Feargus Urquhart quote on addressing hate in games

[RedSocialKnight]

Here again is the topic quote from Feargus Urquhart.

 

Is it about language? Yes. But it’s not specifically about language. It’s about talking about things that adults talk about. They talk about where are they going in life. They talk about — in the case of Eternity — about souls and a lot about what happens with children that are being born without souls.

 

Mature to us ... is talking about things that matter, that are difficult, that are worth talking about with adults.

 

I think the question, ultimately, is it’s all coming down to hate, right? Is hate a topic that is being explored in a game, or is the game saying something hateful about someone? And so I think that’s the line.

 

I think for any of us, whether we’re making a movie, or if we’re making a comic book, or we’re writing a novel, or we’re making a game it’s [a matter of] are we exploring the subject in a way that makes people think, or are we saying something hateful through it. And if there’s any red line, that’s the red line for me.

 

We can talk about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don’t promote hate is the key thing in the end.

 

[Caerdon]

Would you please stop spamming?

[RedSocialKnight]

If the squabble doesn't continue, I'll have no reason to repost the quote.

[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.

 

 

Wow, did I move your cheese?

 

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. It's just that whiny sellf-pitying bull**** meant to justify somebodies discrimination by rationalizing their ****ty discriminatory crap as "legitimate opinions" is really annoying.

[Monte Carlo]

I gave an exceptionally reasoned argument. It wasn't whiny. I'm not 'rationalizing my discrimination' either, as I don't personally have an issue with trans people. That doesn't mean I think any group has a magic right not to be offended, or that material some people might find offensive needs bludgeoning with the sensitivity cudgel.

 

That you can't see how it's perfectly reasonable to hold both positions is your problem, not mine.

[Malcador]

Yep, more like BSN each day.

[Prime-Mover]

"[...]doesn't mean I think any group has a magic right not to be offended[...]"

 

Sorry to butcher your quote like this, but I just wanted to highlight and discuss this notion which has been thrown around on this site a lot lately. However, it just seem counterintuitive to me, depending on what is actually meant here.

 

 

So, do you (and/or others) mean:

 

1) the fact that someone is offended, doens't automatically mean that someone has done something wrong in offending them.

 

2) it is never wrong to offend other people.

 

3) something else

 

If 1), then that's not really all that relevant, because you'd have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with it. And 2), simply can't be true. 

 

The reason 1) doesn't apply, is that those who are offended, aren't (in their mind) offended just because. They are offended because of something, namely that they consider the rhyme wrong, presumably because they consider it damaging to a cause they consider morally worthy (sexual equality, or something in that regard). Now we can argue whether it is in fact a worthy cause, or whether the rhyme is indeed damaging to this cause. And even if we accept both, we can still argue wether the fact that it is harmful is enough to justify removing the limerick. But to invoke something like the quoted text, just seems like a belittling strawman*. 

 

_{*depending on what 3) could mean}

[FlintlockJazz]

Yep, more like BSN each day.

 

Damn it, I left that ****hole years ago once I realised Bioware was more interested in set pieces and ego stroking, don't tell me it's expanding over here?  The games are still decently written right?  They've not turned into sex-simulators yet have they?

 

 

"[...]doesn't mean I think any group has a magic right not to be offended[...]"

 

Sorry to butcher your quote like this, but I just wanted to highlight and discuss this notion which has been thrown around on this site a lot lately. However, it just seem counterintuitive to me, depending on what is actually meant here.

 

 

So, do you (and/or others) mean:

 

1) the fact that someone is offended, doens't automatically mean that someone has done something wrong in offending them.

 

2) it is never wrong to offend other people.

 

3) something else

 

If 1), then that's not really all that relevant, because you'd have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with it. And 2), simply can't be true. 

 

The reason 1) doesn't apply, is that those who are offended, aren't (in their mind) offended just because. They are offended because of something, namely that they consider the rhyme wrong, presumably because they consider it damaging to a cause they consider morally worthy (sexual equality, or something in that regard). Now we can argue whether it is in fact a worthy cause, or whether the rhyme is indeed damaging to this cause. And even if we accept both, we can still argue wether the fact that it is harmful is enough to justify removing the limerick. But to invoke something like the quoted text, just seems like a belittling strawman*. 

