D&D 5E 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

[seebs]

"Normal" and "normative" are not the same thing, even though they often correlate.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sorry, but that's a terrible excuse. You cannot use what other nations or cultures find acceptable or unacceptable as the guidelines to determine your own actions. That's grade school logic ("But Timmy's allowed to stay up past 9!")


We're done here.
I'm sorry but that's NOT acceptable.
You do not get to tell me how to feel. You do not get to tell me what I should or should not be upset about. You do not get to tell me to thicken my skin. You do not get to be the sole judge of what is acceptable.

Here we see the value of a thick-skinned philosophy. I am able to tolerate your attempts to impose your values on me without psychic damage, because I know that you're just some guy on the Internet. Which of us two is losing out by you choosing to take offense? It isn't me.

 

[seebs]

Here we see the value of a thick-skinned philosophy. I am able to tolerate your attempts to impose your values on me without psychic damage, because I know that you're just some guy on the Internet. Which of us two is losing out by you choosing to take offense? It isn't me.

That is somewhat debateable. There are many ways to think about "winning" and "losing".

 

[MostlyDm]

If I'm talking with my hands, swing wide, and hit someone in the face then I have hurt them. Careless motion caused harm. At no time is it entirely their fault. That's blaming the victim and avoiding responsibility. At best they may not have been paying attention or standing too close, but that doesn't absolve the hand talker. It may have been an accident, it may have not have been the intent to hurt, but someone still hurt someone else.

Words are exactly the same.

I categorically disagree. I think there's a fundamental difference between words and physical blows.

You don't choose how to feel. You don't choose society's connotations for a word. There's no point where someone stops and says "hey, I'm going to feel upset about this", they just feel upset. Hurt. The ONLY person who has a choice is the person doing the talking. They're the people with the control.

I strongly disagree that people have no control over their feelings. However, that debate isn't even really necessary, because setting that aside there's another problem with what you're saying here:

You don't control other people or their reactions. You have no way to do that, which also means you can't prevent them getting offended.

We're done here.
I'm sorry but that's NOT acceptable.
You do not get to tell me how to feel. You do not get to tell me what I should or should not be upset about. You do not get to tell me to thicken my skin. You do not get to be the sole judge of what is acceptable.

I don't think that's what Hemlock was doing at all. Hemlock was simply letting you know that from his perspective, you are being particularly thin-skinned. He acknowledged that you probably think he is being too harsh/offensive in his manner... He even conceded there could be some truth to that!

I wonder... Perhaps there's also some culture clash going on here. Am I right in guessing from your username that you're Canadian?

Other English-Speaking countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK have very similar cultures to the U.S., but there are some key differences. One that I have noticed over the years is the issue of Free Speech.

Even other English-speaking, western countries often seem baffled by the level to which we esteem the right to free speech over nearly everything else. It's common for other countries to curtail various forms of offensive speech, whereas here that's a lot less common and rarely sits well with the American public.

This disconnect in cultural values probably contributes to our respective positions.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That is somewhat debateable. There are many ways to think about "winning" and "losing".

Touche. "Optimal with respect to what?" is always worth asking.

 

[Jester David]

I categorically disagree. I think there's a fundamental difference between words and physical blows.

Yes. There is.
Physical wounds heal. The scars no longer ache. Emotional wounds inflicted by words can continue to hurt for years.

I strongly disagree that people have no control over their feelings. However, that debate isn't even really necessary, because setting that aside there's another problem with what you're saying here:

You don't control other people or their reactions. You have no way to do that, which also means you can't prevent them getting offended.

You cannot prevent them being initially offended, no. But when someone tells you a certain term of bit of language is inappropriate, the reasonable thing to do it try and avoid using that terminology again. At that point you can prevent them from being offended. And you can prevent other people from being offended in the future.

If they tell you a phrasing is offensive them then you don't keep using that phrase, let alone argue for its use or defend the phrase. Period.

I wonder... Perhaps there's also some culture clash going on here. Am I right in guessing from your username that you're Canadian?

Other English-Speaking countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK have very similar cultures to the U.S., but there are some key differences. One that I have noticed over the years is the issue of Free Speech.

Even other English-speaking, western countries often seem baffled by the level to which we esteem the right to free speech over nearly everything else. It's common for other countries to curtail various forms of offensive speech, whereas here that's a lot less common and rarely sits well with the American public.

This disconnect in cultural values probably contributes to our respective positions.

Free speech means the government cannot shut you down for talking. It doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater. Nor does it allow you to insult other people, as your right to free speech ends when it impacts other people.
This is not a cultural divide, as even the US government has acknowledged there are certain forms of unprotected speech.

 

[seebs]

I categorically disagree. I think there's a fundamental difference between words and physical blows.

xkcd already covered it

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can make someone feel happy or sad, which is literally the only thing that matters in this stupid world."

I know more people who have been hospitalized by the effects words had on them than who have been hospitalized by physical violence. Yeah, it's lovely being immune to that, as all the sociopaths will happily tell you, but people don't necessarily have the choice of whether they are affected by words, and most people believe the benefits of human connection to be worth the pain.

 

[seebs]

I note also, once I know that a given bit of terminology upsets someone, the practical reality is that if I keep using it, I'm making the decision that I'm willing to upset them, and also to communicate to them that I'm willing to upset them. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong; I can conclude that their response is not enough to justify whatever downsides I see to changing my language. But it is a thing I try to be aware of, and conscious of, and not handwave away. I don't necessarily object to choosing to do something that results in people being hurt, but I do object pretty strongly to handwaving it away or ignoring it, because declaring that hurting people doesn't matter is usually not a step towards a better and healthier society.

 

[MostlyDm]

Free speech means the government cannot shut you down for talking. It doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater. Nor does it allow you to insult other people, as your right to free speech ends when it impacts other people.
This is not a cultural divide, as even the US government has acknowledged there are certain forms of unprotected speech.

See, you're helping to illustrate my point here. Yeah, even the U.S. has some forms of unprotected speech, but generally speaking insults are not one of those cases. You do have the right to insult someone, so long as you avoid certain things (e.g. Clear threats, sustained harassment, etc.)

In America our right to free speech very much does not end simply when it impacts other people. We have a much, much higher bar than that.

The Westboro jerkoffs that picket military funerals and sling gay slurs are deeply impacting other people. Protected speech. KKK rallies are horrifically insulting, to black Americans and anyone with half a brain or a moral code. Protected speech.

When navigating a cultural context like that, there's an incentive to develop a thick skin. If your cultural context criminalizes a wider range of insulting/offensive speech, it's reasonable that you would naturally expect people to comply to that standard.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I note also, once I know that a given bit of terminology upsets someone, the practical reality is that if I keep using it, I'm making the decision that I'm willing to upset them, and also to communicate to them that I'm willing to upset them. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong; I can conclude that their response is not enough to justify whatever downsides I see to changing my language. But it is a thing I try to be aware of, and conscious of, and not handwave away. I don't necessarily object to choosing to do something that results in people being hurt, but I do object pretty strongly to handwaving it away or ignoring it, because declaring that hurting people doesn't matter is usually not a step towards a better and healthier society.

Good points.

I found the "sticks and stones" xkcd pretty ludicrous though. Talk about hyperbole!