Update 93: Patch 1.03 - Important Community Fixes

[Azradun]

I see that the bigots are still at it.

 

Resorting to name calling is often the best proof of lack of arguments.

[Ineth]

Linux version from GOG, I patched by downloading the new version, renaming old Pillars of Eternity directory to something else, unpacking the new version, and running ./start.sh in the new directory. I didn't move any savegames manually.

 

BUG in 1.03: Hearth Harvest, an unique hatchet found on a corpse on west edge of Wooden Plains, looks quite silly. Normally, weapon images in inventory are small and become enlarged when you click on them (pick them up to place in another inventory slot). After loading my game in 1.03, Hearth Harvest is enlarged ALL THE TME. It looks exactly the same when you're transferring it to another slot as when it's lying somewhere in your inventory.

 

Same here

[Ineth]

Want your progressive games? Make them, don't change existing ones to conform to your worldview.

 

What if Obsidian wants to make them though?

[Azradun]

 

Want your progressive games? Make them, don't change existing ones to conform to your worldview.

 

What if Obsidian wants to make them though?

 

The pointed PR gun in the hands of the campaigners is of no matter of course.

 

"Pillars of Eternity Removes Offensive Limerick From the Game" - gamespot.com

 

I'm sure if Obsidian or the backer didn't do anything, the campaigners would cease their pressure and refrained from "going after the backer", as one of the persons on this forum so colourfully described. But I wrote about it a few times already.

[rheingold]

Good on Obsidan for changing it - they have my vote - more inclusive is always good. BTW While I hated DA 2 and Inquisition I will still support Bioware by buying their games - mainly because of their stance towards a more progressive enlightened society.

[Azradun]

Good on Obsidan for changing it - they have my vote - more inclusive is always good. BTW While I hated DA 2 and Inquisition I will still support Bioware by buying their games - mainly because of their stance towards a more progressive enlightened society.

 

Good example. Injecting ideology into your business results in an inferior product. DA 2 (user score 4.4 on Metacritic) was worse than DA: Legends on Facebook released at the same time and I won't even buy Inquisition after Mass Effect 3 fiasco and DA 2. Bioware was a good company once. Now it is owned by Electronic Arts (Worst Company in America award of 2012 and 2013). It is your right to support the company you like of course.

[GrinningReaper659]

I also have the issue with Hearth Harvest being oversized; running the latest Windows version from GOG.

 

I love how all the people upset about the change are declaring the backer memorials to be art, as if saying that they're art gives them some special protection from alteration. Have you read the memorials? I've read every one I've come across, and I definitely wouldn't use the word art. The goal seems to be either to advertise, memorialize, or maybe entertain. But I guess you can label anything as art when it fits your agenda to do so. I'll have to use this at work some time, turn in a report with a bunch of vulgar drawings scribbled across it and inform my boss that it doesn't matter how much it bothers him because it's art, don't you know?

 

I actually have been enjoying the memorials more than I thought I would, I was sort of worried that they would be jarring or inappropriately placed within the world but Obsidian did a great job of blending them in, and it's actually a lot of fun reading through them and seeing the messages that my fellow RPG fans have memorialized. What I am confused about is all the blank memorials. Did these backers simply not want to include a message, or could they not be contacted? It's a very minor issue of course, but it would probably look nicer if all the blank ones were put together in one memorial without the message display part of the interface. Also, there are a few misspellings, improper grammar, etc. I've noticed on a couple of them, it would be nice to do a pass just to clean that sort of thing up and maybe standardize the formatting (some backers sent little poems in with double spacing, some were single spaced, etc.). Maybe none of it's important enough to bother with, but it wouldn't hurt to make them look a bit nicer at some point down the road.

[rheingold]

Exactly it is my choice and from a business decision it's also Obs and Biowares...

Obs have every right to protect their reputation.

BTW its the way the world is moving whether you like it or not. And it's only a tiny almost insignificant but vocal minority who are angry - as usual. It's best for a company morally, and for their bottom line to ignore the angry priveleged few who believe the world owes them something - as in it must be done my way or not all all. Or my offense is greater than yours... My dad is bigger than yours... Childish behaviour should never be rewarded.

[Gotcha!]

I'm transgendered and I have to say I do not care about the original poem or the replacement, I do not even care that Obsidian changed it. It seems to me both sides of the fence are making mountains out of molehills. Old joke was lame, new one is lame but both are just some lame text in a video game and hardly worth grabbing torches and pitchforks no matter which side your on. People offended by the lame text prior overreacted but likewise the people whining about the fact it was changed are overreacting, both sides acting like petulant children in the aftermath.

