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

[billd91]

But statistics are quirky, they overlook details, they assume things and generalize.

Indeed they do. And yet many are also based on actual reported data from the US Census Bureau that show real differences in populations. And those differences have repercussions.

 

[Sunseeker]

You can take that inheritance while refusing to look at the blood on it if you like. I don't. That's my position, and I would appreciate you addressing it (if you do so) for what it is and not as the farce you would like it to be.

I have no interest in addressing your opinion. It's your opinion, we all have one. You're not going to change your opinion and you're not going to change mine, so what's the point in addressing it other than to say I don't agree with it? I know history very well thank you.

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

You know, Mistwell, I started a whole point-by-point dissection of your post and got about four paragraphs into it before I realized that I just don't care. I really don't. Your collection of pedantic, humorless, nitpicking nonsense isn't worth that kind of detailed reply, and this isn't a debating society (at least, not last I checked). I'm just not interested in carrying on a conversation with someone who loves reductio ad absurdum, derailing tactics and a total lack of interest in the way people's actual lives are affected as long as you can write it off as a cop-out.

My objective here has not been, at any time, to call out or judge any particular person for anything regarding their backgrounds (which I don't know) or their inner thoughts (which are beyond me). If I've criticized, it's been the arguments presented and the way people make them - and yes, I think Sharsharak's argument (such as it was) was flippant and arrogant and completely without humility in the face of history. And if you can tell your remark about Faith was a joke (which I couldn't, but hey, humor is tricky), I'm a bit surprised you had so much trouble identifying the fact that I was making fun of my own personal vices (vanity and intellectual arrogance being among them) repeatedly in my post. So no, of course my own humility is a work in progress. Everyone's is, I expect, unless we have some bodhisattvas on this board that I haven't met yet. But the fact that I have and am aware of having said problems doesn't mean that I can't point out when someone else is being dismissive, reductive, misleading and generally unhelpful to the discourse.

I'm not here to win on points, Mist. If you are, suit yourself, but I talk to try to share the best truth I know how.

And as an aside, cast myself as a victim? Seriously? It's an internet forum. What are people going to do, dock my cool points? There are plenty of genuinely victimized and oppressed people in the world, but me in a conversation with the folks here decidedly doesn't qualify. Take a breath.

 

[Mouseferatu]

As far as the whole "making a political statement" argument (to go back to the original topic), it amazes me that people can't see that it goes both ways. For everyone who asks, "Why does this character have to be gay?" I could come back with "Why does this character have to be straight?" Either both choices are making a statement, or neither is.

Why did an author choose to make a character black? Well, why would they choose to make him white? Either way is a choice. The fact that it's a choice some people make without thinking, that they "default" to a certain setting, doesn't change the fact. Either you need to justify making a character white or straight, or else you don't need to justify making a character non-white or queer.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

We can all wear shirts that say how great what we are is*; we need to avoid shirts that say how awful someone else is.

*There is no way of saying how great white people are without being awful. Sorry, white people, but the racists and a history of slavery, colonialism, and other such awful things have ruined literally every slogan.

Do you think the example of "white pride" might serve to caution us that maybe encouraging pride in exclusive genetically-defined group identities is not a very good idea? It seems strange to say that history has "ruined" the message that certain people are great because of "what we are"; I'm pretty sure that message was intrinsically bad to begin with, and history was only the experiment that confirmed it. So going forward we should probably lay off the "what we are" and pay more attention to the "who we are".

 

[Hussar]

Exactly, so why bother to bring up Swastikas.



Of course it was in error. WotC have to rely on professional people to run their games and it is sad to see someone abusing their position to make some kind of statement. It is just poor judgement and a prime example of exactly the wrong thing to do.

Otherwise Magic tournaments should just enforce a strict blank shirt rule to be fair for everyone.

I imagine that if I wore all sorts of shirts I would be asked to leave. That doesn't mean that any decorations are offensive. This is a pretty blatant straw man.

 

[Mistwell]

Wait.

Rather than read the whole thread, you intend to drag someone into reposting things that others have already said?

