No, I think he's saying that it's not obviously "transmisogynistic" at all. Because it's a joke. And if you are offended by it, whether you're a "transperson" or not, you're being ridiculous.

 

Got it, it's good to know that as long as it's a joke, it's never offensive to anyone. Let me brush up these racist Mexican and Asian jokes that I saw on the internet and tell it to my Mexican and Asian co-workers tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with it, because you said so.

 

 

If we are on friendly terms and you can take what you dish out, as an Asian immigrant, you have my permission to make "racist" jokes.

 

No, I think he's saying that it's not obviously "transmisogynistic" at all. Because it's a joke. And if you are offended by it, whether you're a "transperson" or not, you're being ridiculous.

 

Got it, it's good to know that as long as it's a joke, it's never offensive to anyone. Let me brush up these racist Mexican and Asian jokes that I saw on the internet and tell it to my Mexican and Asian co-workers tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with it, because you said so.

 

Depending on the nature of the joke, yeah, they should be, unless they are part of the perpetually offended, too. I've known a lot of people that have had no problems with making jokes about them.

 

 

This does not include Finns and Germans. Finns have no humour, are always drunk, and fight with knives. Germans can joke about themselves, but if you joke about them, the boots are on in an instant. Sheesh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somehow, pointing this "sexism" out - which no-one would reasonable even care about -

I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields?

 

I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not.

 

I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Luckmann

 

Except that the context is that the poem in question is not "obviously trans-misogynistic" at all.

As we all know, the best way to carry through some questionable statement is to start it with "obviously", "naturally" or "as we all know".

 

...Ooops. I did it, didn't I?

 

This thread is hilarious.

 

 

Hmm? That jab meant for me or the poster whom I was quoting?

 

 

 

 

 

No, I think he's saying that it's not obviously "transmisogynistic" at all. Because it's a joke. And if you are offended by it, whether you're a "transperson" or not, you're being ridiculous.

 

Got it, it's good to know that as long as it's a joke, it's never offensive to anyone. Let me brush up these racist Mexican and Asian jokes that I saw on the internet and tell it to my Mexican and Asian co-workers tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with it, because you said so.

 

 

If we are on friendly terms and you can take what you dish out, as an Asian immigrant, you have my permission to make "racist" jokes.

 

 

And although I understand that as a member of the "elite overlords" it won't have the same impact ... feel free to make as many "Mick" jokes as you wish. Start with asking me about "my people's" idea of a seven course meal.

I disagree that the shirt portrays women as sex objects, at most it portrays cartoon women as sexually desirable. By his sleeve tatts and interviews prior to the shirt incident, we can surmise that Dr. Taylor is not a stereotypical scientist. It's not like he had a reputation for being sharply dressed and suddenly decided to wear this shirt, he has a well documented history of terrible fashion choices which this particular shirt blends into.

 

He probably wanted to have a bit of fun with attire that is not associated with scientists of his calibre like he has been known to do in the past, while also helping to promote the female friend who made the shirt for him.

 

That's the context. What happened to Matt Taylor was an absolute disgrace and I can't ever see eye to eye on this issue with anyone who believes that he somehow deserved it in any way shape or form.

 

To add to that, we haven't heard any of his coworkers complain about his behaviour or choice of attire in the least and to our knowledge, he still works there with the same level of authority. If he truly perpetuated a culture uncomfortable for women or sexist in nature, we would've eventually heard stories about it since the media at the time was hunting for blood.

 

Finally, to be frank, if a person chooses to let some guy's tacky shirt prevent them from entering their desired field/career, they probably weren't cut out for it in the first place.

 

 

Regardless of previous fashion choices, wearing something that at best is tacky and unprofessional and at worst is extremely controversial is totally unacceptable when acting as an international public face for your company. Even without the dreaded SJWs getting involved, many employers would fire an employee for such a terrible choice. He didn't get fired, so I consider him fairly lucky.

 

People who say "well he just wanted to support his friend" or "he just wanted to show off his fun side" do not properly understand how the world of business works IMO.

 

Regardless of previous fashion choices, wearing something that at best is tacky and unprofessional and at worst is extremely controversial is totally unacceptable when acting as an international public face for your company. Even without the dreaded SJWs getting involved, many employers would fire an employee for such a terrible choice. He didn't get fired, so I consider him fairly lucky.

 

People who say "well he just wanted to support his friend" or "he just wanted to show off his fun side" do not properly understand how the world of business works IMO.

 

 

Oh you're not wrong. It is tacky and unprofessional. It's not blatant sexism though for the reasons listed, which was the charge levelled against Taylor as justification for his ordeal.

I think Obsidian has learn another important lesson here:

 

any forced edition won't be tolerated by the fanbase since it undermines the whole "by gamers for gamers" definition. If you waver that lightly means only that you care for your creation that much.

