Controversial Limerick Discussion

[PermTrouble]

 

I just find it really confusing that people think it would be wrong for a straight dude to freak out after finding he bedded someone who misrepresented their gender.

 

It's not like the joke is "so he killed {insert pronoun here}"

 

Not wanting to sleep with someone who wasn't born female doesn't mean you hate trans persons.

There's a difference between feeling freaked out and unnecessarily questioning your sexual orientation after unknowingly sleeping with a trans person and killing yourself from shame afterwards.

 

I believe that killing yourself from shame falls under what I consider "Freaking out", I suppose I could have used "had a mental breakdown", but my point remains the same.

 

I believe a straight guy has every right to be outraged after a sexual partner does this to him.  Note that I still wouldn't condone violence towards the trans person after this, but I don't blame the straight guy for feeling absolutely overwhelmed either.

 

Again, I do not believe this in any way supports hatred of trans persons.

[Lord Wafflebum]

 

bad jokes are bad jokes. This particular joke is bad and tasteless. I don't believe it's worthy of bringing out the censorship gavel. 

 

Try replacing the "because they were male" with "because they were black" (or white, or whatever). Then maybe you'll get it.

 

Oh I get it. The joke is stupid regardless. Causing a lot of drama about it is almost as stupid. If you can't handle ignoring insensitivity, the adult world is going to get pretty rough. 

[Eurhetemec]

 

My first language is indeed English, and I'm not 'mistranslating' anything. If you think being repulsed by something is necessarily irrational then you either have a misunderstanding of what it is to be repulsed, a misunderstanding of what it is to be irrational, or have a very limited imagination.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

[sparklecat]

 

 

I don't know what your first language is, guessing not English, and maybe you're mistranslating repulsion, but absolutely it is irrational. If it's rational, it's not repulsion. If you're rationalizing it after the fact, as a "survival instinct" or whatever, that's rationalizing, rather than actually being rational.

 

The poster above you understands this.

 

Actually I agree that in general repulsion at the sight of a rotting corpse or the like serves a purpose, evolutionarily speaking.  I just don't think you can extend that to trans people; they don't have cooties.

 

The "I am transphobic but not intolerant" thing is a nonsensical distinction, IMO, but so long as his response to not wanting to be near trans people is to politely absent himself when he thinks he's spotted one rather than trying to get them banned or the like, I don't much care, either.

[Eurhetemec]

 

 

bad jokes are bad jokes. This particular joke is bad and tasteless. I don't believe it's worthy of bringing out the censorship gavel. 

 

Try replacing the "because they were male" with "because they were black" (or white, or whatever). Then maybe you'll get it.

 

Oh I get it. The joke is stupid regardless. Causing a lot of drama about it is almost as stupid. If you can't handle ignoring insensitivity, the adult world is going to get pretty rough. 

 

 

So why not allow racism? Or nastiness in general?

[grumbold99]

I've enjoyed reading the majority of the soul stories I've bothered to look at. The world is a busier environment for having them in it. Should a few less be godlike race and should a few names have been tweaked? Probably. I for one am very glad that enough of these people paid good money to ensure we got PoE with so many extra stretch goals met. Think of all the content that would be missing without them.

 

The limerick controversy seems pretty overblown. The poem is not explicitly about transgender and is just a stupid joke, like pretty much all limericks, ever. Is it only me who has visions of the people incensed by this limerick spending their weekends writing angry letters to any radio station daring to play 'Lola' by the Kinks accusing them of airing a song that attacks transvestism?

 

No doubt Obsidian will edit it out in a patch to avoid any controversy, and within 30 minutes there will be a "humour" mod released to put it back again.

[Rui]

 

bad jokes are bad jokes. This particular joke is bad and tasteless. I don't believe it's worthy of bringing out the censorship gavel. 

 

Try replacing the "because they were male" with "because they were black" (or white, or whatever). Then maybe you'll get it.

 

 

What I get is that you are trying to sanitize a joke on the basis that someone is getting offended. Using that same argument "sanitizing" becomes a tool, a tool that removes discussion or enlightenment in favor of mass produced clean templates of what you should, think, say or joke about.

 

I thought that the movement you seem to uphold had the opposite intention.

[Eurhetemec]

 

Again, I do not believe this in any way supports hatred of trans persons.

 

 

So if it was "black" not "a man", you'd think the limerick was totally okay?

[Eurhetemec]

 

 

bad jokes are bad jokes. This particular joke is bad and tasteless. I don't believe it's worthy of bringing out the censorship gavel. 

 

Try replacing the "because they were male" with "because they were black" (or white, or whatever). Then maybe you'll get it.

