DrTuring

Yikes. Sorta sucks that it's still in for you, huh? But yeah, if Oblivion looks at the majority of their audience, or even just in this thread, they would know that removing it would be a bad idea. And yeah, it's censorship when you force a development team to take out content even though most people are fine with it.

I am all for #2. All that we need is a toggle. The offended can just turn it off, and it gives the added bonus of not having a bunch of Fanfiction.net tier stuff for the rest of us! But not sure about #1. Word of mouth is probably sufficient.

Source on them removing it? I don't see anything on the forums. They didn't, he's using an example.

I would be fine with just a toggle option. I'm pretty sure everyone would be fine with a toggle option, except for the hardcore agenda pushers on each side.

You have to be joking. You're seriously saying that men NEVER, EVER get prejudice sent their way? Really?

Hell, I'm pretty sure myself it was a joke about "The Crying Game," where that situation was almost the same thing.

I'm going to explain this once, which you will no doubt ignore. How high is the possiblity of there being an actual killing spree against men by "SJWs"? Ok, how many times has the panic defense actually been used by murder defendants? Also, are you going to post here again or did you make an account just for that? You know it says in the article you linked all but one attempt at that failed? And I find it funny that you're claiming the defense "It's just a joke" for #KillAllMen, but are asking for this JOKE to be pulled here. It reeks of double standards.

And believe me they will be offended by something pretty soon, this past week alone I've seem the very same crowd beign offended at Totalbiscuit, beign offended at a cover for a Batgirl comic, and they also had LiongsGate studios delete a few of their tweets because they were deemed offended. Everyone that disagrees is attacked, like I showed with Totalbiscuit and declared a misogynist or transphone and then put in one of those famous blockbots. You get put on the blocklist if you follow the certain individuals such as Roguestar or Sargon of Akkad. If what I've heard is correct, the head of the blockbot put him on without having to do that. While also bragging about putting on the Pope. It's a horrible tool that only exists to stifle discussion, anyways.

Well most people here seem to agree that the line shouldn't be pulled. That's been the main issue for everyone but you, honestly. While we talk about the joke, and whether or not it should be kept in, you're saying all this "YOU'RE A GAMERGATER" crap. It's very disengenuous.

Merely not wanting something to exist is not censorship. I hate mayonnaise. I want all of it destroyed forever. It's gross. Censorship is when I somehow manage to get it outlawed against the will of the people or when my army of robots (which I totally don't have! *ahem*) somehow enforce my magical anti-mayo will on the world. Obsidian deciding "Hey, let's get rid of this thing?". Not censorship. It's a choice. If the government of California marched down to Irvine and made Obsidian change the game? Censorship. I mean this in the nicest way possible but if you care so much about a thing you need to learn about what it is and isn't. Hmm. What if the mayonnaise hater started claiming Obsidian's love of mayonnaise make them horrible unethical people, and raised a protest of a thousand people that marched to California and protested, until Obsidian declares a no-mayo policy just because it would be too much work and public relations disaster to do otherwise? It might count as censorship or it might not. But if one were to conclude "well it's Obsidian's choice", that's a very unfair definition of 'choice', too. (I'm not saying that analogy is exactly what is happening now, I'm just saying your current argumenta bout 'let Obsidian choose' is a bit narrow-sighted.) (And as someone who has studied the history of censorship, you know, it's a definition that changes over time, and its boundaries in the U.S. for example has been heavily debated by legal scholars and philosophers throughout its entire history. It's hard to just say "x is censorship y is not, good bye".) It's funny you bring that up. One of the developers of Divinity: Original Sin had said something akin to that in an interview. He said something akin to "If a mob group came into your resturaunt, and demanded that you stop selling a certain type of food 'or else', it's still your choice. But the choice WAS influenced."

When all you have is a herring, then you have to use a herring. It's safe to assume people who have a problem will be the most vocal. Yet even here, the people who have a problem with are the minority of the discussion. It's also safe to assume that most people not talking about it are fine with it as is, so they don't feel a need to take a stand one way or the other. No?

. Just because it isn't vital doesn't make it NOT a part of the game. Besides, reading these gravestones can be fun. Most of time fun as in "Cringy to the point of hilarity" fun, but fun none the less.

The difference is that that was BEFORE the game was out. Now the game IS out. People bought the game. And people bought the game expecting all the content offered.

No one is claiming that EVERYONE thinks it. Only the majority. There's a difference. Just look at the threads. About 5 people saying to purge it, and about 30 or so defending it at least.

I actually agree with this idea. It would satisfy everyone.