 

_{*depending on what 3) could mean}

 

 

Time to nuke this site from orbit... So, let me ask you a question!  Should cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed be censored because it causes offence?  Many people of the Muslim faith find this offensive, they aren't offended just because right?  Do they, as a religious group, have a right to not be offended by other people?  What about Christians who are offended by homosexuality?  Do they have a right not to be offended by gay people?  While you answer that, let me just go grab something...

 

*Legs it to his nuclear bomb shelter, where he sits peeking out*

Edited April 14, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[Prime-Mover]

 

Yep, more like BSN each day.

 

Damn it, I left that ****hole years ago, don't tell me it's expanding over here?  The games are still decently written right?  They've not turned into sex-simulators yet have they?

 

 

"[...]doesn't mean I think any group has a magic right not to be offended[...]"

 

Sorry to butcher your quote like this, but I just wanted to highlight and discuss this notion which has been thrown around on this site a lot lately. However, it just seem counterintuitive to me, depending on what is actually meant here.

 

 

So, do you (and/or others) mean:

 

1) the fact that someone is offended, doens't automatically mean that someone has done something wrong in offending them.

 

2) it is never wrong to offend other people.

 

3) something else

 

If 1), then that's not really all that relevant, because you'd have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with it. And 2), simply can't be true. 

 

The reason 1) doesn't apply, is that those who are offended, aren't (in their mind) offended just because. They are offended because of something, namely that they consider the rhyme wrong, presumably because they consider it damaging to a cause they consider morally worthy (sexual equality, or something in that regard). Now we can argue whether it is in fact a worthy cause, or whether the rhyme is indeed damaging to this cause. And even if we accept both, we can still argue wether the fact that it is harmful is enough to justify removing the limerick. But to invoke something like the quoted text, just seems like a belittling strawman*. 

 

_{*depending on what 3) could mean}

 

 

Time to nuke this site from orbit... So, let me ask you a question!  Should cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed be censored because it causes offence?  Many people of the Muslim faith find this offensive, they aren't offended just because right?  Do they, as a religious group, have a right to not be offended by other people?  What about Christians who are offended by homosexuality?  Do they have a right not to be offended by gay people?  While you answer that, let me just go grab something...

 

*Legs it to his nuclear bomb shelter, where he sits peeking out*

 

 

See, the point is that I can without contradiction believe that it's ok to draw the Prophet Mohammed, while simultainsly believing that removing the Rhyme was wrong. It comes down to who has the worthy cause. If I - hypothetically - believe that religion is a great cause of badness in the world, while - hypothetically - believing that gender equality is a big cause of goodness, then this may be the case.

 

My point was just that stating something like "no ones has a magical right not be offended" doesn't address the issue at all, and only helps to muddy the issue. We should be discussing whether they were justified in being offended or not.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[Elerond]

• Any content that somebody for any reason finds offensive is offensive content, regardless what anybody else claims or what was content creator's intent, because it offended somebody for some reason and therefore caused offense and this means that it is offensive content.
• Content being offensive towards somebody isn't problem itself especially in art where rising feelings in those who consume the art is usually the purpose of said art. 
• People expressing their dislike towards content they feel to be offensive for them also is not problem as customer critic isn't just acceptable but important way to give feedback about things for creator and other people that maybe interested about product.
• Asking/demanding changes in product also is not problematic, but something that people have right to do and it is often important way to get products that people like
• Expressing dislike towards asked changes is also okay thing, as it gives creator feedback that people are okay or even like the content that some find offensive
• People expressing opinion that they don't find content offensive or understand why somebody could find it offensive is also OK thing to do.
• It is also OK for creator to change their content because of feedback they get
• It is also OK for people express that they didn't like changes that creator did or explanations why they did those changes
• It is also OK for creator to change their feeling about content after they have received feedback about it as it is just way to learn or getting more/different perspective about things
• There is also nothing wrong in expressing that you find content in your game that you didn't create yourself being problematic/hateful/etc. even if other don't agree with you
• And there is nothing wrong in expressing that you don't like opinions that other people have about content even if it is expressed by creator of content themself
• Claiming that any action described above is censorship is just plain stupid, but people have right to do so even though they are just wrong and idiotic IMO.
• Even though this kind conversations and controversies are OK and often important in society level it is sad to see that they hurt art that I like and would like to see more especially when content and conversations and controversies aren't even about the art itself but additional content that comes with it that don't have impact in art itself.

