Update 93: Patch 1.03 - Important Community Fixes

[slopesandsam]

 

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.

 

There's an old saying: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."  What this means is that even an unreliable person can occasionally be correct - even if only by accident.  Let's say that I was a compulsive liar.  Everything that came out of my mouth was a lie - except that one day, I said "If you don't eat food, you'll starve and die."  Would you immediately disregard everything you know about survival and refuse to eat food anymore, just because if I said it, it must be a lie?  No, because you already knew that you need to eat food in order to live, and the fact that an unreliable person said it doesn't somehow make it untrue.  And by continuing to eat food, it doesn't mean that you automatically start believing all the other things I've said, either.

 

Well, the same goes for opinions.  I, and a great many others, already believe that it is wrong to make jokes that cast transgendered people in a negative light.  That someone who also believes that all men should be killed also said it does not make us suddenly change our opinions.  Nor does it mean that we agree with the "all men must be killed" opinion.

 

 

 

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.

 

You betcha.  The difference here is that a Nazi Sympathizer would be arguing that Obsidian were being intolerant of their intolerance.  That is laughable.  No, we should not tolerate intolerance.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

The difference is that chickens are a) not a marginalised and maligned group of people, and more importantly b) not people at all.

 

 

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.

 

...

 

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.

 

I have read the The Wave.  It's a book about how our tribal instincts can override our ability to reason objectively and even our moral compasses.  And it doesn't just apply to fascist movements - all movements and political groups can fall victim to it.  It happened just recently with GamerGate, where the misogynistic agenda became so inextricably tied up with the whole ethics in games journalism agenda that it became impossible for GamerGate supporters to defend one position without defending the other.  In that case, the majority of people eventually decided to distance themselves from the misogynists, and GamerGate as a valid social movement died.  This does not mean that there aren't still valid points to be made about the state of games journalism today, though.

 

You are arguing that the same thing has happened on the other side of the fence - that a loud minority of extremists have come to dominate the movement towards inclusiveness.  And you've even given an example of when the tribal instinct overrode reason and common sense with the story about this Jian Ghomeshi (who I haven't heard of).  This is anecdotal evidence that tribal thinking can effect anyone, and I'm not going to deny that.  It can.

 

Where you're wrong is thinking that the vocal minority of what you've dubbed "SJWs" is leading this movement, or controlling it in any way.  It's not.  The movement towards greater inclusiveness is much, much larger, and the vast majority of people in this movement do not think that all men should be killed.  That's why you can see an article on Polygon.com titled "Obsidian removes offensive limerick from Pillars of Eternity", but you don't see any articles titled "Opinion: All men should be rounded up and killed."

 

The problem, from your point of view, is that the other side seems to be winning.  And because you perceive the other side as being nothing more than a tiny faction of loud extremists, you think that the only plausible explanation is that this tiny faction wields a disproportionate amount of power, and is able to get their way just by shouting loud enough.  In actual fact, the other side is much, much larger than that tiny faction of loud extremists.  The most likely explanation in this instance - and every instance where something like this has happened - is that the people working at Obsidian are part of the larger majority who also believe in inclusiveness, and have done what they wanted to do in order to be more inclusive.

Edited April 10, 2015 by slopesandsam

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

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.

 

As a college student, that has been my experience as well. It's quite funny to see people from bourgeoisie backgrounds downplaying economic privilege, as if not having to go into debt to pay for your classes is not as advantageous as vaguely being shown more respect in media.

 

Anyways, I recommend downloading the mod that restores the original limerick from the nexus along with the IE mod.

[Azradun]

Where you're wrong is thinking that the vocal minority of what you've dubbed "SJWs" is leading this movement, or controlling it in any way.  It's not.  The movement towards greater inclusiveness is much, much larger, and the vast majority of people in this movement do not think that all men should be killed.  That's why you can see an article on Polygon.com titled "Obsidian removes offensive limerick from Pillars of Eternity", but you don't see any articles titled "Opinion: All men should be rounded up and killed."

