Jump to content
Hogfather

Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

Should mods start nuking posts about THAT issue?  

245 members have voted

  1. 1. Should posts about The Poem be nuked?

    • Yes, its over now, and its ruining discussion on the forum
      57
    • No. Fight the good fight. This is worthy of months of discussion yet!
      80
    • Create a dedicated thread for them to duke it out until they are exhausted
      108


Recommended Posts

 

Here again is the quote from Feargus Urquhart

 

Is it about language? Yes. But it’s not specifically about language. It’s about talking about things that adults talk about. They talk about where are they going in life. They talk about — in the case of Eternity — about souls and a lot about what happens with children that are being born without souls.
 
Mature to us ... is talking about things that matter, that are difficult, that are worth talking about with adults.
 
I think the question, ultimately, is it’s all coming down to hate, right? Is hate a topic that is being explored in a game, or is the game saying something hateful about someone? And so I think that’s the line.
 
I think for any of us, whether we’re making a movie, or if we’re making a comic book, or we’re writing a novel, or we’re making a game it’s [a matter of] are we exploring the subject in a way that makes people think, or are we saying something hateful through it. And if there’s any red line, that’s the red line for me.
 
We can talk about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don’t promote hate is the key thing in the end.

 

 


DID YOU KNOW: *Missing String*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here again is the quote from Feargus Urquhart

 

Is it about language? Yes. But it’s not specifically about language. It’s about talking about things that adults talk about. They talk about where are they going in life. They talk about — in the case of Eternity — about souls and a lot about what happens with children that are being born without souls.
 
Mature to us ... is talking about things that matter, that are difficult, that are worth talking about with adults.
 
I think the question, ultimately, is it’s all coming down to hate, right? Is hate a topic that is being explored in a game, or is the game saying something hateful about someone? And so I think that’s the line.
 
I think for any of us, whether we’re making a movie, or if we’re making a comic book, or we’re writing a novel, or we’re making a game it’s [a matter of] are we exploring the subject in a way that makes people think, or are we saying something hateful through it. And if there’s any red line, that’s the red line for me.
 
We can talk about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don’t promote hate is the key thing in the end.

 

 

 

I'm sorry I'm missing your point around the limerick and your post ?


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's silly for people to get incensed about some curse words in print, one way or the other... ;)  It's silly to object to them; equally silly to object to their absence.  That they do not enhance the game at all is certainly obvious.  Whether they hurt the game at all is a matter of opinion.  Let me conclude with a rhyme I recall from gradeschool:

 

*There once was a man from Nantucket,

His **** was so long he could *uck it.

He said with a grin, as he wiped off his chin,

"If my ear was a ***** I'd **** it."

 

That ought to settle things nicely... ;)

Edited by waltc

It's very well known that I don't make mistakes, so if you should stumble across the odd error here and there in what I have written, you may immediately deduce--quite correctly--that I did not write it... :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's silly for people to get incensed about some curse words in print, one way or the other... ;)  It's silly to object to them; equally silly to object to their absence.  That they do not enhance the game at all is certainly obvious.  Whether they hurt the game at all is a matter of opinion.  Let me conclude with a rhyme I recall from gradeschool:

 

*There once was a man from Nantucket,

His **** was so long he could *uck it.

He said with a grin, as he wiped off his chin,

"If my ear was a ***** I'd **** it."

 

That ought to settle things nicely... ;)

Sounds like you're making fun of someone with severe disabilities. Better call the warriors. 


- How can I live my life if I can't even tell good from evil?

- Eh, they're both fine choices. Whatever floats your boat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok RedSocialKnight, your point is ... what exactly? The article you linked reads to me like Urguhart is trying to thread the needle by saying that on one hand they are "anti-hate" (Assuming that I ignore the entire "kill all men" nonsense I have yet to see anyone on either side who is actually pro-hate but ... whatever.) while on the other hand Firedorn is a great guy and because of that in the end Urguhart manages to actually say very little that is noteworthy at all.  

 

 

*EDIT*

 

 

Oh, I almost forgot ... I still don't believe that the poem was "unvetted" in the first place.

Edited by MLMII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds like you're making fun of someone with severe disabilities. Better call the warriors. 