 

So continue your silly debate if you want but I just hope that it dies down soon or moves in somewhere else where I don't need to see it anymore as it just make me sad to see it to continue day after day.

 

And of course it should be noted that this is my opinion not any universal truth as there is no universal truth about this sort of things which is why they can rise such debates, and which is why this debates are just full of opinions, feelings and reactions from every direction.

[Malcador]

 

• Claiming that any action described above is censorship is just plain stupid, but people have right to do so even though they are just wrong and idiotic IMO.

 

Can certainly come across like it when a Twitter jihad falls on you (which was that person's aim with this, see the begging for Cross to post about it).

 

Also, get over yourself, the thread makes you sad and you think it's idiotic...so...don't click on it ?

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

See, the point is that I can without contradiction believe that it's ok to draw the Prophet Mohammed, while simultainsly believing that removing the Rhyme was wrong. It comes down to who has the worthy cause. If I - hypothetically - believe that religion is a great cause of badness in the world, while - hypothetically - believing that gender equality is a big cause of goodness, then this may be the case.

 

My point was just that stating something like "no ones has a magical right not be offended" doesn't address the issue at all, and only helps to muddy the issue. We should be discussing whether they were justified in being offended or not.

 

 

Ah, but then we come to two points:

 

1.  Monte Carlo was summing up what his argument in this thread has been, and there have been people making the argument that it should be removed because it offends, not why it offends but simply that it does, and so his point has merit.

 

2.  If someone is justified in being offended does that automatically mean that it was wrong?  Comedians often take the mock out of religion and creed, and quite often those groups they mock are offended, does that mean Comedians should not mock them?  Calling someone's religion stupid and moronic is going to justifiable offend that person but does mean they get the right to censure you saying that?  Just because someone IS justifiable offended doesn't mean they have the right to censure you.   And who gets to decide that something is justifiably offensive or not?  To whose standards?  Where is the line between taking the piss and being nasty?  And which groups get protection and which don't?

 

I ain't gonna answer these questions, personally I'm thinking I need to step away from this thread very very carefully and think everyone else should too because no good can come from it, but damnit I do love playing with fire...

Edited April 14, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[Prime-Mover]

 

 

 

See, the point is that I can without contradiction believe that it's ok to draw the Prophet Mohammed, while simultainsly believing that removing the Rhyme was wrong. It comes down to who has the worthy cause. If I - hypothetically - believe that religion is a great cause of badness in the world, while - hypothetically - believing that gender equality is a big cause of goodness, then this may be the case.

 

My point was just that stating something like "no ones has a magical right not be offended" doesn't address the issue at all, and only helps to muddy the issue. We should be discussing whether they were justified in being offended or not.

 

 

Ah, but then we come to two points:

 

1.  Monte Carlo was summing up what his argument in this thread has been, not a reply to anyone in particular, and there have been people making the argument that it should be removed because it offends, not why it offends but simply that it does, and so his point has merit.

 

2.  If someone is justified in being offended does that automatically mean that it was wrong?  Comedians often take the mock out of religion and creed, and quite often those groups they mock are offended, does that mean Comedians should not mock them?  Calling someone's religion stupid and moronic is going to justifiable offend that person but does mean they get the right to censure you saying that?  Just because someone IS justifiable offended doesn't mean they have the right to censure you.   And who gets to decide that something is justifiably offensive or not?  To whose standards?  Where is the line between taking the piss and being nasty?  And which groups get protection and which don't?

