Are your friends from the Transgender community ?

 

 

Does this matter? Do transgender people somehow magically have more valuable opinions than other people?

 

I get where you're coming from, but this logic is ridiculous. It creates an environment where some people are listened to and others are not, AKA the exact sort of discrimination you claim to be fighting. Secondly, it also makes this very ignorant assumption that transgender people are somehow universally unified in their opinions on matters and are not unique human beings with unique perspectives and stances on things.

 

 

Furthermore I can introduce you to a transgender person who couldn't give two ****s about this whole issue. He plays lobbies on TF2Center, a well known community for the game TF2. This might also surprise you, but he doesn't proceed to cry or go ballistic if people call him "he" or "she" or "magic pony" either.

 

 

You don't think there is any relevance to a joke targeting a particular minority group and asking people from that minority if they find it offensive\hurtful

 

Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ?

 

And no that doesn't mean that other people can't  comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility ?

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by BruceVC

 

 

 

 

It's kinda amusing actually, that the SIJW's keep claiming the SJW's "raise lynch mobs" and what have you, and then keep starting threads drumming for lynch mobs against "feminazis" and "political correctness" and what have you.

 

To the OP: better check under your bed, there might be a cultural marxist there.

 

Right-wingers are terrified of any opinion that they disagree with. That's why they're always so desperate to silence opposing voices, whether by insults like "feminazi" or just by going straight to rape and death threats.

 

Basically they're scared that people will find the opinions persuasive. e.g. someone says that "The Limerick" was in really poor taste; Obsidian think about this, agree, and decide to remove it from the game. How to avoid this? Shout down the people you disagree with before anyone can find them persuasive.

 

The right wing has always been pro-censorship, pro-blind-obedience, anti any dissenting voice, and #gamergaters etc. are just another manifestation of this.

 

 

Wow Really? I am the only conservative among my immediate friends, and they all thought that the poem itself was NOT offensive and icequeen had severe  psychological issues. We all believe that the poem shouldn't be changed. Other than myself one of my friends was a backer and he also felt "betrayed" that josh sawyer and obsidian caved so easily and sacrificed the integrity of their artistic freedom for more money. Do NOT fall into the trap of lumping one entire group in one category due to the behavior of so called leaders.

 

 

Are your friends from the Transgender community ?

 

I got plenty of gay and bi friends who said it was fine and there have been plenty of transgen who have said it was fine on forums.  Do they count?  Oh yea, they are against the narrative so they don't count as much as one random crazy person who has no problem with saying things like KILLALLMEN (oh, lets ignore and forget about that sexist little detail huh)?

 

For me as long as your friends are from the LGBT community then thats important and relevant if they say the joke wasn't offensive, so yes they do count 

I got plenty of gay and bi friends who said it was fine and there have been plenty of transgen who have said it was fine on forums.  Do they count?  Oh yea, they are against the narrative so they don't count as much as one random crazy person who has no problem with saying things like KILLALLMEN (oh, lets ignore and forget about that sexist little detail huh)?

 

 

 

Or maybe Obsidian didn't like it. It was kind of in poor taste even if every LGBTWTFBBQ didn't want to storm Obsidian with pitchforks. Ultimately they have their name on it, it is their speech, if they wanted to get rid of it then no biggie. It impacted game content exactly 0%.

 

Sort of funny there is a person wanting to murder all transmen would be so defensive of trans issues but hey, I don't really care what that person has to say unless they show up here.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Valmy

Has this been posted already:

 

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/13763-Art-and-the-Internet

 

I bet the author reads these Forums (edit: Looks like it's about another webcomic on the escapist, oh well...).

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Gruftlord

 

 

Are your friends from the Transgender community ?

 

 

Does this matter? Do transgender people somehow magically have more valuable opinions than other people?

 

I get where you're coming from, but this logic is ridiculous. It creates an environment where some people are listened to and others are not, AKA the exact sort of discrimination you claim to be fighting. Secondly, it also makes this very ignorant assumption that transgender people are somehow universally unified in their opinions on matters and are not unique human beings with unique perspectives and stances on things.

 

 

Furthermore I can introduce you to a transgender person who couldn't give two ****s about this whole issue. He plays lobbies on TF2Center, a well known community for the game TF2. This might also surprise you, but he doesn't proceed to cry or go ballistic if people call him "he" or "she" or "magic pony" either.

