Smite Dev Removes "Offensive" Goddess From Website

[GasparNolasco]

That's stupid, this is not the first game to depict gods from active religions as characters. I mean Persona, DMC, Bayonetta, etc. Already did this years ago and I've never heard of any protest about it.
Seems to me like another of those annoying moves these religious groups pull to gain publicity.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I hope they don't remove her from the game,it would be absurd.

She's one of my favorite God to play along with Guan Yu.

 

[Legion]

I like religion.

But religious people really get on my nerves. That includes Scientologists, Communists, Anarchists and a whole bucketful of -ists.

Communism and Anarchism are not religions... not even close. They are in the same category as 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism'.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

I like religion.

But religious people really get on my nerves. That includes Scientologists, Communists, Anarchists and a whole bucketful of -ists.

Communism and Anarchism are not religions... not even close. They are in the same category as 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism'.

Heh, the way some of them get on, you' be hard pressed to tell...

captcha: dead ringer. Yes... yes they can be sometimes.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I like religion.

But religious people really get on my nerves. That includes Scientologists, Communists, Anarchists and a whole bucketful of -ists.

Communism and Anarchism are not religions... not even close. They are in the same category as 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism'.

Actually, you could just as well go ahead and say that Scientology is not a religion or even Islam is not a proper religion, more of a one-size-fits-all Mein Kampf that was used mainly to unify against common enemies way back in the day.

Thing is, all these systems come with different sets of philosophies, tools and values that get applied in a rather undiscriminating manner, even though they're oftentimes all about discriminating. Even the great proto-Buddha hated very openly, considering the Jain to be proper scum.

Pretty much as the mutterings of a higher being, a more enlightened entity, even though their masterminds might or might not have been little more than anti-social brats that found it really hard to fit into the societies of their times.

Yes, the same easily goes for Jesus, man or myth, real or not. I like a message that calls for peace and trying to be a better human without shoving it into people's faces all the time, and I really do prefer that to an incessant call to arms, open hatred or deconstructive deviousness.

Thing is, most of these alternate-reality worldviews really impede humankind from moving forward, and I'm pretty sure a number of them can be considered the meta black plague of humankind, as they're obviously to kill or die for.

I like freedom myself, so I'm pretty happy with democracy and capitalism, but it looks like we're on the fast train heading for anarchy. Enjoy the ride.

 

[trlkly]

Yes, this is responsible. Just like we don't make fun of Jesus or God. Of course they aren't showing respect. That's not the point.

 

[rosac]

So hindu's used their freedom of speech to protest about their deity being used in a game otherwise populated by deities that are no longer worshipped (well, to the same degree that the "modern" religions are)and when the company agrees to this, its suddenly seen as a violation of freedom of speech against the company?

Heres the thing, freedom of speech is slippery, and can go both ways.

 

[Andrew Bascom]

I kind of want to try Smite out now, honestly if Jesus Christ were in this game as long as he was portrayed respectfully I wouldn't have a problem. So my only question is, is the game disrespectful to this god's name? If not then yes the character should be reworked, if it is then who the blazes care. Actually you should be happy that the god is featured in a video game because someone might choose to research that god, and that might lead them to join the religion. *sigh* I wish some religious people weren't so stiff.

 

[Something Amyss]

Feminism and similar concepts ending in -ism these days really only have one main purpose, which is to make everything political

I'm sorry, but that's a lie. People resort to claims of "politicising" things out of convenience.

"It's politicisn to talk about guns after a shooting!"

"It's politicising to talk about rape!"

Yeah, no.

I like how you completely and conveniently ignored the rest of my post which went into detail as to exactly what I meant.

I didn't; I merely did not think it changed anything. For example, you go on:

I'm obviously not talking about all feminists, just ones who go too far.

That's nice. Doesn't change anything, since I didn't claim otherwise. It still straw-feminism. You need to look at where "Feminazi" originates and the meaning it has. Sandra Fluke, for example, is called a feminazi for wanting access to birth control for health reasons.

For example, feminists who think bikinis in and of themselves are wrong, exist by the thousands.

Not seeing how that's too far. The sexualisation of women is kind of a thing.

You're kind of using the term about as loosely as Limbaugh does, which is my original issue restated.

Feminists who are against any kind of sexiness DO exist by the thousands.

I think you misspelled that. Let me try to correct it:

"DO exist by the tens."

They may not represent true feminists, or come close to being a majority.

Or come close to being something meaningful or significant or worth tallying.

Next time you get an answer you don't like, don't conflate "I disagree" with "I didn't read your post. I didn't want to put this much effort into something that could clearly be summed up in a sentence or two, but....

 

[Something Amyss]

Uh... Yes it is.

And yet you say:

It was voluntary

Game over. But just for fun....

The same right that protects the existence of those "offensive" cartoons that made people flip their shit, the Passion of Christ or even Valley of the Wolves: Palestine.

]

Except they didn't lose their right to make it. They have not had their free speech rights infringed upon.

It was voluntary, but now there is a reason to rain flak over other developers. I don't think that a developer having to give in to pressure because they are desperate to release the game so that they can have money can be called "voluntary".

