Fuck "Sensitive" Language And Sensitivity Grifters
In yet another stunningly brainless maneuver, instead of simply reading the room, hiring competent writers, and focusing on making an even somewhat entertaining product of even middling quality, the gaggle of woefully underqualified, mentally ill, attention-starved narcissists at the helm of the long-since derailed train that is Dungeons & Dragons (in name only) have decided to continue signaling their degenerate interpretation of virtue in the desperate hope that it will simultaneously attract more moronic tourists and distract from the smoldering wreckage that they claim stewardship over.
This time they are somehow garnering hollow-yet-still-undeserved praise from the handful of irrelevant self-hating, soy-swilling hangers-on who are content to continue milling about in their orbit in exchange for occasional scraps of hollow validation, in part due to their ongoing and cowardly campaign of stealth censorship. Though from the looks of all the people they had to let go this year, I'm guessing this strategy has yet again failed to meet their wildly optimistic expectations.
WotC is no stranger to Orwellian revisionism. For all their pretense of being diverse and inclusive, they resent white people, and straight men most of all, and the fact that the very foundation of tabletop roleplaying games was laid out decades ago by the only demographic that is not only acceptable to discriminate against, but who you are expected to by their core audience of hate-filled projecting hypocrites is an inconvenient truth they would love to memory hole.
And the sooner the better, because given the amount of box-office bombs that would make Obama jealous, time's running out to get Netflix to greenlight a D&D documentary where Gary is a black disabled transbian with a mental illness haircut. What's her name can stay a white woman, because she'll of course be the villain of the piece, but the villain of this piece is a nobody-among-nobodies who goes by Alphastream:
Skipping past the fallacious-and-misleading preamble (terms which in all fairness apply to the entire article), he claims that, despite these wholly unnecessary changes having been in digital versions of the books for months, he hasn't heard anyone mention them. Amusingly he chalks this up to "most of us" just not noticing "the problems", but I think it's equal parts lazy tourists pissing away their excessive free time watching others pretend to play on YouTube and pretending that they're part of anything, and insincere opportunists only bothering to feign concern when it's something they think can capitalize on socially, financially, or (ideally) both.
Because if Betascream actually gave a fuck about any of this, that his misguided, self-serving slacktivism somehow improves the world in any capacity, he would have long ago just used CTRL+F to search the text for words that I can only assume he keeps in a text file precisely so he can refer to it while rummaging through PDFs in hopes he'll find something to coerce cowardly companies into caving to his morally bankrupt sensibilities.
And while there are other odious motivations that I'll get to in a bit, this is largely what it's about: attempting to justify and normalize the sensitivity reader grift. To guilt you into believing that one harmless word is superior to another harmless word based entirely on the arbitrary criteria that whatever untalented, feckless, parasitic cancel piggy at the time happens to consider it less offensive (because words are added/removed on a whim).
Of course you'll need to pay zey/zim for the privilege, give they/them/touristself a credit in your book so they can trick their parents, followers, fellow media Marxists, and maybe even themselves into thinking they've done anything constructive with zir lives, and oh if you don't comply? Well, they can always try to cancel you. But then that'll happen down the road, anyway.
Could be you say a word that they suddenly declare taboo. Could be that, from their perspective at least, you've grown more popular. Could be that you're more creative. Could be you make more money. Could be you didn't participate in that hour's Two Minutes of Hate. Could even be that you merely follow a guy on Twitter that follows someone you weren't supposed to. Could be that you eeever so slightly disagree on a subject that's completely unrelated to gaming.
These egocentric psychopaths invariably eat their own, they're just looking for a time and excuse.
Anyway, the first on the chopping block—so long as we're ignoring children's genitalia—are savage and civilization, and it just gets sillier from there.
Savage and brutal mean different things, and so convey different things. Brutal is fine if you want to emphasize that the creature is cruel, but cruelty doesn't mean uncivilized, and if the creature also lacks an advanced civilization you need a word to convey that. Savage fits the bill, but Betacream is opposed to it solely because he and other mentally ill tourists like him cannot help but associate a primitive society with evil, which requires outright denying the numerous examples of good-aligned barbarians and even entire barbarian tribes, not just in D&D both other media as well.
(But then the tourists also ignore the numerous examples of female heroes in even classic games and media, and consider every new female action lead the first female action lead, so did you honestly expect anything else?)
This pattern of what could generously be considered thought also extends to how they "analyze" inherently evil races. Note how "savage orcs" was changed to "ruthless bandits": this is due in no small part to a deluge of low-effot-and-IQ articles churned out by the lazy, power-hungry race hustlers of the time—which would have been way back in, oh, 2019, I think—claiming that orcs were merely blacks...just, you know, with a different name, appearance, origin, mannerisms, and the fact that they aren't fucking real.
Despite cropping up at least once a year—along with other absurd lies—I've yet to hear an explanation as to how even the most devout racists in their cult could possibly look at an orc and see a black person. The best theory is that they see the many-but-not-all (or even most) blacks going around looting, raping, and killing people for the sheer pleasure of it, and while this is certainly orc behavior you just have to engage in the esoteric art of reading and understand how time works to realize that orcs were doing this in a fantasy context well before it blossomed into a less benign "urban minority" stereotype.