 

 

You don't think there is any relevance to a joke targeting a particular minority group and asking people from that minority if they find it offensive\hurtful

 

Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ?

 

And no that doesn't mean that other people can't  comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility ?

 

 

 

The second line of this is a blatant strawman and is exactly the kind of hysterical bull**** I'm talking about. There's no reason for this. I'll tell you what Bruce, I'll let you solve that mystery on your own since the answer to that question is apparently so difficult to figure out yourself.

 

 

My point was that if we were to do things your way and only value transgender opinion, guess what would happen? A lot of valid opinions would be completely weeded out solely because the people who had them weren't allowed to voice those opinions. Meanwhile, the transgender community would likely be split on the issue just as much as the community as a whole is, because no group is unified in it's beliefs or opinions. Lastly, it creates a problem where theoretically a minority group could use it's complete and total power of opinion on a subject matter to get all sorts of things done. Not to imply that would realistically happen, but to highlight how flawed this manner of thinking is. If for example a state is electing a senator, one is transgender and the other is not, and the transgender community of that state is claiming the opponent is transphobic and no one is allowed to comment on the matter except for the transgender community, well then guess who has all the tools they need to become senator; hell **** that, they can run for president. A theoretical of course, but that doesn't make it any less flawed.

 

 

 

Personally though, again I'm more interested in the needlessly inflammatory statements and accusations that are being insisted upon. There's no reason to make statements like "men are the oppressors," nor is there any reason to even ask if I think only white men should comment on things. And yet you do it. Tell me Bruce, are you an adult or are you a gossip queen in middle school?

You dont have to be of certain gender or race to have an opinion nor have friends of  in the lbgt comunity to validate them. I can and will use my own critical thinking and reason. Its written in a limerick in a game it can be easily ignored and does not incite viloence against any group or gender, nor there is explict trans description on it, you can maybe imply but only as one possible explanation of many. To me this whole incident only shows how intolerant some outrage mobs can be in the name of imposing  their views.    

 

I got plenty of gay and bi friends who said it was fine and there have been plenty of transgen who have said it was fine on forums.  Do they count?  Oh yea, they are against the narrative so they don't count as much as one random crazy person who has no problem with saying things like KILLALLMEN (oh, lets ignore and forget about that sexist little detail huh)?

 

 

 

Or maybe Obsidian didn't like it. It was kind of in poor taste even if every LGBTWTFBBQ didn't want to storm Obsidian with pitchforks. Ultimately they have their name on it, it is their speech, if they wanted to get rid of it then no biggie. It impacted game content exactly 0%.

 

Sort of funny there is a person wanting to murder all transmen would be so defensive of trans issues but hey, I don't really care what that person has to say unless they show up here.

 

That was always a possibility, but pretty doubtful, seems pretty obvious that it was outside pressure from the defenders of the oppressed that did this.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Badmojo

 

That was always a possibility, but pretty doubtful, seems pretty obvious that it was outside pressure from the defenders of the oppressed that did this.

 

Maybe. I cannot read minds. I would certainly feel differently if it was something they had made that was part of the game and not one of hundreds of pieces of backer fluff. It is entirely possible they had not had time to accurately review everything or didn't really have time to think about it. That is, after all, what they actually said happened.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Valmy

Seriously, this "censorship" (non) issue and the insanity it's set off make me sad for the internet, many people on these boards, and society in general (exaggeration intended).  Reminds me of riots where people are so easily whipped into a frenzy.

 

It's backer content, it's irrelevant to the game, and it's potentially offensive to some people.  The author opted to change it to avoid issues for Obsidian (yeah, that worked).  It's a non-issue.  Let's all move on.

 

The amount of people on here carrying on is astounding...with their "I'll never give them another dollar", "I won't ever support anything else they ever do ever in my whole life", "So disappointed, they caved, let's all band together and (try to) ruin this company that just spent years making an amazing game that we've all been asking for, which they actually delivered on, but that's all beside the point because they edited some irrelevant text which most people don't even bother reading anyway because before this issue exploded we were all complaining about how 'immersion-breaking' the backer-created content was, but that doesn't matter now because we have something to get excited about and pretend we're all in 'V for Vendetta'...Fight the power!"  