 

 

What I get is that you are trying to sanitize a joke on the basis that someone is getting offended. Using that same argument "sanitizing" becomes a tool, a tool that removes discussion or enlightenment in favor of mass produced clean templates of what you should, think, say or joke about.

 

I thought that the movement you seem to uphold had the opposite intention.

 

 

So you think changing this limerick to be racially-based would be okay, right?

 

Also, what "movement"?! That's a new one on me.

[Lord Wafflebum]

 

 

 

bad jokes are bad jokes. This particular joke is bad and tasteless. I don't believe it's worthy of bringing out the censorship gavel. 

 

Try replacing the "because they were male" with "because they were black" (or white, or whatever). Then maybe you'll get it.

 

Oh I get it. The joke is stupid regardless. Causing a lot of drama about it is almost as stupid. If you can't handle ignoring insensitivity, the adult world is going to get pretty rough. 

 

 

So why not allow racism? Or nastiness in general?

 

Both exist to a great extent in the world as well. There's a difference between personal insensitivity and institutional insensitivity. The former should be ignored. The latter should be met with public outrage.

[TheHarpoMarxist]

 

I've enjoyed reading the majority of the soul stories I've bothered to look at. The world is a busier environment for having them in it. Should a few less be godlike race and should a few names have been tweaked? Probably. I for one am very glad that enough of these people paid good money to ensure we got PoE with so many extra stretch goals met. Think of all the content that would be missing without them.

 

The limerick controversy seems pretty overblown. The poem is not explicitly about transgender and is just a stupid joke, like pretty much all limericks, ever. Is it only me who has visions of the people incensed by this limerick spending their weekends writing angry letters to any radio station daring to play 'Lola' by the Kinks accusing them of airing a song that attacks transvestism?

 

No doubt Obsidian will edit it out in a patch to avoid any controversy, and within 30 minutes there will be a "humour" mod released to put it back again.

 

Great, I hope Obsidian does cut it.  It doesn't serve the themes, mood, atmosphe, or game in any way.  If people want to mod bigoted garbage into their game, that's their perogative.  

[sparklecat]

 

I believe a straight guy has every right to be outraged after a sexual partner does this to him.  Note that I still wouldn't condone violence towards the trans person after this, but I don't blame the straight guy for feeling absolutely overwhelmed either.

Bear in mind that a trans woman disclosing the fact that she's trans to a male partner runs the risk of assault or murder regardless of when she says something.  I don't think that people have an obligation to tell their partners any personal information they don't want to unless it's something that could affect their partner, like an STI; that goes double if they'd be putting themselves at risk by so doing.

 

Personally, if I slept with a woman who turned out to be trans and hadn't told me, I... well, I wouldn't care for one, because trans women are women and it's no reflection on my orientation if I'm attracted to one, but I certainly wouldn't blame her for being scared to say something earlier and just wanting to have a relationship like anyone else.

[Eurhetemec]

 

 

 

So why not allow racism? Or nastiness in general?

 

 

Both exist to a great extent in the world as well. There's a difference between personal insensitivity and institutional insensitivity. The former should be ignored. The latter should be met with public outrage.

 

 

I largely concur (challenge or ignore depending on the situation with the first) but you seem to be avoiding the question, could you answer it please? Also note that the author of the limerick is happy to have it changed, so now it's in Obsidian's hands.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Eurhetemec

[ChipMHazard]

 

 

 

 

So why not allow racism? Or nastiness in general?

 

 

Both exist to a great extent in the world as well. There's a difference between personal insensitivity and institutional insensitivity. The former should be ignored. The latter should be met with public outrage.

 

 

I largely concur (challenge or ignore depending on the situation with the first) but you seem to be avoiding the question, could you answer it please? Also note that the author of the limerick is happy to have it changed, so now it's in Obsidian's hands.

 

 

Your question is an obvious logical fallacy. Switching it out wouldn't make sense because the joke wouldn't make sense if said change was made. Stop trying to bait other posters just to win an argument. 

Had someone wanted to put in a racist joke about a black person then I would also be fine with that being in the game. I would find it silly and bad, but I wouldn't censor it. Of course another thing about your example is that it would probably have made even less sense given the setting and the lack of known racism against certain races/species in the game. Had a racist joke made sense lorewise then by all means let it stay. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[Elerond]

In general speaking people learn to feel repulsive towards rotting corpses it isn't natural instinct. If you study children and their growing up process you will see that more often than not children are fascinated by death things like they are fascinated by many other things, but they usually learn from their parents and other authority figures that touching death things are bad and usually this teaching don't come with good explanation only with authoritative NO, that usually leads to psychological pattern that cause people feel repulsiveness towards corpses. Of course this isn't always the case but quite general scenario how people come to learn to be repulsive towards death (and lot of other) things. 