It's not about a stupid joke though. (The joke itself was rather meh and has been made plenty of times in movies and tv shows anyway.)

 

It's about yet another loudmouth who either acts like she's offended or is simply as dumb as a doorknob, and goes on some unholy crusade of insanity, creating enough publicity until she finally gets her way.

Nowadays people just pull their racism/discrimination card whenever they damn feel like it (happens often in my country), even though the racism/discrimination is usually all inside their heads, like in this case. And spineless people, politicians and companies are caving in to their demands, so terrified that they happen to step on someone's toe. It's insane.

 

It's a damn shame that too many people fail to see that this isn't about racism or discrimination. It's about stupid people with big mouths and/or people who simply like to troll and/or people who desperately need to see a psychologist (like Erika, who clearly has unresolved issues). They need to be ignored or this **** will get worse and worse over time. Idiots like Erika are only paving the way for more idiots to go on rampages.

 

Oh, and to the bigot-callers around here: My best friend is a transgender and I love her to bits. "No ****?" No ****. So you can keep your bigot-card. The joke has nothing to do with transgenders in the first place.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

Good on Obsidan for changing it - they have my vote - more inclusive is always good. BTW While I hated DA 2 and Inquisition I will still support Bioware by buying their games - mainly because of their stance towards a more progressive enlightened society.

 

Good example. Injecting ideology into your business results in an inferior product. DA 2 (user score 4.4 on Metacritic) was worse than DA: Legends on Facebook released at the same time and I won't even buy Inquisition after Mass Effect 3 fiasco and DA 2. Bioware was a good company once. Now it is owned by Electronic Arts (Worst Company in America award of 2012 and 2013). It is your right to support the company you like of course.

 

 

Ha, you think that their socially progressive ideology is what's wrong with Bioware? You really think that their political positions are what made DA2 a terrible game, give me a break. One thing has nothing to do with the other. People seem to be forgetting that we're talking about video game developers here. I see that you people have no issues buying your computer products from Intel, despite learning that they clearly support censorship (oh, that's right, it's different because it was an ad they wrote instead of a poem that someone who gave them some money wrote, okay). I'm going to keep buying games that I like, and I honestly don't give a single **** if some of the devs at the company I'm buying the game from don't match up exactly with my personal beliefs. Guess what, people are different, and so they have different beliefs, and demanding that your game developers have the exact same values as you is insane.

 

Why are you choosing to take your stand against the strangled industry that is niche game development? Why don't you grind your axe by refusing to ever buy an Intel or Microsoft or HP or GE product again, because surely each one of them has jumped on the political correctness train and makes sure that nothing seemingly "offensive" ever gets published with their names attached to it. Do you really hold every company to this standard, or have you just arbitrarily decided to hate Obsidian because you're a follower and because it's more convenient to hate Obsidian than it is to hate Intel or some other huge company that you feel you just have to buy from?

[rheingold]

If I am buying a product from a company I will try and choice the more ethical choice  - of course. And when it comes to games - well obviously if a company is sexist, rascist or whatever then I won't support them. It's not a diffucult concept to grasp. You are also missing my point which is putting aside the moral issue/outrage - on both sides, it makes sense for companies to be more inclusive - they are going to sell more. Whereas concentrating on the gamersgate community is going to put you out of business very quickly.

[GrinningReaper659]

If I am buying a product from a company I will try and choice the more ethical choice  - of course. And when it comes to games - well obviously if a company is sexist, rascist or whatever then I won't support them. It's not a diffucult concept to grasp. You are also missing my point which is putting aside the moral issue/outrage - on both sides, it makes sense for companies to be more inclusive - they are going to sell more. Whereas concentrating on the gamersgate community is going to put you out of business very quickly.

 

I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing the blatant inconsistency of the people that are choosing to not buy from Obisidan because they now claim that Obsidian supports censorship while they continue to financially support many other companies that clearly do the same thing...

[rheingold]

Ok cool no worries - at any rate I just wanted to voice my support for Obs at this point...

[Azradun]

Why are you choosing to take your stand against the strangled industry that is niche game development? Why don't you grind your axe by refusing to ever buy an Intel or Microsoft or HP or GE product again, because surely each one of them has jumped on the political correctness train and makes sure that nothing seemingly "offensive" ever gets published with their names attached to it. Do you really hold every company to this standard, or have you just arbitrarily decided to hate Obsidian because you're a follower and because it's more convenient to hate Obsidian than it is to hate Intel or some other huge company that you feel you just have to buy from?