 

Wow.  

 

Yes, I know not everyone is that 'frothy', and some people are attempting to raise calm, rational arguments relating to censorship (which this issue is not)...but it all just seems...misguided.

 

I applaud Obsidian's phenomenal game.  I'm fine with how they handled the situation.  I like Firedorn's re-write better than the original...more well written and clever anyway.

 

There is plenty of material in this game which speaks to Obsidian's willingness to tackle sensitive topics in their own way (ie. not pandering to get a PG rating).  Their communication with the backer, and the backer's decision to edit their submission, is a sensible solution to theoretically avoid unnecessary drama over an irrelevant blip in the game.  Problem solved...except for their vocal slice of backers and supporters who are now the ones creating all the drama.  Sheesh.

 

I've been a backer since day one of the Kickstarter, and am overjoyed at what they've delivered.

 

To Obsidian: I suspect, as is usually the case, that the forums are full of a vocal minority.  I suspect that many people like myself who are fine with what's occurred have not taken the time to post on here because, as mentioned, it's a non-issue.  I finally stopped to add my 2 cents because the exaggeration, vitriol, and drama in the past couple weeks honestly left me feeling astounded.

 

Now, that that's sorted...please get back to working on future patches and the expansion!  )

 

 

 

Are your friends from the Transgender community ?

 

 

Does this matter? Do transgender people somehow magically have more valuable opinions than other people?

 

I get where you're coming from, but this logic is ridiculous. It creates an environment where some people are listened to and others are not, AKA the exact sort of discrimination you claim to be fighting. Secondly, it also makes this very ignorant assumption that transgender people are somehow universally unified in their opinions on matters and are not unique human beings with unique perspectives and stances on things.

 

 

Furthermore I can introduce you to a transgender person who couldn't give two ****s about this whole issue. He plays lobbies on TF2Center, a well known community for the game TF2. This might also surprise you, but he doesn't proceed to cry or go ballistic if people call him "he" or "she" or "magic pony" either.

 

 

You don't think there is any relevance to a joke targeting a particular minority group and asking people from that minority if they find it offensive\hurtful

 

Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ?

 

And no that doesn't mean that other people can't  comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility ?

 

 

 

The second line of this is a blatant strawman and is exactly the kind of hysterical bull**** I'm talking about. There's no reason for this. I'll tell you what Bruce, I'll let you solve that mystery on your own since the answer to that question is apparently so difficult to figure out yourself.

 

 

My point was that if we were to do things your way and only value transgender opinion, guess what would happen? A lot of valid opinions would be completely weeded out solely because the people who had them weren't allowed to voice those opinions. Meanwhile, the transgender community would likely be split on the issue just as much as the community as a whole is, because no group is unified in it's beliefs or opinions. Lastly, it creates a problem where theoretically a minority group could use it's complete and total power of opinion on a subject matter to get all sorts of things done. Not to imply that would realistically happen, but to highlight how flawed this manner of thinking is. If for example a state is electing a senator, one is transgender and the other is not, and the transgender community of that state is claiming the opponent is transphobic and no one is allowed to comment on the matter except for the transgender community, well then guess who has all the tools they need to become senator; hell **** that, they can run for president. A theoretical of course, but that doesn't make it any less flawed.

 

 

 

Personally though, again I'm more interested in the needlessly inflammatory statements and accusations that are being insisted upon. There's no reason to make statements like "men are the oppressors," nor is there any reason to even ask if I think only white men should comment on things. And yet you do it. Tell me Bruce, are you an adult or are you a gossip queen in middle school?

 

I'd just like to say that you've handled yourself very well throughout all the inflammatory comments hurled in your direction.

 

That being said, I would suggest that you stay away from this thread for the time being. You've essentially been marked by some of these people as an easy outlet for their aggression. You see, they aren't actually mad at you, they are mad at someone else, either the one who started the limerick or the one who made a fuss about it, and you just happen to be conveniently located right here. So they use you as a proxy to say all the things they want to say to the respective parties.

 

Because of this fact, no amount of logic (and you have done an exceedingly good job of using it) you use will be effective. I'd assume most of them are just reading the first few sentences or so of your replies and then creating a new emotional storm based on that, and that's if you're lucky.

