Okay, so recently a game called Pillars of Eternity was launched, after a very successful Kickstarter campaign. I thoroughly enjoy this game. It's everything good about my childhood gaming distilled and is a magical and fun experience. Sadly, the game itself is only tangentially related to the topic at hand.
At a certain point of backing the kickstarter you are allowed specific rewards. At the $500 dollar level you were allowed -
The Complete Kickstarter Obsidian Pack: signed COLLECTOR'S EDITION BOX (cloth map, elite cloth patch, and printed manual included) + your name and a personalized message on a MEMORIAL STONE IN-GAME + full color PROJECT ETERNITY *HARD COVER* COLLECTOR'S BOOK SIGNED by the development team + A GOLD PLEDGE SPECIAL THANKS in the credits + T-SHIRT + DIGITAL DOWNLOADABLE COPY OF PROJECT ETERNITY + DIGITAL DOWNLOADABLE SOUNDTRACK + A GOLD PLEDGE VIP FORUM BADGE. Your name will also go on our top pledger plaque in our office, so we can always remember your special contribution.
- so basically there are a multitude of tombstones you can click on, and they will have a list of the backers and a short message they wanted.
There is a campaign on Twitter to have this removed, it is being decried as transphobic, it is being called transmisogyny - which I don't know if that is a real thing. I find it insane. If the punchline had been Firedorn beating the individual to death ... maybe. But if someone presents as a woman and you take them to bed and they turn out to be a man, you are wrong for being upset? I do not get this at all. And moreover, Totalbiscuit did a segment where he talked about this in what I felt was a reasonable and nuanced tone,
I... am flabbergasted. For those of you who have not played the game - once again - there are occasional tombstone icons that pop up in graveyards and such, which you can choose to click on and read. Each is a series of backer names and messages. I, like probably 99% of folks clicked through two or three and then never clicked on them again because the information is pointless and irrelevant from a gameplay perspective. It is mind boggling to me that a campaign of such vitriol and ridiculousness can be spawned from something so inane and frankly once again irrelevant. You would have to try so hard to search through the game to find this one thing to be offended about that it breaks my brain.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So reading back through I guess I never asked the question I was thinking - can anyone explain to me why this is a big enough deal to care about and what is so terribly bad that there are campaigns to boycott an otherwise brilliant game for not refusing to host a backer's rather infantile but fairly harmless joke.
Anything people can lash on to decry others is the new hunting grounds. I read something awhile ago that said in this day and age the biggest winner is determined by the person who is the most offended. It's become a common theme for people to be offended by anything.
Don't get me wrong, transphobia and LBGT rights are a very big and serious issue, but then you get gak like this where people are making mountains out of molehills.
Seriously, this is a joke limerick, and not a bad one at that, but it's a joke in a credits scene in a game, not a new bill passed by Indiana where stores can refuse to serve LGBT customers.
For the last two quarters living in the transgender dorms and one quarter of a class about Transgendered (which does not make me aa expert at all) a lot of it is fear. for not even the last couple of decades, transgendered was bearly a thing, swept under the rug. They hid it. but now we live in a world where being Trans is both fine and not fine. They made some headway, but they are loosing it.
But.........it is also a lot of sjw trying to look to get offended too.
It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.
It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.
feeder wrote: It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.
It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.
But....it was also promised to a backer they would put it in.
It sounds like a bunch of SJW's getting offended over nothing. Should we censor everything that might be offensive? I'd rather be an adult about this and admit that this message came from some random dude on the internet, so who gives a feth.
It's the internet, everyone is a crusader for a cause when all you need to do is a silly petition. It's kind of sad that this is the point we are at. I found it humorous and didn't take it as having any sinister meaning, it rimed and the innocent me got a slight chuckle out of it. People just overreact about silly things in my opinion.
Bromsy wrote: So reading back through I guess I never asked the question I was thinking - can anyone explain to me why this is a big enough deal to care about.
Since the original tweet was retweeted less than 800 times, I think the answer is that functionally, no one cares about this.
This feels like outrage about a nearly non-existent outrage. Nonetheless, we now have another thread to post all of our hilarious references to SJWs, checking privilege, and tumblr.
I keep saying it: Self-righteous outrage is the new opiate of the masses.
I mean, I don't know what else to say. People won't be happy until you can't kill children in games, everyone can be gendered up to a degree to the point that you just have a text box describing what gender you want to be, and limericks are illegal.
I'd argue that it's the hypothetical fault of the hypothetical person in question for not properly identifying themselves as such prior to the encounter.
Bromsy wrote: So reading back through I guess I never asked the question I was thinking - can anyone explain to me why this is a big enough deal to care about.
Since the original tweet was retweeted less than 800 times, I think the answer is that functionally, no one cares about this.
This feels like outrage about a nearly non-existent outrage. Nonetheless, we now have another thread to post all of our hilarious references to SJWs, checking privilege, and tumblr.
I do not twitter hard enough to know how to find these things out. Thus, I depend on creating threads here so people can inform me of relevant details such as this. I will stand by the 'shutthefrontdoorTotalBiscuit' pound sign thingy as being totally inappropriate no matter how many people signed off on it and it being a generally reprehensible sentiment for anyone to espouse.
Whembly would be able to answer this better than I since he uses Twitter a lot more but I don't think this is an actual thing yet (i.e. not a "trending topic"). Perhaps it will be at some point.
I don't think the developers could have reasonably be expected to read every single message inserted into the game by backers - there were a lot, right? - for anything other than the most obvious blacklisted words and phrases.
feeder wrote: It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.
Oh? More information please. I assuming you are saying that it's been proven that it is impossible for someone who is biologically male to pass themselves off as female up until the point of going to bed. I'm intrigued and would like to hear more.
Whembly would be able to answer this better than I since he uses Twitter a lot more but I don't think this is an actual thing yet (i.e. not a "trending topic"). Perhaps it will be at some point.
I don't think the developers could have reasonably be expected to read every single message inserted into the game by backers - there were a lot, right? - for anything other than the most obvious blacklisted words and phrases.
Then they should have been prepared to posibly remove one.
Realy it doesn't need to be removed, but it should be.
But if not removed it should serve as a reminder to people developing games that when dealing with minority's and in particular minority's that are decriminated against a great deal.
They have to be far more thoughtful
This backer is a dumbass, but who cares about them.
It's the devs that have to choose to remove or keep.
Any man who ends up intimately with someone that doesn't have what you would prefer, you should stop it and say you are not into that.
Be a real man and leave or talk about it.
This fictional man wasn't in much danger getting into this relationship, but many transgender do put the self in considerable danger when they open up for relationships.
Many find intimacy hard and finding a partner dificult.
To show in this world that in there world sharing in intimacy with a transgender is worthy of suicide shows far more in the end I think is far more disappointing.
For the devs to remove this all it would show is that they do care about the small population of people who are right now fighting for simple rights, over the need to keep in there game a simple biut nasty joke.
Whembly would be able to answer this better than I since he uses Twitter a lot more but I don't think this is an actual thing yet (i.e. not a "trending topic"). Perhaps it will be at some point.
I don't think the developers could have reasonably be expected to read every single message inserted into the game by backers - there were a lot, right? - for anything other than the most obvious blacklisted words and phrases.
Then they should have been prepared to posibly remove one.
Realy it doesn't need to be removed, but it should be.
But if not removed it should serve as a reminder to people developing games that when dealing with minority's and in particular minority's that are decriminated against a great deal.
They have to be far more thoughtful
This backer is a dumbass, but who cares about them.
It's the devs that have to choose to remove or keep.
Why? Is there an imperative NOT to offend people/
Any man who ends up intimately with someone that doesn't have what you would prefer, you should stop it and say you are not into that.
Be a real man and leave or talk about it.
At what point is this expected? At what point during the encounter are you expected to have a conversation about it? I'm not exactly a expert on women, but I'm pretty sure that if I asked every one of them upfront if they had male parts, I'd probably get less far than I do.
This fictional man wasn't in much danger getting into this relationship, but many transgender do put the self in considerable danger when they open up for relationships.
Many find intimacy hard and finding a partner dificult.
At the risk of sounding callous, if there are two people going into an intimate moment, and one person knows what they're getting, and the other person doesn't, isn't the onus upon the person who's, for lack of a better expression, "not what they seem", to explain the situation?
To show in this world that in there world sharing in intimacy with a transgender is worthy of suicide shows far more in the end I think is far more disappointing.
I worry about a world where games are taken too seriously.
For the devs to remove this all it would show is that they do care about the small population of people who are right now fighting for simple rights, over the need to keep in there game a simple biut nasty joke.
I don't think anyone has a universal right to not be offended. At least not yet. I relish the moments I am challenged with situations and dialogue that get me offended. Put me in situations I detest. Approach me with characters I find repugnant. THAT'S story. People holding hands together absent conflict or differing attitudes, right or wrong about things? That's oppression of the dullest sort.
Ahtman wrote: What is our flabergastation level on a scale of 1-10?
Since as we all know flabbergastation is rated on a 1 through "What is the Onion? I don't get why this is funny it is a serious issue" .... this is clearly at least a "Johnny Depp" and possibly as high as a "Seriously, they made Twister straightfacedly?" I know it didn't score high enough to make int as a "Did I really think Adam Sandler was funny or did I have an Aneurysm when I was younger?", so lower mid range on the spectrum.
Whembly would be able to answer this better than I since he uses Twitter a lot more but I don't think this is an actual thing yet (i.e. not a "trending topic"). Perhaps it will be at some point.
I don't think the developers could have reasonably be expected to read every single message inserted into the game by backers - there were a lot, right? - for anything other than the most obvious blacklisted words and phrases.
Then they should have been prepared to posibly remove one.
Realy it doesn't need to be removed, but it should be.
But if not removed it should serve as a reminder to people developing games that when dealing with minority's and in particular minority's that are decriminated against a great deal.
They have to be far more thoughtful
This backer is a dumbass, but who cares about them.
It's the devs that have to choose to remove or keep.
Why? Is there an imperative NOT to offend people/
Any man who ends up intimately with someone that doesn't have what you would prefer, you should stop it and say you are not into that.
Be a real man and leave or talk about it.
At what point is this expected? At what point during the encounter are you expected to have a conversation about it? I'm not exactly a expert on women, but I'm pretty sure that if I asked every one of them upfront if they had male parts, I'd probably get less far than I do.
This fictional man wasn't in much danger getting into this relationship, but many transgender do put the self in considerable danger when they open up for relationships.
Many find intimacy hard and finding a partner dificult.
At the risk of sounding callous, if there are two people going into an intimate moment, and one person knows what they're getting, and the other person doesn't, isn't the onus upon the person who's, for lack of a better expression, "not what they seem", to explain the situation?
To show in this world that in there world sharing in intimacy with a transgender is worthy of suicide shows far more in the end I think is far more disappointing.
I worry about a world where games are taken too seriously.
For the devs to remove this all it would show is that they do care about the small population of people who are right now fighting for simple rights, over the need to keep in there game a simple biut nasty joke.
I don't think anyone has a universal right to not be offended. At least not yet. I relish the moments I am challenged with situations and dialogue that get me offended. Put me in situations I detest. Approach me with characters I find repugnant. THAT'S story. People holding hands together absent conflict or differing attitudes, right or wrong about things? That's oppression of the dullest sort.
1. I say nothing about offence, or that it has to be removed. But it does reflect back on them. Is there really any reason to protect this ? How about showing people kindness. This is only a joke since transgender people are the joke, the stone could read " Died a Dumb Gak and mean the same thing.
2 & 3. That's the point, if you are getting into a relationship then you will find out at some point.
Be mature and live with it, transgender don't want to hide it from there partners but won't advertise it. When should they tell potential partners? The more society pushes back on them the less likly they are to tell someone until they feel safe.
Some will advertise it as part of there totel identity, others will keep it as just something that's a part of them and not something to be. And only something that should be a issue when there is the possibility of sex.
In the end if discrimination wasn't so precedent then they would be more able to share it as just something about them.
For transgender quite often there isn't even a mark box on documents to say they are transgender, society wants them to be a man or a woman and when they don't fit it's social norms that holds the issue. This isn't even unique to them.
4. The world is important and often reflect the real world, they are not created in a vacuum.
And then how serious should games be taken? To say games shouldn't be taken seriously, should any entertainment be, should they make no commentary on the issues of the world ? Should they have no statements to say ?