But even so it doesn't mean that orcs are stand-ins for blacks, but that that particular group of blacks are appropriating orc culture:
One of the woke's key squawking points that they like to parrot is that using certain words and featuring inherently evil races will somehow dehumanize real-world races, cultures, women, cripples, etc.
For example, describing monsters as fat or even ugly will cause you to regard fat and/or ugly people (ie, liberals) as less than human, and once you start the way they/zir tell it you're just one step away from murdering them in real life. It's similar to the fallacious argument that playing violent video games will make you violent, just lazily repackaged, and I wonder whether this is merely a pathetic attempt to fearmonger, or if it's projection of their racist beliefs.
What I mean is no sane person looks at an orc and sees a black person. Nor do they kill orcs in a fantasy game and then at some point decide that it must obviously be acceptable to kill black people in real life. Now people like Betascream will make this claim—and many others like it—and I'm curious as to whether this holds true for them. As in, has playing elfgames made them more racist. They're all mentally ill one way or another, so it wouldn't surprise me if some lobby for these changes because they think that their depraved beliefs are the norm (they do love their echo chambers, after all), or that with enough censorship it might "cure" them.
Whether or not this is the case, normal people who play games aren't burdened with such a consistently malicious mindset. We don't play half-naked dudes or dudettes partially clothed in animal skins as part of some pretentious commentary on the "moral fiber of primitive cultures" or whatever, we play it because the barbarian is a well-known and harmless archetype, with a recognizable and inoffensive aesthetic, and we like some combination of that and the class features. That's it. That's as deep as it goes.
However, it doesn't help their (head)case when madness, insanity, and crazy make the no-no list, in part because you're not "supposed" to apply them to evil creatures, even if the evil creature just so happens to be insane:
Not only are you not "allowed" to have insane spellcasters, you can't even describe a place as "mad" because some officious, hypersensitive tourist (ie, your typical 5E engager) without any real problems somewhere might be offended. And this is "bad" because their unhinged, infantile insecurities? Well, it's apparently everyone's responsibility but theirs to keep their emotions in check, and if you step out of whatever unspoken and arbitrary lines they happen to have established at that point in time? If you happen to violate an unspoken contract that you would have no reason to believe even existed?
Whelp, you're a bigot, racist, sexist, nazi, whatever exaggerated and ultimately inapplicable labels they decide to throw at you, which frankly aren't even that big a deal anymore because their definitions have long since been watered down to "I don't like you". This is insane. These people are insane. And I am using this in a literal sense. They do not think clearly. Their minds are not functioning normally. They are the linguistic equivalent to a home owner association, just somehow more obnoxious and useless.
So you can't have crazy people unless they are depicted however the hell Betascream or some other self-appointed minitruther deems is appropriate (God knows what one is supposed to do when they don't all unanimously agree to a singular vision), but that's fine: just stick to the sane villains, right? Well, sure, just don't let them engage in certain villainous behaviors. Or thoughts:
That's right, they are even opposed to villainous creatures having the mere belief that others are "lesser" than they are. I'm waiting for them to whine about imaginary villains insulting their imaginary characters (or "misgender" them), and then about suffering imaginary damage, and then just phase out villains entirely because all these sex-obsessed weirdosreally want to do is work at fantasy Starbucks in between awkward bouts of "roleplaying" their bizarre fetishes.
Actually, this tells you where Betascream's priorities lie: he pretends to care more about what an evil imaginary creature thinks, than about its actions or even statements. In other words, he doesn't want imaginary enemies engaging in imaginary thoughtcrime. But murder is okay, just don't make him fat. Well, he can be fat, I think, you just can't call him fat. Instead, you have to tiptoe around it using something like "well-fed", because as we all know everyone well-fed is also fat:
Referring to something as fat always adds meaning. In fact, it adds meaning in a way that "biggest" does not, as being bigger can imply a number of things. If you say one dog is bigger than the other, I don't automatically think fatter, I think taller, or perhaps its overall volume is greater, but f you say that one of the blue-haired ma'amatees covered in piercings is bigger, well now that's another story.
Now Betascream doesn't outright say why fat is somehow "bad", but since the only examples so far are part of monster descriptions, as well as the retarded rationale for changing savage, barbarian, insane, etc we can safely intuit that it's again due to fearmongering and/or projecting their own dehumanizing and violent beliefs, and while writing and re-writing this I realized something that lends credence to the latter.
Consider how they regard everyone outside their little digital dens of degenerate hedonism. For starters, they love to frivolously assert that anyone that even momentarily lapses out of line or decries their dogma is a Nazi or bigot or some combination of -ists and -phobes. It doesn't matter what or why, not that any of the labels do or ever have applied (except to themselves). It's like a literary version threat display, like when a cat arches its back to look bigger, just way more over the top and wholly ineffective, and if they didn't routinely demonstrate their dumbassery you'd wonder why they even bother.
