Feargus Urquhart quote on addressing hate in games

[Caerdon]

So, the OP just pastes the same thing a few times, and here we are: people arguing about the same thing over and over and over again.

 

Well trolled.

[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"?

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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!

 

Just re-watched that skit. My memory was flawed. It is grape drink.

[Prime-Mover]

 

 

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.

 

You are speculating here, and you fail to provide reason for why you believe they are beging disingenuous. That fact that you are mad does not constitute evidence, thank christ.

[sku]

People, what's wrong with you? So many yucks given, and the subject doesn't deserve any.

[PrimeJunta]

Okay, absolutely the last thing I'm posting on limerick-gate, in prose or in verse.

 

I'm glad Obsidian publicly declared where they stand on this here social justice issue. Score one for the good guys.

 

However I don't know if I should laugh or cry about the utter triviality of the affair that prompted them to do it.

 

And I feel a little bad for Firedorn. Whatever his failings, he does not deserve to be in the eye of a cat-5 Internet poopstorm.

[gkathellar]

So, the OP just pastes the same thing a few times, and here we are: people arguing about the same thing over and over and over again.

 

Well trolled.

 

It's like ... meta-trolling. 11/10.

[Blucher]

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.  

 

I look at it like this: Someone was offended by the joke.  Obsidian checked it out and agreed that the joke was in poor taste (to some extent at least), enough to ask the backer to change the wording.  The backer agreed, and Obsidian implemented the changes.

 

There is *nothing* wrong with that!

 

Now, I personally did not find the joke offensive at all.  It never even occurred to me that the joke could be offensive.  But then again, I'm not a trans-sexual person.  But thinking about it, I can however see how such a person would find the joke to be in poor taste.  I can see it.  Obsidian must have seen it too.

[Legbiter]

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.

SJW's are the new puritan Church Ladies.

[Rosveen]

Can someone point me to a transsexual who was offended by this poem? Not that Erika person, I don't know what her sexual identity is, but as a #killallmen warrior her opinion is automatically invalid.

 

I'm not trying to be flippant, I genuinely want to know if it was a real problem for someone. I wasn't here at the very beginning and you all know what the discussion quickly turned into...

[Prime-Mover]

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.

 

 

First of all, seriously wtf with regards to the last comment? People have presented fairly well thought out reasons why the fact that the game is a fantasy setting, does not undermind the relevance of the issues presented in the game. Instead of calling people names, man the f*ck up, and show that your arguments are strong enough in their own right, instead of boarding up your opinions by comments like that.

 

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.

 

 

 

There are moral issues to be considered in all apsects of life, and actually considering them, does not require that one is in a particular high stakes context like war. In fact, the severity of the context means that many people block out the moral aspect of the situation to protect themselves, and just keep on doing what they do and focus on the mission/orders. You must have experienced this yourself, or among your mates, that some people go to lengths to avoid looking at these issues because of the dramatic situation.

 

Further, actually being in such a dire situation, is no precondition at all for engaging with issues of morality. There are litteraly thousands of academics working in ethics departments around the world who are experts on the issue, who deal with moral problems on a day to day basis, but who have lived uneventful lives compared to a combat veterans, and dare I say it, compared to most ordinary people (they are a boring bunch). So unless you are going to discredit that whole field, I imagine we can agree that moral issues can be approached via the imagination.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

It's cool that you didn't pause to consider any of the issues in this game, e.g. perhaps you didn't even consider for a moment whether killing a certain person vs. letting some family-line die out (no spoiler) to be worth a second's thought. It would have been a completely differnet experience for me, if I had just randomly pushed one dialogue option or the other, but I certainly don't want to pretend like this is the only way to enjoy the game. However, if you could show people like me the same courtesy and respect, that would be just fine.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[Prime-Mover]

Can someone point me to a transsexual who was offended by this poem? Not that Erika person, I don't know what her sexual identity is, but as a #killallmen warrior her opinion is automatically invalid.

 

I'm not trying to be flippant, I genuinely want to know if it was a real problem for someone. I wasn't here at the very beginning and you all know what the discussion quickly turned into...

