Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..

[TheisEjsing]

I haven't claimed anything. I am not a part of this debate. This is a fruitless debate with people too invested in their own situation and agenda to ever yield any productive outcome. I merely commented on you trying to act like you want facts and then throw irrelevant claims around.

 

Have you ever met a high profile scientist? Because it sounds like you haven't. They're not epitomes of truth and high standards. That a woman is offended by something isn't causally linked to her profession you know. 

Edited April 9, 2015 by TheisEjsing

[Macrae]

 

 

 

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.

Hehe..nice argument, except that I'm not the one demanding censorship here..

 

And, I'm just expressing, after them, my opinion, stating that I am a little disappointed, nothing more. If you think I shouldn't do this please go ahead, I don't want to censor you..

 

 

You are demanding censorship, because you're directly comparing people who disagree with you to murderous lynch mobs and the nazis, and thus putting them outside the range of acceptable conversation, characterizing them has indulging in hate-speech (which is censored).

 

You also don't understand what intellectual integrity means. It means being able to back up your ideas, and sticking to them when they're rational, and dropping them when they're shown to be irrational. Anyone even using the phrase "feminazi" has already given up any claim to "intellectual integrity", because he's using crude, offensive, propaganda-speech, which compares fairly harmless people to a massive evil army (bordering on a death cult) which took over Europe by violent force and exterminated millions of people. There's no intellectual integrity there.

 

It absolutely does not mean mindlessly sticking to your guns, or worse, someone else's guns, as you seem to think it does.

 

 

 

Good post, personally I have always found the characterizations " femnazi" and  " SJF " ( social justice Fascist )  offensive and completely exaggerated and unnecessary

 

People like myself support SJ initiatives, the last thing I am is some kind of bigot who should be associated with groups of people who committed genocide 

 

I have asked people to refrain from using such words but some people still use them. So I can really can identify with your logic 

 

So according to SJW, words like "feminazi" and "SJF" should be censored.. xD

 

Just shows what these guys really stand for.. xD

 

In the end all we'll be able to say is commenting about the weather hehe..

[Luckmann]

For all anyone in this thread knows, people higher up in Obsidian may have found the limerick just as offensive as I do... 

That would really just mean that someone higher up in Obsidian is also a perpetually offended idiot that goes around looking for malice where there is none, and seeks to take offense by proxy. It is true, what you say, of course, but that's really beside the point. It just means that the mental rot is severe - it wouldn't really make anything better. Worse, if anything.

 

Until proven otherwise, I prefer to believe that, taking into account that nobody is perfect, most people at Obsidian are reasonable, thinking individuals that sometimes makes mistakes, just like the rest of us. At least until proven otherwise.

 

I haven't claimed anything. I am not a part of this debate. This is a fruitless debate with people too invested in their own situation and agenda to ever yield any productive outcome. I merely commented on you trying to act like you want facts and then throw irrelevant claims around.

 

Have you ever met a high profile scientist? Because it sounds like you haven't. They're not epitomes of truth and high standards. That a woman is offended by something isn't causally linked to her profession you know.

I talked to a professional microbiologist once, and she was dumb as a sack of bricks. Arguing with her felt like driving over her with a truck. It really wasn't fair.

 

Most academicians I've met are delusional, rather than intelligent. Education is not a substitute for thinking, although of course, it's best if you do both.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Luckmann

[gkathellar]

 

For all anyone in this thread knows, people higher up in Obsidian may have found the limerick just as offensive as I do... 

 

So what? 

 

You found it "offensive"? So? That's your business.

 

 

Huh. See, I thought this was, like, a discussion thread, where people share opinions and make conjectures.

Edited April 9, 2015 by gkathellar

[rheingold]

 

One's freedom ends where another's begin. 

 

You cannot lack respect to someone, be a **** about it, then claim "freedom of speech" and then say that people cannot complain as well. What makes -your- right stronger than theirs?

