It'll be sad to say goodbye to my 4th star, when the times comes, won't be long now..

Pretty sure 'the r word' is a known slur.
Especially since the people that it references in order to insult the target take issue with that and don't deserve such malicious disrespect for their existence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/a-word-gone-wrong.html
or
http://www.r-word.org/r-word-not-acceptable-psa.aspx

Hell, maybe y'all could do with this:
http://www.thinkinclusive.us/quit-using-the-word-retarded-in-three-easy-steps/

(Unrelated to the above: What on earth do you mean by 'alt' ?)
[Also I'm bemused as to where you're getting 'hipster' from..]
{I appreciate the compliment though; pigs are intelligent social creatures. ... plus the whole orgasm thing.}


... do you disagree with the principle of 'free speech' ?
I'm curious.

I mean, you seem to have calmed down from earlier, so maybe we can actually narrow down the ethical & philosophical splits that result in such vehement disagreement?
I believe that 'free speech' must necessarily have limitations (in the sense of 'inciting hatred & violence is bad for society'), but some seem to simultaneously advocate for 'hate speech' to be protected speech and disagree very strongly with the concept of boycotts and lobbying?

Which.. makes no sense to me, because those things are an expression of freedom of speech.
Not only that, they are an expression which I (as someone that believes in limitations to free speech) consider absolutely worthy of protection and guarantee.
I mean, if angry Christians want to boycott and protest and petition because someone has.. idk, developed a game where one can punch Jesus in the face (even if Jesus is probably mostly an okay guy, historically/mythically) then.. yeah? They should be able to do that?
It would then be up to everyone else (creators, publishers, sellers, customers) to decide how to respond to that.
It's.. kind of how society works? I think? Well, mostly works most of the time.

So yeah.
At what point does 'boycott' become 'censorship' in your eyes?
I'm not really seeing how those two things are similar.
If a creator chooses to alter their creation due to external pressures, that is still their decision.
They could have chosen otherwise, since there are no laws or regulations (in most nations) saying they must bow to pressure.

I'm not really seeing an issue.
Like, if something is changed in a way I don't like due to pressure.. I'll just.. not partake of it.
If it's super important then.. that's how counter-protests happen.
Like, it seems a relatively workable system? One that's functioned as a framework for a long time. What's the issue?

Let's look at that again:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/12/when-it-comes-to-grand-theft-auto-v-and-target-this-might-be-part-of-the-problem/
It's under the heading 'The Best Toy Prices in Australia - Guaranteed'
Next to Pepper Pig, Barbie and Spiderman figures with nothing else 'geared for adults' in sight, above a heading that says 'Kids Fashions at amazingly low prices' - that is NOT a mixed children-and-adult spread IMO

And I'm not saying that children are going to see or take notice of these ads themselves - I'm talking Parents, grand-parents aunts and uncles, looking for birthday pressies and stocking fillers for the kiddies who aren't going to expect adult entertainment to be sold next to kids toys and fashions

Also doesn't the fact that GTA V crossed the line and warranted a petition while Witcher 3 and other 18 rated games haven't (yet - admittedly) just prove that 'the line' has been drawn in a more reasonable place than you average gamer would fear?

I just read some lovely passages by Oscar Wilde, and since i think it really fits in the topic i thought I'd share:

"The artist is a creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or e new material his impression on beautiful things.

[...]

Those who find ugly meaning in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming . This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are cultivated. for these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book.
Books are well written or badly written. That is all.

[...]

No artist has ethical symphaties. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.
No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
[...]
Vice and Virtue are to the artist materials for an art."

That.. Australia thing is kinda a storm in a teacup.
Wasn't it just the one store or something?
(I feel like some of these 'stories' are people grasping for anything and everything that might support their narrative.)

