Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[Namutree]

 

 

 

First, racism. Saying that white people can't be subjected to racism or will casually dismiss it is racism in itself.

You'd have a point if racism was defined simply as discrimination based on race. Most social justice advocates don't define it that way, so you're either ignorant of what the conversation is actually about or you're arguing in bad faith.

 

He does have a point as racial discrimination is a valid definition of racism. The version you referred to is valid as well.

 

Both carry a powerful stigma (and both should); if social justice advocates don't accept both versions as valid, they are perpetuating injustice.

 

ffs, try to actually comprehend what you read. Luckmann was referring to being told that white people can't be subjected to racism. The only scenario where I have seen anyone make such a claim is when sja's are talking about racism as systemic oppression. White people are not subjected to systemic oppression, so when a white person interjects into that conversation with "But a black person was once mean to me!" they are rightfully told to **** off. If I had only written the first sentence you'd have a point, but I followed it up with two more sentences that made it perfectly clear what I was on about.

I made my response specifically to what he wrote and with the underlying assumptions in mind.

 

Oh, nvm. Context fail on my part.

[Serdan]

Oh, nvm. Context fail on my part.

 

I hate you so much right now.  I didn't expect you to actually acknowledge your mistake, so now I feel like I should apologise for being cranky at you.

 

Sorry.

[PrimeJunta]

Is a collection of words acceptable? If so, "Systematic disadvantages of (insert preferred racial/ethnic group here) in (insert state/society here)" is a far more precise term that accurately conveys what you're talking about at the cost of being long-winded.

That's not the concept. It's simply one aspect of racism (sociological), namely systemic racism. There was a whole list of ways in which racism (sociological) manifests. What's more, the definition of 'racism' I linked to is also an established one in common usage. It's the standard usage in sociology, and it is in broad use among non-academics who are actively interested in the concept -- activitsts, politicians, and what have you.

 

So, I'll make an alternative proposal: in situations where both definitions of racism are in use and there's a risk of confusion, how about we add a qualifier to one or both usages? Say, "racism (sociological)" or "racism (s)" for the definition I linked to, and "racism (ideological)" or "racism (i)" for the one you linked to?

 

If you're looking for a single word, then no. Complex concepts such as the systematic disadvantages faced by blacks in the United States can not be condensed into a single word without eroding some measure of nuance.

Nuance is always lost. Brevity is also a virtue. IME discussions usually devolve into bickering about semantics -- like we're doing here -- unless everyone agrees simply to clarify terms once a misunderstanding is identified, and move on. Life is not academic writing which requires you to define your terms from the outset.

[MLMII]

 

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ...

Yeah, it was annoying to see only one example. I guess they wanted to keep it American. But you could easily put that in other contexts and see how it transfers.

 

 

 

You're less of a cynic than I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

 

 

I really thought you were going to give me an irrefutable  example of how "I make assumptions about  groups of people ", in fact I have asked for evidence of that several times and I haven't one valid response. This is no different 

 

I have explained several times now that what I meant is I don't make assumptions like " all Russians are homophobic " or " all Americans are warmongers " 

 

In your apparently " glaring " example of me doing this you are saying this is not true because I used the words " am sure we will now hear " but I also said the words " most straight people " ...the operative word being  "most "..that is not the same thing as me saying " all straight people " 

 

And if I say I think person x is a bigot that is not the same thing as me saying " all people who said this are bigots "

 

The funny thing is I have no issue with you actually proving me wrong, so I encourage you to go back and read all my posts and give me a real example of where I said " all people are  xxx or all people are yyy" 

 

So I still have no idea why you  say something got stuck in your throat because I see no contradiction in my posts?

 

 

 

Ooo ... kay, I'm not quite sure whether to simply shake my head at this point or if I would be better served by slowly backing away with no sudden movements. ... I mean seriously, I literally spelled the reason your reaction bothered me for everyone to see and you come back with "Please explain why you are bothered by my post."

