darkpatriot
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by darkpatriot
-
-
If you are attacking another person, whether they are on the forum or not, through any words like bigot, ****, crazy, or tranny you should probably step back for a second and consider what you are doing.
For one, you guys are about to get this topic locked. Secondly you weaken your position when you can't discuss ideas without attacking people who disagree with you. You can disagree with someone without attacking them. Try and focus on concepts and ideas and not individuals. This conversation was going along pretty well for a while, dozens of pages discussing ideas and concepts without the quantity of vitriolic attacks that have been in the last half dozen pages.Calling someone an intolerant bigot is also a personal attack by the way. For all the people who seem to not understand that is just as much a personal attack as tranny or **** is.
-
"Can we have a mod make a locked, sticky topic for this please? Maybe then, people will stop ranting about it and this PR nightmare can be shut down before it gets any worse."
You fear discussion? Yup. I believe you do.
"Everything else is a conspiracy theory in your head because you deny to end this ****storm. It over. Done. Get over it."
TRIGGERED!
It’s not a discussion anymore. The author consented. If anyone should be outraged it was him and nobody else. He isn’t. You are going beyond reason and you will get nowhere because you don’t want to “discuss”, you want people agree with what you feel and nothing else.
People are upset that the he was even asked to change it in the first place.
-
1
-
-
The only people allowed to decide what gender they are are those people themselves. Anyone else's opinion what it ought to be does not enter into it.
Not at all. The only person allowed to decide a persons opinion's is themselves. Anyone else's opinion what it ought to be does not enter into it.
A transperson can have the opinion that they are a woman. What anyone else thinks is not required to have that opinion. But if another person has the opinion that they are a man then that is also ok. What anyone else thinks is not required to have that opinion.
Both those individuals are free to have whatever opinion they want. Neither one is somehow infringing on the rights of the other by having that opinion.
You can identify yourself however you want to but no one is obligated to agree with you.
You're not obligated to refer to a person by their preferred gender, no. You're just kind of a jerk if you don't.
It comes down to a matter of courtesy. To call someone by their preferred gender is a courtesy. It is somewhat presumptuous to assume that people will always be ok with setting aside their own beliefs in order to accommodate you or be polite. Sometimes a person doesn't want to be polite or sometimes a person feels strongly about their own beliefs that they wish to make a point about it and emphasize their beliefs. Just because someone doesn't extend a courtesy does not make them a jerk. It may be kind of jerky depending on the situation but to always expect that courtesy to be extended is somewhat presumptuous and entitled.
Also keep in mind that courtesy is generally a two way street. So when someone is implying, or outright declaring, that you are bigoted or hateful then I don't think it is rude at all for that you to decide not to extend that courtesy.
-
The only people allowed to decide what gender they are are those people themselves. Anyone else's opinion what it ought to be does not enter into it.
Not at all. The only person allowed to decide a persons opinion's is themselves. Anyone else's opinion what it ought to be does not enter into it.
A transperson can have the opinion that they are a woman. What anyone else thinks is not required to have that opinion. But if another person has the opinion that they are a man then that is also ok. What anyone else thinks is not required to have that opinion.
Both those individuals are free to have whatever opinion they want. Neither one is somehow infringing on the rights of the other by having that opinion.
You can identify yourself however you want to but no one is obligated to agree with you.
-
7
-
-
I love how you think anyone will take you guys professed motives seriously when your posts lecture about how misgendering is ok.
Like, credibility went all the way out the window there.
It is. You can proclaim that it isn't but that doesn't make it so. It isn't a good faith tactic to just pronounce someone else's position in a debate as evil or immoral. In this case the debate over gender and sex. You should try being tolerant of other people's opinions instead of denouncing them if they disagree with you. At the very least you should give some reasoning for why you feel that position is immoral or unacceptable if you are going to denounce it.
-
3
-
-
If you think calling someone a tranny and misgendering them is ok then that's I need to know about this outrage.
While tranny is generally, but not always, used as a slur misgendering someone (especially since from their point of view they are not misgendering someone but correctly identifying their gender) is not a hateful bigoted act.
Not everyone agrees with transpeople about what gender they are. Many feel they are in fact their biological sex and not the one they transitioned to. This is not intolerant or hateful. People will often extend the courtesy of referring to a transexual as the gender they would prefer even if they do not agree that they are their transitioned sex, but it is a courtesy. They are under no obligation to alter how they feel about it and they are not being insulting if they choose not to extend that courtesy. A transexual person if free to take offense if this happens, and many will, but they have no reasonable expectation to be able to dictate another person's opinion on this matter.
