You are mistaking approval of artistic freedom with lack of preferences. And I feel like you haven't read what I wrote about "moral obligations".
I read it. I just found funny you talk here about "moral obligations" when the writer have say multiple time it was their wanting to write this. But I totaly agree that "moral obligations" exist. For exemple the kind of "moral obligations" which lead to a lot of LGBT character erasure because some very angry people cant support LGBT character presence in fictionnal settings (it's also sometime removing of lgbt romances when the game get localised and there a lot of writer testimony about how the editor asked them to remove or soft certain "to much gay" part on their writing).
@KcoQuidam What do you mean in this case? The OP does not refer to a specific case.
This post have nothing to do with the lgbt character presence in SoD ? Depsite the fact people talk about it like an "sjw agenda/propaganda" and the OP use this "social justice" term, specificaly focus on lgbt character presence and was originaly post on the SoD forum ? Try harder.
@FinneousPJ: That's not what I said, though. I'm often happy to engage with people who have beliefs that don't align with mine. "Brahma created the universe" is a belief. It would never stop me from talking to someone. "Homosexuality is wrong" is a belief. It might or might not stop me from talking to someone, depending on how much patience I had that day. "I hate the gays" is not a belief.
Outrage has gripped the gaming community again following the news that feminism and political correctness has continued to destroy the gaming industry, by drowning them in money.
Vicious, censorious feminists and so-called ‘social justice warriors’ have inflicted horrible damage on the losses of the gaming industry, and game publishers everywhere are struggling to stay in debt.
Sony’s recent financials show that the company has been one of the worst hit by these underhanded political activists, shipping a record-breaking 17.7 million PS4s this fiscal year instead of the record-breaking 14.4 million shipped last fiscal year.
A Sony spokesperson explained that the company was “extremely worried” about what this would mean for the future of the company.
“If feminism keeps up its unrelenting assault on our industry, we could be looking at breaking the 20-million mark for PS4s shipped, which needless to say would be very bad for us as we hate making lots and lots of money. We suffered through a record-breaking $13.7 billion in revenue this year thanks to feminists.”
“I mean, what do you even do with money when you have so much of it? Do you store it in a swimming pool and then dive into it like a weirdly pro-capitalist duck? It’s unreasonable of SJWs to put us in this position.”
Gamer Blake Rodgers couldn’t agree more, noting that ‘cucks’ and ‘white knights’ were also to blame for flooding the indie gaming industry with cash.
“They just don’t understand. By buying lots of copies of hipster games that I don’t like, such as Firewatch or Gone Home, they are hurting our industry.”
“Spending money on games, making them profitable, encouraging further development… that’s doing incredible damage to gaming. It is the exact opposite of what the gaming industry needs right now. And everyone is suffering for their short-sightedness.”
@joluv If you do not engage with other people because their beliefs do not align with yours, I believe you to be in the wrong, yes.
I mean, generally I'd agree with this, but if that other person is so hell-bent on hatred and ignorance, particularly against anew entire group of people you identify or ally with, most any discussion you attempt will end up like this.
And I dunno about the rest of you, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to be Loki.
Personal safety and well-being are important to consider in situations like these. It's why some people refused to talk about GamerGate when it was first rearing it's ugly head; any attempt at discussion was met with harassment and the release of personal info that compromised their safety.
@Yulaw9460 Yep, and I think that was always the point. Mizhena wasn't in the game to say "transgender people are amazing, they're the best of all people and transcend all others" - though some seem to think that's happening. She's just there to say "trans people exist. See, here's one and she's talking and acting all humany. Mostly because she is a human, like anyone else".
The character doesn't stand out in anyway beyond peoples obsession with her trans-ness. The sooner that obsessiveness dies down and trans people are seen just as people and nothing exceptional, the better. Which is exactly what her inclusion is intended to step towards.
It's why some people refused to talk about GamerGate when it was first rearing it's ugly head; any attempt at discussion was met with harassment and the release of personal info that compromised their safety.
I don't recall anyone getting hurt by gamer gate people. My memory might be shoddy, but people like Brianna Wu made out with a decent paycheck from the whole ordeal. And the issue got to the UN, because pollution, nuclear war and disease compare to internet rudeness.
Also blaming an entire movement for a few bad people is crazy. It's why I don't blame all feminists, such as my own girlfriend, when some feminists interrupt Men's Rights Anti-Suicide meetings or meetings from anyone with different viewpoints. It certainly sours me to the thought of the idea and throws me right into the Egalitarian, but I'm still open to be proven wrong.