Also I was/am a Project Eternity backer and agree fully with the bad poetry being removed.
It relies on a shitty premise, and reinforces it even whilst it mocks those that believe in it.
(Which applies to some in this very thread. If you're agreeing that transphobic BS and disrespecting the identity of trans women is bad then you've actually managed to score approval.)
.. tbh there are a lot of 'backer messages' that aren't any better though.
I take slight issue with the way it was handled too. Like, I don't think the writer intended for it to come off as reinforcing transphobic tropes, but then the way he responded.. didn't really help..
(Usually, mistakenly hurting someone is followed with "Oh, shit, sorry" rather than "UGH. You just don't GET it. Why are people so OFFENDED?" and mocking whoever was hurt. Usually. Ideally.)


... do you realise your solution to "people get pissy about poor representations" is actually just better representations?
There is no need for this weird slippery slope of increasingly narrow restrictive non-narratives when one could just.. have.. better stories? Better writing, better characterisation, more interesting (ie: diverse) casts and plots?


... okay so you get weird.
On the one hand, you're getting pissy at activists for.. being activists and speaking out and protesting things they don't like.
On the other, you're.. supporting the notion of censorship having value and people being allowed to express themselves.
So.. where's the line?


(Also yeah, the problem with depictions of sex workers is usually the lack of respect and the shitty representation.
Like, things are less of an issue with diverse representation that shows an entire spectrum of people in a certain role or from a certain background.
When representation is limited or is overwhelmingly of one particular type, that dominance being a negative reflection isn't that great.)
[Sort of how there are so few trans characters in anything that shitty portrayals can easily make things worse or reinforce awful harmful notions. Applies to other things, but that's the best example, I think.]
{Usually the argument against shitty 'eye candy' portrayals is poor characterisation. The 'Sexy Lamp' effect.
Or the fact that the men get to wear proper armour and things.
It's the sexism and imbalance more than the concept of sexualisation itself.}

What 'r' word?
Hipster means a person who is exceedingly, fanatically liberal, as far as referring to it in #gg goes I think.
alt= alternate account
What orgasm thing?

Here, here! Kudos to you for philosophy!

This actually only reinforces my impression that better quality writing & design would solve a lot of problems.

Also, it relies on 'beautiful things' and.. most of the things being criticised are not.
They are ugly things. Boring things. Bland things. Repetitive cliché things.

But yeah.
Moral of the story: Better writing needed.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You aren't the one to decide for everyone what is and is not beautiful.

*sighs forever*
Why don't you look at the person to whom I was responding and the things they said?
Why don't you read the damn links, you wilfully-ignorant asshat?

.. also yeah, that's.. so not what 'hipster' means. Words mean things, buddy. Words mean things..

.. okay, so.. who am I an alternative account for? Or of? Or.. whatever the fuck you're on about?
B/c I'm pretty sure no-one in this thread matches my writing pattern, nor is anyone expressing the same stances as myself, nor is anyone operating with a blatant 'mask' designed to hide any signifying markers that might catch them out.
So I'd really love to hear your conspiracy theory in detail. Do tell.

(Pigs. 30 minute orgasms. Interesting animal factoid of the day for you, I suppose.)
Nor are you.
Nor is Oscar Wilde.
Tada, impasse.

So? What does beauty being subjective have to do with the quote? It still applies.

Want to say that I personally had no problem with the Australia thing. I feel that them not stocking the game is really no different than me (and others) using the GGBlocker to serve archived pages of Polygon, Kotaku, and others so that I can argue about their articles without contributing to ad revenue or page impressions. Moreover, they're a business who can sell or not sell whatever they want, even if it's a lame cop-out to avoid catching heat or pander to a certain demographic. I don't see that as censorship, really, even if it's a bit annoying.

This, on the other hand, is something I find endlessly dumb. The poem said nothing about trans people. This is my biggest problem with people on "your side" (though I'm well aware it isn't universal, it seems to be a trait of many of the more vocal individuals)—things aren't offensive because of what they are, but because of how they make you or anyone on "your side" feel. You read too much into things, get yourself foaming at the mouth over something, then unleash waves of hate on people for perceived slights that often have little to no basis in fact. You even recognize that malicious intent probably isn't even there, only to immediately rationalize your discontent with the fact that he changed it to mock people who get offended too easily.

Treating trans people like they're so fragile that a small backer comment can devastate them seems way more offensive than the actual poem, anyway. They're people, not porcelain.

