This post is in response to a video titled Defending Hasbro/WOTC's stance against bigotry and fascist Elon Musk (the D&D Twitter/X controversy) created by @TheRulesLawyerRPG. The video can be found on Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyfOQ64P_lU. I refer to the video as an essay.
I try to be as impersonal and professional as I can. The response is opinion. Overall, I think the essay makes a lot of claims and assumptions without demonstrating them or supporting them, and this gives the essay an uncharitable starting position for persuasion. I claim no personal or professional knowledge of the essayist and I hope him all the best in life. The intent of this response is to show deficiencies I found as a way to object to the essay.
2:55 "Elon Musk is a narcissistic megalomaniac...a fascist"
1. Terms need defining so that we can agree on their meanings and their uses.
2. The terms used have not been demonstrated to apply to the subject of the essay (Elon Musk), as a consequence the audience cannot reach consensus about the premise.
3. Only a clinician, not a lawyer, is qualified to diagnose people with narcissism or megalomania, which are actual conditions with diagnostic criteria.
3:26 suggesting Elon Musk performed a coup and created a mob.
4. Again, failure to define terms, coup and mob, or show how they apply to the subject, Elon Musk.
3:34 "One instance of that mob was the election of trump."
5. Conflating a mob with voters. Portions of this essay insult half its potential audience and turns the audience against the essay AND the essay's goal, which I assume is spreading diversity and protecting democracy, rights, etc. If your intent is persuasion, then your audience is your ideological opponents, not people in your own camp.
5a. Conflating a mob with voters IS anti-democratic.
3:53 "...Twitter which Elon Musk owns and used to deceive the American public and get Trump elected."
6. I can only describe this as a use of loaded language (rhetoric used to influence an audience with strong connotations). Stick to the facts. Elon Musk bought Twitter. Trump was elected as US President. The burden of proof needed to demonstrate the claim that Elon Musk acquired twitter with the intent to influence politics or used Twitter to deceive anyone has not been meet. This goes against Elon's own stated intent for purchasing Twitter which is to protect freedom of speech.
3:59 "...and [twitter] is increasingly becoming a reactionary cesspool."
7. No good will towards your fellow humans is demonstrated by comparing them to sewage. Again, this essay is getting in its own way by insulting the people it should be persuading.
8. Failure to define what reactionary means or demonstrate how twitter is reactionary. If this is true, then I think this is the most important position to your position because it would show potential harm and stakes, and by failing to do show it, you neglect explaining your own point of view adequately and as a consequence, I cannot see the opponent empathize with your point of view.
4:10 "Elon Musk is making Hasbro/WotC a villain in his culture war."
9. I take issue with the word his in this statement because I think it implies that the culture war is of Elon Musk's design rather than something that emerged organically within a culture, is a tough sell and not pertinent to the point, and ascribes malice where there is none evident. Better to be as impersonal as possible.
4:16 "his crusade against being woke, as if being humane were a bad thing."
10. I make this concession to you, no one can define woke.
11. By using the word woke and then immediately describing it as humane, it sounds like you're conflating woke with humane, and this is a hopefully an unintentional muddling of terms.
12. Most people think they are humane. Suggestion that one side of a conflict has a monopoly on humanity or that one side is lacking humanity will not ingratiate people to your point of view.
4:21 "Every tabletop roleplayer who values the dignity, equality, and survival of people like me, non-white, lgbt+, as well as women and other discriminated against groups should defend Hasbro and WotC against Elon Musks reactionary idiocy."
11. Calling for every tabletop roleplayer who values ABC to do X is immediately disregarding nuance.
12. As for suggesting that dignity, equality, and survival are at stake for anyone due to either Elon's internet post or acquisition of a media platform, this has not been demonstrated.
13. Not one death has be attributed to Elon's tweet or purchase of twitter. Therefore, suggesting that life is at stake is an extreme claim.
14. The rights and lives and dignity of the demographics listed have not been demonstrated to be adversely affected by Elon's Tweet or Acquisition of Twitter.
15. All demographics receive some form and quantity of discrimination on this Earth. All forms of discrimination should be condemned equally and not based on group unless it can be substantially demonstrated that one group is particularly vulnerable or affected. Therefore, this essay comes across as biased.
16. Use of the word idiocy is a needlessly uncharitable personal attack. Opponents will always use the use of ad hominem to attack an essay's credibility.
4:39 "I'm fully aware that WotC has a mixed record on diversity, but Elon Musk is attacking their [previously listed demographics of people] right to speak in support of diversity."
17. Elon Musk is being accused in this essay of attacking free speech of certain demographics without evidence. Elon Musk has stated firmly that he is a free speech advocate and has not stated an intent to curb anyone's free speech based on their immutable qualities. The essay presents no conflicting statement or action by Elon Musk with his own statements regarding free speech, therefore, the accusation can be dismissed as made in bad faith.