 

Either way, you're opinions are perfectly valid, and I think you do bring a fresh perspective to this argument. And for the others out there that need validation, this statement is coming from a flagrant homo, that's me for those keeping score. So yes, my opinion is valid even under your ridiculous frame of pseudo-logic.

 

 

 

Are your friends from the Transgender community ?

 

 

Does this matter? Do transgender people somehow magically have more valuable opinions than other people?

 

I get where you're coming from, but this logic is ridiculous. It creates an environment where some people are listened to and others are not, AKA the exact sort of discrimination you claim to be fighting. Secondly, it also makes this very ignorant assumption that transgender people are somehow universally unified in their opinions on matters and are not unique human beings with unique perspectives and stances on things.

 

 

Furthermore I can introduce you to a transgender person who couldn't give two ****s about this whole issue. He plays lobbies on TF2Center, a well known community for the game TF2. This might also surprise you, but he doesn't proceed to cry or go ballistic if people call him "he" or "she" or "magic pony" either.

 

 

You don't think there is any relevance to a joke targeting a particular minority group and asking people from that minority if they find it offensive\hurtful

 

Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ?

 

And no that doesn't mean that other people can't  comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility ?

 

 

 

The second line of this is a blatant strawman and is exactly the kind of hysterical bull**** I'm talking about. There's no reason for this. I'll tell you what Bruce, I'll let you solve that mystery on your own since the answer to that question is apparently so difficult to figure out yourself.

 

 

My point was that if we were to do things your way and only value transgender opinion, guess what would happen? A lot of valid opinions would be completely weeded out solely because the people who had them weren't allowed to voice those opinions. Meanwhile, the transgender community would likely be split on the issue just as much as the community as a whole is, because no group is unified in it's beliefs or opinions. Lastly, it creates a problem where theoretically a minority group could use it's complete and total power of opinion on a subject matter to get all sorts of things done. Not to imply that would realistically happen, but to highlight how flawed this manner of thinking is. If for example a state is electing a senator, one is transgender and the other is not, and the transgender community of that state is claiming the opponent is transphobic and no one is allowed to comment on the matter except for the transgender community, well then guess who has all the tools they need to become senator; hell **** that, they can run for president. A theoretical of course, but that doesn't make it any less flawed.

 

 

 

Personally though, again I'm more interested in the needlessly inflammatory statements and accusations that are being insisted upon. There's no reason to make statements like "men are the oppressors," nor is there any reason to even ask if I think only white men should comment on things. And yet you do it. Tell me Bruce, are you an adult or are you a gossip queen in middle school?

 

 

No, once again you fail to actually read and comprehend what I am saying. I never said " only the LGBT community opinions matters on this issue " 

 

As you well know I have many opinions on SJ issues like gender equality and gay  rights  and I am neither a women or a member of the LGBT community. I am white, heterosexual male 

 

So I would a complete hypocrite if I said  only members of a minority group can comment on issues relating to that minority group. I said " And no that doesn't mean that other people can't  comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility  " 

 

So to explore this point a little further, if there are 10 African Americans in room and two white people and a joke is perceived to be racist towards the African Americans and the room is asked " is this joke racist " and the 10 African Americans say  " no "  I would find it strange if the two white guys still said the joke was racist. Thats why I said " the targeted minority  group should have more credibility " ...thats not the same thing as saying " no one else can comment" 

 

So when someone says " my friends didn't find the limerick offensive " ...my next question would be "well are your friends members of the LGBT community " to understand context 

 

And please when did i say " men are oppressors " ...you are clearly confused, I said no such thing but I agree with the person who said that on most other things 

 

No, once again you fail to actually read and comprehend what I am saying. I never said " only the LGBT community opinions matters on this issue " 

 

As you well know I have many opinions on SJ issues like gender equality and gay  rights  and I am neither a women or a member of the LGBT community. I am white, heterosexual male 

 

So I would a complete hypocrite if I said  only members of a minority group can comment on issues relating to that minority group. I said " And no that doesn't mean that other people can't  comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility  " 

 

So to explore this point a little further, if there are 10 African Americans in room and two white people and a joke is perceived to be racist towards the African Americans and the room is asked " is this joke racist " and the 10 African Americans say  " no "  I would find it strange if the two white guys still said the joke was racist. Thats why I said " the targeted minority  group should have more credibility " ...thats not the same thing as saying " no one else can comment" 

 

So when someone says " my friends didn't find the limerick offensive " ...my next question would be "well are your friends members of the LGBT community " to understand context 

 

And please when did i say " men are oppressors " ...you are clearly confused, I said no such thing but I agree with the person who said that on most other things

What's the difference? "Should have more credibility" and "shouldn't get to weigh in?" I mean the last guy who posted, your response was "were any of those people transgender?" You obviously are providing them with bias and giving their stance more weight. Everything I said more or less still applies.

