Controversial Limerick Discussion

[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.

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.

Funny, attacking the person instead of the argument. Intolerance is not defacto a negative thing. You need to open your mind up and step back from your own prejudices.

Thanks for the laugh though.

[PermTrouble]

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

If you aren't comfortable enough disclosing your birth gender with someone you want to start a relationship with, that is NOT the other persons fault.  It is not up to anyone else for you be open and honest with the person you want to get close to.

 

While I agree that it's possible for someone to turn violent later on, I think it's just as possible that person wouldn't.

 

I think the fundamental disagreement you and I won't get past is that I believe the straight man in this case is in fact a victim, and I consider the notion of leaving the responsibility up to him for the other person to disclose their birth gender is also victim blaming.

[sparklecat]

No, I think the fundamental disagreement is that you think trans people are actually the gender they were assigned at birth (or at least subpar versions of their preferred gender) and thus have a responsibility to tell people all about their history, while I think that someone's past medical treatments are a private matter I don't need to know about if they don't want to tell me.

[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.

Funny, attacking the person instead of the argument. Intolerance is not defacto a negative thing. You need to open your mind up and step back from your own prejudices.

Thanks for the laugh though.

 

 

Oh man, please, don't stop there. This is brilliant.

 

Do you want me to, uh, "attack" you some more? How about, if you're going to use the term "de facto," first learn that it's two words.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

If you aren't comfortable enough disclosing your birth gender with someone you want to start a relationship with, that is NOT the other persons fault.  It is not up to anyone else for you be open and honest with the person you want to get close to.

 

While I agree that it's possible for someone to turn violent later on, I think it's just as possible that person wouldn't.

 

I think the fundamental disagreement you and I won't get past is that I believe the straight man in this case is in fact a victim, and I consider the notion of leaving the responsibility up to him for the other person to disclose their birth gender is also victim blaming.

 

 

This guy's pretty good, though, you've got some competition.

 

Yeah, a straight man is totally victimized when his partner doesn't disclose the fact that she's trans (using your example here). What exactly do you want her to say? The truth? Because the truth would be, "I'm a woman and I always have been a woman, despite what society might say."

 

Man, isn't it totally outrageous the way straight cisgendered men are victimized and victim blamed and reverse racism by the socialist liberal media?

[TheHarpoMarxist]

 

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.

 

 

I think all topics are open for exploration in art.  I'm a filmmaker.  I'm anti-censorship.  My last feature contains a whole bunch of difficult, challenging material.  A lot of it is uncomfortable.  The thing is - at no point does the film "punch down."  You can totally approach ANY topic, but you have to be aware of what you are doing.  When you cross lines, you need to be aware that you are crossing them, and you need to have a damn good reason for doing so.  Otherwise you're being careless.  No art should be careless or lazy.

 

The issue with this particular thing is that it both crosses a line and has no purpose, save to punch down.  It adds nothing to the game, and it reinforces some pretty effed up ideas.  The limerick wasn't written by Obsidian - it isn't part of their vision for the game world.  It is a backer add-on that should have been better vetted.  I have a hard time figuring out why people are adamantly defending it.

 

On the internet it is really easy to get caught up in an "us vs. them" mentality.  It is harder to see nuance from where someone else is coming from.  It is telling that you assume that I might think that all games, movies, or books should be sanitary and controversy free.  

Anyway, I hope you take this with the spirit it was intended.  I'm not looking to fight with people, and I hope I've provided some context that is useful.

[Elerond]

 

 

I think the fundamental disagreement you and I won't get past is that I believe the straight man in this case is in fact a victim, and I consider the notion of leaving the responsibility up to him for the other person to disclose their birth gender is also victim blaming.

 

 

Why? It don't really matter for act in question or do one find another attractive enough to sleep with them or anything else but make sure that persons political/ideological views aren't been violated.