 

 

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice.

[Azradun]

Exactly it is my choice and from a business decision it's also Obs and Biowares...

Obs have every right to protect their reputation.

BTW its the way the world is moving whether you like it or not. And it's only a tiny almost insignificant but vocal minority who are angry - as usual. It's best for a company morally, and for their bottom line to ignore the angry priveleged few who believe the world owes them something - as in it must be done my way or not all all. Or my offense is greater than yours... My dad is bigger than yours... Childish behaviour should never be rewarded.

 

My thoughts exactly when I think of the SJWs!

[GrinningReaper659]

 

Why are you choosing to take your stand against the strangled industry that is niche game development? Why don't you grind your axe by refusing to ever buy an Intel or Microsoft or HP or GE product again, because surely each one of them has jumped on the political correctness train and makes sure that nothing seemingly "offensive" ever gets published with their names attached to it. Do you really hold every company to this standard, or have you just arbitrarily decided to hate Obsidian because you're a follower and because it's more convenient to hate Obsidian than it is to hate Intel or some other huge company that you feel you just have to buy from?

 

 

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice.

 

 

Okay, except that there's no reasonable argument that will define an ad created by Intel (a photograph which was planned out and edited to achieve the desired end product, with a bit or writing involved as well) as not being art, but will define a little poem made by a backer as art. Again, you're just singling this out and labeling it as art because it supports your agenda to do so. If Intel is "censoring" their ads so as not to offend people, then how is that better than Obsidian asking a backer if he wants to change his poem so as not to deal with people getting offended? Do you see how inconsistent that is?

[Svirfneblin]

 

Exactly it is my choice and from a business decision it's also Obs and Biowares...

Obs have every right to protect their reputation.

BTW its the way the world is moving whether you like it or not. And it's only a tiny almost insignificant but vocal minority who are angry - as usual. It's best for a company morally, and for their bottom line to ignore the angry priveleged few who believe the world owes them something - as in it must be done my way or not all all. Or my offense is greater than yours... My dad is bigger than yours... Childish behaviour should never be rewarded.

 

My thoughts exactly when I think of the SJWs!

 

 

Ok then don't buy from Obsidian anymore. I don't think any of us really care where you spend your money.

[rheingold]

 

 

Why are you choosing to take your stand against the strangled industry that is niche game development? Why don't you grind your axe by refusing to ever buy an Intel or Microsoft or HP or GE product again, because surely each one of them has jumped on the political correctness train and makes sure that nothing seemingly "offensive" ever gets published with their names attached to it. Do you really hold every company to this standard, or have you just arbitrarily decided to hate Obsidian because you're a follower and because it's more convenient to hate Obsidian than it is to hate Intel or some other huge company that you feel you just have to buy from?

 

 

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice.

 

 

Okay, except that there's no reasonable argument that will define an ad created by Intel (a photograph which was planned out and edited to achieve the desired end product, with a bit or writing involved as well) as not being art, but will define a little poem made by a backer as art. Again, you're just singling this out and labeling it as art because it supports your agenda to do so. If Intel is "censoring" their ads so as not to offend people, then how is that better than Obsidian asking a backer if he wants to change his poem so as not to deal with people getting offended? Do you see how inconsistent that is?

 

Because the backer really shouldn't have put Obsidian into this position - it goes without saying that anything the Backers wrote to place in the game should not have been controversial in any way. Anything else is abusing the system. Obsidan are a business. They have to act in order to protect their reputation.

The fault clearly lies with the backer. And as far as I can make out, Obsidan bent over backwards to mollify him, which they probably shouldn't have done.

Put it this way, freedom of speech is not unlimeted, you can walk into a park and shout out your views regardless of how offensive they are are. However you do not have the right to behave in such a manner if you are on private property. It's like someone pissing in your lounge. The person or business clearly has the right to boot you out. Also from an ethical side, why should you be allowed to put your offensive views into someone elses game? If Obsidan had done this themselves it would be another issue - they clearly have the right to be offensive if they want. They didn't and they have responded in the correct manner.

[Amentep]

Several years ago, Intel released this ad.  Before it was released they realised it was bad and tried to pull it, but one media outlet still published it.

