Once again, you bring up GG boogeymen. There is a place where over 60,000 of them congregate. Want to see a top rated thread asking for the removal of that GG line? Won't find one. But you will find one on how nobody was really asking for it.
The act of complaining on a massive scale will often get something removed. And you will also notice that they aren't telling the developers that they should keep the line in the game, which is what they need to do to be logically consistent.
EGADs... 'Siege of Dragonspear' went to 'Siege of Drag-Queens'.
I've been a huge Beamdog Fan-Boy until this Social Justice garbage was shoved down our throats. At least the Devs/Producers are fixing this circus they created. I have NOT bought SoD ... on the fence about it but leaning more towards buying it now that they are cleaning it up.
I'm using this SNAFU as a teachable moment for the Devs over at CIG who are creating Star Citizen.
Once again, you bring up GG boogeymen. There is a place where over 60,000 of them congregate. Want to see a top rated thread asking for the removal of that GG line? Won't find one. But you will find one on how nobody was really asking for it.
The act of complaining on a massive scale will often get something removed. And you will also notice that they aren't telling the developers that they should keep the line in the game, which is what they need to do to be logically consistent.
Ah, but that's the thing: complaints are considered feedback. There was no campaign to have the line removed. I don't see an inconsistency. GG doesn't expect and actually has very low expectations for devs actually listening to them. That they changed anything was their call.
Once again, you bring up GG boogeymen. There is a place where over 60,000 of them congregate. Want to see a top rated thread asking for the removal of that GG line? Won't find one. But you will find one on how nobody was really asking for it.
The act of complaining on a massive scale will often get something removed. And you will also notice that they aren't telling the developers that they should keep the line in the game, which is what they need to do to be logically consistent.
You need to calm down, go to your local library or bookstore and find a copy of Daniel Dennett's book 'Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking' (or maybe find it online) and read the section called 'Rapoport's Rules' I think that it might be an eye-opener...
Once again, you bring up GG boogeymen. There is a place where over 60,000 of them congregate. Want to see a top rated thread asking for the removal of that GG line? Won't find one. But you will find one on how nobody was really asking for it.
The act of complaining on a massive scale will often get something removed. And you will also notice that they aren't telling the developers that they should keep the line in the game, which is what they need to do to be logically consistent.
Ah, but that's the thing: complaints are considered feedback. There was no campaign to have the line removed. I don't see an inconsistency. GG doesn't expect and actually has very low expectations for devs actually listening to them. That they changed anything was their call.
But they shouldn't even be complaining about the line since it doesn't affect gameplay. They should let the developer express themselves freely. If the situation were reversed and there was a sexist line in the game and feminists complained about it to the developers, I am pretty certain GamerGaters would be accusing them of harassing the developers rather than just complaining. This is why they are not logically consistent.
How is it the developer's call when they change something due to GamerGater complaints but when other people complain about something and it gets changed then suddenly the developers were "forced" to do it by the "PC Brigade" Do you not see a problem with that logic? lol
Why is the gamergate community against that line? Why not own it and say that Minsc is supporting you? There is the automatic assumption of being victimized. Wouldn't it have been a greater victory and the high road to take it and make it yours?
There's also a third possibility. People who aren't involved in either the SJW or GG community and would like to see the GG references removed as well.
For people on the sidelines watching this and the GG thing over the last 18 months or so, we don't want to be involved in the politics, we don't want to see the politics spread from the internet into games, especially in games like this one. All we want to do is play games. You can keep the politics out of it and it's what should have been done in the first place.
Once again, you bring up GG boogeymen. There is a place where over 60,000 of them congregate. Want to see a top rated thread asking for the removal of that GG line? Won't find one. But you will find one on how nobody was really asking for it.
The act of complaining on a massive scale will often get something removed. And you will also notice that they aren't telling the developers that they should keep the line in the game, which is what they need to do to be logically consistent.
Ah, but that's the thing: complaints are considered feedback. There was no campaign to have the line removed. I don't see an inconsistency. GG doesn't expect and actually has very low expectations for devs actually listening to them. That they changed anything was their call.