We worry about our first world problems, when we should appreciate the things we have while we still have them.
Please please please tell me that isn't a real thing.
I'm expecting it's just a little awkwardly phrased and they mean it as a meeting against suicide in men which is being organised by MRAs (which is fair enough, regardless of what I feel about the group holding it), rather than people dealing with suicidal tendencies specifically as a result of backlash against MRAs (which I guess is how you interpreted it?).
I had a nice reply, but sid beat me to it nail on the head.
I remember a video where a bunch of people showed up at I believe a college where a Men's Rights Group hosted the event. One of the kids who was going to the event said he went because two of his friends had committed suicide in close proximity and he wanted answers to understand why and one woman was sneering and calling guys like that scum.
@Yulaw9460 Yep, and I think that was always the point. Mizhena wasn't in the game to say "transgender people are amazing, they're the best of all people and transcend all others" - though some seem to think that's happening. She's just there to say "trans people exist. See, here's one and she's talking and acting all humany. Mostly because she is a human, like anyone else".
The character doesn't stand out in anyway beyond peoples obsession with her trans-ness. The sooner that obsessiveness dies down and trans people are seen just as people and nothing exceptional, the better. Which is exactly what her inclusion is intended to step towards.
Hmm. I still find it somewhat misplaced in a medieval-type setting on principle. In a current day or futuristic Mass Effect-esque kind of setting I find it believeable, since it would probably be a common occurence the inhabitants wouldn't really think twice about.
It grates on the credibility to me. Yeah, in a world of dragons and magic, I know. So sue me.
At first I thought that, but then when I started thinking about the various hybrids between different races, half-elves, half-orcs, half-fiends, half-eladrin, the involvement of magic, deities interfering and procreating, I actually think it might happen more there.
@Dazzu: I found that video. It looks like in 2012 some people protested a lecture a University of Toronto by Warren Farrell, an MRA author who doesn't seem to be especially focused on suicide. I didn't find anything about MRA groups organizing anti-suicide support groups or anything. My concern had been that they might do so insincerely, holding anti-feminist rallies under a cynical moral cover of suicide prevention. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Anyway, I know you were just giving one example of bad behavior by members of a group and saying that we shouldn't blame the entire group for it. You are correct to an extent, but it depends on how strong the link is between the behavior and membership in that group. My impression is that harassment has always been a central aspect of "membership" in gamergate, but we don't need to relitigate that here.
@Yulaw9460 Yep, and I think that was always the point. Mizhena wasn't in the game to say "transgender people are amazing, they're the best of all people and transcend all others" - though some seem to think that's happening. She's just there to say "trans people exist. See, here's one and she's talking and acting all humany. Mostly because she is a human, like anyone else".
The character doesn't stand out in anyway beyond peoples obsession with her trans-ness. The sooner that obsessiveness dies down and trans people are seen just as people and nothing exceptional, the better. Which is exactly what her inclusion is intended to step towards.
Hmm. I still find it somewhat misplaced in a medieval-type setting on principle. In a current day or futuristic Mass Effect-esque kind of setting I find it believeable, since it would probably be a common occurence the inhabitants wouldn't really think twice about.
It grates on the credibility to me. Yeah, in a world of dragons and magic, I know. So sue me.
That may be it right there. The forgotten realms isn't just a medieval setting - its a completely different one. For the most part, the vilification of trans people stems from the real worlds main monotheistic religions (I'm not familiar with their treatment in other religions) either directly, or through it's affect on the culture at large. None of that exists in Faerun and while I'm no expert in their lore, I'm not aware of any particular religions with equivalent stances.
Even besides the magic and dragons, if you live next door to a gnome, across the hall from an elf and have a half-orc as your landlord, and then try to categorise those around you as "us" and "them" then your transgender babysitter probably isn't even going to rate. In that setting, the current and historic antagonism is unlikely to have come about.
It's true that when we think of the medieval world we typically don't imagine transgendered people being there. But that's not because they didn't exist, rather it's because it was such a socially stigmatised state that people would either go to huge lengths to hide it, it would prevent them from being able to attain a notable position, or they would simply be written out of the history books. Without that sort of culture, there isn't really any reason that it wouldn't be openly expressed.
