D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[HJFudge]

I do not think that the world will acquiesce to your request. Sorry. You’ll just have to shout at the clouds.

Hah, spit in the wind perhaps?

But yes. You are correct. I doubt anyone is going to be 'Thank you random internet stranger, for enlightening us by nitpicking our use of a single word. We are forever in your debt'.

Still! I feel better for having said that. Now lets get back to talking trash on misogynists and alt-right poo-heads.

 

[Gradine]

They may not MEAN that. However, then I'd kindly request they use a different word that doesn't mean that. Because that is what the word Gatekeeping refers to.

It is, by definition, the activity of controlling (and usually limiting) access to something.

The people Mearls was talking about, in his "gatekeeping" tweet, the "oppressors", are the people who are using the activity of controlling (and definitely limiting) access to RPGs to target people from specific demographics.

 

[Dausuul]

To be fair, I think the thing they were asking for evidence for was the "Mearls doxxed accusers to Zak S" trope, which is oft-repeated but less backed-up (to the extent that I couldn't find anyone who claims to be a victim of said doxxing, which would at least be a start). The truth, in this case, seemed to be more an inadvertent naming, which, given the things Zak S was being accused of and was frankly well-known for before this whole thing even started, was something Mearls should have never done in the first place.

Exactly. There's a ton of evidence for the claims about Zak S - no need to search all 77 pages of this thread, a simple Google search turns up multiple first-hand accounts. And Mearls should not have offered the support that he did, and I hope that HR at WotC sat down and had a long talk with him about why his handling of that situation was a problem.

But claiming that Mearls doxxed Zak's victims to Zak himself is another matter. That's where I'm asking for evidence. If Mearls did that, he should be fired yesterday. If he didn't do it, then it's pretty reprehensible to be saying that he did.

 

[Azzy]

To be fair, I think the thing they were asking for evidence for was the "Mearls doxxed accusers to Zak S" trope, which is oft-repeated but less backed-up (to the extent that I couldn't find anyone who claims to be a victim of said doxxing, which would at least be a start). The truth, in this case, seemed to be more an inadvertent naming, which, given the things Zak S was being accused of and was frankly well-known for before this whole thing even started, was something Mearls should have never done in the first place.

Ah, my bad. Apologies to [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION], then.

 

[epithet]

... literally everyone else has covered this, but the singular use of "they" always was and has always been "correct", in plain language if in nothing else. And not just for an individual whose gender is either undetermined or deliberately non-binary; one of the quoted examples here shows Shakespeare using it immediately following the use of singular "man". It's just a thing that always happened. ...

Look, you can call yourself whatever you want to, and as long as I'm informed about what you want to be called I'll try to go along with it out of basic courtesy, but the strictly singular use of "they" is incorrect. Shakespeare made any number of grammatical errors, some intentionally and other because among his many works, many errors are inevitable. Sometimes people misspeak, and some bad grammar, no matter how commonplace, remains bad grammar.

The bottom line from my perspective is that we need a plural pronoun. There are circumstances where it is really important to distinguish between "that person" and "those people," so unless other words take the place of "they" and "them" I will remain resistant to the "singular they."

 

[Demetrios1453]

Look, you can call yourself whatever you want to, and as long as I'm informed about what you want to be called I'll try to go along with it out of basic courtesy, but the strictly singular use of "they" is incorrect. Shakespeare made any number of grammatical errors, some intentionally and other because among his many works, many errors are inevitable. Sometimes people misspeak, and some bad grammar, no matter how commonplace, remains bad grammar.

The bottom line from my perspective is that we need a plural pronoun. There are circumstances where it is really important to distinguish between "that person" and "those people," so unless other words take the place of "they" and "them" I will remain resistant to the "singular they."

Have fun with using "thou" and "thee" then, since if you're resistant to the plural third person pronouns being used in the singular, you should really stick to your guns and do the same with the (originally strictly) plural second person pronouns being used in the singular...

(And stating that that change was in the past and that this is different since it's happening in the present, well, at one point that past was the present, and people complained about the strictly plural "you" taking over the singular then. Complaining about language changes while they occur is ultimately futile, as languages inevitably change over time, no matter how much grammarians have to be dragged along kicking and screaming...)

 

[epithet]

Have fun with using "thou" and "thee" then, since if you're resistant to the plural third person pronouns being used in the singular, you should really stick to your guns and do the same with the (originally strictly) plural second person pronouns being used in the singular...

(And stating that that change was in the past and that this is different since it's happening in the present, well, at one point that past was the present, and people complained about the strictly plural "you" taking over the singular then. Complaining about language changes while they occur is ultimately futile, as languages inevitably change over time, no matter how much grammarians have to be dragged along kicking and screaming...)

There is a difference between changes in grammar that are simply a matter of style and those which involve substance. For example, in America a corporation is an "it," while in the UK it is more often a "they." Either one refers to a group of people, so there's not much confusion--it is a stylistic choice. I think that the difference between "this person" and "these people" is more substantial.

In the case of the "singular you," other terms evolved to fill the gap, like "y'all."

 

[Gradine]

<sigh>

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/use-the-singular-they/

I could go on, but I believe the point is made. Singular "they" is in no way grammatically incorrect. There is literally no reason to die on this particular hill.

 

[HJFudge]

This ain't nothing. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up Oxford Comma's and watching everyone go mad.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This ain't nothing. I'm just waiting for someone to bring up Oxford Comma's and watching everyone go mad.

Never mind the Pennsylvania 'Postrophe. Right?