But they shouldn't even be complaining about the line since it doesn't affect gameplay. They should let the developer express themselves freely. If the situation were reversed and there was a sexist line in the game and feminists complained about it to the developers, I am pretty certain GamerGaters would be accusing them of harassing the developers rather than just complaining. This is why they are not logically consistent.
How is it the developer's call when they change something due to GamerGater complaints but when other people complain about something and it gets changed then suddenly the developers were "forced" to do it by the "PC Brigade" Do you not see a problem with that logic? lol
Did you ever actually read the reasoning behind why they removed the line? Here it is for you:
"Ultimately, we received feedback from our community around the Minsc line and when we went back and reviewed it. The line just doesn't make the game better, it doesn't add to Minsc and it does in fact, detract from him. As such, the removal of the line was the only logical outcome. I care about making our games better and I care about our community feedback."
That you seem to be saying it was removed solely due to GG and GG alone I think is faulty reasoning. That they had influence, sure. So does every other potential customer. Reading the above, they made a decision based on feedback, not anyone forcing their hand.
Did you ever actually read the reasoning behind why they removed the line? Here it is for you:
"Ultimately, we received feedback from our community around the Minsc line and when we went back and reviewed it. The line just doesn't make the game better, it doesn't add to Minsc and it does in fact, detract from him. As such, the removal of the line was the only logical outcome. I care about making our games better and I care about our community feedback."
That you seem to be saying it was removed solely due to GG and GG alone I think is faulty reasoning. That they had influence, sure. So does every other potential customer. Reading the above, they made a decision based on feedback, not anyone forcing their hand.
You deftly avoided answering my question there but I will get to that in a moment. First, there are multiple problems here.
#1. The line wouldn't have been removed if these people wouldn't have complained endlessly about it. Its not like the developers looked at it on their own and decided it shouldn't be in the game. They did because of people complaining so lets not try to pretend like it was entirely their decision. Companies will usually remove a source of controversy from a product of there is a big uproar about it.
#2. Yes, I am saying it was removed due to complaints about GamerGaters. I doubt that too many non-GamerGaters are going to care about some minor joke made at their expense when it has no real affect on the game. Most of the complaints i'm seeing on the forums are from obvious GGers. They kinda give it away when they start ranting about "SJWs"
#3. It doesn't change the fact that they are complaining about something as simple as a joke in the game. What happened to allowing the developer to freely express their opinions and not complaining about trivial things? Why are they upset about a simple joke?
#4. As I just pointed out, the "feedback" (i.e. complaints) were mostly from GG and its supporters, which you can clearly see by reading the comments. This brings me back to the question you avoided answering.
How do you determine what qualifies as a complaint and what is harassment? What is the difference between a feminist complaining about a line being sexist and a GGer complaining about a line insulting them? I have no doubt if I were to find something in this game that could be interpreted as sexist and made a post about it, I would get flooded by comments from angry people saying that I'm trying to force my views on the developers. So why would I be "forcing my views" and GGers are just "providing feedback" when we would both be doing exactly the same thing? I want to see someone rationalize this clear double standard that exists among many GamerGaters I have encountered.
You know at one point I did consider getting the baldur's gate games. I have never played them before. Many of my friends have recommended the first two, but even they refuse to touch this expansion.
I personally have no issues with anyone of any sexuality being placed into a game. I do have issues with poor writing, and then someone trying to defend such writing because it is morally right or however. These types of games are played because you can choose to be a prick if you want, or you could be the nicest character ever. You get the choice.
In short, I guess I will not be playing a Baldur's Gate game. I just refuse to fund this company after this debacle. I am sorry. Of people wish to attack me for this view that is fine. You love this game and company. Support them. I just cannot bring myself to do so.
Now I will admit I was not present for the pathetic banning of people and such, but the post I am replying to does show a little hope for Beamdog. Maybe there will be better writing later. I wish you guys the best of luck with your future ventures.
How do you determine what qualifies as a complaint and what is harassment? What is the difference between a feminist complaining about a line being sexist and a GGer complaining about a line insulting them?