Being offended is not some trump card that means you get to win an argument or force someone else to change what they believe.
I think some people may be confusing an expression of frustration and anger with, y'know, actual serious genocidal wishes, hmm?
I think some people may be confusing a lighthearted joke with, y'know, actual serious hatred and oppression of transsexual people, hmm?
-
3
-
-
The poem was transphobic. It was homophobic.
No it wasn't. Assuming you even interpret the epitaph that way there is nothing transphobic or homophobic about not wanting to sleep with a transsexual or homosexual and feeling shamed if you did so unknowingly.
People keep repeating this so many times as if it were true. Something about repeating a lie enough times and people will believe it. That is why it is important that someone challenge you and tell you: "No, that is not true."
-
10
-
-
Firstly I'm of the understanding that referring to a trans woman as 'really a man' is 100% not cool.
Secondly I'm a backer and I thought the joke was kind of ****ty. It's a small thing, as people have pointed out, so it should not be a big deal to remove it or replace it.
I really don't understand why people are getting so butthurt about this, it's sad.
Whether it is ****ty or not is a matter of opinion. Whatever your feelings might be toward it, it doesn't give you the right to demand it removed. And people are getting so butthurt because there's a group of people on the internet right now, which thinks that their feelings are a perfectly fine excuse to go and bully everyone to remove everything they don't agree with. Surely, you can see why not a lot of people appreciate this?
It's interesting to note that as soon as Josh saw it he referred to it as something at least he didn't want in the game.
So who is making unreasonable demands of the developers creative freedom?
My personal feelings is that this is just such a small thing that I really don't see the fuss either way but it's easy for me to say that I guess. I've read that 1 in 12 transexual women (using the term to disinguish) are murdered, 1 in 8 if you are a woman of colour. Imagine if someone came and told you those odds. So I don't know, I'm torn. Maybe we shouldn't let small things slide, maybe this is a fuss over nothing. Frankly I'd rather Obsidian just continue to make great games. I've defended the game everywhere I've seen this written about, maybe that's what we all should be focusing on, helping the game do well.
Those statistics are bogus. Nowhere near the actual numbers. Just like many other shocking bogus statistics people use to try and support their position. Transsexual individuals do have a higher murder rate than the general population but transsexuals individuals are also more likely to be involved in prostitution, and prostitutes have a higher murder rate than the general population.
That isn't even relevant, because this limerick in no way encourages people to go murder transsexuals. It is only one possible interpretation that the original epitaph was even talking about a transsexual. Besides a person has every right to be offended if they have found that a transsexual has slept with them without disclosing the fact that they were transsexual. The majority of the male population would have a problem with that. To claim that it is a transphobic or bigoted position to feel that way is not correct.
This epitaph was not getting anybody killed. It was not hateful, intolerant, bigoted, advocating for discrimination, or otherwise abusive or demeaning. I could see how a transperson might be annoyed or mildly offended at seeing that joke yet again (it is one of the more common representations of transsexual people in media) but at the same time you have a segment of the transsexual community who feel that it is perfectly acceptable to sleep with someone or have a romantic relationship with them without disclosing that they are transsexuals. It is a thing that happens and it is entirely acceptable to make jokes about it or comment about it. People being mildly offended over a joke, especially when most of the people being offended are being offended for ideological reasons instead of genuinely feeling hurt by it, is not a good enough reason to exclude it.
If you excluded every joke that caused some offense you had better be prepared to take a whole lot of those backer epitaphs out of the game and not just this one. I wouldn't be surprised if some people started putting together a list of backer content that could be found objectionable or offensive to someone just to show the irrationality of it all.
-
6
-
-
You mean he.
She identifies as woman and she is legally considered to be woman, claiming otherwise is just plain attacking another forum user, which is against rules of this forum.
No it isn't. Considering MtF transsexuals to still be male is a valid opinion and is neither hateful nor intolerant. It is in no way an attack on someone.
Attacking another users person is against forum rules regardless of what you think about world.
Every opinion is valid even if it's utterly wrong and absolute idiotic and don't match with real world.
The debate on gender is far from settled. The position that gender is intrinsically tied to sex and biology is a perfectly valid opinion that is held by a great many people. Quite possibly the majority. I haven't looked at any studies on views over the subject recently (if there have been any recent ones) so I couldn't tell you any exact figures. To act like a person having that opinion is attacking a transperson is ridiculous. Someone disagreeing with someone else is not an attack.