I get that it can seem strange at first. Even in the current climate, when I first started learning about and paying attention to transgender people and the issues surrounding them, I found it extremely offputting. Sometimes it even made me physically ill (I had a very sheltered upbringing). But you get accustomed to it in time just by seeing it around as not being a big deal. That's exactly the sort of culture that Beamdog is trying to create with Mizhena (whether or not they did that in the best way is a subject for another time).
I had a nice reply, but sid beat me to it nail on the head.
I remember a video where a bunch of people showed up at I believe a college where a Men's Rights Group hosted the event. One of the kids who was going to the event said he went because two of his friends had committed suicide in close proximity and he wanted answers to understand why and one woman was sneering and calling guys like that scum.
If that's the way it happened (not implying it isn't, but these sorts of things do have a tendency to get distorted on both sides and I have no idea of the greater context or whatever), then as a feminist, I completely condemn that woman's actions.
It's why some people refused to talk about GamerGate when it was first rearing it's ugly head; any attempt at discussion was met with harassment and the release of personal info that compromised their safety.
I don't recall anyone getting hurt by gamer gate people. My memory might be shoddy, but people like Brianna Wu made out with a decent paycheck from the whole ordeal.
*sigh*
Because money magically makes everything better, doesn't it?
@Yulaw9460 Yep, and I think that was always the point. Mizhena wasn't in the game to say "transgender people are amazing, they're the best of all people and transcend all others" - though some seem to think that's happening. She's just there to say "trans people exist. See, here's one and she's talking and acting all humany. Mostly because she is a human, like anyone else".
The character doesn't stand out in anyway beyond peoples obsession with her trans-ness. The sooner that obsessiveness dies down and trans people are seen just as people and nothing exceptional, the better. Which is exactly what her inclusion is intended to step towards.
Hmm. I still find it somewhat misplaced in a medieval-type setting on principle. In a current day or futuristic Mass Effect-esque kind of setting I find it believeable, since it would probably be a common occurence the inhabitants wouldn't really think twice about.
It grates on the credibility to me. Yeah, in a world of dragons and magic, I know. So sue me.
Low tech cultures = intolerant High tec culture = tolerant
is complete bullshit, sorry.
Attitudes to transexuals are very different in the East, especially where there is a strong Buddhist influence. Where there is a strong Christian or Islamic influence, levels of intolerance are much higher.
They are different in the UK too. Even in the past the "intolerant" response to transexuals in the UK was to treat it as a joke. "You see that woman over there? I think it's really a man, nudge nudge wink wink." We certainly wouldn't comment on it to someone's face. We are far too polite for that.
Different cultures have different attitudes, and it has nothing to do with how "advanced" they are.
As for the setting of Baldur's Gate, it has railways, sewerage systems, and grand pianos. There is nothing "medieval" about it.
We worry about our first world problems, when we should appreciate the things we have while we still have them.
I've seen this arguments so many times it's almost comical. But it isn't, actually it's just tragic and depressing that empathy is lacking in so many people.
"OK, so you're a woman/trans/black/other minority and you are mistreated/bullied/killed/raped/not equal to the white male, but in other countries there are people who are even WORSE mistreated so you really should be happy for what you have instead of being angry at us white males who have no idea what it's like to never be their equal."
Understanding what? Anti-vaccine movement? Denying climate change? Freud's anti-women view on psyche? Really, that kind of absolute relativism is repulsive. You can't apply philosophical criteria of truth to politics or society. You can't play Phyrro while talking about vaccination "how can vaccines work, if we even don't know if world is real?".
Sadly, in many countries around the world the first statement is as "correct" as the second statement. I do not say "right" for I do not believe it to be "right". That does not prevent me from trying to understand the basis for that viewpoint. "Why" people think a certain way is generally more important than the "way" they think. Understanding is one of the most important parts of a civil society and it saddens me that we seem to be losing that concept.
Correctness isn't something to vote on. And what saddens *me* are disgusting attempts to trade truth, episteme, for comfort of relativism. Yeah, let's try to compromise with cannibals and reach oh-so-civilised agreement - eating people isn't entirely okay, but it's not, like, totally wrong, right? And however "dialogical" that relativism can seem, it's opposite to every agreement - because without set of assertions both sides of dialogue agree on, there is no possibility of understanding. And why would anyone try, if my point of view is a "correct" as anybody else's.
I read it. I just found funny you talk here about "moral obligations" when the writer have say multiple time it was their wanting to write this.
