run, those who hold offensive thoughts and ideas will find themselves less and less popular. Or else, as those ideas age, the generations that grew up with them gradually die out and the new generations become more tolerant as a result.
I understand your basic point, and I agree with it – You shouldn’t have to change your group dynamic just because the newbie who walked in and joined doesn’t like it.
However, there’s a line between group dynamic and universal respect. Yo Mamma jokes, in my opinion, generally fall under group dynamic (depending on the content/context). Terms like ‘gay’ and ‘rape’ fall under universal respect. Whether you’re in your kitchen or in the middle of a crowded street, they aren’t okay. Because no matter how well you think you know someone, or how they seem to react, it’s possible that those jokes really hurt them. The best friend you’ve known since high school could have been sexually abused, or could be in the closet, and even if they laugh, they could really feel hurt by jokes that have those experiences as the punchline.
Again – I agree on the more basic level of your point. But there’s a line to be drawn for things like this, where keeping it in the privacy of your own home doesn’t make it okay anymore.
“However, there’s a line between group dynamic and universal respect.”
This business, right here. As someone who’s experienced sexual violence, there are things that trigger me. To use the example of a TV show you brought up in your post, it’s not so much that The Office makes me very uncomfortable/reminds me of insecurities and more that it it causes me to re-experience some pretty heavy shit and is traumatic. Less ““Oh, I hate that show. It makes me very uncomfortable. Can you stop referencing it,” more “Hey, I have deep-seated emotional trauma associated with The Office, and being reminded of it triggers serious shit, so if you could not talk about it around me, that would be appreciated.”
I’m not demanding entry to your social circle, but if you and your friends continue to talk about it around me you’re serious assholes, period. That should be called out.
Assuming that being an asshole is a bad thing, one would also assume it’s something to avoid, right? That’s what I got from Lyndsay’s article: you should do this because the alternative is sort of being a douchenozzle and harming people, not that anyone is due entry into anyone’s social group due to minority status.
@Karen:
Thanks for your comment. But I have a problem with the group dynamic/universal respect argument. Two actually. First of all, I will never concede that I do not have the right to choose whatever words I wish to use in my private recreation or within my social circle. I SHOULD be aware that my words could potentially harm someone. I SHOULD be careful about them. But I am not REQUIRED to. And I cannot be. And if you come into my home, invited or not, there is a chance I will offend you and your only recourse will be to leave my home if I choose not to care.
Second of all, how are defining the categories of group dynamic and universal respect? How did we decide that ‘gay’ and ‘rape’ fall on one side, whereas the ‘yo mama jokes’ fall on the other? I know at least a few people who consider the ‘yo mama jokes’ to be extreme offenses. For that matter, why is ‘rape’ bad but not ‘assaulted’ or ‘burned’ or ‘murdered?’ Why is it more okay to use an acronym that stands for ‘die in a fire’ than it is to say ‘congress totally raped that legislation?’ What are the criteria? And who decides? And how are we to know? Who gets to add words to the list of things I can’t even say in my kitchen? Or are we just doing this on a case by case basis?
With all due respect to the victims of rape, and without in any way trying to minimize the crime or trauma of rape, rape is not the only trauma that a person can suffer and it is not the only trauma that can trigger PTSD. Unfortunately, human beings are extremely good at finding delightful ways to inflict traumas on one another. Moreover, the ravages of nature can heap a host of other traumas on them. To the person who barely survives a house fire, the person who has to listen to their family members die screaming as they are burned to death, the word ‘rape’ has little power. But the phrase ‘go die in a fire’ can destroy them.
And unfortunately, that means that when we start cobbling together a list of the universal words that you just can’t ever say, we get to start grading people’s traumas and deciding which are the ones that we merely shake our heads at and say they are terrible and which ones are the ones we just can never speak of again. Do you really want to play that game? Do you really want to be the one to decide that being imprisoned in a foreign country and tortured for months doesn’t count as horrific enough because it didn’t involve a sexual component?
Yes, words have power. Yes, words can harm. I don’t deny that. And I don’t deny people should be responsible with their words – or at least be willing to take responsibility for them. But the idea of licensing specific words that can never be used except in certain situations is not a viable alternative. In a perfect world, people would willingly police their language, but this is not a perfect world and some people will choose not to. And some people will be hurt for it. And that is unfair. But it is the price of freedom. You and I are free, right now, to have this discussion precisely because we – as a society – have accepted the fact that there will be those who will use their freedom irresponsibly and hurt people, innocent people. I enjoy this freedom fully aware that at any moment, someone can turn it against me. Just as I enjoy my car every day, fully aware that another person’s carelessness or momentary lapse of attention or even a stray dog can leave me maimed or dead. If we – as a society – want freedoms, we – as a society – have to accept that there are risks. And that those risks can be absolutely devastating to those who end up suffering the consequences. And that those consequences will not be doled out randomly or fairly and that any one of us may take a bullet because society – as a whole – enjoys a particular freedom. And the freedom of speech is no different from any other freedom.
