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 by slopesandsam, 09 April 2015 - 06:09 PM.