D&D 5E What happened to the Hermaphrodites???

[Morrus]

If they made that choice based on fear for what might happen when they dont do it it is censorship.

Well a) no it's not. It might be cowardice, or something else, but it isn't censorship. And b), what evidence do you have that they did do it out of "fear" rather than because they *wanted* to?

You can't just magically attach the word "censorship" to any editorial decision you disagree with.

 

[jaelis]

If they made that choice based on fear for what might happen when they dont do it it is censorship.

Sure. They were afraid they would offend people. Yet you seem to be offended by their choice, that means you are censoring them? You should be happy then because they are not submitting to your censorship.

 

[Derren]

A) Actually it is. Just look at what happened in East Germany for example. Censorship doesnt only mean someone rewriting your books and articles before release or banning publication altogether, it also means instilling fear so that only correct things get written in the first place.
B) Exactly as much evidence than for a change because of artistic vision + knowledge about the consequences when you get into the crosshairs of LGBT activists and how companies usually react to that.

 

[Morrus]

A) Actually it is. Just look at what happened in East Germany for example. Censorship doesnt only mean someone rewriting your books and articles before release or banning publication altogether, it also means instilling fear so that only correct things get written in the first place.

The government forbidding something on pain of punishment is censorship, yes. This is obviously not even vaguely the case here; in fact the comparison is absurd. It's the Wicker King of Straw Men.

I mean, really? WotC changes a word in a D&D book, and that's the comparison you immediately jump to?

B) Exactly as much evidence than for a change because of artistic vision + knowledge about the consequences when you get into the crosshairs of LGBT activists and how companies usually react to that.

Yes. Zero evidence. As in none. I get that folks might want it to be censorship as that's a bogeyman they can get outraged about, but let's be honest here - it's almost certainly just an editorial change they decided they wanted to make on account of, hey, the original version was out for ages and nobody even mentioned it.

 

[jaelis]

A) Actually it is. Just look at what happened in East Germany for example. Censorship doesnt only mean someone rewriting your books and articles before release or banning publication altogether, it also means instilling fear so that only correct things get written in the first place.

Yes, if the government instills fear by punishing people who say something, that is censorship even for the people who don't say it out of fear. But that is not the case here, by any stretch.

B) Exactly as much evidence than for a change because of artistic vision + knowledge about the consequences when you get into the crosshairs of LGBT activists and how companies usually react to that.

Actually having followed the devs on twitter and their podcasts, I think there is a lot more evidence for the former. Plus, they already used the word in the first place and didn't get placed into any crosshairs for it.

You are wrong about this. But I think you are afraid to admit it. You are clearly censoring yourself, you should not do that!

 

[ad_hoc]

Actually having followed the devs on twitter and their podcasts, I think there is a lot more evidence for the former. Plus, they already used the word in the first place and didn't get placed into any crosshairs for it.

Yeah, it is very clear that inclusion is important to them. It came across in the original print* and again in the update.

It is all over their Twitter.

*I was surprised and encouraged to see such an inclusive message in the PHB. It went a long way to welcoming the LGBTQ community to D&D.

 

[ad_hoc]

Here is a recent retweet from Mearls:

Mike Mearls Retweeted
Ted Lieu‏Verified account @tedlieu May 20

Ted Lieu Retweeted Rep. Ted Lieu

Eight states have already banned conversion therapy. Help me finish the job to ban this evil practice nationwide.

Ted Lieu added,
Rep. Ted LieuVerified account @RepTedLieu
Support H.R. 2119 to ban #conversiontherapy nationally! More info on Rep. Lieu's bill: http://bit.ly/2qeww2S https://twitter.com/reptedlieu/status/865991079631486976 …
388 replies 16,377 retweets 36,712 likes

Posts like this are very common on his Twitter. His thumbnail is even the D&D logo in rainbow.

 

[Derren]

The government forbidding something on pain of punishment is censorship, yes. This is obviously not even vaguely the case here; in fact the comparison is absurd. It's the Wicker King of Straw Men.

Only that it was rarely necessary to actually punish. Everyone knew what was allowed and what not and they only published what was ok. Active censorship was rarely needed.
The same might happen here on a smaller scale of course. We have seen what happens when you get on the bad side of feminists or LGBT activists and companies have started to self censor themselves to avoid that.
Did it happen here? Maybe, maybe not. But to disregarding the possibility altogether as you do it not a smart move. Its not as if in the current climate it would be so far off.
You might not see it as a big thing, maybe you even agree with it but others are a lot more sensitive to censorship and the slippery slope it leads to than you are, no matter the cause.

 

[Morrus]

Yup. WotC may be many things, but one thing it is is inclusive. And not out of "fear" but because those are the values they believe in. They're not being pressured and censored by some shadowy bogeyman inclusiveness industry, they *are* an inclusiveness industry.

 

[Morrus]

Only that it was rarely necessary to actually punish. Everyone knew what was allowed and what not and they only published what was ok. Active censorship was rarely needed.
The same might happen here on a smaller scale of course. We have seen what happens when you get on the bad side of feminists or LGBT activists and companies have started to self censor themselves to avoid that.
Did it happen here? Maybe, maybe not. But to disregarding the possibility altogether as you do it not a smart move. Its not as if in the current climate it would be so far off.
You might not see it as a big thing, maybe you even agree with it but others are a lot more sensitive to censorship and the slippery slope it leads to than you are, no matter the cause.

Blimey. We went from a straw man to begging the question. Can we get a logical fallacy trifecta?