There's no slippery slope here. For one, this has been happening for decades now, so there is literally no precedent set here.

And how does that image make anyone a douche?

Didn't say that it did.

Accidentally cultural insensitiveness? Debatable.

No debate, really. Depiction of religious figures in this context is insensitive. And yet, it's still their right. But instead of insisting that they had the right and mooning the religious sect, they did something conscientious.

Familiar but weird. Resembles something I know but makes me feel uncomfortable.

I think I am using it right.

Then you do not understand the situations you have presented. Just like you do not understand free speech, the actions taken here, and my words.

I know. But it's a single word. In a song that can be played on German radio stations.

And I can buy Tony Iommi records at Wal-Mart, despite the phrase "suicide ************" being in the eponymous record. So freaking what?

I understand the censorship of Swastikas in videogames because their appearance on "toys" is deemed unconstitutional in Germany.

But a song? They went Full Metal Retard.

Oh God no!

Huh, no. A "slippery slope" implies snowballing, a continuum fallacy.

"If we allow gay marriage, nothing will stop people people from marrying dogs and horses!" - slippery slope

"If we allow gay marriage, gay people will marry" - not a slippery slope

Except you're arguing that if we allow this, it strengthens the capacity for more. You even bring up Germany, whose censorship laws are analogous in this case to "marrying dogs."

I'm not sure if you're unaware of your own argument or if you're just backtracking.

 

[ElPatron]

It was voluntary, but now there is a reason to rain flak over other developers. I don't think that a developer having to give in to pressure because they are desperate to release the game so that they can have money can be called "voluntary".

There's no slippery slope here. For one, this has been happening for decades now, so there is literally no precedent set here.

I would like proof of game developers giving in to religious groups after they shown religious figures in their games, then.

And how does that image make anyone a douche?

Didn't say that it did.

Then why did you call it "not being a douche".

Accidentally cultural insensitiveness? Debatable.

No debate, really. Depiction of religious figures in this context is insensitive.

Oh, really? Then why is it not too different from actual religious pictures?

I know. But it's a single word. In a song that can be played on German radio stations.

And I can buy Tony Iommi records at Wal-Mart, despite the phrase "suicide ************" being in the eponymous record. So freaking what?

What do you mean? Wal-Mart is American, which means they have the right to sell records that are protected under free-speech. How does that relate to anything?

What I meant is that the song is perfectly legit in Germany but it appeared in a game and Treyarch had to remove it. It's ridiculous. The German constitution tries to prevent Nazi propaganda, and if I want to make a documentary on Nazism I can show all the Swastikas I want.

But if a game mentions the word "Blitzkrieg" then it's suddenly unconstitutional.

Except you're arguing that if we allow this, it strengthens the capacity for more. You even bring up Germany, whose censorship laws are analogous in this case to "marrying dogs."

I'm not sure if you're unaware of your own argument or if you're just backtracking.

No, German censorship is not marrying dogs. As if pressuring an artist to change his content has a blurry spectrum of Good and Evil.

 

[Something Amyss]

I would like proof of game developers giving in to religious groups after they shown religious figures in their games, then.

You're dicing it awful fine there, since all one really needs is to demonstrate bowing to protest and outrage. And hey, we haven't even got to leave this year to find evidence of that.

Then why did you call it "not being a douche".

Because things are not black and white, no matter how hard you try and make them so?

Oh, really? Then why is it not too different from actual religious pictures?

Help me out with context here. You shift from broad strokes to super fine points at the drop of a hat.

What do you mean? Wal-Mart is American, which means they have the right to sell records that are protected under free-speech. How does that relate to anything?

Wal-Mart claims to only sell clean records. We have a voluntary system in the music industry that accounts for this, too.

What I meant is that the song is perfectly legit in Germany but it appeared in a game and Treyarch had to remove it. It's ridiculous. The German constitution tries to prevent Nazi propaganda, and if I want to make a documentary on Nazism I can show all the Swastikas I want.

This game isn't a documentary?

But if a game mentions the word "Blitzkrieg" then it's suddenly unconstitutional.

Because it is?

No, German censorship is not marrying dogs. As if pressuring an artist to change his content has a blurry spectrum of Good and Evil.

Mmmm...Strawman.

Anyway, you don't understand your own argument, apparently. You presented this as the end of a spectrum, and now you're all "lol no."

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[ElPatron]

What I meant is that the song is perfectly legit in Germany but it appeared in a game and Treyarch had to remove it. It's ridiculous. The German constitution tries to prevent Nazi propaganda, and if I want to make a documentary on Nazism I can show all the Swastikas I want.

This game isn't a documentary?

Please. That's not the point. German citizens are not fatally allergic to swastikas. That was my point. Documentaries are not propaganda. BO is propaganda but far from being Nazi propaganda.

But if a game mentions the word "Blitzkrieg" then it's suddenly unconstitutional.

Because it is?

Please demonstrate how Mick Jagger saying he participated in WWII counts as Nazi propaganda.

No, German censorship is not marrying dogs. As if pressuring an artist to change his content has a blurry spectrum of Good and Evil.

Mmmm...Strawman.

Please explain.