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

[SuperZero]

It's a moral principle for me, not just a matter of legalities.

Saying immoral things is a moral principal?

Funny thing is, this is far from the first time I've seen a discussion about GLBT people suddenly become a discussion about how denying freedom of speech is bad.
Nobody's freedom of speech was ever in question. If that's all you're defending, you can stop.

 

[MostlyDm]

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

I guess I view "fault" a little differently, in that I don't usually see it as a resource that needs to be shared collectively between both parties.

My take is this: Everyone is responsible ("at fault" in a sense) for whatever they had control over. Intent matters.

If someone intends to hurt me with words, and I am hurt, they are 100% responsible for their desire to hurt someone else. They're a bad person. If I get mad and yell at them because I'm offended, I'm 100% responsible for that behavior as well. It's not split.

If someone intends to hurt me with words, and I'm not hurt, that doesn't actually diminish their responsibility. They still tried. They're still a jerk. 100% responsible for the exact same actions as in the first scenario.

If someone isn't intending to hurt me, but is perhaps careless because let's say I had told them I get mad when people insult me and they forgot, and I am hurt... They're 100% responsible for carelessness. But they aren't the same jerk as in the earlier scenarios. And I'm still responsible for my reaction, too.

If they had no way of knowing I'd be upset... Well, then I bear yet another different sort of responsibility. And if they do/don't get upset, they likewise are responsible for their actions.

In reality this isn't always clear-cut and doesn't automatically tell us who is the jerk in the situation. Cultural context matters a lot. We're coming up on the anniversary of my mother's death; if someone were to knowingly mock my dead mother, most cultural context is on my side, and that guy will be seen as a jerk.

Other situations might be more or less controversial. I'm speaking broadly here, focusing on principles rather than specifics, because I think people are misconstruing my position as endorsing specific actions that I may not actually endorse.

 

[MostlyDm]

Saying immoral things is a moral principal?

Absolutely, yes. The principle of free speech doesn't distinguish between people saying the right thing or the wrong thing. That's the whole point. It recognizes that discussion and freedom is better than squelching uncomfortable, or immoral, speech.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

You make some good points, so allow me to clarify my meaning: in the context of this thread, or the xkcd scenario, you can choose to forgive and move on. These people are strangers, they don't know you. There are situations where a person might be wounded deeply and repeated in the course of an intimate relationship, and though I believe you can still choose to forgive in those situations, the choice is not simple and atomic that way that ignoring an idiot is on the Internet is: see https://xkcd.com/386/

Seriously, if your life is so sad and bad that this thread here on Enworld makes you feel horrible, I feel bad for you. Come to Seattle and I'll take you to a movie and buy you an ice cream cone and play D&D with you. I think this has been a pretty good and respectful thread though and I don't currently regret anything I've said here. I do tend to be insensitive though (see my .sig) so maybe I'm overlooking something.

(A friend once told me that I tend to overestimate other people's ability to handle pain, whereas she tends to underestimate it. I may be projecting emotional invulnerability onto people who are nothing of the kind, and if you're weaker than I think you are I apologize, and I owe you an ice cream cone.)

 

[Eric V]

Absolutely, yes. The principle of free speech doesn't distinguish between people saying the right thing or the wrong thing. That's the whole point. It recognizes that discussion and freedom is better than squelching uncomfortable, or immoral, speech.

A moral principle is something that ought to be done.

Saying immoral things is NOT a moral principle.

Not squashing speech may be a moral principle (and usually is except for hate speech).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

Forget about the moral imperative. There is one, but it's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying it makes your life easier and happier to not take offense and hold grudges.

If you're in a place where you can't do that, similarly to how I "can't" lose weight and get in shape right now, I'm sorry and I hope you develop that capability, if you want it.

 

[SuperZero]

I guess I view "fault" a little differently, in that I don't usually see it as a resource that needs to be shared collectively between both parties.

Er, the offender being the person who's guilty is actually the standard view of fault. You were saying otherwise.
Or is only the victim at fault?

If someone intends to hurt me with words, and I am hurt, they are 100% responsible for their desire to hurt someone else. They're a bad person.

Well, that's the whole situation, then. What were you disagreeing with?

If I get mad and yell at them because I'm offended, I'm 100% responsible for that behavior as well.

Yelling at an aggressor is your responsibility. It's also an extremely mild and not at all bad thing to do.
Actually standing up to aggressors is often difficult. In this case, the phrase we're looking for isn't so much "at fault" but "gets credit."

If someone isn't intending to hurt me, but is perhaps careless because let's say I had told them I get mad when people insult me and they forgot, and I am hurt...

Wait, hang on... this person is trying to insult you, but can somehow claim that they're not intending to hurt you?
That's a good summary, actually.

 

[MostlyDm]

I didn't say they're trying to insult them, but the offended party perceives it as such. I left it intentionally vague on details, and said as much.

 

[SuperZero]

I quoted you.
"I had told them I get mad when people insult me and they forgot."

That's exactly it. The idea that I'm responsible for telling someone not to hurt me because that's not automatic, and somehow not doing it isn't their responsibility in the place, and then they could do it anyway and who cares?
I'm not really talking about whether you've stated what the insult is.

 

[Lanliss]

Something that many seem to forget on forums like this is that it is not America. It is not your country, or any given country except EN world. It has its own "laws" and it's own authority. The American freedom of speech has no control over what you should allow yourself to say on here. You should always follow the site rules over the local speech laws of your given country.