Games as other media have a lot to say.
5. I take no offence to this, I don't even think it needs to be removed. But what story does it hold, are there transgender in this world they created. Can you create one ? Can you interact with the statue in some way, or other characters? Is there any indication that a man should take such issue with this In this world.
World and story is why I play games, but does this ad to the world meaningfully or if I see it will it add to my world in anyway ? I too want games to look at the world and it's conflicts, but if this game doesn't and simply leaves it as a joke it seems it's doing exactly the other side of what you want.
feeder wrote: It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.
It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.
Is it? I thought it was just that the dude got drunk enough to be unable to tell the difference between men and women and slept with a man.
Related: The person who started all these tweets to begin with has posted "Kill all Men" and "Put men in concentration camps" sort of tweets...Oh the irony of SJW's.
feeder wrote: It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap".
No I'm pretty sure it's just a joke.
feeder wrote: This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.
Nah dude. I'm pretty sure it's a joke.
feeder wrote: It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile.
Still pretty convinced that it's just a joke.
feeder wrote: Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.
It's the bloody internet, how have people not developed a sense of humour? I suggest they get re-educated at the marvelous site that is ED, they'll burn themselves out on ineffectual hate so much that they might give up on their deluded ideas of "social justice".
Grimskul wrote: It's the bloody internet, how have people not developed a sense of humour? I suggest they get re-educated at the marvelous site that is ED, they'll burn themselves out on ineffectual hate so much that they might give up on their deluded ideas of "social justice".
Yes it would be great to not get subjected to such awful jokes again and again !
I could also find no reference to a website called ED. So yea...
World and story is why I play games, but does this ad to the world meaningfully or if I see it will it add to my world in anyway ? I too want games to look at the world and it's conflicts, but if this game doesn't and simply leaves it as a joke it seems it's doing exactly the other side of what you want.
Truncation because it's 3:00 AM here and I should really be doing other things. I might revisit why things like being able to naturally have children or not might be relevant to some people as well as why leading someone on might be considered leading someone on later on.
To the quoted point, because, as was put more succinctly than I could hope to: Why censor fiction?
I shudder to think of all the subtle little nuances I might have lost from works over the years if we'd caved in and censored a work of art simply because it made someone uncomfortable somewhere. That's kind of what art is supposed to do. Even if it's not a direct and fundamental point of the story, to lose any amount of flavor is repugnant. I sometimes wonder how many books I would have left to enjoy if they would not have been printed because they made someone uncomfortable somewhere. Movies too, for that matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Assuming they act like 8 year olds
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Related: The person who started all these tweets to begin with has posted "Kill all Men" and "Put men in concentration camps" sort of tweets...Oh the irony of SJW's.
World and story is why I play games, but does this ad to the world meaningfully or if I see it will it add to my world in anyway ? I too want games to look at the world and it's conflicts, but if this game doesn't and simply leaves it as a joke it seems it's doing exactly the other side of what you want.
Truncation because it's 3:00 AM here and I should really be doing other things. I might revisit why things like being able to naturally have children or not might be relevant to some people as well as why leading someone on might be considered leading someone on later on.
To the quoted point, because, as was put more succinctly than I could hope to: Why censor fiction?
I shudder to think of all the subtle little nuances I might have lost from works over the years if we'd caved in and censored a work of art simply because it made someone uncomfortable somewhere. That's kind of what art is supposed to do. Even if it's not a direct and fundamental point of the story, to lose any amount of flavor is repugnant. I sometimes wonder how many books I would have left to enjoy if they would not have been printed because they made someone uncomfortable somewhere. Movies too, for that matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Assuming they act like 8 year olds
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Related: The person who started all these tweets to begin with has posted "Kill all Men" and "Put men in concentration camps" sort of tweets...Oh the irony of SJW's.
Eyebrow raised.
Naturally being able to raise a family is important and relevant, but how soon should it be told ? Before any relationship. What about at a bar ? When they first meet ? Should they wear a ring informing people of there status.
And to put it very politely should men be required to tell any girl they meat if they want a relationship or just sex that night ? Before sex you have to say if you want want children as you don't want to be in a long term or permanent relationship yet?
A lot of things are not said soon enough in relationships since there is no context to tell, to say it is leading people on is a rather steep fall. I have known of three times here where transgender have been picked up and attack specifically for that. They where open on Facebook or a dating website and where targeted for it, now preferring to meeting any potential partner under more neutral terms.
Society wants them hidden away and unwelcome until it offends some person at which point they must be honest, and make sure the world knows before they can be offended.
Isn't that ironic that people come to defence of a joke that has little more than targeting a group of people with little power or defence, a joke that reinforces (unless other context is found) discrimination against these people.
It seems the people taking offence are the people who like the joke to me.
Bromsy wrote: So reading back through I guess I never asked the question I was thinking - can anyone explain to me why this is a big enough deal to care about and what is so terribly bad that there are campaigns to boycott an otherwise brilliant game for not refusing to host a backer's rather infantile but fairly harmless joke.
Yeah, I think I can. Basically, I think all it takes is trying to imagine how you would feel about it if you stumbled upon this as a transgender. You are already facing a lot of hostility from society in general. How and when to tell people you are a transgender is a big deal for you when trying to find a partner. And you stumble upon this “joke”. It perpetuates this vision of transgenders as “traps”, that are trying to trick people. A vision that is much, much more frequent than actual positive portrayal of transgenders. It portrays having sex with you as something incredibly shameful. And, on top of that, it presents the people you are flirting with, not you, as the real victim. It does not matter how many discrimination you can suffer day to day, how much you can be afraid of bigoted people becoming physically violent against you, the victim is the straight cis guy. The story is told from the point of view of the straight cis guy, as it always is. So the “joke” is basically insulting you as someone who tries to entrap people, presents having sex with you as an extremely shameful act, and completely ignores your point of view to focus only on the point of view of the cis guy, that is already extremely prevalent. Even if someone was trying to make you feel bad on purpose, I do not know how they could do better than that! Now, if it was in an horrible game full of horrible stuff that you really did not like, you certainly would just that “That horrible game is horrible”. But if it is in a game that you otherwise really enjoy, likely you would try to make them change it. So that other trans do not have to stumble upon it, and so it stops perpetuating those harmful notions about trans.
Did I explain good?
daedalus wrote: Why? Is there an imperative NOT to offend people/
The devs have a right to insult and demean people, and to make some of their players feel bad, for no particular reason. Indeed, they do. However, is it a good idea to use that right? I do not think so.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But....it was also promised to a backer they would put it in.
I am pretty sure there were limitations to what you could put. But yeah, in all fairness, the backer should be allowed to provide a new text, sure.
Apple fox wrote: I could also find no reference to a website called ED.
Do not go there. Really. It is just going to ruin your day. Not worth it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: I shudder to think of all the subtle little nuances I might have lost from works over the years if we'd caved in and censored a work of art simply because it made someone uncomfortable somewhere. That's kind of what art is supposed to do. Even if it's not a direct and fundamental point of the story, to lose any amount of flavor is repugnant. I sometimes wonder how many books I would have left to enjoy if they would not have been printed because they made someone uncomfortable somewhere. Movies too, for that matter.
Okay, first, are we really talking about a 4 liners that was introduced by a backer and is completely unrelated to the rest of the game's story, here, while also having little merit on itself, here? Second, can you not tell the difference between a story that makes you uncomfortable by challenging your expectations, pushing your moral boundaries, and generally putting you into an unfamiliar, likely thought-provoking situations, and a story that push you back into already mainstream harmful stereotypes about you? One is certainly better than the other. Stopping at “Does it make something somewhere uncomfortable” and therefore conflating those two is either incredibly shortsighted or willfully ignorant.
You know when you think about it the joke could also refer to a very feminine looking gay man and maybe the guy was drunk. Not saying that's the case but it could happen i suppose. They weren't really extremely descriptive. It just so happens transgendered was the possible answer everybody thought was the right one.
Personally i think it's more joking about the unfortunate circumstance of just not knowing.
As a humorous person i don't mind being offensive to any group as long as it's in jest. Some people just need to calm the f**k down. Stop being offended for a group of people you don't belong to or only represent one of a bunch of. You are not the diplomat of every gay/transgender/black person just because you are one of them. In the end you're getting offended for a group because you were offended and that in itself is more your opinions than a group's and you shouldn't treat it as any more than that.
Sounds like rubbish to me.
If you have to go to this much trouble to be offended, then it's probably not offensive in the first place and you have an over-inflated sense of your own moral certitude.
When I read a couple of the tweets it wasn't clear exactly what they found offensive either, just that it's transphobic.
If you also have to rely on a word that exists only in a tiny subsect of a minority community to describe your outrage, you have firmly disappeared up your own arse.
Sick of this bullgak, politically correct society. Grow up. You will get offended by things, that's life, especially if you let gak like an inconsequential limerick from a game you'll likely never play offend you.
People can say whatever they want in a free society. Trans/gay/ethnic/whatever people have no right to silence others. I've had multiple real life encounters where people have been hostile about my nationality. Guess what? That's their right and their problem, I'm over it.
No, really, it's the internet, of course someone would be mad. I chuckled as I read that, it's a funny rhyme, that's it, a joke, but for the sjw, oh no, it's from satan itself, it is!
Frak sake, I have no idea if everyone was like this before the internet was so widely available as it is nowadays, but I don't remember so many "sensitive people" back then.
r_squared wrote: Sounds like rubbish to me.
If you have to go to this much trouble to be offended, then it's probably not offensive in the first place and you have an over-inflated sense of your own moral certitude.
When I read a couple of the tweets it wasn't clear exactly what they found offensive either, just that it's transphobic.
If you also have to rely on a word that exists only in a tiny subsect of a minority community to describe your outrage, you have firmly disappeared up your own arse.
It's not exactly hard to understand why this "joke" could cause issue, simply washing away with calling it a joke doesn't make it better.
It's small for the issues that transgender have to deal with, and a joke that I expect every single one has seen multiple times.
What offence would it's removal cause ? What great loss would it cause for the devs to remove it.
But hey anyone that actually has to deal with issues like this is just taking it too far ! Maybe the devs could show some compassion and say, hey maybe the joke was a bit to far instead.
IMO the joke is a little inappropriate, but it is so minor. There are much bigger battles to fight. It seems to have so few people actually angry about it though.
Sick of this bullgak, politically correct society. Grow up. You will get offended by things, that's life, especially if you let gak like an inconsequential limerick from a game you'll likely never play offend you.
You are right people. feth empathy. feth being nice. Let us all start trying as hard as we can to make people feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, rejected and scorn. That at least is a fight worth fighting for.
Steve steveson wrote: IMO the joke is a little inappropriate, but it is so minor. There are much bigger battles to fight. It seems to have so few people actually angry about it though.
It is a very minor thing, but it's not much effort to post here I actually consider it quite inappropriate, considering that a lot of transgender do commit suicide and worse.
If there wasn't an issue with the way society often treats transgender people this joke wouldn't even register, not worth protecting it either.
Apple fox wrote: If there wasn't an issue with the way society often treats transgender people this joke wouldn't even register, not worth protecting it either.
It cause distress in others. For that reason alone, it is obviously worth protecting! Doubly so because said others are in a position of weakness, and are as a group completely unable to harm anyone. You know, the very important freedom to hurt others for giggles!
Apple fox wrote: If there wasn't an issue with the way society often treats transgender people this joke wouldn't even register, not worth protecting it either.
It cause distress in others. For that reason alone, it is obviously worth protecting! Doubly so because said others are in a position of weakness, and are as a group completely unable to harm anyone. You know, the very important freedom to hurt others for giggles!
Distress, harming people, yeah this sounds like someone who has never seen someone with PTSD, it's a single solitary line in the game and if this is what causes serious amounts of pain that's something that requires an actual therapy visit!
Grimskul wrote: It's the bloody internet, how have people not developed a sense of humour? I suggest they get re-educated at the marvelous site that is ED, they'll burn themselves out on ineffectual hate so much that they might give up on their deluded ideas of "social justice".
Yes it would be great to not get subjected to such awful jokes again and again !
I could also find no reference to a website called ED. So yea...
Yeah, and I wrote about why it was very unpleasant for any transgender people to stumble upon it, a few messages above. What is your great motivation for wanting this line to be in the game, though, if it is not to make someone feel bad, again?
