Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[Gfted1]

I don't think anyone has argued that being discriminated against at one point in human history means you have a free license to discriminate against others.

I want to make sure Im total not discriminating properly so whats the cutoff? One century? One millennium? 

 

I am sorry to tell you that, but the irony of your words is lost on some folks.

I know. But a member of an oppressed group can point and laugh, right? Since Christians are outmanned and outgunned, theres absolutely nothing wrong with me crapping uphill.

[masters66]

 

I don't think anyone has argued that being discriminated against at one point in human history means you have a free license to discriminate against others.

I want to make sure Im total not discriminating properly so whats the cutoff? One century? One millennium? 

As a rule of thumb, try not to discriminate at all... But work harder to call out / discourage discriminatory behaviour against those who are generally more discriminated against.

[scrotiemcb]

@Serdan: I can think of at least one example of national-level systemic racism perpetrated primarily by an African-American (although supporting structure was no doubt multi-ethnic). Kind of directed at Caucasians, but more equal-opportunity racism, including against other African-Americans. See if you can figure it out without the spoilers.

Dave Chappelle.

 

 

No doubt, if you break things down to regional, municipal, or household levels, there is significant ethnic variety of perpetrators of systemic racism.

Edited April 15, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Gfted1]

As a rule of thumb, try not to discriminate at all...

 

Wait a darn minute, youre trying to trick me aren't you? If theres one thing this thread has revealed through peering deeply into our navels is that its totally ok to discriminate if you are part of an oppressed group. And that you can shut the hell up if not from said group.

 

Are you trying to tell me that's a moronic position?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Christians were systematically oppressed by the Roman government and fed to lions. FED TO LIONS!!!! No doubt that gives them utter carte blanche to discriminate against all other religions. Hey, they are plucky fighters just trying to get by and the only way to combat discrimination it to discriminate! Genius! *nods* Sometimes I feel bad for you guys that these posts are going to be recorded forever.

I dunno if you're trying to be funny, but that is exactly what Christianity has done for centuries.

 

Exactly my point! And theres absolutely nothing wrong with that as they were once themselves discriminated against. Its so simple.

 

No Gfted1 I think you are really misunderstanding this whole thing, I can explain it if you want ? But it may take time so if you don't really care then say so then I won't spend time on the proper response ?

[achaye]

@Serdan: I can think of at least one example of national-level systemic racism perpetrated primarily by an African-American (although supporting structure was no doubt multi-ethnic). Kind of directed at Caucasians, but more equal-opportunity racism, including against other African-Americans. See if you can figure it out without the spoilers.

Dave Chappelle.

 

 

No doubt, if you break things down to regional, municipal, or household levels, there is significant ethnic variety of perpetrators of systemic racism.

Hilarious. You point out an INDIVIDUAL as an example, and a questionable one at that, for SYSTEM-WIDE racism. I almost could not tell whether your post was intended as satire or not, until I browsed through some of your earlier comments in the thread.

[Gfted1]

No Gfted1 I think you are really misunderstanding this whole thing, I can explain it if you want ? But it may take time so if you don't really care then say so then I won't spend time on the proper response ?

Thanks Bruce, but me being a member of a historically oppressed group means I don't need to listen your white devil thoughts.

[BruceVC]

 

No Gfted1 I think you are really misunderstanding this whole thing, I can explain it if you want ? But it may take time so if you don't really care then say so then I won't spend time on the proper response ?

Thanks Bruce, but me being a member of a historically oppressed group means I don't need to listen your white devil thoughts.

 

 You funny 

[Psychevore]

 

As a rule of thumb, try not to discriminate at all...

 

Wait a darn minute, youre trying to trick me aren't you? If theres one thing this thread has revealed through peering deeply into our navels is that its totally ok to discriminate if you are part of an oppressed group. And that you can shut the hell up if not from said group.

 

Are you trying to tell me that's a moronic position?

 

You're purposely trying to act like a retard, aren't you?

 

I never said it was ok. Never. But bringing up black on white racism as some sort of retort towards institutionalized racism, as happens time and time again in every discussion, is a laughable tactic to diminish systemic racism.

 

It's just a tactic to avoid having to discuss the systemic racism. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's pathetic.

[Gfted1]

 You funny

Im pretty sure this is you Bruce:

 

You're purposely trying to act like a retard, aren't you?

 

I never said it was ok. Never. But bringing up black on white racism as some sort of retort towards institutionalized racism, as happens time and time again in every discussion, is a laughable tactic to diminish systemic racism.

 

It's just a tactic to avoid having to discuss the systemic racism. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's pathetic.

Whoa whoa whoa, check your privilege, yo. Who said anything about you? Or black and white? Egocentric much?

[Heresiarch]

 

 

As a rule of thumb, try not to discriminate at all...

Wait a darn minute, youre trying to trick me aren't you? If theres one thing this thread has revealed through peering deeply into our navels is that its totally ok to discriminate if you are part of an oppressed group. And that you can shut the hell up if not from said group.

 

Are you trying to tell me that's a moronic position?

You're purposely trying to act like a retard, aren't you?

 

I never said it was ok. Never. But bringing up black on white racism as some sort of retort towards institutionalized racism, as happens time and time again in every discussion, is a laughable tactic to diminish systemic racism.

 

It's just a tactic to avoid having to discuss the systemic racism. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's pathetic.

Say, since you're so well-versed on the subject, maybe you can link me a scholarly article with empirical evidence that supports the existance of nationwide institutionalized racism in any country of the Western World? You know, to prove that such a thing even exists.

[Meshugger]

We cannot judge people by the content of their character, but rather by their social standing within their institutionalized structure applied by the academia. That's just common sense.

[exodiark]

 

I missed this reply.

 

 

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.

 

 

I'll try to address one-by-one.

 

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

 

 

 

And that someone is now dead because of their foolishness, he doesn't go unpunished. What more do you want, should the man be castrated to appease the offended?

 

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?

 

What? Are you serious? What stopping this idea at the poem then? Should we stop creating something just because people can be offended by our creation?

Are you aware of the fact that some people are living by trying to find and exploit perceived offense? Clickbait Media, Insurance fraudsters, Scam artists, etc.

 

Following your logic, some people are insulted with Obsidian changing the poem saying that it's self-censorship, how can Obsidian appease both sides then?

 

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.

 

Do women still under protection of social justice? Because...

 

 

 

• I can send a raped woman back to her rapist, and the game rewards me for doing that. And she's now pregnant and probably roasted alive when the sanitarium is burned down. Doing patriarchy's work, son 
• I can even kill a female baby, and the game rewards me for doing that. Chinese style!
• I can even kill a pregnant lady for attacking me, after I say that I killed her sister.

 

 

 

These are sidequests, so they don't add to the story much. Should we remove it then?

To answer your other question, my stance would be "*shrug*", and since this issue revolves around minorities, I'm a minority myself and I'm used to the fact that East Asian people are stereotyped in popular media. Seems like people need to grow a thicker skin, whatever color their skin is.

 

Heck, I'm more offended by "Gamebanshee.com" tombstone for sticking like a sore thumb. I didn't expect a website address in fantasy game Obsidian, how can this pass through the fabled "vetting process"?

[achaye]

Say, since you're so well-versed on the subject, maybe you can link me a scholarly article with empirical evidence that supports the existance of nationwide institutionalized racism in any country of the Western World? You know, to prove that such a thing even exists.

Well, I guess if you really just stick your head in the sand and not pay attention to what's going on in Ferguson and South Carolina, I suppose this can get you started, assuming that you're acting in good faith and want to learn something and not asking for scholarly articles for the sake of asking for scholarly articles, and that you will actually read at least the abstract, and respond accordingly about whether actual, peer-reviewed literature is a high-enough bar to meet your standards of "evidence."

 

Institutional racism against black people in the process of hiring, cited 317 times (unfortunately it's not free to view the whole paper).

 

Systemic racism (a book, not a paper), cited 489 times.

 

Institutional racism against black children through labeling language sets as "pathological," cited 549 times.

 

I will be very curious to see how you will respond.

[MLMII]

You mean the same Ferguson where a young man attacked and forced an officer to defend himself shortly after strong arm robbing a store? --- However if you are referring to what I think you are in South Carolina, yeah, the pig who shot a fleeing man in the back is almost certainly going to get what he deserves.