Their opposition, ie normal people, don't do that. Since we aren't the mental and emotional equivalents or inferiors of retarded children we understand context and nuance. We can separate the art from the artist, up to a point at least. We are capable of having mature conversations with people that we don't agree with, even those we vehemently disagree with. They hate us for our ability to create and maintain civility and understanding, to forgive or even not give a shit, which is why they project their innumerable shortcomings and insecurities onto us: they wish they were like us, and despise us because they aren't.
And it's this consistent pattern of engaging in projection that makes me lean further towards the belief that, for some of them at least, harming and killing imaginary creatures is causing them to dehumanize real people who just so happen to share even just a handful of the most meaningless characteristics of one's character. And if there's one thing these people are known for, besides narcissism, arrogance, victim mentality, retardation (either mentally, emotionally, or both), laziness, obesity, high estrogen levels, dyed hair, substance abuse, envy, societal parasitism, grooming children, being overly privileged, poor impulse control, perpetual anger, apathy, and a lack of creativity and talent, it's cognitive dissonance.
So you know they aren't going to get the psychological help they desperately need, not that I think they would change or their parents could even afford it, anyway. Now, I'm not saying that this is definitive proof that some of these guys are losing their already tenuous grip on reality, but they already project so many of their own heinous behaviors and thoughts onto everyone else that if we find out that some unemployed pronouner (an oxymoron, I know) with half his hot-pink hair shaved off went on a killing spree and then blamed it all on no-no words that some careless author neglected to modify or remove?
Let's just say I'm not going to be surprised. I also won't be surprised when the media either downplays it, blames the book's author (if he's a white guy, anyway), and/or tries to cover it up entirely.
Now, what did surprise me was not that blindness is verboten. No, I expected that and am frankly disappointed in Betascream for taking so long to get to it (as well as for many other reasons). What surprised me was why it made the list:
Yep, the word itself is fine (for now), so long as you only use it when referring to the actual condition of being blind. I just want to say that my youngest daughter is deaf and that Betascream is deaf to reason.
Skimming the rest, there's something about using honor in relation to asian culture, Betascream unsurprisingly buys into the phylactery lie and he thinks you should never even mention slaves, because I'm guessing he suffers from the delusion that only blacks were ever enslaved and it was only done by the evil huwhyte man. Related: this is why he thinks you need to remove dark from your vocabulary, because, and I'm not kidding these are his words, "...can be problematic for its association with skin color".
It's not even just in the context of a dark ritual, but dark places. I can imagine him walking into a room. None of the lights are on. As he fumbles for a light switch he mutters something about the room being dark. Too late to check his privilege and appalled at the violent hate crime he's just committed, Betascream emits an oddly effeminate gasp before collapsing into a quivering ball on the floor, verbally castigating himself between obnoxiously loud sobs for what he has been convinced is externalized racism.
I'm kidding. I don't think he buys into any of this. He's just in it to virtue signal, so that he can perhaps one day convince himself that he's a good person. Also the delusion of power. Like a forum moderator.
Betascream thinks that by revising history, eliminating words, and exchanging one word for another word that doesn't even have to mean the same thing "we" can create a better hobby. I wonder if he has even skimmed the Wikipedia entry on 1984, and if so, did he fail to understand its key message? Did he not realize the parallels between his behavior and that of the baddies? Does he interpret it as a prescriptive document, as opposed to a warning?
He should really pull his head of his own ass, take even a brief look around, and see how much worse it's gotten. Specifically, how much worse people like him have made it. But then, part of me thinks this is what he and those like him wanted all along. Rubble to rule from, pretend that everything before the Current Year was a dark age (er...a not-good age), best forgotten, and we should be thankful that Betascream and the rest have deigned to even bother attempting to enlighten us.
If you—as in, everyone but Betascream and the other grifting tourists—really want to make a better hobby? Fuck these people. Figuratively of course. I wouldn't touch these self-righteous retards with a 100-foot pole. I wouldn't even want to be in the room adjacent to the one they're wallowing or pissing themselves in: I've seen their Twitter bios, what makes them cheer, and read far too many stories merely hinting at the horroric behavior of male so-called feminists. They don't want to improve anything, not that they would even if they could. They just want your blind obedience, empty praise, and money, but the only thing they truly deserve is your derision.
Look at all the other hobbies and properties they've tanked. Get woke go broke isn't merely a mantra but a stark reality. They bring nothing but ruin to everything they touch, and while this may not necessarily be a primary motivator for all—though many openly express this intention—it's still a side effect of their toxic behavior and cancerous presence. So fuck 'em. Mock them, block them, and make what you want to make. It may not be great, or even good (and certainly won't net you a participation award from one of their gay ass ceremonies), but as long as you refuse to listen to them there's a chance.
And don't forget to gatekeep your communities, hobbies, and tables, otherwise they'll waddle in and shit all over it (ie, give it the California treatment).
Leave a Comment