(no subject)

[feotakahari]

Sometimes it confuses me that the people who say "if you don't like the content on AO3, make your own archive instead of trying to change this one" are on the opposite side of the political divide from the people who say "if you don't like the content in Dungeons and Dragons, make your own game instead of trying to change this one." They seem like the same argument.

(Then again, the people who liked D&D the way it used to be made their own game. It's called Hackmaster, and you're welcome to it, but I ain't touching that with a ten-foot pole.)

Comments

[wingedcatgirl]

Hmm. AO3 isn't actually creating the contentious content, just hosting it. But the ability to do so is central to its mission.

Not really sure what the contentious content in D&D is; it's less central to our interests than fanfic, so we hear less about it.

[feotakahari]

I’m thinking of SJ arguments, like the old -4 STR: https://1d4chan.org/wiki/-4_Str Or whenever someone gets into an argument about villains that are rapists. Or when Pathfinder players argued over whether a character who’s canonically sexist can be Good-aligned. (I’m counting Pathfinder as basically D&D here.)

[sigmaleph]

Most arguments are not logical syllogisms, and their validity tends to rest in assumptions about what is doable and what tradeoffs are worth it and so on that vary circumstantially, so agreeing with it in one case and disagreeing with it in a different case usually means you think the underlying assumptions that give it validity are not the same in both circumstances. Few people are "make your own" absolutists.

There are plenty of differences in the DnD case vs the AO3 case and anyone who thinks those differences are material to the "make your own" argument would use the argument in one case and not the other.