Feargus Urquhart quote on addressing hate in games

[PrimeJunta]

Good that Obsidian have made clear where they stand on this here social justice thing. I guess that leaves the SIJW's to draw their own conclusions.

[Namutree]

Good that Obsidian have made clear where they stand on this here social justice thing. I guess that leaves the SIJW's to draw their own conclusions.

SIJW's are as annoying as SJW's.

 

EDIT: Scratch that. SIJW's are 15% more annoying. Rounding down of coarse.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Namutree

[ChipMHazard]

Hyperbole is stupid, which is why I said it was.

 

Feargus actually had to publicly state TWICE why Obsidian changed the poem. So basically, at this point, you're arguing against the point that Obsidian should not be anti-hate speech. Literally, no matter how you cut it, Feargus said Obsidian is anti-hate, so what exactly do you think you are arguing against here other than that ideaology? That it wasn't hate speech? That's irrelevant, because they obviously thought it was. 

It is and I don't see why you brought it up here. I still haven't resorted to that kind of slippery slope argument. Only worry that I've shared is that this might set a precedent and affect future content to a greater or lesser degree. Almost pure speculation, of course. 

 

Of course they are anti-hate, as they should be. However, the poem had nothing to do with spreading/encouraging hate. Him bringing that up makes me think that he's basicly inferring that Firedorn was knowingly/unknowingly trying to spread hate about groups that have and still suffer from forms of oppression/discrimination. The poem quite clearly had nothing to do with transgender, or anything of the sorts, and was targeting bigots themselves. That last part wasn't as clear to most, although there were some people whom caught on to that early on.

A person claiming that it's hate speech does not make it so. Obsidian possibly giving into peer pressure and claiming that it was hate speech does not make it so. 

Edited April 11, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[HozzM]

 

Bottomline for me is that it was a joke.  If a joke offends you, thats on you.  Go away and consume some content that does not offend you.

 

Obsidian did the wrong thing by editing the joke.  

Wait, if I'm allowed to consume some other content if it offends me, why is Obsidian then not allowed to change the content if it offends them?

 

If Obsidian was offended they should have said that.  No one vetted the backer content that was submitted?  Bull****.  Of course they vetted content.  The backer content was submitted and they had no problem with it.  It was only after some loser posted on twitter that this was an issue.  And again, if you have a problem with content, go elsewhere.

Edited April 11, 2015 by HozzM

[Katarack21]

 

 

Bottomline for me is that it was a joke.  If a joke offends you, thats on you.  Go away and consume some content that does not offend you.

 

Obsidian did the wrong thing by editing the joke.  

Wait, if I'm allowed to consume some other content if it offends me, why is Obsidian then not allowed to change the content if it offends them?

 

If Obsidian was offended they should have said that.  No one vetted the backer content that was submitted?  Bull****.  Of course they vetted content.  The backer content was submitted and they had no problem with it.  It was only after some loser posted on twitter that this was an issue.  And again, if you have a problem with content, go elsewhere.

 

"I disagree with what they did, so I'm going to insist that it must have been intentional no matter what anybody says."

[Monte Carlo]

Love Ferg, clearly one of the nicest guys in the biz but really Obsidian taken themselves, and this whole SJ thing, far too seriously.

[Luckmann]

Love Ferg, clearly one of the nicest guys in the biz but really Obsidian taken themselves, and this whole SJ thing, far too seriously.

This. ^

 

Taking anything these lunatics say as serious is taking it too far. It is more fair to say that if they're upset, it's a sign you're actually not offensive at all. They actively look for things to sensationalize and take offence of, anything that is actually to be taken serious is of no interest to them. They are the ones that obsess over sexist shirts, racist icecreams and phobic limericks.

[WebShaman]

Obviously any human - constructed game is going to draw from the real world (it is made by humans for humans) so that there are common grounds to relate to.

 

But RL doesn't have soul manipulating, magic, dwarves, elves, monsters, etc.