...And that the presence of this line, in and of itself, makes clear the exact game of wording and misdirection the entire rest of your post is playing

Yours is post 742. So yeah, I am not reading the whole thread to find someone else's tangentially related posts so I can respond to someone. If they agree with your point, they should be able to represent that idea in their own words just fine. Or, if they don't want to do that, they can link to your posts. But no, you don't get to tell someone "see above - somewhere in 700 some posts" and think that's a reasonable sum of "homework" you can assign someone in order for them to be able to reply to a post.

Also, you are playing tag team, acting as if they cannot defend themselves, and speaking for them. Seems like an awful lot of effort when you could just be arguing the topic in question rather than making a personal attack at my motives.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

As far as the whole "making a political statement" argument (to go back to the original topic), it amazes me that people can't see that it goes both ways. For everyone who asks, "Why does this character have to be gay?" I could come back with "Why does this character have to be straight?" Either both choices are making a statement, or neither is.

Why did an author choose to make a character black? Well, why would they choose to make him white? Either way is a choice. The fact that it's a choice some people make without thinking, that they "default" to a certain setting, doesn't change the fact. Either you need to justify making a character white or straight, or else you don't need to justify making a character non-white or queer.

A pile of people see straight, white, cisgender, male, and either Christian or vaguely agnostic as a default lack-of-choice and any deviation from that as being a choice. Pointing out that this is not the case, frequently, is really important if we ever want to see the lack of diversity in genre fiction - and in its fandom - get better.

 

[Hussar]

Oh. I see. So the standard is just whatever the judge dislikes? Anything the judge takes exception to, that's the bar?

In a word, yes. Absolutely. At a privately owned event? Absolutely yes. Any business has the right not to do business with you. Full stop.

Anti-discrimination laws notwithstanding.

Ok. So, apparently having particular Bible verses mentioned on your t-shirt is sufficient to meet the bar. Note, that you've also already done some wiggling here. The standard the judge set was not "change or leave". You've already walked that back. The standard the judge set is no bigots here. Are you or you not walking back your former defense of the judge?

But anyway, assuming you are not, suppose at a tournament someone shows up with a T-Shirt that reads, "Assembly of God Annual Youth Convention 2013 - "For we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us." Now, you (the judge) are ok with that shirt, presumably. But the theoretical gay guy who was feeling threatened comes up to you and says, "Errr... that bigot over there in the T-Shirt makes me feel really threatened." And, maybe you aren't as savvy as the first judge (you did have to look it up), and you go, "What? I don't understand." And he says, "Well, he's a religious fundamentalist. He takes a literal reading of the Bible, and I happen to know that they recently made a public stand that marriage is between a man and a woman. He's literally believes I deserve to die because I'm gay, and he scares me." So the judge goes over and says, "Say, do you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God?" And the guy says, "Yes. I do." And the judge says, "So, you believe Romans 1:28-32 is literally true then?" And the guy says, "Well, yes. I believe all scripture is the inspired word of God." And the judge says, "And you believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman." And the guy says, "Yes, of course. That's what the Bible says."

And the gay guy is standing there watching you. So now what?

Interesting but who cares? We can keep theorycrafting all day long and you'll eventually find some contradictions. So what? Because of what might happen in some fictional situation we should wash our hands of the whole thing?

Let's be honest here, the "common man" observer standard should apply. In the real example, the guy was wearing an openly provocative t-shirt with a slogan deliberately designed.

That's pretty far from a situation where the guy wears a pretty inoffensive t-shirt that makes no direct statement.

 

[Mouseferatu]

A pile of people see straight, white, cisgender, male, and either Christian or vaguely agnostic as a default lack-of-choice and any deviation from that as being a choice. Pointing out that this is not the case, frequently, is really important if we ever want to see the lack of diversity in genre fiction - and in its fandom - get better.

Yep, yep. That's basically what I was getting at: That people need to realize doing it that way is still a choice. There is no "neutral default." There is no "I'm leaving race or sexuality out of this" option. Choosing to make a character straight (or white, or whatever) isn't leaving those aspects out; it's just selecting the majority option.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing; there are plenty of reason to make a character straight, white, etc. But it's still a choice, and it requires no more and no less justification than any other, different choice.