You mean tolerated by a vocal minority.

 

 

Except that the context is that the poem in question is not "obviously trans-misogynistic" at all.

As we all know, the best way to carry through some questionable statement is to start it with "obviously", "naturally" or "as we all know".

 

...Ooops. I did it, didn't I?

 

This thread is hilarious.

 

 

Hmm? That jab meant for me or the poster whom I was quoting?

 

The poster you were quoting, sorry for bad phrasing. I stand with opinion that one need to be really looking for things to be offended by to find that limerick worthy more than a chuckle.

 

 

Regardless of previous fashion choices, wearing something that at best is tacky and unprofessional and at worst is extremely controversial is totally unacceptable when acting as an international public face for your company. Even without the dreaded SJWs getting involved, many employers would fire an employee for such a terrible choice. He didn't get fired, so I consider him fairly lucky.

 

People who say "well he just wanted to support his friend" or "he just wanted to show off his fun side" do not properly understand how the world of business works IMO.

 

 

Oh you're not wrong. It is tacky and unprofessional. It's not blatant sexism though for the reasons listed, which was the charge levelled against Taylor as justification for his ordeal.

 

 

I sincerely doubt he intended for it to be sexist, but anytime you paste a bunch of half naked people to yourself you really open up the door to that kind of criticism. I don't agree with the level of outrage over it, but it was a very poor choice.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Svirfneblin

That is actually a really good point Svirfneblin although instead of being "fairly lucky" for not being fired I imagine that he must be "really good at his job" instead. --- It still doesn't make the SJW's temper tantrum about said shirt any less silly.

 

I think Obsidian has learn another important lesson here:

 

any forced edition won't be tolerated by the fanbase since it undermines the whole "by gamers for gamers" definition. If you waver that lightly means only that you care for your creation that much.

You mean tolerated by a vocal minority.

 

Just because you call it "vocal minority" does not make it so. If the fanbase is anything to go by, it's pretty far from a minority of players - but obviously, a fanbase is not representative of the entire player base.

 

It is much more likely that the vast majority does not give a **** either way, either because they don't care or because they never even noticed. This is pricesely why it wasn't included in the patch notes. If they knew it would be widely accepted, it wouldn't have made a difference, but by not including it, they saved themselves from the flak they would get from people that aren't already aware of it.

 

No, I think he's saying that it's not obviously "transmisogynistic" at all. Because it's a joke. And if you are offended by it, whether you're a "transperson" or not, you're being ridiculous.

 

Got it, it's good to know that as long as it's a joke, it's never offensive to anyone. Let me brush up these racist Mexican and Asian jokes that I saw on the internet and tell it to my Mexican and Asian co-workers tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine with it, because you said so.

 

 

 

It's quite simple:

 

Some people get offended by jokes, others do not. There is nothing objectively right or wrong about jokes, and the anti-censorship stance where people claim "live and let live" stems from the idea that you can learn more from more content rather than less. Even if never censoring stuff means sometimes you'll hear the most racist, hateful thing ever, there's still something to be learned in the simple thought of "wow a human being actually wrote that."

 

  I have a couple transgender acquaintances. I know one who was actually pissed off about the removal, I know another that couldn't give two damns about the entire issue and didn't see the point from both sides.  Again, there is no universal answer here, it's all opinion. Either you get the joke or you don't.

 

So where do we draw the line?

 

 

The issue people have is that if you always cave to the offended party, then stuff can quickly get weird and the type of content encountered quickly begins to dwindle in scope. It also becomes a question of what kinds of people would be "prosecuted" for their jokes? And in what context?

 

The issue is mainly that in the court of law, the claimant is the one with the burden of proof. Makes sense, no? If you claim someone called you a racial slur, you must prove it. If you claim you got shot, you must prove it.

 

 Here however, there's nothing to "prove." It's subjective. You cannot really prove it, and at best you can only highlight that "this joke would offend the majority of people at first glance" and say that should be the grounds for removal.

 

  But that's just it: polls were run. The majority of people aren't offended by it and there are still people asking how it was transphobic to begin with, and yet it was removed.

 

For Obsidian it's simple. They want any POTENTIAL conflict gone, hence the removal. The problem with this though is that sufficient proof was never given, so that basically opens up for anyone to complain about anything and potentially get their way. Even now, there are people who would claim Firedorn is a jerk and an ass for writing that, while they themselves do not even fully understand the potential offensiveness of the limerick. Is that just?

 

Please do enlighten me.

 

With pleasure. Ever hear of the word context? I assume you abhor genocide, and denounce it. I do too. So how is it possible that both of us can agree that Schindler's List is considered theatrical art?

 

Now compare that to a limerick that is obviously transmisogynistic.

 

 

What argument are you trying to make here? It's ridiculously vague. I assume you made it vague on purpose in case you need to backpedal or move the goalposts.