 

That is why it is called fantasy and not "the reality simulator 2.0"

 

And it is at that point that we need to realize that all other RL stuff needs to be checked at the door. Anybody reading more into such a game needs to relax and learn to let go and have fun.

 

Enjoy the story, enjoy the ride, enjoy the temporary escape from reality.

 

Sometimes humans can be so stupid.

 

And for those trying to push something else, like Animancy vs Genetic Science, ect. Get real. The fantasy environment is not dealing with real lives here.

 

I have been in war (Gulf War - Desert Storm) I intimately know what RL morality conflicts and issues are. No game compares. You do not smell, emotionally feel, sense, nor experience in such a fantasy game what one does in RL. The fantasy environment rarely has consequence as it really would be - in a world of magic and real gods, monsters, etc, do you really think that having mass manipulations of children would have such mild consequences?

 

Do you think that the killing of a Lord would be praised and tolerated?

 

Do you think that the mass - murdering of yellow - coded individuals would be totally ignored?

 

In a world where a Godhammer device exists and was used, do you really think that it would not be used again, for other purposes?

 

And those just scratch the surface.

 

Really, this fantasy environment is just that - fantasy. It is extremely limited

in scope, consequence, and RL comparison.

 

And that is a good thing IMHO. That means I can enjoy myself without suffering RL consequences.

 

If your fantasy game is bleeding over into RL, then I think perhaps one should take a break. Muse as one will...but please. Enjoy it as it is - a fantasy game.

 

So enjoy it for what it is (an escape) instead of trying to make it into what it obviously isn't.

[Archaven]

I can't believe how weak are humans and they are easily influenced, divided and fight amongst themselves because of one instigator on tweeter.

[liniger4312]

He seems to be covering his bases more than anything. And I get that, he's a businessman after all.

 

What I did find interesting in that quote (I haven't read the full article so maybe he addresses this further) is the part about wanting to create discussion. Have mature even offensive content, have it spark debates.

I absolutely agree on that, and encourage it. And I think that is where they may have made a mistake with the poem.

 

Instead of taking it down when someone took offence, perhaps they should have encouraged people to discuss it. Why is it offensive to person A? Why do some think it's targeted at trans people? Why does Person B find it funny? Why should anyone even care about an obscure poem in a giant game with quite heavy and mature topics?

 

If we're following the idea of encouraging debate and discussion, that poem should probably have been kept around. At least for a while.

As it stands the quick removal skipped all of that and jumped straight over to a heated and crazy debate about the idea of censorship, SJWs, gamergate and I think I saw a mention or 2 regarding Nazis too (they always manage to sneak into online arguments though so not sure they count).

[evensong]

Well, his reasoning is perfectly clear here - enable discussion of serious topics without enabling jokes that kick downwards in social hierarchies.

 

I don't think the poem was that big a deal, it's just an expression of the transphobia our society produces, removing it is the right thing to do but it's also not going to change anything - but I think it's amazing that people don't understand the difference between the value of having a discussion of difficult and sensitive topics, and making fun of people on the losing end of sensitive and difficult topics.

Edited April 11, 2015 by evensong

[Monte Carlo]

The poem wasn't offensive. Have held my counsel as there seems to be nothing but hysteria about it.

 

The person who complained on Twitter might be trans, but maybe isn't aware some of the time-honoured cultural tropes around the issue that have existed since antiquity, for good and for bad. BTW, the censored poem completely fits into the analogous time period in which this game is set. The idea of a man being (sexually) 'duped' by another man impersonating a woman is the stuff of bawdy legend and has been since time immemorial. Transsexual prostitutes were scratching that itch for Johns in Pompeii and Constantinople a thousand years ago, just as they do now.