 

And it also should noted that they gender has not changed in any time during of their life, they have only altered their genitalia to match their gender which they were born with. So with that knowledge do you think that trans and other people (because there it isn't nice to but burden on just one segment of people) should tell to their possible sexual partners gender which they were born with or which genitalia(s) they born with?

[darkpatriot]

I am disturbed by the large amount of intolerance displayed in this thread, but it isn't the kind of intolerance most people are talking about in this thread.  Having the opinion that MtF transexuals are men and not women is a valid opinion.  Just as having the opinion that they are women or a third gender is a valid opinion.  Attacking someone who holds the opinion that they are men as intolerant or bigotted is not ok.  That is intolerance.  The only tolerance that really matters at the end of the day is tolerating opinions and beliefs you disagree with.  There is nothing difficult or noble about being tolerant of things you agree with, identify with, sympathize with, or don't have any general disagreement with.  It is being tolerant of the things you disagree with strongly that is the true tolerance that allows society to become a better place.

A great many words have been spent arguing that gender is different than sex and that gender is a social construct.  It is worth noting that this argument itself is a social construct.  A person can agree with that opinion and a person can also disagree with it and hold the opinion that gender is intrinsically linked to biology and sexual reproduction.  If a person has that opinion they are not hateful or discriminatory towards trans people.  If a person is attracted to women, and does not consider MtF transexuals as women, then they have every right to be upset if they were to find themselves in a situation where they had had a sexual relationship with a MtF transexual who had not disclosed that fact.  If a person feels that way they are not discriminatory, bigoted, hateful, or tranmysogynistic (or however that word that was just made up is spelled).

 

For this very reason I would say it is extremely immorral and disrespectful for a trans person to have a romantic relationship with another person, especially if it is sexual in nature, without disclosing that they are trans to them.  To do so is not respecting the other persons opinions and beliefs and trying and force their opinion, that they are women, onto them.  Enough people hold that opinion that it is a reasonable assumption to make that there is a good chance that the person may not be ok with it and the trans person should disclose first so that their partner can make a fully informed decision.

I could understand how a trans person could be upset by other people disagreeing with them and believing that they are not the gender they identify as but it is for each person to decide their own opinion on the matter.  A trans person does not get to disregard someone else's opinions.  Being upset, even very very upset, gives no one any authority, moral or otherewise, to dictate the opinions and beliefs that other people have or how other people should feel about something.

Respect and tolerance is a two way street.  If trans people, or those being offended on their behalf, want other people to respect and tolerate their opinions and beliefs then trans people have to respect and tolerate the opinions and beliefs of other people.

Edited April 1, 2015 by darkpatriot

[Creslin321]

 

 

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.

 

 

I think all topics are open for exploration in art.  I'm a filmmaker.  I'm anti-censorship.  My last feature contains a whole bunch of difficult, challenging material.  A lot of it is uncomfortable.  The thing is - at no point does the film "punch down."  You can totally approach ANY topic, but you have to be aware of what you are doing.  When you cross lines, you need to be aware that you are crossing them, and you need to have a damn good reason for doing so.  Otherwise you're being careless.  No art should be careless or lazy.

 

The issue with this particular thing is that it both crosses a line and has no purpose, save to punch down.  It adds nothing to the game, and it reinforces some pretty effed up ideas.  The limerick wasn't written by Obsidian - it isn't part of their vision for the game world.  It is a backer add-on that should have been better vetted.  I have a hard time figuring out why people are adamantly defending it.

 

On the internet it is really easy to get caught up in an "us vs. them" mentality.  It is harder to see nuance from where someone else is coming from.  It is telling that you assume that I might think that all games, movies, or books should be sanitary and controversy free.  

Anyway, I hope you take this with the spirit it was intended.  I'm not looking to fight with people, and I hope I've provided some context that is useful.

 

 

Erm...all of the memorials have "no purpose" outside of being something (quasi) amusing for people to read, and letting the backer put their mark on the game.

 

I've said this before, but you really have to stretch to find this joke offensive...it doesn't even say that the person Lightbringer slept with is trans.

