Update 93: Patch 1.03 - Important Community Fixes

[Ignoramus]

Let's be real for a second:

 

Obsidian is not going to change their game just because of some tweets, nor some forum posts. It's amazing how, as soon as Obsidian does something you disagree with, they go from Gaming Gods to Spineless Wimps. Everyone loves to throw around the blanket term "artistic vision" until it collides with their beliefs. 

What exactly makes you so sure about that? Are you an employee of Obsidian Entertainment?

 

With the exception of Dungeon Siege III, I own every single game Obsidian has ever released, and I have enjoyed every single one of them.

 

I also know how PR works. If their head of PR(or the CEO) thinks it is better to "cave in"(or to **** their pants, as I call it), and just change a single goddamn epitaph(that is totally irrelevant to the gameplay anyway) and be done with it, instead of facing a ****storm from the so-called "social justice warriors", they will do it.

 

Obsidian Entertainment is still the best game developer out there in my opinion, but I'm not satisfied how they handled this case.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

What is the goal of this discussion? If you participate in it, are you actually trying to dissolve the issue, or are you merely juggling idiosyncrasies, opinions, and ideas back and forth? I mean, there is a difference between seriously examining conflict so as to understand and dissolve it, and being mentally excited by opinionated debates and speculation. I just wish to know where we are going with this because it seems to me that it is not going anywhere at all.

These two things are not mutually exclusive, though.

 

Let's be real for a second:

 

Obsidian is not going to change their game just because of some tweets, nor some forum posts. It's amazing how, as soon as Obsidian does something you disagree with, they go from Gaming Gods to Spineless Wimps. Everyone loves to throw around the blanket term "artistic vision" until it collides with their beliefs.

 

Except, to be real for a second, we saw it happen. In real time. And we have also seen, in the very same context, that this did nothing to lessen the perceived insult to the perpetually offended.

 

 

To which group of perpetually offended are you referring here? The side you don't agree with I guess. The truth is that as soon as someone brought attention to the issue, unreasonable **** on each side dug their heels into the dirt and said "Obsidian, if you don't respond to this exactly how I want you to, you're gonna pay." It should be noted, too, that exactly what either side wanted involved alienating the other side. Obsidian responded how they thought was best, which actually didn't fully cater to either group's ridiculous demands: they asked the backer if he wanted to change the memorial due to the attention it was getting, how anyone could be pissed at them for that is beyond me; then they replaced it with the backer's direct barb toward those that were offended, but of course you remain unsatisfied. As for those who were offended by the joke in the first place, those of them who are still offended and talk about never supporting Obsidian again are equally ridiculous of course. Both of those groups are the perpetually offended, and you can spot them because they're all the people who are still offended right now, whether it's at Obsidian for changing it at all or for not changing it enough.

[Bryy]

 

Let's be real for a second:

 

Obsidian is not going to change their game just because of some tweets, nor some forum posts. It's amazing how, as soon as Obsidian does something you disagree with, they go from Gaming Gods to Spineless Wimps. Everyone loves to throw around the blanket term "artistic vision" until it collides with their beliefs. 

What exactly makes you so sure about that? 

Because Obsidian are not children. They know what they are doing. In fact, they've been doing it for some time now. To assume that they would do something just because a few people out of an audience of millions made a stink, especially if the change is as minor as some flavor text, is ridiculous.

[Vok]

It's amazing how, as soon as Obsidian does something you disagree with, they go from Gaming Gods to Spineless Wimps.

 

Don`t know what you are smoking that you get that impression.  Just because I think they dropped the ball by listening to a bigot being offended on twitter doesn't suddenly make their games bad retroactively.

 

I do think they make great games.

I do think that their games probably have some of the best writing in video games currently.

I will continue to support to Obsidian not because of those or that political views, but because they made good games in the past that entertain me and continue to do so.

I like the questions PoE poses.

 

I am however dismayed that their PR reacted the way it reacted.

I am disappointed that reacting to outrage culture was more important than actually having a conversation with the fan-base about it.

I am disappointed that Obsidian has no problem tackling really ambiguous and difficult topics but when someone claims they are "Transphobes" for not controlling what this or that backer wrote it they opted to change it so quickly.

 

I am aware that some things in the PR-Handbook cant not really be applied anymore, especially if you see the SocJust-Troops shaming everything and everything for views, beliefs or content.