 

 

Somehow, I think he sees his condition as rather a distinct advantage...;)

Edited by waltc

It's very well known that I don't make mistakes, so if you should stumble across the odd error here and there in what I have written, you may immediately deduce--quite correctly--that I did not write it... :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok RedSocialKnight, your point is ... what exactly? The article you linked reads to me like Urguhart is trying to thread the needle by saying that on one hand they are "anti-hate" (Assuming that I ignore the entire "kill all men" nonsense I have yet to see anyone on either side who is actually pro-hate but ... whatever.) while on the other hand Firedorn is a great guy and because of that in the end Urguhart manages to actually say very little that is noteworthy at all.  

 

 

*EDIT*

 

 

Oh, I almost forgot ... I still don't believe that the poem was "unvetted" in the first place.

Oh wait, I read it again and I think he is saying that hate is a theme in the game as a valid emotion but they don't want to have something in the game that will lead to hate as the end goal ?


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok RedSocialKnight, your point is ... what exactly? The article you linked reads to me like Urguhart is trying to thread the needle by saying that on one hand they are "anti-hate" (Assuming that I ignore the entire "kill all men" nonsense I have yet to see anyone on either side who is actually pro-hate but ... whatever.) while on the other hand Firedorn is a great guy and because of that in the end Urguhart manages to actually say very little that is noteworthy at all.  

 

 

*EDIT*

 

 

Oh, I almost forgot ... I still don't believe that the poem was "unvetted" in the first place.

Oh wait, I read it again and I think he is saying that hate is a theme in the game as a valid emotion but they don't want to have something in the game that will lead to hate as the end goal ?

 

 

I disagree, partially because if that was Urguhart's intent then his praise of Firedorn would be completely out of sync with the rest of his message. Besides, as I read it he goes to great and pained lengths to avoid actively condemning the poem itself and he certainly tries to lead people to believe that had Firedorn wanted the poem to stay then the poem would still be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should ban discussion about discussions about the poem...

Edited by barakav
  • Like 1

troll.gifseatroll.gificetroll.giftroll.gif

An ex-biophysicist but currently Studying Schwarzschild singularities' black holes' Hawking radiation using LAZORS and hypersonic sound wave models.

 

My main objective is to use my results to take over the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but I don't recall anyone being called unnatural; I recall an activity being called unnatural.

I was waiting for you to engage in such useless pedantry.

What you fail to comprehend is that this isn't just some academic discussion or a few people being "hypersensitive".

Real people are being harmed by bigotry, so when I see someone perpetuate such bigotry I will call them out on it. Your insistence that doing so is somehow wrong unless I can prove with absolute certainty that they actually engage in bigotry is utter bs. As I have already stated, my prior for Sriker being genuine can be found somewhere in the region of the asthenosphere. If Striker convinced me otherwise I would apologize, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

 

 

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 a lot of people on the social justice side do this with fetishes they do not tolerate. Like pedophilia. Something you can not do anything about it as well.  Its your sexual orientation and it should not be a crime unless people get hurt by it.  Thats the biggest example

 

If I see someone do that I'll call them a bigot too, so that's not much of a counterexample.

 

 

 

I read the thread that you linked to earlier and saw your reaction to people referring to Erika with the male pronoun and in this thread you are arguing that it's somehow reasonable to make an assumption that people are bigots if they use insensitive but nonhateful language. At best that is hypersensitivity and at worse it is simply using a label to group people whom you disagree with as "the lesser", which is would be actually rather ironic if you stop and think about it.

Do you think my reaction was unreasonable? If so, why?

According to my experience it is a very strong predictor of bigotry when someone refers to people as unnatural. Do you have any meaningful answers to this?

 

 

Yes I can actually, although for the most part their names wouldn't mean anything to you. Hells, until I see actual evidence of bigotry from the people using it here I'd also say that they probably qualify as well. Saying something is "unnatural" is simply an insensitive way of denoting that the speaker is uncomfortable with something and does not raise to the level of bigotry. Remember that tolerance is not the same as acceptance.

How convenient.

