1134
Had this conversation with someone who chose to no longer be at my table after meeting a blind NPC
(files.catbox.moe)
Another player who was at the table during the incident sent me this meme after the problem player in question (they had a history) left the group chat.
Felt like sharing it here because I'm sure more people should keep this kind of thing in mind.
I've seen them somewhat often in RPGs and related material. There's those who are blind, frail, deaf, weak or lacking a skill to do something necessary. Even Basic D&D had notable penalties for rolling INT 3-5, being illiterate to start with.
NPCs in fantasy settings still have hinderances, and they're expected. Maybe they can be neutralized by healing magic in D&D, or there may be equipment that works around them. The wrong part is shutting down the concept, as that's contempt for the weak (technically a symptom of fascism.)
While Nazi-Germany was infamous for 'euthananizing' disabled people, it is sadly not a principle reserved for the right extreme.
Luckily most don't go as far as right out killing the weak. But sadly there is almost always a splinter group in any political or ideological orientation that shows contempt for the weak.
Why people downvote you I don't know.
I just got here, but I'd guess it's because their comment reads like they are saying "no, facists aren't the bad guys, both sides show contempt for the weak sometimes!" It's a false balance fallacy.
I'm not sure if that was the intention, or it was just unfortunately worded.
It is - in your strawman argument. Because they've just said that evil is not limited to fascists and described how.
I agree with every word and the tone too. There are plenty of people with "contempt for the weak" who for whatever reason disagree that they are dirt.
It's an attack at dishonorable people, and if you have the need to resort to strawman arguments, then maybe it has something to do with you.
You asked why the comment was getting downvoted. I responded with how the comment could be interpreted in a way that warrants downvotes.
You seem to have taken that proposed explanation very personally for some reason.
How would you have worded the comment?
It depends on what the author was actually trying to say. I've never pretended to know what their intention was, and they haven't added any further commentary to let us know.
I took it personally because you've put that "implying Nazis were not as bad" part as if it's normal thought process. It's really not, I only see such when the one expressing it has already made up their mind and is just trying to silence\condemn the initial commenter. I haven't ever seen that IRL being expressed sincerely. It's always "burn the witch".
While I personally haven't downvoted it, I did have a nice eye roll at it.
Nothing stated is false, but there's a massive gulf between contempt and euthanization. Both are wrong, but one involves stuff like murder and forced sterilization. The other may involve terrible treatment if the bigot is given the opportunity. Scale/magnitude is important.
As a personal thing, whenever people start tossing around nazi and fascism I find it a bit harder to take their statements seriously. The terms are becoming significantly less impactful through modern overuse. Nazis and fascists absolutely still exist, but it feels as though the terms are becoming shorthand catch-all labels for general reprehensible behavior/beliefs for people too lazy to explain further or to use more specific terminology. Not saying that's ocurring here, but in general.
Like are we talking about people who believe that all the world's issues are caused by meddling and scheming of the genetically inferior and rule of the world is the birthright of some genetically pure ubermenschs, or is it somebody unable to handle a blind character in a TTRPG? Someone going to a protest to shoot people, or some couch potato who has stewed too long with right wing media? All are bad, but it's a matter of scale which is significant.
Much like how issues of unconcious biases or microaggressions should probably be solved with attempts at education rather than shouting someone down like they're calling for eugenics. There has to be a better solution than just dismissing large swaths of people for the wrong beliefs, or in a lot of online discourse, calling for physical violence against them.
That's not happening here, but I've seen so much of it that it shades how I interact with online discourse.
Strictly speaking, they believed that grouping of people by race makes sense in respect to their personality, and thus some common racial interests, and then that thus races compete fight each other, and then that thus they should make their own race "win". Genetic "purity" was in their opinion needed to preserve "their" personality traits, or something like that.
That's still bullshit, but with my description I hope you can see that it's more similar to class theory in Marxism than Marxists would like to admit.
Well, for me any kind of contempt for the weak (in any respect - appearances, sicknesses, hard childhood, trauma, unpleasant personality, anything) is reminiscent of people who dismiss anybody with a problem with no objections from their conscience, also thinking that such behavior makes them stronger. And I know that maybe they'll regret that in the old age, and that those they dismiss will later praise the universe that they've been dismissed by such people, but still.
And fighting that contempt for the weak I don't see as potentially harmful, while attacking somebody who's doing it is in my opinion and indicator of being the bigot in question.