Obsidian accused of transmisogyny in Pillars of Eternity

[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.

 

[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.