 

Also, even if it is offensive...there is TONS of humor on TV and other places that is by nature offensive to certain groups.  Jewish jokes, black jokes, blonde jokes, lawyer jokes, religious jokes.  Should these be censored just because someone got offended by it?

 

I would say no.  And given that, I see no reason to censor this limerick.

[Amentep]

No, I think the fundamental disagreement is that you think trans people are actually the gender they were assigned at birth (or at least subpar versions of their preferred gender) and thus have a responsibility to tell people all about their history, while I think that someone's past medical treatments are a private matter I don't need to know about if they don't want to tell me.

 

While in a perfect world you're right, I have to admit that the real world isn't there yet.  If it were the transgendered person wouldn't have to fear violence upon revealing that they were transgendered (indeed no one would expect or need to have that revelation in the first place).

 

One could argue if our society didn't tie masculinity so heavily to promiscuous bedding of females this wouldn't matter, but there's a whole societal piece in the real world that just isn't there (whether it is in PoE I'm not far along enough to say).

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I think all topics are open for exploration in art.  I'm a filmmaker.  I'm anti-censorship.  My last feature contains a whole bunch of difficult, challenging material.  A lot of it is uncomfortable.  The thing is - at no point does the film "punch down."  You can totally approach ANY topic, but you have to be aware of what you are doing.  When you cross lines, you need to be aware that you are crossing them, and you need to have a damn good reason for doing so.  Otherwise you're being careless.  No art should be careless or lazy.

 

The issue with this particular thing is that it both crosses a line and has no purpose, save to punch down.  It adds nothing to the game, and it reinforces some pretty effed up ideas.  The limerick wasn't written by Obsidian - it isn't part of their vision for the game world.  It is a backer add-on that should have been better vetted.  I have a hard time figuring out why people are adamantly defending it.

 

On the internet it is really easy to get caught up in an "us vs. them" mentality.  It is harder to see nuance from where someone else is coming from.  It is telling that you assume that I might think that all games, movies, or books should be sanitary and controversy free.  

Anyway, I hope you take this with the spirit it was intended.  I'm not looking to fight with people, and I hope I've provided some context that is useful.

 

 

I'm not defending it so much as unable to grasp why it matters.  I appreciate your explanation - I really do. 

 

Even with it being backer related content (and thus being negligible from a game perspective) I'm not sure (or perhaps just worried) that making a stand against the concept of the limerick (that some people are uncomfortable when - regardless of how it happened - they cross what they perceive as gender norms) might be an issue later on in the world if they want do something other than total acceptance (which is a perfectly valid way to go - not every game has to have an -ism for grittyness, but it certainly can be a world building element; and obviously I'm not far enough into the game really to be able to say whether the game itself establishes a reality that would naturally make the limerick unlikely by having transgendering a non-issue socially)

Edited April 1, 2015 by Amentep

[Isi1dur]

I don't have a problem with them in any way, shape or form.

 

Especially not with the absolutely awesome Firedorn Lightbringer, every time i see various internet wankers and SJW's attack this game and Obsidian over it, the Lightbringer's poem gets better and better.

 

I am firmly against censorship especially when it's absolutely uncalled for, such is the case here, and IMO Obsidian shouldn't cave.

[TheUsernamelessOne]

 

  (if you really want to know what he said, go read Reddit or whatever for a while)

 

 

This thread is officially awesome.

 

So what you're telling me is that it's important to respect and tolerate others' beliefs, and that's why people should conform to the narrative you have imagined for them about what they think and feel about themselves? You very generously allow that it is sometimes okay for other people to have opinions about themselves and their own bodies, so long as they accept that your beliefs about them are valid and they behave the way that you wish?