Apple fox wrote: If there wasn't an issue with the way society often treats transgender people this joke wouldn't even register, not worth protecting it either.
It cause distress in others. For that reason alone, it is obviously worth protecting! Doubly so because said others are in a position of weakness, and are as a group completely unable to harm anyone. You know, the very important freedom to hurt others for giggles!
Distress, harming people, yeah this sounds like someone who has never seen someone with PTSD, it's a single solitary line in the game and if this is what causes serious amounts of pain that's something that requires an actual therapy visit!
I have, and how to do use that to draw from ?
Both are mental disability that can cause disruption in life, both internally and externally.
Trying to compare the two shows a lack of understanding of both.
If it's just a line of text In the game, what's the harm in removing it?
Yeah, and I wrote about why it was very unpleasant for any transgender people to stumble upon it, a few messages above. What is your great motivation for wanting this line to be in the game, though, if it is not to make someone feel bad, again?
First off, stop projecting as it is right now you are thinking all I want to hurt people for some reason, it's basically equating a false argument.
Second: The world is not your hugbox, there will be things that offend you at times and to be to your displeasure, this is not something to get up in arms and get ready to shoot anyone's head off as a result, it's an unpleasant line in a game with very dark theme's to begin with but it's singular and all you are doing is promoting censorship "Because you feel bad". If that honestly was an excuse we'd have to cancel quite a bit if that was the basis for such things.
I have, and how to do use that to draw from ?
Both are mental disability that can cause disruption in life, both internally and externally.
Trying to compare the two shows a lack of understanding of both.
If it's just a line of text In the game, what's the harm in removing it?
Because there's no harm in keeping it either, I dislike heavy handed censorship in such a manner, and also as said if that line alone causes a major disruption in your life you need actual medical therapy as basically going into a coma at the sight of a few words is actually problematic, if all it's causing is a slight period of unpleasantness that you can pass on from, then it's not a major problem!
Yeah, and I wrote about why it was very unpleasant for any transgender people to stumble upon it, a few messages above. What is your great motivation for wanting this line to be in the game, though, if it is not to make someone feel bad, again?
Really? Because there are several Trans-People that posted on Obsidans Twitter to keep it, and it is not offensive to them... Stop speaking for an entire community.
Getting outraged over stuff like this is hurting the Trans and LBGT community, much more than it is helping them. Seriously, I"m a big proponent of LBGT rights, but the right battles need to be picked. This is not one of them. Wasting time and energy on something like this trivilaizes the much more serious issues that are going on.
Seriously, this is a joke limerick, and not a bad one at that, but it's a joke in a credits scene in a game, not a new bill passed by Indiana where stores can refuse to serve LGBT customers.
Haha, I don't know whether its funny or not, or even if you are aware, but this is a majorly controversial new bill to be implemented in Northern Ireland. Look up the Conscience Clause NI if you haven't heard
I'm not sure how this limerick applies to transgender people.
All it says is that the woman turned out to be a man.
That doesn't mean transgender; it just means that the hero was really drunk at the time.
Have people seriously not heard of these sort of stories? I thought it was a common occurrence in comedy, where someone gets drunk and shags someone he / she shouldn't have.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: [
Okay, first, are we really talking about a 4 liners that was introduced by a backer and is completely unrelated to the rest of the game's story, here, while also having little merit on itself, here?
Second, can you not tell the difference between a story that makes you uncomfortable by challenging your expectations, pushing your moral boundaries, and generally putting you into an unfamiliar, likely thought-provoking situations, and a story that push you back into already mainstream harmful stereotypes about you?
One is certainly better than the other. Stopping at “Does it make something somewhere uncomfortable” and therefore conflating those two is either incredibly shortsighted or willfully ignorant.
In this case, it seems we are. Yes. Yes I can. None of that means that either should have elements removed to satisfy the consciences of people who upset easily. Your argument is that it's so minor nothing is lost from the plot or atmosphere. I'm arguing that atmosphere is a lump sum of everything, and removing anything, no matter how obscure or small would change that.
I want you to explain to me how removing this joke would not be censorship. That's really all I want. If I can be convinced of that, then I can walk away and never look at this thread again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure how this limerick applies to transgender people.
All it says is that the woman turned out to be a man.
That doesn't mean transgender; it just means that the hero was really drunk at the time.
Have people seriously not heard of these sort of stories? I thought it was a common occurrence in comedy, where someone gets drunk and shags someone he / she shouldn't have.
Yeah, and I wrote about why it was very unpleasant for any transgender people to stumble upon it, a few messages above. What is your great motivation for wanting this line to be in the game, though, if it is not to make someone feel bad, again?
Really? Because there are several Trans-People that posted on Obsidans Twitter to keep it, and it is not offensive to them... Stop speaking for an entire community.
Getting outraged over stuff like this is hurting the Trans and LBGT community, much more than it is helping them. Seriously, I"m a big proponent of LBGT rights, but the right battles need to be picked. This is not one of them. Wasting time and energy on something like this trivilaizes the much more serious issues that are going on.
This isn't really a big battle, and finding some people in this community that are ok with it also doesn't give it the ok. They are also themselves and don't speak for others.
Discussion on dakka or other places won't cause great harm, but it should let others know why something like this can even if this is minor.
Seriously, this is a joke limerick, and not a bad one at that, but it's a joke in a credits scene in a game, not a new bill passed by Indiana where stores can refuse to serve LGBT customers.
Haha, I don't know whether its funny or not, or even if you are aware, but this is a majorly controversial new bill to be implemented in Northern Ireland. Look up the Conscience Clause NI if you haven't heard
If we start showing consideration to marginalised people, where does it end? What if they start expecting people to be considerate and kind all the time?
It's important we express in the strongest possible terms that nobody should ever have to take into consideration how something might make someone else feel, lest a sliver of doubt creep into our hearts.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure how this limerick applies to transgender people.
All it says is that the woman turned out to be a man.
That doesn't mean transgender; it just means that the hero was really drunk at the time.
Have people seriously not heard of these sort of stories? I thought it was a common occurrence in comedy, where someone gets drunk and shags someone he / she shouldn't have.
We don't know the context of said person being there, but It's a very common joke against transgender.
Sometimes the best is to let it rest at the bottom of the ocean until the environment is more welcoming to the people it maybe mocking.
The best way to handle this issue is to just ignore it. It's a bunch of people shouting "WOLF!" for the 100000x time tying to get attention and their minutes of fame.
On the upside, those "interesting" people serve as free advertisment for the best game in years.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure how this limerick applies to transgender people.
All it says is that the woman turned out to be a man.
That doesn't mean transgender; it just means that the hero was really drunk at the time.
Have people seriously not heard of these sort of stories? I thought it was a common occurrence in comedy, where someone gets drunk and shags someone he / she shouldn't have.
We don't know the context of said person being there, but It's a very common joke against transgender.
Sometimes the best is to let it rest at the bottom of the ocean until the environment is more welcoming to the people it maybe mocking.
Really? I thought it was more of a joke against drunkards.
Then again, the versions I know did not have transgender folks.
Sigvatr wrote: The best way to handle this issue is to just ignore it. It's a bunch of people shouting "WOLF!" for the 100000x time tying to get attention and their minutes of fame.
On the upside, those "interesting" people serve as free advertisment for the best game in years.
Oh yes, Obsidian must be making some special "Thank you" Cards for them. This is the best kind of publicity, so I guess the joke's on them.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: First off, stop projecting as it is right now you are thinking all I want to hurt people for some reason, it's basically equating a false argument.
Well, I was asking you for your reasons. You did not really answer.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Second: The world is not your hugbox, there will be things that offend you at times and to be to your displeasure
Yeah, I know. And I am not asking for nothing offensive ever. But I wrote that earlier : “can you not tell the difference between a story that makes you uncomfortable by challenging your expectations, pushing your moral boundaries, and generally putting you into an unfamiliar, likely thought-provoking situations, and a story that push you back into already mainstream harmful stereotypes about you?” along with “Now, if it was in an horrible game full of horrible stuff that you really did not like, you certainly would just that “That horrible game is horrible”. But if it is in a game that you otherwise really enjoy, likely you would try to make them change it. ”.
That piece of text does not bring much to the game, and so unless you actually want to make people feel bad, I see no reason not to replace it with something that does not make people feel bad.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: and all you are doing is promoting censorship "Because you feel bad".
Oooh, scary!
What I am doing is saying that if you did something without realizing you were making some people feel bad, and you can change it pretty easily, then you should do it rather than getting all caught up in arms about how you would never cave in to censorship. Now of course if you offended people either for the explicit purpose of offending them, or because you thought it was a great way to carry whatever message, carry on. But that is certainly not the case here.
If you genuinely think there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it either, you should be indifferent to the issue. You are only opposed to removing it because someone is campaigning to remove it. Basically, you are being that guy.
If you genuinely think there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it either, you should be indifferent to the issue. You are only opposed to removing it because someone is campaigning to remove it. Basically, you are being that guy.
it's called Slippery Slope.
First it's an EVIL line "against transgenders" (it's not even focused on them) .
Then what? Something someone, somewhere doesn't like? Like someone thinks it's bad for us to hurt goblins because it has a symbolic meaning of the "WHITE MAN" oppressing the minorities?
If you genuinely think there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it either, you should be indifferent to the issue. You are only opposed to removing it because someone is campaigning to remove it. Basically, you are being that guy.
it's called Slippery Slope.
First it's an EVIL line "against transgenders" (it's not even focused on them) .
Then what? Something someone, somewhere doesn't like? Like someone thinks it's bad for us to hurts goblins because it has a symbolic meaning of the "WHITE MAN" oppressing the minorities?
Where does it stop?
Indeed, its pretty the same issue that was raised up over the "controversial" Batgirl/Joker cover and somehow oversensitive people interpreted it as a form of sexual assault/rape. The best part is that the majority of these offended people don't even read the comics and thus didn't understand the context and past history between the two in The Killing Joke. I feel like its the same here where they take out this specific line in the game out of context and try to spin it as a part of transphobic agenda hidden within the game.
If you genuinely think there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it either, you should be indifferent to the issue. You are only opposed to removing it because someone is campaigning to remove it. Basically, you are being that guy.
it's called Slippery Slope.
First it's an EVIL line "against transgenders" (it's not even focused on them) .
Then what? Something someone, somewhere doesn't like? Like someone thinks it's bad for us to hurts goblins because it has a symbolic meaning of the "WHITE MAN" oppressing the minorities?
Where does it stop?
I already made that argument facetiously on the last page! You can't just come in and make it seriously now!
But to answer, basically you listen to the complaint and then react based on what it is. So in this case, maybe you go - oh, geez, I didn't realise this would hurt people, I didn't know the background of that trope and didn't intend to hurt anyone. It's not really integral to the game and it's easy to change so we'll remove/replace it in a future update.
In some other circumstances, you might examine it and say, oh, damn, now that you mention it the subtext there really is awful, but at this point there isn't really anything we can do other than to try to avoid the same problem next time, because it'd be too labour intensive to change it.
Writing stuff is tough. Sometimes you write something and the subtext is bad or there's some historical context there that you weren't previously aware of. It happens. You just do the best you can and try to keep growing as a writer. In this case, it seems like a pretty easy fix, so that's a big plus.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure how this limerick applies to transgender people.
All it says is that the woman turned out to be a man.
That doesn't mean transgender; it just means that the hero was really drunk at the time.
Have people seriously not heard of these sort of stories? I thought it was a common occurrence in comedy, where someone gets drunk and shags someone he / she shouldn't have.
We don't know the context of said person being there, but It's a very common joke against transgender.
Sometimes the best is to let it rest at the bottom of the ocean until the environment is more welcoming to the people it maybe mocking.
Really? I thought it was more of a joke against drunkards.
Then again, the versions I know did not have transgender folks.
I have been exposed to this joke more with transgender, bad comedy movie recently that for the life of me can't remember.
Drunkards are often involved in some way, and most often it makes for a fail of a joke from my experience.
daedalus wrote: None of that means that either should have elements removed to satisfy the consciences of people who upset easily.
I kind of wrote a paragraph on why they were upset, and I do believe it is justified, but apparently no-one read it or no-one cared to comment on it.
daedalus wrote: Your argument is that it's so minor nothing is lost from the plot or atmosphere. I'm arguing that atmosphere is a lump sum of everything, and removing anything, no matter how obscure or small would change that.