-
4
-
-
You mean he.
She identifies as woman and she is legally considered to be woman, claiming otherwise is just plain attacking another forum user, which is against rules of this forum.
No it isn't. Considering MtF transsexuals to still be male is a valid opinion and is neither hateful nor intolerant. It is in no way an attack on someone.
Easy there basement dweller.
However, Calling someone a basement dweller is an attack.
-
6
-
-
For now just take it easy and stop pouring foul on the fire.
The fire needs to burn. The fire needs to burn hot enough that people don't get away with this again.
-
This is what it was changed to according to people who have checked the XML file.
<memorial>
<Name>Firedorn Lightbringer</Name>
<Note>"Here lies Firedorn, a bard, a poet
He was also a card, but most didn't know it
A poem he wrote in jest was misread
They asked for blood, so now he's just dead"</Note>
</memorial>
Apparently it is either no longer at the same location or has actually been removed though since twitter users are posting screenshots of it not being where it was pre-patch.
I won't lie. I am pretty disappointed with Obsidian over this. Apparently the backer was good natured enough to be willing to change it, but he should never have been asked to change it.It is ridiculous to classify the original limerick as offensive or transphobic.
-
3
-
-
That is what I am personally hoping the end result of all this is. A toggle to turn off the yellow backer NPCs and backer epitaphs. The epitaphs aren't as big a deal for me because they are much less obtrusive but all the weird looking people with weird names standing around detract from the game IMO.
-
Ah, but I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. I see this as what it is - back written content that doesn't serve the game in any way. Its a no-brainer to remove it, as it hurts plenty of people. The reaction to that simple request is insane. People are reacting as if art itself is under attack. It isn't. The only thing is that some people would like to see this stupid "joke", which adds nothing, removed so that the game will feel more inclusive to others. That's it. If you want to add gamergate political nonsense to it, that's not helpful. I think it is better to not see a conspiracy theory behind everything and instead take people at face value when they say "Hey, this thing makes me uncomfortable, can we lose it since it isn't part of your game?"
This issue started when an activists with an agenda created this issue to try and use it to support their ideology. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. People should try and create the change they want, although I think many techniques people use to do so are not very productive. But it should be recognized that this issue was started to support an ideologically driven agenda and to act like that this isn't the case is intellectually dishonest. It is not, and it never was, a simple case of people having their feelings hurt as you are trying to portray it.
This was the original tweet that started this issue in case you have forgotten:
"Hey @Obsidian you should have said no to this backer. Transmysogyny is not acceptable in 2015"
This person also has a history of being a politcally active twitter user on this topic. While that person may have had some genuine hurt feelings, their purpose in creating this issue was to push a political agenda that they support.
The vast majority of the offense over this is ideologically driven offense, not genuine "my feelings are hurt" offense.
-
Please stop blowing this out of proportion, it isn't helpful.
That is pretty much the viewpoint of the people who don't want it removed and don't think it should be an issue. You can't really accuse someone else of blowing something out or porportion when that is exactly what you are doing.
We all know the reason it has been blown out of porportion though. Pretending like you aren't aware of this is kinda intellectually dishonest. It exists as part of a larger political debate and it has become an issue within that debate. This debate has given the issue increased importance outside of what it would inherently have by itself. While Obsidian would prefer that this had not happened, Pandora's box has already been opened. Not even all the effort in the world is gonna pack this back inside. -
Its about protecting the artistic integrity of the game and working to make games more inclusive and less offputting to marginilized people. That doesn't mean you can't have dark / challenging content or humor. It just has to be fit your setting and be handled well. The game itself and obsidian's writers make Durance a misogynist. Nobody is asking for him to be removed from the game, because the game makes it very clear that he's flawed in that way. This backer epitaph isn't part of Obsidian's writing. Obsidian vetted plenty of backer content, and I'ms ure they removed a whole lot of hateful garbage. This one just slipped through the cracks.
Everyone who loves jokes making fun of trans people can find such things in other places. It doesn't need to be here, in the middle of an otherwise sensitive and thought provoking game.
The importance of not having censorship is not really about artistic integrity. That is a side effect. The importance is that it protects political speech. Art is just the most common battleground that the fight over censorship takes place in.
Removing the backer epitaph would be a case of censorship btw. This has already been covered in this thread but I'll state it again:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."
Censorship is not always innapropriate, people self-censor all the time, but the urge to censor should always be resisted as it is very easy to justify increasing censorship until it has become a serious threat to free speech. Hurt feelings is a weak justification for censorship. Especially since as far as I can tell in this case tell we aren't talking about deeply hurt feelings, just mild offense.