[navlasop]

Huh...i actually liked a lot of the short  stories...*shrug*

[Tsumetai]

I am disturbed by the large amount of intolerance displayed in this thread, but it isn't the kind of intolerance most people are talking about in this thread.  Having the opinion that MtF transexuals are men and not women is a valid opinion.  Just as having the opinion that they are women or a third gender is a valid opinion.  Attacking someone who holds the opinion that they are men as intolerant or bigotted is not ok.  That is intolerance.  The only tolerance that really matters at the end of the day is tolerating opinions and beliefs you disagree with.

 

Yeah, let me stop you there, buddy. We've heard it before. "Oh, so you're against intolerance, are you? Then how come you don't tolerate intolerance? Huh? Huh?"  It's disingenuous sophistry, and here's why:

 

It's my opinion that calling people on their transphobic, bigoted bull**** is perfectly ok. So you're expressing intolerance of my intolerance of ther intolerance, thus violating your own incoherent rules.

[darkpatriot]

 

 

  (if you really want to know what he said, go read Reddit or whatever for a while)

 

 

This thread is officially awesome.

 

So what you're telling me is that it's important to respect and tolerate others' beliefs, and that's why people should conform to the narrative you have imagined for them about what they think and feel about themselves? You very generously allow that it is sometimes okay for other people to have opinions about themselves and their own bodies, so long as they accept that your beliefs about them are valid and they behave the way that you wish?

 

No, what I'm telling you is people have the right to form their own opinions on matters.  No one gets to be the moral police for anybody else.  A trans person can feel however they want about things, but there is no obligation for other people to agree with them.  Disagreeing with them is also not hate, discrimination, or intolerance.

 

 

 

 

I am disturbed by the large amount of intolerance displayed in this thread, but it isn't the kind of intolerance most people are talking about in this thread.  Having the opinion that MtF transexuals are men and not women is a valid opinion.  Just as having the opinion that they are women or a third gender is a valid opinion.  Attacking someone who holds the opinion that they are men as intolerant or bigotted is not ok.  That is intolerance.  The only tolerance that really matters at the end of the day is tolerating opinions and beliefs you disagree with.

 

Yeah, let me stop you there, buddy. We've heard it before. "Oh, so you're against intolerance, are you? Then how come you don't tolerate intolerance? Huh? Huh?"  It's disingenuous sophistry, and here's why:

 

It's my opinion that calling people on their transphobic, bigoted bull**** is perfectly ok. So you're expressing intolerance of my intolerance of ther intolerance, thus violating your own incoherent rules.

 

What transphoboia or bigoted bull****?  Believing that MtF transexuals are men is neither of those things.  It also isn't intolerance.  Which is why this isn't even a case of me claiming you need to be tolerant of intolerance.

 

Transphobia or bigoted bull**** would be believing that MtF transexuals should be killed, imprisoned, not given jobs, or otherwise discriminated against.  I haven't read through this thread or followed the twitter conversations in great detail but I haven't really seen any of that.

Edited April 1, 2015 by darkpatriot

[sparklecat]

 

No, I think the fundamental disagreement is that you think trans people are actually the gender they were assigned at birth (or at least subpar versions of their preferred gender) and thus have a responsibility to tell people all about their history, while I think that someone's past medical treatments are a private matter I don't need to know about if they don't want to tell me.

 

While in a perfect world you're right, I have to admit that the real world isn't there yet.  If it were the transgendered person wouldn't have to fear violence upon revealing that they were transgendered (indeed no one would expect or need to have that revelation in the first place).

 

One could argue if our society didn't tie masculinity so heavily to promiscuous bedding of females this wouldn't matter, but there's a whole societal piece in the real world that just isn't there (whether it is in PoE I'm not far along enough to say).

Sure, it's definitely not there yet, and misogyny and homophobia definitely play a part in the general societal view of trans people and their responsibilities.  I think that arguing against the idea that trans people aren't really their presented gender is an important part of getting there, though, not to mention suggesting "hey, maybe consider it from her perspective."

[TheUsernamelessOne]

 

 

 

  (if you really want to know what he said, go read Reddit or whatever for a while)

 

 

This thread is officially awesome.