Already covered that. Let me quote myself:
Listen - as long as it's independent decision of an artist, it's cool. Really. It becomes problem when a) certain things are expected to appear in piece because that minority is underpresented or something, b) certain things are expected to be presented in specific way, because it's unfair that minoroty is present as bad guys. Art isn't supposed to be realistic. To be fair. To teach us right things.
Of course, if writer wants to write that not because it improves piece, but it rather makes society better, then he shows disrespect towards his own work, but it problem of his consience.
But I totaly agree that "moral obligations" exist. For exemple the kind of "moral obligations" which lead to a lot of LGBT character erasure because some very angry people cant support LGBT character presence in fictionnal settings (it's also sometime removing of lgbt romances when the game get localised and there a lot of writer testimony about how the editor asked them to remove or soft certain "to much gay" part on their writing).
You are mistaking "moral obligations" with "market demands".
Understanding what? Anti-vaccine movement? Denying climate change? Freud's anti-women view on psyche? Really, that kind of absolute relativism is repulsive. You can't apply philosophical criteria of truth to politics or society. You can't play Phyrro while talking about vaccination "how can vaccines work, if we even don't know if world is real?".
Sadly, in many countries around the world the first statement is as "correct" as the second statement. I do not say "right" for I do not believe it to be "right". That does not prevent me from trying to understand the basis for that viewpoint. "Why" people think a certain way is generally more important than the "way" they think. Understanding is one of the most important parts of a civil society and it saddens me that we seem to be losing that concept.
Correctness isn't something to vote on. And what saddens *me* are disgusting attempts to trade truth, episteme, for comfort of relativism. Yeah, let's try to compromise with cannibals and reach oh-so-civilised agreement - eating people isn't entirely okay, but it's not, like, totally wrong, right? And however "dialogical" that relativism can seem, it's opposite to every agreement - because without set of assertions both sides of dialogue agree on, there is no possibility of understanding. And why would anyone try, if my point of view is a "correct" as anybody else's.
I read it. I just found funny you talk here about "moral obligations" when the writer have say multiple time it was their wanting to write this.
Already covered that. Let me quote myself:
Listen - as long as it's independent decision of an artist, it's cool. Really. It becomes problem when a) certain things are expected to appear in piece because that minority is underpresented or something, b) certain things are expected to be presented in specific way, because it's unfair that minoroty is present as bad guys. Art isn't supposed to be realistic. To be fair. To teach us right things.
Of course, if writer wants to write that not because it improves piece, but it rather makes society better, then he shows disrespect towards his own work, but it problem of his consience.
But I totaly agree that "moral obligations" exist. For exemple the kind of "moral obligations" which lead to a lot of LGBT character erasure because some very angry people cant support LGBT character presence in fictionnal settings (it's also sometime removing of lgbt romances when the game get localised and there a lot of writer testimony about how the editor asked them to remove or soft certain "to much gay" part on their writing).
You are mistaking "moral obligations" with "market demands".
@Yulaw9460 Yep, and I think that was always the point. Mizhena wasn't in the game to say "transgender people are amazing, they're the best of all people and transcend all others" - though some seem to think that's happening. She's just there to say "trans people exist. See, here's one and she's talking and acting all humany. Mostly because she is a human, like anyone else".
The character doesn't stand out in anyway beyond peoples obsession with her trans-ness. The sooner that obsessiveness dies down and trans people are seen just as people and nothing exceptional, the better. Which is exactly what her inclusion is intended to step towards.
Hmm. I still find it somewhat misplaced in a medieval-type setting on principle. In a current day or futuristic Mass Effect-esque kind of setting I find it believeable, since it would probably be a common occurence the inhabitants wouldn't really think twice about.
It grates on the credibility to me. Yeah, in a world of dragons and magic, I know. So sue me.
Low tech cultures = intolerant High tec culture = tolerant
is complete bullshit, sorry.
Attitudes to transexuals are very different in the East, especially where there is a strong Buddhist influence. Where there is a strong Christian or Islamic influence, levels of intolerance are much higher.
They are different in the UK too. Even in the past the "intolerant" response to transexuals in the UK was to treat it as a joke. "You see that woman over there? I think it's really a man, nudge nudge wink wink." We certainly wouldn't comment on it to someone's face. We are far too polite for that.
Different cultures have different attitudes, and it has nothing to do with how "advanced" they are.