 

I know, I know. I'm a white hetero male. I'm not allowed an opinion as the politically-correct cadres gather by their digital guillotines, knitting furiously as another heretic is beheaded (how convenient, BTW, that we live in times where we simply 'No Platform' those with whom we do not agree. How very 1930s). But whether they like it or not, you can trace this lineage through to Lou Reed's 'Walk on the Wild Side' to 'Lola' by the Kinks, where it morphed into something more opaque and (arguably) less pejorative. In fact, I'll give Ray Davies the last word:

 

I met her in a club down in old Soho
Where you drink champagne and it tastes just like cherry-cola [LP version: Coca-Cola]
See-oh-el-aye cola
She walked up to me and she asked me to dance
I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said Lola
El-oh-el-aye Lola la-la-la-la Lola

Well I'm not the world's most physical guy
But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine
Oh my Lola la-la-la-la Lola
Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man
Oh my Lola la-la-la-la Lola la-la-la-la Lola

Well we drank champagne and danced all night
Under electric candlelight
She picked me up and sat me on her knee
And said dear boy won't you come home with me
Well I'm not the world's most passionate guy
But when I looked in her eyes well I almost fell for my Lola
La-la-la-la Lola la-la-la-la Lola
Lola la-la-la-la Lola la-la-la-la Lola
I pushed her away
I walked to the door
I fell to the floor
I got down on my knees
Then I looked at her and she at me

Well that's the way that I want it to stay
And I always want it to be that way for my Lola
La-la-la-la Lola
Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola
La-la-la-la Lola

Well I left home just a week before
And I'd never ever kissed a woman before
But Lola smiled and took me by the hand
And said dear boy I'm gonna make you a man

Well I'm not the world's most masculine man
But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man
And so is Lola
La-la-la-la Lola la-la-la-la Lola
Lola la-la-la-la Lola la-la-la-la Lola

[evensong]

I know, I know. I'm a white hetero male. I'm not allowed an opinion

Please allow me to point out an instance in which you were allowed to have an opinion:

 

The poem wasn't offensive. Have held my counsel as there seems to be nothing but hysteria about it.

 

The person who complained on Twitter might be trans, but maybe isn't aware some of the time-honoured cultural tropes around the issue that have existed since antiquity, for good and for bad. BTW, the censored poem completely fits into the analogous time period in which this game is set. The idea of a man being (sexually) 'duped' by another man impersonating a woman is the stuff of bawdy legend and has been since time immemorial. Transsexual prostitutes were scratching that itch for Johns in Pompeii and Constantinople a thousand years ago, just as they do now.

 

[Monte Carlo]

Don't be disingenuous. I've read page after page of 'check your privilege' BS where its clear a view exists that your opinion isn't valid if you ain't 'got skin in the game.'

[evensong]

I'm not being disingenuous. You are allowed to have your opinion. Saying anything else is ridiculous.

 

This is not a problem with SJW's, it's a problem with people who don't understand how arguments work. My opinion is also dismissed out of hand pretty often because I'm a feminazi, but that's hardly tantamount to censorship, I just dismiss those people as ****ing idiots, because anyone pretending my opinion is inavild because I'm a feminazi, or anyone pretending "check your privilege" is a final say in any discussion, is a ****ing idiot. It's not especially hard to find people who will engage in a real discussion either.

 

While the trap trope has certainly been around for a good long while, the "it's historically accurate!" angle is not an especially convincing argument to me. The game was produced today, and reflects issues dealt with in our society today. It exists today. Not a thousand years ago, not even ten years ago.

 

I'm not saying erase history. I am wholly opposed to changing any words in Huck Finn, for instance, or changing the Norse myth where Thor dresses up as Freya to get his hammer back from Trym. I am saying that any cultural artifact produced today shouldnt pretend to exist in the period it depicts. Considering these issues are still problematic today, there's a fine line between depiction and perpetuation, and it seems clear to me that the trap trope is harmful to trans people, as it is one of two tropes about trans people in popular culture. The other is Jame Gumb. In sum, jokes or psychopaths. Weird and dangerous. This view is prevalent and manifests in real laws, suicides, murders.

Edited April 11, 2015 by evensong

[Monte Carlo]

evensong, with respect, you've swallowed the Marxist 'cultural hypodermic' theory of media hook, line and sinker. I've read my Gramsci and Frankfurt School. I don't buy into the idea that person 'a' writing one thing is an inexorable journey towards person 'b' doing something bad. It might but it isn't a given.

 

You see one thing, I see another.

 

Was it Mark Twain who said censoring objectionable material is like outlawing steak because babies can't eat it?

[Doug]

Short story...

People need to stop comparing the fantasy culture/religion of video games to real life.

Accept it for what it is - fantasy fiction!

 

So sick of this ****

[Katarack21]

Don't be disingenuous. I've read page after page of 'check your privilege' BS where its clear a view exists that your opinion isn't valid if you ain't 'got skin in the game.'

Or maybe it has nothing to do with "your opinion isn't valid because whiney busllhit", maybe your opinions just a load of self-serving ****ery and nobody likes it.

[gkathellar]

Instead of taking it down when someone took offence, perhaps they should have encouraged people to discuss it.

 

I think, going by Feargus' statement (and in my opinion, rightly) they didn't feel it was their place to make that decision immediately. That's why they contacted the backer in question - to ask if it was a decision he wanted to take on. It's convenient he did so, and it saved them from a more uncomfortable decision, sure. It's also good on him, as was his solution.

 

The new poem lampoons both sides of this ridiculous argument. Honestly, as one of over 500 tiny, easily missed memorials, those participating in the discussion are the people who care about it most, so that seems reasonable!

 

(Besides, we pretty clearly don't need encouragement to discuss it!)

[Monte Carlo]

 

Don't be disingenuous. I've read page after page of 'check your privilege' BS where its clear a view exists that your opinion isn't valid if you ain't 'got skin in the game.'

Or maybe it has nothing to do with "your opinion isn't valid because whiney busllhit", maybe your opinions just a load of self-serving ****ery and nobody likes it.

 

 

Wow, did I move your cheese?

[geierkreisen]

Obviously any human - constructed game is going to draw from the real world (it is made by humans for humans) so that there are common grounds to relate to.

 

But RL doesn't have soul manipulating, magic, dwarves, elves, monsters, etc.

 

That is why it is called fantasy and not "the reality simulator 2.0"

 

And it is at that point that we need to realize that all other RL stuff needs to be checked at the door. Anybody reading more into such a game needs to relax and learn to let go and have fun.

 

Enjoy the story, enjoy the ride, enjoy the temporary escape from reality.

 

Sometimes humans can be so stupid.

 

And for those trying to push something else, like Animancy vs Genetic Science, ect. Get real. The fantasy environment is not dealing with real lives here.

 

I have been in war (Gulf War - Desert Storm) I intimately know what RL morality conflicts and issues are. No game compares. You do not smell, emotionally feel, sense, nor experience in such a fantasy game what one does in RL. The fantasy environment rarely has consequence as it really would be - in a world of magic and real gods, monsters, etc, do you really think that having mass manipulations of children would have such mild consequences?

 

Do you think that the killing of a Lord would be praised and tolerated?

 

Do you think that the mass - murdering of yellow - coded individuals would be totally ignored?

 

In a world where a Godhammer device exists and was used, do you really think that it would not be used again, for other purposes?

 

And those just scratch the surface.

 

Really, this fantasy environment is just that - fantasy. It is extremely limited

in scope, consequence, and RL comparison.

 

And that is a good thing IMHO. That means I can enjoy myself without suffering RL consequences.

 

If your fantasy game is bleeding over into RL, then I think perhaps one should take a break. Muse as one will...but please. Enjoy it as it is - a fantasy game.

 

So enjoy it for what it is (an escape) instead of trying to make it into what it obviously isn't.

 

Fantasy is...by definition...unrealistic in its architecture. It is an exercise of the mind and mostly one of escapism.

 

But Fantasy is also literature and writers tend to draw from outside inspiration as you yourself admit. Some even wish to comment on those inspirations with their work. In the case of PoE those inspirations seem to be questions of discrimination and dehumanization, of leading a meaningful life in the face of past actions, for religious people even of past lives.

 

Why do I use the word "seem"? Because discussing literature is a matter of interpretation, which goes so far as that a literary work can have an effect on an audience not even intended by the author. Think of Orwell's 1984 and what an audience can take away from it after the Snowden leaks. Orwell has been dead for 65 years.

