Serdan

Link?

Here's some context: http://www.themarysue.com/pillars-of-eternity-joke-removal/

The GG narrative is strong here, so I thought I'd find something from the other side. http://www.themarysue.com/pillars-of-eternity-joke-removal/

Any opinion will be offensive to someone. Some people think LBGT-lifestyles are offensive, some people find drinking alcohol is offensive. I hope you don't want to reitroduce prohibition or forbid/censor LBGT. I hope you don't want to selectively censor everything you don't like/approve of, and cry "Censorship!" only on issues you do like. One can limit freedom of speech regarding hate-speech, like #killallmen, #killalllesbians, #killallhumanslargerthan2mcausetheyaretoofrigginbig but thats a slippery slope... Context. It's a thing. Exactly.I say #killkillallhumanslargerthan2mcausetheyaretoofrigginbig i think of it as a joke to make light of the whole situation. Someone else might take it very serious, due to personal abuse, religion, or whatever reason. Same text, different context. But, should i be forbidden to use this stupid hashtag just because someone might take offense? ffs. It was a hint that maybe you should go back and read the context of my post, since you're making a lot of baseless assumptions. Here's another hint: Cyphon has since recognised that he was being overly generous.

Any opinion will be offensive to someone. Some people think LBGT-lifestyles are offensive, some people find drinking alcohol is offensive. I hope you don't want to reitroduce prohibition or forbid/censor LBGT. I hope you don't want to selectively censor everything you don't like/approve of, and cry "Censorship!" only on issues you do like. One can limit freedom of speech regarding hate-speech, like #killallmen, #killalllesbians, #killallhumanslargerthan2mcausetheyaretoofrigginbig but thats a slippery slope... Context. It's a thing.

I knew it was offensive. It was meant as a joke, you know...an offensive one. What fault is there in expressing myself with something controversial? I'm just trying to get Cyphon to comprehend that you have explicitly stated that it was intended to be offensive.

You've got it so backwards it's not even funny. The very best way to paint the target is to engage in childish one-uppery. Obsidian and Firedom responded rather perfectly. The showed responsiveness to the issue but Firedom also got to express his feeling that this was an overreaction to what was intended as a harmless jest, but which unintentionally offended people. The overall effect is an honest effort to keep the peace and nobody can fault Obsidian or Firedom for that. Had they done what you suggest, it would only be throwing gas on the fire. Firedorn knew it was offensive. He expected it to be rejected. He obviously did not intend it as just a harmless jest. Why the hell are you so invested in making it seem like he is without fault? I beg to differ. You ascribe a lot of malevolent intent to someone you just don't know. Fact is, HE chose to change it when confronted with the criticism...as he has told us. HE changed it to keep the peace, which is behavior you'd expect from someone who acts maturely in the first place and didn't intend the offense. People are at different levels of understanding and comfort with these issues. If he says he meant no offense...which is what the first line of the changes indicate...then I have no reason to believe him. BY continuing to lash out and pillory him, or anyone else who might be trying to catch up to you in your understanding of the issue, you discourage him and everyone else who might unintentionally offend people from having the dialogue that might help them learn not to. When people make honest efforts to keep the peace on these things, the most productive response is "thank you, I appreciate that." They're more likely to accept, or at least respect, your point of view and try not to tread on it next time. "The way I see it, I got to write something controversial and then got to publicly insult some people who didn't like it." "Who knows, probably slipped through the cracks. I thought for sure they would have asked it to be changed prior to release." So mature. ¬_¬

Why are you attacking him? How am I attacking him? I'm just annoyed by the way Cyphon misrepresents the situation.

Of course, you miss the part that by in any way caving to a "pathetic intimidation attempt," they validate it and succumb to it. You only bring down and insult everyone involved by trying to characterize it that way. Face it: they considered the complaint and simply decided it needed to be changed to keep the peace. That's not censorship, intimidation, caving, cowardice or whatever. These are smart people who, as today's patch showed, listen to the community and want what's best for their game and it's fans, both in a business sense but also in the sense of having created something cool that they get to enjoy with everyone. They simply wanted to keep the peace...it was changed to address the issue and, as a bonus, Firedom got to have some clever word play in there to express his disappointment at the overreaction to the unintended offense people took with his joke. Seems like a happy medium to me. Have you read his posts? He *knew* it was offensive! Why do you keep defending him?

You've got it so backwards it's not even funny. The very best way to paint the target is to engage in childish one-uppery. Obsidian and Firedom responded rather perfectly. The showed responsiveness to the issue but Firedom also got to express his feeling that this was an overreaction to what was intended as a harmless jest, but which unintentionally offended people. The overall effect is an honest effort to keep the peace and nobody can fault Obsidian or Firedom for that. Had they done what you suggest, it would only be throwing gas on the fire. Firedorn knew it was offensive. He expected it to be rejected. He obviously did not intend it as just a harmless jest. Why the hell are you so invested in making it seem like he is without fault?

