Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

To be fair, that's because vidya romance is cancer. And the fans are even worse.

While I was playing PoE over the easter break, my flatmate was playing DA:I, he made a character that looked as much like himself as he could manage, then proceeded to try to sleep with all the female characters.

 

You should force your flatmate to play something that isn't ****. Seriously, slugging through 40 hours of dull gameplay for e-poontang is pretty bad.

[evensong]

Meh. He's in a high-stress study environment and plays video games to unplug his brain for a while, I can understand that. He certainly manages it.

[Ichthyic]

 

Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

at this point, it should be ignored.  it's all become rather overbearing and ridiculous.

[MLMII]

 ... but the bigots are demonstrably more interested in hurling insults. ...

 

 

 

Pot, meet Kettle.

[Jasta11]

If I never hear about that limerick or assorted GG vs anti-GG controversies, it would be too soon.

 

Create a thread in off-topic and let them rip each other to pieces.

[Badmojo]

I felt like they should have a forum section dedicated to politics/religion/other to move all discussion like it to that area so people can focus on the actual game here.

[Serdan]

 

 ... but the bigots are demonstrably more interested in hurling insults. ...

 

 

 

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

If the shoe fits.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75387-controversial-limerick-discussion-2/

Go read that thread. Several of the posters explicitly express their bigotry.

Then consider that the main argument is about free speech, which is patently absurd as I have already explained.

[ChipMHazard]

 

 

 ... but the bigots are demonstrably more interested in hurling insults. ...

 

 

 

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

If the shoe fits.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75387-controversial-limerick-discussion-2/

Go read that thread. Several of the posters explicitly express their bigotry.

Then consider that the main argument is about free speech, which is patently absurd as I have already explained.

 

 

You missed/ignored his point. Both sides do so love throwing insults at each other in attempt to dismiss the opposing viewpoint. Don't even try to argue that only one side has resorted to ad hominems.

[View619]

If we can keep this nonsense in one thread and it gets deleted by a mod if it shows up to derail others, then let people talk about it until the end of time.

[Serdan]

 

 

 

 ... but the bigots are demonstrably more interested in hurling insults. ...

 

 

 

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

If the shoe fits.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75387-controversial-limerick-discussion-2/

Go read that thread. Several of the posters explicitly express their bigotry.

Then consider that the main argument is about free speech, which is patently absurd as I have already explained.

 

 

You missed/ignored his point. Both sides do so love throwing insults at each other in attempt to dismiss the opposing viewpoint. Don't even try to argue that only one side has resorted to ad hominems.

 

Nice mind-reading.

I'm not a 'side'. He addressed me specifically, so the implication is that he thinks I hurl insults. It is reasonable to assume that he was referring to my use of the word "bigot".

[ChipMHazard]

Bigot can most certainly be seen as a derogative term, especially when used against people whom simply disagree with the person calling them a bigot. 

 

His reply to you is still correct. The bigots, as you refer to them, are not the only ones whom mainly focus on throwing insults instead of presenting proper arguments. 

[Mungri]

Bigot can most certainly be seen as a derogative term, especially when used against people whom simply disagree with the person calling them a bigot. 

 

His reply to you is still correct. The bigots, as you refer to them, are not the only ones whom mainly focus on throwing insults instead of presenting proper arguments.

 

So can racist, nazi, fascist etc.

[Ted Striker]

I'm trying to understand the bigotry. If the male main character was sexually, actively having intercorse with women (natural) and he somehow mistakenly had intercorse with a man, then killed himself because of how disgusting it was to him... What's the problem? It's not a natural activity.

[Kimuji]

No "censorship", but keeping that dead horse in a single thread where people can keep repeating the same arguments over and over and remove all the other posts related to that topic that pollute the rest of the forum would be nice.

[Serdan]

I'm trying to understand the bigotry. If the male main character was sexually, actively having intercorse with women (natural) and he somehow mistakenly had intercorse with a man, then killed himself because of how disgusting it was to him... What's the problem? It's not a natural activity.

Calling it unnatural is bigotry.

Are you really that oblivious?

[Namutree]

 

Calling it unnatural is bigotry.

Are you really that oblivious?

 

Is it really? It's not like saying something is unnatural is the same as saying it's bad. Cars are unnatural, but I don't have a problem with cars.

 

 

I'm trying to understand the bigotry. If the male main character was sexually, actively having intercorse with women (natural) and he somehow mistakenly had intercorse with a man, then killed himself because of how disgusting it was to him... What's the problem? It's not a natural activity.

On what basis is it not a natural activity? It occurs in nature.

[MLMII]

Actually no, calling something unnatural or even using a pronoun that you don't agree with is insulting, insensitive, and quite frankly ... just plain rude ... but doesn't rise to the level of bigotry on its face. SJWs tend to forget that the righteous virtue of tolerance that everyone should strive for isn't necessarily the same as acceptance.

 

 

So yeah, to use your metaphor, if GG has gotten the left sole comfortably broken in then the SJWs and you have done an equally fine job with the right. 

[sjblack2014]

People can make as many threads as they wish.

[ruzen]

Its had its run but in my opinion, discussion about the Poem is derailing lots of threads daily and making this a lesser place to be. I'm personally thinking about giving up on obsidian.net and sticking with reddit for PoE stuff, which is a shame because there are some very high quality posts about the game being occluded by all this crap.