THINK-INCLUSIVE. us??? Yous do realize that extremism to either left or right is still extremism right? And extremism brings with it cultist and NON-INCLUSIVE behavior. And I think telling people how to think is a wee, wee bit fanatically insane and inhuman. What is a social media expert? Are those what people call professional twats? What separates that link from a wanna-be anti-everything but left blogpost?

MEGA EDIT: I didn't use the 'r' word.

Dang it here's the link : http://www.thinkinclusive.us/quit-using-the-word-retarded-in-three-easy-steps/#sthash.mTXpHVNp.dpbs
''Where education meets advocacy'' What kind of indoctrination oriented title is that? Education is a character building activity. Its is based on giving information to the student and letting them form their opinion. Advocacy in education IS indoctrination.

On another note, I find that Target spread I linked to offensive.. as a GAMER - how embarrassing would it be to be found playing GTA V, as a not-so-young adult right after a friend / partner / family member saw it advertised next to Pepper frikkin' Pig?

It's indicative of society's attitude to gaming as a legitimate hobby for adults and undermines the rating system itself, which should serve to ensure that adult games do get made for adults and not every game has to have the word 'Lego...' or 'Mario..' in front of it!

First off, you have spouted enough of your own nasty comments in this thread. Pot meet kettle...

Onto speech...
Do you not see the irony in supporting "free speech" which is directly intended to limit other people's "free speech"?
I generally support free speech, but at the point when people are using their right to free speech to prevent others from speaking freely...do you not see how the cause of free speech has suffered?

Onto boycotts...
There is a line between saying one dislikes something and calling for everyone else to boycott it or have it removed. A boycott is censorship as soon as it succeeds in suppressing the art or speech. This, of course, assuming the boycott pertains to content being offensive as not all boycotts are directed toward censoring art or speech. When Target and K-Mart pulled GTA V from the shelves, it was censored. As soon as Pillars of Eternity replaced the limerick, it was censored. Pillars of Eternity was not changed due to their "free decision".

Movies are censored all the time. We hear often about scenes cut out of them. Why? Because if not cut out they receive a less marketable rating. Its still their "decision" to cut the scene but it is also still censorship. They "could" accept the higher rating, but they know they would lose money as more theatres will refuse to show it. This is why there is a big deal about avoiding what used to be called the "R" rating because it will be shown on fewer screens. They creators are put in the unenviable position of having their whole movie censored because of the rating or removing some scenes. They usually chose the path of least censorship...

GTA V Australia - Target and K-Mart are major chain retailers. They are all throughout the country. And while "stereotypical" gamers might not get most of their games from these box stores, they are a major source of merchandise for many households. This was not nearly as insignificant as you try to make it out to be.

Pillars of Eternity - Why does your right as a backer give you the right to censure another backer? Why should someone who backed at a high enough level to add a short limerick be forced to change it? And why are you the arbiter of whether the guy should feel sorry about it? Seriously... I get why some claim the limerick is arguably reinforcing stereotypes, yet does that sort of thing not occur? Does it not speak truth? I know there is a particular trans individual as part of the Gamergate debate who has stated in forum posts on a transgender site how she didn't think it wrong to not inform a first time "partner". So don't tell me this does not happen...

Because here's the problem...just because you can argue that it can be taken as offensive, doesn't make it universally offensive. Personally, I don't think that limerick is offensive at all, in the least. The backer apparently doesn't either and yet YOU think its wrong he doesn't apologize... Who the heck are you to be the sole arbiter of what's offensive? And now we get to the example I mentioned in the previous post. Why should that limerick be taken out for all people just because some people see it as offensive. This isn't like "Kill the Faggots", I'm pretty sure most everyone can see why that is offensive and noticeably, no one is really complaining about its removal.

As to better writing, yeah, good luck. I want more original movies that haven't been done a dozen times or are remakes...it not as easy as people make it out to be. And frankly, since even feminists can't seem to agree about whether its okay for a woman to dress sexily, how do you expect any writing to be universally unoffensive to everybody? Just not going to happen...