 

Let me counter your question with: Does my right become more right if I am in a minority, and am I allowed to be more of a **** if I am? Does my right become more right if I also rile up people around me, who have no idea what my emotions are or who I am but they simply feel emotional because I am emotional?

 

Take Denmark's embassy in the Middle-East (Yes, I am comparing with that, if you know what I am talking about), where islamists got riled up because a Danish artists had made a painting of "He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named" (lol). Whilst marching towards the embassy, the crowd became larger and larger, and no one in the crowd had any idea what it was all about, but someone had made a painting, probably, and they were yelling and got angry and tossed **** around them and eventually they burned down the embassy... except they burned down the Norwegian embassy too (They probably didn't know which one was which so they burned down both).

 

Does that right make them more right, because they were offended by a cartoon of Mohammed, and that made it right of them to rile up thousands of people around them? What if Obsidian hadn't listened to Erika, would she be allowed to burn down Obsidian's offices and spread hate about them because of a poem?

 

I know my example is a bit extreme, but do you understand what I am saying?

Read: I think (2) fits into it

LOL

Yes, because the people who think the limerick was offensive are now planning to burn Obsidans office down and murder all the staff. Really, stop with all the crazy comparisons to terrorism or Nazis. It's absurd.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

One's freedom ends where another's begin. 

 

You cannot lack respect to someone, be a **** about it, then claim "freedom of speech" and then say that people cannot complain as well. What makes -your- right stronger than theirs?

 

Let me counter your question with: Does my right become more right if I am in a minority, and am I allowed to be more of a **** if I am? Does my right become more right if I also rile up people around me, who have no idea what my emotions are or who I am but they simply feel emotional because I am emotional?

 

Take Denmark's embassy in the Middle-East (Yes, I am comparing with that, if you know what I am talking about), where islamists got riled up because a Danish artists had made a painting of "He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named" (lol). Whilst marching towards the embassy, the crowd became larger and larger, and no one in the crowd had any idea what it was all about, but someone had made a painting, probably, and they were yelling and got angry and tossed **** around them and eventually they burned down the embassy... except they burned down the Norwegian embassy too (They probably didn't know which one was which so they burned down both).

 

Does that right make them more right, because they were offended by a cartoon of Mohammed, and that made it right of them to rile up thousands of people around them? What if Obsidian hadn't listened to Erika, would she be allowed to burn down Obsidian's offices and spread hate about them because of a poem?

 

I know my example is a bit extreme, but do you understand what I am saying?

Read: I think (2) fits into it.

 

 

A bit extreme? Of course she wouldn't be allowed to destroy property or hurt people because she got freaking offended, what kind of a question is that? I'm a huge supporter of free speech and I reserve the right to walk around in public with a t-shirt with a graphic of the danish cartoon with Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban. But I also have the right to not wear that shirt if I don't feel like it. If Obsidian had removed the poem in order to appease a group threatening violence against them, I'd be pissed, but that's not what went down at all. First of all, it's likely that they overlooked it and legitimately don't like it or want it in the game in the first place. That would be their right to include whatever the **** they want in their work. Furthermore, they didn't remove it or apologize and they weren't responding to threats of violence. They chose to ask the backer if he wanted to change it in light of the situation, and he decided to do so. Period. That's the entire story. Nobody caved to threats of violence and no censorship was forced on anybody.

 

Obsidian decided that they wanted to give the backer an opportunity to change something that was causing a lot of people to **** on twitter and the forums, the backer decided to do so, Obsidian published his rewrite which directly insulted those who got offended in the first place. It's amazing how much imaginary bs all of you are attaching to this situation.

[evensong]

See, this is the problem here. It's impossible to prove a negative.

 

If you read my post carefully you'll find that I'm actually just explaining why people are offended, I am not stating that their system of thought is unquestionably correct. I'm not asking you to dismantle it or prove it wrong. I am explaining that it exists and that people adhere to it, and that is why they are offended. You can't disagree with the fact that it exists - this is self-evident, as the products of it is the only reason we are talking about this in the first place!

