Memorials problem.

[Tartantyco]

I find the fact that this thread has gone on for 12 pages highly offensive.

[Sakai]

Tautology. Allegory is an interpretation of symbols. Something can be intentionally allegorical or not. We're in the Tolkien realm now. Which is why I assume you're using the term applicability but at the end of the day he was merely swapping out one word for another. Presumably out of some type of iconoclasm. 

This is what Tolkien said about it. 

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

[DrTuring]

You're being reductive. Politics is the totality of interactions in a society, which includes art. This is why we see the term used loosely for various things that aren't about policy. "Forum politics" for instance, doesn't have to be about the rules that moderators are setting. It can be about power dynamics and interactions. 

I believe we just have two different ideas on politics. You seem to think politics is all social interactions. That's... not very true, in my own opinion.

 

Politics don't apply to everything. Politics only apply to things that are trying to send a message that isn't centered around morals. For instance, no one will make the claim that trash like the upcoming "Pixels" is politics, but movies like Elysium are clearly about the class divides of the rich and poor.

 

It's entirely possible for entertainment and art without politics. Like the Mona Lisa.

[AlyxDinas]

Even is if this is true what I personally do not believe  there is a problem of over analyzing things. Lets take a dumb Movie like Rocky 4 for example. It is pure fun and dumb entertaining but if you over analyze it you can see it as a anti Russia cold war movie and slam it for that instead of enjoying dumb fun. 

 

 

 

The thing is...there's not "wrong" way to engage with or consume art. If someone wants to do that, they're not doing anything worse than the person who is enjoying the dumb fun. Perhaps, for them, the analysis was the fun. Art is experiential. Regardless, I'm getting off topic so I'm going to generally shy away from more talk of politics and such. The end of the day? We all interpret content through different lenses. Some might find things they take exception to.

 

The question is if Obsidian thinks the content in question is fitting of their created world and in line with whatever values they want to convey to customers/clients. The choice is their's to make. The thing to consider is what you will do if they take action you disagree with. Merely be disappointed or kick and scream and pout?

[ruzen]

If that comes to patching out one tiny little thing? Then let me start with these I am highly offened by hanging people on trees or Insest releations ...you see where I'm going with this? There is no end in this!

I mean wth?! This is pure bullying. When we can start to enjoy a art? 

There is no reason to change do not get trolled Obsidian.

[Creslin321]

The Twitter user referenced here that got offended by this is clearly insane: constant cries to "KillAllMen" while getting upset about a mediocre joke show what sort of person we're talking about here.

 

However, like Gromnir said a few pages back, if the joke were about a man who killed himself after accidentally sleeping with a black woman, because he is disgusted at the thought of sleeping with a black woman, this conversation wouldn't be happening. You'd all be talking about how offensive the joke is or how it "just isn't funny," but somehow it's a totally different conversation because you're all of the mind (currently) that it's okay to disregard the feelings of some groups but not others.

 

In other words, there are a bunch of inconsistent people here that clamor on about whatever it's cultually popular to clamor on about. That's on both sides of this issue. I don't think it should be taken out at the moment simply because it would be ridiculous to pander to every obviously insane complaint that enters your field of vision, but there's a bunch of people in this thread that would do well to examine their views on these things. Jumping on the SJW train or the anti-SJW train is equally stupid, why don't you try developing some well thought out views which are actually based on something other than reacting with whatever good-feeling impulse first crosses your mind?

 

I don't really think the joke you mention about the black woman, and the one in the game are really analogous.

 

The one about the black woman hinges on the idea of racism.  The only reason someone would be very upset if they slept with a black person is if they are racist...and I think we all agree that it's not really acceptable to be racist.

 

But the one in the game is about sexual preference.  As far as I know, we are still able to have sexual preference without being some kind of "ist."  I mean, just because I don't want to have sex with men, doesn't make me homophobic.  And vice versa for a gay person.

 

Basically what I'm saying is that someone should always be free to have their own sexual preferences.  And I don't think we should ever get the point where we persecute anyone who isn't bisexual for being homo or hetero phobic.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Creslin321

[Darji]

 

Even is if this is true what I personally do not believe  there is a problem of over analyzing things. Lets take a dumb Movie like Rocky 4 for example. It is pure fun and dumb entertaining but if you over analyze it you can see it as a anti Russia cold war movie and slam it for that instead of enjoying dumb fun. 

 

 

 

The thing is...there's not "wrong" way to engage with or consume art. If someone wants to do that, they're not doing anything worse than the person who is enjoying the dumb fun. Perhaps, for them, the analysis was the fun. Art is experiential. Regardless, I'm getting off topic so I'm going to generally shy away from more talk of politics and such. The end of the day? We all interpret content through different lenses. Some might find things they take exception to.

