Blimey. We went from a straw man to begging the question. Can we get a logical fallacy trifecta?
I see discussing with you over this issue is pointless.
D&D 5E What happened to the Hermaphrodites???
- Thread starter Askaval30
- Start date
I see discussing with you over this issue is pointless.
abirdcall
(she/her)
Yes, darn those marginalized peoples and all of the power they hold over everyone else.
abirdcall
(she/her)
The "subject matter" is actually a key component of character generation.
Everybody makes a choice about their character's gender when they create the character.
If a person is non-binary or trans that isn't 'subject matter' that is just their life as much as if someone is male or cis.
If someone says their character is non-binary it should be treated just the same as if their character is a man or woman. It is all the subject matter of gender.
My point is that while these may be 'themes' and 'subject matter' to some they are just part of everyday life to others.
The part that I am most happy about with the section in the PHB is that we are one step closer to someone being able to say that their character is non-binary (etc.) and having the group acknowledge it as much as if the character were a man or woman.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
Maybe the punishment was rare. But it was certainly present. There was zero chance that the WotC writers were going to be thrown in jail for calling Corellon a hermaphrodite.
The irony here is remarkable. You seem, fundamentally, to be upset that the LGTBQ community has taken up an interpretation of the word hermaphrodite without your permission. But throughout this argument, you are asserting your own idiosyncratic definition of censorship. For the record, you don't have my permission for that.
If you actually look at the evidence, of which there is plenty, then you can see the answer is clearly no.
I agree. If you were discussing it rationally, it might have been a conversation. But when you're combining a false premise with strawmen, reductio ad absurdum, and begging the question all into one (very short) argument there's just nothing to argue against. It's just an incoherent "LGTBQ bogeyman" mess. Sorry, man. I wouldn't even know how to reply to that little cocktail.
SaveSave
They might have just lost their job in case an activist picks up on that.
People have started highly visible twitter campaigns which made it into the media for less (like wearing a shirt with woman on it)
I have yet to hear any rational argument (or an argument at all) from you.
Your luck that jaelis took care of that for you by going through their tweets to see a trend.
Last edited:
Bacon Bits
Legend
#2 isn't always disrespectful, nor does it always require change. It's a lot more shaded than you're making it out. It's actually very complicated, and it's certainly possibly for the offended party to be unreasonable.
I've seen arguments online where an Asian-American has been offended and demanded an apology from a British man in the UK because he used the term, "oriental." The Asian American found it offensive and demanded that they stop using the term, while the British person said that was the term they use there and it's not offensive. Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese people living in Europe chimed in saying the term was common and not offensive. Nope. The American would hear none of it and demanded an apology.
For a contrived example, let's say Little People of America comes to WotC and says, "Hey, the terms 'dwarf', 'halfling', 'hobbit', and 'gnome' are all offensive terms for people of smaller size. We find your use of these terms very offensive, and your categorization of these characters as distinct races apart from humans doubly so. We're asking that you stop using these offensive and demeaning terms in your products." Should WotC comply? Is this a reasonable request?
What rights does being offended give you over the free speech of others? What are the requirements for hate speech? What's the difference between being polite, and compromising your artistic integrity? I'm reminded of the CODA from Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, where he talks about all the requests he's gotten for changes to his works to make them more inclusive. It's one thing to prefer openness; it's quite another to demand it from others, particularly history. Let us not have our tolerance for who we are not grow to intolerance for those we disagree with or find flaw in.
Derren, you're just making up yet even more stuff. Your accusations are getting crazier and crazier. You've now invented a mysterious bogeyman who is censoring WotC and forcing some frightened employee to change a word for fear of losing his job.
Eh? What? I can't even follow the sentences, let alone the logic now.
Dude; you're wrong on this one. Inventing more and more bizarre convoluted stories isn't going to make you right. They changed it because they wanted to.
Before you insult people you should at least do a minimum of research.
Yes I was wrong it was a shirt and not a necktie and I edited the original post.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...shirt-worn-after-rosetta-mission-9862118.html
You vastly underestimate (or actively ignore) the amount of public controversy the feminist or LGBT community can create when they make out a target no matter how minor it is (Tim Hunt being the prime example). And WotC is the last company that needs another controversy lead by a highly vocal activist group.
Yes based on WotC tweet this was likely not the reason here but by now this is more about your denial that this can happen than what WotC did.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
You're still making the same two errors.
First, if a company fires you because they don't like your work, that is not censorship. If part of your job is to not offend the activists, and you offend the activists, then you might lose your job because you failed to do it properly, not because you are being censored (by either the company or the activists).
Second, even if I accept your personal definition (censorship = any time you don't feel free to say whatever you want), in this particular case it didn't happen. They actually did use a word some people didn't like, and there's no suggestion that there were any negative consequences. At the same time there's every reason to think they were sincerely regretful for the offense.
Last edited:
