Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[exodiark]

Not for me, he killed himself for being transphobic/homophobic/etc. The moral of the story is don't be like him if you don't want to die silly.

 

You see, there are many interpretations one can take from this poem. Some people think it made fun of transpeople, some people like me read it at a more face value (a man killed himself from overreaction). Guess what? Both are valid. Why should Obsidian prioritize one view from another?

 

Besides, the game can be even *more* offensive than the poem, should the game be "deservedly edited" as well?

Edited April 15, 2015 by exodiark

[Idleray]

OH MY GOD WHO THE HELL CARES

 

 

seriously. No-one cares. Not when the poem was in. Not when it got changed. Nothing was censored. Mods can nuke anything they want on a private board and it still wouldn't be censorship just as moderation on a private board is not censorship.

 

Seriously this stupid non-issue is not worth taking sides on. I hated the erika person that blew this up in the first place, then I hated the dumbasses who attacked erika as if using the word "SJW" gives them street-cred, now I hate people discussing things like "censorship" or "Obsidian has no principles I'm not buying their games" again. CARE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MATTERS. Go volunteer at your local Church or whatever. Let games be about gaming. FK.

[masters66]

some people like me read it at a more face value (a man killed himself from overreaction).

And this overreaction is the issue... Someone kills themselves because they realise you are you? Not a fun thing to read.

 

Why should Obsidian prioritize one view from another?

Assuming they are both valid, if one involves some people being hurt by the poem and one involves no hurt, why not play it safe and go with the one where people are insulted?

 

Besides, the game can be even *more* offensive than the poem, should the game be "deservedly edited" as well?

Are there other times where the game has something that mocks a repressed minority? If so, and there are people who were hurt by that then maybe.

 

If you game had some (real-world) racism in it (such as the n-word) and the use of it added nothing to the story / characters, what would your stance be?

 

If the choice is between no harm and some harm (however small), seems like you should probably choose the former.

[BruceVC]

Not for me, he killed himself for being transphobic/homophobic/etc. The moral of the story is don't be like him if you don't want to die silly.

 

You see, there are many interpretations one can take from this poem. Some people think it made fun of transpeople, some people like me read it at a more face value (a man killed himself from overreaction). Guess what? Both are valid. Why should Obsidian prioritize one view from another?

 

Besides, the game can be even *more* offensive than the poem, should the game be "deservedly edited" as well?

Well I have to say that's a new view on the limerick that I haven't heard before, he killed himself because he was transphobic 

 

I don't agree with it because it doesn't make sense. Generally people that demonstrate any form of bigotry like racism or sexism are fine with it because they have disdain for the minority group and feel superior. Why would someone kill themselves if they feel that way? I suppose its possible but unlikely in my experience 

[BruceVC]

OH MY GOD WHO THE HELL CARES

 

 

seriously. No-one cares. Not when the poem was in. Not when it got changed. Nothing was censored. Mods can nuke anything they want on a private board and it still wouldn't be censorship just as moderation on a private board is not censorship.

 

Seriously this stupid non-issue is not worth taking sides on. I hated the erika person that blew this up in the first place, then I hated the dumbasses who attacked erika as if using the word "SJW" gives them street-cred, now I hate people discussing things like "censorship" or "Obsidian has no principles I'm not buying their games" again. CARE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT MATTERS. Go volunteer at your local Church or whatever. Let games be about gaming. FK.

You seem mad ? Whats wrong...you want to discuss it ?

[exodiark]

Hahahahahaha, I love these kinds of comments.

 

Let me do the obligatory reply:

You certainly care enough to comment and gave an accurate description on what happened to erika and Obsidian.

[exodiark]

@brucevc:

 

Sorry, on mobile, don't know how to quote.

 

What I meant is not "Ach! I'm being rude! I should kill myself for that" *jumps off cliff.

 

But what I meant is that he killed himself from overreaction, presumably because he's homo/transphobic and so he overreacts. The moral of the story is, don't be whateverphobic and you won't overreact and run off the cliff. Certainly that's a reasonable take if you read the poem at face value.

[BruceVC]

@brucevc:

 

Sorry, on mobile, don't know how to quote.

