Obsidian accused of transmisogyny in Pillars of Eternity

[awesomeClaw]

I am frankly appalled to see people defending the preposterous criticisms thrown against Obsidian. Appalled, but not surprised.

For you see, I have predicted a long time that the strongarming PC-brigade will never stop in the way that other political groups stop when their goal is reached. Everytime they see their victory coming closer, they will move the goalposts, and they will demand more concessions, and they will get them, and they will keep going until there is NOTHING left.

And that is why we cannot give these people a finger, because they won't just take the hand - they'll take the entire fucking body.

 

[Abomination]

I think the issue for Obsidian now is the potential negative press that can be generated by the hyper-progressive proponents of removing the epitaph.

The potential "damage" is greater from the hyper-progressives than the non. So Obsidian would err on the side of caution and remove the text from the game, issue the apology, grant a refund or request the backer provide alternative text.

It doesn't sit well with me, because no matter how you cut it, the context is an example of a (supposed) transphobe killing themselves BECAUSE of their (supposed) transphobia.

People are so upset about a character being (supposedly) transphobic that they want it stricken from a game. A tiny, optional, one of hundreds entry you would have to scrounge for to find...

This is fucking absurd. I hope Obsidian doesn't cave.

 

[Teoes]

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.

I think I'd rather take a shot every time that happens, plus a bonus shot every time someone uses "SJW" unironically.

Someone call me an ambulance!

 

[Chiral]

Just because you don't like the game, doesn't give you the right to demand it be changed,

*cough* ME3 ending *cough*

I hate how this is brought up every time anyone talks about changing anything in a video game ever, as though it proves some sort of point. Theres a massive difference between being told for the better part of a decade that your choices will matter to how the story plays out, that you won't be getting a pick A/B/C ending and basically all your choices did was help fill a meter that you could fill regardless and you got an A/B/C ending. People need to compare oranges to oranges or at the very least tangerines and not potatoes.

 

[mrdeclandeadly]

What the hell is with all the moral outrage going on in gaming atm. Every two minutes some sensitive idiot is getting offended by nothing.

I blame Twitter for all this nonsense, one crazy eejit plays through a game until they find something that offends them, and then they go on Twitter and complain straight to the devs about it. A bunch of other offended idiots see the tweet and jump on it.

Nobody should listen to these complainers, the vast majority of people don't give a flying fuck if you get offended. But it's only the tiny loud minority that gets heard.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

What if you have a really small dick? Or you have an unsightly gut that doesn't show under your shirt? Or maybe an unattractive medical condition, like burns?

Should you be obligated to tell your potential partners beforehand of all the qualities they might find undesirable as a similar courtesy?

Yes you should. And if you don't say anything don't expect the other person just to go through with it. If you want to bump the uglies just be honest. I know that's still a very outlandish concept in this day and age, but it's what i would expect.

 

[Ratty]

Saw this floating around. Pretty good summation of the situation I think.

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.

I think I'd rather take a shot every time that happens, plus a bonus shot every time someone uses "SJW" unironically.

Someone call me an ambulance!

It's a sarcastic term anyway, so there's always a bit of irony when it's used as originally intended. Like "keyboard warrior". Since the label denotes people who pretend to fight for justice but instead just want an excuse to look good and feel good while horrifically attacking people and trying to censor things they disagree with.

 

[Dendrik]

But but my feelings are hurt, everybody should change everything to what I think is acceptable and how I feel wahhhhhh!

I can't believe someone in this thread even used cisplaining un-ironically. As if no one who is straight has any empathy and can't understand how other people may feel about a subject. What ever happened to "Don't like it Don't Buy it". Instead people are admitting there too weak-minded to let some imaginary slight against them go.

Oh my delicate feelings are hurt what ever shall I do wahhhhh!

 

[Bob Drack]

Seriously? This was posted by MarsAtlas page one:

"I normally would agree, but in this instance I would argue that it is, not because this is an extension of the fictional universe, but because this is what some backer wanted to put into the game. Its completely unrelated and unattached to the rest of the game. It'd be like if somebody backed the project and was able to put something into the game, and they decided to add a blatantly racist screed."