 

 

As for making assumptions and since this thread is starting to drift away from baselessly people of being homophobic to racism I'll ask a simple question; since it's apparently fine to make assumptions provided that we preface them with the disclaimer of "I only meant most and not all." Does that make the statement; "You must be one of the good ones." any less offensive to my Mick ancestors when they were being discrimated against because of their country of origin and religion? What about the other minority groups who had that statement thrown into their faces, perhaps most notably and recently against black people.

 

 

---- Oh, and since no-one offered to take me up on my joke in the other thread I'll provide the punchline at this time ...  "a sixpack and a potato".

 

 

I am not sure you and I are even on the same page anymore with this debate

 

 

I am challenging the notion that you said " I make assumptions about groups of people " 

 

If you arent saying that now then I'm not sure what we are debating. If you are saying you still found my comment to be offensive thats fine, I am not going to presume to tell you how you should interpret my posts. Sorry if you assumed I was necessarily talking about you but I have idea how your parents treated you so I can't say if you were included in the point earlier I made where I basically said " most straight people haven't had there parents tell them they wish they had been aborted " ...if your parents did say that to you then you have my sincere condolences because as I said to Mungri that's cruel and unfair 

 

If that's not what you talking about then I still don't understand exactly what I said that caused something to get stuck in your throat because I am missing how what I said to Mungri is relevant to my self-importance ....that the bit I really don't get 

 

And yes you are correct,  to say to some ethnic group " you must be one of the good ones " is offensive and patronizing but once again that's not what I said or meant. And I don't know how many times I can keep explaining this  

 

 

 

*sighs* Look, I'm very nearly convinced that you are being purposefully obtuse and seeing how long you can go before I simply throw up my hands in frustration and walk away. If so then congrats are in order, you are very nearly, but not quite there. So let's try this one last time; I understand that you moved the goalposts from chiding FaustianEchoes with " No, the funny thing is I am not  really like you at all. I don't make assumptions about groups of people unless they actually say or do something that warrants criticism. " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1657861 ) to " I don't say things like " all Russians are homophobic " despite homophobic laws being passed in Russia  or I wouldn't say " all Americans are arrogant warmongers " despite America under Bush being very militant around foreign policy " and finishing with " I respond directly to what people say or how they act " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1657925 ) However the bottom line is that you do in fact make assumptions about groups of people to the point of dismissingly throwing out this gem;  " and I'm sure we  will now  hear comments like  " oh so now  only gay people have a monopoly on there parents treating them badly..my parents did this to me and my parents did that  " " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1656293 ). That is not a point that I'm willing to let slide as I view grouping people via ideologies far more important than mere geographical locations. 

 

As for my visceral reaction to your post towards Mungri ... you are missing the point by assuming that it must somehow be about me or my past at all. Hells, I don't know Mungri from Adam (He seems like a pretty cool guy though.) but my reading of your original post ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1656293 ) was more about you trying to use his story simply as a springboard in advancing your own cause, with a little anecdotal quip thrown in about how shocking one of your friends was treated by his mother for coming out as gay, not to mention getting in a jab at the people you disagree with in this very thread. I suppose it's possible that you didn't mean it the way it read to me, but when combined with posts where you claim that it's impossible for a "defender of gay rights" to be a bigot ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1655894 ) I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

 

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ... Still, even so I don't really see why I should accept your "dictionary definition" over the one that KaineParker offered. Hells, I think I'd argue that if someone had bothered to prune the one you offered of it's rather obnoxious racial overtones the two don't really seem that much at odds, if at all.

We are, all of us, guilty of some forms of racism, whether we like it or not. The problem is that we white people go absolutely bonkers if someone points out we do, screaming 'I'm not a racist!'. Usually followed by racist slurs to prove the point. (hilarious) Or, even worse in my opinion, claiming that those who bring up these points are actually the problem.

 

You don't have to be a conviced racist to do racist things, nor do you have to be a convinced mysoginist to do mysoginistic things, or be a convinced homophobe to do homophobic things... etc.

