Obsidian accused of transmisogyny in Pillars of Eternity

[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.