Obsidian did however choose to give in to a bigot instead of having faith in your fanbase and your backers.

 

Lets face it:

SocJus will never be happy no matter how much you apologize and prostrate yourself.

SocJus will always look to be offended about something.

 

Edited April 6, 2015 by Vok

[ChipMHazard]

 

Except, to be real for a second, we saw it happen. In real time. And we have also seen, in the very same context, that this did nothing to lessen the perceived insult to the perpetually offended.

I forget reading the part where Feargus wrote "we changed it because some people on Twitter made a fuss". 

 

 

They presented the request because of what happened, as per Firedorn's own recollection. Would they have changed it even if Firedorn had said no? Who knows. He said yes immediatly, sparing them having to make that choice which might have increased the flak and/or meant that Firedorn would have been thrown under the bus.

Still, they most probably would never have asked, had there never been an outrage. Considering that there is no discernible tone that the joke would have had to live up to during the vetting process. Which was their official reasoning. At the very least, all the drama makes it harder to discern whether or not they would have made the same choice if it had it never went further than a single request.

You're free to believe any story you want, but when I see two slightly different variations on what happened I naturally become a wee bit sceptical. 

 

It's also important to keep in mind that it went beyond a single request. The original complainer immediatly started rallying people behind her "cause" and other sites picked up the (At this point) distorted story. Obsidian would have felt the pressure. Did that play a significant role in their choice? Who knows. 

Edited April 6, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[Vok]

 

 

What is the goal of this discussion? If you participate in it, are you actually trying to dissolve the issue, or are you merely juggling idiosyncrasies, opinions, and ideas back and forth? I mean, there is a difference between seriously examining conflict so as to understand and dissolve it, and being mentally excited by opinionated debates and speculation. I just wish to know where we are going with this because it seems to me that it is not going anywhere at all.

These two things are not mutually exclusive, though.

 

Let's be real for a second:

 

Obsidian is not going to change their game just because of some tweets, nor some forum posts. It's amazing how, as soon as Obsidian does something you disagree with, they go from Gaming Gods to Spineless Wimps. Everyone loves to throw around the blanket term "artistic vision" until it collides with their beliefs.

 

Except, to be real for a second, we saw it happen. In real time. And we have also seen, in the very same context, that this did nothing to lessen the perceived insult to the perpetually offended.

 

 

As for those who were offended by the joke in the first place, those of them who are still offended and talk about never supporting Obsidian again are equally ridiculous of course. Both of those groups are the perpetually offended

 

Only one these groups however turned being offended into an Artform and managed to make a grown man who just landed a probe on a comet in space cry and apologize on Television for wearing a shirt made by his female friend.

 

You tell me if those groups still sound the same to you.

[Ignoramus]

 

 

Let's be real for a second:

 

Obsidian is not going to change their game just because of some tweets, nor some forum posts. It's amazing how, as soon as Obsidian does something you disagree with, they go from Gaming Gods to Spineless Wimps. Everyone loves to throw around the blanket term "artistic vision" until it collides with their beliefs. 

What exactly makes you so sure about that? 

Because Obsidian are not children. They know what they are doing. In fact, they've been doing it for some time now. To assume that they would do something just because a few people out of an audience of millions made a stink, especially if the change is as minor as some flavor text, is ridiculous.

 

I know they are not. They know exactly what they are doing, like you said.

 Changing the epitaph was an attempt to swipe this whole thing under a rug, trying not to take any sides. The guys at Obsidian are no fools.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Ignoramus

[Amentep]

 

It's amazing how, as soon as Obsidian does something you disagree with, they go from Gaming Gods to Spineless Wimps.

 

Don`t know what you are smoking that you get that impression.

 

It'd be easy to get that impression - see all the people who are calling Obsidian "craven cowards" for "caving" to "a perpetually offended twitter user".

 

Mix it liberally (or conservatively, I'm not judging) with the words "Censorship" and "refund" and "Never buying a game again from you" and "you're idots for not putting it in the patch notes because everyone knew you did it the moment you did it" and you pretty much have this forum, the STEAM forums and probably several others since Friday.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Amentep

[Qbert]

This memorial spat is really small potatoes and both sides have overreacted as usual.  I think checking with the backer in a case like this is the correct response, and if it was not backer content i hope they would instead poll the backers to see if a majority feel the content is objectionable enough to be removed. I do not find the memorial offensive enough to warrant removal, i dislike the precedent set by obsidian here, and i hope it is the last of this type of thing.