 

Terry Pratchett, on the other hand, has only recently left this reality on the back of a big white horse. And what did he have to say about Fantasy literature? He calls it the oldest form of literature and fundamental to our understanding of the world.

 

Problem A: Some people don't see video games as literature.

Problem B: Some people don't see literature itself as meaningful. [insert debate here]

 

But if you see video games as literature and you attest to literature in general having the capability of being meaningful,....

 

...you cannot single out the Fantasy genre and every single work having been created in it as well as every single Fantasy author as being inconsequential when the concept of literary genres itself is shaky and makeshift at best.

[gkathellar]

evensong, with respect, you've swallowed the Marxist 'cultural hypodermic' theory of media hook, line and sinker. I've read my Gramsci and Frankfurt School. I don't buy into the idea that person 'a' writing one thing is an inexorable journey towards person 'b' doing something bad. It might but it isn't a given.

 

It's not, but the suggestion of committing suicide because one accidentally has intercourse with someone of the same sex is ... troubling, on all kinds of levels. It can be humorously troubling, ala Dave Chapelle and "grape drink" (which, according to the author, was the intent - it was meant to mock homophobia/transphobia and the extremes to which it goes), but it can also be offensively troubling. Ultimately, the author doesn't get to decide, regardless of their intent. Only time and the audience can be the judge the work, and it seems like a fairly large audience did take it as offensive. The fact that they did is not necessarily anyone's failing, so much as the collision between intention and reality.

 

The more I learn about the primary actors in this situation, the more I think this is the story of several good, well-meaning people, who were not initially on the same page, coming to accord and enraging the mob thereby. Which is crazy, sure.

[Monte Carlo]

Once you outlaw exaggeration, hyperbole and the fantastic on the grounds that someone, somewhere might be (or indeed is) offended then you are on a slippery slope indeed.

[Namutree]

 

evensong, with respect, you've swallowed the Marxist 'cultural hypodermic' theory of media hook, line and sinker. I've read my Gramsci and Frankfurt School. I don't buy into the idea that person 'a' writing one thing is an inexorable journey towards person 'b' doing something bad. It might but it isn't a given.

 

It's not, but the suggestion of committing suicide because one accidentally has intercourse with someone of the same sex is ... troubling, on all kinds of levels. It can be humorously troubling, ala Dave Chapelle and "grape drink"

 

Don't you mean "purple drink"?

[gkathellar]

Once you outlaw exaggeration, hyperbole and the fantastic on the grounds that someone, somewhere might be (or indeed is) offended then you are on a slippery slope indeed.

 

Who's outlawing it? Was the law involved at any level? The internet's tools for public shaming do not amount to a legal compulsion.

 

Those who satirize should be aware that satirists are usually taken much more seriously than they intend to be taken (at least in their time, see: Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal). Bowing to outrage is not a mark of shame, but one of self-awareness and humility - and neither is persisting against outrage, if the point was being taken too seriously in the first place (and it sometimes is, see: previous example). An artist first creates, and only then learns how the world is going to see their creation (sometimes to their great frustration, see: Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451). They, as the artist, have to decide what the rational response to that is. Obsidian and the author of the limerick, together, made such a decision.

 

You may not like that decision, but that doesn't mean anybody behaved shamefully.

 

 

 

evensong, with respect, you've swallowed the Marxist 'cultural hypodermic' theory of media hook, line and sinker. I've read my Gramsci and Frankfurt School. I don't buy into the idea that person 'a' writing one thing is an inexorable journey towards person 'b' doing something bad. It might but it isn't a given.

 

It's not, but the suggestion of committing suicide because one accidentally has intercourse with someone of the same sex is ... troubling, on all kinds of levels. It can be humorously troubling, ala Dave Chapelle and "grape drink"

 

Don't you mean "purple drink"?

 

 

Grape drink - it's got sugar, water, and purple!

Edited April 11, 2015 by gkathellar