 

The adherents find the joke damaging for reasons they consider to be legitimate, and their reasons are very different from the conservative censorship (i.e. Tipper Gore/Dead Kennedys album cover, DH Lawrence/obscenity charges etc.) framework in which people are offended by dead babies or whatever. If you think they are the same, you don't understand the framework itself, which means you're arguing without knowing what you are talking about. That was my original point.

 

I do happen to agree with these thoughts of social justice, though, hence my statement that I also want **** like this gone. I don't want people thrown in jail over it, but I do think people should think twice before casually making jokes that contribute to a culture of oppression.

Edited April 9, 2015 by evensong

[RottenBrain]

On the one hand, if that's legitimately triggering you, I'm sorry, and I strongly encourage you to seek treatment, and perhaps to employ AdBlock in this context.

I find your suggestion that I need treatment insulting. Furthermore, why should I alter the forum on my end, when it's clear that someone else is the cause of my distress and it's obvious that all that needs to happen is for them to simply change their avatar?

 

@rheingold: why do you insist on distressing me? Please, change your avatar.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

How is this still a thing? 

[Rhaeg]

Ugh, first the Hugo Awards (http://www.avclub.com/article/years-hugo-award-nominees-are-messy-political-cont-217574) and now this... Once there was a time when I thought fantasy and sci-fi fans/readers/gamers/etc/ were all cool nerds who always got along well with each other and only had heated debates about whether tabletop RPG system X or Y is best. Of course, that turned out to be a completely naive idea, but I do wish I'd never found out about that...

[BruceVC]

Why do you all even care? I think there was nothing wrong with the limerick and wouldn't mind if it had stayed but I care even less that it was removed.

 

Complaining about it in the first place was dumb, removing it was dumb, complaining that it was removed is just as dumb. Just let it be, it doesn't matter.

 

You see for me its simple, if something is hurtful to a particular group then we need to consider its value and ask questions like " was this the right decision to include it " 

 

But its more complicated than that  because now people who want to dismiss this point will feign offense and say things like " well I find the color Red offensive " ...can you remove it ?

 

So we need to look at things historically and in context. I am a white South African who still lives in South Africa and the circles I move in believe that certain words and actions are just unacceptable. The reality is the LGBT community is arguably still the most discriminated minority group in the world, there are places I travel to for work where its the death penalty if you are gay. In my own country you cannot be sexist or racist as you get called out on it but you can still be homophobic..despite the fact our Constitution protects your sexual orientation

 

So from a SJ perspective I am particularly critical  when it comes to Homophobia because I see this as fairly common form of bigotry that people justify for a number of reasons

So when you ask " why do I care " I care because I don't think its right that people are discriminated against because of there sexual orientation. Its an simple as that

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Here lies a SJF, crying in bed.
Was once alive, but now they're dead.
The last person they bedded, turned out cisgender
And crying in shame, off a cliff they meander.

[PrimeJunta]

I'm sure if we just keep at this, eventually the other side will see reason. Whichever side that is from your POV.

[geierkreisen]

What the hell, let's wade into this cesspool...

 

What I hate about this whole charade is that Obsidian as a group of artists have made a marvellous game and some people just want to **** on it by labelling them weaklings and turncoats.

 

Consider someone who invites other people into adding to a creation as a gesture of gratitude for their support. Is that weakness?

As an oversight they don't proofcheck everything and some contribution slips into the product that they don't stand behind. Is that weakness or merely human fallibility?

They check back with the contributor and together they change the contribution. Is that weakness or actually the sensible way to do it?

 

What you loonies do is put artists you once supported (if at all) into the weak corner so you can stand in front of them in outrage to belittle them, protect them from an imagined outside oppressor so you can feel what...meaningful?

 

Tell you what. Don't like it? Don't support it. But shut the hell up so people can enjoy the product for what it is and the artists for what they do.

 

And if you want a weak one to protect, father a child. Puts things into perspective.

[Luckmann]

 

See, this is the problem here. It's impossible to prove a negative.