As for the setting of Baldur's Gate, it has railways, sewerage systems, and grand pianos. There is nothing "medieval" about it.
So? It's still my opinion.
I'm not sure being determined to stick to your opinion despite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a good trait to have....
Understanding is one of the most important parts of a civil society and it saddens me that we seem to be losing that concept.
There are two primary reasons why "understanding" is slowly disappearing:
1) the number of people trying to shut down discussions by insisting upon "safe zones" or that words can be "microaggressions" is increasing. These people are attempting to silence any voice which dares to utter words that the listener finds uncomfortable. I have some sobering news for these people: there is no such thing as a safe zone. Forging metal requires heat and stress; without those, whatever you try to make will be brittle and will break relatively quickly. In some regards, people are the same way--those who are not exposed to some heat and pressure will wind up breaking upon meeting even token resistance to their worldview.
Trolls exist; we must learn to live with that fact. No, although we do not want to feed the trolls by trying to engage with them on an ongoing basis, convert them, change their minds, or get them to apologize for being trolls in the first place, we should not try to silence them by saying "but this is our safe zone--you can't say that stuff here". Trolls will not honor your request for a safe zone--they will walk into it, get in your face, and say the things you don't want them to say. If you are not trying to engage trolls--and not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll--then you are engaging only with people who think like you do and you are falling victim to confirmation bias. (as always, I don't mean "you", personally, but the generic "you" which equates to "any person")
Remember: this is real life, not kindergarten. Not everyone gets along, not every plays nicely, not everyone shares, and not everyone has to agree.
2) people have a greater tendency these days to feel that other who think differently are not merely incorrect but *wrong*. There is a difference in those two words based on their general connotations. There are still economists who think that "supply side economics" is a good thing and who continue to advocate giving money only to wealthy individuals so that the money can "trickle down" through the economy. We may point to decades of economic data to show that the money doesn't trickle and therefore benefits almost no one except those to whom it was given--they are incorrect. If, however, we enouncter someone advocating taking all the money and distributing it evenly to all people then that person is *wrong*--they are advocating theft, the taking of someone else's property by force. That is how you will know the difference--the people who are "wrong" will generally advocate some criminal activity or some violation of human rights against a particular group.
Opinion: I am vegetarian because I dislike the fattiness and grease of meat, my grocery expenses are lower because I don't buy meat products, I enjoy the variety of products, and my sense of well-being has improved.
Belief: I am vegatarian because meat is murder.
Opinion: Human beings are a leading cause contributing to climate change.
Belief: Human beings are the only cause of climate change.
Opinion: I oppose illegal immigration because these people are breaking immigration laws and when they start working here they do not pay taxes like the rest of us have to pay.
Belief: Illegal immigrants are tantamount to an invasion that will destroy this country.
Opinions are outlooks we develop based on personal tastes and may or may not be backed up by facts. They can be destructive if unchecked, like most things, but in general are not. Beliefs do not have to be backed up by anything other than emotion--people tend to invest themselves into their beliefs but not their opinions and this is the key to the difference. You may debate an opinion but you cannot debate a belief because the holder of that belief will take it personally.
That is because I skipped kindergarten--I don't know what it was like. I was reading my older brother's first-grade books at the age of 4, as well as adding and subtracting numbers from his math book.
Comments
http://www.pointandclickbait.com/2016/05/feminism-ruins-gaming-industry/
Outrage has gripped the gaming community again following the news that feminism and political correctness has continued to destroy the gaming industry, by drowning them in money.
Vicious, censorious feminists and so-called ‘social justice warriors’ have inflicted horrible damage on the losses of the gaming industry, and game publishers everywhere are struggling to stay in debt.
Sony’s recent financials show that the company has been one of the worst hit by these underhanded political activists, shipping a record-breaking 17.7 million PS4s this fiscal year instead of the record-breaking 14.4 million shipped last fiscal year.
A Sony spokesperson explained that the company was “extremely worried” about what this would mean for the future of the company.
“If feminism keeps up its unrelenting assault on our industry, we could be looking at breaking the 20-million mark for PS4s shipped, which needless to say would be very bad for us as we hate making lots and lots of money. We suffered through a record-breaking $13.7 billion in revenue this year thanks to feminists.”
“I mean, what do you even do with money when you have so much of it? Do you store it in a swimming pool and then dive into it like a weirdly pro-capitalist duck? It’s unreasonable of SJWs to put us in this position.”