18. If Hasbro / WotC has a poor record of diversity, we should condemn them and find a better champion. Championing an entity with a poor record of diversity is detrimental to diversity.
4:48 "by defending their [Hasbro / WotC or the demographics?] right to make these statements, we are defending everyone's rights to support diversity, and supporting the existence of people in the hobby like myself."
19. Diversity within the hobby is a complex issue and is not defined within the essay. This is a big, missed opportunity.
20. The rights to support diversity or the right to support the existence of certain people within the hobby are not evidently being threatened.
21. If Hasbro / WotC has a poor record of diversity, how can they do better than Elon Musk or some alternative?
5:10 "the controversy began with some right-wing people on twitter..."
22. How did the essayist verify anyone's political leanings?
23. How are people's political leanings relevant? If political leanings are irrelevant, then they detract from your purpose.
6:32 The essayist asserts that it is problematic for a billionaire with X number of followers to use certain language in a post a reply to someone complaining about how a book about the history of a game was publish. "The language has violent undertones, and he aims to control the federal government, and he's whipping up a mob mentality among his millions of followers."
24. This is a non sequitur.
25. Though infinite torture by fire is violent, "may someone burn in hell" is generally used to express contempt or disapproval, and the speech used by Musk does not imply or suggest SENDING anyone to hell which would by violent speech; therefore, the suggestion that there are violent undertones is inappropriate because it ascribes more malice than in evidently intended.
26. Ascribing intent to create a mob which is not evidently there is a bad faith thing to say and is therefore an irresponsible and slanderous thing to say.
7:46 essayist presenting Jason Tondro's quote regarding not anticipating blowback from Grognards "...I consider those people not worth listening to..." Essayist then says "Good for Jason Tondro to say this because the outrage is over nothing, and is reactionary and stupid."
27. This is why terms such as Reactionary need to be defined because calling something stupid is a foolish thing to do because it will lose the essay some good will from its opponents, but calling something both reactionary and stupid now ties the beliefs that people are reactionary for to the insult of stupid; The essay is now openly hostile towards its ideological opponents and the people it needs to persuade the most.
8:10 essayist references a post by Elon Musk showing interest in purchasing WotC. "Before I try to talk about what Elon Musk is trying to do here, how it's fascist, and what people's attitudes should be towards it..."
28. The audience does not know the essayists definition of fascist or fascism because the term has been used without defining or demonstration; We cannot have an effective and educational conversation about fascism when the terms are not defined, and fascism is not demonstrated.
29. "People's attitudes should be" is an example of leading the audience which generally unwelcome in persuasion.
8:30 Essayist shows tweets by Grummz and says "First this person..." essayist then criticized Grummz for failing to name someone is important if he wanted to honor someone or something.
30. Essay fails to do the subject of its criticism respect by naming them and thus shows an uncharitable disposition to his opponent.
8:44 to 11:51 Essayist states that Grummz claims that Gygax and other creators are erased and slandered at the same time, then essayist proceeds to show how Gygax and other creators are honored.
31. Good use of resources by essayist in supporting their response. Grummz's turn to respond.
12:33 Essayist in response to Grummz claim that Gygax and others are slandered. "The rules compiled here offer little by way of roles for other players..." in regards to non-white middle class men
32. While this is a statement of fact, the issue it that this statement is presented in the context of a disclaimer, but is not something that needs disclaiming because a disclaimer is used advise, deny, reject, or denounce something. When someone make a product for a niche market rather than a mass market, which they have a right to do and hurts no one, this does not need a disclaimer.
14:00 Essayist regards pulp sword and sorcery fiction as characterized by non-lawful good characters who drink and wench without demonstration, and essayist states "it was a stereotypical male fantasy of being a lone action hero who could get away with what they wanted, and live out a certain kind of fantasy."
33. Use of stereotypical in stereotypical male is ironic when the essayist is dedicated to diversity as use of this word can be interpretted as an uncharitable view or a denouncement of some men for maleness, and exclusionary of them.
34. People are capable of separating fantasy from reality, and indulging in fantasy, even unrealistic fantasy, is not evidently unhealthy or detrimental.
14:43 "in the 1970s, wargamers in America were predominantly white middle-class men. It isn't surprising that the 'fighting man'"
35. There is nothing disagreeable about this statement in and of itself. What is disagreeable here is that it is presented in the context of a disclaimer. Disclaiming history or figures from history is generally unnecessary. These are the shoulders of the giants we stand on and many people hold the opinion that this entitles them to some respect.
14:55 "original D&D describes the rules of dragons... Lawful dragons as Kings... Chaotic dragons as Queens. Gary Gygax's words 'women's lib may make whatever statement form the foregoing.'" Essayists response "A snide remark to say the least."
