Me my self and tumblr.

But I feel I should make clear that D&D the game itself is not exactly at fault here: like, okay, it is sort of at fault in the sense that it is a game of fantasy killing people with swords and magic. And it is easier for people to accept the killing with people with swords and magic part when they can imagine that their characters are at least to a degree justified. That is sort of just built into the game (and the game has built into its lore varying levels of making the fantasy of killing certain types of guy justifiable).

But D&D is not at fault for making people go "okay so it's bad when you kill orcs simply because they're orcs. It's better when you kill people who are bandits, who are a class of evil criminals where killing them is actually wholesome and sensible." Like, yeah, most people probably don't think about it that deeply, but the reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

In older editions of D&D, which were much clearer on the expected gameplay being "go into the dungeon and steal the stuff," there wasn't really this layer there. The rules for combat were generally quite harsh on player characters so combat was certainly something they didn't want to get into too casually, but ultimately the player characters were just going into the dang monsters' house and stealing their stuff. The monsters were arguably the ones acting in self-defense (but they're evil so who cares).

But in the WotC editions the self-defense justification is still fraught because modern D&D especially is an action game. It's a game where characters mostly have access to various methods of visiting violence upon their environs and where the gameplay itself rewards them for violence, because combat is the main source of experience as written in all WotC editions of the game and characters primarily grow in combat effectiveness.

The self-defense angle I feel is not supported by the game's rules itself, but is more of a narrative contrivance introduced by groups to make their characters feel more heroic.

My friend @tenleaguesbeneath once described it as, and I am paraphrasing, "characters hunting things for sport but the things attack them first so they can claim self-defense." Characters want to get into fights (because that's where the rewards are), characters primarily grow in terms of being able to get into cooler fights, but because getting into fights on purpose isn't heroic there's an angle of "those goblins started it" to make the characters feel more heroic.

I think this holds up doubly for media like ttrpgs: yes, colonial violence and vigilante "self-defense" turn up in d&d, but most players will just suspend disbelief and work around it. many will try to resolve conflict non-violently too, and RP and exploration are gaining, not losing clout in the culture. I may be mostly looking at its less combat-heavy side, but this could be the one upside to disregarding half the rules.

all that to say I agree justifying violence as heroic self-defense happens more in discussions around, than in the game, so the issue is more "of the culture". as @thydungeongal said, the game is not at fault.

I'd add, monster manuals may be partially at fault here, but even then, people choose smash or pass, i.e. how to engage with the medium. the Uncaged series did great work rewriting female monsters that way, and Radiant Citadel and others show ways towards less colonial play.

There IS a very popular semi-canon D&D system of alternate progression that does not encourage killing things for their stuff. Milestone progression. In which the DM rewards you not for combat, but instead for meeting certain points in the campaign.

With that in mind there have absolutely been strides taken to counter the "kill happy" parts of the game. Weather by intent or side effect I haven't a clue (though I suspect the later). That said. Under systems such as milestone player will go to lengths to avoid a fight because it's not meaningfully tided to progression.

Also of note: not everything that attacks the player is a thinking being in the first place. A whole class of non-sapient beings exist as monsters. Beasts namely (though some of those probably count as people too). So such a fight is more akin to fighting a wild animal for your life rather then being a vigilante, such an animal isn't a criminal agent.

Also, notice how yet another transfem has been banned in this relatively short reblog chain in the time since this bulshit happened.

Read Tumblrs ToS

section 6 subsection 5

Compliance with User Guidelines: You agree that you won't violate Tumblr's User Guidelines. These Guidelines provide information on a few categories of content that are damaging to our community. If you violate the Guidelines, you may not be able to continue using Tumblr.

Read Tumblrs User Guidlines

Violent Content and Threats, Gore and Mutilation. Don't message or post content which includes violent threats toward individuals or groups - this includes threats of theft, property damage, or financial harm. Don't post violent content or gore just to be shocking. Don't showcase the mutilation or torture of human beings, animals (including bestiality), or their remains. Don't post content that encourages or incites violence, or glorifies acts of violence or the perpetrators.

Now what was that the user can be quoted as post in a news article?

Predstrogen shared frustrated posts about a lack of action from Tumblr in response to alleged harassment she was facing, leading her to eventually post that she hoped Tumblr’s CEO “dies a forever painful death involving a car covered in hammers that explodes more than a few times and hammers go flying everywhere.”

Of Those 200 how many have made similar comments to Predstrogen's hammer comment?

A list of criteria:

Explicit harm wish: The post expresses a desire for someone to be hurt, suffer, or die.

Clear target: The harm is directed at a specific person, role, or identifiable group.

Violent imagery: It includes descriptions of physical harm, injury, or destructive events.

