Controversial Limerick Discussion

[darkpatriot]

 

[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.

Edited April 1, 2015 by darkpatriot

[TheUsernamelessOne]

 

 

 

 

I disagree here, hate speech against ANY group, regardless of a history of oppression, is hate speech.

 

For example, I often see arguments that #KillAllMen is not hate speech on the grounds that men have not been historically oppressed.  I disagree with this.  Regardless of history, it STILL incites an attitude of hatred against people based on the unalterable traits they were born with.

 

It also doesn't take systematic oppression for someone to pick up a gun and shoot someone (cough) Valerie Solanas (cough).  Like, I think if I am some dude bleeding on the ground because I was shot by a radical feminist, I wouldn't think "oh well, at least I wasn't systematically oppressed."

 

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong; hate speech has a very particular definition.  If you want to talk about speech that targets someone based on simple group identity, okay, but it's something different.

 

 

AFAIK, in the US, hate speech was defined in the earliest governmental publications as:

• Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
• Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes.

Hate crimes are defined (legally) as:

• crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person.

As I recall, the original provision didn't have all those categories, they've been added over the years. Anyhow, I've never seen anything that would indicate you had to be a "historically oppressed" to have a hate crime applied against you.  Where you'd have an issue would be in proving it was a hate crime if you're not in a historically oppressed demographic as opposed to it being just a normal crime, but in theory it could happen.

 

(Cue Gromnir correcting me on legal definitions; but as I always say, I'm not a lawyer, I don't play a lawyer on TV and this post does not constitute legal advice).

 

 

Well said, and to give an example...

 

If a paraplegic, half black, half native American, transsexual, homosexual woman shoots a Harvard educated cis white man because she hates white men...it's still a hate crime.  

 

 

Well... no, it's not. It's certainly a crime, but there's no institution of prejudice behind it. That's like saying when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a communist (or whatever the real reason was), that was a hate crime. The reason why hate crimes are punished more severely is in order to single out and challenge the widespread beliefs and attitudes in society that contribute to the act of violence. It doesn't seem to work, honestly, but there it is.

[TheUsernamelessOne]

 

[something I deleted]

 

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 intersting conversation that is worth having, but I don't find any position 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 and that doesn't enable a conversation.  They just wanna wrap themselves in self-righteousness and then accuse other people of lacking self-awareness

 

 

Hey, I edited that post out. You stop quoting it, there.

[Mungri]

Wait ... Is this all about the guy who slept with a guy so he jumped off a cliff???

[Nixl]

Wait ... Is this all about the guy who slept with a guy so he jumped off a cliff???

Yup.

[Marceror]

Wait ... Is this all about the guy who slept with a guy so he jumped off a cliff???

No. This thread has long since lost its sense of identity.

[Mungri]

Seriously that's super funny and people who get offended by it are lame killjoys who have no sense of humour.

[Creslin321]

 

 

 

 

 

....  

 

 

Well... no, it's not. It's certainly a crime, but there's no institution of prejudice behind it. That's like saying when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a communist (or whatever the real reason was), that was a hate crime. The reason why hate crimes are punished more severely is in order to single out and challenge the widespread beliefs and attitudes in society that contribute to the act of violence. It doesn't seem to work, honestly, but there it is.

 

 

So first, where are you getting this definition that there has to be an "institution" of prejudice behind a hate crime?

 

Second, how would you define such an institution?

 

And third, wouldn't you think that books being published about how the "bad" group as ruined the world, and the "good" group needs to take the world from them and fix it, qualify as an institution of prejudice?  Especially when the author of said book went on to shoot someone from the "bad" group out of hate?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

[TheUsernamelessOne]

 

 

 

 

 

 

....  

 

 

Well... no, it's not. It's certainly a crime, but there's no institution of prejudice behind it. That's like saying when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a communist (or whatever the real reason was), that was a hate crime. The reason why hate crimes are punished more severely is in order to single out and challenge the widespread beliefs and attitudes in society that contribute to the act of violence. It doesn't seem to work, honestly, but there it is.

 

 

So first, where are you getting this definition that there has to be an "institution" of prejudice behind a hate crime?

 

Second, how would you define such an institution?

 

And third, wouldn't you think that books being published about how the "bad" group as ruined the world, and the "good" group needs to take the world from them and fix it, qualify as an institution of prejudice?  Especially when the author of said book went on to shoot someone from the "bad" group out of hate?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

 

 

Don't ask me, I didn't invent the legislation, I'm just telling you the supposed reasons for it.

 

Why are we talking about hate crime legislation? Isn't that a country-by-country sort of issue?

[Amentep]

Is Gromnir a lawyer? It all makes sense now!

 

AFAIK that's what he's said here that he is.

 

 

Well said, and to give an example...

 

If a paraplegic, half black, half native American, transsexual, homosexual woman shoots a Harvard educated cis white man because she hates white men...it's still a hate crime.