 

The question is if Obsidian thinks the content in question is fitting of their created world and in line with whatever values they want to convey to customers/clients. The choice is their's to make. The thing to consider is what you will do if they take action you disagree with. Merely be disappointed or kick and scream and pout?

 

So you think putting public pressure through a social media mob is not a try of censorship and that its fine? A twitter mob is very effective and that is really a sad thing in my opinion. Because as a company you never want to trend on twitter with negative comments. 

 

How about the majority of people here who actually dont want it to be removed?

Edited March 29, 2015 by Darji

[licketysplit]

ITT: people complaining about censorship, despite not knowing what censorship is.

 

This isn't a free speech issue, people. Stop trying to make it into one.

 

WTF kinda nonsense is this? None of this would be considered if Twitter cry babies hadn't started a campaign for self censorship. This is what their goal is. Take out the stuff we don't like. That's their goal. How in the hell is that not censorship? 

[Badmojo]

Hi Obsidian, I read some of this at work and just got home.  Just want to give my 2 cents.

 

Ok, first of all, the forum is being brigaded by people of both camps, but the SJW side are painfully obvious.  New forum threads like "Will there be gay characters?  There isn't, then your a homophobe" or soon to show up "Will there be more women, diversity characters?"  or  "Why is X weak, sexy, attacked..etc?"  I have seen this over and over again on many gaming forums, and I remember this showing up at the beginning of the kickstarter.  Lets be clear, the vast majority of these people ARE NOT GAMERS.  They just go around intentionally finding things to be offended about.   If it wasn't this, it would have been something else they would have been "problamatic" with pillars.  I was waiting for this to happen honestly, every single big release game has gone through this.  Giving in to them DOES NOT WORK.  They just smell blood and demand more and more from you until you stop making games for your actual audiance and instead make games for this group that (AGAIN) ARE NOT GAMERS.

 

Trust me, as a person who backed the game and a long time gamer.  I do not want Obsidian or any dev to be censored or feel they a have to self censor to make safe games to try and please the lowest common denominator.  I want them to make kickass games that push the envelope!  I know that is why I backed you guys and isn't that why you went to kickstarter in the first place?  To make the game YOU want without the restrictions in place by traditional publishers?  Do not try and be safe or not offend anybody.  That will never work and only hurts you and your fans.  Make games that push the envelop, your fans and fans of CRPG's will reward praise you for it!

 

Give the proffessional offended SJW's the finger, they are NOT your fans, and they will not buy your games.  Your true fans support you and are the ones that have bought your games and have always supported you from the good times to the bad times.  Keep your soul and your sanity, make great games, do not compromise yourself.

[Zanos]

The Twitter user referenced here that got offended by this is clearly insane: constant cries to "KillAllMen" while getting upset about a mediocre joke show what sort of person we're talking about here.

 

However, like Gromnir said a few pages back, if the joke were about a man who killed himself after accidentally sleeping with a black woman, because he is disgusted at the thought of sleeping with a black woman, this conversation wouldn't be happening. You'd all be talking about how offensive the joke is or how it "just isn't funny," but somehow it's a totally different conversation because you're all of the mind (currently) that it's okay to disregard the feelings of some groups but not others.

 

In other words, there are a bunch of inconsistent people here that clamor on about whatever it's cultually popular to clamor on about. That's on both sides of this issue. I don't think it should be taken out at the moment simply because it would be ridiculous to pander to every obviously insane complaint that enters your field of vision, but there's a bunch of people in this thread that would do well to examine their views on these things. Jumping on the SJW train or the anti-SJW train is equally stupid, why don't you try developing some well thought out views which are actually based on something other than reacting with whatever good-feeling impulse first crosses your mind?

Considering that someone's genitals are a pretty inherent part of sexual attraction, I think comparing not wanting to have slept with someone due to their genitalia is significantly different than not wanting to have slept with someone due to their skin color. Arguing that it's akin to racism to not want to have sex with someone because they have a **** is logically dishonest. 

Edited March 29, 2015 by Zanos

[frobisher]

 

However, like Gromnir said a few pages back, if the joke were about a man who killed himself after accidentally sleeping with a black woman, because he is disgusted at the thought of sleeping with a black woman, this conversation wouldn't be happening. You'd all be talking about how offensive the joke is or how it "just isn't funny,".

 

 

Why? Joke 1.0 is about a dead man with... some issues. Joke 2.0 would be about a dead racist. The real reason both conversations would indeed be happening is somewhere between "Twitter Drama" based on a false premise and companies caving in to dishonest clique that desperately needs media presence (predictable outcome). You are trying too hard to manufacture a difference - but still, at least you make more effort with your claim than anyone who initially decided Joke 1.0 was -phobic.