 

  The "men are oppressors" line is on point with what I said a couple posts back about how giving any perceived differences in STEM the title of "sexism" only serves to escalate any emotionally-charged responses that may occur. That snippet was posted by someone else....who conveniently disappeared (as my debate partners so often seem to do these past few pages) when I posed the question of why he insists on labeling men as oppressors and what purpose it serves. My point was and still is that I see no definitive reason to label it as sexism, nor do I see why the term or phrases like "men are the oppressors" should be used since they contribute absolutely nothing and only serve to devolve discussions into petty quarrels. The second part of your post is indentical in tone. What ****ing purpose is there in asking me if I think only white heterosexuals should be allowed to voice their opinions? You knew damned well how that statement came off and you know damned well what the answer to that question is, and yet you ask it as though it's relevant, topical, or does anything for the discussion. Once again Bruce, this is why you have this reputation of being passive aggressive.

 

 

  And in general I find your "it's to give it context" point flawed. I find the people who "use context" are the same people who skim newspapers and develop their political stances based on what the democrats or the republicans think, without actually bothering to consider the issue themselves and critically think if they approve or not. The only relevance I believe such a question to hold is if the overwhelming majority (I'm talking 95%+) of a community is in agreement on something. Even this, I would expect to be applied more to communities and cultures, not sex orientations or the like. I would be interested what the black community thinks of the local police force vs. what the white community thinks, I would not be so interested in how community X perceives a joke vs. community Y.

 

I do not expect that myself and other disabled people will come to a full-stop concensus on disabled issues, I do not expect the gay community to come to a full-stop concensus on gay issues, I certainly don't expect transgender people to have a concensus on....a ****ing joke. A joke is a matter of a personality, how sensitive the person is, their brand of humor and how much they appreciate humor in general, not sex orientation.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by Longknife

 

 

No, once again you fail to actually read and comprehend what I am saying. I never said " only the LGBT community opinions matters on this issue " 

 

As you well know I have many opinions on SJ issues like gender equality and gay  rights  and I am neither a women or a member of the LGBT community. I am white, heterosexual male 

 

So I would a complete hypocrite if I said  only members of a minority group can comment on issues relating to that minority group. I said " And no that doesn't mean that other people can't  comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility  " 

 

So to explore this point a little further, if there are 10 African Americans in room and two white people and a joke is perceived to be racist towards the African Americans and the room is asked " is this joke racist " and the 10 African Americans say  " no "  I would find it strange if the two white guys still said the joke was racist. Thats why I said " the targeted minority  group should have more credibility " ...thats not the same thing as saying " no one else can comment" 

 

So when someone says " my friends didn't find the limerick offensive " ...my next question would be "well are your friends members of the LGBT community " to understand context 

 

And please when did i say " men are oppressors " ...you are clearly confused, I said no such thing but I agree with the person who said that on most other things

What's the difference? "Should have more credibility" and "shouldn't get to weigh in?" I mean the last guy who posted, your response was "were any of those people transgender?" You obviously are providing them with bias and giving their stance more weight. Everything I said more or less still applies.

 

  The "men are oppressors" line is on point with what I said a couple posts back about how giving any perceived differences in STEM the title of "sexism" only serves to escalate any emotionally-charged responses that may occur. That snippet was posted by someone else....who conveniently disappeared (as my debate partners so often seem to do these past few pages) when I posed the question of why he insists on labeling men as oppressors and what purpose it serves. My point was and still is that I see no definitive reason to label it as sexism, nor do I see why the term or phrases like "men are the oppressors" should be used since they contribute absolutely nothing and only serve to devolve discussions into petty quarrels. The second part of your post is indentical in tone. What ****ing purpose is there in asking me if I think only white heterosexuals should be allowed to voice their opinions? You knew damned well how that statement came off and you know damned well what the answer to that question is, and yet you ask it as though it's relevant, topical, or does anything for the discussion. Once again Bruce, this is why you have this reputation of being passive aggressive.