 

If you read my post carefully you'll find that I'm actually just explaining why people are offended, I am not stating that their system of thought is unquestionably correct. I'm not asking you to dismantle it or prove it wrong. I am explaining that it exists and that people adhere to it, and that is why they are offended. You can't disagree with the fact that it exists - this is self-evident, as the products of it is the only reason we are talking about this in the first place!

 

The adherents find the joke damaging for reasons they consider to be legitimate, and their reasons are very different from the conservative censorship (i.e. Tipper Gore/Dead Kennedys album cover, DH Lawrence/obscenity charges etc.) framework in which people are offended by dead babies or whatever. If you think they are the same, you don't understand the framework itself, which means you're arguing without knowing what you are talking about. That was my original point.

 

I do happen to agree with these thoughts of social justice, though, hence my statement that I also want **** like this gone. I don't want people thrown in jail over it, but I do think people should think twice before casually making jokes that contribute to a culture of oppression.

 

This really just supports the statement that the ones that are offended are being delusional, rather than reasonable.

 

We shouldn't take delusional people seriously. The reason they are offended is irrelevant, unless there's any merit to the claim, and if there isn't, the fact that they are offended should be treated with due ridicule.

 

"I'm offended" isn't a good enough reason for anything.

 

 

On the one hand, if that's legitimately triggering you, I'm sorry, and I strongly encourage you to seek treatment, and perhaps to employ AdBlock in this context.

I find your suggestion that I need treatment insulting. Furthermore, why should I alter the forum on my end, when it's clear that someone else is the cause of my distress and it's obvious that all that needs to happen is for them to simply change their avatar?

 

@rheingold: why do you insist on distressing me? Please, change your avatar.

 

The irony here is palpable. This is wonderful. I think it's pearls before swines, though, RottenBrain.

 

[...]

 

You see for me its simple, if something is hurtful to a particular group then we need to consider its value and ask questions like " was this the right decision to include it "

 

But its more complicated than that because now people who want to dismiss this point will feign offense and say things like " well I find the color Red offensive " ...can you remove it ?

 

[...]

The point of the feigned offence is to make you understand that the situation is unreasonable precisely because any number of people can be offended by any number of things, and anyone can feign any form of offence. I'm offended you don't recognize my right to identify as an apache attack helicopter, and demand that it is included in the game.

 

This should not have to be spelled out to you.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Luckmann

[evensong]

Here lies a SJF, crying in bed.

Was once alive, but now they're dead.

The last person they bedded, turned out cisgender

And crying in shame, off a cliff they meander.

 

I'm more offended by the poor craftsmanship of your poem than its contents, to be honest. Don't write limericks unless you know what an anapest is, pls

[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.

Hehe..nice argument, except that I'm not the one demanding censorship here..

 

And, I'm just expressing, after them, my opinion, stating that I am a little disappointed, nothing more. If you think I shouldn't do this please go ahead, I don't want to censor you..

 

 

You are demanding censorship, because you're directly comparing people who disagree with you to murderous lynch mobs and the nazis, and thus putting them outside the range of acceptable conversation, characterizing them has indulging in hate-speech (which is censored).

 

You also don't understand what intellectual integrity means. It means being able to back up your ideas, and sticking to them when they're rational, and dropping them when they're shown to be irrational. Anyone even using the phrase "feminazi" has already given up any claim to "intellectual integrity", because he's using crude, offensive, propaganda-speech, which compares fairly harmless people to a massive evil army (bordering on a death cult) which took over Europe by violent force and exterminated millions of people. There's no intellectual integrity there.

 

It absolutely does not mean mindlessly sticking to your guns, or worse, someone else's guns, as you seem to think it does.

 

 

 

Good post, personally I have always found the characterizations " femnazi" and  " SJF " ( social justice Fascist )  offensive and completely exaggerated and unnecessary

 

People like myself support SJ initiatives, the last thing I am is some kind of bigot who should be associated with groups of people who committed genocide 

 

I have asked people to refrain from using such words but some people still use them. So I can really can identify with your logic 

 

So according to SJW, words like "feminazi" and "SJF" should be censored.. xD

 

Just shows what these guys really stand for.. xD

 

In the end all we'll be able to say is commenting about the weather hehe..