 

Well... no, it's not. It's certainly a crime, but there's no institution of prejudice behind it. That's like saying when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a communist (or whatever the real reason was), that was a hate crime. The reason why hate crimes are punished more severely is in order to single out and challenge the widespread beliefs and attitudes in society that contribute to the act of violence. It doesn't seem to work, honestly, but there it is.

 

 

That's not really true based on the legal definition of it (as I understand it - not a lawyer) which don't require an institution of prejudice (in the US at least). I'd agree that it'd be very difficult to get a jury to go for it (over just treating it as a normal crime) because of the (lack of) historical oppression though.

 

In fact the FBI indicates there could be anti-White bias, in the statistics on Hate Crimes in 2013 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2013/topic-pages/victims/victims_final)

 

 

21.2 percent were victims of anti-White bias.

 

 

The tables give statistics on offenders and victims as well (Table 4 breaks down victims by crime).

 

It appears that the US federal legal system considers it possible to have a hate crime against a non-historically oppressed groups.  Your local laws may differ significantly (but Obsidian being a US company, perhaps the information is of use).

 

Void where prohibited, do not operate heavy machinery after ingesting.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Amentep

[Creslin321]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....  

 

 

Well... no, it's not. It's certainly a crime, but there's no institution of prejudice behind it. That's like saying when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a communist (or whatever the real reason was), that was a hate crime. The reason why hate crimes are punished more severely is in order to single out and challenge the widespread beliefs and attitudes in society that contribute to the act of violence. It doesn't seem to work, honestly, but there it is.

 

 

So first, where are you getting this definition that there has to be an "institution" of prejudice behind a hate crime?

 

Second, how would you define such an institution?

 

And third, wouldn't you think that books being published about how the "bad" group as ruined the world, and the "good" group needs to take the world from them and fix it, qualify as an institution of prejudice?  Especially when the author of said book went on to shoot someone from the "bad" group out of hate?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

 

 

Don't ask me, I didn't invent the legislation, I'm just telling you the supposed reasons for it.

 

Why are we talking about hate crime legislation? Isn't that a country-by-country sort of issue?

 

 

Because my point is that if you censor a joke because one group got offended by it, then you have to censor ANY jokes that ANY groups are offended by to be fair.

 

However, if you redefine hate speech to specify that it can only be against select groups, then you could in theory argue that you can selectively censor things that are only against certain groups, while letting things that offend other groups stay because it isn't hate speech.

 

And then somehow hate speech just went to hate crime.

[TheUsernamelessOne]

 

Is Gromnir a lawyer? It all makes sense now!

 

AFAIK that's what he's said here that he is.

 

 

He talks funny for a lawyer. I think he's up to no good.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

I would say that removing a message because it offends someone is, by definition, censorship. 

 

 

Always applicable:

 

[video link]

 

 

Why should anyone care what Jim Sterling has to say about anything?

 

 

Because it's relevant to the discussion and a pretty astute one as well?

 

 

 

 

I would say that removing a message because it offends someone is, by definition, censorship. 

 

 

Always applicable:

 

 

 

This is the definition of Censorship according to Wikipedia:

 

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.

 

Removing a joke because someone was offended clearly, unequivocally falls under this definition.

 

My argument is that censorship is just a word and is not inherently good or bad.  The key here is to argue whether the specific censorship in question in justified.

 

 

The joke wouldn't even be in the game if it wasn't a backer submission someone paid to put in. You call its removal censorship, I call it editing (assuming the person who submitted it is cool with it being removed, which I believe is the case).

Edited April 1, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Creslin321]

 

 

 

 

I would say that removing a message because it offends someone is, by definition, censorship. 

 

 

Always applicable:

 

[video link]

 

 

Why should anyone care what Jim Sterling has to say about anything?

 

 

Because it's relevant to the discussion and a pretty astute one as well?

 

 

 

 

I would say that removing a message because it offends someone is, by definition, censorship. 

 

 

Always applicable:

 

 

 

This is the definition of Censorship according to Wikipedia:

 

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.

 

Removing a joke because someone was offended clearly, unequivocally falls under this definition.

 

My argument is that censorship is just a word and is not inherently good or bad.  The key here is to argue whether the specific censorship in question in justified.

 

 

The joke wouldn't even be in the game if it wasn't a backer submission someone paid to put it in. You call its removal censorship, I call it editing (assuming the person who submitted it is cool with it being removed, which I believe is the case).

 

 

It's all about intention isn't it?  If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing.  If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship.

 

Once again, censorship is just a word, it is not inherently good or bad.

 

Just to add to this, if you are watching network TV, and there is a naked guy with a black bar over his bits, then that is also censorship.  But it is censorship that I have no problem with.

 

See what I mean?  Censorship is just a "thing" it is not inherently good or bad.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Creslin321

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It's all about intention isn't it?  If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing.  If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship.