-
2
-
-
The limmerick is not hateful. You are using that word far too casually. Only a radical minority consider it to be hateful and I do not consider catering to a radical minority to be a good policy.
-
2
-
-
How about, since it is such a minor part of the game and has nothing at all to do with Obsidian's vision or artistic integrity (as it is backer written) you just let it go? The game is better without it, and its inclusion adds nothing.
Because the words "I'm offended" have already gained far too much power. If every time someone is offended that topic or approach is off limits then we are going to find ourselves severely restricted. If something is going to be censored, I would like to see a more solid reason than hurt feelings.
A society that maintains a healthy respect for satire, mockery, and humor in general is much better equipped to recognize its own flaws. These are often the tools that are used to point out and explore these flaws. The harm in limiting humor by constantly expanding the list of the topics that are not acceptable to be made fun of is tremendous.
-
After all for what I understood the guy committing suicide here is the deceived one, not the one dressed as a woman...
The fundamental reason some transpeople, and those who are offended on their behalf, are offended is that the limmerick reinforces a stereotype of transpeople as being involved in tricking other people into sleeping with them. They are annoyed at seeing transexuals represented this way in various forms of media as it is probably the most common joke involving transexuals that is seen.
Individual offendees also have some variation in the exact reason for their offense. For example, some of the more radical offendees are taking offense at the implication that the transexual involved in the limmerick (the limmerick need not necessarily be interpreted to mean that the guy slept with a transexual but that is IMO the most obvious interpretation) is not a woman but is actually still a man. Some people consider that a MtF transexual is fully female and should be treated as female in all ways by everyone else. They consider someone who does not act and treat a transexual as fully female, including willingness to have a romantic relationship with them, as a bigoted hateful person. So from their point of view this limmerick reinforces a view that transexuals are not fully the gender the would like the world to identify them as and as a result it is transphobic.
Some even go so far as to state their belief this limmerick encourages the harrasment and even physical abuse targeted at transexuals by reinforcing the view that it is ok to be hateful or discriminate against transexuals and believe that they are due some kind of special considerations and protections due to being a marginalized group in society that have it "really, really bad" and should be totally off limits for any kind of jokes.
For the most part I don't support these views but these are what I understand the complaints to be. For me personally, I can see how a transperson could be tired of seeing this joke be one of the most common representations of transpeople in media. While I don't begrudge them being annoyed or slightly offended at it I also I don't think their getting offended or annoyed by it is a good enough reason to exclude this extremely minor out of the way joke. Many jokes are annoying or offensive to someone. I don't agree at all with the more radical reasons some people have given for being offended by the limmerick.
-
[REDACTED]So, I guess you are coming out in full ad hominem mode then. Assuming you actually care to discuss anything you could perhaps justify your reasoning for using the bigot label. Specifically that someone having the opinion that MtF transexuals are still actually male makes them a bigot. I see no reason that having that opinion makes someone a bigot.
I think you could certainly make good points from both sides of the debate regarding gender and transexuals (and even other positions such as them being a third gender), and it is an interesting conversation that is worth having. But I don't find any of those positions to be inherently bigoted. There is absolutely some bigotry towards transexuals in the world, but just having that opinion isn't an act of bigotry.
Sadly a lot of people want to apply the bigot and intolerant label (really any kind of attack label) to people just for disagreeing with them. They just wanna cloak themselves in self-righteousness and then accuse other people of lacking self-awareness
Edit: Editing out the quote of the person I am responding to at their request since they have been asked to remove it by the moderators.
-
Well, you've demonstrated that you don't respect others' beliefs or opinions, so I'm not going to respect yours.
Not that I was going to anyway, because I don't actually respect anyone's opinion save my own. On that idea we just disagree completely.
Where have I disrespected other's beliefs and opinions? Disagreeing is not disrespecting. If I am being perfectly honest to hold the opinion that disagreeing with someone's opinion is disrespecting their opinion is a very dangerous way of thinking. That is the line of reasoning that is the very core of intolerance and all of it's excesses throughout history. And every time it happened people thought they were doing the right thing and were on the right side of history.
Oh man, we're getting so close to Godwin's law here, people, I can almost taste it! You can do it, darkpatriot! Which people exactly are you talking about throughout history who thought they were doing the right thing on the right side?
