Note: The people named in this article have a history of harassing their critics. As such I have chosen to keep my sources and any traceable information they have given me anonymous to protect them.
Three weeks ago the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons came out. D&D is the iconic tabletop role playing game, so a new edition is a big deal. It’s one of the few times that the small, insular pen and paper community gets noticed by the rest of the world. Many game websites have talked about it, notably Polygon’s piece on gender inclusive language. Yet at the same time as D&D tries to appeal to those outside the gender binary, it has been driving them away by employing two of the most toxic personalities in tabletop gaming.
Read this; it’s important.
Anonymous said: Jump off a cliff plz
You do realise I live in Southern Saskatchewan, right?
We don’t have cliffs. We don’t even have topography.
I don’t think we ever particularly anticipated that making a game about mischievous fairies would require us to research medieval European hagiographic iconography - and yet here we are.
Update: we have retained the services of a professional Latin translator. If it’s worth doing, it’s worth overdoing!
try to remember what you did with your free time before tumblr
#kids today #acting like fandom started in tumblr #let me tell you the tales of yahoo mailing lists and bb codes and message boards #let me tell you of power hungry moderators and bnfs#ljet me tell you of the domain of frank the goat before there was a rich text editor #this is the song of my people
Not the online kind.
The kind that were manually typeset, reproduced via photocopy - typically by someone making illicit use of a photocopier at work, as copiers were far too expensive for private individuals to own at the time - and distributed by hand at regional conventions.
This is how we used to get our slashfic.
This is a weird one, but: do any of y’all have a reasonable command of Church Latin? If so, I have a small paid translation gig for you. Drop me an ask if interested.
(If you don’t speak Church Latin, but might have friends who do, please pass the offer along.)
It’s 1 AM on a Friday night and I’m watching teenage lesbians play guitars on YouTube.
Male privilege is the knowledge that more medical research dollars will be spent seeking a cure for my receding hairline than your ovarian cancer.
Female privilege, then, is being blissfully unaware of the fact that there will be more spent on your breast (674 million) and ovarian (137 million) cancers than on prostate (294 million) and testicular (none) cancers.
You’re misrepresenting - or, at least, misreading - your data pretty badly there. For example, the linked NIH funding summary does not lack a row for “Testicular Cancer” because no NIH funding has ever been allocated to testicular cancer research, as you suggest. Rather, it lacks such a row because testicular cancer does not have a separate category in that particular summary, and is grouped the general heading of “Cancer”. A cursory examination of the detailed funding breakdown for the “Cancer” category for Funding Year 2013 reveals a number of funded projects pertaining specifically to testicular cancer (e.g., 7R01CA075056-14, 5R00HD059945-04, 5U01CA164947-02), and that’s just looking for projects that have word “testicular” in their names; doubtless a more thorough investigation would reveal others.