 

Are we arguing whether this game is art? Is the argument whether or not the game being art defines whether content can be used only within certain context? Are you getting existential on me on defining context?

 

"So how is it possible that both of us can agree that Schindler's List is considered theatrical art?"

 

That assumes I consider it theatrical art. If I don't does that mean context does or doesn't matter?

 

The crux of the argument is that I find certain content acceptable and you find certain content unacceptable. So why even try and use an example where you assume we're both on the same page to begin with?

 

But if we assume you are trying to say that in context one was okay and one wasn't, then you didn't bother to explain why. And you didn't bother to explain why in this context because I'm assuming you know it's going to be difficult for you to actually argue why certain things are okay and certain things aren't.

 

Now compare that to a limerick that is obviously transmisogynistic.

 

You can save the dogmatic speech for someone who doesn't like to think. You're blatantly attempting to pass your opinion as fact by throwing in the adjective obviously. It's not obvious. It's what you believe. I believe that the limerick was not transmisogynistic. There is nothing explicit in that entire limerick to make your opinion a fact. There's nothing there to even say that it wasn't just a pretty man. Hell, for it to be transmisogynistic, like you say, Firedorn would have killed his partner and not himself anyway.

 

But, let's humor you and say that the limerick is everything you built it up to be. Your argument was that in context certain things are fine. Well this is a world of conflict. And in this world of murder, rape, manipulation, and questionable morality then, even in context, it fits into the game world.

 

So again, you think that references to things like rape should be removed from the game as well, correct? Because there are people who have suffered rape that play this game. And then murder, because people who played this game have lost loved ones to murder. And then death, because people have lost loved ones in general are playing this game. And then fighting, because there have been people who are abused and they're playing this game.

 

You can't have it both ways.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by MistarDurk

 

Just because you call it "vocal minority" does not make it so. If the fanbase is anything to go by, it's pretty far from a minority of players - but obviously, a fanbase is not representative of the entire player base.

 

 

Someone did a strawpoll on this ages ago and the "leave it in" response was the majority.

 

Anyone remember where I might've seen this? I'd love to reference it now since it's being discussed.

They should have left the limerick as is and say harden up. The "sensitive" group, should come play eve online for a while.

 

 

Somehow, pointing this "sexism" out - which no-one would reasonable even care about -

I stopped reading after about this point. Despite the mountains of complaints by many (women and men), such as astrophysicist Katie Mack, the fact that you can say "no one would reasonably care about" the blatant sexism sure reeks of a lack of empathy. What would you say to Katie Mack face-to-face if you had the chance? That she's unreasonable for pointing out blatant sexism in the science fields?

 

I would tell her to Wo-Man Up. Seriously though, really, you seem to be under the assumption that just because I'm face-to-face with someone, I would have a problem talking to them like a reasonable human being. I would, in fact, not.

 

I'm not familiar with her level of hysteria on the subject, so where it would go from there, I have no idea, but that's really beside the point. She doesn't get an automatic shield made out of implied offense any more than you do.

 

Incredible, though not surprising. I doubt anyone even read the numerous links I've posted of systemic sexism against women in the science fields, which includes plenty of actual sexual harassment, so it's not surprising that you would not be empathetic to their plight, that you would just tell them to "wo-man" up. Spoken like a true individual in a position of privilege.

 

Just because you call it "vocal minority" does not make it so. If the fanbase is anything to go by, it's pretty far from a minority of players - but obviously, a fanbase is not representative of the entire player base.

 

 

Someone did a strawpoll on this ages ago and the "leave it in" response was the majority.

 

Anyone remember where I might've seen this? I'd love to reference it now since it's being discussed.

 

 

 

 

Google to the rescue:

 

http://strawpoll.me/3996109/r

 

http://www.wepolls.com/p/6253678876950528/Will-you-still-play-Pillars-of-Eternity-if-Obsidian-caves-to-the-demands-against-the-limerick

 

 

The first is the one I was remembering. The second is some random one I found on some reddit poll subreddit I figured I'd link to reinforce that the limerick supporters were the majority.

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

Exactly what I've been talking about...

@Longknife At least I've bowed out of the "serious" discussion a while ago simply because I'm really bored of it. From where I'm at there's approximately zero give-and-take here; each side is simply talking past one another. It's only fun to say the same thing so many times.

 

So I write stupid verse instead. It's more amusing and about as useful.

Jokes are part of culture. Culture helps shape opinion. If you don't understand this you're either rather ignorant or wilfully blind to it.

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

I kind of wish I was in the earlier threads, but as I noted in my first post here, there's not much else to say now that we have a definitive timeline and that Firedorn himself has spoken on the matter. Obsidian's made their decision, Firedorn is happy to leave things as they are. So a substantive discussion is difficult to start because the issue is essentially over. We just have to live with the results is all.