 

The problem, from your point of view, is that the other side seems to be winning.  And because you perceive the other side as being nothing more than a tiny faction of loud extremists, you think that the only plausible explanation is that this tiny faction wields a disproportionate amount of power, and is able to get their way just by shouting loud enough.  In actual fact, the other side is much, much larger than that tiny faction of loud extremists.  The most likely explanation in this instance - and every instance where something like this has happened - is that the people working at Obsidian are part of the larger majority who also believe in inclusiveness, and have done what they wanted to do in order to be more inclusive.

 

 

 

I don't see anyone from the other side condemning Erika for her views for "kill all men". But the MRAs and Gamergate are villified widely in press for any extremists they harbor. This is the problem. The extremists *are* the ones driving the "progressive movement", because no one inside denounces them, but are shielded from criticism by other feminists and progressives. Criticize one of them, and suddenly, you're facing a large and loud crowd of "moderates", plus their allies in press. When they get death threats, every outlet mobilizes instantly. When their opponents get death threats, it's all hush-hush in media. Very convenient, no? While still clinging to the dictionary definition that "feminism is for equality". Same for other progressives.

 

Oh, and ask Polygon.com for JournoPros, that secret mailing list which existence was proven.

[Twinsen]

I have just noticed that there is a new Patch version on GOG. I updated my game with Patch 1.0.3.524 last week but the current version is 1.03.530. What's changed?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Twinsen

[Moira]

I have just noticed that there is a new Patch version on GOG. I updated my game with Patch 1.0.3.524 last week but the current version is 1.03.530. What's changed?

That would be the hotfixes: created companions' lockpicking fix and... what was the other one again... Anyway that patch fixes things that were broken by the earlier patch.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Moira

[Twinsen]

 

That would be the hotfixes: created companions' lockpicking fix and... what was the other one again... Anyway that patch fixes things that were broken by the earlier patch.

 

 

Thank you for the information!

[Vok]

There's an old saying: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."  What this means is that even an unreliable person can occasionally be correct - even if only by accident.  Let's say that I was a compulsive liar.  Everything that came out of my mouth was a lie - except that one day, I said "If you don't eat food, you'll starve and die."  Would you immediately disregard everything you know about survival and refuse to eat food anymore, just because if I said it, it must be a lie?  No, because you already knew that you need to eat food in order to live, and the fact that an unreliable person said it doesn't somehow make it untrue.  And by continuing to eat food, it doesn't mean that you automatically start believing all the other things I've said, either.

 

 

I legitimately cant tell if you dont know how to present an argument or if it is such a rambling unrelated mess by calculation.
 

 

No, because you already knew that you need to eat food in order to live, and the fact that an unreliable person said it doesn't somehow make it untrue.  And by continuing to eat food, it doesn't mean that you automatically start believing all the other things I've said, either.

This is true when it comes to facts. Your feelings are not facts. His feelings are not facts either.  What you try once again is claim that it is a FACT that the joke was somehow magically transphobic.

Without any kind of poor or confirmation you are arguing that as it ifs a well-known fact. Get of your high horse for ****s sake.

 

"It made me feel offended" is not any kind of argument and never will be. Either elaborate why you think its sexist/transphobic whatever or shut up about it. Dont make up facts when you feel like it.

 

I, and a great many others, already believe that it is wrong to make jokes that cast transgendered people in a negative light.

Oh well thank god the ministry of fun is among us to tell us what kind of things we are allowed to make fun of and what dont.

 

So how about jokes about children?

How about jokes about disabled children?

 

I am baffled that I actually have to explain to someone that a joke is just that: a joke. Humour. It doesn't cast anyone in a negative light on anyone because it is not serious.

Its like on your quest for social justice you completely and unironically lost the ability to tell reality from fiction.

 

And the worst part about this is that you are actually argu-. no, rambling, how this is the right state of mind to be in and how it makes the world better. I am just flabbergasted. I dont even.

 

You betcha.  The difference here is that a Nazi Sympathizer would be arguing that Obsidian were being intolerant of their intolerance.  That is laughable.  No, we should not tolerate intolerance.

This is why you are a humongous hypocrite while at the same time clamouring for "equality".

 

First off: Never once did I say the Nazi-Sympathizers is offended about their opinion. But if you want to make it more similar to the actual case: Lets assume that said Nazi is offended by the implied euthanasia of newborn/hollowborn in the game and demands it changed. Will you still say that "It doesn't matter because even a broken clock is right twice a day"?