You are missing the part about it not being written to be part of a coherent atmosphere in the first place. Remember, it was written in isolation by someone who made nothing else in the game. It is basically a sticker on top of the coherent atmosphere set up by Obsidian team. And it would be changing that sticker for another sticker.
daedalus wrote: I want you to explain to me how removing this joke would not be censorship. That's really all I want. If I can be convinced of that, then I can walk away and never look at this thread again.
From which perspective? Obsidian's perspective, or the backer's perspective?
From Obsidian's perspective, it would just be giving them new arguments and convincing them to change the text. It would be exactly like, say, pointing out a small error in the proof of a theorem in a research article. It does not even matter if the person that mentioned the error was being a jerk about it, once you have learned about it, you just want to change it. And changing it is not censorship, it is your right to publish what you want to.
From the backer's perspective, well, he can still say it somewhere else, but Obsidian have no duty, I guess, to provide him or her a platform for saying this. It is exactly like not being allowed to say certain stuff on DakkaDakka is not censorship.
Sasori wrote: Really? Because there are several Trans-People that posted on Obsidans Twitter to keep it, and it is not offensive to them... Stop speaking for an entire community.
Okay. Then it would maybe hurt only 50% of the trans that would see it. Or maybe even 25%. Or 10%. Even then, that seems 10% too many too me.
If you genuinely think there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it either, you should be indifferent to the issue. You are only opposed to removing it because someone is campaigning to remove it. Basically, you are being that guy.
it's called Slippery Slope.
First it's an EVIL line "against transgenders" (it's not even focused on them) .
Then what? Something someone, somewhere doesn't like? Like someone thinks it's bad for us to hurts goblins because it has a symbolic meaning of the "WHITE MAN" oppressing the minorities?
Where does it stop?
Indeed, its pretty the same issue that was raised up over the "controversial" Batgirl/Joker cover and somehow oversensitive people interpreted it as a form of sexual assault/rape. The best part is that the majority of these offended people don't even read the comics and thus didn't understand the context and past history between the two in The Killing Joke. I feel like its the same here where they take out this specific line in the game out of context and try to spin it as a part of transphobic agenda hidden within the game.
Pic for reference:
Spoiler:
The thing is a lot of the people did understand, and where being told they didn't understand. Comics are another can of worms with a huge history of dumb piled on dumb. :p
I don't care ether way about that cover, but I can understand why it cause issue. If there wasn't other issues a cover like that wouldn't be a issue, it's bringing up context that wasn't intended and draws other issues up.
If it was created without the negative history it would most likely be well received within its own context.
Sadly we have a very negative history and this is why things such as this can be seen as negatives rather than positives.
First it's an EVIL line "against transgenders" (it's not even focused on them) .
Then what? Something someone, somewhere doesn't like? Like someone thinks it's bad for us to hurt goblins because it has a symbolic meaning of the "WHITE MAN" oppressing the minorities?
Where does it stop?
I know, right. We must just decide a direction, and go ALL THE WAY into it.
I mean, let us be serious. Where do we stop? Well, when it stops being reasonable. Yeah, it requires us to use our brain and judgment. Certainly better than saying “We must never change, ever!”.
Grimskul wrote: Indeed, its pretty the same issue that was raised up over the "controversial" Batgirl/Joker cover and somehow oversensitive people interpreted it as a form of sexual assault/rape. The best part is that the majority of these offended people don't even read the comics and thus didn't understand the context and past history between the two in The Killing Joke.
Actually, the outrage about the cover was by people that read the comic it was supposed to be the cover of. Just check back in the thread made about it earlier in Off Topic. I had no problem with it, because I did not know the comic it was supposed to illustrate. And indeed, there are way more violent covers out there. But the people that actually read the Batgirl comics disliked the cover because it really did not go with the tone and direction of the actual comics. And do you know who had the last word on that? The actual people making the comic. The guest illustrator that made the cover had apparently not been briefed enough, and his work was not what they wanted, so they did not use the (alternate) cover.
And the past history between the two in The Killing Joke was very frequently brought up as to why the cover was inappropriate. So you are just wrong on every point here. You need to do more research.
If you genuinely think there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it either, you should be indifferent to the issue. You are only opposed to removing it because someone is campaigning to remove it. Basically, you are being that guy.
it's called Slippery Slope.
First it's an EVIL line "against transgenders" (it's not even focused on them) .
Then what? Something someone, somewhere doesn't like? Like someone thinks it's bad for us to hurts goblins because it has a symbolic meaning of the "WHITE MAN" oppressing the minorities?
Where does it stop?
Indeed, its pretty the same issue that was raised up over the "controversial" Batgirl/Joker cover and somehow oversensitive people interpreted it as a form of sexual assault/rape. The best part is that the majority of these offended people don't even read the comics and thus didn't understand the context and past history between the two in The Killing Joke. I feel like its the same here where they take out this specific line in the game out of context and try to spin it as a part of transphobic agenda hidden within the game.
Pic for reference:
Spoiler:
The thing is a lot of the people did understand, and where being told they didn't understand. Comics are another can of worms with a huge history of dumb piled on dumb. :p
I don't care ether way about that cover, but I can understand why it cause issue. If there wasn't other issues a cover like that wouldn't be a issue, it's bringing up context that wasn't intended and draws other issues up.
If it was created without the negative history it would most likely be well received within its own context.
Sadly we have a very negative history and this is why things such as this can be seen as negatives rather than positives.
But that's the thing though, the cover is not supposed to be something that is comforting. It's supposed to reflect the fear that the Joker evokes even from someone in the Bat-Family and, as mentioned already, bring back the history of the Killing Joke. If people can't acknowledge that, shouldn't this "negativity" as you call it be ignored? I think that the fact that some people extrapolate such odd SJW interpretations of things like this is more reflective of their own prejudices and mindset moreso than the work itself.
I don't really care for the joke myself. It's a cute little rhyme and all. but I could do without it.
If they can take it out and let the backer put something else that would be cool. If they aren't planning to do that, then that's fine. It's not like that joke is the entirety of the game.
Grimskul wrote: But that's the thing though, the cover is not supposed to be something that is comforting. It's supposed to reflect the fear that the Joker evokes even from someone in the Bat-Family and, as mentioned already, bring back the history of the Killing Joke.
And is a distressing cover that evokes the fear the Joker cause even in the Bat-Family appropriate for this run of the Bargirl comics line? Apparently not. That is what the fan of this comic line and the authors of this comics line have said. So use that cover for a comics line where it is appropriate. Stop trying to impose it on authors and fans that want something else.
Hybrid, what kind of reality are you living in, when you expect everyone in the world to cater to ever group, for every scenario that is possibly offensive.
The line in question may not even be referring to a trans person.
Once again, by blowing this out of proportion you are trivializing the serious issues that the LBGT community is going through.
We've got people with PTSD from the War in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think we should remove every War Movie beacuse it may cause some offence to the people who served? Or because it is a potential Trigger for PTSD?
PTSD is a great example of something that has made huge strides. A lot of the reason for that is because major issues such as the stigmata of it. These are the kinds of things that you should be focusing on, not a line in a video game, that in all reality is not that offensive.
So Seriously Hybrid, how you drop the stupid issues like this, and actually work on things that can end up having a positive impact on the LGBT community, not things that will cause people to dismiss them more easily.
Grimskul wrote: Indeed, its pretty the same issue that was raised up over the "controversial" Batgirl/Joker cover and somehow oversensitive people interpreted it as a form of sexual assault/rape. The best part is that the majority of these offended people don't even read the comics and thus didn't understand the context and past history between the two in The Killing Joke. I feel like its the same here where they take out this specific line in the game out of context and try to spin it as a part of transphobic agenda hidden within the game.
Also didn't we go over the joker cover in depth already? The arguments being presented are, from everything I've read, ignoring some massive tonal considerations that I hadn't known about before the controversy. Which is to say that apparently Batgirl is a light hearted and generally fun series, so a direct tie back to the story in which Barbara was assaulted and crippled is rather jarring from that perspective.
Though I did enjoy the cover edits that spawned from it though, especially the 'defiant Batgirl' one and Superman/Doomsday.
Sasori wrote: Hybrid, what kind of reality are you living in, when you expect everyone in the world to cater to ever group, for every scenario that is possibly offensive.
The line in question may not even be referring to a trans person.
Once again, by blowing this out of proportion you are trivializing the serious issues that the LBGT community is going through.
We've got people with PTSD from the War in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think we should remove every War Movie beacuse it may cause some offence to the people who served? Or because it is a potential Trigger for PTSD?
PTSD is a great example of something that has made huge strides. A lot of the reason for that is because major issues such as the stigmata of it. These are the kinds of things that you should be focusing on, not a line in a video game, that in all reality is not that offensive.
So Seriously Hybrid, how you drop the stupid issues like this, and actually work on things that can end up having a positive impact on the LGBT community, not things that will cause people to dismiss them more easily.
Well, one of the serious issues the LGBT community has is that trans people are portrayed as deceivers, "really" the other sex, who trick people into sleeping with them, and that sleeping with them would be the worst thing ever. The little poem is yet another entry enforcing that view.
It really does not help the trans community to say that how trans people feel about things is not an issue deserving of consideration. I mean, how petty can you get? Trans people feeling awful is so unimportant that changing some completely optional flavour text on a clickable item is unacceptable? Geez. With allies like that, who would need enemies?
First it's an EVIL line "against transgenders" (it's not even focused on them) .
Then what? Something someone, somewhere doesn't like? Like someone thinks it's bad for us to hurt goblins because it has a symbolic meaning of the "WHITE MAN" oppressing the minorities?
Where does it stop?
I know, right. We must just decide a direction, and go ALL THE WAY into it.
I mean, let us be serious. Where do we stop? Well, when it stops being reasonable. Yeah, it requires us to use our brain and judgment. Certainly better than saying “We must never change, ever!”..
Oh right, because we all see from the "uproar" that a single rhyme caused that everyone can be reasonable. So yeah, IMO I think the rhyme is innocent enough and should stay there because I feel that forcing the removal of such a tiny innocent joke is blowing it out of proportions and getting far too close to censorship for my liking.
it doesn't even mention "transgender", it mentions a man. It doesn't say "DEATH TO ALL TRANSGENDERS", it's a tiny joking rhyme. The problem is that this is the internet, and the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS, ALL THE TIME.
Ok, I'm out, I honestly miss the days where it was only trolls I had to worry about.
If you genuinely think there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it either, you should be indifferent to the issue. You are only opposed to removing it because someone is campaigning to remove it. Basically, you are being that guy.
it's called Slippery Slope.
First it's an EVIL line "against transgenders" (it's not even focused on them) .
Then what? Something someone, somewhere doesn't like? Like someone thinks it's bad for us to hurts goblins because it has a symbolic meaning of the "WHITE MAN" oppressing the minorities?
Where does it stop?
Indeed, its pretty the same issue that was raised up over the "controversial" Batgirl/Joker cover and somehow oversensitive people interpreted it as a form of sexual assault/rape. The best part is that the majority of these offended people don't even read the comics and thus didn't understand the context and past history between the two in The Killing Joke. I feel like its the same here where they take out this specific line in the game out of context and try to spin it as a part of transphobic agenda hidden within the game.
Pic for reference:
Spoiler:
The thing is a lot of the people did understand, and where being told they didn't understand. Comics are another can of worms with a huge history of dumb piled on dumb. :p
I don't care ether way about that cover, but I can understand why it cause issue. If there wasn't other issues a cover like that wouldn't be a issue, it's bringing up context that wasn't intended and draws other issues up.
If it was created without the negative history it would most likely be well received within its own context.
Sadly we have a very negative history and this is why things such as this can be seen as negatives rather than positives.
But that's the thing though, the cover is not supposed to be something that is comforting. It's supposed to reflect the fear that the Joker evokes even from someone in the Bat-Family and, as mentioned already, bring back the history of the Killing Joke. If people can't acknowledge that, shouldn't this "negativity" as you call it be ignored? I think that the fact that some people extrapolate such odd SJW interpretations of things like this is more reflective of their own prejudices and mindset moreso than the work itself.
The thing is that batman hasn't been immune too, and been apart of some of the seriously bad part of the comic industry. It's only just getting out of that and getting better. Until that happens covers like that will cause issues with a lot of people who are fans and readers.