 

The reason I mention this particular ad is because it seems like an apt comparison to the limerick situation.  Why?  Well, because any reasonable person can look at that ad and see what Intel intended it to mean: the runners represent the fast processors, which are reading to spring into action for your business.  It's even believable that it might have been vetted by a handful of people who didn't realise it was problematic (although someone at Intel eventually did, given that they tried to pull the ad before it was published), because all they saw was the intended message, and weren't thinking about any other connotations.

 

However, even if you don't notice it at first, once it's pointed out to you that this is a picture of six black men in poses that look very much like they're bowing down to one white man, the racial connotations of the ad become obvious - prominent even.

 

If you could somehow guarantee that the people who made this ad, and everyone who ever saw it, remained ignorant of the unintended racial connotations, you would have grounds to argue that the ad is harmless - because it would be.  But you can never guarantee something like that - and, indeed, as soon as the ad was published a whole lot of people immediately pointed out the racial connotations.

 

And so here is the thing: Once you become aware of the racial connotations of the ad, standing by it, arguing that it's harmless, that it should be taken as it was intended and not as it's been interpreted, is no longer a position that a reasonable person can take.  Claiming that the ad is okay is, at best, claiming that the racial connotations just don't matter, and at worst, saying that you endorse the racial connotations.  Knowing about the racial connotations makes it morally impossible to simply shrug them off.

 

The reason this seems so much more clear-cut than the limerick issue is because we have all grown up in a society that abhors racial intolerance.  We've been conditioned by a lifetime of input from both people we know and all kinds of media to be sensitive to racial issues.  We have not, on the other hand, grown up in a society that abhors intolerance towards homosexuality or the transgendered - but that's starting to change now.

 

And so whether the problematic nature of the limerick was pointed out by someone on twitter or says that all men should be killed, or a howling internet mob, or one person working at Obsidian who said "Um, hey, maybe we shouldn't put this in our game", the point is that once you know about it, you can no longer defend it without implicitly endorsing it.

 

Obsidian's version of what happened is almost certainly true: the content wasn't vetted properly, and they've now corrected their mistake.  But even if that isn't true, that doesn't mean that Obsidian caved.  What it means is that someone pointed out why the limerick was problematic, and once Obsidian knew and understood this, they took the moral path.

 

There is no conspiracy theory.  This movement isn't being driven by a howling mob of crazies (even if that howling mob actually exists).  It's a much larger and broader movement than that.  Society is changing, that's all.

 

Something similar to the Apple ad happened when a University used a stock photo on a cover to their Continuing Education catalog recently:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/college-catalogue-shows-white-men-winning-it-all.html

[Azradun]

 

 

Why are you choosing to take your stand against the strangled industry that is niche game development? Why don't you grind your axe by refusing to ever buy an Intel or Microsoft or HP or GE product again, because surely each one of them has jumped on the political correctness train and makes sure that nothing seemingly "offensive" ever gets published with their names attached to it. Do you really hold every company to this standard, or have you just arbitrarily decided to hate Obsidian because you're a follower and because it's more convenient to hate Obsidian than it is to hate Intel or some other huge company that you feel you just have to buy from?

 

 

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice.

 

 

Okay, except that there's no reasonable argument that will define an ad created by Intel (a photograph which was planned out and edited to achieve the desired end product, with a bit or writing involved as well) as not being art, but will define a little poem made by a backer as art. Again, you're just singling this out and labeling it as art because it supports your agenda to do so. If Intel is "censoring" their ads so as not to offend people, then how is that better than Obsidian asking a backer if he wants to change his poem so as not to deal with people getting offended? Do you see how inconsistent that is?

 

 

There is a clear distinction between an ad for a product and the product itself. I don't care about ads, I'm not a consumer of ads. I am a consumer of games and additional content for them. If that's not an enough explanation for you, then I'm sorry. But I don't see it as a problem.

 

Edit: added "not"

Edited April 9, 2015 by Azradun

[Azradun]

Something similar to the Apple ad happened when a University used a stock photo on a cover to their Continuing Education catalog recently:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/college-catalogue-shows-white-men-winning-it-all.html

 

 

So if a black man loses a race, they award the prize to him? I'd refuse to go against a black man then to avoid being accused of racism - would that be offensive too? We have to go deeper than that...

 

But I don't care about Apple's overpriced and inferior hipster products made in China and I'm not their customer and I'll never be.