Sorry, your question earlier wasn't very clear -- there were a lot of hypotheticals I thought somewhat offtopic.
1) You determine those things by looking up the definitions for each word.
2) The difference? To a developer, they are both complaints. That's all that should matter here.
In the instance you gave about "forcing my views", I don't think you would be forcing your views in that instance. That's a complaint.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
Yes. It referenced racism. Quite a bit. Obviously. It went on to continue to feature racism as an important story point in Baldur's Gate II.
From what I've seen, the game doesn't make too much of an overt political statement. The one they did make, the line from Minsc, has been removed but the damage was done. That line seemed to be included to do nothing more that give a poke in the eye to a group the developers didn't like. Then the public statements that the writer made, the tweets Dee made to involve feminist frequency... The net effect of all of that, was to bring in both sides of this huge argument over culture and politics, leaving the game right in the middle of it. Why do that to this game? This was a chance to show that they can do Baldurs Gate right and hopefully make BGIII.
Your summation kind of missed the fact that the tweet Dee made was because the huge argument had already started (indeed, how could it not, given it was ABOUT said argument?). It started before that, before they found Amber Scott's interview.
It started because a trans character existed, and because Minsc had a joke about ethics in heroic adventuring. All your post-hoc justifications came after the attacks had already begun, and after the spamming of deceitful reviews by people who didn't even own the game.
That is what this is about. Everything else is excuses.
From what I've seen, the game doesn't make too much of an overt political statement. The one they did make, the line from Minsc, has been removed but the damage was done. That line seemed to be included to do nothing more that give a poke in the eye to a group the developers didn't like. Then the public statements that the writer made, the tweets Dee made to involve feminist frequency... The net effect of all of that, was to bring in both sides of this huge argument over culture and politics, leaving the game right in the middle of it. Why do that to this game? This was a chance to show that they can do Baldurs Gate right and hopefully make BGIII.
Your summation kind of missed the fact that the tweet Dee made was because the huge argument had already started (indeed, how could it not, given it was ABOUT said argument?). It started before that, before they found Amber Scott's interview.
It started because a trans character existed, and because Minsc had a joke about ethics in heroic adventuring. All your post-hoc justifications came after the attacks had already begun, and after the spamming of deceitful reviews by people who didn't even own the game.
That is what this is about. Everything else is excuses.
Well keep up the good fight. I'm sure it will be very productive to label everyone with a different opinion as an evil GGer.
I disagree on the game mocking gamergate. A character who is all about justice and ethics uses their line. It is up to the player to take it as being positive or negative.
It is telling that GGers were so thin skinned that they just assumed it was against them.
No, it was against them.
The GGers showed themselves to be thin-skinned by their over-reaction to it (endless complaining and review bombing), but the offense they took was definitely intended for them.
The only way you could deny this if you are oblivious to the context. The phrase "Actually It's About Ethics In ..." was coined all the way back in the fall of 2014, when the whole GamerGate drama erupted, and it was coined by GG's detractors on twitter in order to mock and provoke GG. It was approvingly covered by a bunch of mainstream-ish online Media outlets like boingboing even back then.
In the 1.5 years since then, people have continued to use it in the same way.
I tried to stay away from GG-related drama on twitter, and still saw the line again and again from people in gaming or games journalism who wanted to mock GG.
It's now a very well established in-joke in the video gaming scene, with a very clear connotation. To act like it's really just a random sequence of words that "could mean anything" in Minsc's mouth, is either ignorant or dishonest.
(To be clear, let me reiterate that the GG (and other) people who responsed with review-bombing and harming Beamdog, were acting in an unacceptable manner, and that I find it unfortunate that Beamdog had to remove something from the game due to such pressure.)
From what I've seen, the game doesn't make too much of an overt political statement. The one they did make, the line from Minsc, has been removed but the damage was done. That line seemed to be included to do nothing more that give a poke in the eye to a group the developers didn't like. Then the public statements that the writer made, the tweets Dee made to involve feminist frequency... The net effect of all of that, was to bring in both sides of this huge argument over culture and politics, leaving the game right in the middle of it. Why do that to this game? This was a chance to show that they can do Baldurs Gate right and hopefully make BGIII.