@Nora et al: I’m going to admit that I’ve gone well beyond Lyndsay’s point. Apart from the divisive language about privilege which I still find off-putting for all of the reasons I’ve explained, I’m going to admit I wandered down a different road. I don’t disagree with Lyndsay. I personally feel that inclusion if preferable to assholism. I just don’t think its enforceable. I don’t think it should be.
This post was more of a response to the conversations that grew out of Lyndsay’s post. It was suggested to Lyndsay multiple times that she would probably either have to live with it or else move on and find a different group. I made this suggestion myself. And it was called, by some, “blaming the victim.” Lyndsay, herself, was extremely frustrated with being forced into the life of a D&D vagabond and when she finally asked me if I felt she had a right to just be allowed to have fun playing this game that we both love, I got to thinking. Unfortunately, the answer is, in my mind, no. There isn’t a right. I don’t have the right. She doesn’t. No one does. This isn’t about basic human rights being denied. This isn’t about unfair doling out of social advantages. This is about how people to choose to behave in the privacy of their home and how they choose their friends. And it isn’t about privilege or being marginalized or who you are or aren’t or what your identity has. It is that there is no one, not one of us, who has a basic right to be accepted by any social circle we demand.
Honestly, except for a link to her post and a compliment, because it is a great read despite my misgivings, I am sorry that I mentioned her beyond the introduction. If I had to it do over again, I’d leave her out of it beyond that. I admit it was careless. Because, in the end, I’m not attacking her. She’s right. People SHOULD behave a certain way. But me, I wanted to go the other way and talk about what things MUST be and what things merely SHOULD be.
The topic of inclusion in D&D is one that gets caked in a lot of weird language. There is talk of community, of duty to make the game better, of moral absolutes, and so on. But in the end, these things aren’t real. We – as human beings – can choose the path of good. We can improve our own little corners of the world. But if we want to keep our own little corners comfortable and enjoyable for us, just the way we like them, we have to accept that people out there might keep them in ways that aren’t comfortable, enjoyable, or even safe for us. We have to take the good with the bad in this case, because it is just a game, and it is a private past time for a thousand disconnected clubs that chatter on the internet.
Those of us who want to be inclusive, to make the game better, have to keep our expectations realistic. We have to know what can and can’t be done. Otherwise, we will waste our efforts wandering down dead end paths that won’t really improve anything. Or, worse, we will make it worse. We need to understand what change we can affect and what change can’t be accomplished. The best any of us can do is to keep our tables clean and lead by example. And hope that people out there will make the right choices.
Most importantly, I firmly believe that many people will make the right choices if you show them you respect their right to choose. And that’s what everything I’ve written is really about: respecting people’s right to choose, even if they are going to choose wrong.
Thanks for the clarification, without it it seemed (at least to me) that you were strawmanning her argument into something about how people MUST do things, which I don’t think it was and it set my teeth a bit on edge. I saw it framed as a false dichotomy so I spoke up.
I think you’re totally on base that everyone has the absolute right to be an utter turd, etc etc etc, although I disagree with what it’s realistic to expect/try to do in terms of making the game better. It’s a discussion I’d love to have with you, but I think that’s better left for a different time/place.
@Nora – I am glad you did speak up. You are right, I inadvertently conflated various conversations, some of which she was not even a part of, with her article. I went back and reread her article and realized you were right. Thank you for setting me straight. I owe her an apology and need to put a clarification in the post.
[...] Rob D. posted this tweet, which links to this article and this article. [...]
[...] good” gamer (basically an ally) at the table, and a post sort-of-but-not-really in response to it, and then a third post inspired by the first two posts (which links me as a resource! I am [...]
@Angry
Ah, and now suddenly things make a bit more sense! I think if I had realized this post was mostly a response to discussions that happened outside of (though inspired by) the original post it would have made a lot more sense, and frankly I might not have commented, or at least might have had a bit more focused comment.
Thank you for the clarification. I totally understand how that happens. It’s very easy to get things mixed up when you’re thinking about them a lot, or to forget that not everyone followed the conversations you had, especially when they happen in public, like on twitter, (I think I’ve found at least some of them now). Anyway, I of course totally agree with you that people have the right to be assholes, and of course I agree with you that I wish they wouldn’t, and think that the only recourse we have is to let people know when we think something crossed a line and then see how they decide to react.
I think we still disagree a bit about the value of a discussion of privilege (though I have seen a whole lot of misunderstanding of what that term is really all about, so maybe a better explanation of what she meant by it in that article would have helped) and about the value of a discussion specifically of one aspect of assholery, but I think those are honestly reasonably minor points that have probably gotten too much attention.
Anyway, the whole thing makes a bit more sense now, and I apologize again to you and everyone else for getting a bit too heated in my discussion yesterday and for anyone I might have hurt or made angry with my careless use of language, and dismissing of peoples feelings (ironically while talking about not dismissing peoples feelings… doh!).