How do you think it should have been handled?

Let's be realistic here. We are talking about someone who has repeatedly called for the death of half of the population of the planet, including the subset of the population that he either now belongs to or formerly did. This person is literally crazy. It doesn't require insanity to actually commit genocide, as demonstrated by history. Equating mental problems with violence is very ungood. Please just don't do it.

Prove that they caved in. Put up or shut up. It's really not such a difficult concept. You will never ba able to prove this- This is ridiculous. However... Obsidian makes games and even controlled backer content and helped them with writing as well. Games gets released Some crazy person saw some messages that did upset her even though the meaning is not even clear She calls Obsidian out, she calls for a boycott. a Week or so later Obsidian removed the content with some PR messages behind it. Yeah the chances that they carved in is pretty high for me. re the bolded: Because ableism is totally cool. You should try some introspection. You have constructed a narrative where the person who complained is crazy and Obs are cowards. The much more likely scenario is that a trans person thought it was in bad taste and advocated for the content to be removed. Obs agreed and did so.

I'm guessing trans people have their own lingo to describe their unique challenges and experiences.

Prove that they caved in. Put up or shut up. It's really not such a difficult concept.

I think it's funny that these people never consider that maybe the people at Obsidian agree with the so-called SJW. No, it has to be that they are cowards.

Prove that Obs "caved in" and not merely agreed. You think context doesn't matter because you are ignorant of the context. Prove that is not the case. And I am sorry but I do not differentiate between your Color. If you are discriminating because of someones color you are a racist to me. Like these people who threaten the teenager who was so proud of her dreadlocks and posted a picture on Facebook., Her only error she was white. And White people are not allowed to wear dreadlocks.... And yeah if you believe this bull**** you are also a racist. Nuh uh. You made a claim. Now put up or shut up. I'm not going to talk about racism. It's completely irrelevant.

Because dehumanising others is always fun.

Prove that Obs "caved in" and not merely agreed. You think context doesn't matter because you are ignorant of the context.

You're either dishonest or ignorant. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring ... : a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. A person. Not a government, not a law, a PERSON. Did a person examine this game? Yes. Did they apply pressure, directly, to the developer of said game to remove something they felt was offensive, immoral, or harmful to society? Yes. This person is a censor. They performed censorship by pressuring the developer to remove it. About to go offensive (trigger warning); if I "pressure" someone into having sex, I'm not a rapist or immoral, right? After all, they could have said no, they could have resisted, so it's alright, right? So you can't tell the difference between advocacy and rape. Gotcha. As someone who lives in a country where censorship is explicitly prohibited by the constitution I just have to point out that a "censor" is historically an official. Censor: "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor?s=t You can expand the concept, sure, but you have to do it very carefully if you want to claim that censorship is a bad thing in any context. oh yeah now we are going the not every censorship is bad... YES EVERY FORM OF CENSORSHIPOT IS BAD.... Its like saying racism against white people is not as bad as racism against black people.... Seriously.. There is no different. There is no good or bad discrimination. there are no differences at all.... You equate advocacy with censorship and then insist that censorship is always bad... Do you comprehend how completely idiotic that is? I'm not going to touch on the racism thing, since you seem incapable of understanding context.

Except, you know, that isn't actually borne out by reality. Is it not? Because I've seen few tweets making a company change content here... And that, somehow, makes you a mind-reader. I'm not denying the facts, only what you claim to be the motivations involved.

You're either dishonest or ignorant. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring ... : a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. A person. Not a government, not a law, a PERSON. Did a person examine this game? Yes. Did they apply pressure, directly, to the developer of said game to remove something they felt was offensive, immoral, or harmful to society? Yes. This person is a censor. They performed censorship by pressuring the developer to remove it. About to go offensive (trigger warning); if I "pressure" someone into having sex, I'm not a rapist or immoral, right? After all, they could have said no, they could have resisted, so it's alright, right? So you can't tell the difference between advocacy and rape. Gotcha. As someone who lives in a country where censorship is explicitly prohibited by the constitution I just have to point out that a "censor" is historically an official. Censor: "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor?s=t You can expand the concept, sure, but you have to do it very carefully if you want to claim that censorship is a bad thing in any context.

Except, you know, that isn't actually borne out by reality.

Their definition, as written, is ridiculous. It implies that any kind of advocacy is an attempt at censorship. "Censorship [...] happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political [...] values on others." So voting is an attempt at censorship?

No. This would be a complete non-issue if the bigots hadn't thrown a fit. Go read the replies to the other thread. Someone actually vowed to undermine everything Obsidian ever does. The reaction is completely, hilariously, out of proportion. I have read them. Then it is beyond me how you can imply that the two sides are equal.