 

Surely its over by now? Maybe we have just one thread where the Poem Warriors can duke it out until the end of time?

Enough   save it to Twitter

[ChipMHazard]

 

Bigot can most certainly be seen as a derogative term, especially when used against people whom simply disagree with the person calling them a bigot. 

 

His reply to you is still correct. The bigots, as you refer to them, are not the only ones whom mainly focus on throwing insults instead of presenting proper arguments.

So can racist, nazi, fascist etc.

 

 

Aye. If you use them against people whom have done little to actually warrant such nouns.

Just because someone disagrees with your [Not you as in you personally] opinion doesn't give you leave to start using ad hominems. 

Edited April 11, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[scrotiemcb]

 

Calling it unnatural is bigotry.

Are you really that oblivious?

 

Is it really? It's not like saying something is unnatural is the same as saying it's bad. Cars are unnatural, but I don't have a problem with cars.

 

 

I'm trying to understand the bigotry. If the male main character was sexually, actively having intercorse with women (natural) and he somehow mistakenly had intercorse with a man, then killed himself because of how disgusting it was to him... What's the problem? It's not a natural activity.

 

On what basis is it not a natural activity? It occurs in nature.

I liked your first argument better. Nothing which occurs in our modern society can truly be called "natural" anymore. Not that I'm complaining. Hurray, technology. I mean, I now have a mild academic interest in whether the National Geographic brand of anthropologists have ever observed two male natives of an aboriginal tribe getting it on or not, but regardless of this the point would be moot.

 

The proper attitude towards homosexuality should mirror possible attitudes towards broccoli. Is it intrinsically gross? No. Is it subjectively gross to some people? Yes. Is anyone here forced to eat broccoli? No. Do you really know if you like it or not if you haven't tried it? No. Does that mean you should if you haven't? Not really, it's just a food; it isn't that important unless you can't stand eating anything else you've tried. Are their situations where a man, despite his dislike for broccoli, would eat it anyway out of hunger? Depends on the intensity of the dislike. But nothing to be ashamed about.

 

What's sad is that people have been shamed, not even because of having a particular taste, but because of some irrationally belief that trying a nibble is a lifelong commitment.

Edited April 11, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Serdan]

Is it really? It's not like saying something is unnatural is the same as saying it's bad. Cars are unnatural, but I don't have a problem with cars.

 

Have you been living under a rock? It's the language used by bigots when they advocate for making homosexuals second-class citizens.

And people are not fricking cars. Using "unnatural" about a person is extremely loaded with negative connotations.

 

 

Actually no, calling something unnatural or even using a pronoun that you don't agree with is insulting, insensitive, and quite frankly ... just plain rude ... but doesn't rise to the level of bigotry on its face. SJWs tend to forget that the righteous virtue of tolerance that everyone should strive for isn't necessarily the same as acceptance.

 

 

So yeah, to use your metaphor, if GG has gotten the left sole comfortably broken in then the SJWs and you have done an equally fine job with the right. 

Re underlined: Interesting qualifier. So you agree that prior experience could lead one to reasonably assume that people who refer to some particular group of people as unnatural are most likely bigots? You actually comprehend that context is a thing?

Well, that's a pleasant surprise.

 

As for insisting that the two sides must somehow be equal... Whatever. It's so ridiculous that I can't even feel insulted.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Serdan

[scrotiemcb]

BTW I should point out I still have a laugh at the SJWs out there. When I say it's like one's taste in broccoli, I mean it. So filtered through my ears I hear things like "I was born loving broccoli" (maybe so, but big whoop) or "legalize broccoli marriage" (the bigger question is why the state is involved in a church function at all), or maybe I even see a "broccoli pride" parade (which seems more appropriate for small rural communities whose lives all revolve around a single crop).

 

Seriously, broccoli-lovers. Develop a sense of humor.

[Namutree]

I liked your first argument better. Nothing which occurs in our modern society can truly be called "natural" anymore. Not that I'm complaining. Hurray, technology. I mean, I now have a mild academic interest in whether the National Geographic brand of anthropologists have ever observed two male natives of an aboriginal tribe getting it on or not, but regardless of this the point would be moot.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. This has been observed many times in the past and will be observed many times more in the future. There is nothing in nature that precludes it, and nature itself provides the means in which it happens. Sexual attraction is a natural occurrence, and sexual contact with the object of said attraction is a natural occurrence.

 

The term nature refers to a few things: 

 

The broadest sense- Something that occurs or exists in the physical world. Homosexuality definitely qualifies for that.

 

The usage regarding things that occur or exist without human intervention. Again, Homosexuality qualifies as many animals engage in homosexual activity without human intervention.

 

The usage regarding something that exist despite human intervention- Again, Homosexuality qualifies as even the many attempts by humans to eliminate homosexual activity have failed in various societies.

[Namutree]

 

Is it really? It's not like saying something is unnatural is the same as saying it's bad. Cars are unnatural, but I don't have a problem with cars.

 

Have you been living under a rock? It's the language used by bigots when they advocate for making homosexuals second-class citizens.

 

Yet he didn't advocate for making homosexuals be treated as second class citizens. So obviously that's not always the case.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Namutree