There was some post made in the forums by someone claiming to be transgender who claimed to be honestly offended by it. Can't really point to it, but the search function should help you out.

[Xarfai]

From the article:

 

Yes, it stands to reason that Obsidian could have said no to what the backer put into their game in the first place. They missed that opportunity. But now that it was in the game, it wasn't merely Obsidian's problem. It was also their backer's problem. And therefore, it required a joint solution. Together with that backer, the team at Obsidian discussed their options via email.

It wasn't a "problem" until Obsidian (Josh Sawyer) decided to answer to some crazy Twitter person.

[Badmojo]

Can someone point me to a transsexual who was offended by this poem? Not that Erika person, I don't know what her sexual identity is, but as a #killallmen warrior her opinion is automatically invalid.

 

I'm not trying to be flippant, I genuinely want to know if it was a real problem for someone. I wasn't here at the very beginning and you all know what the discussion quickly turned into...

To go further, show me someone that does not have a long history of being outraged by every little thing that was offended.  The people offended by this are ones who go out and DELIBERATELY SEEK OUT THINGS TO BE OFFENDED ABOUT.  There is a reason they are mocked as social justice warriors(btw, that is the name they gave themselves), its because this is all they do.  

[Prime-Mover]

From the article:

 

Yes, it stands to reason that Obsidian could have said no to what the backer put into their game in the first place. They missed that opportunity. But now that it was in the game, it wasn't merely Obsidian's problem. It was also their backer's problem. And therefore, it required a joint solution. Together with that backer, the team at Obsidian discussed their options via email.

It wasn't a "problem" until Obsidian (Josh Sawyer) decided to answer to some crazy Twitter person.

If we take their word for it (and read the interview with Feargus), the twitter mayhem only made them aware of the problem, and didn't cause it.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[Emc2]

I've been avoiding this discussion for a while, but I think I'll add some of my thoughts:

 

1. Read the article (If you haven't)

 

2. People who are getting offended by the fact that obsidian removed the limerick because of a few internet bullies are just observing the matter from their own perspective. Obsidian wants to give everyone the best possible experience, removing/changing the limerick most likely does not degrade your gaming experience, but it helps the offended trans-people to not feel like oppressed minority. You are only pushing your political views by bundling every minority-supporter-whatever with GG/SJW/whatever and using that as an excuse to bash their opinion without giving it a second thought. You are acting like those internet bullies yourself by taking the thing too far. You have lived too long in an echo chamber.

 

3. People who are getting offended by the limerick should think again if the thing is worth getting offended by. The limerick never specifically stated that the person was transsexual, you just interpret it in a way you can get offended by and so you can feel like you are entitled to a compensation. Even if you genuinely got offended by it, you are essentially getting offended by single person's joke that only makes fun of the guy who committed suicide (that't what I thought when i read it). I'm a part of certain minority that gets bashed on public media basically everywhere. I've not only learned to get over it but I've learned to make a jokes about it. Trust me, it makes life a lot easier.

 

This discussion won't end until people stop bringing it up every once in a while. There are way too many people on both sides for any quick 'peaceful solution' to be possible. I personally despise people who stick with pointless arguments, essentially making everyone's lives worse, when it would be easier to let it just go. That's my personal opinion though, if you get offended, I might edit it out. Who knows.

[Xarfai]

 

From the article:

 

Yes, it stands to reason that Obsidian could have said no to what the backer put into their game in the first place. They missed that opportunity. But now that it was in the game, it wasn't merely Obsidian's problem. It was also their backer's problem. And therefore, it required a joint solution. Together with that backer, the team at Obsidian discussed their options via email.

It wasn't a "problem" until Obsidian (Josh Sawyer) decided to answer to some crazy Twitter person.

If we take their word for it (and read the interview with Feargus), the twitter mayhem only made them aware of the problem, and didn't cause it.

 

If that were the case, Obsidian would agree with the Twitter mob, that the old backer content was worth the outrage.

[gkathellar]

To go further, show me someone that does not have a long history of being outraged by every little thing that was offended.

Hi thar!