 

 

  And in general I find your "it's to give it context" point flawed. I find the people who "use context" are the same people who skim newspapers and develop their political stances based on what the democrats or the republicans think, without actually bothering to consider the issue themselves and critically think if they approve or not. The only relevance I believe such a question to hold is if the overwhelming majority (I'm talking 95%+) of a community is in agreement on something. Even this, I would expect to be applied more to communities and cultures, not sex orientations or the like. I would be interested what the black community thinks of the local police force vs. what the white community thinks, I would not be so interested in how community X perceives a joke vs. community Y.

 

I do not expect that myself and other disabled people will come to a full-stop concensus on disabled issues, I do not expect the gay community to come to a full-stop concensus on gay issues, I certainly don't expect transgender people to have a concensus on....a ****ing joke. A joke is a matter of a personality, how sensitive the person is, their brand of humor and how much they appreciate humor in general, not sex orientation.

 

 

I really cannot make this point any more clearer, I am not saying that people outside minority groups cannot comment on issues pertaining to minority groups. I make comments all the time about perceived and real issues that minority groups grapple with. So I would be a hypocrite if I was saying this now

 

I am saying the opinions of minority groups should carry more credibility when discussions come up around points like " is this offensive " . And saying something has more  credibility definitely doesn't mean " no one else can weigh in ". I don't equivocate, if I wanted to say " no one else should weigh in about LGBT issues except for the LGBT community " I would have said that.

 

But I retract my comment " Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ?" , this  was inappropriate because to be fair I don't think you believe that. So I apologize for that 

 

And context is very important when people make certain  points. Since this discussion is  going backwards and forwards with people saying   " I find it offensive " or " I didn't find it offensive " so when he said " my friends didn't find it offensive " it seemed perfectly natural to me to ask " are your friends from the transgender community " 

 

Perhaps I could have worded that question better but it was just an initial exploratory point to understand where his comment  was coming from . I had no idea if his friends are members of the LGBT community but I wanted to know so there was no assumed bias from me 

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by BruceVC

 

Seriously, this "censorship" (non) issue and the insanity it's set off make me sad for the internet, many people on these boards, and society in general (exaggeration intended).  Reminds me of riots where people are so easily whipped into a frenzy.

 

It's backer content, it's irrelevant to the game, and it's potentially offensive to some people.  The author opted to change it to avoid issues for Obsidian (yeah, that worked).  It's a non-issue.  Let's all move on.

 

The amount of people on here carrying on is astounding...with their "I'll never give them another dollar", "I won't ever support anything else they ever do ever in my whole life", "So disappointed, they caved, let's all band together and (try to) ruin this company that just spent years making an amazing game that we've all been asking for, which they actually delivered on, but that's all beside the point because they edited some irrelevant text which most people don't even bother reading anyway because before this issue exploded we were all complaining about how 'immersion-breaking' the backer-created content was, but that doesn't matter now because we have something to get excited about and pretend we're all in 'V for Vendetta'...Fight the power!"  

 

Wow.  

 

Yes, I know not everyone is that 'frothy', and some people are attempting to raise calm, rational arguments relating to censorship (which this issue is not)...but it all just seems...misguided.

 

I applaud Obsidian's phenomenal game.  I'm fine with how they handled the situation.  I like Firedorn's re-write better than the original...more well written and clever anyway.

 

There is plenty of material in this game which speaks to Obsidian's willingness to tackle sensitive topics in their own way (ie. not pandering to get a PG rating).  Their communication with the backer, and the backer's decision to edit their submission, is a sensible solution to theoretically avoid unnecessary drama over an irrelevant blip in the game.  Problem solved...except for their vocal slice of backers and supporters who are now the ones creating all the drama.  Sheesh.

 

I've been a backer since day one of the Kickstarter, and am overjoyed at what they've delivered.