Covers like that in that context can be prolonging this period of adjustment. Like it or not there are a lot of new fans of these series also, and they won't have the positive history to these sorts of covers.
Yeah, I know. And I am not asking for nothing offensive ever. But I wrote that earlier : “can you not tell the difference between a story that makes you uncomfortable by challenging your expectations, pushing your moral boundaries, and generally putting you into an unfamiliar, likely thought-provoking situations, and a story that push you back into already mainstream harmful stereotypes about you?” along with “Now, if it was in an horrible game full of horrible stuff that you really did not like, you certainly would just that “That horrible game is horrible”. But if it is in a game that you otherwise really enjoy, likely you would try to make them change it. ”.
That piece of text does not bring much to the game, and so unless you actually want to make people feel bad, I see no reason not to replace it with something that does not make people feel bad.
Uh no, I would not, they chose to keep something of that in there and just because it makes me squeamish or otherwise I would most certainly not have them change it, if it's really that bad then one can simply not buy the game. You know, voting with your wallet and all that?
If you genuinely think there is no reason to keep it and no reason to remove it either, you should be indifferent to the issue. You are only opposed to removing it because someone is campaigning to remove it. Basically, you are being that guy.
You do realize that by being the vocal minority in this case and calling for it's removal that would be You, you know this right?
adjective: contrarian
1.
opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.
Some people's struggles don't diminish the pain and suffering felt by others. It's not a misery Olympics where X sufferers get the Gold so the Silver and Bronze 'winners' should just be happy they don't have it worse.
Trans people's rate of attempted suicide is something like ten times that of the base population. An important part of their identity being a lazy punchline isn't helpful. Some in this thread are championing the limerick in a baffling fashion; it's neither original nor witty. It's The Big Bang Theory of orientation based humour.
Personally I see that the conversation is even happening to be beneficial. I'm sure there are large swathes of the population who never even think about how such things might be hurtful to others. In general we're pretty happily oblivious to the struggles of people who are different from us until it hits home.
So maybe the little limerick doesn't get changed, but at least having a conversation about how trans people are portrayed (even in a heated and 'lawlsjwomgbbq' that some might be) is probably more thought being aimed at how some people live than would've occurred otherwise.
Sasori wrote: Hybrid, what kind of reality are you living in, when you expect everyone in the world to cater to ever group, for every scenario that is possibly offensive.
I get what you mean: people should be unnecessarily mean to others for no good reasons.
Sasori wrote: We've got people with PTSD from the War in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think we should remove every War Movie beacuse it may cause some offence to the people who served? Or because it is a potential Trigger for PTSD?
No. But you cannot make a war movie without war, and people that do not want to watch war movies will not see them. However, it seems very easy to do Pillars of Eternity with that specific epitaph replaced by another.
TheDraconicLord wrote: The problem is that this is the internet, and the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS, ALL THE TIME.
Well, it is mostly serious business when you are talking about stuff that is actually serious business in real life. Like here.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Uh no, I would not, they chose to keep something of that in there and just because it makes me squeamish or otherwise I would most certainly not have them change it, if it's really that bad then one can simply not buy the game. You know, voting with your wallet and all that?
I see. So you must be very, very glad for GW's total contempt for feedback, then . But the rest of the world believe in giving and getting feedback.
So the “joke” is basically insulting you as someone who tries to entrap people, presents having sex with you as an extremely shameful act, and completely ignores your point of view to focus only on the point of view of the cis guy, that is already extremely prevalent.
The rhyme just says that he slept with a man. It says nothing about transgenders.
Well, that is how it was understood by many people anyway, apparently. Certainly if the backer edits it to make it clear it is not about transgender, everyone will be happy, then.
Well, that is how it was understood by many people anyway, apparently. Certainly if the backer edits it to make it clear it is not about transgender, everyone will be happy, then.
Only one hostile vocal minority is going to be happy and the rest will be disappointed that obsidian caved in.
Personally I see that the conversation is even happening to be beneficial. I'm sure there are large swathes of the population who never even think about how such things might be hurtful to others. In general we're pretty happily oblivious to the struggles of people who are different from us until it hits home.
So maybe the little limerick doesn't get changed, but at least having a conversation about how trans people are portrayed (even in a heated and 'lawlsjwomgbbq' that some might be) is probably more thought being aimed at how some people live than would've occurred otherwise.
So that's a win, I guess.
At this point and time it seems more like it's starting to desensitize people to it rather then get them to talk about it.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Well, that is how it was understood by many people anyway, apparently. Certainly if the backer edits it to make it clear it is not about transgender, everyone will be happy, then.
So were the Salem witch trials. Just because something was assumed to have malicious intent does not mean the author had malicious intent.
My recent research found out that there is NO tombstone about black people! Not a single one! So since all people got one...but black people...this means...that black people aren't treated as people! That's outraging! I'm going to make an angry Twitter post about it!
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:Well, one of the serious issues the LGBT community has is that trans people are portrayed as deceivers, "really" the other sex, who trick people into sleeping with them, and that sleeping with them would be the worst thing ever. The little poem is yet another entry enforcing that view.
Do you think censoring every reference to this is the correct way to go about it? History shows that it is not.
For one, as said before, the line may not even be depicting a trans person. It could be simply the man was drunk and mistook a man for a woman. You can't possible know the actual attention of the author.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:It really does not help the trans community to say that how trans people feel about things is not an issue deserving of consideration. I mean, how petty can you get?
Where exactly, did I say that? I even had an example of the opinion of several trans people on this issue...
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:Trans people feeling awful is so unimportant that changing some completely optional flavour text on a clickable item is unacceptable? Geez
If a Trans person is really feeling that awful, or terrible at this joke, then they need to seek professional help.
I hold that censorship of this nature is unacceptable, and context is important. Look at this issue for what it really is.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:Geez. With allies like that, who would need enemies?
I actually strive to make a diffrence where it counts. I Vote for legislation that advances equality and fairness for LGBT communities. I donate when I can to causes and groups that I feel make a difference in the fight.
Look at the Twitter feeds on this. It is nothing but petty squabbling. This kind of exposure is driving people away from the actual issues. This is a serious problem.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: From which perspective? Obsidian's perspective, or the backer's perspective?
From Obsidian's perspective, it would just be giving them new arguments and convincing them to change the text. It would be exactly like, say, pointing out a small error in the proof of a theorem in a research article.
You're conflating facts and fiction. Literally.
It does not even matter if the person that mentioned the error was being a jerk about it, once you have learned about it, you just want to change it. And changing it is not censorship, it is your right to publish what you want to.
You're right, it's not censorship in the traditional sense. It's a loud minority attempting to shame an entity into censoring itself. You're also assuming they're utterly unaware of what's been added to the game. I find that highly unlikely. They would have to review every possible entry to make sure there's no actual hate speech, copyright infringements, or other nasty stuff that they would have a major blowup about. I'm thinking something like "Kill all the black people," pro-Nazi comments, or something like that. You might find the notion uncomfortable, but I'd say there's a 100% certainty that someone green lit it for the game.
From the backer's perspective, well, he can still say it somewhere else, but Obsidian have no duty, I guess, to provide him or her a platform for saying this.
But for contributing x number of dollars to the project, they Entitle him to contribute credits to the game. I suppose that comes down what's in the T&C though.
It is exactly like not being allowed to say certain stuff on DakkaDakka is not censorship.
And censoring something from a book is not censoring it because you can write it somewhere else, amirite?
A reasonable compromise, in my mind, would be to offer a removal tool that cuts the string out of whatever resource file it's in. Or offer an additional setting that filters content people might find disturbing or could cause mental discomfort. A lot of games have stuff like that.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Only one hostile vocal minority is going to be happy and the rest will be disappointed that obsidian caved in.
Yeah. That is what I am starting to hate about gamer/geek culture now. Even if the change results in a better epitaph, people are still going to complain because they just hate others being made comfortable. I do not know if that qualifies as hateful or stupid or both or something else entirely, but this needs to go.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Only one hostile vocal minority is going to be happy and the rest will be disappointed that obsidian caved in.
Yeah. That is what I am starting to hate about gamer/geek culture now. Even if the change results in a better epitaph, people are still going to complain because they just hate others being made comfortable. I do not know if that qualifies as hateful or stupid or both or something else entirely, but this needs to go.
One persons view of better does not constitute better in the eyes of everyone else. Your views do not conflate over mine just as mine do not conflate over yours and I'm very certain we don't have the same tastes as to what could end up "better", especially considering that some of the people who are fighting for the censorship are just as vile as any other person.
A reasonable compromise, in my mind, would be to offer a removal tool that cuts the string out of whatever resource file it's in. Or offer an additional setting that filters content people might find disturbing or could cause mental discomfort. A lot of games have stuff like that.
Forar wrote:Some people's struggles don't diminish the pain and suffering felt by others. It's not a misery Olympics where X sufferers get the Gold so the Silver and Bronze 'winners' should just be happy they don't have it worse.
At what point did I say any of this?
Forar wrote:Trans people's rate of attempted suicide is something like ten times that of the base population. An important part of their identity being a lazy punchline isn't helpful. Some in this thread are championing the limerick in a baffling fashion; it's neither original nor witty. It's The Big Bang Theory of orientation based humour.
This is more of an arugement that Trans people should be seeking professional help in this matter more, and working to actually solve the problem.
Complaining about a Joke, that may/may not offend certain people, isn't helping the matter. Instead of worrying about a line in a video game, You should worry more about actually tackling the issue at hand.
Forar wrote:Personally I see that the conversation is even happening to be beneficial. I'm sure there are large swathes of the population who never even think about how such things might be hurtful to others. In general we're pretty happily oblivious to the struggles of people who are different from us until it hits home.
Catering to everyone on everything that someone may find offensive, is impossible task, and completely unrealistic.
Forar wrote:So maybe the little limerick doesn't get changed, but at least having a conversation about how trans people are portrayed (even in a heated and 'lawlsjwomgbbq' that some might be) is probably more thought being aimed at how some people live than would've occurred otherwise.
So that's a win, I guess
In what way is this a "Win" All this has done is show some of the serious issues with social media. Look at some of these twitter feeds. It's turned into a joke. This is anything but a win.
This is about as much of a loss as possible. People who get so upset about a completely non-offensive joke are making a joke of themselves and social media responses portray this too well.
In the end, what came out of it in the eyes of the people, is that people identifying themselves as "trans" are not to be taken seriously and do not have any sense of humor.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Only one hostile vocal minority is going to be happy and the rest will be disappointed that obsidian caved in.
Yeah. That is what I am starting to hate about gamer/geek culture now. Even if the change results in a better epitaph, people are still going to complain because they just hate others being made comfortable. I do not know if that qualifies as hateful or stupid or both or something else entirely, but this needs to go.
One persons view of better does not constitute better in the eyes of everyone else.
Irrelevant to what I am saying. You would be against the change even if you would have considered the replacing epitaph better had you not known why it was replaced. You do not want the epitaph to stay because you think it is good, or better than what would take its place. You want it to stay because you know someone wants it out. That is the only reason.
I see. So you must be very, very glad for GW's total contempt for feedback, then . But the rest of the world believe in giving and getting feedback.
Considering that GW features blood, gore, nudity, and all sorts of tasteless things, by your logic they would have to remove it all.
There's a vast difference between criticism (The prices are too high, things aren't doing well with assault, The Paladin isn't doing that well vs the Fighter) vs Censorship (Remove the blood and gore, Remove that Limerick, Remove All references to Slaanesh)
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Only one hostile vocal minority is going to be happy and the rest will be disappointed that obsidian caved in.
Yeah. That is what I am starting to hate about gamer/geek culture now. Even if the change results in a better epitaph, people are still going to complain because they just hate others being made comfortable. I do not know if that qualifies as hateful or stupid or both or something else entirely, but this needs to go.
One persons view of better does not constitute better in the eyes of everyone else.
Irrelevant to what I am saying. You would be against the change even if you would have considered the replacing epitaph better had you not known why it was replaced. You do not want the epitaph to stay because you think it is good, or better than what would take its place. You want it to stay because you know someone wants it out. That is the only reason.
That's what you believe then, however it's because I dislike the blatant censorship, so yes I suppose you are correct on one account.
jreilly89 wrote: Just because something was assumed to have malicious intent does not mean the author had malicious intent.
