5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

Status
Not open for further replies.

S'mon

Legend
Despite being a Tool of the Patriarchy, I think "they" for 'single person of indeterminate gender' works fine. :p
 

JonnyP71

Explorer
I'm not sure if stat blocks pertaining to generic unnamed monsters are really relevant when surely the focus is a dealing with individuals.

I'm an old git, I struggle to adapt for various reasons, though I try - my mouth frequently starts before my brain kicks in - nothing I can do about that. But I was brought up to believe that referring to anyone by a pronoun form when speaking with them present in the conversation is rude, thus I've always tried to refer to people by their name. In practice it's probably for the best.

But as you can see above, when using online forums and gender is not obvious (or neutral/irrelevant as in my statement above), they/them/their is quite natural.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
There we go. I should have known--It's not about grammar at all, it's about your ideology.
Yes, of course it is.

Are you putting a higher importance on grammar than on human rights?

Or is it maybe also about your ideology, and not about grammar at all? Hmm?
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The practice of bombarding women with geek tests before accepting them is what he is referring to.

It happens all the time including in the now closed thread about their new designer, Kate Welch.

It is refreshing to see this attitude from WotC and it has been there from the start of 5e. They don't want toxic people in their game/community.
This..
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
Are you seriously suggesting that we have to dispense with the distinction between singular and plural in order to avoid "oppression and hatred and bigotry" and some kind of threat every day? You're really going to suggest that keeping that singular/plural distinction is oppressive?

If so, you've lost your damn mind.
The way you speak in absolutes and hyperbole suggests that maybe you've already dug your heels in on this issue, and that your questions are rhetorical. (But still I persist.)

No, a puppy doesn't die every time somebody refuses to use 'they' in the singular.

I'll admit the singular use feels a little grammatically awkward to me every time I see/use it. But you know what? It doesn't actually make my life any worse, either.

And there's a whole segment of our population...you know, fellow human beings...who feel that the lack of an appropriate pronoun to describe themselves contributes to the isolation and bigotry they've suffered their whole lives. They (plural) feel strongly that it reinforces the popular misconception that gender is purely binary, that you're either completely one or the other, and that by not fitting into that false dichotomy it opens them up to vicious discrimination. Structurally it's really no different from nasty racial epithets: labeling propagates vicious discrimination.

And even if that's false, and there's no correlation/effect at all, there is absolutely no denying that our society craps on those people. If they believe that this small sacrifice will help alleviate that, then fine.

As somebody at the extreme end of privilege on just about every metric, the least* I can do is tweak my grammar a little bit to accommodate a group that doesn't have my advantages. And those who begrudge them that are a far, far bigger problem in the world than a little bit of grammatical drift in our language.

*Oh, and I can vote! And make campaign contributions! Yay!
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
Funny, I couldn't find the phrase "human rights" once in that entire pile of drivel essay. Maybe your'e confusing two different things?

Or maybe you're playing a semantic game, suggesting that the basket of protections we refer to as "human rights" are not actually "rights", let alone "natural" ones, and therefore devoid of value?

If you're seriously saying that we should feel free to treat other humans like dirt because a clever rhetorical argument undermines the idea that rights can be natural, I take pity on your soul. Human history has been defined by a deep-rooted instinct in the oldest parts of our brains to look for ways to distinguish "us" from "them" to justify killing/robbing/enslaving the thems. What makes some of us better than animals is that the newer parts of our brains (sometimes) override that instinct.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
Don't you dare.

"Y'all" is plural.

"All y'all" is, um, lots of plural.

You're welcome.
That's actually really great example, even though said with humor. Southerners use y'all in the both singular and plural forms, and so far their civilization hasn't....uh....

Hmm, my point may not be as good as I initially thought.

:)
 

Hussar

Legend
Funny, I couldn't find the phrase "human rights" once in that entire pile of drivel essay. Maybe your'e confusing two different things?

Or maybe you're playing a semantic game, suggesting that the basket of protections we refer to as "human rights" are not actually "rights", let alone "natural" ones, and therefore devoid of value?

If you're seriously saying that we should feel free to treat other humans like dirt because a clever rhetorical argument undermines the idea that rights can be natural, I take pity on your soul. Human history has been defined by a deep-rooted instinct in the oldest parts of our brains to look for ways to distinguish "us" from "them" to justify killing/robbing/enslaving the thems. What makes some of us better than animals is that the newer parts of our brains (sometimes) override that instinct.
I believe, although I could be wrong, that someone was making a joke. :D
 

gyor

Adventurer
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.
No one was gatekeeping, it was just a silly tweet. Move on people.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The way you speak in absolutes and hyperbole suggests that maybe you've already dug your heels in on this issue, and that your questions are rhetorical. (But still I persist.)