 

To Obsidian: I suspect, as is usually the case, that the forums are full of a vocal minority.  I suspect that many people like myself who are fine with what's occurred have not taken the time to post on here because, as mentioned, it's a non-issue.  I finally stopped to add my 2 cents because the exaggeration, vitriol, and drama in the past couple weeks honestly left me feeling astounded.

 

Now, that that's sorted...please get back to working on future patches and the expansion!   )

 

 

Quoted for great justice.

 

It is simply astounding that we got delivered a great game, yet all some people can focus on is an incredibly irrelevant limerick buried somewhere in the game. Obsidian and Firedorn have handled this with much more maturity than a lot of people have and elsewhere. A pity that, in this day of constant outrage by people with an agenda, being reasonable only fan the flames further.

Bobby Null seems like a cool dude. Lurks these issues and reads them, even if he doesn't (can't?) comment on them.

That the Limerick was a issue at all is part my problem. But creating  outrage to shout at Obsidian for caving to outrage is kind of nuts, its throwing gasoline to stop the fire. Fanatism for any cause is a mind and reason killer.

 

      I just belive this anything is potentialy offensive because its perception judgement based on cultural and personal values. If none can put out  potentially offensive content no one can create any content at all.

 

     And you cant preach tolerance while enforcing the opposite of it. Check what you are really  doing before throwing stones at someone else.

 

 

 

No, once again you fail to actually read and comprehend what I am saying. I never said " only the LGBT community opinions matters on this issue " 

 

As you well know I have many opinions on SJ issues like gender equality and gay  rights  and I am neither a women or a member of the LGBT community. I am white, heterosexual male 

 

So I would a complete hypocrite if I said  only members of a minority group can comment on issues relating to that minority group. I said " And no that doesn't mean that other people can't  comment but surly the actual minority group targeted has more credibility  " 

 

So to explore this point a little further, if there are 10 African Americans in room and two white people and a joke is perceived to be racist towards the African Americans and the room is asked " is this joke racist " and the 10 African Americans say  " no "  I would find it strange if the two white guys still said the joke was racist. Thats why I said " the targeted minority  group should have more credibility " ...thats not the same thing as saying " no one else can comment" 

 

So when someone says " my friends didn't find the limerick offensive " ...my next question would be "well are your friends members of the LGBT community " to understand context 

 

And please when did i say " men are oppressors " ...you are clearly confused, I said no such thing but I agree with the person who said that on most other things

What's the difference? "Should have more credibility" and "shouldn't get to weigh in?" I mean the last guy who posted, your response was "were any of those people transgender?" You obviously are providing them with bias and giving their stance more weight. Everything I said more or less still applies.

 

  The "men are oppressors" line is on point with what I said a couple posts back about how giving any perceived differences in STEM the title of "sexism" only serves to escalate any emotionally-charged responses that may occur. That snippet was posted by someone else....who conveniently disappeared (as my debate partners so often seem to do these past few pages) when I posed the question of why he insists on labeling men as oppressors and what purpose it serves. My point was and still is that I see no definitive reason to label it as sexism, nor do I see why the term or phrases like "men are the oppressors" should be used since they contribute absolutely nothing and only serve to devolve discussions into petty quarrels. The second part of your post is indentical in tone. What ****ing purpose is there in asking me if I think only white heterosexuals should be allowed to voice their opinions? You knew damned well how that statement came off and you know damned well what the answer to that question is, and yet you ask it as though it's relevant, topical, or does anything for the discussion. Once again Bruce, this is why you have this reputation of being passive aggressive.

 

 

  And in general I find your "it's to give it context" point flawed. I find the people who "use context" are the same people who skim newspapers and develop their political stances based on what the democrats or the republicans think, without actually bothering to consider the issue themselves and critically think if they approve or not. The only relevance I believe such a question to hold is if the overwhelming majority (I'm talking 95%+) of a community is in agreement on something. Even this, I would expect to be applied more to communities and cultures, not sex orientations or the like. I would be interested what the black community thinks of the local police force vs. what the white community thinks, I would not be so interested in how community X perceives a joke vs. community Y.

 

I do not expect that myself and other disabled people will come to a full-stop concensus on disabled issues, I do not expect the gay community to come to a full-stop concensus on gay issues, I certainly don't expect transgender people to have a concensus on....a ****ing joke. A joke is a matter of a personality, how sensitive the person is, their brand of humor and how much they appreciate humor in general, not sex orientation.