Do you deny that calling homosexuals, or intimacy between homosexuals, unnatural is rhetoric used by people who are actively engaged in abridging the rights of homosexuals?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy cow, are people so oblivious to their own bigotry that they don't understand that calling someone else's behavior, as long as it does no harm to others, unnatural is..... wait for it.....bigotry?

 

Don't answer that, because it's a rhetorical question, of course they're that oblivious.

 

A behavior doesn't NEED to be found in nature to be considered "natural," and what is natural doesn't always mean it's moral.

 

Case in point, hitting up Netflix after a hard day's work at Google is, by all accounts, not found in nature, but is by all means, a perfectly natural and acceptable behavior (it's not immoral).

 

A male having sex with another male, something found in nature all the time, is also perfectly natural and acceptable.

 

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.

 

So if you're calling someone else's perfectly ok behavior (that is, it does no harm to others) unnatural, that's pretty bigoted.

 

Just like before interracial marriage was legally allowed (and for quite some time after), the same bigots screamed at how unnatural it was.

 

Now they're screaming about how homosexuality is unnatural (the irony is unfortunately lost on them).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There once was a lad called Sawyer,

Who was told to contact his lawyer.

"Get rid of that poem,

or you'll be sent home,

to live your life oh so much poorer."

Edited by yaggaz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There once was a lad called Sawyer,

Who was told to contact his lawyer.

"Get rid of that poem,

or you'll be sent home,

to live your life oh so much poorer."

 :lol:

 

I still find these Limericks funny 


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if you're calling someone else's perfectly ok behavior (that is, it does no harm to others) unnatural, that's pretty bigoted.

 

Just like before interracial marriage was legally allowed (and for quite some time after), the same bigots screamed at how unnatural it was.

 

Now they're screaming about how homosexuality is unnatural (the irony is unfortunately lost on them).

If a bigot says something; that does not make what he said bigoted. 

 

Christian bigots have said that the bible forbids homosexuality and has verses that commands homosexuals be put to death.

 

Does that mean saying that the bible has verses that command homosexuals be put to death is bigoted? Because the bible does say that.

 

 

Striker might honestly believe that homosexuality is unnatural; not that it's bad.


"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling someone's behavior unnatural has quite the negative connotation - it does not simply mean "not found in nature" (again, the irony is completely lost to them). It has a negative connotation because it implies that a person is disturbed and uncomfortable with the behavior, even if the behavior does absolutely no harm to anyone.

 

Hence, bigots screaming about interracial marriage (and now teh gays) being "unnatural" is, in fact, quite bigoted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Calling it unnatural is bigotry.

Are you really that oblivious?

 

Calling something that's unnatural, unnatural.... I don't get it. I honestly don't care, I don't have a problem with gays. They can do whatever they want, it's not anyone's place to stop that. But you can't create a separate reality and then just tell people they're wrong if they say this or that and label them as a "bigot".

 

So I'm going to go with fanatical liberal propaganda on your part, immediately calling me a bigot. Some people (heh, well most) find it disgusting. But there are a lot of things in this world that can be viewed the same way. It's how you handle it in the real world. And well... It's not my place to tell or force anyone to think or act a certain way unless they're going to cause harm to me, my family, or my countrymen. And gays are none of that. So gay it all up! Who cares.

 

Just because y'all are "offended" or your "feelings" are hurt doesn't mean you get to shut people down and label them as something they aren't. That's communism. Just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Censored? Hm, no. I don´t see why censoring ANYTHING should even be brought up. Censoring is the response of weak people that can´t argue with your point and/or want to imposse their view on yours. Thats all that there is to it really.

 

However, this is Obsidians forum, privat ground not public mind you, if they have enough of this nonsense they have every right to close and delete this threads.

 

Despite the original discussion, which i took part in, i also see no reason to "roll it up´" again. We would in this case just give a bunch people with no basis or argument more spotlight they didn´t deserve in the first place.

 

Would you give a crying, stupid kid what it want? No you wouldn´t. And yes thats what this people are. They proof it every time, just follow them for a week and you see what i mean.

 

I think Obsidian made a decent choice, now we have a limmerick that makes fun of them, and half of them don´t even get it because they lack the intelligence to grab realitly.