Have people become so blind? The Lord of the Rings had racism in it. Dwarf vs Elf hatred was very real. Wasn't censored, even in the newest Hobbit movies. It's an acceptable part of fantasy literature, not offensive remarks targeting certain groups of people.

 

[Strazdas]

what the hell is this? a 10 pages thread about nothing? can somone explain me what is "transmysoginy" and where can i find it in this message?

 

[Silence]

Well, this thread is a barrel of laughs, isn't it.

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.

In fact, GG didn't just demand a simple change. No, GG wanted the 'offending' sites to be taken offline altogether. That's a fuck load worse than the storm-in-a-teacup this thread is about.

It always seems like gamers are the only ones who are allowed to be offended, and no one else is.
How ironic and lacking in self-awareness this whole situation has become...

Well, good job comparing direct insults to a maybe as transphobic interpretable (and even using a made up word for it) dumb joke.
(And don't give me the "it was not meant as an insult and you are dumb for believing it crap)

But I agree that this thread is unnecessary. Outrage could/should be happening at the change, if not done sensible, not at the fucking tweet.

 

[kael013]

Just because you don't like the game, doesn't give you the right to demand it be changed,

*cough* ME3 ending *cough*

Oh, for crying out loud...

These were all statements about what consumers would get with the game before the game was released. You could say they were promises. They were also, mostly, lies. Thus, you could make an argument that BioWare engaged in false advertising to hype up the game and sell copies. The outrage and cries for change were because people ended up being lied to by BioWare.

This debacle? This is a group of people getting outraged and trying to change a game not because they were lied to about the game. They're getting outraged and trying to change the game because their feelings got hurt.

In short, one was due to false advertisement, the other is due to muh feelz. How are those fucking comparable!?

 

[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".

 

[Zhukov]

Oh, are people's feelings hurt? Fuck 'em!

Which is what everyone says until it's their feeling that get hurt.

Then it's the end of the fucking world and someone must lose their job over it!

 

[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, when people say "censorship" in these cases 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.

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, it being a hopeful sci-fi story with an anti-racism message) 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.

 

[MonsterCrit]

I? What? So I?

Geez... I'm starting to see how the future of Demolition Man probably started.

Seriously, for starters being deceived into committing a sexual act and then reacting negatively to the deception is not phobia or misogyny. Secondly... that limrick is funny and i you don't laugh you are a horrible person with no sense of joy.

 

[endtherapture]

... 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.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

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

 

[Strazdas]

... 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.

While Jim has shown he knows the meanings of the terms he also has shown he is unable to differentiate which one is happening in his very own show last week.

 

[WindKnight]

Since Jim Sterling posted this:

Jim Sterling ‏@JimSterling 23 Min
So Tim Schafer makes a joke with a sock and it's an outrage, but a joke about a subject that's gotten trans people murdered is just lols.

on Twitter, I will now try to find out how many people got killed because of this joke. Or something similar.

Someone has sources?

(Btw: He retweeted it, and he has a huge audience, so he is partly responsible for the answer this tweet got. Which makes me kind of confused - he should really know what most people think of that.)

So glad Jim is gone from The Escapist if he's gonna peddle shit like this to everyone now.

Eh, I'm sure the silence already got raked over the rails for singling out the tweet, but I'm just gonna say.

He did not say that people could get killed because of Obsidian's joke. He's just saying that transpeople face a small chance at having to endure physical violence or even death in the situation that is presented in the poem. Still, I don't think the poem has much effect on any of those situations, or on how people perceive transfolk, so I don't view it as a huge deal. Whether you generally agree with Jim or how he handles himself or not, I wouldn't make a kneejerk reaction and say he said things he never did.

Jim's an alright person to me, but I've made my feelings known a couple times here on his content and how it seems to be rather sparse in terms of variety or much greater thought at times (not necessarily always). And I'd agree to some extent that he can be a hypocrite sometimes.

Being transgender ups your chances of being murdered by 25%, and many states will allow 'trans panic' as a diminished responsibility defence (including one guy who spent a day planning out his murder of a teenage trans girl). And keep in mind most media representations of trangender people boil down to 'oh my god, she had a dick! (PUKEPUKEPUKE)' it can reinforce negative attitudes and encourage 'normal' people to see transgender people as 'things' rather than people.