 

 

 

I tend to disagree, in my experience the defensiveness starts when the threshold for bigotry is lowered from intolerance towards something to mere unacceptance. 

  

 

If we eradicated all infectious diseases forever, then our immune systems would become useless. Id rather maintain a strong immune system.

 

I don't know if you were making an offhand joke or meant this comment in the deeper sense that I read it.

[BruceVC]

 

Oh, nvm. Context fail on my part.

 

I hate you so much right now.  I didn't expect you to actually acknowledge your mistake, so now I feel like I should apologise for being cranky at you.

 

Sorry.

 

 

Namutree is actually a very reasonable person, he is not someone who will debate just for sake of debating and never accept he is wrong. He is also not vindictive or malicious  during debates and to be honest I don't think I can recall a time where he has become personal or really angry. Rare character traits for a heated forum debate considering how most of us take these topics seriously so naturally we tend to get emotional

[Namutree]

 

 

Oh, nvm. Context fail on my part.

 

I hate you so much right now.  I didn't expect you to actually acknowledge your mistake, so now I feel like I should apologise for being cranky at you.

 

Sorry.

 

 

Namutree is actually a very reasonable person, he is not someone who will debate just for sake of debating and never accept he is wrong. He is also not vindictive or malicious  during debates and to be honest I don't think I can recall a time where he has become personal or really angry. Rare character traits for a heated forum debate considering how most of us take these topics seriously so naturally we tend to get emotional

 

Should have checked the early backer beta threads!

[Heresiarch]

 

White people are not subjected to systemic oppression, so when a white person interjects into that conversation with "But a black person was once mean to me!" they are rightfully told to **** off.

I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can make this statement without being ironical. SJWs get to define "systemic oppression", find the group they consider the most oppressed and let only them talk. All the while they advise others to **** off and don't mess in their racism discussion, because they do not belong to the proper race. Truly that's comedy gold, mate. 

 

 

 

Is a collection of words acceptable? If so, "Systematic disadvantages of (insert preferred racial/ethnic group here) in (insert state/society here)" is a far more precise term that accurately conveys what you're talking about at the cost of being long-winded.

That's not the concept. It's simply one aspect of racism (sociological), namely systemic racism. There was a whole list of ways in which racism (sociological) manifests. What's more, the definition of 'racism' I linked to is also an established one in common usage. It's the standard usage in sociology, and it is in broad use among non-academics who are actively interested in the concept -- activitsts, politicians, and what have you.

Citation needed. The only people who use the so-called "sociological" definition of racism are social marxists claiming the existence of a system of privilege and power, which is supported by some invisible and unspecified evil force (e.g. The Patriarchy™).

 

Incidentally, they are also unashamedly racist and sexist in their opinions about the members of "privileged" group. But, guess what, according to their own definition of sexism and racism they are not being sexist or racist, because they do not possess the power to systematically oppress the members of those "privileged" groups! So it's only racism if it's someone else doing it. This is quite a neat coincidence, am I right?

Edited April 15, 2015 by Heresiarch

[PrimeJunta]

@Heresiarch Read the thread. The discussion you're replying to is based on my citing a sociological definition of racism.

Edit: in case you're lazy, here it is again.

 

(BTW there is no such thing as 'social Marxism.' There's plain ol' Marxism and a whole bunch of schools of thought under that umbrella. I, for example, am a Bernsteinian-Eurocommunist with occasional bouts of Trotskyite revolutionary fervor, and when it comes to philosophy of history, my thinking is closest to Eric Hobsbawm's.)

Edited April 15, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[BruceVC]

 

 

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ...

Yeah, it was annoying to see only one example. I guess they wanted to keep it American. But you could easily put that in other contexts and see how it transfers.