Have you guys considered the threads get locked because they devolve into childish mudslinging rather than productive discussion?

 

Cuz dats what happens.

 

Please stop telling people what you consider to be childish or lacking intellectually

 

You keep doing this yet you comment yourself, once again ...no is forcing you to participate in this discussion

 

Considering how much you post in the GG thread which most of us think is utterly pointless any lectures from you about what is productive just seems moot and inconsequential 

 

See how the thread goes dead silent the moment anyone's actually addressing the subject matter seriously?

 

Exactly what I've been talking about...

 

I kind of wish I was in the earlier threads, but as I noted in my first post here, there's not much else to say now that we have a definitive timeline and that Firedorn himself has spoken on the matter. Obsidian's made their decision, Firedorn is happy to leave things as they are. So a substantive discussion is difficult to start because the issue is essentially over. We just have to live with the results is all.

 

 

See, I don't really believe that it wasn't more than a suggestion for him to change it when I see something like this:

 

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by MistarDurk

What argument are you trying to make here? It's ridiculously vague. I assume you made it vague on purpose in case you need to backpedal or move the goalposts.

 

So again, you think that references to things like rape should be removed from the game as well, correct? And then murder, because people who played this game have lost loved ones to murder.

 

Please, I am not that sinister.

 

You asked me if "the game should be completely overhauled and cut to pieces because there are parts that contain things like rape?"

 

No.

 

I am saying that I am against rape, and that rape portrayed in context is actually helpful to show the injustices that linger (and, unfortunately, often times thrive) in the world, hence, the point about Schindler's List. I am against genocide, and Schindler's List is a very good film at portraying genocide in the proper context, as it properly shows the inhumanity of the Holocaust. I've not heard of a single Holocaust survivor (or relative of a Holocaust survivor) be offended by Schindler's List, because it's filmed in the proper context, so your point about someone having lost a loved one due to a murder is moot.

 

The limerick, unlike Schindler's List, is nothing of the sort; it's just a cheap, thinly-veiled, transmisogynistic jab.

Please stop telling people what you consider to be childish or lacking intellectually

 

You keep doing this yet you comment yourself, once again ...no is forcing you to participate in this discussion

 

Considering how much you post in the GG thread which most of us think is utterly pointless any lectures from you about what is productive just seems moot and inconsequential 

 

 

Bruce if you wonder why half the forum community gets this weird passive-aggressive vibe from you and why my post about how you're "like that guy who's all pleasant and polite and invites you over to his perfect house with his perfect family to have a perfect dinner, and then when you accidently use the salad fork on your main entree, he pulls a gun on you for ruining his perfect life" got upvoted, this is it.

 

 

  I claim discussion in these threads gets childish because it does. Empty statements that point the finger and smugly regard the opposing side as idiots, without highlighting any points at all. Flip back through the pages and the threads and you'll clearly see this.

 

No worries, my claim that conversations with a person are a complete waste of time will remain exclusive to you, as that's not a claim I throw about lightly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really because as subjective as those "1-10 pain scale charts" are, physical pain can be measured, verified and more importantly denotes an underlying condition.    

Those charts actually exist because the pain cannot be measured, or verified. It's all subjective--what you say is an 8 might be a 5 to somebody else, etc. There is no "pain unit", no discreet measuring system. There is no way to objectively quantify pain.

 

 

Yep.  This is, incidentally, a large part of why people with chronic pain issues have such a hard time getting the regular medication they need without meeting with suspicion that they're junkies or the like.  It's a pretty serious problem that leaves many people suffering needlessly when their doctors won't believe them on what they're experiencing.

 

 

This is true. My fiance has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; her main symptoms, beside dislocating joints and such, is simply severe chronic joint pain. I have a badly healed boxers fracture on my right hand and chronic arthritis in all of those knuckles, along with migraines. Both of us have real problems getting the pain medication we need because of this very issue.

 

Because obviously you guys suffering from severe pain your whole life is just the price one has to pay to keep those dirty drug-seekers from getting their hands on medication they don't deserve!

 

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that fortune has smiled on you in the sense that drug addiction (especially the insidious "But RX is safer." strain) hasn't touched you or yours in a major way.

I can't speak for them, but I have. My mothers a crack head. That's not hyperbole, I mean that as a statement of literal truth. My mother smokes crack; she is an actual crack head. Drug addiction is rampant through her side of the family; cocaine, heroin, alcohol. It hit my brother and sister, too; I'm the only one who ended up without a major monkey on their back, and it was mostly by luck.

 

The reason I have a hard time getting prescription pain killers is because I was heavily into meth amphetamine for about a year when I was 19. I moved half-way across the country to live with my dad and entered treatment, and I haven't done it since. But all of that is in my medical records, and as far as any doctor is concerned I'm just a druggy looking for a fix.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Katarack21