Obsidian accused of transmisogyny in Pillars of Eternity

[smartalec]

He's a fun little game to make it more entertaining: Every time you see someone in this thread posting something like "These stupid people always getting offended at things", or "People need to grow a thicker skin", imagine the post is instead referring to GamerGate getting all offended at the "Gamers Are Dead" articles.

Aie aie aie... I get the point. But... the big thing about 'Gamers are Dead' wasn't just what was said, but how obviously co-ordinated and premeditated it was. The suspicion that a large section of games media were collaborating and covering one another's backsides against their readership suddenly became a likelihood, and before long it was proven to be a reality.

Unless you're going to claim that Obsidian is part of a multi-studio 'transmisogyny' conspiracy, it's not comparable. Likewise the Mass Effect 3 ending stuff, which was arguing that ME3 was a defective product not living up to advertising. Again, not the same thing. It's best not to muddy the waters, or we'll be here forever.

 

[Megalodon]

Why does someone get warned (and thus suspended) for this very civil comment?

image snipped

Probably because some (to my mind rather overzealous) mod thought the 'I hope you can wrap your head around these two simple concepts' bit contravened the always subjective and hard to pin down 'don't be a jerk' rule.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

Since when the bloody hell did the Escapist become akin to the arse end of tumblr? The only issue that ANYONE should be talking about right now is that some jumped up prick decides to subvert information and manipulate people into their dumb/bullshit/plain fucking crazy agenda.

And no I don't have to justify that - because I'm a normal human being and not some maladjusted **** with a complex.

I think that we should stop caring about the Party of the Permanently Offended has to say about just about anything.

Annnnnd /thread. Please. Let it die. Im so fucking done with this childish bullshit.

 

[chadachada123]

So I found this. I KNEW I had heard of that joke before (published 2004):

I wonder if the backer had this comic in mind? This comic is expressly joking about cross-dressing, not transgenders, and is nearly identical. The author of the comic also says, on his/her website:

Of all the strips I have ever done, this one is the one that gets ripped off the most. This strip gets ripped off in two different ways -- either by removal of the header and adding the theiving site's name to it, or by reducing it to a text version.

 

[Zhukov]

... and how he's redefined a certain word, most recently censorship.

Oh, that's rich.

No, Jim and those like him have been arguing for the correct definition of censorship. The meaning that was in use before certain corners of the internet got their filthy paws on the word.

The people frantically trying to redefine censorship are the ones who use the word to apply to any change that was asked for by anyone who isn't them. People who cannot comprehend the notion of feedback that comes from someone who isn't them, or that a creator might take steps to please someone who isn't them.

Summed up rather neatly here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/12726-Target-Audience-Grand-Theft-Auto], although they used the term "hella nazi shit" instead of "censorship".

True, often when people say "censorship" they often mean witch hunts, shaming and threats which lead creatives to self-censorship ( http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/self-censorship ). This is merely shorthand however, since the outcomes are the same.

Uh huh.

https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/582200461127634945

Look at that terrible witch hunting. All that shaming. So many threats!

Person A: "You shouldn't have done this. This isn't acceptable."
Person B: "Hey, you should take a look at what Person A said."
Person C: "Okay, I'll look into it."

Wow. It's almost like I just read brief a conversation between three adults. How fucking refreshing.

Hey, I bet there won't be any outrage if Obsidian ends up taking that feedback on board, right? Nobody will demand that the change be reverted , right? Everyone will respect the decision of the people making the game, right? Riiiiiiight?

Like comics were never officially "censored" in the US, but fanatics made it so you could not get your comics distributed anywhere unless they were approved by the Comics Code Authority. So it led to creatives self-censoring. Bill Gaines famously refused to submit to the CCA after being ordered to change the race of a character from black to white (because the story would have offended some readers at the time) and could not get his comics distributed as a result. Thankfully, he later went on to found Mad Magazine and by calling it a magazine avoided the censors, other comic creators were not so lucky and the comic medium in America is still stunted from it over a half a century later.