 

 

 

You're less of a cynic than I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

 

 

I really thought you were going to give me an irrefutable  example of how "I make assumptions about  groups of people ", in fact I have asked for evidence of that several times and I haven't one valid response. This is no different 

 

I have explained several times now that what I meant is I don't make assumptions like " all Russians are homophobic " or " all Americans are warmongers " 

 

In your apparently " glaring " example of me doing this you are saying this is not true because I used the words " am sure we will now hear " but I also said the words " most straight people " ...the operative word being  "most "..that is not the same thing as me saying " all straight people " 

 

And if I say I think person x is a bigot that is not the same thing as me saying " all people who said this are bigots "

 

The funny thing is I have no issue with you actually proving me wrong, so I encourage you to go back and read all my posts and give me a real example of where I said " all people are  xxx or all people are yyy" 

 

So I still have no idea why you  say something got stuck in your throat because I see no contradiction in my posts?

 

 

 

Ooo ... kay, I'm not quite sure whether to simply shake my head at this point or if I would be better served by slowly backing away with no sudden movements. ... I mean seriously, I literally spelled the reason your reaction bothered me for everyone to see and you come back with "Please explain why you are bothered by my post."

 

 

As for making assumptions and since this thread is starting to drift away from baselessly people of being homophobic to racism I'll ask a simple question; since it's apparently fine to make assumptions provided that we preface them with the disclaimer of "I only meant most and not all." Does that make the statement; "You must be one of the good ones." any less offensive to my Mick ancestors when they were being discrimated against because of their country of origin and religion? What about the other minority groups who had that statement thrown into their faces, perhaps most notably and recently against black people.

 

 

---- Oh, and since no-one offered to take me up on my joke in the other thread I'll provide the punchline at this time ...  "a sixpack and a potato".

 

 

I am not sure you and I are even on the same page anymore with this debate

 

 

I am challenging the notion that you said " I make assumptions about groups of people " 

 

If you arent saying that now then I'm not sure what we are debating. If you are saying you still found my comment to be offensive thats fine, I am not going to presume to tell you how you should interpret my posts. Sorry if you assumed I was necessarily talking about you but I have idea how your parents treated you so I can't say if you were included in the point earlier I made where I basically said " most straight people haven't had there parents tell them they wish they had been aborted " ...if your parents did say that to you then you have my sincere condolences because as I said to Mungri that's cruel and unfair 

 

If that's not what you talking about then I still don't understand exactly what I said that caused something to get stuck in your throat because I am missing how what I said to Mungri is relevant to my self-importance ....that the bit I really don't get 

 

And yes you are correct,  to say to some ethnic group " you must be one of the good ones " is offensive and patronizing but once again that's not what I said or meant. And I don't know how many times I can keep explaining this  

 

 

 

*sighs* Look, I'm very nearly convinced that you are being purposefully obtuse and seeing how long you can go before I simply throw up my hands in frustration and walk away. If so then congrats are in order, you are very nearly, but not quite there. So let's try this one last time; I understand that you moved the goalposts from chiding FaustianEchoes with " No, the funny thing is I am not  really like you at all. I don't make assumptions about groups of people unless they actually say or do something that warrants criticism. " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1657861 ) to " I don't say things like " all Russians are homophobic " despite homophobic laws being passed in Russia  or I wouldn't say " all Americans are arrogant warmongers " despite America under Bush being very militant around foreign policy " and finishing with " I respond directly to what people say or how they act " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1657925 ) However the bottom line is that you do in fact make assumptions about groups of people to the point of dismissingly throwing out this gem;  " and I'm sure we  will now  hear comments like  " oh so now  only gay people have a monopoly on there parents treating them badly..my parents did this to me and my parents did that  " " ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1656293 ). That is not a point that I'm willing to let slide as I view grouping people via ideologies far more important than mere geographical locations. 