 

Would i have made a different choice? Yes. But that doesn´t matter sh*t ;) It was Obsidians call and i think they did the best, though i would have told them a strict no and made an example, especially with that community behind me. It´s just a shame when someone caters to a little radicale group that has no saying, no reason, no power, nothing. So let´s not do it. Ignore them and be reasonable, if they don´t have a base to struck you, they can´t struck you.

 

Hell, i´m sounding like Sun Tzu. (you should read his work though :p)

 

Just forget them, they are not important, they have no audience, no real influence, they matter not. But as Sun Tzu said (lol) keep an eye on your "enemy" ;)

Edited by cirdanx

"A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies, the man who never reads lives one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The issue has not only been resolved, it has been resolved with the help of the original backer.

 

This is not a free speech issue. It is not a censorship issue. It never was.

How is it not a free speech issue when you have a left-wing extremist group creating such a hostile climate that everyone is compelled to cater to their every whim. How's that for a balance of forces in society?

 

PC is a mob rule.

You and I should be friends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here again is the quote from Feargus Urquhart

 

Is it about language? Yes. But it’s not specifically about language. It’s about talking about things that adults talk about. They talk about where are they going in life. They talk about — in the case of Eternity — about souls and a lot about what happens with children that are being born without souls.
 
Mature to us ... is talking about things that matter, that are difficult, that are worth talking about with adults.
 
I think the question, ultimately, is it’s all coming down to hate, right? Is hate a topic that is being explored in a game, or is the game saying something hateful about someone? And so I think that’s the line.
 
I think for any of us, whether we’re making a movie, or if we’re making a comic book, or we’re writing a novel, or we’re making a game it’s [a matter of] are we exploring the subject in a way that makes people think, or are we saying something hateful through it. And if there’s any red line, that’s the red line for me.
 
We can talk about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don’t promote hate is the key thing in the end.

 


DID YOU KNOW: *Missing String*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling something that's unnatural, unnatural.... I don't get it. I honestly don't care, I don't have a problem with gays. They can do whatever they want, it's not anyone's place to stop that. But you can't create a separate reality and then just tell people they're wrong if they say this or that and label them as a "bigot".

It is not unnatural in any sense of the word.

 

 

So I'm going to go with fanatical liberal propaganda on your part, immediately calling me a bigot. Some people (heh, well most) find it disgusting. But there are a lot of things in this world that can be viewed the same way. It's how you handle it in the real world. And well... It's not my place to tell or force anyone to think or act a certain way unless they're going to cause harm to me, my family, or my countrymen. And gays are none of that. So gay it all up! Who cares.

A lot of people care. People who call homosexuals unnatural and actively try to abridge the rights of homosexuals. Are you going to acknowledge this?

 

 

Just because y'all are "offended" or your "feelings" are hurt doesn't mean you get to shut people down and label them as something they aren't. That's communism. Just sayin.

Communism? What? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, but I don't recall anyone being called unnatural; I recall an activity being called unnatural.

I was waiting for you to engage in such useless pedantry.

What you fail to comprehend is that this isn't just some academic discussion or a few people being "hypersensitive".

Real people are being harmed by bigotry, so when I see someone perpetuate such bigotry I will call them out on it. Your insistence that doing so is somehow wrong unless I can prove with absolute certainty that they actually engage in bigotry is utter bs. As I have already stated, my prior for Sriker being genuine can be found somewhere in the region of the asthenosphere. If Striker convinced me otherwise I would apologize, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

 

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

a lot of people on the social justice side do this with fetishes they do not tolerate. Like pedophilia. Something you can not do anything about it as well. Its your sexual orientation and it should not be a crime unless people get hurt by it. Thats the biggest example

If I see someone do that I'll call them a bigot too, so that's not much of a counterexample.

 

 

I read the thread that you linked to earlier and saw your reaction to people referring to Erika with the male pronoun and in this thread you are arguing that it's somehow reasonable to make an assumption that people are bigots if they use insensitive but nonhateful language. At best that is hypersensitivity and at worse it is simply using a label to group people whom you disagree with as "the lesser", which is would be actually rather ironic if you stop and think about it.

Do you think my reaction was unreasonable? If so, why?