Elaborated scenario: The harm is described with concrete or vivid details, not just a vague statement.

High-intensity emotional tone: The language reflects strong anger or frustration, often exaggerated or hyperbolic.

I would be willing to bet THAT is the common thread. Because otherwise with tumblr's 43 million trans users it wouldn't make sense for "is trans" to be the criteria. Because only ~200 transfem to got banned.

I know what it's like to be vulnerable and fall for harmful propaganda. I know what it's like to struggle with something, not have anyone understand me, and trust the first people who claim to have a solution. I know what it's like to be easily manipulated because of the limited information accessible to me. I know what it's like to have harmful beliefs and do harmful actions, grow out of them, and hope for a chance to redeem myself.

And because of that, I don't expect people to be perfect. I don't expect people to have never been monsters at some point in their lives. I don't expect people to have always been social justice warriors.

But Trump supporters are not mistakenly misinformed. They're full grown adults who have had plenty of time to figure things out for themselves. They've had literally hundreds of opportunities to see how cruel Trump is and decide that this is the final straw. And every single time, they continued to support him and went out of their way to find an excuse. They've many times witnessed people begging them to stop supporting Trump, and every single time, they’ve dismissed those people as easily offended special snowflakes. The information they need is all over the internet, and they're choosing to ignore any information that doesn't confirm what they already believe.

People who were once monsters can be redeemed. But there eventually comes a time when those who can be redeemed would have been by now. And for Trump supporters, that time has passed a long time ago.

The idea that “they’ve had plenty of time” is not an argument. Time does not undo propaganda, social pressure, algorithmic filtering, or fear-based identity systems. People do not suddenly become immune to psychological and social forces just because they are adults. Online platforms and social networks actively reinforce beliefs by shaping what people see and who they interact with. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09759-5

Saying “the information is everywhere” ignores that access to information is not the same thing as trusting it or encountering it in a way that feels legitimate. People do not reason in a vacuum. They reason inside social environments shaped by identity, fear, loyalty, and perceived threat.

The post also quietly turns “redemption” into something impossible by definition. If someone is declared irredeemable because they have not already changed, then redemption is no longer a real concept. It is just a label used after the fact to justify exclusion.

The most dangerous claim here is that social exile changes minds. Evidence consistently shows that ostracism does not reliably cause belief change. It often causes people to double down, become more hostile, or lean further into conspiratorial thinking. Making someone “suffer a life of friendlessness” is not accountability. It is cruelty framed as strategy, and it mirrors the same dehumanization this post claims to oppose. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/02/20/social-exclusion-leads-conspiratorial-thinking-study-finds

There is also a contradiction in the idea that cruelty only ends when people lose power. Private friendships are not power in the structural sense. Institutions, laws, and state violence are power. Cutting someone off socially does not weaken authoritarianism. It just reduces the number of people who might ever reach them.

You are allowed to set boundaries. You are allowed to say “I cannot be close to someone who supports policies that harm me.” That is honest and reasonable. But turning personal boundaries into a universal moral obligation, and framing relational harm as political praxis, replaces ethics with purity tests.

If you believe people can change, you cannot set an expiration date on their humanity. And if you believe authoritarianism is dangerous, you should be careful about endorsing tactics based on social punishment and shunning. Research on polarization shows that cross-group engagement, when done intentionally, is more likely to reduce hostility than enforced isolation. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/polarizing-effect-of-partisan-echo-chambers/5044B63A13A458A97CA747E9DCA07228

Sources (collected)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31928312/

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/02/20/social-exclusion-leads-conspiratorial-thinking-study-finds

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09759-5

In other words:

Keep a close eye on biases in yourself and others that might differentiate between folks with low and high support needs or over emphasize contributions by low support needs disabled folks to academia and/or production.

"(4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code."

"(d)Definitions.—In this section:

(1)Covered material.—The term “covered material” means—

(A) samarium-cobalt magnets;

(B) neodymium-iron-boron magnets;

(C) tungsten metal powder;

(D) tungsten heavy alloy or any finished or semi-finished component containing tungsten heavy alloy; and

(E) tantalum metals and alloys.

(2)Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means—

(A)the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea;

(B)the People’s Republic of China;

(C) the Russian Federation; and

(D) the Islamic Republic of Iran."

section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code

If you know someone in TX, pleeeeease make sure they see this.

What's so worrying about this is that it's specifically targeted at younger people.

"I'm not handing someone a piece of paper.... wtf"

"Mail? As in... put a stamp on it? Where tf would I get a stamp??"

"FAX???? You have got to be joking rn."

Younger people statistically vote more liberal than conservative. By tricking younger and "more online than not" people into using a fake registration service, the state of TX makes sure that fewer liberal votes are counted.