Edited March 29, 2015 by frobisher

[YourVoiceisAmbrosia]

ITT: people complaining about censorship, despite not knowing what censorship is.

 

This isn't a free speech issue, people. Stop trying to make it into one.

 

This certainly is a censorship issue. It may not be, say, a first amendment violation, and nothing illegal is going on, but it's still a discussion of censorship.

[Nonek]

My kicking, screaming and pouting is so different, mature and justified whereas everybody elses is evil and misogynistic. Why? Because i'm a special snowflake and you're all untermensch.

 

How tiresomely predictable.

[Badmojo]

The Twitter user referenced here that got offended by this is clearly insane: constant cries to "KillAllMen" while getting upset about a mediocre joke show what sort of person we're talking about here.

 

However, like Gromnir said a few pages back, if the joke were about a man who killed himself after accidentally sleeping with a black woman, because he is disgusted at the thought of sleeping with a black woman, this conversation wouldn't be happening. You'd all be talking about how offensive the joke is or how it "just isn't funny," but somehow it's a totally different conversation because you're all of the mind (currently) that it's okay to disregard the feelings of some groups but not others.

 

In other words, there are a bunch of inconsistent people here that clamor on about whatever it's cultually popular to clamor on about. That's on both sides of this issue. I don't think it should be taken out at the moment simply because it would be ridiculous to pander to every obviously insane complaint that enters your field of vision, but there's a bunch of people in this thread that would do well to examine their views on these things. Jumping on the SJW train or the anti-SJW train is equally stupid, why don't you try developing some well thought out views which are actually based on something other than reacting with whatever good-feeling impulse first crosses your mind?

Not really, all that means is that the IN-GAME character was a racist ****.  Again, IN GAME and does not reflect actual beliefs of the creator of the content.

[Volourn]

"if that is what they decide, then sure.  there is no organization with authority over obsidian that is gonna be able to compel them to take out the backer silliness.  no censorship."

 

The SJW bullies are.

 

 

"owever, like Gromnir said a few pages back, if the joke were about a man who killed himself after accidentally sleeping with a black woman, because he is disgusted at the thought of sleeping with a black woman, this conversation wouldn't be happening. You'd all be talking about how offensive the joke is or how it "just isn't funny," but somehow it's a totally different conversation because you're all of the mind (currently) that it's okay to disregard the feelings of some groups but not others."

 

Don't speak for me. I wouldn't care. Just like I wouldn't care if the joke was 'black woman accidently sleeps while white man while drunk so offs herself.'. It's a silly little joke. Get over it.  The 'feels' is pathetic. TRIGGER WARNING! Censorship is EVIL. Period.

 

 

"This isn't a free speech issue, people. Stop trying to make it into one."

 

Yes, it is.  Obsidian chose to include something in the game and now SJW bullies are attacking them, shaming them, threatening them with murder in order to censor their work that they chose to put in. If Obsidian takes it out now it's simply giving in to bullies. PERIOD.

[Chaz]

 

If that comes to patching out one tiny little thing? Then let me start with these I am highly offened by hanging people on trees or Insest releations ...you see where I'm going with this? There is no end in this!

I mean wth?! This is pure bullying. When we can start to enjoy a art? 

There is no reason to change do not get trolled Obsidian.

 

 

Exactly, I see these type of twitter campaigns to shame game developers as pure bullyings and attempts of censorship. It's ridiculous to say that the only cases of censorship if it's Obama tries to silence you, it's nonsense, this is an excerpt from an interview with an artist that worked in Divinity Original Sin, they had similar issues.

 

"When you own a pizza place and one day the mob enters your little shack, threatens you by saying if I don’t stop selling pepperoni pizza’s they’ll do anything in their power to make sure you go out of business, then what should we call this? Blackmail? Censorship? Harassment? Extortion? or simply a trade embargo?"

 

 

You can find the full interview here http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/03/divinity-original-sin-dev-talks-boob-plates-sexism-and-moral-outrage/

Edited March 29, 2015 by Chaz

[AlyxDinas]

How about the majority of people here who actually dont want it to be removed?

 

 

I figure the whole "it's Obsidian's choice" thing would have made clear who I place more capital on in the struggle you're painting. As someone in the field, I think the choice is left to the creator. Do I have a preference? Sure. But you can't talk about mobs in one sentence and then make an argument to the people right after. 

[Arouet]

This thread has caused my opinion of the intelligence of the average Obsidian "fan" on these forums to plummet.

 

Seriously, if you can't handle a developer not wanting a bigoted joke in their game, I'll provide you with a free tiny violin before the door hits you on your ass on the way out.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Arouet

[Volourn]

Well. Obsidian made their choice. It's in the game. If they take it now it's because they were bullied into it.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

The Twitter user referenced here that got offended by this is clearly insane: constant cries to "KillAllMen" while getting upset about a mediocre joke show what sort of person we're talking about here.