 

I ain't gonna answer these questions, personally I'm thinking I need to step away from this thread very very carefully and think everyone else should too because no good can come from it, but damnit I do love playing with fire...

 

 

1. If someone made the point that it should be removed simply because it offends, in a way that isn't just shorthand for what I suggested above, then he/she does have merit.

 

2. That of course depends on what we mean by "justified" here, and "should not mock them". If we by justified mean that it's objectively morally wrong, then yeah, then there is a moral obligation not to mock them. Obviously the interesting discussion then becomes whether something is objectively morally wrong. However, that does not mean that it should be illegal to mock them, but only because such a law would be very difficult to implement, and would presumably lead to  extreme abuse.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[sparklecat]

Yep, more like BSN each day.

Every day?  You're the one dragging this thread back up after three days of not talking about this bloody subject anymore here.

[Elerond]

 

 

• Claiming that any action described above is censorship is just plain stupid, but people have right to do so even though they are just wrong and idiotic IMO.

 

Can certainly come across like it when a Twitter jihad falls on you (which was that person's aim with this, see the begging for Cross to post about it).

 

Also, get over yourself, the thread makes you sad and you think it's idiotic...so...don't click on it ?

 

It maybe hard when thousand of peoples express their opinions about your art and demand changes in it, especially when their demands come from very narrow point of view that is obscured by opinions of others, but anyway they have right to express those opinions and you have every right not heed them or even ignore them wholly. These days it can be quite hard if you can't handle peoples opinions of your art/products but I don't feel this Twitter "jihad's" actions to be any different from that other "jihad" that rose to opposite it and started to spread message that Obsidian is pro censorship, weak minded their products shouldn't be supported and so on and so forth. Even though I feel that actions from both groups of people were idiotic and unreasonable I don't think that they are censorship and I think that claiming that they are is just idiotic.

 

Maybe I read this topics because I have masochist side or just like to be depressed, but mainly it is because of I use "Next Unread Topic"  -link when I read these forums.

 

And awful truth is that I can't always live for standards of my ideals as I am just as flawed as anybody else and also have my moments when I act as idiotic and moronic person that is just wrong.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

1. If someone made the point that it should be removed simply because it offends, in a way that isn't just shorthand for what I suggested above, then he/she does have merit.

 

2. That of course depends on what we mean by "justified" here, and "should not mock them". If we by justified mean that it's objectively morally wrong, then yeah, then there is a moral obligation not to mock them. Obviously the interesting discussion then becomes whether something is objectively morally wrong. However, that does not mean that it should be illegal to mock them, but only because such a law would be very difficult to implement, and would presumably lead to  extreme abuse.

 

 

Exactly!    I think we are in full agreement tbh, I just think we need to remind ourselves and others every now and again that just because we find something offensive (whether it be limericks or censureship) doesn't mean something is wrong.  It's something I need to remind myself of every now and again when emotions start running high.

[Mlatimudan]

My personal opinion has always been that being offended(especially on someone else's behalf) doesn't really carry any weight, I have been mocked and insulted by friends all my life and I did it back to them, I always tried to treat all people I met like standard adults and not be condescending if they are disabled or something and I would even rip on them if a good joke suggested itself.

You being offended(by jokes or by "censorship") doesn't mean much since if we want to have an equal society everyone should be treated equally, if we tiptoe around what we say just so we don't say something like prices "rise" in front of a dwarf I suspect that would offend them much more since they are being treated like a child. So basically no special treatment for anyone, that also means you should try to not be a **** to anyone if they don't have it coming.

 

On the other hand suggesting that people should boycott Obsidian for removing one poxy poem is patently absurd, I don't see what that has to do with anything, they made the bloody game and they can do what they like, if they think having it in isn't worth the bad PR, that's fine.If they decide to add or remove a class, also fine.

Obsidian should be judged on the quality of their games and their writing, and not used for your amusement while waiting for a new episode of Game of Thrones.