 

I don't usually know or care about developers personal political views, but if those views have a large impact on the content allowed in the game world without prior notification to the potential customers, then i don't appreciate it.  If Sawyer and Obsidian want to make Pillars a SJW utopia world then just be open about it and let the community know this is the goal, and i for one won't buy the expansion, b/c I am not looking to get preached at in a game.  I want a believable fantasy world with conflicts, problems, a mix of both ugly and beautiful things all tied together in a coherent and believable fashion, and i hope that Obsidian chooses to go this direction with their future games.  If not, then i think they will soon be facing another bankruptcy and no kickstarter will make enough to save the company, and that would be a loss, since i enjoy playing POE so much, despite the bugs.

[Ztirual]

 

What is the goal of this discussion? If you participate in it, are you actually trying to dissolve the issue, or are you merely juggling idiosyncrasies, opinions, and ideas back and forth? I mean, there is a difference between seriously examining conflict so as to understand and dissolve it, and being mentally excited by opinionated debates and speculation. I just wish to know where we are going with this because it seems to me that it is not going anywhere at all.

These two things are not mutually exclusive, though.

But what is the goal of this discussion? What is it that we are trying to achieve with it?

[Bryy]

I want a believable fantasy world with conflicts, problems, a mix of both ugly and beautiful things all tied together in a coherent and believable fashion, and i hope that Obsidian chooses to go this direction with their future games. 

So you want a world full of believable conflict and yet nothing to do with "SJW"?

 

And you don't see the contradiction with this? You just said you want a world with conflict but no issues.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Bryy

[Azradun]

So you want a world full of believable conflict and yet nothing to do with "SJW"?

 

And you don't see the contradiction with this? You just said you want a world with conflict but no issues.

 

 

There is no contradiction here. The "SJW" want only one-dimensional stories. The ones that propagate their ideology. All others are unacceptable.

 

And ideological books make for very boring stories. I know, I grew up in communist Poland and read some of them.

[Bryy]

I'll let you in on a little secret: there is no such thing as a social justice warrior. There are only people that take their ideaology too far. See PETA, Men's Rights Groups, any kind of militant group, really.

[Covalency]

while looking forward to fixes such as spell range and trap placement, i will not be applying the patch.

yes it is becuase of the rhyme. i still however expect support to find me alternative workarounds to gamebreaking isssues than patching

 

a few other points on discussion ive seen on this,

calling people bigots right off the gate for disagreeing with you isnt helping

neither is claiming the people interpreting it this a certain way are nuts, people can interpret anything in anymanner they choose as interpretations are subjective.

 

However if someone personally interpreting something in the worst possible light is cause for it to be altered, why arent rom coms like "50 first dates", "groundhog day" and "About time" filled under horror/thriller or given mature ratings? each is about a man manipulating and controlling a woman and in some cases films like the latter feature eugenics etc where the man erases children from existence because they have the wrong hair/skin colour or name and all of this is normalized and OK. sounds pretty bad right, mature themes not at all suitable for 12 year olds, yet thats the rating given by the film classifaction board

 

or how about all those childrens shows with moral messages about friendship and forgiveness that i can interpret as teaching children to take advantage of others and be a terrible person as they will be forgiven? should we reclassify them as well because i can come up with some pretty bad interpretations of them?

 

the answer is no, it is absurd, but apparantly obsidians stance is that if people make a large enough fuss they will make changes to appease people who are too lazy to implement mods and console command fixes to their exact problem that existed days before they complained. (see IE mod and the instructions on how to extract/ edit memorials)

 

so lets go through all the other content that does not match the "tone" and probably slipped through verification, how about those memorials to real people, or mentions of other games, or random life advice, or website plugs, or any of the other immersion breaking things that i find more offensive than this rhyme because im also too lazy to apply existing fixes to the game and can now expect obsidian to change the game for everyone to cater to me right?

 

whats that? theyre not going to? well i guess they should tick why below because that would seem to be discrimination....