 

However, like Gromnir said a few pages back, if the joke were about a man who killed himself after accidentally sleeping with a black woman, because he is disgusted at the thought of sleeping with a black woman, this conversation wouldn't be happening. You'd all be talking about how offensive the joke is or how it "just isn't funny," but somehow it's a totally different conversation because you're all of the mind (currently) that it's okay to disregard the feelings of some groups but not others.

 

In other words, there are a bunch of inconsistent people here that clamor on about whatever it's cultually popular to clamor on about. That's on both sides of this issue. I don't think it should be taken out at the moment simply because it would be ridiculous to pander to every obviously insane complaint that enters your field of vision, but there's a bunch of people in this thread that would do well to examine their views on these things. Jumping on the SJW train or the anti-SJW train is equally stupid, why don't you try developing some well thought out views which are actually based on something other than reacting with whatever good-feeling impulse first crosses your mind?

 

I don't really think the joke you mention about the black woman, and the one in the game are really analogous.

 

The one about the black woman hinges on the idea of racism.  The only reason someone would be very upset if they slept with a black person is if they are racist...and I think we all agree that it's not really acceptable to be racist.

 

But the one in the game is about sexual preference.  As far as I know, we are still able to have sexual preference without being some kind of "ist."  I mean, just because I don't want to have sex with men, doesn't make me homophobic.  And vice versa for a gay person.

 

Basically what I'm saying is that someone should always be free to have their own sexual preferences.  And I don't think we should ever get the point where we persecute anyone who isn't bisexual for being homo or hetero phobic.

 

They're only not analogous if you force them to not be. The guy in the original limerick doesn't necessarily hate men and the guy in my example doesn't necessarily hate black people; but the former does hate the idea of sleeping with a man and the latter does hate the idea of sleeping with a black woman. There's nothing wrong with not being attracted to men and there's nothing wrong with not being attracted to black women in my opinion.

[DrTuring]

 

How about the majority of people here who actually dont want it to be removed?

 

 

I figure the whole "it's Obsidian's choice" thing would have made clear who I place more capital on in the struggle you're painting. As someone in the field, I think the choice is left to the creator. Do I have a preference? Sure. But you can't talk about mobs in one sentence and then make an argument to the people right after. 

 

The argument is this.

 

Obsidian allowed it in. This was them choosing to let it in their game.

 

Now people are demanding it be pulled. AFTER Obsidian chose to let it in. That WAS their choice, was it not?

[Darji]

 

How about the majority of people here who actually dont want it to be removed?

 

 

I figure the whole "it's Obsidian's choice" thing would have made clear who I place more capital on in the struggle you're painting. As someone in the field, I think the choice is left to the creator. Do I have a preference? Sure. But you can't talk about mobs in one sentence and then make an argument to the people right after. 

 

I do not organize on Twitter and aks twitter and co to put pressure on them like they do. I do it for myself only no one else. That is a huge difference in my opinion.  And I will say it again. If they actually have a choice sure if they are like now pressured into a "choice" its Censorship. 

 

And Again  it was already approved and that should count nothing else. 

Edited March 29, 2015 by Darji

[Zanos]

This thread has caused my opinion of the intelligence of the average Obsidian "fan" on these forums to plummet.

 

Seriously, if you can't handle a developer not wanting a bigoted joke in their game, I'll provide you with a free tiny violin before the door hits you on your ass on the way out.

Whether or not the joke is bigoted aside, I'd rather Obsidian make that decision themselves, rather than being leaned on by a very vocal minority of folks who use social media outrage to put pressure on all sorts to get their way.

[Sakai]

This thread has caused my opinion of the intelligence of the average Obsidian "fan" on these forums to plummet.

 

Seriously, if you can't handle a developer not wanting a bigoted joke in their game, I'll provide you with a free tiny violin before the door hits you on your ass on the way out.

A developer? I thought it were people with hashtags like "killallmen" who thought that the joke is literally Hitler.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Sakai

[Arouet]

 

 

How about the majority of people here who actually dont want it to be removed?

 

 

I figure the whole "it's Obsidian's choice" thing would have made clear who I place more capital on in the struggle you're painting. As someone in the field, I think the choice is left to the creator. Do I have a preference? Sure. But you can't talk about mobs in one sentence and then make an argument to the people right after. 

 

The argument is this.

 

Obsidian allowed it in. This was them choosing to let it in their game.

 

Now people are demanding it be pulled. AFTER Obsidian chose to let it in. That WAS their choice, was it not?

 

Actually, from Sawyer's tweet it looks like they woud have pulled it if they had caught it in time.