You could bring that up as an example but it isn't a particularly good one since it was only partly about ideology. A better, and more topical example since this is the PoE board, would be the treatment of the Cathar Heresy. It is topical because the Cathar Heresy was one of the major influences on Josh Sawyer concerning the way the Eothasians are treated in PoE. But you see it any time you have one group who feels they are right and those they disagree with are wrong (and generally some kind of evil) and they have no need to respect their opinions.
That is why I consider tolerating those who disagree with you to be extremely important. You can certainly disagree with someone and express how you disagree with them. But by attacking someone just for disagreeing with you (for example by calling them bigots or intolerant) you certainly won't have a great deal of luck convincing them that your opinion is correct. If your only response is to not tolerate their opinions, attack them, and try and supress their speech then that isn't really a productive way to approach it. For some reason people tend to dig in even deeper regarding their opinions when you do that. And then that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that it is possible that you might be wrong and perhaps their opinion is better. I have never seen a perfect person who was always right. If you are only allowing your own opinions to flourish that is only going to cause you to have an even harder time recognizing when you are wrong.
-
2
-
-
Well, you've demonstrated that you don't respect others' beliefs or opinions, so I'm not going to respect yours.
Not that I was going to anyway, because I don't actually respect anyone's opinion save my own. On that idea we just disagree completely.
Where have I disrespected other's beliefs and opinions? Disagreeing is not disrespecting. If I am being perfectly honest, to hold the opinion that disagreeing with someone's opinion is disrespecting their opinion is a very dangerous way of thinking. That is the line of reasoning that is the very core of intolerance and all of it's excesses throughout history. And every time it has happened people thought they were doing the right thing and that they were on the right side of history.
-
1
-
-
I mean, heaven forbid that, say, people who are intolerant of transgendered folks are told to shut up and keep their ugly beliefs to themselves.
What intolerance? Again I will state it. Believing that MtF transexuals are still men is not intolerant, bigoted, hateful, or discriminatory.
Just because you say it's so doesn't make it true, darkpatriot. It's not for you to tell other people who and what they are. That's something that every person must decide for themselves. Taking away other people's right to their own identity, even if it's only in your own mind, is a form of discrimination.
I agree that just because I say something doesn't make it true. It only makes it my opinion. That is kind of what I'm arguing though. That peoples opinions need to be respected without resorting to ad hominems like "bigoted". If you are gonna throw around insults like that, which is generally counterproductive to having a conversation anyway, you need to back it up with some solid reasoning for why it is an accurate description. Without that reasoning, which would be the actual core of the discussion, it is just an ad hominem.
How is someone else's right to how they self-identify being taken away? You really can't stop a person from identifying however they want to even if you tried. Not without some pretty extreme coercive measures that I think most of the world would disagree with anyway. There is no right to have everyone agree with them though. You never have a right to decide someone else's opinions and beliefs.
-
1
-
-
Given that enough people have an issue with a romantic relationship with a bigot, it seems to me like it's doubly the responsibility of the person who doesn't want to sleep with trans people they're otherwise attracted to make that clear in advance to all their prospective partners. After all, I can't properly give consent if you don't tell me up front, unprompted, that you wouldn't sleep with someone who told you they were trans.
Very very few people would agree with the statement: Believing that MtF transexuals are still men is bigoted and I would be greatly offended or upset if I unknowingly had a romantic relationship with someone who held that opinion.
If it was a concern that enough people had I would agree with you but as things stand it is not a large enough concern, both in terms of how many people feel that way and how strongly they feel about it, to be something that should be routinely disclosed.
I mean, heaven forbid that, say, people who are intolerant of transgendered folks are told to shut up and keep their ugly beliefs to themselves.
What intolerance? I will state it again. Believing that MtF transexuals are still men is not intolerant, bigoted, hateful, or discriminatory.
-
1
-
Twitter outrage over the "[spoiler]" quest
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by darkpatriot
Because it wasn't offensive. Certainly not the kind of offensive that requires something to be censored. It is only considered offensive by people with a radical agenda that can't tolerate any dissent or disagreement and regularly use the tactic of labeling any opposing opinion as offensive, transphobic, hateful, or some variation of that. Basically either agree with them or you are a bad horrible person. Many backers are upset that people with that radical and intolerant viewpoint are able to influence the games and developers they like. They are upset that someone with an obvious agenda is able to push issues like this and force them into the game, despite the fact that the vast majorities of backers do not agree with them and do not want to see that kind of change. They are upset for how this will influence future games by causing developers to censor content to avoid having a twitter/tumblr crusade launched against them.
Do you really have trouble understanding that?