 

What I meant is not "Ach! I'm being rude! I should kill myself for that" *jumps off cliff.

 

But what I meant is that he killed himself from overreaction, presumably because he's homo/transphobic and so he overreacts. The moral of the story is, don't be whateverphobic and you won't overreact and run off the cliff. Certainly that's a reasonable take if you read the poem at face value.

 

Good points, I hear you

[Malcador]

What he should have done was write a ballad about it, comedy gold.

 

Though, that'd probably still be bad to that lot

[BruceVC]

What he should have done was write a ballad about it, comedy gold.

 

Though, that'd probably still be bad to that lot

 

Can you imagine how many threads we would need if it was indeed a ballad 

Edited April 15, 2015 by BruceVC

[Psychevore]

I see we still have white dudes here trying to act like black on white racism is on the same level as white on black racism.

 

Lololololol.

[Legbiter]

I see we still have white dudes here trying to act like black on white racism is on the same level as white on black racism.

 

Lololololol.

Excellent then that we have a solid Gutmensch like yourself to keep the whites here in line. 

[PrimeJunta]

^

It doesn't seem to be working very well.

[Malcador]

I see we still have white dudes here trying to act like black on white racism is on the same level as white on black racism.

 

Lololololol.

When you say level do you mean rates of occurrence or just in terms of how bad it is ? If it's the latter, I'd hope hateful speech would be seen the same regardless of who's saying it.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Malcador

[PrimeJunta]

Punching up is not the same as punching down.

[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.

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****.

So you want me to prove to you that I know what I'm taking about, because you assume I'm talking out of my ass. Because you supposedly know a lot about "people like me", the group which, I assume, includes everyone who doesn't share your opinion. And then you say that you are all for having a constructive conversation. I get it, you are a natural born comedian!

 

I'm sure the irony of your own words would be lost on you again. Just let me state in no unclear terms that I have no desire to converse with people like you or to provide definitions for the terms you operate with. Moreover, I find the whole notion utterly preposterous.

 

 

 

 

 

@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.

You think I have to prove them wrong and I think they have to prove themselves right in the first place. That's how science operates. But wait, antipositivist sociologists don't believe that. Well, too bad for them and their theories.

 

Don't cite the whole book on me, mate, give me some original research! Something crunchy with hard evidence, statistics, facts, and irrefutable logic. Without fallacies and affirmations based on nothing at all. That's what I mean by "citation needed".

 

Until such evidence comes to existence academics who study sociology can study it all they want. But I'm not taking their theories on faith, nor am I taking any advice from them on how I should behave. If I feel an urge to listen and believe I'll go to a Sarkeesian seminar.

[Amentep]

I see we still have white dudes here trying to act like black on white racism is on the same level as white on black racism.

 

Lololololol.

 

Was their a race poll that I was supposed to take before I started posting?  If so I didn't take it.

 

Seriously,  I'm not sure why a posters race, gender or sexual orientation should matter anyhow.  I'm fine with arguing points rather than people.  We've always seemed like a pretty good group of people attracted to Obsidian games and in the end I'd like to think we can all agree to disagree if we can't find common ground.

 

Anyhow, I've never argued that "black on white" racism was on the same level as "white on black" racism; I have argued that racism - all of it - is bad for society and needs to be eradicated, in its entirety.  And I don't think you do that piecemeal.  I think our past history shows that improving bits and pieces at a time doesn't, ultimately, work the way it should.

 

EDIT:

Punching up is not the same as punching down.

And being kicked in the groin isn't the same as being shot in the back. I'm not sure I'd want any of it to happen to me.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Amentep

[PrimeJunta]

Don't cite the whole book on me, mate, give me some original research! Something crunchy with hard evidence, statistics, facts, and irrefutable logic. Without fallacies and affirmations based on nothing at all. That's what I mean by "citation needed".

Until such evidence comes to existence academics who study sociology can study it all they want. But I'm not taking their theories on faith, nor am I taking any advice from them on how I should behave. If I feel an urge to listen and believe I'll go to a Sarkeesian seminar.

 

You do realize that you're asking me to prove an entire academic discipline to you in a forum post?

 

You do realize that's exactly like the young-earth creationist asking you to prove general relativity to him in a forum post?