 

 [  ] racist

 [  ] sexist

 [  ] mysogynist

 [  ] misandrist

 [  ] misanthropic

 [  ] transphobic

 [  ] general bigotry

 [  ] other

 [  ] all of the above

 

 

while ive seen a few people respond to this ive not seen anyone point out the contradiction here:

1. The limerick is clearly, unambiguously offensive.

 

2. I understand how such a poem can seem innocuous.

 

 

 

 

for those still pushing that its "obviously transphobic"  you are also claiming im a transwoman since i had something simmilar to that happen in my life, im pretty sure im not, but clearly i dont know myself at all and should just go have an identity crisis, because your narrow interpretation should be forced on everyone else.

 

for those who dont like the removal, do what i did and dont patch the game, and bother support for workarounds to every other problem in the game that you encounter that patches would solve.

 

 

with that in mind im pretty disapointed obsidian thought that this could be swept under the rug and paid no attention to discussion on these and other forumns and have allowed themselves to become a political football. i think a much better solution would have been either a total re-examination of all backer content and guidelines on what their standards for tone/ content are and what their policy would be from now on or a dev pointing to the mod and saying theres your solution we arent going to change backer content. as it is theres a bad perception of the company and i personally have a lowered confidence that they know what they are doing. which will affect my future support of their products and ill be wanting far more clarity on what their procedures for issues like this will be before i back them again.

[slopesandsam]

 

1. The limerick is clearly, unambiguously offensive.

 

Only in the sense that, like every other limerick or joke ever written, it is "clearly, unambiguously" capable of offending someone in the world.

 

Not in the sense that it's unusually offensive, or that offending someone in particular was the author's motive for writing it.

 

For example, the lame "tomato crosses the street and becomes ketchup" joke? Clearly and unambiguously offensive to someone who is grieving for a loved one lost in a traffic accident.

 

And the extent to which authors should be expected to not hurt certain feelings, should be tied to how reasonable those feelings are. Consider "offense" that is taken as a result of having internalized conspiracy theories or having developed chip-on-shoulder syndrome from excessive participation in echo chambers like parts of twitter and tumblr.

 

You're right, pretty much anything will offend somebody, somewhere.  And nobody has the right not to be offended.  But just because you have the right to offend someone doesn't mean that you have to exercise it.

 

The important difference here, though, is that this joke is at the expense of some of the most maligned and marginalised people in our society, and it makes them feel more maligned and marginalised.  So yes, it gets special treatment compared to jokes at the expense of those who aren't maligned and marginalised, or content that is more broadly offensive.

 

Someone who stands up and loudly yells "I HATE [insert pejorative here]!!!" is easily dismissed.  Everyone can instantly see that they're a bigot, and can be safely ignored.  Jokes like the one contained in the limerick are more problematic precisely because it isn't immediately obvious why they're offensive, and the contribute to an overall acceptance of similar jokes and sentiments when they go unremarked.  Which is why multiple commenters have noted that "a majority of people on this thread don't think it was offensive".  Think about that.  If you're a trans gamer, you see this thread, and see that the majority doesn't see any problem with the joke, and you feel unwelcome.

 

This is not a case where people are taking offense because they've been living in echo chambers or internalised conspiracy theories (although any any group there will be extremists and conspiracy theorists, but they're always a very small minority), it's simply people who understand that the world is overflowing with this sort of sentiment, and reducing it by one less lame limerick helps to push that boulder up the hill one more inch.

 

 

 

Not only does it suggest that sleeping with a man is an act so disgusting that someone would commit suicide afterwards

 

No, it suggests that accidentally sleeping with someone contrary to one's sexual preference is awkward. Which is neither bigoted nor "anti inclusive", it's pretty common sense.

Straight cis people should respect LGBT people's identity and sexual preferences, but that does not mean that they should be expected to deny their own sexual preference. Refusing to hire a gay person or voting against gay marriage is intolerant and bigoted; feeling grossed out by the thought of f***ing another man yourself, isn't.

 

Except that the limerick does not contain the nuance you are projecting onto it.  Yes, what you say is true.  But this limerick singles out a particular and marginalised sexual orientation, and marginalises it.

 

Whether or not this was the author's intention is beside the point.  It's how it is read.  It's the sentiment that comes across.  It's whether it seems like Obsidian endorses it.  That's what matters.

 

 

it also promotes a stereotype that the transgendered pretend to be cisgendered in order to sleep with cisgendered people.