36. Only Gary can explain himself. Was this tongue-in-cheek or literal? Did Gary mean to disparage women's lib? It would be equivalent to putting words in Gary's mouth to extrapolate meaning beyond what is charitable. To assume otherwise would be unfair because Gary is dead and can neither defend himself nor apologize for any erroneousness and redeem himself; Judging the dead, who are products of a different time, is generally unfair and distasteful.
15:39 "Jason Tondro continues 'it's an unfortunate fact that women seldom appear in original D&D and when they do, they're usually portrayed disrespectfully.' This also is fact." Essayist shows one example of two cartoon women from an early D&D product, both are sexy, one of whom is topless.
37. The example chosen by the essayist is either respectful or disrespectful depending on the cultural views of the person looking at the example. There are many men and women who would not consider it disrespectful to depict a cartoon with an exaggerated or idealized human figure, nude or otherwise. This is in essence art.
16:08 Essayist shows an article form Dragon Magazine in 1977 featuring the comeliness ability of women characters.
38. Yes, this is discrimination of women for Dragon Magazine to propose to give them a different standard than men. It would be fair for the essayist to acknowledge that this never became core D&D material and to credit either or both the creators or the readers of the zine for ultimately rejecting it.
16:40 Essayist continues to read Jason Tondro's disclaimer about how D&D treated slavery as "a simple commercial transaction", then essayist shows a blatant instance of prices of slaves from something published in 1977, The First Fantasy Campaign Book.
39. By demonstrating a single example published in 1977 as the most blatant instance of slavery in D&D, this shows that the content was not likely prevalent in D&D, published 1974 to 2024, and would easily be a misstep.
40. Essayist did not fully inform the audience of the context of this published material, making it difficult for the audience to adequately judge the material or its author. Essayist did not help the audience to understand whether the published fantasy material was a reflection of authors views of slavery in reality. This shows a one-sided commentary.
17:18 "It's important to talk about this history in order to make the hobby welcoming today." Essayist then presents a partial statement by Gary Gygax, without context, and reads a commentary about this partial statement by another author, Ben Rigs.
41. Essayist treats Ben Rigs comment on Gygax's statement on Gary's comment as informed or authoritative without discussing the actual comment. This does not benefit the audience in understanding Gary Gygax or ultimately help the audience come to understand Grummz and Musks internet outrage.
18:56 "The real objection is to people being concerned about including historically groups in the hobby at all."
42. This is an assumption made by the essayist and presented without evidence about ulterior motives or ulterior grievences of the subjects of his essay, Grummz and Musk.
19:18 "This is about some people who want to be openly disrespectful and biggoted, to exclude people from oppressed groups out of this hobby and ultimately out of this society."
43. This is an unfounded and wild assertion. It shows that essayist does not understand the position of his ideological opponents. It shows essayist has no interest in understanding his opponents which would demonstrate good will and good faith. Essayist is objectively vilifying his opponents and provides no clear evidence.
19:32 "In the end, it is obviously ridiculous to get worked up about a preface to a gaming book that acknowledges discrimination against black people, women, and LGBT people and others exists and is wrong."
44. Within the essayists entire essay, essayist has not presented evidence that black people or LGBT people were discriminated against in D&D published material, and so it is inappropriate for the essayist to provide as a closing statement that the D&D history book has shown this to be so.
19:47 Essayist compares Grummz and Musk to the racists who marched in Charlottesvile.
45. A conversation about objectionable content or objections to disclaimers in D&D is now about racist protestors from an unrelated incident. This is a clear non sequitur given that opponents are not commenting about race; opponents Grummz and Musk have in fact not been shown to comment on race in the essay. Essayist is objectively vilifying and slandering the opponents without evidence.
46. Introducing an ugly racist historic event into a conversation about D&D is introducing unnecessary complications and is an example of muddying the water.
20:20 Essayist reads commentary of Kuntz calling WotC evil Robber Barons, then Essayist transitions to Elon Musk posting about making his own AI Game Studio. The segway between these two ideas is a comment about how Kuntz and Musk share anticorporate sentiment. Essayist then calls Musk an Oligarch without demonstration, then describes Musk's post as the rhetoric of fascism.
47. No comment. This is too messy. Clean this up.
21:18 essayist gives a definition of fascism for the first time in his presentation as "handing power to a small group of people who are capitalist."
48. Conflating capitalism with fascism is intellectually dishonest.
Essayist then goes on to describe people who support the opponents as fascist and sad and other bad things and accusing them of future wrongs revealing essayists own hypervigilance for things he has failed to adequately demonstrate in his essay. Personally, this left a bad taste in my mouth, then I got over it and that was when I lost interest in itemizing everything my responses.