 

As for my visceral reaction to your post towards Mungri ... you are missing the point by assuming that it must somehow be about me or my past at all. Hells, I don't know Mungri from Adam (He seems like a pretty cool guy though.) but my reading of your original post ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1656293 ) was more about you trying to use his story simply as a springboard in advancing your own cause, with a little anecdotal quip thrown in about how shocking one of your friends was treated by his mother for coming out as gay, not to mention getting in a jab at the people you disagree with in this very thread. I suppose it's possible that you didn't mean it the way it read to me, but when combined with posts where you claim that it's impossible for a "defender of gay rights" to be a bigot ( http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/76497-should-discussion-about-the-poem-be-censored/?p=1655894 ) I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

My intention is not to frustrate you to the point of walking away, I apologize if that is how it seems 

 

I am enjoying this debate and it would be pointless if the result of this was that you felt you didn't want to debate with me. I dont think either of us has been personal and I have to say I appreciate the time you have taken to go back and read my previous posts

 

I did misunderstand you, I am a software consultant for a  living and sometimes I see certain discussions as 1 and 0 so I tend to take what people say literally. So I have been   focusing only on the point where you were challenging my comment " I don't make assumptions about groups of people " 

 

But after reading your last paragraph I see now what you mean. You had issues with other things I said like suggesting that people who support SJ cant be bigots themselves. And you right, they can be. This whole debate is much more nuanced than saying only one group is noble and righteous and the other group is just plain wrong 

 

Anyway I only mentioned that true story about my gay friend because I was expressing empathy with Mungri and letting him know that he was't the only person who has been treated badly by his parents because he is gay. But I can see how it also came across as an attack on straight people. That wasn't my intention so that was bad form on my part 

 

But thanks for explaining your perspective in detail and I'll work on making my points in a way that also doesn't come across as making sweeping statements or making me seem like a hypocrite

[Heresiarch]

@PrimeJunta Read my post. What I am trying to say is extremely clear in the context.

 

But in case you are lazy, let me reiterate. That sociological definition of racism is pure sophistry. It does not cite any reliable sources and as such only reflects author's fantasies on the subject.

[PrimeJunta]

@PrimeJunta Read my post. What I am trying to say is extremely clear in the context.

 

But in case you are lazy, let me reiterate. That sociological definition of racism is pure sophistry. It does not cite any reliable sources and as such only reflects author's fantasies on the subject.

 

That is not true. The sociological definition of racism is in broad use among academics who study society, i.e., sociologists. You'll find it or something like it in any introductory sociology textbook. This one, for example. It is based on broad and extensive research going back more than 50 years or so. It is also in use among a large group of non-academics interested in social issues.

 

All that is fact. That you believe the sociologists are wrong is neither here nor there. The definition is still in broad use and asserting that it's not won't change that.

 

You will also need to do a good deal more work to demonstrate that they're wrong than simply asserting that it's "pure sophistry."

 

Edit: Added citation.

Edited April 15, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Mungri]

 

Nope. Path of Exile forum:http://i.imgur.com/iyiBmIS.png

You actually get to see one of the mods publically defaming and getting mad at me for having written 'Brains ... Please use them'.

hi bhavv

Why hello! Please don't forget to use your brain.

[Serdan]

White people are not subjected to systemic oppression, so when a white person interjects into that conversation with "But a black person was once mean to me!" they are rightfully told to **** off.

I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can make this statement without being ironical. SJWs get to define "systemic oppression", find the group they consider the most oppressed and let only them talk. All the while they advise others to **** off and don't mess in their racism discussion, because they do not belong to the proper race. Truly that's comedy gold, mate. 

 

You are making stuff up.

Give me a coherent definition of systemic oppression and I'll be more than willing to debate that.

Problem is, people like you are usually solely interested in disparaging those who are having constructive conversations about these issues. You don't actually have a definition in mind because you are talking out of your ass.

Prove me wrong.

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the bit about only letting the most oppressed talk is an outright lie. In this and other threads about the limerick I have personally told people off for transphobia, homophobia, racism and ableism. I'm willing to listen to all of those groups because they have serious issues worth talking about. I'm not interested in hearing about how affirmative action is really just oppression of white people, because that is utter bull****.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Serdan

[Mungri]

A definition of systemic oppression is asking people to please use their brains.

 

The most offensive part of that being the use of the word please.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Mungri

[achaye]

 

White people are not subjected to systemic oppression, so when a white person interjects into that conversation with "But a black person was once mean to me!" they are rightfully told to **** off.