Your summation kind of missed the fact that the tweet Dee made was because the huge argument had already started (indeed, how could it not, given it was ABOUT said argument?). It started before that, before they found Amber Scott's interview.
It started because a trans character existed, and because Minsc had a joke about ethics in heroic adventuring. All your post-hoc justifications came after the attacks had already begun, and after the spamming of deceitful reviews by people who didn't even own the game.
That is what this is about. Everything else is excuses.
If you really want to dig into the chronology of events, it could be argued this began back in August. But really, what's done is done. Hopefully things get better.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
Yes. It referenced racism. Quite a bit. Obviously. It went on to continue to feature racism as an important story point in Baldur's Gate II.
Racism is not particular to the 1990s... Racism goes as far back as the rise of Christianity, and the advent of antisemitism (arguably).
Once again, you bring up GG boogeymen. There is a place where over 60,000 of them congregate. Want to see a top rated thread asking for the removal of that GG line? Won't find one. But you will find one on how nobody was really asking for it.
Tons of them on this board go on and on about how Minsc's reference of the common "It's about ethics in X" meme is a deadly insult to the audiencethe customersgamers themselves.
I can believe that quite a few people on KiA didn't care about removing the line, but the line was "controversial" because of GGers, and this was amply demonstrated by many of them making accounts and complaining about it here.
The fact some of them didn't care does not erase the ones that did, and posted here about it, and made reviews whining about it, etc.
lol If a developer made a game that made a joke about Feminists do you think these GamerGaters would say "Hey, they are right! The developers shouldn't have included that line because it antagonized and silenced them!" Of course not, they would be saying something like "See, feminists get upset over silly things like a joke in a video game!"
I... don't think a developer would dare to put a comparably antagonistic jab against feminism in their game, in the first place. At least not in an expansion of a popular and somewhat mainstream game like this.
The sh*tstorm the developer would face if they did that, would be much larger than it was here, because it wouldn't be just a loosely organized mob of Internet kids hounding them, but the actual media, from Slate to Huffpo and Guardian.
With that said, you're probably right that GG'ers wouldn't complain about such a joke, but instead act all smug and be like "Gotcha! Now who's ... !", kinda like you're doing here... What neither you nor they seem to realize, is that this 'gotcha' cuts both ways tough...
So with that in mind, my view of the larger Internet "culture war" surrounding this, is:
GG (or at least their vocal minority) are hypocrites and not-very-nice people.
Tumblr/Twitter feminists (or at least their vocal minority) are hypocrites and not-very-nice people.
Well keep up the good fight. I'm sure it will be very productive to label everyone with a different opinion as an evil GGer.
GGers are literally the only people in the world who would call Minsc's line "an insult to gamers", since it only refers to GG, and it is self-evidently absurd for people outside of GG to consider anything that refers to GG to be referring to all gamers.
Sure, there's lots of channers and KiA/Redpill dregs of the internet that aren't in GG, if that even means anything, and probably some of them were harassing and spamming spurious bad reviews too, but if there is still such a thing as "Gamergate", it absolutely was deeply involved in this whole mess.
Also, I didn't call anybody specific a GGer, either in that post or in any other. In fact, I didn't even mention GG in that post. I guess it's very productive to create strawmen of everyone with a different opinion.
Was racism a "political problem in the 1990s", or was it not?
(Spoiler: yes it was.)
So, the original Baldur's Gate had no problems addressing topical politics. And that was in actual serious storylines, not a throwaway joke quote.
(Why do I just know next we're going to hear about how political topics are totally fine when addressed in the plot like the original game, but totally wrong and evil if in a throwaway joke line?)
Was racism a "political problem in the 1990s", or was it not?
(Spoiler: yes it was.)
So, the original Baldur's Gate had no problems addressing topical politics. And that was in actual serious storylines, not a throwaway joke quote.