 

 

 

However, unless I missed something in the South Carolina shooting (Which is possible.), racism hasn't been proven to be a factor, AND it certainly wasn't in Ferguson's "Gentle Giant". 

Edited April 15, 2015 by MLMII

[achaye]

Yep, the same Ferguson that the Justice Department, in its report, refers to as possessing institutional racism against primarily black people:

 

"...Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular."

 

But go on.

[scrotiemcb]

 

 

@Serdan: I can think of at least one example of national-level systemic racism perpetrated primarily by an African-American (although supporting structure was no doubt multi-ethnic). Kind of directed at Caucasians, but more equal-opportunity racism, including against other African-Americans. See if you can figure it out without the spoilers.

Dave Chappelle.

 

 

No doubt, if you break things down to regional, municipal, or household levels, there is significant ethnic variety of perpetrators of systemic racism.

Hilarious. You point out an INDIVIDUAL as an example, and a questionable one at that, for SYSTEM-WIDE racism. I almost could not tell whether your post was intended as satire or not, until I browsed through some of your earlier comments in the thread.

Am I pointing out an individual? Or am I pointing out producers, writers, distribution, and marketing folks, as well as thousands of fans nationwide?

 

I guess, technically, the former. I really should have said Chappelle's Show, the more proper term for the organization/cultural phenomenon.

Edited April 15, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[masters66]

I missed this reply.

Yeah it was stuck in the approval thing for a while, and then got posted back where it would have been had it gone up straight away. Seems a strange system imo.

 

 

And that someone is now dead because of their foolishness, he doesn't go unpunished. What more do you want, should the man be castrated to appease the offended

 

 

Eh? The issue is that the poem (to a very limited extent) paints that as a possible response to sleeping with someone who is transgendered. That is not a nice thing to read about something you identify with (and already suffer abuse for).

What? Are you serious? What stopping this idea at the poem then? Should we stop creating something just because people can be offended by our creation?

Are you aware of the fact that some people are living by trying to find and exploit perceived offense? Clickbait Media, Insurance fraudsters, Scam artists, etc.

 

Following your logic, some people are insulted with Obsidian changing the poem saying that it's self-censorship, how can Obsidian appease both sides then?

 

You can't always appease both sides sadly. But this sort of comes back to the 'punch up, not down' thing that came up here. The people who asked for it to be changed were hurt more by it's presence than than those asking for it to come back by its absence. That sentence is horrible but I hope it makes sense.

 

I reckon we all draw the line somewhere in terms of what is 'too offensive', there is probably some stuff that you would think was 'too far' if it was in a game. It seems we just draw the line in different places though, I don't know if there's much to be done about that.

 

 

Do women still under protection of social justice? Because...

 

 

 

• I can send a raped woman back to her rapist, and the game rewards me for doing that. And she's now pregnant and probably roasted alive when the sanitarium is burned down. Doing patriarchy's work, son 
• I can even kill a female baby, and the game rewards me for doing that. Chinese style!
• I can even kill a pregnant lady for attacking me, after I say that I killed her sister.

 

 

 

These are sidequests, so they don't add to the story much. Should we remove it then?

 

Were there women / rape victims who were offended by this though? And anyway these add to the story in a far greater way than a backer memorial that many of the players won't ever read. For me this is why the uproar seemed so strange - no 'artistic vision' or anything went into the limerick. Those stories did have at least some part in the world though, so it becomes a more difficult situation.

To answer your other question, my stance would be "*shrug*", and since this issue revolves around minorities, I'm a minority myself and I'm used to the fact that East Asian people are stereotyped in popular media. Seems like people need to grow a thicker skin, whatever color their skin is.

 

Heck, I'm more offended by "Gamebanshee.com" tombstone for sticking like a sore thumb. I didn't expect a website address in fantasy game Obsidian, how can this pass through the fabled "vetting process"?

 

Well that's good for you that you can handle the stereotyping (etc.) but unfortunately not everybody can. Telling them to 'grow a thicker skin' doesn't solve the problem either.

 

That Gamebanshee tombstone was awful, it does seem strange given pretty much all the others at least attempted to write something that would fit in.

[Heresiarch]

 

Say, since you're so well-versed on the subject, maybe you can link me a scholarly article with empirical evidence that supports the existance of nationwide institutionalized racism in any country of the Western World? You know, to prove that such a thing even exists.