I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can make this statement without being ironical. SJWs get to define "systemic oppression", find the group they consider the most oppressed and let only them talk. All the while they advise others to **** off and don't mess in their racism discussion, because they do not belong to the proper race. Truly that's comedy gold, mate. 

 

What you may find extremely hard to believe does not refute what minorities of color, and sociologists, have found to be true; that there is systemic oppression. People in positions of privilege, aka, in this case, white people, oftentimes don't see it because they are not systematically oppressed.

 

The reason why Serdan's hypothetical white guy was rightfully told off is not because he is white, but because aforementioned hypothetical white guy is comparing the plight of an entire, systematically-oppressed minority to this one time that a black guy was being mean to him.

 

You could start by seeing what systemic racism does, and what white privilege is in general (then there's male privilege, but that's another topic).

[PrimeJunta]

I've experienced black-on-white racial prejudice first-hand twice in my lifetime. Both incidents were extremely unpleasant, but only feelings were hurt. The first time was when I was dating a black girl and her father made it clear that he did not approve. The second was when I had sent a polite "Thank you for your application" reply to a job applicant, who accused me of rejecting the application because he had an African name.

 

I can only imagine what it must be like to experience stuff like that and much worse on a daily basis rather than once every twenty years or so.

[jools1980]

Topic Title: Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

 

Recently mentioned themes: Race, Systemic Oppression, Gender, Patriarchy, Marxism...

 

 

 

[exodiark]

Although the change is regrettable, at the very least it's not Obsidian's content. So there's that.

This, however, doesn't instill confidence in their future kickstarter effort. After all, why should I back higher tiers if some outraged tweet can change it? Especially if the tweet is coming from people who take offense to anything.

 

If anything the original poem is about a drunk being homophobic/transphobic (or just being in stupor) and killed himself in panic, how can anyone take offense in that? The fictional man got his punishment already.

 

What's worse, they replaced it with a mocking poem, pissing both sides.

 

So no, I think this is worth discussing, but I try not to drag GG/SJW/LGBTQADASDKOASKDOA into this, it's just Obsidian and their baffling business decision.

Edited April 15, 2015 by exodiark

[achaye]

The poem isn't remotely transphobic, and I'm not even sure how you can overinterpret it to the point of being misogynistic. It doesn't disparage transexuals as a whole, and certainly not clearly. Nor does it poke at the idea that a woman being a man is something to be ashamed of. If there's anything it pokes at, it is the fact that a person was tricked into having intercourse with another person despite the fact that he clearly didn't want to have intercourse with this type of person; tantamount to rape, in my book. What happened to the issue of informed consent, was that just forgotten from one crusade to the next?

This thread moves really fast, so I'll try to put in what I can. You can be an apologist for what is a transphobic poem, transphobic enough to cause a trans individual to contact Obsidian about it, but there's no "over-interpreting" it. It's offensive because the language makes it explicitly clear that a woman who used to be a man, or a man who used to be a woman, is yucky enough to warrant suicide, regardless of whether the "Hero" was tricked into it. It doesn't matter what you think about the issue of informed consent or not, because the intent of the limerick was to get people to laugh at the idea of bedding a trans individual, an act apparently shameful enough to lead to suicide.

 

 

It is funny - not to mention somewhat offensive - that you would think me a straight male. "Undoubtedly", even, based solely on your bigoted and biased opinion - stereotyped, even, at the very least. The fact that you think that this somehow disqualifies me belies your disregard for argument rather than ad hominems. It matters more to you who said it, than what is said; somehow, one person's argument weighs more than someone elses, just because they're not part of a particular social, racial or economical clique.

That a person, whether "trans indivudal" or not, found it offensive does in no way clearly refute the point. The point being that it doesn't matter whether they're trans-, bi-, black-, white-, heli-, manoid-, proto-, germo-, whatever-whatever.  Your offence taken does not dictate policy. Anyone can be offended by anything. Christians are offended by gays. Blacks are offended by whites. Communists are offended by fascists. Retards are offended by jokes. Offended people are offended by other offended people.