(Why do I just know next we're going to hear about how political topics are totally fine when addressed in the plot like the original game, but totally wrong and evil if in a throwaway joke line?)
OK let me ask you this, is racism not even thirty years old?
I can believe that quite a few people on KiA didn't care about removing the line, but the line was "controversial" because of GGers, and this was amply demonstrated by many of them making accounts and complaining about it here.
The fact some of them didn't care does not erase the ones that did, and posted here about it, and made reviews whining about it, etc.
No kidding it was controversial because of GGers -- it was directed straight at them. If you're saying nobody's allowed to complain about it well, I don't think that's a realistic expectation. That this post on KiA exists and wasn't downvoted into oblivion I think says more than I can on the matter.
No kidding it was controversial because of GGers -- it was directed straight at them. If you're saying nobody's allowed to complain about it well, I don't think that's a realistic expectation. That this post on KiA exists and wasn't downvoted into oblivion I think says more than I can on the matter.
I'm saying it was absurd to take it as a deadly insult, which many of them did. And voiced this opinion, repeatedly, in many formats.
People certainly can complain about whatever they want. That doesn't mean they're not ridiculous to do so.
And you can argue that KiA (which is not synonymous with GG, BTW - and people accuse me of shoving people into GG willy-nilly!) had a thread about it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that many GGers did in fact get very angry about SoD and react to it the way they usually react to things they're angry about. It is impossible to get any sort of count as to who did or didn't flip out over it, because GG is an amorphous thing with no set membership. Your guess that most of them didn't is realistically not any better than someone else's guess that they did. The only thing that is for sure is that a lot of GGers did react negatively and make angry forum posts, spurious review-bomb, etc.
Racism is not particular to the 1990s... Racism goes as far back as the rise of Christianity, and the advent of antisemitism (arguably).
Eeh.. no.
Racism isn't only tied to religion, although religion might of course spur racism. Racism is probably as old as humanity, but it's argued by some that the structural racism we see today is based on the white/west society being the norm and the number one power factor everyone else is judged by.
OK let me ask you this, is racism not even thirty years old?
Let me remind you of what you said:
"As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?"
So, let's keep this simple: Yes, the original Baldur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s - specifically, racism.
You cannot just change the question because you don't like that somebody gave you an answer.
Racism was a real life political problem (in the US) in the 90s. And not a small one. Rodney King was beaten by police in 1991, and the acquittal of his attackers caused riots that ended in 53 dead and over a billion dollars in property damage. The OJ Trial was in 1995, and the subsequent civil case in 1997. Those are just two of the most notable incidents of that decade, incidents that almost literally everybody knew about, whether they were young or old, whether they followed the news or not.
And then there's Viconia, being attacked by law enforcement just because of her race, having not even done anything wrong besides being a drow. And saving her from this unjust fate actually LOWERS your reputation... because she's a drow.
That is something way more political and topical for the 90s than a throwaway reference to the "ethics in X" meme is in 2016.
No kidding it was controversial because of GGers -- it was directed straight at them. If you're saying nobody's allowed to complain about it well, I don't think that's a realistic expectation. That this post on KiA exists and wasn't downvoted into oblivion I think says more than I can on the matter.
I'm saying it was absurd to take it as a deadly insult, which many of them did. And voiced this opinion, repeatedly, in many formats.
People certainly can complain about whatever they want. That doesn't mean they're not ridiculous to do so.
And you can argue that KiA (which is not synonymous with GG, BTW - and people accuse me of shoving people into GG willy-nilly!) had a thread about it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that many GGers did in fact get very angry about SoD and react to it the way they usually react to things they're angry about. It is impossible to get any sort of count as to who did or didn't flip out over it, because GG is an amorphous thing with no set membership. Your guess that most of them didn't is realistically not any better than someone else's guess that they did. The only thing that is for sure is that a lot of GGers did react negatively and make angry forum posts, spurious review-bomb, etc.