That is why I never maligned the backer. Did I?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Considering that GW features blood, gore, nudity, and all sorts of tasteless things, by your logic they would have to remove it all.
You have not read my messages, then.
Go back find your answer in what I have already written.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: There's a vast difference between criticism (The prices are too high, things aren't doing well with assault, The Paladin isn't doing that well vs the Fighter) vs Censorship (Remove the blood and gore, Remove that Limerick, Remove All references to Slaanesh)
So, does “Remove super-heavy from normal games” count as censorship, or what?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: That's what you believe then, however it's because I dislike the blatant censorship, you don't get to decipher my words when I'm being up front about it.
Yeah, you call that “being against censorship”. But it all boils down to “I care and I really want this to stay, but not because it is good, only because someone else wants to remove it”. Explain to me the difference here, in this case.
Sigvatr wrote: This is about as much of a loss as possible. People who get so upset about a completely non-offensive joke are making a joke of themselves and social media responses portray this too well.
In the end, what came out of it in the eyes of the people, is that people identifying themselves as "trans" are not to be taken seriously and do not have any sense of humor.
What a great win. Wait...?
Pretty much this.
Assuming it was just a harmless little joke, what most SJW's don't seem to understand (Because I'm sure there are a handful in this mess who are doing what they are doing because they believe it is right) is that by simply making this limerick go away, they are still leaving the issue unresolved (That they got offended) and we will go through this whole thing again the next time something like this happens.
Best to just kinda ignore the gravestone, don't buy the game, and just call it a day.
On one hand, I think the outrage is disproportional. Stating one's objections would have been quite enough.
On the other hand, do not be so quick to dismiss what others think and feel, especially when they have suffered things that you have had the Privilege™ to not suffer.
Ashiraya wrote: On one hand, I think the outrage is disproportional. Stating one's objections would have been quite enough.
On the other hand, do not be so quick to dismiss what others think and feel, especially when they have suffered things that you have had the Privilige™ to not suffer.
See, but I was a chick in the 40's, my boss is a woman, I hate everyone equally, and there's no one alive who can understand my sexual preference.
Slarg232 wrote: Best to just kinda ignore the gravestone, don't buy the game, and just call it a day.
You know, not buying the game would actually be stupid here. The game-makers are not directly responsible for it, and apparently the game is very good. What would be intelligent is for people to not dismiss the issue as irrelevant without stopping to give it a thought, but for them to actually stop for a few second, listen to what the people complaining have to say, understand their issue, empathize with them, and then alter a very little bit the game, and keep a little awareness of those issues at the back of their heads so that they do not hurt others unwillingly next time. But that would require more empathy than is available in most people, I am afraid.
I do have one final observation: "trans-misogynistic" might actually beat out "cisgender" on my list of stupid terms coined by people who don't understand latin.
daedalus wrote: I do have one final observation: "trans-misogynistic" might actually beat out "cisgender" on my list of stupid terms coined by people who don't understand latin.
I am pretty sure it's not intended to be grammatically correct Latin to begin with.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay. You have tons of proof I am wrong, but you are consciously withholding them away so that nobody can see them .
Wrong about what exactly? It's typically one's right to opinion, you can feel how you wish on the matter.
So, I am going to sum up. You are telling me that by my metrics, there would be tons more stuff than GW should remove from 40k. Except none of the things you already listed should be removed by my metrics. And rather than argument about it, you are now saying “It is just my opinion”?
And your overarching point is that changing stuff out of empathy for others is censorship and should never be done, even if it does not make the game worse, right .
Slarg232 wrote: Best to just kinda ignore the gravestone, don't buy the game, and just call it a day.
You know, not buying the game would actually be stupid here. The game-makers are not directly responsible for it, and apparently the game is very good. What would be intelligent is for people to not dismiss the issue as irrelevant without stopping to give it a thought, but for them to actually stop for a few second, listen to what the people complaining have to say, understand their issue, empathize with them, and then alter a very little bit the game, and keep a little awareness of those issues at the back of their heads so that they do not hurt others unwillingly next time. But that would require more empathy than is available in most people, I am afraid.
No, it would require the censorship of their game and how they offended a specific group of people by mistake. WHEN THEY DID NO SUCH THING.
That's what grinds my gears, the SJW are trying to pin blame where there is none, they are attempting to make an entity say "Yes, we screwed up" when they did no such thing and making said entity remove something out of their game (read, censor) when there's nothing to remove (read, censor).
Do you also know who got attacked for no reason? This guy:
Spoiler:
The Internet looks like a freakin' witch hunt from the Dark Ages!
daedalus wrote: I do have one final observation: "trans-misogynistic" might actually beat out "cisgender" on my list of stupid terms coined by people who don't understand latin.
I am pretty sure it's not intended to be grammatically correct Latin to begin with.
C'est la vie.
There's a difference between not conjugating Latin properly (which I don't think I could do most of the time) and attaching whatever meaning to whatever syllables you feel like. I mean, c'mon here. Misogyny has a specific meaning against a specific gender. Lazily attaching trans to the front of it without even modifying the -gyny portion kind of shows, to me, a lack of real thought about the matter, and hilariously distorts the term to what I would consider to be hatred against only one specific type of trans person anyway.
It might as well be transmisandry, except that doesn't evoke the same amount of bile.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay. You have tons of proof I am wrong, but you are consciously withholding them away so that nobody can see them .
Wrong about what exactly? It's typically one's right to opinion, you can feel how you wish on the matter.
So, I am going to sum up. You are telling me that by my metrics, there would be tons more stuff than GW should remove from 40k. Except none of the things you already listed should be removed by my metrics. And rather than argument about it, you are now saying “It is just my opinion”?
And your overarching point is that changing stuff out of empathy for others is censorship and should never be done, even if it does not make the game worse, right .
Yes opinions.
The problem your stating is that it's out of empathy, if that was the case then half the people crying for the censorship wouldn't be screaming hate at anyone who disagrees and the company itself, there is no empathy here, there is just typical hatred for something and forced censorship, the person who started all this for crying out loud had previously posted "Kill all men" and "It takes me several tweets to work up to putting men in concentration camps" These people are changing things out of Empathy?
TheDraconicLord wrote: No, it would require the censorship of their game and how they offended a specific group of people by mistake. WHEN THEY DID NO SUCH THING.
Censorship. The magic word that means you should be a jerk! Caring for other people would be censorship and therefore inherently bad!
TheDraconicLord wrote: That's what grinds my gears, the SJW are trying to pin blame where there is none
Just a little question for you. Where did I tried to pin blame, and on who? Can you tell me that?
TheDraconicLord wrote: No, it would require the censorship of their game and how they offended a specific group of people by mistake. WHEN THEY DID NO SUCH THING.
Censorship. The magic word that means you should be a jerk! Caring for other people would be censorship and therefore inherently bad!
TheDraconicLord wrote: That's what grinds my gears, the SJW are trying to pin blame where there is none
Just a little question for you. Where did I tried to pin blame, and on who? Can you tell me that?
Yes, you are absolutely right, they are totally asking OBSIDIAN to remove said CONTENT from said GAME because they don't feel like OBSIDIAN screwed up.
Hey @Obsidian you should have said no to this backer. Transmisogyny is not acceptable in 2015
Oh and I totally see how a healthy discussion is good. TotalBiscuit says something, an #Campaign shows up, with a pretty offensive name. Yes, SJW, yes, show us how morally superior you are, unlike us, the monsters
TheDraconicLord wrote: No, it would require the censorship of their game and how they offended a specific group of people by mistake. WHEN THEY DID NO SUCH THING.
Censorship. The magic word that means you should be a jerk! Caring for other people would be censorship and therefore inherently bad!
Not should, but could. Not being censored is what allows me to say that Alpharius, Yakface, Legoburner, Motyak, and Kilkrazy are a bunch of ninnies, but I don't do that because I'm not a jerk(At least I would like to think I'm not....)
I'm allowed to say such, though, just like they are allowed to dole out any punishment they see fit, because they aren't censored.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: The problem your stating is that it's out of empathy, if that was the case then half the people crying for the censorship wouldn't be screaming hate at anyone who disagrees and the company itself, there is no empathy here
So, am I screaming hate, or am I part of the other half? What about other members on this thread, can you point me to one that seems hateful to you?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: the person who started all this for crying out loud had previously posted "Kill all men" and "It takes me several tweets to work up to putting men in concentration camps"
It's mostly that I find it just so..odd that one would claim to be empathetic to all and then blatantly post straight up sexist moments such as these, I thought one was trying to be inclusive, though thoughts on Pillars seems to be a bit less hateful, course I haven't really checked the twitter in a while because it became straight up depressing.
TheDraconicLord wrote: Yes, you are absolutely right, they are totally asking OBSIDIAN to remove said CONTENT from said GAME because they don't feel like OBSIDIAN screwed up.
They are asking Obsidian to remove that content from the game. I do not see the problem.
.@jesawyer @stillgray @icequeenerika @Obsidian Thank you very much for listening on this Josh
vs
@jesawyer @stillgray @icequeenerika @Obsidian No spine whatsoever - only a loud, fringe minority of thin-skinned crybabies were offended.
@jesawyer @stillgray @icequeenerika @Obsidian I hope you're prepared to repay the backer their money.
That thread is a pure gold example of GG dictating dev's what they should do, to force them to be free to say what they do not want to say, by the way. Awesome fight against censorship!
That thread is a pure gold example of GG dictating dev's what they should do, to force them to be free to say what they do not want to say, by the way. Awesome fight against censorship!
That second one makes pretty good sense considering how much that backing spot cost, not to mention you've got some hateful comments between people in both corners in there.
Soladrin wrote: Is it just me who wants to make more offensive jokes because of all this nonsense? Seriously, the urge grows.
To be fair, I think everyone could stand to have slightly thicker skin. Why, if I got genuinely upset all the times people said hateful things about me based upon the color of my skin or my gender, I'd probably have issues with punctuation too.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It's mostly that I find it just so..odd that one would claim to be empathetic to all and then blatantly post straight up sexist moments such as these, I thought one was trying to be inclusive, though thoughts on Pillars seems to be a bit less hateful, course I haven't really checked the twitter in a while because it became straight up depressing.
She is not the one claiming to be empathetic to all. I was the one to speak about empathy.
And yeah, everything she posts about Pillars of Eternity before discovering that epitaph shows she likes the game.
Soladrin wrote: I guess we should just completely stop making jokes and live our humorless lives until we die of complete boredom and misery.
This is what "they" want right?
No, you can carry on making jokes that do not come at the expense of an already marginalized and mistreated group.
For instance :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIuLVveE6wI
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote: Is it just me who wants to make more offensive jokes because of all this nonsense? Seriously, the urge grows.
Because you like hurting others?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: That second one makes pretty good sense considering how much that backing spot cost
Hence why I said he or she should be asked for a replacement, rather than just removing the epitaph.
So I take it we also have to round up every copy of The Crying Game movie and put them in a giant bonfire or something? We should probably include every copy of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective too. Then we can systematically erase every reference to either movie anywhere on the internet and mindwipe everyone who ever saw or heard of either movie as well. Just to be sure.
Is it a joke?: Yes
Is it a joke made at the expense of a specific class of people?: Yes
Is it a joke made at the expense of a specific class of people who broadly speaking face discrimination/oppression?: Yes
Is it a joke made at the expense of a specific class of people that's directly about the thing that people discriminate against them for?: Yes
Is it a joke that seems to be made in an intentionally malicious way? I don't think so.
Is it a joke that's explicitly endorsing any particular world view?: No.
is it a joke that's grossly persecutory or calling out for specific actions? No
Do I think the joke is in particularly good taste? Not really.
Do I think the joke is particularly funny? Not really, but I've heard less-funny jokes.
I dunno, take all that for what you will. It's joke and it's probably in kind of bad taste, but there are worse things in the world than tasteless jokes.
So, honestly I see nothing offensive about this past people going out of their way to find something offensive about this. Is it a gay person that is male but the hero was too drunk to notice? Was it a "trap" where they look feminine? Was it a transperson? It's a stupid little epithet that is supposed to be a minor joke. It isn't saying to go kill folks, it's just the type of goofy things you would read in game gravestones for some dark or lighthearted humor depending on the writers/developer's mood.
