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

[MostlyDm]

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.

I don't disagree with you here. One of the things I am objecting to is the inverse; hand waving away the responsibility of the other party.

Also, that there are often other factors beyond just someone's feelings; it's often not just about the cost of changing your language from a personal perspective. Changing your language could also signal other things on a broader level, or imply tacit approval to something you don't agree with.

An easy example is: if someone says they're offended by any mention of or display of homosexuality.

The key issue there isn't that it would be inconvenient for you to censor yourself from such mentions. It's that it would be wrong to do so. Make sense?

 

[Jester David]

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.

People may have a right to speak insults but there is no comparative right requiring me to listen to them, or continue to engage with someone who apparently does not value the feelings of others.

Good day sir.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Raloc]

What I find amusing about the push to bring PC culture to new heights of restrictiveness is that the people buying into it seemingly don't even realize they're being manipulated.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/10/f...s-a-manipulative-tool-for-centralizing-power/

 

[Jester David]

The way some people put it is "The right for me to swing my fist ends at your face." But there is a distinct difference between words and actions. The degree of that distinction is, to some extent, cultural.

The United States, to use one example, has highly protected speech. Almost all speech is categorically protected from government action (state actor doctrine). This legal norm also influences cultural norms, both in discourse and in the way people relate to one another.

Citing examples of unprotected speech is not helpful, as they are few and far between (see, e.g., U.S. v. Stevens or Brown v. EMA). Even a "true threat" (pace Brandenburg) is an exceptionally high bar to meet. Moreover, the protection of speech has gradually been getting greater, not less. That said, different countries might protect speech to a greater or lesser extent- and that's okay. I would not want to live in a place that prized feelings over speech; the price of truly unfettered free speech is that, to some extent, feeling will get hurt from time to time. But the good ideas should, in the long run, win out. Hopefully. In theory.

I don't believe there should be laws protecting feelings. That would be odd. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't prize feelings or prioritize emotions. Legislating and restricting free speech is not a personal concern, it's a legislative and business concern. And even then, free speech only applies when speaking of the government: you can still be fired or sued for what you say (in the latter case if its slanderous).

Free speech doesn't really apply to interpersonal interaction. Mostly because when the best defense you can make about what you're saying is "hey, it's not illegal to say this!" what you're saying might not be worth saying. That's when the much more important grandma rule* comes into play.

*don't say anything to another person that you wouldn't feel comfortable saying to your grandmother

Also- it's falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

True... oh so very true...

 

[Mirtek]

Only 46% of homes in the US conform to the so-called "standard" of two parents who have never remarried raising their child. Small towns mean little to this, as there's just as likely to be a "non-standard" family. (Or, since 54% of families are NOT a married man and women people and their kids, the new standard.)

Then the % in the US are very different from Germany (latest statistics I could find where from 2013, but then it was 80% of families conforming to the so-called "standard", with the rates in villages (3,000 or less inhabitants even higher))

PS: Your last two quotes are not quoting me.

 

[was]

...I've been gaming for nearly 20 years now. During that period, nearly every group that I have played with has had at least one woman and one LGBTQ person in it. I can't see how a few words in the books would attract more members from those groups if they were not naturally inclined to game anyways. Gamers are gamers regardless of sex or gender identity.

 

[Umbran]

Which of us two is losing out by you choosing to take offense? It isn't me.

Are you sure about that?

If your think-skinned philosophy leads you to be callous, then, at least on this site, you are apt to run afoul of The Rules, and have moderators looking at you funny. I'm going to guess you don't want that, as it may mean you lose out.

The issue at hand isn't actually whose skin is thick - it is how much respect you show to others.

Communication requires two people. Either or both can make mistakes, be careless, thoughtless, or have ill intent. If you are part of a communication, you cannot just shove responsibility for all offense onto someone else. You bear a responsibility to be sure you aren't in error, careless, thoughtless, or have ill intent.

Relying on thick skin is assuming that you are given a pass on several of these. You don't get to assume it - you must earn it or ask for it. That is much of the essence of showing respect for others.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[SuperZero]

Hey, so, since I’m also a member of that minority group, you think my thoughts on this topic are extra insightful too, right? ‘Cause that’s how it works, right? It’s not about what makes more sense or who has the more persuasive argument, we should just listen and believe if the person is in the relevant group?

Unless I ever said something resembling what Mistwell said to me, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I have listened to you. Not that I actually needed to, to be in line with what I said there, since I already have my own experience.

But if you don't think actually having direct experience, knowledge, and expertise makes a position more persuasive...

Even if someone intends to offend, the other party can actually choose to not be offended.

If you try to hurt someone and succeed, it's their fault?
This is pretty much the most basic case of fault.

And for every one it makes feel better, at least one is annoyed by it.

Considering who the two are, this is what's known as a "win/win."

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

Sure. Only one of the two has a tendency to be a constant, overwhelming force with an kind of regularity.

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.

Those two things aren't related. Being hurt isn't a reaction. It isn't something the other person does.

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.

"It's not literally illegal!" isn't exactly a compelling defense.

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.

I honestly don't expect people to treat each other tolerably. That has nothing to do with any criminalizing.

An easy example is: if someone says they're offended by any mention of or display of homosexuality.

There's a quantitative difference between being a member of a minority group and having your existence "offend" people who hate that minority group, and hating a certain minority group and having your hate speech offend its targets.

If your punch somebody in the face, you might hurt your hand.
You don't get to whine about how their mean skull bruised your knuckles, though.

What I find amusing about the push to bring PC culture to new heights of restrictiveness is that the people buying into it seemingly don't even realize they're being manipulated.

Inclusivity is restrictive. Yeah, okay.