This is not ok

It's just something for the normies to play with, who cares dude. I used to get so mad about this stuff too but then I realised that if something that doesn't cause anyone any kind of harm makes them happy then who am I to say no?

Same with those Romeo and Juliet emoji books like pic related.

Are you talking about Empire of Imagination?

desuarchive.org/tg/thread/43745331/#43745331

I never got the point of those books. Shakespeare was damn good at writing plays, but he never had great plots, even for the time. Take away the words themselves, and you have a generic story with bad dialogue.

>Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy

"I roll to bluff Socrates"

>never had great plots

Everything he ever wrote was already a folk tale, historical event or urban legend so right off the bat you've shot yourself in the foot. He also isn't famous for just his plays either, he is a renowned English language poet as well

>generic stories
You ever wonder who went and made them generic?

Admittedly, Romeo and Juliet is nowhere near as good as Julius Caesar, Othello, Macbeth, or King Lear. Fuck, even A Midsummer Night's Dream is better.

I understand why Shakespeare and his plays were relevant: like I said, he's good at writing plays. But reading his books and reading the emoji versions is the diffrence between reading LOTR and the wikipedia plot summary: you technically have the same information now, but one is much better than the other.

Literally have no idea what you're getting at.

Are you angry that the book is trying to pull philosophy out of a roleplaying game? Are you upset at the thought of moral dilemma's because you're part of Generation Snowflake, and the thought of creating a character that doesn't mirror yourself makes you uncomfortable and makes you want to go hide away in your safe space?

What the fuck are you getting at?

>You ever wonder who went and made them generic?
It's a little like saying Star Wars is shit because "the villain is the hero's father" is overdone.

>But reading his books and reading the emoji versions is the diffrence between reading LOTR and the wikipedia plot summary: you technically have the same information now, but one is much better than the other.
this.

OP here. When I said "those books" I meant the emoji versions, not Shakespeare's plays.

I...don't think whoever made these emoji versions intended them as substitutes for the original works.

This

You just have to realise they aren't written for or intended to be read by you. It's not meant for you and I can accept that. It is just something that exists, who carss

No, but you can be certain that they're going to be bought to explain Shakespeare to middle school students.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Every generation someone's said exactly what you just said, or have you forgotten that edgy totally radical 90s adaptation of R&J? The one with Leo DiCaprio?

That said, I do believe kids born after 2000 are a damn sight dumber than previous generations.

You're calling a philosphy book about dnd for normal people

Is there a free version of this laying around?

What? I didn't say that this is the generation Shakespeare's legacy dies. I didn't say that this book was the worst thing to ever happen to literature. I'm just saying that some kids are likely going to read it, find it dull, and possibly get turned off the real thing, and that's a damn shame.

>Roll high enough and you realize you're on the cave

>have you forgotten that edgy totally radical 90s adaptation of R&J? The one with Leo DiCaprio?
Is that the modern-day one that retains the original dialogue?

Nerd shit is cool now

If a kid thinks the original is dumb he's not gonna be any more thrilled by an emoji version of it. He's just gonna chuckle at the cover and go back to playing Xbox

>Does Dungeons and Dragons Refute Aristotle?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

with the exception of the 1911 and single action army will there ever be a fun as iconic as the beretta 92?

Yup.

You're assuming a lot of literary refinement from 14-year-olds.

>fun
>instead of gun

Now that's a Freudian slip if I've ever seen one

Yeah, i'm sure people who got onto the nerdy fad are going to get a philosophy book on dnd, nerd shit is only considered cool if it's the most surface level shit, marvel movies and the like

They likely aren't purchasing the book themselves, they're having it purchased for them by a guardian, reading it, thinking it's shit, and regarding the actual plays in that light, even if they might have liked them, had they been exposed to them in the proper context.

Never been to /k/ I take it.

The AK-47. The M-16. The Mauser Gewehr 98 series. The SMLE. The Winchester repeating rifle. The XM8, bonus points for never being formally adopted and still being really well known. The Mossberg 500. The MAC-10. The Uzi. The Thompson. The M134 Minigun. The original Gattling gun.

Yeah, plenty of other guns are just as or more iconic than the Beretta 92.

Calling bullshit on that. No parent will stop and think that's anything more than a novelty gift.

They'll get handed the original in 9th grade English and continue the proud tradition of not actually reading it.

M16 and AK are only ones that have potential of surpassing beretta 92 in recognisability. 92 was in all kinds of movies and video games from the 80s and 90s.

Also the Thompson and MP40 I guess too

>I do believe kids born after 2000 are a damn sight dumber than previous generations.
You realise the oldest of those are 15, right?

So what if it's a novelty gift? If it's their first taste of Shakespeare, and it's shit, you can't say that it won't in some way affect their perception of Shakespeare as a whole.

Apparently you've never been a pre-teen, user, because I distinctly recall the general consensus being "he's been literally dead for, like, two-hundred years, like, who even cares? This shit's, like, hella boring, like, literally why do they even, like, make us read this crap? Seriously." I don't think you could pay them to give a fuck about iambic pentameter.

Don't forget about the Glock pistol (15, 17, etc.).

>I don't think you could pay them to give a fuck about iambic pentameter.
You couldn't pay most people to give a shit about anything related to poetry.

kek

Not even the Uzi? As in THE Uzi? And the Mossberg is pretty much what people picture when they hear "shotgun." And don't tell me anyone doesn't know what a minigun is, at least from movies.

And the Thompson, aka the Tommy gun, was the symbol of an era and is one of the most enduring symbols of an entire genre of media. "Tommy gun" is a household name, far more than "Beretta 92" is.

Not to mention he's an old, dead white cis male, which makes it far worse.

No people picture double barrel or 870, maybe an SPAS 12 if they games in the nineties. Literally nobody cares about the Mossberg except for the American navy

fuck off

Fix your sarcasm detector. I'm saying that's how the kids see it these days, that's all.

Well, I've only got the lead set up, but if I follow where he's going with this, one of Socrates's central claims is that all men possess reason, and reason alone is enough to determine what is good.

If my speculation is correct, the very idea that we are capable of imagining 'what does THIS good man' do in this situation seems to imply that reason can take characters, and therefor people, to multiple valid images of The Good.

No, no one actually gives a flying fuck about leftists and their SJW newspeak.

youtube.com/watch?v=PLZGMcwi758

>You ever wonder who went and made them generic?
For the most part, not Shakespeare.
Great as he was, The Bard was more reboot-crazy than Hollywood.

You don't think that 50 years from now there will be seminars in universities all over the globe about Gary Gygax in which Aristotle is but a mere footnote?

you are missing the obscure but still iconic G11

So, basically, Planescape?

I'm pretty sure every generation has trought exactly this about the younger one.

You're in the right neighborhood, but it's more specifically about Aristotelian virtue ethics.

Helpfully, the complete text is on Google Books.
Here it is from page 2 of the essay:
books.google.com/books?id=4bo59BEaoDQC&lpg=PA17&ots=0PVG6-YfTh&dq=does dungeons and dragons refute aristotle&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false

Frankly, I'm still not sure what's supposed to be not okay about it or anything else in the book.