It seems convenient here for you to determine (not sure how) that KiA is not "synonymous" with GG. And I think stating it was taken as a "deadly insult" is... I mean, this is the internet. I haven't seen this kind of response either, but I can imagine it happened somewhere to some very small people. Here though, we're not really arguing on anything anymore - you just think it's ridiculous that folks complained. I guess we can leave it at that.
Comments
I've been a huge Beamdog Fan-Boy until this Social Justice garbage was shoved down our throats. At least the Devs/Producers are fixing this circus they created. I have NOT bought SoD ... on the fence about it but leaning more towards buying it now that they are cleaning it up.
I'm using this SNAFU as a teachable moment for the Devs over at CIG who are creating Star Citizen.
How is it the developer's call when they change something due to GamerGater complaints but when other people complain about something and it gets changed then suddenly the developers were "forced" to do it by the "PC Brigade" Do you not see a problem with that logic? lol
"Ultimately, we received feedback from our community around the Minsc line and when we went back and reviewed it. The line just doesn't make the game better, it doesn't add to Minsc and it does in fact, detract from him. As such, the removal of the line was the only logical outcome.
I care about making our games better and I care about our community feedback."
That you seem to be saying it was removed solely due to GG and GG alone I think is faulty reasoning. That they had influence, sure. So does every other potential customer. Reading the above, they made a decision based on feedback, not anyone forcing their hand.
#1. The line wouldn't have been removed if these people wouldn't have complained endlessly about it. Its not like the developers looked at it on their own and decided it shouldn't be in the game. They did because of people complaining so lets not try to pretend like it was entirely their decision. Companies will usually remove a source of controversy from a product of there is a big uproar about it.
#2. Yes, I am saying it was removed due to complaints about GamerGaters. I doubt that too many non-GamerGaters are going to care about some minor joke made at their expense when it has no real affect on the game. Most of the complaints i'm seeing on the forums are from obvious GGers. They kinda give it away when they start ranting about "SJWs"
#3. It doesn't change the fact that they are complaining about something as simple as a joke in the game. What happened to allowing the developer to freely express their opinions and not complaining about trivial things? Why are they upset about a simple joke?
#4. As I just pointed out, the "feedback" (i.e. complaints) were mostly from GG and its supporters, which you can clearly see by reading the comments. This brings me back to the question you avoided answering.
How do you determine what qualifies as a complaint and what is harassment? What is the difference between a feminist complaining about a line being sexist and a GGer complaining about a line insulting them? I have no doubt if I were to find something in this game that could be interpreted as sexist and made a post about it, I would get flooded by comments from angry people saying that I'm trying to force my views on the developers. So why would I be "forcing my views" and GGers are just "providing feedback" when we would both be doing exactly the same thing? I want to see someone rationalize this clear double standard that exists among many GamerGaters I have encountered.
I personally have no issues with anyone of any sexuality being placed into a game. I do have issues with poor writing, and then someone trying to defend such writing because it is morally right or however. These types of games are played because you can choose to be a prick if you want, or you could be the nicest character ever. You get the choice.
In short, I guess I will not be playing a Baldur's Gate game. I just refuse to fund this company after this debacle. I am sorry. Of people wish to attack me for this view that is fine. You love this game and company. Support them. I just cannot bring myself to do so.
Now I will admit I was not present for the pathetic banning of people and such, but the post I am replying to does show a little hope for Beamdog. Maybe there will be better writing later. I wish you guys the best of luck with your future ventures.
1) You determine those things by looking up the definitions for each word.
2) The difference? To a developer, they are both complaints. That's all that should matter here.
In the instance you gave about "forcing my views", I don't think you would be forcing your views in that instance. That's a complaint.
It started because a trans character existed, and because Minsc had a joke about ethics in heroic adventuring. All your post-hoc justifications came after the attacks had already begun, and after the spamming of deceitful reviews by people who didn't even own the game.
That is what this is about. Everything else is excuses.
The GGers showed themselves to be thin-skinned by their over-reaction to it (endless complaining and review bombing), but the offense they took was definitely intended for them.