You realize that artists are not owed a distribution platform, right?

If I take my Adventures of PedoPope comic manuscript to a Catholic publisher, am I being censored if they decide they don't want to publish it?

 

[lastcigarette]

Edit: This was in reply to dunam. Quoting isn't working on my phone.
Probably because it hurt somebody's feels. That's how things seem to work around here. With all the reorganisation and redirection of purpose the Escapist has done they forgot to overhaul their forum guidelines and moderation team.

 

[Zhukov]

... and how he's redefined a certain word, most recently censorship.

Oh, that's rich.

No, Jim and those like him have been arguing for the correct definition of censorship. The meaning that was in use before certain corners of the internet got their filthy paws on the word.

The people frantically trying to redefine censorship are the ones who use the word to apply to any change that was asked for by anyone who isn't them. People who cannot comprehend the notion of feedback that comes from someone who isn't them, or that a creator might take steps to please someone who isn't them.

Summed up rather neatly here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/12726-Target-Audience-Grand-Theft-Auto], although they used the term "hella nazi shit" instead of "censorship".

Jim defines censorship as only happening via the government. Censorship is defined as:

" Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. "

Therefore it isn't just by the government. Any group of people can cause censorship. Jim wants the word redefined so that an artist changing things due to an outrage by groups on Twitter isn't censorship, only governmental interference can be defined as censorship.

That's because only governments have the means and legal authority to enforce censorship on the public.

Other people or institutions can control what is said, but only within their private domains. A publisher can refuse to publish material they don't like. My boss can fire me if I walk around at work saying that all gays will burn in hell. But the publisher cannot stop the author going to another publisher or self-publishing. My boss cannot stop me from standing in a park and telling passers-by that all gays will burn in hell.

A member of the public asking, or even demanding, that someone change their work is not censorship. The artist is free to say, "No, we do not want to", or even, "Fuck off."

If Obsidian want to keep their little gravestone poem, if they believe that it is a vital part of their game or that they owe it to the backer who put it in there to keep it there then they are free to do just that.

Then what can the offended people do? They can criticise the decision, have a big ol' whine on Twitter about it. That's well within their rights, no matter how livid it will make folks like you. They can choose not to buy the product and encourage their acquaintances not to buy it. Also well within their rights. And that's about it. They cannot censor the product because they have no authority with which to do so.

 

[Ratty]

Personally I don't care if people are offended at the game itself. People are going to get offended, that's just life. What I don't approve is that these people are trying to change the game, I'm invested in the development of this game, I pledged for the game and have been waiting nearly 3 years for the game. For some easily offended Twitter person to try and change the game barely 3 days after it has been out, that's what's annoying for me.

If what you say is true, then most of the anger in this thread is completely misplaced.

'Twitter User #4829572' doesn't have any additional clout or influence than anyone else has. Acting like they do, is just silly.
You said it yourself that people are going to be offended no matter what. It's a fact of life.

Why then, is there all this pointing of fingers and shaking of fists at "progressives", "feminists", "SJWs", and various other bogeymen and buzzwords? If the game devs bow and cave to public pressure, and you disagree with it, then all this hatred should go fairly and squarely on THE DEV, not on the people who got offended (because remember, as you said, "that's just life").

If the game devs listen to the 'wrong' people, then the games devs are to blame, no one else.

Hell, if that scenario happens, the thing to do would be to have a proper boycott of the game and/or the dev, and stick to it. Afterall, that's what these progressives/feminists/SJWs/bogeymen would do, if they didn't get listened to. They would simply boycott the game, the game dev, or both.

A lot of these backlashes are intended to let the devs know their audience supports them. Those demanding changes often portray themselves as a monolithic majority (when they're not pretending to be helpless/under attack) when that simply isn't the case for a developer's fanbase most times. It's people who disagree standing up to be counted. Of course if the other side has more people one can always claim they're "all sock puppets" even when it's obvious they're not.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Why does someone get warned (and thus suspended) for this very civil comment?

