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

[seebs]

Good points.

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

It's not really hyperbole, though.

I spend a lot of my time talking to survivors of abuse. Emotional abuse is way more destructive and damaging than physical abuse.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's not really hyperbole, though.

I spend a lot of my time talking to survivors of abuse. Emotional abuse is way more destructive and damaging than physical abuse.

And you don't find physical abuse to be emotionally abusive? If I thought you meant that literally I'd be alarmed.

 

[seebs]

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.

I'm not sure they have one, in general. There is no obligation not to be offended...

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.

Right. And usually, if you put a little time into scratching the surface paint to find out what's moving underneath it, objections to avoiding "offensive" language are very often (though not always by any means) rooted in a desire to express the offensive sentiment itself.

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?

Yes. But then, there are people who think it's wrong to not censor such things. And then you have a moral conflict and we run into some serious foundational difficulties.

 

[seebs]

And you don't find physical abuse to be emotionally abusive? If I thought you meant that literally I'd be alarmed.

Oh, sure, but by and large, the people I know who are the most permanently-scarred by their childhoods are not the ones who were unambiguously physically abused, because even though that contained all those negative emotional connotations, it was also clearly enough a problem that they could stay reasonably convinced that they were being treated badly. The people whose parents are merely derisive and belittling, by contrast, are frequently utterly devastated decades later.

As one friend put it, "my father kidnapped me across state lines, I sincerely thought he might sell me into sexual slavery, and I have bad enough PTSD from dealing with him that war veterans I know tend to be extra calm near me, and he never belittled me or made fun of me for having emotions."

Derisive and dismissive behavior from parents is, pretty consistently, more damaging than most physical abuse is in the absence of such behavior.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh, sure, but by and large, the people I know who are the most permanently-scarred by their childhoods are not the ones who were unambiguously physically abused, because even though that contained all those negative emotional connotations, it was also clearly enough a problem that they could stay reasonably convinced that they were being treated badly. The people whose parents are merely derisive and belittling, by contrast, are frequently utterly devastated decades later.*snip* Derisive and dismissive behavior from parents is, pretty consistently, more damaging than most physical abuse is in the absence of such behavior.

Hmmm. Interesting perspective. I have a friend who would probably agree with you. Just this past Sunday, in class he gave everyone a piece of advice: "If you never ever want your kids to ever talk to you again, just say these simple words: 'you shouldn't feel that way.'" His parents were not derisive of him but they weren't warm either, and I think he has similar feelings to what you describe above. (He occasionally says, things like, "I never once had a real conversation with my dad. I found out more about my dad after he was dead than I ever knew when he was alive.") And you do make an interesting argument that in the face of unambiguous physical abuse, perhaps the unambiguous(?) evidence of abuse prevents them from internalizing the scars. I'm certainly not going to just take your word for it, but it's an interesting argument.

However, the xkcd comic is not about a parental or intimate relationship. It's about pretty much the situation that I, and probably many of you, went through in our childhoods. Eventually you just lose respect for the other person and quit talking to them (as JesterCanuck has done in this thread), and then it ceases to be a significant memory. On the other hand, being physically assaulted for no good reason is something that I remember much better. The effects still only lasted a couple of days, but it definitely left me feeling more violated than mere words from a stranger ever do. I did send a PM to one person on this thread telling them to cut something out, so I'm not claiming that words don't matter at all, but they don't matter very much and it's not worth spending time on grudges. As it is written,

"I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds."

I know from personal experience that forgiving and letting go leaves you happier than grudge-holding does. Hence, why I regard the xkcd as hyperbole. You can choose to forgive and move on.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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))

The U.S. is pretty heterogenous. There are areas which resemble Germany in this matter; there are areas which don't.

 

[MostlyDm]

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

That's not what I'm saying, though. I advocate free speech even outside of a purely legal standpoint. I think people should be encouraged to say what they want to say, even if I disagree. It's a moral principle for me, not just a matter of legalities.

I would rather disagree with them, argue with them, etc. I don't want them to shut up, even if I think they're an idiot or deeply evil or whatever. I think my belief in this is not totally unusual in the U.S., but probably is in most other places. That was what I was getting at.

 

[Raloc]

Inclusivity is restrictive. Yeah, okay.

Whoosh.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You can choose to forgive and move on.

No. You can choose that. Many other people can choose that. And it's a great thing to be able to choose; I'm not belittling it in any way.

But there are many others who can't. Literally cannot. The emotional damage is too deeply rooted, impossible to move on from (at least without substantial, long-lasting therapy, and sometimes not even then).

It's important to respect the people who have chosen to forgive and move on, and I do. Genuinely. But it's equally important to acknowledge that many of those who don't do that haven't chosen not to; it's literally not possible.

ETA: And it's not about who got hurt "worse." I'm not saying "If you can forgive, it means you clearly had it easier than people who can't." People react to similar traumas in different ways.

 

[SuperZero]

You really can't forgive someone if they're still doing the thing.
Why is forgiving more of a moral imperative than not doing things that require forgiveness, anyway?