"Its really about equality guys, some people are just more equal than others!"

 

That is laughable.

Well yes it is. Just like it laughable that people listen to a bigot who wants to kill all men about being offended.

 

  No, we should not tolerate intolerance.

And this is even more laughable.  Not tolerating intolerance IS intolerance. How did that get past you?

 

See the difference between me and CHORFs (Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatic) like you is that even if someone has view that I deem harmful or intolerant or uneducated, I still think that he has a right to have it. Its when people start saying we need to remove or change content "for the greater good" is when things start going south.

 

 

The difference is that chickens are a) not a marginalised and maligned group of people, and more importantly b) not people at all.

Thats a very poultry-phobic thing to say.

 

How are they not marginalised? You even went as far to dehumanize poultry in your same sentence! You don't even see them as people!

Millions of chicken and ducks get killed and consumed everyday and they don't even enjoy the basic rights that your housecat has.

[Vok]

I have read the The Wave.  It's a book about how our tribal instincts can override our ability to reason objectively and even our moral compasses.  And it doesn't just apply to fascist movements - all movements and political groups can fall victim to it.

 

Your lack of self-awareness is simply magical. Its funny how you claim to be able to see the similarities in other movements, just somehow not in Social Justice where you have people outright stating that they are better people because they think they have the moral highground.

 

 

It happened just recently with GamerGate, where the misogynistic agenda became so inextricably tied up with the whole ethics in games journalism agenda that it became impossible for GamerGate supporters to defend one position without defending the other.  In that case, the majority of people eventually decided to distance themselves from the misogynists, and GamerGate as a valid social movement died.

Right off the bat you start off with a lot of assumptions and casually drop the Powerword: Misogyny like it still means something.

 

What is its misogynistic agenda?

No really, tell me, I am super curious about it.

What misogynists?

What the hell are you even talking about?

There is a fair share of feminists within the movement. Heck, there is even Prof. Hoff Sommers there, a known feminist who sides with Gamergate but I already can tell that you will drop the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN because she happens to disagree with 3rd Wave Feminism.

Once again I cant tell if you are just making **** up as you go or if you are really this blatantly ignorant.

 

 

Please explain to me how you can watch this and still ramble on about a supposed "misogynistic agenda"? There is probably more diversity and equality in GG than there is in your holier-than-thou Social Justice Movement and all you can do is paint them all as misogynist?

How far up your own ass are you actually?

 

You are arguing that the same thing has happened on the other side of the fence - that a loud minority of extremists have come to dominate the movement towards inclusiveness.  And you've even given an example of when the tribal instinct overrode reason and common sense with the story about this Jian Ghomeshi (who I haven't heard of).  This is anecdotal evidence that tribal thinking can effect anyone, and I'm not going to deny that.  It can.  

 

Where you're wrong is thinking that the vocal minority of what you've dubbed "SJWs" is leading this movement, or controlling it in any way.  It's not.  The movement towards greater inclusiveness is much, much larger, and the vast majority of people in this movement do not think that all men should be killed.

What about Matt Taylor?

What about Brad Wardell?

What about Larry Correia?

 

Matt Taylor was wearing the wrong T-Shirt, tell me he was asking for it, I dare you. Never mind that the man landed a goddamn probe on a goddam asteroid.

Brad Wardell was medially crucified by the Social Justice crowd after an ex-employee who got laid of decided to make up stuff about him. Of course no one cared that she later issued a public apology for her made up claims, people still call him a harasser and a rapist.

Larry Correia, part of sadpuppies, simply raised awareness about the clique-ish-ness of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy literature circle where people expect you to have the politically correct opinion or they exclude you. He currently gets called a conservative, a rightwinger, a white supremacist and a racist despite being married to a black woman for 20 years.

 

So how are you making the world a better ,more tolerant place again?

Social Justice has been hijacked by nutjobs like the person who complained about this joke in the first place and yet you are still in denial.

 

You are not fighting for inclusiveness.

You are not fighting for diversity.

And you sure as **** are not fighting for tolerance.

 

In the first place I find it absolutely disgusting that you once again your high-horse where you think that this or that group of people need to be defended by you like they are incapable of doing it on their own. Yet you still refuse to see anything wrong with your worldview.