Gamer Blake Rodgers couldn’t agree more, noting that ‘cucks’ and ‘white knights’ were also to blame for flooding the indie gaming industry with cash.
“They just don’t understand. By buying lots of copies of hipster games that I don’t like, such as Firewatch or Gone Home, they are hurting our industry.”
“Spending money on games, making them profitable, encouraging further development… that’s doing incredible damage to gaming. It is the exact opposite of what the gaming industry needs right now. And everyone is suffering for their short-sightedness.”
And I dunno about the rest of you, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to be Loki.
Personal safety and well-being are important to consider in situations like these. It's why some people refused to talk about GamerGate when it was first rearing it's ugly head; any attempt at discussion was met with harassment and the release of personal info that compromised their safety.
Yep, and I think that was always the point. Mizhena wasn't in the game to say "transgender people are amazing, they're the best of all people and transcend all others" - though some seem to think that's happening. She's just there to say "trans people exist. See, here's one and she's talking and acting all humany. Mostly because she is a human, like anyone else".
The character doesn't stand out in anyway beyond peoples obsession with her trans-ness. The sooner that obsessiveness dies down and trans people are seen just as people and nothing exceptional, the better. Which is exactly what her inclusion is intended to step towards.
Also blaming an entire movement for a few bad people is crazy. It's why I don't blame all feminists, such as my own girlfriend, when some feminists interrupt Men's Rights Anti-Suicide meetings or meetings from anyone with different viewpoints. It certainly sours me to the thought of the idea and throws me right into the Egalitarian, but I'm still open to be proven wrong.
We worry about our first world problems, when we should appreciate the things we have while we still have them.
I could be wrong though.
I remember a video where a bunch of people showed up at I believe a college where a Men's Rights Group hosted the event. One of the kids who was going to the event said he went because two of his friends had committed suicide in close proximity and he wanted answers to understand why and one woman was sneering and calling guys like that scum.
Anyway, I know you were just giving one example of bad behavior by members of a group and saying that we shouldn't blame the entire group for it. You are correct to an extent, but it depends on how strong the link is between the behavior and membership in that group. My impression is that harassment has always been a central aspect of "membership" in gamergate, but we don't need to relitigate that here.
Even besides the magic and dragons, if you live next door to a gnome, across the hall from an elf and have a half-orc as your landlord, and then try to categorise those around you as "us" and "them" then your transgender babysitter probably isn't even going to rate. In that setting, the current and historic antagonism is unlikely to have come about.
It's true that when we think of the medieval world we typically don't imagine transgendered people being there. But that's not because they didn't exist, rather it's because it was such a socially stigmatised state that people would either go to huge lengths to hide it, it would prevent them from being able to attain a notable position, or they would simply be written out of the history books. Without that sort of culture, there isn't really any reason that it wouldn't be openly expressed.
I get that it can seem strange at first. Even in the current climate, when I first started learning about and paying attention to transgender people and the issues surrounding them, I found it extremely offputting. Sometimes it even made me physically ill (I had a very sheltered upbringing). But you get accustomed to it in time just by seeing it around as not being a big deal. That's exactly the sort of culture that Beamdog is trying to create with Mizhena (whether or not they did that in the best way is a subject for another time).
Because money magically makes everything better, doesn't it?
High tec culture = tolerant
is complete bullshit, sorry.
Attitudes to transexuals are very different in the East, especially where there is a strong Buddhist influence. Where there is a strong Christian or Islamic influence, levels of intolerance are much higher.
They are different in the UK too. Even in the past the "intolerant" response to transexuals in the UK was to treat it as a joke. "You see that woman over there? I think it's really a man, nudge nudge wink wink." We certainly wouldn't comment on it to someone's face. We are far too polite for that.
Different cultures have different attitudes, and it has nothing to do with how "advanced" they are.
As for the setting of Baldur's Gate, it has railways, sewerage systems, and grand pianos. There is nothing "medieval" about it.
"OK, so you're a woman/trans/black/other minority and you are mistreated/bullied/killed/raped/not equal to the white male, but in other countries there are people who are even WORSE mistreated so you really should be happy for what you have instead of being angry at us white males who have no idea what it's like to never be their equal."