@AngryDM — yeah, we’re thinking along the same lines. Sincere thanks for taking my thought experiments as I hoped they’d be taken. I think that “education and support” is really the reasonable place to end up, because I abhor thought police. Making those things effective is, again, hard.
This is all stuff I’ve been wrestling with for a few years now, FWIW. I think I’m going to be thinking about it for a long time to come. So yeah.
[...] Lyndsay’s piece, there have been a number of responses of various shapes and sizes. This one from The Angry DM brings up a topic very important to me: Community. He says, ”Let’s get this straight right [...]
Got linked here from the Fear the Boot Forums. My reaction there was with those who felt it was as strawman attack against Lyndsey; now I see your post about that issue, and will post a follow-up there as a result.
There was one point you made just in the comments here, though, that stood out as something that needs a response, though:
“And if you come into my home, invited or not, there is a chance I will offend you and your only recourse will be to leave my home if I choose not to care.”
And I would counter that if you genuinely do not care that someone you have invited is offended, then you have failed your fundamental obligation as a host, which is to provide a safe and comfortable environment for your invited guests.
Which is, of course, a big part of the issue, here. Hospitality–the obligation to one’s guests–is one of the big ‘universal values’; you find it in almost every human culture on the planet. Sure, the specifics are often cultural (desert societies, FREX, tend to have very specific rules about providing guests with water). But the general notion that there IS an obligation on the host is pretty damned solid, in no small part because failing that obligation causes a general breakdown of social covenants.
As a for-instance:
Your group has invited a new player, and shortly into the evening, you start with the Monty Python jokes. The newb explains–hopefully politely, but possibly letting some frustration in because, let’s face it, geeks and Python, they’ve probably had to have this conversation a few dozen times already–that they have some bad personal reactions to MP humor.
Now, your obligation as host in this case is actually pretty clear:
1: Ask your other guests to keep the MP-jokes to a minimum for the rest of the evening.
2: If you feel that the newb’s presence added more to the group’s enjoyment than was lost to the lack of MP-humour, and the other players generally agree, then you may want to consider establishing a no-MP rule during game nights, and just not invite the newb to your annual Monty Python Marathon game.
3: If, OTOH, you and the other players feel that too much of the evening’s enjoyment was lost (hell, you even had to restructure the adventure that night to get rid of all the Black Knight references), then once the evening is over, it would be a good idea to talk to the newb and ask if the MP thing is a hard rule, explaining that if it is, then the group might not be a great fit. Even then, however, you should stress (much as you did in your confession above re: the mentally disabled) that it is not a flaw of theirs that is causing this decision.
My first reaction when I read this post was pretty much a knew jerk reaction. I thought you were attacking “Geek Lyndsay” for daring to ask you change your behaviour. Thankfully I slept on it and read it again today more clearly and read through all the comments. That’s not what it’s about. But now I’m left confused.
What you’re saying is, as a gaming group, you have a right to who you invite into your group. That’s it really isn’t it? If someone doesn’t gel with you or your players than why should they be part of your group. I think that’s a fair and reasonable point. Why would anyone argue otherwise?
The framing of this point is very confusing. You’re reaction to Geek Lyndsay’s post, to the use of language (“inclusiveness”, “privilege”, “community” etc.), etc. sort implies you’re talking about the bigger picture. Yet you dismiss that you’re talking about, say, conventions where it is a public open event. Am I missing some other salient points or are you simply uncomfortable with the language/tone of Geek Lydnsay’s original post?
[...] [1] Player Alignment Shift: Being Chaotic Good at the Gaming Table on This is My Game. [2] You Don’t Have a God-given Right to my Friendship on The Angry DM. [3] Hillery, George A., Jr. (1955). Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement. [...]
So I made a point of posting about a song called “don’t call me white” by NOFX on the relevant blog. check it out. I also feel that I need to support you in your assertion that I am not responsible for the actions of a (let’s hope) minority portion of my social generalization who act in this way. I also want to say that I enjoy gay/racist/misogynist jokes, not because I am a bigot, but rather I thoroughly enjoy shock humor. My friends know this. They are also quick to mention, as am I, that there is no hate behind my words. We all often hear that it’s alright for a minority to use a particular “derogatory” word because they are “allowed to”. What makes the word “Nigger/spic/fag/queer/dyke/kike” so offensive? I am a firm believer that there has to be an intention of hate and malice in said word for it to truly be derogatory. If I started a fad of calling black people “them guys” would it be as hurt full and socially taboo if it was never used in a context of hate? I feel I should be allowed to, as a DM, speak about women being raped in an alley, provided it creates a sense of scene, atmosphere and creates a setting that is engaging for my players without being seen as a bigot or a misogynist. I’m not doing this to endorse the act but rather to convey the deep evil of a culture. I don’t need someone making me feel guilty for adding a very real and terrible sense of reality to MY game.
peace,
Brennon