D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Not as well.
Not well enough for modern corporate standards anyway.

And this is just speculation, right? No evidence for this?

I think it would make sense for them to sell less if they didn't have the new classes in it, but I also think that it would help the 6e's design process in the long run to have those classes in the PHB right off the bat.

 

[Haldrik]

Whatever psionics is, it has to be part of the gaming system from the ground up, from day 1.

 

[Mistwell]

The marketplace of ideas didn’t work, when it comes to bigotry. It just gives them a platform. It doesn’t matter that we have better arguments, they aren’t relying on arguments in good faith to spread their message.

It did work. It worked great. It got rid of so much bigotry in our society, and other societies. Indeed, it kept going longer in some other countries, and got rid of more bigotry there.

Bigotry will always find a platform - I outlined the power of forbidden fruit. By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power. Which is what we've seen since the platform-denial started. An increase in bigotry rather than a decrease.

Some people just gave up on persuasion because it's difficult and requires working on ones persuasive skills, honing diplomacy, critical thinking, looking at which argument work better than others to persuade people, honestly listening to other people, and a host of things which are harder than they sound.

Again, the goal is not to persuade the other person making arguments. The goal is to persuade the larger audience to lean more towards your argument. If the other side's arguments are not in good faith, that makes persuasion easier. Let people see their bad faith arguments. Give them the platform to demonstrate their arguments are weak relative to yours. Don't deny them the platform to speak - that just sends the message you fear their message, and that it's stronger than it is, and that you don't want people to hear it for fear their argument will be more persuasive than yours.

 

[Richards]

I've been out in the Florida sun all day, trying to avoid having a heat stroke

Is that why you have a penguin as an avatar? Wishful thinking?

Johnathan

 

[doctorbadwolf]

By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power.

This is dangerous nonsense.

 

[Eric V]

This is dangerous nonsense.

It really is...

 

[Wishbone]

It did work. It worked great. It got rid of so much bigotry in our society, and other societies. Indeed, it kept going longer in some other countries, and got rid of more bigotry there.

Bigotry will always find a platform - I outlined the power of forbidden fruit. By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power. Which is what we've seen since the platform-denial started. An increase in bigotry rather than a decrease.

Some people just gave up on persuasion because it's difficult and requires working on ones persuasive skills, honing diplomacy, critical thinking, looking at which argument work better than others to persuade people, honestly listening to other people, and a host of things which are harder than they sound.

Again, the goal is not to persuade the other person making arguments. The goal is to persuade the larger audience to lean more towards your argument. If the other side's arguments are not in good faith, that makes persuasion easier. Let people see their bad faith arguments. Give them the platform to demonstrate their arguments are weak relative to yours. Don't deny them the platform to speak - that just sends the message you fear their message, and that it's stronger than it is, and that you don't want people to hear it for fear their argument will be more persuasive than yours.

If bigotry will always find a platform then people who are opposed to it are then obligated to make sure giving a platform to bigotry isn't incentivized by those in positions of authority and power. Disincentivizing people with hateful views from engaging in spreading hateful rhetoric is a legitimate tactic for persuading the larger audience. We're not obligated to give those who hate us a microphone and go point by point to underline why what they're saying is wrong to prove the merits of our argument that we shouldn't be hated.

If that's what it takes to persuade indifferent people that being indifferent to hate is wrong then it is easy to see the cracks in that system.

 

[183231bcb]

I thought of one other thing I'd like to see, motivated by the large amount of discussion of Lovecraft. While many people on this thread have noted HPL's racism, there's one other non-inclusive thing that often shows up in works inspired by Lovecraft: the conflation of mental illness/"madness" with "evil." Some iterations of D&D have used CoC-inspired "sanity" scores as optional rules, which essentially conflates lack of "sanity" with being evil. Pathfinder 1 does this too. If 6e ever includes mention or discussion of mental illness, they ought to avoid doing it like CoC.

 

[Wishbone]

It did work. It worked great. It got rid of so much bigotry in our society, and other societies. Indeed, it kept going longer in some other countries, and got rid of more bigotry there.

Bigotry will always find a platform - I outlined the power of forbidden fruit. By denying platforms, you give bigotry more power. Which is what we've seen since the platform-denial started. An increase in bigotry rather than a decrease.

Some people just gave up on persuasion because it's difficult and requires working on ones persuasive skills, honing diplomacy, critical thinking, looking at which argument work better than others to persuade people, honestly listening to other people, and a host of things which are harder than they sound.

Again, the goal is not to persuade the other person making arguments. The goal is to persuade the larger audience to lean more towards your argument. If the other side's arguments are not in good faith, that makes persuasion easier. Let people see their bad faith arguments. Give them the platform to demonstrate their arguments are weak relative to yours. Don't deny them the platform to speak - that just sends the message you fear their message, and that it's stronger than it is, and that you don't want people to hear it for fear their argument will be more persuasive than yours.

Also, here's a response from a friend who specializes in First Amendment law who is somewhat of a free speech absolutist and has some issues with that framing.

I think there is a difference between giving someone with bigoted ideas a platform and just allowing them to speak. An old first amendment case says that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” which i think is correct. It is better to allow people to say bigoted things so that we can know who they are and push back.

But providing a platform is a bit different. Providing a platform legitimizes the speech, and while I think that allowing counter speech works well, I don’t think it’s bad for society to collectively take a stand against bigotry. And I also think given the popularity of people who 'persuade' others by talking more loudly and being belligerent rather than through the real quality of their arguments, I think there is legitimate concern that allowing bigotry on those types of platforms won’t necessary end well.

I also don’t know if there is more bigotry now than before. I think there is a concern that deplatforming could lead people to fringe sites and get radicalized and stuff, but I think that would still happen if you have that kind of speech on more legitimate sites. And I think that bigotry is simply more visible than before due to the internet, not necessarily more widespread.

 

[Mistwell]

This is dangerous nonsense.

Declaring it so doesn't make it so. But it does demonstrate you don't believe in persuading people and changing hearts and minds. This is not the sort of retort which can accomplish either.

I cannot imagine how you think calling the art of persuasion "nonsense" and "dangerous" is a wise course?