 

Even if you interpret the "woman who turned out to be a man" in the limerick as a trans person, despite the fact that this interpretation is not the most obvious in context and that the author has denied it - why does constructing a fictional situation automatically have to mean promoting the idea that all people of some category are always like this?

 

...

 

Don't intentionally propagate stereotypes that you know others are afraid of as part of their belief system (even if you think it's nuts), but also don't go around the world (or Internet) with a chip on your shoulder throwing a tantrum and accusing people of malice whenever you find something that superficially matches a taboo of your echo chamber.

 

Again, the argument is not that the author intended to make some blanket statement about the evils of trans people, it's that they make a casual comment that reinforces an already pervasive idea.  The author probably didn't think about it that way, the majority of people who read it didn't think about it that way - but the reason they didn't think about it that way is because this idea is already pervasive.  The whole point of calling out the limerick as offensive is to try to make people think and question the things they take for granted and have never really thought about or questioned.

 

It's not malice that is the problem in this particular case, it's unthinking assumptions about what's okay and what isn't.  Is it okay to make offhand jokes at the expense of the maligned and marginalised?

[W.MacKinnon]

I really hope this whole memorial mess doesn't make it into the Making of documentary. This is going to fade away... eventually. People need to realize the Backer Memorials are a wretched hive of scum and villainy and move on. (Literally there is a memorial of "Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy"; yes that's my metaphorical head shaking.)

[Gorionsson]

[Lephys]

Wow, Crowfall definitely looks pretty interesting. I'm kinda sad I missed it during its Kickstarter campaign.

 

Gonna hafta go check that out now.

[mecroblicious]

I actually couldn't sleep so I got up to get in a few hours of Pillars while I still can.  Annoyingly, Steam was in the midst of an auto-update so I decided to go ahead and read the patch notes to see what changes awaited.

 

Disappointingly, I discovered both the controversy and Obsidian's response to it.  The way Obsidian has responded has really sickened me and left me with no desire to play this game again... ever.  If anyone from Obsidian (or in the know) is reading this, I'd honestly like a refund for my purchase.  I know it's highly unlikely to occur but I really don't want to give my money to a company that treats its backers this way.

[Nanakamado]

I'm disgusted with this  whole  "oh I hate You know, I don't won't to play Your game anymore". It's at same low level as this twitter girl, which didn't understand the joke and started this whole madness. Maybe not evry one is smart enough to understand little silly limmerick.

 

As for me Obsidian get yellow card. Censorship and political corectness is last thing I would see in games I'm playing, but I still trust them

The new limmerick is quite good comment to whole situation.

 

I'm courius if those girl would make same complains if there is a quest in which You can help, destroy or ignore LGBT person.

[Omnion]

 

 

1. The limerick is clearly, unambiguously offensive.

 

Only in the sense that, like every other limerick or joke ever written, it is "clearly, unambiguously" capable of offending someone in the world.

 

Not in the sense that it's unusually offensive, or that offending someone in particular was the author's motive for writing it.

 

For example, the lame "tomato crosses the street and becomes ketchup" joke? Clearly and unambiguously offensive to someone who is grieving for a loved one lost in a traffic accident.

 

And the extent to which authors should be expected to not hurt certain feelings, should be tied to how reasonable those feelings are. Consider "offense" that is taken as a result of having internalized conspiracy theories or having developed chip-on-shoulder syndrome from excessive participation in echo chambers like parts of twitter and tumblr.

 

You're right, pretty much anything will offend somebody, somewhere.  And nobody has the right not to be offended.  But just because you have the right to offend someone doesn't mean that you have to exercise it.

 

The important difference here, though, is that this joke is at the expense of some of the most maligned and marginalised people in our society, and it makes them feel more maligned and marginalised.  So yes, it gets special treatment compared to jokes at the expense of those who aren't maligned and marginalised, or content that is more broadly offensive.

 

Someone who stands up and loudly yells "I HATE [insert pejorative here]!!!" is easily dismissed.  Everyone can instantly see that they're a bigot, and can be safely ignored.  Jokes like the one contained in the limerick are more problematic precisely because it isn't immediately obvious why they're offensive, and the contribute to an overall acceptance of similar jokes and sentiments when they go unremarked.  Which is why multiple commenters have noted that "a majority of people on this thread don't think it was offensive".  Think about that.  If you're a trans gamer, you see this thread, and see that the majority doesn't see any problem with the joke, and you feel unwelcome.