 

So what you're telling me is that it's important to respect and tolerate others' beliefs, and that's why people should conform to the narrative you have imagined for them about what they think and feel about themselves? You very generously allow that it is sometimes okay for other people to have opinions about themselves and their own bodies, so long as they accept that your beliefs about them are valid and they behave the way that you wish?

 

No what I'm telling you is people have the right to form their own opinions on matters.  No one gets to be the moral police for anybody else.  A trans person can feel however they want about things, but there is no obligation for other people to agree with them.  Disagreeing with them is also not hate or discrimination.

 

 

But if a transperson doesn't behave the way you think they should, based on your beliefs, they're "extremely immorral and disrespectful," right? But that's not moral policing, that's just the law of tolerance and goodwill as laid down by one darkpatriot, right?

 

You know, *sniff*, words can be hurtful too, darkpatriot. Saying mean things to people, like telling them how they should live their lives--it feels like you're hating on them. And discriminating. Thankfully, you openly assured everyone that you're not intolerant, bigoted, hateful, or prejudiced, and that if anyone feels offended by your views they should just accept that while also not doing anything to offend you in turn, so I'm glad that got cleared up, because it might have been a little awkward.

[Elerond]

It is reaction of disgust and despair when identity that don't match persons exceptions is revealed that hits home, as it is reaction that most transgender people are familiar with and reaction that they have grown to fear and even sometimes expect. It is often root cause that drives transgender people to isolation and even suicide.

 

It is not necessary simple thing to comprehend when one had not had to live with such fear but I see why one who has can find that memorial offensive.

 

Offensive things in art work isn't necessary bad thing, but if they are things that artist didn't intent to their work to express then there is cause for editing, even if some of audience of their work liked that particular thing, because artist has always right to modify things in their work that they view as flaws or they just don't like, if they do feel to do so.  

 

People expressing their likes and dislikes about particular piece of art is also not bad, even when they demand changes in that piece, because it will give artist and other people alternative perspective of things. But also people that express their opinions against those likes and dislikes have right to do so, as that also gives alternative perspectives and people have also right to agree and disagree with these opinions. But at end it is artist whose views of their work is that matters and if they decide to change their work after they have gained new perspective then that change is OK, even if people disagree with it, but if change is forced by some entity like for example government then that change is not OK and should be objected by people that support freedom of expression. 

[Nixl]

I am getting a little confused how this same thread keeps getting locked and then reappearing again.

 

I am still against censoring of the limerick.  It still feels hypocritical to deny a joke, but to give violence,lynching, etc a free pass. 

[darkpatriot]

 

But if a transperson doesn't behave the way you think they should, based on your beliefs, they're "extremely immorral and disrespectful," right? But that's not moral policing, that's just the law of tolerance and goodwill as laid down by one darkpatriot, right?

 

You know, *sniff*, words can be hurtful too, darkpatriot. Saying mean things to people, like telling them how they should live their lives--it feels like you're hating on them. And discriminating. Thankfully, you openly assured everyone that you're not intolerant, bigoted, hateful, or prejudiced, and that if anyone feels offended by your views they should just accept that while also not doing anything to offend you in turn, so I'm glad that got cleared up, because it might have been a little awkward.

 

 

Yes, I get to decide what I believe is immoral and disrespectful.  Every person gets to decide this for themselves and is allowed to be their own moral police.  The reason I have decided it is immoral and disrespectful is because it is not being considerate of the other participants opinions and beliefs.  For any romantic encounter you should do your utmost to ensure that the other person's wishes are being respected and if you aren't that is wrong.  Many people would argue that failing to do so would constitute rape although I think that is an overly broad definition of the word rape that reduces clarity and weakens the impact of the word when it is used to describe actual rape situations.  Enough people have an issue with having a romantic relationship with a transexual that the likelyhood of it being an issue is high enough that the transexual should disclose in order to ensure that their partner is being respected.