[Vok]

 

 

 

Why are you choosing to take your stand against the strangled industry that is niche game development? Why don't you grind your axe by refusing to ever buy an Intel or Microsoft or HP or GE product again, because surely each one of them has jumped on the political correctness train and makes sure that nothing seemingly "offensive" ever gets published with their names attached to it. Do you really hold every company to this standard, or have you just arbitrarily decided to hate Obsidian because you're a follower and because it's more convenient to hate Obsidian than it is to hate Intel or some other huge company that you feel you just have to buy from?

 

 

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice.

 

 

Okay, except that there's no reasonable argument that will define an ad created by Intel (a photograph which was planned out and edited to achieve the desired end product, with a bit or writing involved as well) as not being art, but will define a little poem made by a backer as art. Again, you're just singling this out and labeling it as art because it supports your agenda to do so. If Intel is "censoring" their ads so as not to offend people, then how is that better than Obsidian asking a backer if he wants to change his poem so as not to deal with people getting offended? Do you see how inconsistent that is?

 

Because the backer really shouldn't have put Obsidian into this position - it goes without saying that anything the Backers wrote to place in the game should not have been controversial in any way. Anything else is abusing the system. Obsidan are a business. They have to act in order to protect their reputation.

The fault clearly lies with the backer. And as far as I can make out, Obsidan bent over backwards to mollify him, which they probably shouldn't have done.

Put it this way, freedom of speech is not unlimeted, you can walk into a park and shout out your views regardless of how offensive they are are. However you do not have the right to behave in such a manner if you are on private property. It's like someone pissing in your lounge. The person or business clearly has the right to boot you out. Also from an ethical side, why should you be allowed to put your offensive views into someone elses game? If Obsidan had done this themselves it would be another issue - they clearly have the right to be offensive if they want. They didn't and they have responded in the correct manner.

 

In what position?

Who the hell would have anticipated that some special snowflake who decided that the grass is greener on the other side and now projects his self-loathing and self-hate against other men would be offended by that?

Because that's the kind of person that was offended by this joke. At best he/she/it/xir is opportunistic and craving for attention at worst a biggot.

 

It is just a joke. Simply as that. Joke are allowed to offend people. Jokes are allowed to be politically incorrect. This joke however wasn't even that.

What I am salty about is Outrage-Culture banning everything they deem offensive.

 

It is simply mind-boggling to me as east-european how people who grew up in countries who always has freedom of speech and opinion like america jump at the chance to censor dissenting opinions.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Vok

[Ineth]

 

Exactly it is my choice and from a business decision it's also Obs and Biowares...

Obs have every right to protect their reputation.

BTW its the way the world is moving whether you like it or not. And it's only a tiny almost insignificant but vocal minority who are angry - as usual. It's best for a company morally, and for their bottom line to ignore the angry priveleged few who believe the world owes them something - as in it must be done my way or not all all. Or my offense is greater than yours... My dad is bigger than yours... Childish behaviour should never be rewarded.

 

My thoughts exactly when I think of the SJWs!

 

I gotta admit, when reading "angry privileged few who believe the world owes them something" I immediately thought of college feminists (which is a subgroup of "SJWs" I supposed), because it perfectly describes the ones I had the displeasure of crossing paths with.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Ineth

[Bryy]

 

 

 

Why are you choosing to take your stand against the strangled industry that is niche game development? Why don't you grind your axe by refusing to ever buy an Intel or Microsoft or HP or GE product again, because surely each one of them has jumped on the political correctness train and makes sure that nothing seemingly "offensive" ever gets published with their names attached to it. Do you really hold every company to this standard, or have you just arbitrarily decided to hate Obsidian because you're a follower and because it's more convenient to hate Obsidian than it is to hate Intel or some other huge company that you feel you just have to buy from?

 

 

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice.

 

 

Okay, except that there's no reasonable argument that will define an ad created by Intel (a photograph which was planned out and edited to achieve the desired end product, with a bit or writing involved as well) as not being art, but will define a little poem made by a backer as art. Again, you're just singling this out and labeling it as art because it supports your agenda to do so. If Intel is "censoring" their ads so as not to offend people, then how is that better than Obsidian asking a backer if he wants to change his poem so as not to deal with people getting offended? Do you see how inconsistent that is?

 

Because the backer really shouldn't have put Obsidian into this position

To be fair, Josh did say that they don't properly vet all the content. So it's partially Obsidian's fault as well.

[Vok]

Several years ago, Intel released this ad.  Before it was released they realised it was bad and tried to pull it, but one media outlet still published it.