Also, to be honest, I wouldn't really mind it being changed in the grand scheme of things. If it does, so be it. Obsidian talk with the maker, possibly chat and put it in a patch with some bug edits place a patch for that one thing, or publicize a mod that has already been made for it. It's a small thing in so many ways to me but it's not like it matters. A demand for removing the more twisted parts of the game I'd have a problem with but this is minimal. Still I find the folks that complained about this are foolish and the folks that have made this such a big thing on the other side are just as faulty for making this such a big deal. More concerned with Indiana personally.
Also what the actual hell is trasnsmisogyny? That word doesn't even make that much sense. At least call the thing transphobic even if I don't think it is, use an actual word rather than smashing words together.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It's mostly that I find it just so..odd that one would claim to be empathetic to all and then blatantly post straight up sexist moments such as these, I thought one was trying to be inclusive, though thoughts on Pillars seems to be a bit less hateful, course I haven't really checked the twitter in a while because it became straight up depressing.
She is not the one claiming to be empathetic to all. I was the one to speak about empathy.
And yeah, everything she posts about Pillars of Eternity before discovering that epitaph shows she likes the game.
Soladrin wrote: I guess we should just completely stop making jokes and live our humorless lives until we die of complete boredom and misery.
This is what "they" want right?
No, you can carry on making jokes that do not come at the expense of an already marginalized and mistreated group.
For instance :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIuLVveE6wI
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote: Is it just me who wants to make more offensive jokes because of all this nonsense? Seriously, the urge grows.
Because you like hurting others?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: That second one makes pretty good sense considering how much that backing spot cost
Hence why I said he or she should be asked for a replacement, rather than just removing the epitaph.
Do I like hurting others? Up for debate. Do I think I can hurt them with offensive jokes? I want to say no, but sadly the internet has proved that there are a lot of pussies out there. Said pussies however will not affect my ability to laugh at horrible things.
OK, maybe I'm stupid, but when I read that "epitaph", my first association was not with transgenders, but with crossdressers.
...
I'd run like hell too if I picked up what I thought was a woman but turned out to have the wrong genitalia (well, for my taste anyway) under that dress.
No, be the real winner. Laugh at the stupidity of both sides, grab popcorn, and fill the bingo as something insignificant gets popular. Dual screen it so you can play the glorious game at the same time! (So many memories of my retro gaming stint but without some of the worst parts of it)
No, be the real winner. Laugh at the stupidity of both sides, grab popcorn, and fill the bingo as something insignificant gets popular. Dual screen it so you can play the glorious game at the same time! (So many memories of my retro gaming stint but without some of the worst parts of it)
In the end different people will have different takes on a joke, and when things like games a re spread so far and wide there will be more interpretations. Context can become even more important. People that truly want it to stay should probably refrain from mocking one side of the argument and using SJW as that really does end up looking the worst.
Sasori wrote: I hold that censorship of this nature is unacceptable, and context is important. Look at this issue for what it really is.
Context is king.
It's a fictional limerick written by a fictional character in a fictional universe. If we have to start censoring fiction to avoid offending anyone then we might as well just give up and never write anything.
Hybrid, and people like him, are making the planet worse for everyone.
feeder wrote: It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.
It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.
I saw it happen all the time in the French Quarter of New Orleans when I lived there. Some drunk guy would find out what they thought was a woman was really a man, sometimes after some action happened, and the fists would fly, the cops get called and off to jail he went.
feeder wrote: It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.
It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.
I saw it happen all the time in the French Quarter of New Orleans when I lived there. Some drunk guy would find out what they thought was a woman was really a man, sometimes after some action happened, and the fists would fly, the cops get called and off to jail he went.
But that can't happen! Because Kinsey, and reasons!
feeder wrote: It reinforces the false notion of binary sexuality and the idea that a man can be "tricked" by a "trap". This is weapons grade bull-onium and has been disproved many times, starting with Kinsey in the 50's.
It IS transphobic and is, as you say, infantile. Since it is so inconsequential to the gameplay and causing such negative attention to the game itself it should be an easy call to remove it.
I saw it happen all the time in the French Quarter of New Orleans when I lived there. Some drunk guy would find out what they thought was a woman was really a man, sometimes after some action happened, and the fists would fly, the cops get called and off to jail he went.
But that can't happen! Because Kinsey, and reasons!
Clearly, Kinsey never spent time in the French Quarter.
Books were ruthlessly abridged or degraded to accommodate a short attention span while minority groups protested over the controversial, outdated content ---perceived--- to be found in books.
Surely the epitaph on the tomb should be seen as a warning against the perils of bigotry; that because of the deceased's intolerance and insecurity he is dead by his own hand.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If we have to start censoring fiction to avoid offending anyone then we might as well just give up and never write anything.
Fortunately nobody has to start censoring fiction. There's a clear difference between "I have a right to say what I want to say" and "I have a right to say what I want to say without anyone criticizing me". If people feel strongly about expressing a particular point in their writing then they can write it and accept the potential criticism.
Books were ruthlessly abridged or degraded to accommodate a short attention span while minority groups protested over the controversial, outdated content ---perceived--- to be found in books.
How depressing.
You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.
Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.
flamingkillamajig wrote: You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.
Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.
Talk about a lesson the student didn't understand. Despite the rather shallow high school version of presenting it as nothing more than a criticism of censorship a large part of Bradbury's actual intent was to criticize TV devaluing books. So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.
flamingkillamajig wrote: You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.
Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.
Talk about a lesson the student didn't understand. Despite the rather shallow high school version of presenting it as nothing more than a criticism of censorship a large part of Bradbury's actual intent was to criticize TV devaluing books. So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.
So you've never heard of "Death of the Author" when it comes to such do you? Because it's almost universally read as Censorship due to his poor writing of his topic. It wasn't just something passed down as a "Shallow High school version" when even higher ranking literary critics use the theme.
Bradbury himself should have wrote a bit better if he really wanted his intention to show through.
TV and video games are hardly the same thing considering one is interactive and the other isn't. You'd be better off comparing non-interactive media with each other
flamingkillamajig wrote: You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.
Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.
Talk about a lesson the student didn't understand. Despite the rather shallow high school version of presenting it as nothing more than a criticism of censorship a large part of Bradbury's actual intent was to criticize TV devaluing books. So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.
Just because violence is in something shouldn't invalidate the entire thing. It's one aspect of something. Banning violent video games just because violence is in them without thinking about content would be banning the fantastic game Deus Ex: Human Revolution just because of said violence. In fact the game seems to reward you for being as non-lethal as possible.
Sure though let's ban movies like robocop because violence. Wait you mean to say star wars involved bad guys that blew up a planet? Ban that too. What about Ender's Game where he saves humanity by killing an alien race only to find out it was real life and not a game? It includes violence so let's ban that as well.
Notice how violence is just one aspect of something. Entirely banning something because of violence is like banning a puzzle because you don't like them.
flamingkillamajig wrote: You know the even sadder thing is my english teacher in high school got the whole class to read the book and then tried banning violent video games in a protest not long after. I was p*ssed.
Talk about a lesson the teacher didn't even understand.
Talk about a lesson the student didn't understand. Despite the rather shallow high school version of presenting it as nothing more than a criticism of censorship a large part of Bradbury's actual intent was to criticize TV devaluing books. So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Just because violence is in something shouldn't invalidate the entire thing. It's one aspect of something. Banning violent video games just because violence is in them without thinking about content would be banning the fantastic game Deus Ex: Human Revolution just because of said violence. In fact the game seems to reward you for being as non-lethal as possible.
Sure though let's ban movies like robocop because violence. Wait you mean to say star wars involved bad guys that blew up a planet? Ban that too. What about Ender's Game where he saves humanity by killing an alien race only to find out it was real life and not a game? It includes violence so let's ban that as well.
Notice how violence is just one aspect of something. Entirely banning something because of violence is like banning a puzzle because you don't like them.
I think you kind of missed the point there. I didn't say that Bradbury would agree with banning video games because of violence, I said he might oppose them because they aren't books. Even though schools tend to present Fahrenheit 451 as a straightforward anti-censorship story the author's intent was to criticize how TV and mass media were creating an illiterate society that didn't care about books anymore. The complete message of the story in a video game context would be "censorship of violence is wrong, but go read a book instead of playing COD all day".
Maybe but there are games with incredibly well thought out plots. To say there aren't means you probably have never played a video game since the early 90's, haven't played one at all or haven't played or seen any with any actual value.
That's like saying, "What's with these books these days? In my day we used to have orally spoken stories passed down from generation to generation." Video games are just a form of telling a story for some. It doesn't matter about the medium that tells the story often but that it tells its story well.
For instance skyrim is a fun game and though i find it's basically ADD in a fictional universe (chase a butterfly to collect ingredients, wind up in a cave, fight falmer for hours and complete a small quest maybe and then stumble out half drunk on mead to the next cave while on the way to the next quest) the game itself has a decent story that doesn't have specifically good or bad guys (even if it does manipulate the player into hating the imperials at the beginning of the game that was probably a test for the audience seeing their head nearly lopped off on a chopping block for doing nothing).
So maybe i got the lesson wrong but one of the portions of it seemed to be about censorship and in my view getting rid of something with violence for including it whether or not it condemns it or has actual good story is beyond ridiculous.
Peregrine wrote: Fortunately nobody has to start censoring fiction. There's a clear difference between "I have a right to say what I want to say" and "I have a right to say what I want to say without anyone criticizing me". If people feel strongly about expressing a particular point in their writing then they can write it and accept the potential criticism.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but we have people (and not just in this thread) who want it removed. That's the line to draw. You want to crap on about imaginary words like "transmisogyny", then that's cool - do that on your own time - but you do not attack/berate/shame a developer into changing their work because you think someone else might get offended.
Peregrine wrote: So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.
Implying video games are mindless.
I mean you're right - I get that the point of 451 was a look at devaluing books - but if you're just going to dismiss an entire medium as 'mindless' then that's just nuts.
Peregrine wrote: So it would be entirely in line with this theme to oppose mindless video games.
Implying video games are mindless.
Jesus Perry, when era are you from?
Took the words out of my mouth. What right does anyone have to declare books as the king of media formats? Is the worst book somehow better than the best movie? 451 criticizes mind-numbing mass-media and not necessarily everything but books, as you, Perry, have postulated.
@H.B.M.C.: He more implied violent video games are mindless but i disagree with that too. Even among some supposedly mindless things you can learn the true nature of people in a bad situation. War is probably a good example. A survival horror game or similar might be another.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Maybe but there are games with incredibly well thought out plots. To say there aren't means you probably have never played a video game since the early 90's, haven't played one at all or haven't played or seen any with any actual value.
You'll please note that Peregrine also never said that.
I didn't read that as Peregrine himself saying they were mindless, more that it was along the lines of what the teacher was thinking.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Maybe but there are games with incredibly well thought out plots. To say there aren't means you probably have never played a video game since the early 90's, haven't played one at all or haven't played or seen any with any actual value.
You'll please note that Peregrine also never said that.
I might not have been referring to him specifically but the people that took issue with it. Words and people's intentions behind them are fun!
Squidmanlolz wrote: What right does anyone have to declare books as the king of media formats?
I don't know, ask the author who explicitly said that Fahrenheit 451 is about criticizing TV/radio/etc for making people less interested in books.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but we have people (and not just in this thread) who want it removed. That's the line to draw. You want to crap on about imaginary words like "transmisogyny", then that's cool - do that on your own time - but you do not attack/berate/shame a developer into changing their work because you think someone else might get offended.
IOW, you believe that people should have a right to say whatever they want without being criticized. Freedom of speech works both ways you know, if the author/developer/etc has a right to say something then I have an equal right to say "you should take that back".
Implying video games are mindless.
Yes, they're mindless according to the author. Do you really not see the difference between "this is Bradbury's position" and "I agree with this position"?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Maybe but there are games with incredibly well thought out plots. To say there aren't means you probably have never played a video game since the early 90's, haven't played one at all or haven't played or seen any with any actual value.
You'll please note that Peregrine also never said that.
I might not have been referring to him specifically but the people that took issue with it. Words and people's intentions behind them are fun!
Know what else is fun? Properly connecting your pronouns to the subjects to which they are referring.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, you believe that people should have a right to say whatever they want without being criticized.
Right, so, when you said:
"If people feel strongly about expressing a particular point in their writing then they can write it and accept the potential criticism."
... and I said:
"That sounds perfectly reasonable to me..."
... somehow you read that as me saying people can say what they want without criticism? Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.