[Luckmann]

Punching up is not the same as punching down.

 

Am I up or down? Is there a way to tell? Is there a spreadsheet on when it's OK to target people? Insult them? Beat on them? Is it by relative income, or by population percentage? Education? Or maybe relative ownership or social positions based on ethnicity? What about jews, are they considered "up" because of their positions in media, banking and politics, or "down" because of their relative population in relation to the host nation?

 

Inquiring minds.

[Malcador]

Punching up is not the same as punching down.

Right. It's still bad behaviour, regardless, a black guy spouting racist crap about white people is still marking himself as an ignorant scumbag just as the same as a white guy doing it, to me. Ah well, I guess that is too simple a view today, heh.

[BruceVC]

 

I see we still have white dudes here trying to act like black on white racism is on the same level as white on black racism.

 

Lololololol.

When you say level do you mean rates of occurrence or just in terms of how bad it is ? If it's the latter, I'd hope hateful speech would be seen the same regardless of who's saying it.

 

Funny enough I don't think it is, as I mentioned in South Africa as a white person we are subjected to hate speech from some groups. Things like "whites will driven to the sea and back to England ( its always England we come from remember ) and " one settler, one bullet " but I don't get hurt by it. Its more annoying because it comes from a silly and irrelevant  perspective 

[PrimeJunta]

Am I up or down? Is there a way to tell? Is there a spreadsheet on when it's OK to target people? Insult them? Beat on them? Is it by relative income, or by population percentage? Education? Or maybe relative ownership or social positions based on ethnicity? What about jews, are they considered "up" because of their positions in media, banking and politics, or "down" because of their relative population in relation to the host nation?

Inquiring minds.

 

 

It's all about figuring out where you stand in the social structure, usually by picking up on cues from other people; how they relate to you, how you relate to them. Most children start out by imagining they're the center of the universe, then eventually realize that they're not: that what they say impacts different people in different ways, and what different people say impacts them in different ways, and then they learn to modulate their behavior accordingly. What's perfectly cool between very close friends might be entirely unacceptable between strangers, even if the individuals in question belong to the same general social grouping.

 

The shorthand for this is "growing up."

 

Specifically in your case? I understand that Scania has a pretty nasty history of racism towards a whole bunch of groups, so if I was a Scanian I would be extra-careful not to play into the stereotype of Scanians as ignorant bumpkins who only beat up Arabs because they think they're Jews.

[Heresiarch]

 

 

Don't cite the whole book on me, mate, give me some original research! Something crunchy with hard evidence, statistics, facts, and irrefutable logic. Without fallacies and affirmations based on nothing at all. That's what I mean by "citation needed".

Until such evidence comes to existence academics who study sociology can study it all they want. But I'm not taking their theories on faith, nor am I taking any advice from them on how I should behave. If I feel an urge to listen and believe I'll go to a Sarkeesian seminar.

You do realize that you're asking me to prove an entire academic discipline to you in a forum post?

 

You do realize that's exactly like the young-earth creationist asking you to prove general relativity to him in a forum post?

Please, do not compare sociology with physics. I am STEM graduate and it insults my STEM-graduate feelings. Just kidding. Actually I have a wide educational background.

 

I am not asking the impossible, I don't expect you to prove sociology right. It would be dumb. All I want is a single article from a peer-reviewed source that contains evidence of existing nation-wide institutionalized oppression based on race (or even sex, I am not picky) in any of the Western-world countries.

 

I mean, if the problem is so widespread and grave there must be tons of evidence (and scientific studies) out there to prove its existence. Don't you agree?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'd have to say I'm quite surprised with Obsidian. The latest stronghold entry that popped up raised an eyebrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Malcador]

Funny enough I don't think it is, as I mentioned in South Africa as a white person we are subjected to hate speech from some groups. Things like "whites will driven to the sea and back to England ( its always England we come from remember ) and " one settler, one bullet " but I don't get hurt by it. Its more annoying because it comes from a silly and irrelevant  perspective

Well, you're just shrugging it off (as one really should - they are just words the majority of the time) but the behaviour is the same - just spouting hateful things based on the race of some people.