 

 

No you can refer to me as anything you feel is appropriate, just don't expect to be taken seriously if you want to have a mature  debate and want to use words like that

[Zwiebelchen]

 

Obsidian decided that they wanted to give the backer an opportunity to change something that was causing a lot of people to **** on twitter and the forums, the backer decided to do so, Obsidian published his rewrite which directly insulted those who got offended in the first place. It's amazing how much imaginary bs all of you are attaching to this situation.

 

 

Which, you got to admit, was a stroke of genius of the backer in question.

 

The backer in question basicly battled the offended people with their biggest weakness: humour.

 

You just can't blame him for being smart.

[Osvir]

 

I know my example is a bit extreme, but do you understand what I am saying?

 

Read: I think (2) fits into it

LOL

Yes, because the people who think the limerick was offensive are now planning to burn Obsidans office down and murder all the staff. Really, stop with all the crazy comparisons to terrorism or Nazis. It's absurd.

I guess you don't.

[BruceVC]

 

Here lies a SJF, crying in bed.

Was once alive, but now they're dead.

The last person they bedded, turned out cisgender

And crying in shame, off a cliff they meander.

 

I'm more offended by the poor craftsmanship of your poem than its contents, to be honest. Don't write limericks unless you know what an anapest is, pls

 

 

Agreed, epic fail Hiro 

[GrinningReaper659]

I'm sure if we just keep at this, eventually the other side will see reason. Whichever side that is from your POV.

 

Will they all see reason if I just keep on posting this meaningless stuff that they're probably not even reading or considering? It'll work eventually, right? You weren't being sarcastic, were you?

 

Fine, fine, I guess I'll give it a rest. Nobody's getting through to anybody in this discussion anymore.

[mrmonocle]

I bet the devs are censored to comment on the whole limmerick issue in hopes it will die out by itself eventually.

[rheingold]

My last post cause I'm out of here for the moment.

The issue is quite simple - if say the limerick had been anti-semitic, anti-black, women or anti-gay, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because the backer targeted a small and powerless minority it seems ok. Re the censorship - there is no censorship - censorship is when you are told what you can or cannot say. Obsidan did not need to make the stand they did. No one was forcing them to say or do anything. Anything else is bs. There was no censorship period. If they had caught the limerick at the beggining and asked the backer to change it - would it have caused a problem? The bottom line is it's their product and they decide what they want in, not you or me. Why should they allow a minority group to be insulted on their time? Its absolutely ridiculous.

 

And further - things are changing, what was once acceptable is no longer the case. People are far more careful these days, and so they should be. Just because you have the right to cause offence does not mean you should. It's something the online generation is struggling with as they hide behind anonynimity. So yeah, I'm glad things are changing for the better and for those who are upset about Obsidan removing the limerick, you guys have a really tough time coming, because it's the way the world is moving and most people would think it's for the better.

[Stun]

Agreed, epic fail Hiro

Oh hi bruce! You're here. I did a limerick just for you.

 

Here, lies Bruce, a hero to some

Wishes to bed Sagani, but has remained mum

He secretly sighs and wails

Claims that POE Fails

Because it has no romances, "how come?!!"

Edited April 9, 2015 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

I'm sure if we just keep at this, eventually the other side will see reason. Whichever side that is from your POV.

 

Will they all see reason if I just keep on posting this meaningless stuff that they're probably not even reading or considering? It'll work eventually, right? You weren't being sarcastic, were you?

 

Fine, fine, I guess I'll give it a rest. Nobody's getting through to anybody in this discussion anymore.

 

 

Its not about convincing people, its about some of  us letting other people know we don't have an issue with what Obsidian  did by making the change  and also how we can empathize with the original offense 

 

Remember there is backlash from some and comments like " well I will never  support Obsidian again because they gave in to SJW " and other similar invective's