[ChipMHazard]

It's a joke and I don't really like any of the player memorials, because they break immersion, but that doesn't mean I want them removed just because they might offend some people. 

[Lord Wafflebum]

 

 

 

 

So why not allow racism? Or nastiness in general?

 

 

Both exist to a great extent in the world as well. There's a difference between personal insensitivity and institutional insensitivity. The former should be ignored. The latter should be met with public outrage.

 

 

I largely concur (challenge or ignore depending on the situation with the first) but you seem to be avoiding the question, could you answer it please? Also note that the author of the limerick is happy to have it changed, so now it's in Obsidian's hands.

 

Of allowing racism or saying crappy things? Yeah, I'm very anti-censorship, regardless of content. However, I'm also anti-anonymity. People should have to stand by the things they say. The guy owned up for, and seems to regret it. He also seems to have learned a lesson from it, so in my view all is good.

[Rui]

 

 

 

bad jokes are bad jokes. This particular joke is bad and tasteless. I don't believe it's worthy of bringing out the censorship gavel. 

 

Try replacing the "because they were male" with "because they were black" (or white, or whatever). Then maybe you'll get it.

 

 

What I get is that you are trying to sanitize a joke on the basis that someone is getting offended. Using that same argument "sanitizing" becomes a tool, a tool that removes discussion or enlightenment in favor of mass produced clean templates of what you should, think, say or joke about.

 

I thought that the movement you seem to uphold had the opposite intention.

 

 

So you think changing this limerick to be racially-based would be okay, right?

 

Also, what "movement"?! That's a new one on me.

 

 

Yes.

 

I think a limerick is "a kind of humorous verse of five lines". It can portray any kind of -phobic you like, be it racial, sexual, nationality, etc... The subjective value of it for whomever reads it can go from amusement to repulse, or any state between or beyond. However, if a particular group of people finds it repulsive and lobbies for its censorship it becomes something else it isn't. If that that particular group holds state control and enacts active censorship it's a close step away from active removal of opposite views. And that's what I cannot cope with. Sanitizing limericks is a form of unwarranted censorship, if that becomes viewed as "normal" we are a step away from active censorship, and then a step away from removing whomever thinks otherwise.

 

I suggest you study the various results of such actions. 

 

The "movement" reference was taken from a reply you made that involves a political stance, I'm afraid I have no time at this moment to quote it accurately.

[PermTrouble]

 

 

Again, I do not believe this in any way supports hatred of trans persons.

 

 

So if it was "black" not "a man", you'd think the limerick was totally okay?

 

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I disagree with the logic.

 

Where my opinion is coming from is my belief that sex between two people is something that's very personal and deserves mutual respect.  Much like I expect people to respect the choice of two gay men to be able to have an open loving relationship, because that is what they are looking for, I expect people to respect the fact that a man may not want to have sex with someone who wasn't born a female.

 

The reason I disagree with your logic is because I think it's also ok to not be attracted to a black person without hating black people.  The difference would be the deception.  The person did not sleep with a white person, and then suddenly find the person was someone who was black afterwards.

 

I guess the main disagreement I have is what should actually be considered hatred.  I don't believe not wanting to have sex with another human being is automatically derived from a hatred of that person.  People should respect the fact that others can have sex with other consenting adults regardless of race/gender/whatever.  The straight guy was not allowed to consent because of deception.

 

Edited for clarity

Edited April 1, 2015 by PermTrouble

[khermann]

I don't even know the limerick in question, i'm just saying I am a very liberal-leaning progressive who has many gay and lesbian friends, but transgenders universally creep me out. It doesn't mean i don't want them to vote or marry or anything, i just cannot identify with them at a human level which isn't a problem for me with my gay and leabian friends.

In the hyperbolic politically correct blameless victem society that television has relegated US discourse, across all sexual identities, this paints me as intolerant.

 

Good job.

[PermTrouble]

 

 

I believe a straight guy has every right to be outraged after a sexual partner does this to him.  Note that I still wouldn't condone violence towards the trans person after this, but I don't blame the straight guy for feeling absolutely overwhelmed either.

Bear in mind that a trans woman disclosing the fact that she's trans to a male partner runs the risk of assault or murder regardless of when she says something.  I don't think that people have an obligation to tell their partners any personal information they don't want to unless it's something that could affect their partner, like an STI; that goes double if they'd be putting themselves at risk by so doing.