 

 

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness.

[Amentep]

Because my point is that if you censor a joke because one group got offended by it, then you have to censor ANY jokes that ANY groups are offended by to be fair.

 

However, if you redefine hate speech to specify that it can only be against select groups, then you could in theory argue that you can selectively censor things that are only against certain groups, while letting things that offend other groups stay because it isn't hate speech.

 

And then somehow hate speech just went to hate crime.

 

 

Well there was also the bit about whether it could only be hate speech if it was against an historically oppressed group or not, which led to me pulling the thread further off-topic by using hate crime definitions of the US (since they tie into US hate speech definition) to try and illustrate that the US government (at least) doesn't feel hate speech has an historically oppressed requirement.

 

My bad.

 

He talks funny for a lawyer. I think he's up to no good.

 

He's posted in character 99% of the time for 15 years.  Others have come and gone, but he's still got it.  I think only Sargy has a similarly long lived posting patter, but he's MIA.

[Creslin321]

 

It's all about intention isn't it?  If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing.  If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship.

 

 

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness.

 

 

And you might be right.

 

Regardless though, if they remove something solely on the grounds that it has offended or might offend someone, then it's censorship by definition.

 

Even if they did it pre-release, if they looked at that limerick, and said "this might offend someone, we should take it out," then that's censorship.  Once again, not good or bad, just fits the definition.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

It's all about intention isn't it?  If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing.  If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship.

 

 

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness.

 

 

And you might be right.

 

Regardless though, if they remove something solely on the grounds that it has offended or might offend someone, then it's censorship by definition.

 

Even if they did it pre-release, if they looked at that limerick, and said "this might offend someone, we should take it out," then that's censorship.  Once again, not good or bad, just fits the definition.

 

 

I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.)

[Creslin321]

 

 

 

It's all about intention isn't it?  If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing.  If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship.

 

 

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness.

 

 

And you might be right.

 

Regardless though, if they remove something solely on the grounds that it has offended or might offend someone, then it's censorship by definition.

 

Even if they did it pre-release, if they looked at that limerick, and said "this might offend someone, we should take it out," then that's censorship.  Once again, not good or bad, just fits the definition.

 

 

I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.)

 

 

It's not my definition though.  I'm getting it from Wikipedia, but many other sources define it similarly.

 

I know that people have given it a negative stigma, but I think a large part of that is people that reflexively argue that "that's not censorship!" whenever someone accuses something of being censored.  When in reality, it's definitely censorship, but it's not necessarily wrong.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Huh? Why did this thread [title] and discussion go from being about Backer NPCs for quite some pages to the Limerick discussion that was closed the day before? The [changed] thread title and OP's post have nothing to do with each other. I'm sure the moderators are trolling us.

[Creslin321]

Huh? Why did this thread [title] and discussion go from being about Backer NPCs for quite some pages to the Limerick discussion that was closed the day before? The [changed] thread title and OP's post have nothing to do with each other. I'm sure the moderators are trolling us.

 

LOL, I can imagine them throwing their hands up in the air when the discussion resurfaced under another thread.

 

But honestly, I'm happy that they are allowing it to happen.  I don't think anyone here is being excessively rude.

[Amentep]

I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.)

Its one of those words that are a victim of their ability be used as a bludgeon in discourse. It has too much emotive weight/baggage even though in and of itself is really a neutral concept (the problem is always how it's used and censorship is used every day in a wide variety of forms).

Edited April 1, 2015 by Amentep

[ChipMHazard]

 

 

It's all about intention isn't it?  If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing.  If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship.

 

 

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness.

 

 

And you might be right.

 

Regardless though, if they remove something solely on the grounds that it has offended or might offend someone, then it's censorship by definition.

 

Even if they did it pre-release, if they looked at that limerick, and said "this might offend someone, we should take it out," then that's censorship.  Once again, not good or bad, just fits the definition.

 

 

It also comes down to consistency. If Obsidian had wanted to develop a game that was as inoffensive as possible then that would have been fine. From what I can see they didn't develop the game with that in mind as the game does feature dark content. 

They've also allowed backers to help create content that some see as immersion breaking, so removing the joke because of that would be inconsistent as well. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.)

Its one of those words that are a victim of their ability be used as a bludgeon in discourse. It has too much emotive weight/baggage even though in and of itself is really a neutral concept (the problem is always how it's used and censorship is used every day in a wide variety of forms).

 

 

Quite so.

 

 

It also comes down to consistency. If Obsidian had wanted to develop a game that was as inoffensive as possible then that would have been fine. From what I can see they didn't develop the game with that in mind as the game does feature dark content. 

 

 

...Since when is "dark content" offensive? 

[khermann]

This entire thread is hysteria. Whoever started it, that was a beautiful troll. well played