Really, that kind of absolute relativism is repulsive. You can't apply philosophical criteria of truth to politics or society. You can't play Phyrro while talking about vaccination "how can vaccines work, if we even don't know if world is real?". Correctness isn't something to vote on. And what saddens *me* are disgusting attempts to trade truth, episteme, for comfort of relativism. Yeah, let's try to compromise with cannibals and reach oh-so-civilised agreement - eating people isn't entirely okay, but it's not, like, totally wrong, right?
And however "dialogical" that relativism can seem, it's opposite to every agreement - because without set of assertions both sides of dialogue agree on, there is no possibility of understanding. And why would anyone try, if my point of view is a "correct" as anybody else's. Already covered that. Let me quote myself: Of course, if writer wants to write that not because it improves piece, but it rather makes society better, then he shows disrespect towards his own work, but it problem of his consience. You are mistaking "moral obligations" with "market demands".
Really, that kind of absolute relativism is repulsive. You can't apply philosophical criteria of truth to politics or society. You can't play Phyrro while talking about vaccination "how can vaccines work, if we even don't know if world is real?". Correctness isn't something to vote on. And what saddens *me* are disgusting attempts to trade truth, episteme, for comfort of relativism. Yeah, let's try to compromise with cannibals and reach oh-so-civilised agreement - eating people isn't entirely okay, but it's not, like, totally wrong, right?
And however "dialogical" that relativism can seem, it's opposite to every agreement - because without set of assertions both sides of dialogue agree on, there is no possibility of understanding. And why would anyone try, if my point of view is a "correct" as anybody else's. Already covered that. Let me quote myself: Of course, if writer wants to write that not because it improves piece, but it rather makes society better, then he shows disrespect towards his own work, but it problem of his consience. You are mistaking "moral obligations" with "market demands".
Thanks for the straw men, I was fresh out.
1) the number of people trying to shut down discussions by insisting upon "safe zones" or that words can be "microaggressions" is increasing. These people are attempting to silence any voice which dares to utter words that the listener finds uncomfortable. I have some sobering news for these people: there is no such thing as a safe zone. Forging metal requires heat and stress; without those, whatever you try to make will be brittle and will break relatively quickly. In some regards, people are the same way--those who are not exposed to some heat and pressure will wind up breaking upon meeting even token resistance to their worldview.
Trolls exist; we must learn to live with that fact. No, although we do not want to feed the trolls by trying to engage with them on an ongoing basis, convert them, change their minds, or get them to apologize for being trolls in the first place, we should not try to silence them by saying "but this is our safe zone--you can't say that stuff here". Trolls will not honor your request for a safe zone--they will walk into it, get in your face, and say the things you don't want them to say. If you are not trying to engage trolls--and not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll--then you are engaging only with people who think like you do and you are falling victim to confirmation bias. (as always, I don't mean "you", personally, but the generic "you" which equates to "any person")
Remember: this is real life, not kindergarten. Not everyone gets along, not every plays nicely, not everyone shares, and not everyone has to agree.
2) people have a greater tendency these days to feel that other who think differently are not merely incorrect but *wrong*. There is a difference in those two words based on their general connotations. There are still economists who think that "supply side economics" is a good thing and who continue to advocate giving money only to wealthy individuals so that the money can "trickle down" through the economy. We may point to decades of economic data to show that the money doesn't trickle and therefore benefits almost no one except those to whom it was given--they are incorrect. If, however, we enouncter someone advocating taking all the money and distributing it evenly to all people then that person is *wrong*--they are advocating theft, the taking of someone else's property by force. That is how you will know the difference--the people who are "wrong" will generally advocate some criminal activity or some violation of human rights against a particular group.
Opinion: I am vegetarian because I dislike the fattiness and grease of meat, my grocery expenses are lower because I don't buy meat products, I enjoy the variety of products, and my sense of well-being has improved.
Belief: I am vegatarian because meat is murder.
Opinion: Human beings are a leading cause contributing to climate change.
Belief: Human beings are the only cause of climate change.
Opinion: I oppose illegal immigration because these people are breaking immigration laws and when they start working here they do not pay taxes like the rest of us have to pay.
Belief: Illegal immigrants are tantamount to an invasion that will destroy this country.
Opinions are outlooks we develop based on personal tastes and may or may not be backed up by facts. They can be destructive if unchecked, like most things, but in general are not. Beliefs do not have to be backed up by anything other than emotion--people tend to invest themselves into their beliefs but not their opinions and this is the key to the difference. You may debate an opinion but you cannot debate a belief because the holder of that belief will take it personally.