 

 

I really cannot make this point any more clearer, I am not saying that people outside minority groups cannot comment on issues pertaining to minority groups. I make comments all the time about perceived and real issues that minority groups grapple with. So I would be a hypocrite if I was saying this now

 

I am saying the opinions of minority groups should carry more credibility when discussions come up around points like " is this offensive " . And saying something has more  credibility definitely doesn't mean " no one else can weigh in ". I don't equivocate, if I wanted to say " no one else should weigh in about LGBT issues except for the LGBT community " I would have said that.

 

But I retract my comment " Do you think the best people to decide if certain jokes\comments are offensive are white, heterosexual males ?" , this  was inappropriate because to be fair I don't think you believe that. So I apologize for that 

 

And context is very important when people make certain  points. Since this discussion is  going backwards and forwards with people saying   " I find it offensive " or " I didn't find it offensive " so when he said " my friends didn't find it offensive " it seemed perfectly natural to me to ask " are your friends from the transgender community " 

 

Perhaps I could have worded that question better but it was just an initial exploratory point to understand where his comment  was coming from . I had no idea if his friends are members of the LGBT community but I wanted to know so there was no assumed bias from me 

 

 

 

Um ... actually what you did was ask a question that considering simple demographics an honest answer would most likely fit into your narrative and provide you with the emotional ammo to "lessen" the perspective of him and his friends.

That the Limerick was a issue at all is part my problem. But creating  outrage to shout at Obsidian for caving to outrage is kind of nuts, its throwing gasoline to stop the fire. Fanatism for any cause is a mind and reason killer.

 

      I just belive this anything is potentialy offensive because its perception judgement based on cultural and personal values. If none can put out  potentially offensive content no one can create any content at all.

 

     And you cant preach tolerance while enforcing the opposite of it. Check what you are really  doing before throwing stones at someone else.

 

What if I'm a fanatic for reason?

I for one will NOT kickstart another Obsidian project. This is in protest of political correctness. 

Every fanatic is a fanatic for a reason.

Every fanatic is a fanatic for a reason.

 

I didn't mean for a reason, I said for reason.

 

Can we turn this into a "fun with physicians" thread? You can't get the medicine you need because they don't believe your pain is as bad as you say, and I'm getting constantly increased dosages of prescription drugs that have no effect. 288mg (36*8 ) of Concerta/Methylphenidatehydrochloride per day? And another 40mg (4*10)of Ritalin/Methylphenidatehydrochloride on top of that? Sure, can I have a Pez dispenser with it? I prefer Cherry and Lemon, Strawberry is scrub tier.

 

 

Move to the UK.  It took me two years to even get evaluated for ADHD, my first psychiatrist decided I was a drug-seeker because I was a student at the time, and even my current one won't consider anything that's not slow-acting, which leaves me screwed if I want to do anything productive for longer than 8 hours a day.

 

I didn't even know about the controversy until recently, dug up the old limerick to see what it's all about and found something that pokes fun at insecure womanizers.

 

No matter how much I logically understand there will be a gulf between how the people being depicted and the people doing the depiction of stereotypes, I'm still completely flabbergasted by the reactions.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by DarthPanda

Off-topic but how do they even expect to evaluate pain anyways?

Like I'm allergic to morphine and I can DEFINITELY say my pain tolerance jumps after every surgery. I had nerve pains in my leg at a time and despite these (which are the worst kind of pain as far as I'm concerned) I could last a good 4 hours+ with that kind of pain....not by choice, "friends" and family just didn't give a **** about me. Not saying by any means that I could tolerate it, I would visibly shake and sweat and spent a semester studying purely at home from books because these prevented me from concentrating on my lectures, but I withstood it.

 

Later my mom developed nerve pains in her hip, she couldn't stand them for half an hour and would demand we go home so she can lay down....I knew better than to point out the hypocrisy.

 

Point is different people rate different thresholds of pain as different numbers on a scale.

Actually it will be interesting to see whether there is a noticeable difference in future kickstarter funding ... I personally suspect that there won't be a major difference but I am curious. ... But then again I'm also curious what the reaction would have been had the poem's removal been included in the patch notes.