Simple answer is they had multiple infractions already and are now receiving suspensions for further infractions (which could be a ban if they continue).

To explain that post in particular:

"I hope you can wrap your head around these two simple concepts"

Civil means to be Courteous and Polite.

endtherapture did not call Phasmal stupid or slow or retarded, but he heavily insinuated it. His language was demeaning and combative. That is neither civil or polite.

The CoC covers this:

Have Respect for Others
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to attack others for sharing, or not sharing, that opinion. If you can't communicate without using combative, aggressive, or demeaning language, then please keep those comments to yourself, or be shown the door. Deliberately inflammatory threads; posts written with the sole intention of irritating people; attacks toward or inappropriate commentary regarding The Escapist staff, creators, or other posters; or attempts to derail a thread will be removed, as will your forum privileges. Note that this does not mean you cannot share your opinion of another's opinion, i.e. "I think that what you said is racist" is allowed, but "You are racist" is not. However, this is not a way to call someone racist by proxy - you must provide reasoning and justification for your statement. If you cannot, do not post. If you don't like a thread, the people in it, or anyone involved then don't post in it. If you feel the need to deride the reappearance of an old topic or particular sore subject, then don't post. See "Don't Be A Jerk," above, for details.

 

[Ratty]

... and how he's redefined a certain word, most recently censorship.

Oh, that's rich.

No, Jim and those like him have been arguing for the correct definition of censorship. The meaning that was in use before certain corners of the internet got their filthy paws on the word.

The people frantically trying to redefine censorship are the ones who use the word to apply to any change that was asked for by anyone who isn't them. People who cannot comprehend the notion of feedback that comes from someone who isn't them, or that a creator might take steps to please someone who isn't them.

Summed up rather neatly here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/12726-Target-Audience-Grand-Theft-Auto], although they used the term "hella nazi shit" instead of "censorship".

True, often when people say "censorship" they often mean witch hunts, shaming and threats which lead creatives to self-censorship ( http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/self-censorship ). This is merely shorthand however, since the outcomes are the same.

Uh huh.

https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/582200461127634945

Look at that terrible witch hunting. All that shaming. So many threats!

Person A: "You shouldn't have done this. This isn't acceptable."
Person B: "Hey, you should take a look at what Person A said."
Person C: "Okay, I'll look into it."

Wow. It's almost like I just read brief a conversation between three adults. How fucking refreshing.

Hey, I bet there won't be any outrage if Obsidian ends up taking that feedback on board, right? Nobody will demand that the change be reverted , right? Everyone will respect the decision of the people making the game, right? Riiiiiiight?

Like comics were never officially "censored" in the US, but fanatics made it so you could not get your comics distributed anywhere unless they were approved by the Comics Code Authority. So it led to creatives self-censoring. Bill Gaines famously refused to submit to the CCA after being ordered to change the race of a character from black to white (because the story would have offended some readers at the time) and could not get his comics distributed as a result. Thankfully, he later went on to found Mad Magazine and by calling it a magazine avoided the censors, other comic creators were not so lucky and the comic medium in America is still stunted from it over a half a century later.

You realize that artists are not owed a distribution platform, right?

If I take my Adventures of PedoPope comic manuscript to a Catholic publisher, am I being censored if they decide they don't want to publish it?

Yes, witch hunting, because this is 1 optional, hidden joke that this person is demanding be changed because "this is not acceptable in 2015", asking for retweets and trying to incite moral outrage. Also- lying about the content of the joke to exaggerate its implications. It is never specified that the person he slept with was trans, it could have been an effeminate looking gay man or drag queen.

Also your comparison is extremely exaggerated and flawed and I suspect you know it, there's a difference between one publisher refusing to publish something, and a moral crusade to pull all disagreeable content. Somehow I doubt you would be making this same argument if the religious right were the ones trying to stir up moral panic and eradicate all content they found distasteful. And again, you're side stepping the issue that this is still censorship as another responder pointed out.

As for a backlash, people like to stand up and be counted when others try to speak for them as the audience and they disagree.