 

Personally, if I slept with a woman who turned out to be trans and hadn't told me, I... well, I wouldn't care for one, because trans women are women and it's no reflection on my orientation if I'm attracted to one, but I certainly wouldn't blame her for being scared to say something earlier and just wanting to have a relationship like anyone else.

 

I disagree because I DO believe that such a thing should be disclosed.  By not disclosing you are disregarding your sexual partners ability to consent to the act, and I think having sex with someone without consent is pretty awful.

 

While I don't think a trans person should have to disclose such a thing to every person they meet.  I think their sexual partner has every right to know, and perhaps a little more discretion be applied with people they want to lay with if they even THINK there's a CHANCE of violence.

[TheHarpoMarxist]

I don't even know the limerick in question, i'm just saying I am a very liberal-leaning progressive who has many gay and lesbian friends, but transgenders universally creep me out. It doesn't mean i don't want them to vote or marry or anything, i just cannot identify with them at a human level which isn't a problem for me with my gay and leabian friends.

In the hyperbolic politically correct blameless victem society that television has relegated US discourse, across all sexual identities, this paints me as intolerant.

 

Good job.

In the case of transgendered people, you are intolerant.  It might be worth reading about and looking into.  You can always educate yourself.

 

One of the major themes of PoE is acknowledgement of mistakes and wrong-doing, and how to atone.  Rather than be defense with statements like "good job" or lash out at some straw-PC state, maybe take the opportunity to instead seek out trans voices and make an attempt to identify with them at a human level.

[TheUsernamelessOne]

I don't even know the limerick in question, i'm just saying I am a very liberal-leaning progressive who has many gay and lesbian friends, but transgenders universally creep me out. It doesn't mean i don't want them to vote or marry or anything, i just cannot identify with them at a human level which isn't a problem for me with my gay and leabian friends.

In the hyperbolic politically correct blameless victem society that television has relegated US discourse, across all sexual identities, this paints me as intolerant.

 

Good job.

 

Yes. When you express intolerant opinions and openly declare yourself to be an intolerant person, you can expect people to call you intolerant.

 

Thanks, though, I needed a good laugh and your post really brightened up my day.

 

"I refuse to acknowledge trans folks as human beings, but srsly some of my best friends are gay. Wait I'm a bigot?? HOW CAN THIS BE?! Curse you, hyperbolic politically correct blameless victim society that television has relegated US discourse (whatever that means)!"

 

Hehehe, ahhh, pure gold. I wish I could make up stuff this funny.

[sparklecat]

 

I disagree because I DO believe that such a thing should be disclosed.  By not disclosing you are disregarding your sexual partners ability to consent to the act, and I think having sex with someone without consent is pretty awful.

 

I wouldn't knowingly sleep with someone who was pro-life, anti-gun control, politically conservative, etc.  Does that mean everyone who sleeps with me has an ethical requirement to give me the laundry list of their political views before we get it on?  Or does it mean that if these are such dealbreakers for me, it's my responsibility to ask first about the things that'd bother me, and theirs to respond honestly if asked?

 

eta: that said, anyone who's seriously considering asking partners before you sleep with them if they're transgender, please do so in a safe, public place so you don't put them in the position of having to decide whether to lie to you or risk a very negative reaction by telling the truth if they are trans

 

 

While I don't think a trans person should have to disclose such a thing to every person they meet.  I think their sexual partner has every right to know, and perhaps a little more discretion be applied with people they want to lay with if they even THINK there's a CHANCE of violence.

Yeah, that'd basically mean never getting in a relationship with anyone, ever.  You can't just magically tell who's going to turn out to be violent or abusive before you get in a relationship with them, and it's victim blamey as hell to suggest otherwise, buddy.

Edited April 1, 2015 by sparklecat

[Amentep]

To me, the limerick completely normalizes homophobia and transphobia.  For people who have to live with that garbage day in and day out, the last place you'd want to see it is in an otherwise thoughtful game.  

 

Out of curiosity, should a game (or a movie, or a book) avoid any mention of anything unpleasant?  IE should there never be a racist character because it "normalizes racism"?  Should a game not be able to have a misandrist like Shar-Teel because having the character exist supports the normalization of misandry?

 

I admit I've read the memorial and I fail to see what the issue is; and I'm having a hard time rationalizing the argument from the other side.

 

 

 

So why not allow racism? Or nastiness in general?

 

Why not?  Doesn't the lore of PoE indicate that racism exists (iirc Orlans have born the brunt of it)?  Again I'm assuming that a limerick or memorial would fit the lore of the setting (and I have yet to see anything that indicates that the controversial limerick somehow violates the setting).

Edited April 1, 2015 by Amentep