Well, I guess if you really just stick your head in the sand and not pay attention to what's going on in Ferguson and South Carolina, I suppose this can get you started, assuming that you're acting in good faith and want to learn something and not asking for scholarly articles for the sake of asking for scholarly articles, and that you will actually read at least the abstract, and respond accordingly about whether actual, peer-reviewed literature is a high-enough bar to meet your standards of "evidence."

 

Institutional racism against black people in the process of hiring, cited 317 times (unfortunately it's not free to view the whole paper).

 

Systemic racism (a book, not a paper), cited 489 times.

 

Institutional racism against black children through labeling language sets as "pathological," cited 549 times.

 

I will be very curious to see how you will respond.

 

I don't care so much about the book, but I will be very curious to read the contents of the articles. To bad they are behind paywalls, right? If you'd be so kind as to provide me the text or to summarize their approach to scientific research, I would be able to tell you much more. You did read them yourself, I assume. 

 

From the abstracts I can tell you that the Harvard article sounds like cryptic BS, but I'd love to know what they mean by "existing genetic inferiority and social pathology models". I would love to know where they exist and how exactly their existence reflects on the contemporary society.

 

The abstract of the article on SAGE is riddled with weasel words. Let's take for instance, "ambivalence concept was used to demonstrate the construct validity of a relatively nonreactive scale of racial prejudice-the Modern Racism Scale". The only thing I can tell the author is this.

 

Aside from that their biased and non-representative sample is way too small to draw conclusions about the behaviour of the whole population of the US. But most importantly they lack a control group to control for the fact the white and black people, indeed, belong to different races. They should have conducted an identical experiment to demonstrate that black people harbor no similar prejudice against white people. Otherwise they cannon claim systemic oppression, can they? Last but not least, without the actual text I have no way of telling if they haven't gone into logical fallacies and non sequiturs, which many sociologists love these days.

 

Are you eager to hear more?

[achaye]

Oh that's rich, so you're basically saying that peer-reviewed research, cited by hundreds of other researchers in the field, is BS because of words and terms you can't understand?

 

I'll admit that I don't either, and that's fine, because it's not in a field that I am technically versed in. That you can simply toss aside peer-reviewed literature without actually knowing the terms, terms which are likely very relevant in the field, as shown with the top article from 1986 being cited 1863 times, shows your complete bias in the topic.

 

I'm curious, are you equally skeptical about human-caused global warming as well?

Edited April 15, 2015 by achaye

[scrotiemcb]

Institutional racism against black children through labeling language sets as "pathological," cited 549 times.

 

What's interesting about this study is that it focus is Early Childhood Intervention (ECI), a US federal mandate on states to provide services to developmentally delayed children from birth to three years with state-funded therapy and other services. Although it would constitute some form of fraud (ethically, if not legally), a child who is marked as having a "genetic" or severe "social" disorder is much more likely to receive services, while a view that such children are "culturally normal" would no doubt lead to a denial of service... an outcome the parents who apply no doubt wish to avoid. Assuming the sample is drawn from ECI applicants, all of the parents either genuinely believe or falsely represent their children as fitting the program qualifications (or some murky medium between those two extremes)... otherwise, why would they bother?

 

If you asked the parents themselves about a view that their child lacks a genetic or social disorder, that the behavior of their child is "equal" according to a "separate" standard... well, you can imagine.

 

I feel that study has more to do with parents anticipating racism, than racism at that actual moment. By which I mean: black parents who believe the key to career success in their child's future will depend on their ability to "speak properly," by which they mean: speak white. This does say something about institutional racism in the employment marketplace, but I imagine a less skewed look at the data from the study would show that all ethnicities attempt to get their children into ECI on sometimes legitimate and sometimes dubious claims of disability.

 

As for me, I'll be completely honest: I have three kids, and my eldest has autism. Because of him I learned about ECI early on; he receives services. Applied on the other two based off minor (one might say trivial) fears. They both got rejected, in part because I'm not willing to lie my *** off.

Edited April 15, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[Malcador]

That Cracked article is funny, accurate bit on people seeking out things to be outraged over.

 

Murdoch was ahead of his time

[Heresiarch]

Oh that's rich, so you're basically saying that peer-reviewed research, cited by hundreds of other researchers in the field, is BS because of words and terms you can't understand?