According to my experience it is a very strong predictor of bigotry when someone refers to people as unnatural. Do you have any meaningful answers to this?

 

Yes I can actually, although for the most part their names wouldn't mean anything to you. Hells, until I see actual evidence of bigotry from the people using it here I'd also say that they probably qualify as well. Saying something is "unnatural" is simply an insensitive way of denoting that the speaker is uncomfortable with something and does not raise to the level of bigotry. Remember that tolerance is not the same as acceptance.

How convenient.

Do you deny that calling homosexuals, or intimacy between homosexuals, unnatural is rhetoric used by people who are actively engaged in abridging the rights of homosexuals?

Wow. You're part of the problem. I didn't hurt anyone, all I said is two men having sex is not what nature intended, seeing as how that does not reproduce. I guess we all need a little biology refresher.

 

A man's **** is inserted in a woman's vagina (which feels great by the way) and then he will ejaculate **** filled with sperm to fertilize her eggs up in the ovaries. This will then begin the process of growning a fetus to reproduce the spieces.

 

One man, and one woman are required. And it's awesome and beautiful. Two men... Doing whatever, will not result in reproduction, and I find it very unnattactive and unpleasant. Wich is my right. But as stated above, I could care less. I don't tell people what to do with their junk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Calling something that's unnatural, unnatural.... I don't get it. I honestly don't care, I don't have a problem with gays. They can do whatever they want, it's not anyone's place to stop that. But you can't create a separate reality and then just tell people they're wrong if they say this or that and label them as a "bigot".

It is not unnatural in any sense of the word.

So I'm going to go with fanatical liberal propaganda on your part, immediately calling me a bigot. Some people (heh, well most) find it disgusting. But there are a lot of things in this world that can be viewed the same way. It's how you handle it in the real world. And well... It's not my place to tell or force anyone to think or act a certain way unless they're going to cause harm to me, my family, or my countrymen. And gays are none of that. So gay it all up! Who cares.

A lot of people care. People who call homosexuals unnatural and actively try to abridge the rights of homosexuals. Are you going to acknowledge this?

Just because y'all are "offended" or your "feelings" are hurt doesn't mean you get to shut people down and label them as something they aren't. That's communism. Just sayin.

Communism? What? :blink:
Yeah, communism. You're trying to force me or shame me because of my personal views. It's soft liberal, progressive type of communism, but yeah, not cool.

You should probably just shut up. Just Sayin' ; ) you're gettin on my nerves.

 

I find the bull**** coming out of your mouth offensive. My feelings are hurt!

Edited by Ted Striker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a fan of quarantining dead-horse-beating discussions into their own thread. This seems a perfect candidate - ossified opinions on both sides, nobody on either side is going to change anyone else's mind, nobody on either side is going to contribute anything fresh to the discussion. And yet a number of people want to keep on shouting at each other about it. Just quarantine it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. You're part of the problem. I didn't hurt anyone, all I said is two men having sex is not what nature intended, seeing as how that does not reproduce. I guess we all need a little biology refresher.

 

A man's **** is inserted in a woman's vagina (which feels great by the way) and then he will ejaculate **** filled with sperm to fertilize her eggs up in the ovaries. This will then begin the process of growning a fetus to reproduce the spieces.

 

One man, and one woman are required. And it's awesome and beautiful. Two men... Doing whatever, will not result in reproduction, and I find it very unnattactive and unpleasant. Wich is my right. But as stated above, I could care less. I don't tell people what to do with their junk.

 

  • I'm not the one perpetuating bigotry.
  • Nature has intentions now? Did nature intent for humans to use the internet? You'd better go live in a cave or on a deserted island, if nature's intentions mean so much to you.
  • So you never use protection and you don't want your partner to use birth control? Lovely.

 

Yeah, communism. You're trying to force me or shame me because of my personal views. It's soft liberal, progressive type of communism, but yeah, not cool.

You should probably just shut up. Just Sayin' ; ) you're gettin on my nerves.

 

I find the bull**** coming out of your mouth offensive. My feelings are hurt!

 

 

You are trying to force me to shut up! Fascist! :o

 

But seriously, does your ignorance know no bounds?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...