 

 

That's why you can see an article on Polygon.com titled "Obsidian removes offensive limerick from Pillars of Eternity", but you don't see any articles titled "Opinion: All men should be rounded up and killed."

Polygon is where diversity comes to die.

It is to game journalism what FoxNews and MSNBC are to Journalism in general.

 

"Opinion: All men should be rounded up and killed."

Yet. They did however have articles how killing female NPCs is misogyny which I think you and me will agree is a load of horse****.

 

The problem, from your point of view, is that the other side seems to be winning.

You going down the assumption road again? Dis gon b gud.

.

 

And because you perceive the other side as being nothing more than a tiny faction of loud extremists, you think that the only plausible explanation is that this tiny faction wields a disproportionate amount of power, and is able to get their way just by shouting loud enough

 

And I think you are 7 squirrels in a wizard-robe.

 

In actual fact, the other side is much, much larger than that tiny faction of loud extremists.

So basically you are saying that there is no vocal minority of loud extremists within Social Justice but that SocJus in general is completely all right with #KILLALLMEN.

Only a few paragraphs back you said that this wasn't the case. Huh.

 

 

The most likely explanation in this instance - and every instance where something like this has happened - is that the people working at Obsidian are part of the larger majority who also believe in inclusiveness, and have done what they wanted to do in order to be more inclusive.

Good to know that Inclusiveness works by shaming and excluding people who have the wrong opinion. I will just assume that you are not as dense as you present yourself to be but a rather just young and uninformed.

Me, however, I can see how you are to young to understand that Equality and Diversity are concepts that don't mix well together. If you were a smarter little bugger you would notice that for your EQUALITY!-goal you are already sacrificing diversity of opinion and shouting it down as intolerance, misogyny and transphobia.

 

At some point even you yourself will probably notice that to every sane, rational person American Social Justice looks anti-intellectual and full of bigotry.

 

Oh and let me leave you with this little gem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlajdEapQLo

Edited April 10, 2015 by Vok

[Twinsen]

[Luckmann]

Vok, I just want to edit this post and tell you that you're my hero. That is all.

 

 

*blushes*

 

 

I have just noticed that there is a new Patch version on GOG. I updated my game with Patch 1.0.3.524 last week but the current version is 1.03.530. What's changed?

 

Like someone said, that's the hotfix.

 

For reference: 1.03.524

 

1 is the released game; theoretically, a Pillars of Eternity sequel could have "2", but it is more likely that it'll be counted as it's own project and start from 1 again. Could also be used for expansions. Most of the time, it's not.

 

03 refers to current version number. This will change with each patch and update of the game, and it follows sequentially. Next patch will be 1.04.###, after that it's 1.05.###.

 

524 is the daily build number. This changes from day to day and is mostly used for tracking builds internally, by Obsidian. So when there are hotfixes, this is the only thing that will change, because it is not a "real" patch, it is just a fix to the previous patch. This may not always be consistent, because I'm not sure if Obsidian counts days that they're not even in the office (after all, why number a build that you haven't built?).

 

So when the last number changes, you can be sure that it is some very small change, but a change that have been judged very important, or they wouldn't have released it as an update at all.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Luckmann

[Twinsen]

 

Like someone said, that's the hotfix.

 

For reference: 1.03.524

 

1 is the released game; theoretically, a Pillars of Eternity sequel could have "2", but it is more likely that it'll be counted as it's own project and start from 1 again. Could also be used for expansions. Most of the time, it's not.

 

03 refers to current version number. This will change with each patch and update of the game, and it follows sequentially. Next patch will be 1.04.###, after that it's 1.05.###.

 

524 is the daily build number. This changes from day to day and is mostly used for tracking builds internally, by Obsidian. So when there are hotfixes, this is the only thing that will change, because it is not a "real" patch, it is just a fix to the previous patch. This may not always be consistent, because I'm not sure if Obsidian counts days that they're not even in the office (after all, why number a build that you haven't built?).

 

So when the last number changes, you can be sure that it is some very small change, but a change that have been judged very important, or they wouldn't have released it as an update at all.

 

 

Thank you very much! That was very informative.