 

Concerning hurt feelings, they aren't a big deal.  They really aren't.  There can be mental illnesses and conditions that are aggravated by them but the problem is the mental illness or condition not the hurt feelings.  Should you try and avoid hurting people's feelings in general?  Sure, especially when it requires little to no effort.  Should you modify your own beliefs or decieve others to avoid hurting feelings?  No.  Should you put yourself at great inconvenience to avoid hurting someone's feelings?  No.  In the end people are responsible for their own emotional state and well being, the rest of the world can't be expected to cater to them and it is a sign of an immature person if they expect the world to do that.

Edited April 1, 2015 by darkpatriot

[Osvir]

*shrug*

@OP:
I stopped paying attention to them. I did read a lot of them and thought they were cool and all but.... so many of them! They eventually fell into the shroud of my ignorance, and became "commoners".

The only issue I had was that, you could reach out to their souls before the tree in Gilded Vale (which, narratively, felt like the first time). It felt a bit like a paradox in the MC's powers and I had to make-believe/pretend/imagine my MC never having reached out to any of the Backer NPC's prior to that.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Osvir

[Emc2]

I find it funny that obsidian actually made a South Park game and PoE's getting this type of feedback.   Nothing else...keep discussing.

[sparklecat]

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.

Edited April 1, 2015 by sparklecat

[Calmar]

Can't someone just create a mod that removes the backer characters and the "transphobic joke"? That way the people that don't want it in their game can be happy and the people that still want it in the game can also be happy? I don't think Obsidian should take the time to fix these "problems" themselves, They should focus on the actual problems, you know, bugs that ruin everyone's game.

 

People want a gritty, violent and 'realistic' world but complain when one dude has prejudices?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Calmar

[TheUsernamelessOne]

 

 

But if a transperson doesn't behave the way you think they should, based on your beliefs, they're "extremely immorral and disrespectful," right? But that's not moral policing, that's just the law of tolerance and goodwill as laid down by one darkpatriot, right?

 

You know, *sniff*, words can be hurtful too, darkpatriot. Saying mean things to people, like telling them how they should live their lives--it feels like you're hating on them. And discriminating. Thankfully, you openly assured everyone that you're not intolerant, bigoted, hateful, or prejudiced, and that if anyone feels offended by your views they should just accept that while also not doing anything to offend you in turn, so I'm glad that got cleared up, because it might have been a little awkward.

 

 

Yes, I get to decide what I believe is immoral and disrespectful.  Every person gets to decide this for themselves and is allowed to be their own moral police.  The reason I have decided it is immoral and disrespectful is because it is not being considerate of the other participants opinions and beliefs.  For any romantic encounter you should do your utmost to ensure that the other person is being respected and if you aren't that is wrong.  Many people would argue that failing to do so would constitute rape although I think that is an overly broad definition of the word rape that weakens meaning of the word for actual rape situations.  Enough people have an issue with having a romantic relationship a transexual that the likelyhood of it being an issue is high enough that the transexual should disclose.

 

"Enough people have an issue with having a romantic relationship a transexual," huh? Well, it is absolutely true that some people should be coddled and their beliefs catered to while others must adapt to them. 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. It's much more fair if a minority that is already nearly-universally misunderstood and mistreated has to conform to being demeaned, belittled, and bossed around by bigots like you.

 

Concerning hurt feelings, they aren't a big deal.  They really aren't.  Should you try and avoid hurting peoples feelings in general?  Sure.  Should you modify your own beliefs or decieve others to avoid hurting feelings?  No.  Should you put yourself at great inconvenience to avoid hurting someones feelings?  No.  In the end people are responsible for their own emotional state and well being, the rest of the world can't be expected to cater to them and it is a sign of an immature person if they expect the world to do so.

 

Hmm, suddenly I feel as though I've received an unintended glimpse into your life. Not a lot going on in your social life on April Fool's Day, huh? Yeah, me too.

[darkpatriot]

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.

Edited April 1, 2015 by darkpatriot