 

The reason I mention this particular ad is because it seems like an apt comparison to the limerick situation.  Why?  Well, because any reasonable person can look at that ad and see what Intel intended it to mean: the runners represent the fast processors, which are reading to spring into action for your business.  It's even believable that it might have been vetted by a handful of people who didn't realise it was problematic (although someone at Intel eventually did, given that they tried to pull the ad before it was published), because all they saw was the intended message, and weren't thinking about any other connotations.

 

However, even if you don't notice it at first, once it's pointed out to you that this is a picture of six black men in poses that look very much like they're bowing down to one white man, the racial connotations of the ad become obvious - prominent even.

 

If you could somehow guarantee that the people who made this ad, and everyone who ever saw it, remained ignorant of the unintended racial connotations, you would have grounds to argue that the ad is harmless - because it would be.  But you can never guarantee something like that - and, indeed, as soon as the ad was published a whole lot of people immediately pointed out the racial connotations.

 

And so here is the thing: Once you become aware of the racial connotations of the ad, standing by it, arguing that it's harmless, that it should be taken as it was intended and not as it's been interpreted, is no longer a position that a reasonable person can take.  Claiming that the ad is okay is, at best, claiming that the racial connotations just don't matter, and at worst, saying that you endorse the racial connotations.  Knowing about the racial connotations makes it morally impossible to simply shrug them off.

 

The reason this seems so much more clear-cut than the limerick issue is because we have all grown up in a society that abhors racial intolerance.  We've been conditioned by a lifetime of input from both people we know and all kinds of media to be sensitive to racial issues.  We have not, on the other hand, grown up in a society that abhors intolerance towards homosexuality or the transgendered - but that's starting to change now.

 

And so whether the problematic nature of the limerick was pointed out by someone on twitter or says that all men should be killed, or a howling internet mob, or one person working at Obsidian who said "Um, hey, maybe we shouldn't put this in our game", the point is that once you know about it, you can no longer defend it without implicitly endorsing it.

 

Obsidian's version of what happened is almost certainly true: the content wasn't vetted properly, and they've now corrected their mistake.  But even if that isn't true, that doesn't mean that Obsidian caved.  What it means is that someone pointed out why the limerick was problematic, and once Obsidian knew and understood this, they took the moral path.

 

There is no conspiracy theory.  This movement isn't being driven by a howling mob of crazies (even if that howling mob actually exists).  It's a much larger and broader movement than that.  Society is changing, that's all.

I love how you still haven't answered to any argument I presented to you.

 

 

And so whether the problematic nature of the limerick was pointed out by someone on twitter or says that all men should be killed,

How and why is that irrelevant. Explain it to me. What I see there is a literal bigot complaining about being offended by a joke. Yet you completely disregard that because it caters to your crowd. Something that I have seen massively increasing from people in favour of Social Justice.

 

You remember Jian Ghomeshi? No? Jian Ghomeshi was a Radio Showhost, was big in this Social Justice Thing about the evil PATRIARCHY and RAPE CULTURE since he majored in Womens Studies. So guess what happened when suddenly a women came forward with rape allegations against him. Just as expected the Social Justice crowd started to attack these allegations and the rape-victim because Jian was part of the Social Justice Movement and non-white.  Too bad more and more women came forward with similar stories about being coerced by Jian to sexual acts against their will. I think the current count is 14 people.

 

So you see, your argument and you seem disingenuous since I bet my ass that if it was a Nazi-Sympathizer being offended by something you would just laugh or shrug it off.

 

We have not, on the other hand, grown up in a society that abhors intolerance towards homosexuality or the transgendered - but that's starting to change now.

Does a joke were a chicken crosses the street abhor poultry? Does it promote animal abuse? No?

 

Then why does this one promote intolerance against transsexuals.

 

This movement isn't being driven by a howling mob of crazies

Once again: Are we talking about the same movement who managed to kick the biggest achievement in space exploration in this century and make it about a damn T-Shirt? We are talking about the same movement right?

 

I cant tell if you are either so removed from reality that you don't see that Social Justice is on its way to becoming a full-fledged cult where dissenters and disbelievers (LISTEN AND BELIEVE) get attacked for having the wrong views. Or if you are simply okay with Social Justice operating that way because "its for the greater good".

 

Once again I think you should read "The Wave" if you haven't done so in school, it may be an eye-opener about thinly-veiled fascistoid movements.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Vok