 

I'll admit that I don't either, and that's fine, because it's not in a field that I am technically versed in. That you can simply toss aside peer-reviewed literature without actually knowing the terms, terms which are likely very relevant in the field, as shown with the top article from 1986 being cited 1863 times, shows your complete bias in the topic.

 

I'm curious, are you equally skeptical about human-caused global warming as well?

Oh, I know what Modern Racism Scale is. But I have no idea what "ambivalence concept was used to demonstrate the construct validity of a relatively nonreactive scale of racial prejudice-the Modern Racism Scale" means. How exactly did they "demonstrate construct validity"? By showing that there is prejudice in 81 white student from their university without proper control groups to account for other contributing factors? Are you having a laugh? Trying to obscure that your conclusions are meaningless behind obscure terms doesn't work with me or with any other person who studied natural or formal sciences.  

 

Also I like how you ignore the bulk of my post because you cannot refute it. Their scientific research techniques are absolute trash, that's the main reason why I disregard their findings. Their inability to formulate their conclusions in a way that actually makes sense only adds to my skepticism. The fact that they have been cited a lot only means that sociologists are bad at critical thinking and understanding scientific method. If you think that my preference for facts is a demonstration of bias, well, it's not really my problem, is it?

 

I am no expert on global warming, but I know there are several contributing factors. Frankly, I am yet to see a study that proves that the bulk of gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth atmosphere is largely attributable to greenhouse gases. Why do you ask?

Edited April 15, 2015 by Heresiarch

[Cyphon]

 

Oh that's rich, so you're basically saying that peer-reviewed research, cited by hundreds of other researchers in the field, is BS because of words and terms you can't understand?

 

I'll admit that I don't either, and that's fine, because it's not in a field that I am technically versed in. That you can simply toss aside peer-reviewed literature without actually knowing the terms, terms which are likely very relevant in the field, as shown with the top article from 1986 being cited 1863 times, shows your complete bias in the topic.

 

I'm curious, are you equally skeptical about human-caused global warming as well?

Oh, I know what Modern Racism Scale is. But I have no idea what "ambivalence concept was used to demonstrate the construct validity of a relatively nonreactive scale of racial prejudice-the Modern Racism Scale" means. How exactly did they "demonstrate construct validity"? By showing that there is prejudice in 81 white student from their university without proper control groups to account for other contributing factors? Are you having a laugh? Trying to obscure that your conclusions are meaningless behind obscure terms doesn't work with me or with any other person who studied natural or formal sciences.  

 

Also I like how you ignore the bulk of my post because you cannot refute it. Their scientific research techniques are absolute trash, that's the main reason why I disregard their findings. Their inability to formulate their conclusions in a way that actually makes sense only adds to my skepticism. The fact that they have been cited a lot only means that sociologists are bad at critical thinking and understanding scientific method. If you think that my preference for facts is a demonstration of bias, well, it's not really my problem, is it?

 

I am no expert on global warming, but I know there are several contributing factors. Frankly, I am yet to see a study that proves that the bulk of gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth atmosphere is largely attributable to greenhouse gases. Why do you ask?

 

Then you're not looking.  Willful ignorance is not a counter to widespread professional consensus, nor is "nuh uh, they used a bunch of terms of art I don't understand wjem writing a paper meant for consumption by others who speak 'the language', so I'm going to accuse them of deliberate obfuscation."  I could sit here and spew "legalese" at you all day and your "nuh uh" approach to anything that inflames your confirmation bias would still fail to contradict my expertise. Denial is a helluva drug.

[MLMII]

Yep, the same Ferguson that the Justice Department, in its report, refers to as possessing institutional racism against primarily black people:

 

"...Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular."

 

But go on.

 

 

Yup, the same Justice Department that is headed by the entirely impartial and even handed Eric Holder. Also unless I'm misremembering I seem to recall hearing something about the methods used in said report as being flawed. Pretty much everyone has condemned the emails though. 

 

However, even if I were to take the entire report at face value, racism still didn't play a part in the justified self defense that ended a young man's life, at least not on the part of the officer. ... I'm still more interested in whether racism is going to be found in the background of the pig in the South Carolina case.