[slopesandsam]

[A whole lot of stuff that's become too expansive to quote]

 

1. If you honestly don't get the point of my "rambling unrelated mess", I can't help you any further.  But I will offer another ramblin, unrelated mess: In my teens, I spent a lot of time on the Usenet (it was the 90s), and I spent a lot of time engaged in heated debates.  I considered myself very clever at the time, and I quite enjoyed the feeling of destroying someone with my amazing arguments.  I'd hit that "Post" button with a feeling of real satisfaction, like I'd just delivered a killing blow every time.

Only the thing was: I wasn't winning any arguments.  I was making a fool of myself.  My understanding of the topics I was arguing about was rudimentary at best, and my ability to parse the more complicated aspects of the issues I was engaging with was severely limited by my then-narrow worldview.

Fortunately, I got older, and hopefully somewhat wiser.

 

I know, that story was completely unrelated to anything going on here.  I just felt like telling it.

 

2. I have elaborated, at great length, on why the joke is transphobic.  Nearly every word I've written in this thread has been about why the joke is transphobic.

 

Maybe another example would be illustrative here.  This video (very NSFW language) is of Louis CK performing standup comedy, and he uses a number of words that are ordinarily considered extremely offensive.  This video does not offend me.  It doesn't seem to have offended many people at all, given that I doubt you've ever heard any public outcry about it.  So why does it get a pass, when a lame limerick that doesn't use any offensive language doesn't?  Well, because Louis CK is pointing out an irony in the use of the term "n-word".  And it's funny because it's true - it's just that most of us haven't thought about it that way.  What it doesn't do is perpetuate any stereotypes about black people - in fact, it erodes some of the illusions white people have about themselves.

 

The limerick, on the other hand, goes with the age old stereotype that transgendered women are gross and weird and that you'd better watch out, because they might be disguising themselves as REAL women to get you in the sack.

 

3. Ah, so your argument is that the Nazi sympathiser is offended by something completely unrelated to Nazism?  In that case, sure, if their complaint is legitimate, it genuinely doesn't matter that they're a Nazi Sympathiser.  I'll still abhor their white supremacist attitudes and opinions, but yes, Nazis can be broken clocks too.

 

4. "Not tolerating intolerance IS intolerance" is an absurd semantic argument.  And the difference between tolerating those who a different from you and tolerating those who do not tolerate those that are different from them is that the later is harmful.

 

5. If you genuinely identify yourself as a GamerGate supporter, I doubt that anything I say to change your mind.  Anyone who still supports GamerGate is, at this point, being willfully ignorant.

 

Matt Taylor wasn't asking for anything - he most likely just hadn't thoroughly considered the message he would send his female co-workers (and millions of people around the world one he appeared on TV) when he decided to wear that shirt.  And it was precisely because he landed a probe on an asteroid that he was held to a higher standard than the average guy who wears a shirt plastered with images of scantily clad women.

Brad Wardell I've never heard of, and if what you say is true then it does sound like he has been unfairly maligned.  And if the vocal minority have given him hell then that is, indeed, terrible.  It doesn't, however, negate my point that the movement towards inclusiveness is much larger than that.  An overwhelming majority of Americans now support gay marriage - but all those many millions of people don't all jump on twitter to harass anyone who opposes gay marriage.

Larry Correla is someone I don't know very much about.  I think that using a slate to game the Hugo awards was a trollish way to go about making his point, and aligning himself with Vox Day, an unrepentant piece of human garbage, doesn't give me a good impression of him.  However, I don't know enough about him or his views to know whether he can fairly be called a racist (although being married to a black woman is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to saying racist things.)

 

6. There is most certainly a vocal minority of extremists on my side whose views and opinions I mostly disagree with.  In fact, the sentence you quoted is me explicitly saying that.  I'm not sure how you misinterpreted it as the opposite.

 

7. Equality and diversity are inextricably linked.  If there were no diversity, there would be no point to equality.  And if your idea of diversity is that people who are against equality should be heard too...well, you're absolutely correct.  I believe very strongly in Freedom of Speech, which means that everyone, no matter how vile their words, has the right to say them.  But just because you have the right to be heard doesn't mean you have the right to be listened to.  If what you're saying is intolerant, misogynists, homophobic or transphobic, everybody else has the right to ignore you.  Or to tell you that you're full of excrement.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Vok, I just want to edit this post and tell you that you're my hero. That is all.