 

This is not a case where people are taking offense because they've been living in echo chambers or internalised conspiracy theories (although any any group there will be extremists and conspiracy theorists, but they're always a very small minority), it's simply people who understand that the world is overflowing with this sort of sentiment, and reducing it by one less lame limerick helps to push that boulder up the hill one more inch.

 

 

 

Not only does it suggest that sleeping with a man is an act so disgusting that someone would commit suicide afterwards

 

No, it suggests that accidentally sleeping with someone contrary to one's sexual preference is awkward. Which is neither bigoted nor "anti inclusive", it's pretty common sense.

Straight cis people should respect LGBT people's identity and sexual preferences, but that does not mean that they should be expected to deny their own sexual preference. Refusing to hire a gay person or voting against gay marriage is intolerant and bigoted; feeling grossed out by the thought of f***ing another man yourself, isn't.

 

Except that the limerick does not contain the nuance you are projecting onto it.  Yes, what you say is true.  But this limerick singles out a particular and marginalised sexual orientation, and marginalises it.

 

Whether or not this was the author's intention is beside the point.  It's how it is read.  It's the sentiment that comes across.  It's whether it seems like Obsidian endorses it.  That's what matters.

 

 

it also promotes a stereotype that the transgendered pretend to be cisgendered in order to sleep with cisgendered people.

 

Even if you interpret the "woman who turned out to be a man" in the limerick as a trans person, despite the fact that this interpretation is not the most obvious in context and that the author has denied it - why does constructing a fictional situation automatically have to mean promoting the idea that all people of some category are always like this?

 

...

 

Don't intentionally propagate stereotypes that you know others are afraid of as part of their belief system (even if you think it's nuts), but also don't go around the world (or Internet) with a chip on your shoulder throwing a tantrum and accusing people of malice whenever you find something that superficially matches a taboo of your echo chamber.

 

Again, the argument is not that the author intended to make some blanket statement about the evils of trans people, it's that they make a casual comment that reinforces an already pervasive idea.  The author probably didn't think about it that way, the majority of people who read it didn't think about it that way - but the reason they didn't think about it that way is because this idea is already pervasive.  The whole point of calling out the limerick as offensive is to try to make people think and question the things they take for granted and have never really thought about or questioned.

 

It's not malice that is the problem in this particular case, it's unthinking assumptions about what's okay and what isn't.  Is it okay to make offhand jokes at the expense of the maligned and marginalised?

 

Please reread my comment on how the limerick is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions

[kudos]

Just another backer posting for the first time to register disapointment with Obsidian's caving in policy. I don't feel like I've need to post until now because I've trusted Obsidian's judgement. That trust is now gone.

 

I can't buy the arguement that the backer could've made any other choice with a hate mob at their virtual door.

 

If the backer didn't change it (would Obsidian had the backbone to support that decision?) it's quite likely they would've been doxxed, their employers e-mailed and threats made over various mediums. It was irresponsible for Obsidian to slope all that pressure on someone who just wanted to help them make a game.

[Blucher]

Someone said it best earlier, "this is not the hill to die on."

[EoniaBansbane]

The funny thing is that I recall Sacred and Sacred 2 having such limmericks and weird Tombstone carvings as well, but nobody complaint about those at all.

 

I recall to have seen at least 10 or 20 writings that go from sexual jokes forward to pointing out children abuse. But nobody cared and found it funny.

They just hate one this game because they can. Because Obsidian is that open to the fans and reachable.

Same goes for EA. If EA done something wrong or disappoint, everyone is pouncing at them like hungry crocodiles, but if Nintendo does something wrong or disappoints nobody cares.

 

Sometimes it feels like people only try to spread hate among those they can reach to break them.

Don't let it get to you Obsidian Crew. If they don't like it than just simple let them not play it. It does not mean you should bent and bow before their opinions. The masses out there love PoE for the gameplay and exploration, the nostalgia and tactical purposes.

[Ekaros]

Someone said it best earlier, "this is not the hill to die on."

 

Why not, if we don't die here or kill the issue here it will grow on. You have to stop it at some point or eventually there isn't anything left to save. As such sometimes you just can't let things pass on and most effective tactic is to cause greater harm than doing right would have done.