 

(btw, that is the name they gave themselves),

Can I get a citation for this?

[OchreJelly]

It's really unfair to the backer to offhandedly refer to his silly little rhyme in a press release as "promoting hate" when the hate was all in the head of a reader. To have a CEO direct that at a fan (however round-about) is really disappointing, and as I said before, not proportional at all.

[evensong]

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.

On the broadest possible level, I think most people will find it very hard to agree with the fundamental reasoning I'm following here (feel free to pokes holes in it, though):

 

1. Jokes are a part of culture.

2. Culture influences opinions and attitudes.

3. From 1 and 2, we may deduct that jokes have an influence on opinions and attitudes.

 

The linear relationship you're presenting is an obviously ridiculous strawman, of course, I have never claimed this joke will have any kind of specific end result, nor would any reasonable person. This joke will not shape anyone's opinion on its own, and if it did, I'm glad I don't know the person whose opinion it shaped. The joke is, however, part of our cultural tapestry the same way any cultural artifact is, and denying that the cultural background of a person will tend to shape their attitudes is just as ridiculous as the strawman you're attacking here. The point and problem is the aggregate effect of the trope, which as you've shown, is a long-standing trope. I'm not going to bother listing specific examples of how culture can shape belief and opinion, because it is trivial to both imagine and find examples of.

 

The joke itself is, as I've explicitly stated before, not a big deal on its own, and it has clearly been blown way out of proportion - it has become a symbolic cause, not a realistic one. Like PrimeJunta I am sick and tired of talking about it, so this is gonna be the last longer post I make about any of this.

 

I may make a limerick or two, though.

 

And yes, it was Mark Twain who said that. Mark Twain was also notable for his satire of the powerful, and would probably have thought it ridiculous to compare a publisher changing something they printed to "censorship".

Edited April 11, 2015 by evensong

[jarpie]

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?

 

Have you noticed how the social justice nutjobs and "We want romances"-crowd are largely the same people? Interesting coincidence...

[Legbiter]

 

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?

 

Have you noticed how the social justice nutjobs and "We want romances"-crowd are largely the same people? Interesting coincidence...

 

Aye, and then they turn around and blame the victim for pushing back against being blathered at for some tumblrite crimethink and accuse us of overreacting and politicising

the issue!

[sparklecat]

Can someone point me to a transsexual who was offended by this poem? Not that Erika person, I don't know what her sexual identity is, but as a #killallmen warrior her opinion is automatically invalid.

 

I'm not trying to be flippant, I genuinely want to know if it was a real problem for someone. I wasn't here at the very beginning and you all know what the discussion quickly turned into...

 

The woman who first made a thread on the matter here.  Ladyjess.  She also did not return after that post thanks to the reception she met for politely expressing her concerns.

[RedSocialKnight]

So, the OP just pastes the same thing a few times, and here we are: people arguing about the same thing over and over and over again.

 

Well trolled.

It's like ... meta-trolling. 11/10.

 

Of course I knew the quarrel would continue. That's not my goal, but I accept it as inevitable.

 

I just think it's better for the quarrel to continue in the context of someone with actual knowledge saying something reasonable, rather than letting it create a closed echo chamber.

[Heresiarch]

Personally, I couldn't care less if the joke was in or out. The joke about having regrets after sex in intoxicated state are older than dirt. It doesn't really matter if it was an exceptionally ugly person, a transgender person or a relative. Adding suicide to the mix gives the joke a touch of black humor, but either way it certainly would not make anyone's day.

 

But Obsidian's (and Feargus Urquhart's in particular) reaction to this is appalling. On one hand, they say they get the backer's feedback on the issue and the permission to remove it from the game, while on the other they call the limerick not just controversial (which it is not), but promoting hate! Really, is that how it's going to be now? You are willing to let Tumblr nonsense, made-up statistics, and SJW bigotry rule supreme?

Edited April 11, 2015 by Heresiarch

[RedSocialKnight]

It's just occurred to me that my username must come across in this context as some sort of "social justice warrior" self-identification. It is in fact from a fan translation of a 90s Fire Emblem game.