*blushes*

 

Vok is my hero too.

 

http://youtu.be/-DSVDcw6iW8

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

5. If you genuinely identify yourself as a GamerGate supporter, I doubt that anything I say to change your mind.  Anyone who still supports GamerGate is, at this point, being willfully ignorant.

 

[...]

I don't identify as a GamerGater, but I found this insanely hilarious, since I just came across this less than 5 minutes ago.

 

I'll just leave it here.

 

http://imgur.com/gallery/KzoKk3B

 

The comments are the best.

 

[Azradun]

5. If you genuinely identify yourself as a GamerGate supporter, I doubt that anything I say to change your mind.  Anyone who still supports GamerGate is, at this point, being willfully ignorant.

 

Matt Taylor wasn't asking for anything - he most likely just hadn't thoroughly considered the message he would send his female co-workers (and millions of people around the world one he appeared on TV) when he decided to wear that shirt.  And it was precisely because he landed a probe on an asteroid that he was held to a higher standard than the average guy who wears a shirt plastered with images of scantily clad women.

Brad Wardell I've never heard of, and if what you say is true then it does sound like he has been unfairly maligned.  And if the vocal minority have given him hell then that is, indeed, terrible.  It doesn't, however, negate my point that the movement towards inclusiveness is much larger than that.  An overwhelming majority of Americans now support gay marriage - but all those many millions of people don't all jump on twitter to harass anyone who opposes gay marriage.

Larry Correla is someone I don't know very much about.  I think that using a slate to game the Hugo awards was a trollish way to go about making his point, and aligning himself with Vox Day, an unrepentant piece of human garbage, doesn't give me a good impression of him.  However, I don't know enough about him or his views to know whether he can fairly be called a racist (although being married to a black woman is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to saying racist things.)

 

Brad Wardell is maligned to this day, including by the (in)famous Brianna Wu, who openly called for boycotting him and his work (despite being a fellow games developer!). His wife and child got death threats from the "progressives" - I guess being related to an "offensive person" makes you a perfectly valid target of harassment.

 

Matt Taylor should be able to live out his life without talentless hacks who didn't contribute anything of value to humanity watching and criticizing every one of his moves. Scientists put probes on comets, feminists put offense onto shirts. Reducing him to tears on television shows the true face of the progressive movement - the new Inquisition. Bullying great men won't get more girls into STEM, I assure you.

 

I don't know much of Vox Day, but you using the term "an unrepentant piece of human garbage" automatically earns him my sympathy. It is very curious that if I'd use the same language about Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu, that would easily earn a segment on a national television, yet you smearing a man with broad brush of insults is ok. Erika Victorious doesn't earn the same language yet she advocates for mass murder and concentration camps for men?

[Dragoonlordz]

Wow you lot are still arguing over that tiny change of a tiny amount of text? A change that most people would never have even noticed until both sides made a mountain out of a molehill. Your like bickering children trying to score points against each other at this stage, it has devolved into the typical whinefest of people trying to one up each other instead of actual polite discourse regarding an aspect of the actual game. Your so busy trying to 'win' an internet argument, you have even began to lose track of what started the argument in the first place based on last few pages of bickering.

 

Someone asked Obsidian to change something which every single person has the right to do, Obsidian agreed on this occassion so changed it which they have every right to do. The end. If that means you won't buy another Obsidian product just because they changed that one tiny piece of text then that's your choice, a petty choice but your choice all the same. It doesn't make one iota of difference who asked them to change it, it's not relevant...anyone can ask them to change something and if Obsidian agree with what was proposed then it will get changed, if they don't then it won't. Obsidian do not have to like the person or agree with everything they have ever said to justify a change, as long as they agree with the reasoning behind the proposal for the change then that's all the matters.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Dragoonlordz

[Omnion]

Wow Vok, PREACH BROTHER PREACH!.

My hero.

[Fionavar]

Thanks everyone for your input and passion. We remain most grateful for such affirmations, challenges and critique as is present in this discussion. It also seems that we might be moving on to a new announcement (cue MYSTARY music) so best to clear the sandbox and due some sweeping in anticipation.