The only way you could deny this if you are oblivious to the context. The phrase "Actually It's About Ethics In ..." was coined all the way back in the fall of 2014, when the whole GamerGate drama erupted, and it was coined by GG's detractors on twitter in order to mock and provoke GG. It was approvingly covered by a bunch of mainstream-ish online Media outlets like boingboing even back then.
In the 1.5 years since then, people have continued to use it in the same way.
I tried to stay away from GG-related drama on twitter, and still saw the line again and again from people in gaming or games journalism who wanted to mock GG.
It's now a very well established in-joke in the video gaming scene, with a very clear connotation. To act like it's really just a random sequence of words that "could mean anything" in Minsc's mouth, is either ignorant or dishonest.
(To be clear, let me reiterate that the GG (and other) people who responsed with review-bombing and harming Beamdog, were acting in an unacceptable manner, and that I find it unfortunate that Beamdog had to remove something from the game due to such pressure.)
the audiencethe customersgamersthemselves.I can believe that quite a few people on KiA didn't care about removing the line, but the line was "controversial" because of GGers, and this was amply demonstrated by many of them making accounts and complaining about it here.
The fact some of them didn't care does not erase the ones that did, and posted here about it, and made reviews whining about it, etc.
The sh*tstorm the developer would face if they did that, would be much larger than it was here, because it wouldn't be just a loosely organized mob of Internet kids hounding them, but the actual media, from Slate to Huffpo and Guardian.
With that said, you're probably right that GG'ers wouldn't complain about such a joke, but instead act all smug and be like "Gotcha! Now who's ... !", kinda like you're doing here...
What neither you nor they seem to realize, is that this 'gotcha' cuts both ways tough...
So with that in mind, my view of the larger Internet "culture war" surrounding this, is:
Sure, there's lots of channers and KiA/Redpill dregs of the internet that aren't in GG, if that even means anything, and probably some of them were harassing and spamming spurious bad reviews too, but if there is still such a thing as "Gamergate", it absolutely was deeply involved in this whole mess.
Also, I didn't call anybody specific a GGer, either in that post or in any other. In fact, I didn't even mention GG in that post. I guess it's very productive to create strawmen of everyone with a different opinion.
(Spoiler: yes it was.)
So, the original Baldur's Gate had no problems addressing topical politics. And that was in actual serious storylines, not a throwaway joke quote.
(Why do I just know next we're going to hear about how political topics are totally fine when addressed in the plot like the original game, but totally wrong and evil if in a throwaway joke line?)
People certainly can complain about whatever they want. That doesn't mean they're not ridiculous to do so.
And you can argue that KiA (which is not synonymous with GG, BTW - and people accuse me of shoving people into GG willy-nilly!) had a thread about it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that many GGers did in fact get very angry about SoD and react to it the way they usually react to things they're angry about. It is impossible to get any sort of count as to who did or didn't flip out over it, because GG is an amorphous thing with no set membership. Your guess that most of them didn't is realistically not any better than someone else's guess that they did. The only thing that is for sure is that a lot of GGers did react negatively and make angry forum posts, spurious review-bomb, etc.
Racism isn't only tied to religion, although religion might of course spur racism. Racism is probably as old as humanity, but it's argued by some that the structural racism we see today is based on the white/west society being the norm and the number one power factor everyone else is judged by. I'm curious what you aim to prove with your posts about racism.
"As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?"
So, let's keep this simple: Yes, the original Baldur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s - specifically, racism.
You cannot just change the question because you don't like that somebody gave you an answer.
Racism was a real life political problem (in the US) in the 90s. And not a small one. Rodney King was beaten by police in 1991, and the acquittal of his attackers caused riots that ended in 53 dead and over a billion dollars in property damage. The OJ Trial was in 1995, and the subsequent civil case in 1997. Those are just two of the most notable incidents of that decade, incidents that almost literally everybody knew about, whether they were young or old, whether they followed the news or not.
And then there's Viconia, being attacked by law enforcement just because of her race, having not even done anything wrong besides being a drow. And saving her from this unjust fate actually LOWERS your reputation... because she's a drow.
That is something way more political and topical for the 90s than a throwaway reference to the "ethics in X" meme is in 2016.