No, a puppy doesn't die every time somebody refuses to use 'they' in the singular.

I'll admit the singular use feels a little grammatically awkward to me every time I see/use it. But you know what? It doesn't actually make my life any worse, either.

And there's a whole segment of our population...you know, fellow human beings...who feel that the lack of an appropriate pronoun to describe themselves contributes to the isolation and bigotry they've suffered their whole lives. They (plural) feel strongly that it reinforces the popular misconception that gender is purely binary, that you're either completely one or the other, and that by not fitting into that false dichotomy it opens them up to vicious discrimination. Structurally it's really no different from nasty racial epithets: labeling propagates vicious discrimination.

And even if that's false, and there's no correlation/effect at all, there is absolutely no denying that our society craps on those people. If they believe that this small sacrifice will help alleviate that, then fine.

As somebody at the extreme end of privilege on just about every metric, the least* I can do is tweak my grammar a little bit to accommodate a group that doesn't have my advantages. And those who begrudge them that are a far, far bigger problem in the world than a little bit of grammatical drift in our language.

*Oh, and I can vote! And make campaign contributions! Yay!
I agree with most of this. What I don't agree with is the idea that not using the preferred pronoun is oppressive. Slavery was oppressive. Living under Pol Pot's regime was oppressive. Not using a preferred pronoun is insensitive and probably rude, but it's not oppressive. Calling it oppressive is like calling jay walking a heinous crime. Sure, like rape and murder, jay walking is also a crime, but it just doesn't rise to the level of the other two.

I also understand that people will often associate a minor thing with something major as you describe above, but that association is personal and while the emotion is magnified for that person, their personal feelings don't turn a minor infraction into oppression, even if it feels like it to that person.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member

Folks,

I am going to ask once, for folks to be on their best behavior in this thread. Don't ascribe flaws to people due to their ideas (like, say, mental deficiency). Don't make it about political agendas or ideologies.

If, somehow, you get to a point where the argument is not about treating people with respect, it is probably time for you to step away from the keyboard, and enjoy a pleasant summer day, or something.

You are getting this one warning. After this point, if you can't keep your arguments within bounds, you'll likely be removed from the discussion.
 

Psyzhran2357

Villager
No one was gatekeeping, it was just a silly tweet. Move on people.

I know I also commented to the effect of "stop beating a dead horse", but the fact that you seemed to have learned absolutely nothing since the initial Kate Welch hiring backlash astounds me. Did you even read the first few pages of the thread, where people highlighted their experiences with wangrods at FLGS's being elitist jerks, or more topically, those same wangrods being double jerks towards prospective female gamers?
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
What I don't agree with is the idea that not using the preferred pronoun is oppressive.
If I conveyed that I thought pronoun use itself is oppressive then I miscommunicated. The link between the two is that language encourages/reinforces thoughts, and in the same way that derogatory terms and jokes reinforce the idea that certain people are inferior, rigidly binary pronoun use reinforces the idea that certain people don't fit into "legitimate" categories. That in turn can legitimize attitudes, behavior, and legislation that is oppressive.
 
Last edited:

epithet

Explorer
... Southerners use y'all in the both singular and plural forms...
No, we don't. I suppose sometimes it happens by accident, but Southerners call one person "you," a group of people "y'all," and more than one group of people "all y'all." As in, "You (the person I'm speaking to) really played a great game, I'd like to congratulate y'all (your team) on winning the game, and invite all y'all (everyone at the park) over for the 4th, we're having hot dogs and beer.
 

epithet

Explorer
Don't you dare.

"Y'all" is plural.

"All y'all" is, um, lots of plural.

You're welcome.
Yeah, my point was that as "you" became singular (replacing "thee") there was a grammatical hole left where a plural 2nd person pronoun ought to be, this "y'all" became a thing.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Something that really irks me (and to which I naturally adapt to switching to singular "they") is when I'm reading out rules for a new board game and the player is constantly referred to as "he". Can't believe that new games still print that (though mostly it's a Euro game it seems, so could be a translator working with a strict grammar book... ;) )

Does anyone else just go "wha...???" when confronted with a rulebook assumption that a player is masculine?
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Yeah, my point was that as "you" became singular (replacing "thee") there was a grammatical hole left where a plural 2nd person pronoun ought to be, this "y'all" became a thing.
The beautiful thing about the English language, and its preternatural flexibility, is it just loves to fill holes. And sometimes that's just by extending a meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement

Top