I'll try again. Please keep up:
Criticism is one thing. Criticise all you like. Criticism is fine. It is to be encouraged. But when that criticism goes from simply criticising a work to actively attacking/threatening/shaming and demanding that a work be changed to mean the narrow criteria of a tiny tiny minority, that's when the line must be drawn. So criticise away, but do not censor.
Meh. Bingo cards just appear to be a lazy way of criticising topics of discussion, especially when squares on the bingo card contain either universally broad and controversial subjects (and are therefore meaningless ie. "Discussion about Religion!") or topics relative to the current news of the day, which is just kinda obvious ("People are discussing the news? BINGO!").
H.B.M.C. wrote: ... somehow you read that as me saying people can say what they want without criticism? Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.
I saw exactly what you said. You said "criticism is fine", but then listed various forms of criticism that you consider unacceptable. If you're only allowed to criticize a work within narrow standards then you aren't really free to criticize it.
Criticism is one thing. Criticise all you like. Criticism is fine. It is to be encouraged. But when that criticism goes from simply criticising a work to actively attacking/threatening/shaming and demanding that a work be changed to mean the narrow criteria of a tiny tiny minority, that's when the line must be drawn. So criticise away, but do not censor.
And now here you are attempting to censor the people who are criticizing in ways that you don't approve of. Irony, thy name is H.B.M.C.
As I said: Reading comprehension skills. Use them!!!
Peregrine wrote: I saw exactly what you said. You said "criticism is fine", but then listed various forms of criticism that you consider unacceptable. If you're only allowed to criticize a work within narrow standards then you aren't really free to criticize it.
That's bull gak and you know it. Shaming peolpe and demanding they change the work isn't criticism. It is bullying and censorship.
Peregrine wrote: And now here you are attempting to censor the people who are criticizing in ways that you don't approve of. Irony, thy name is H.B.M.C.
Please use words correctly. That is not irony. I'm happy for them to say whatever they want, but they cannot demand and expect changes because they don't like something.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's bull gak and you know it. Shaming peolpe and demanding they change the work isn't criticism. It is bullying and censorship.
It's strong criticism, but still criticism. If you can only criticize something politely and moderately then you don't really have the right to criticize it. Otherwise all you really have is the right to speak in ways that H.B.M.C. approves of.
And no, it isn't censorship. Censorship requires the ability to force someone to change the thing that you want censored. Making demands is not censorship because this is what happens if the author/developer/etc doesn't want to change their work:
"Censor": I don't like that, you need to change it.
Author: No.
"Censor": Ok.
The only way anything changes is if the creator either accepts that the critic has a point and voluntarily makes the change, or if the creator is a for-profit business and makes a business decision that making the change is more profitable than keeping the original work. That's not at all how it works in cases of real censorship, where the conversation is more like this:
Censor: I don't like this, change it or go to jail.
Author: *changes their work*
And somehow, despite all the complaints about "censorship", we don't see that happening.
Please use words correctly. That is not irony. I'm happy for them to say whatever they want, but they cannot demand and expect changes because they don't like something.
And yet here you are demanding and expecting changes because you don't like something.
Torga_DW wrote: Which button do i need to click to ensure social justice prevails?
The one with the little birdy. Something to do with Twitter, I believe.
But you're doing it wrong. You don't "heartily condemn". You declare that it is wrong, misuse words like "transphobic" and "misogyny" to make yourself look like you know you're talking about - hell, even make up a new one, 'transmisogyny' being a great new one from this very non-issue - and then demand that it be erased from history never to see the light of day again.
Torga_DW wrote: Which button do i need to click to ensure social justice prevails?
The one with the little birdy. Something to do with Twitter, I believe.
But you're doing it wrong. You don't "heartily condemn". You declare that it is wrong, misuse words like "transphobic" and "misogyny" to make yourself look like you know you're talking about - hell, even make up a new one, 'transmisogyny' being a great new one from this very non-issue - and then demand that it be erased from history never to see the light of day again.
That's too much effort. I prefer a 'krusty the clown'-style stock footage of my disapproval so i can spend more time fighting social injustice.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah. Public shaming is just carefully crafted criticism.
In this case it is. There is only "shame" if you accept the critic's argument. If you honestly feel that what you've done is right then you don't feel any shame, just like I don't feel shamed when people like you call me a "SJW".
And demanding that an artist change their work because of a minuscule minority, well that's just a good ol' fashion lark!
I see, so criticism and requests for change are only acceptable if they agree with the majority opinion? For someone who talks so much about "SJW censorship" you sure do spend a lot of time telling people what they're allowed to say.
I guess Perry's a big fan of that douche at Gawker who said we should #BringBackBullying to get at people who like video games. Seems legit to me!
Perhaps you could clarify what exactly you're talking about here? A search for "#BringBackBullying" turns up a couple of low-traffic blog/forum posts with nothing more than "someone said #BringBackBullying". Is this another one of those "controversies" where some random person nobody pays any attention to makes a twitter post and the other side pretends that they are a relevant part of something?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Considering what happened to the aforementioned Dr Matt Taylor, I don't believe you
You mean the idiot who couldn't figure out that wearing a shirt with half-naked women all over it might not be appropriate in a professional context, especially when you're about to be broadcast worldwide? I can't say I have all that much sympathy for him.
Also, let's not pretend that "what happened to him" was just bullying with no legitimate point. Did some people cross the line into abuse? Probably. It is the internet after all. But a lot of the supposed "bullying" was actually legitimate criticism that was labeled as "bullying" by the "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" crowd for ideological reasons.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Considering what happened to the aforementioned Dr Matt Taylor, I don't believe you
You mean the idiot who couldn't figure out that wearing a shirt with half-naked women all over it might not be appropriate in a professional context, especially when you're about to be broadcast worldwide? I can't say I have all that much sympathy for him.
The 'idiot' landed a probe on a comet. He could have been wearing a wedding dress for all anyone should care.
I guess you can't advance science unless you're wearing a Peregrine Approved shirt
VorpalBunny74 wrote: The 'idiot' landed a probe on a comet. He could have been wearing a wedding dress for all anyone should care.
I guess you can't advance science unless you're wearing a Peregrine Approved shirt
Being good at your job doesn't prevent you from being an idiot in other contexts. And whether or not you personally agree with it in most similar situations there's a dress code (whether explicit or implied) that does not include shirts like that. If you show up to most science or engineering jobs dressed like that you'll be lucky if you're given an opportunity to correct your mistake instead of being fired.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: The 'idiot' landed a probe on a comet. He could have been wearing a wedding dress for all anyone should care.
I guess you can't advance science unless you're wearing a Peregrine Approved shirt
Being good at your job doesn't prevent you from being an idiot in other contexts. And whether or not you personally agree with it in most similar situations there's a dress code (whether explicit or implied) that does not include shirts like that. If you show up to most science or engineering jobs dressed like that you'll be lucky if you're given an opportunity to correct your mistake instead of being fired.
I've known highly paid software developers who wear similar, so again, I don't believe you
Peregrine wrote: It is in this case, where "bullying" means "an SJW said my favorite author/game company/etc should change their product in a way I don't like", it is.
No, Peregrine. It means "an SJW said my favorite author/game company/etc should change their product ". It does not even have to be in a way they do not like. It is opposition for opposition's sake. Because they have to fight the bad guys that want to censor everything. By, uh, censoring them, or something!
VorpalBunny74 wrote: The 'idiot' landed a probe on a comet. He could have been wearing a wedding dress for all anyone should care.
I guess you can't advance science unless you're wearing a Peregrine Approved shirt
You needn't concern yourself with ol' Perry. His cast iron mind doesn't allow for any independent thought that isn't lockstep with his own.
That moment was a glorious achievement for science. People celebrated it for what it was. Social Justice Warriors earned their title that day as well, once again proving that there's nothing too trivial and nothing too harmless that they won't scream, shame and bully someone over.
Mission accomplished !
But a website lampooning and satirizing silliness such as this is much needed in this day and age.
peregrine wrote:It's strong criticism, but still criticism. If you can only criticize something politely and moderately then you don't really have the right to criticize it. Otherwise all you really have is the right to speak in ways that H.B.M.C. approves of.
And no, it isn't censorship. Censorship requires the ability to force someone to change the thing that you want censored. Making demands is not censorship because this is what happens if the author/developer/etc doesn't want to change their work:
Mild criticism: Oh my, that's not a very nice thing to say about these people. Maybe that should've been worded a little differently.
Moderate criticism: That comment/fictional epitaph/whatever is over the line. My respect for these people has definitely gone down.
Strong critiscism: This is completely ourageous! Someone better have a good explanation for this, or apologise for it!
(Attempted) censorship: This offends me! I demand it be removed!
See the difference? Although technically you are correct; it's not censorship, it's attempted censorship.
Mission accomplished !
But a website lampooning and satirizing silliness such as this is much needed in this day and age.
peregrine wrote:It's strong criticism, but still criticism. If you can only criticize something politely and moderately then you don't really have the right to criticize it. Otherwise all you really have is the right to speak in ways that H.B.M.C. approves of.
And no, it isn't censorship. Censorship requires the ability to force someone to change the thing that you want censored. Making demands is not censorship because this is what happens if the author/developer/etc doesn't want to change their work:
Mild criticism: Oh my, that's not a very nice thing to say about these people. Maybe that should've been worded a little differently.
Moderate criticism: That comment/fictional epitaph/whatever is over the line. My respect for these people has definitely gone down.
Strong critiscism: This is completely ourageous! Someone better have a good explanation for this, or apologise for it!
(Attempted) censorship: This offends me! I demand it be removed!
See the difference? Although technically you are correct; it's not censorship, it's attempted censorship.
Censorship requires authority. I can only censor you if I have authority over you. Otherwise all I can do is lay out the case for why I think what you're saying is incorrect, harmful or crass and that I think you should change what you're saying. I can be demanding about it or loud, but in the end no matter how indignant or confrontational I'm being I can still only ask you to change.
Your definition of censorship means that any place there is a disagreement over the subjective merit of something and someone takes the position that "Your position is gak, you should abandon" it", that's censorship. Following the standards you've put forward any stance firmer than "Let's agree to disagree" is censorship.
If I'm your editor and a squash your works, I'm censoring you.
If I'm your government and I suppress your works, I'm censoring you.
If I'm your investor and pull my funding unless I vet your content, I'm censoring you.
The closest this kind of thing can ever get to censorship is if the non-authoritative party tries to put pressure on someone with authority over the content produce to scuttle the content themsleves. Like going directly to the editor, government or investor and coercing them into action.
If you draw a massive erect penis on the side of a public-facing building and I go "That's awful! That's offensive! I demand you take it down" I'm not censoring you.
If you draw a massive erect penis on the side of a public-facing building and the government goes "You're under arrest and we're washing that off" the government is censoring you.
If you draw a massive erect penis on the side of a public-facing building and I got "Hey government! You should arrest that guy and wash off that penis drawing", I'm trying to get the government to censor you. Even if I succeed in convincing them I still haven't made an attempt (succesful or otherwise), to censor you the government has. If there you've a problem with the censorship your problem is with the government and not me.
So essentially it could be boiled down to a form of Soft Censorship where instead of penalty from the government it's a penalty from financial institutions, in this case the paying customer is demanding that they self censor themselves.
Regardless of the fact, all this etymology is rather getting off topic isn't it?
Correct. They're not actually censoring obsidian games. Just as I already pointed out.
But they're still attempting to do so. Hence my use of the term "(attempted) censorship".
That they lack the authority or power (as the people in your other examples do) to do so does not change the intent, and the intent is clearly to censor someone saying something they find offensive.
"I'm offended. You must change it!" is an attempt to exercise power to force someone to change something. WIth no actual authority (power remains to be seen) behind it it will come to nothing, but that's besides the point.
As for the public-facing building, the only case where you have a point is if the person doing the drawing owns the building in question. In that case yes, it would be censorship. Possibly defensible (note I did not say "right") censorship, of something extremely silly and depending on resemblance to the real thing possibly pornographic, but censorship nonetheless.
A better case for defensible censorship could be made if our wall-scribbler painted hate-inducing speeches or symbols/drawings on his own walls.
In any other case our hypothetical 'artist' is defacing someone else's property and should rightly be held accountable.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You needn't concern yourself with ol' Perry. His cast iron mind doesn't allow for any independent thought that isn't lockstep with his own.
.