 

It doesn't matter. "I'm offended"; well so bloody what?

 

Of course I would think such of you, based on your posts denying systemic sexism and generally downplaying the sexist shirt worn by the Nasa scientist, while repeatedly claiming that SJWs have "demolished" him and "bullied him into crying," without a shred of irony when you constantly tell SJWs to stop being such insensitive babies. This is while you're simultaneously hurl invectives towards SJWs as being "ignorant, pathethic, soulless, vindictive, delusional and violent little ****lords by choice." Your bias clearly shows.

 

So yes, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if you were not a heterosexual male, but that's not what disqualifies your points as moot to me -- it's your complete lack of awareness of your privilege.

 

I'm sorry that you are somewhat offended by whatever I may think of your views, but know that I don't actually think you're a bad person. On the contrary, I believe you are a better person than most in the gaming community, as I genuinely believe you mean well towards oppressed groups. It's just that I believe you to be an apologist for a discriminatory culture, and that you maintain the status quo as a result.

[scrotiemcb]

 

If we eradicated all infectious diseases forever, then our immune systems would become useless. Id rather maintain a strong immune system.

I don't know if you were making an offhand joke or meant this comment in the deeper sense that I read it.

I don't either, but I'm digging the deeper interpretation.

[Namutree]

I've experienced black-on-white racial prejudice first-hand twice in my lifetime. Both incidents were extremely unpleasant, but only feelings were hurt. The first time was when I was dating a black girl and her father made it clear that he did not approve. The second was when I had sent a polite "Thank you for your application" reply to a job applicant, who accused me of rejecting the application because he had an African name.

 

I can only imagine what it must be like to experience stuff like that and much worse on a daily basis rather than once every twenty years or so.

It sucks most whenever you go awhile without it happening and then it happens again. You kinda get used to it when it happens on a regular basis.

[Namutree]

Although the change is regrettable, at the very least it's not Obsidian's content. So there's that.

 

This, however, doesn't instill confidence in their future kickstarter effort. After all, why should I back higher tiers if some outraged tweet can change it? Especially if the tweet is coming from people who take offense to anything.

 

Just say no when Obsidian asks you to change it.

[exodiark]

Just say no when Obsidian asks you to change it.

 

 

Sure that will do, although I'm not really looking forward to the day Obsidian giving me their problem and I have to choose if my favorite studio will get sh*t from outrage media or if I like my content better than Obsidian, but sure. That is totally desirable.

Edited April 15, 2015 by exodiark

[BruceVC]

Although the change is regrettable, at the very least it's not Obsidian's content. So there's that.

 

This, however, doesn't instill confidence in their future kickstarter effort. After all, why should I back higher tiers if some outraged tweet can change it? Especially if the tweet is coming from people who take offense to anything.

 

If anything the original poem is about a drunk being homophobic/transphobic (or just being in stupor) and killed himself in panic, how can anyone take offense in that? The fictional man got his punishment already.

 

What's worse, they replaced it with a mocking poem, pissing both sides.

 

So no, I think this is worth discussing, but I try not to drag GG/SJW/LGBTQADASDKOASKDOA into this, it's just Obsidian and their baffling business decision.

 

That's fine, no one is forcing you to back any future KS from Obsidian or higher-tiers. This is your prerogative. Changes in some gaming components are generally inevitable so  my advice is just accept this will happen on certain levels 

 

But you seem to me misunderstand the offense, no-one  really has an issue with the guy killing himself. That was his choice, the issue is why he did it. And he did to because he was so ashamed. And why was he ashamed? Not because he was a pedophile  or serial killer...that you can understand. He did because he had sex with a women who he lately realized use to be   a man. 

 

Imagine how members of the transgender community feel knowing that someone is prepared to kill themselves just because they had sex with them

 

The limerick was insensitive and callous and deserved to be edited 

[mrmonocle]

 

 

The limerick was insensitive and callous and deserved to be edited 

 

no.