I would love for you to point me to some specifics on these.
3 Likes
blizzard 
blizzard 
2 Likes
Sure!
How about Freedom of speech? And not to start this off too broadly, let’s use a case example: Count Dankula and the third reich Pug.
Comedy is one of the basic principles through which a nation may discuss and handle topics that are taboos or otherwise sensitive- Dismantling them, and showing that it’s not that bad/it can be solved.
Now you could perfectly well say that it was a tasteless joke. Or even a hateful joke. Or that the guy doesn’t know how to do comedy. That’s fine.
But it was a joke. And it doesn’t matter how you twist and turn the case around, it’s a clear case of infringement of an individuals freedom of expression, and a worrying one at that, where thought policing reared it’s ugly head in Europe after it was weeded out decades ago.
There’s been similar cases in my own country too, and a few other isolated cases across the world(campuses banning comedians to protect “sensitive” students).
But hey, you can say that freedom of speech is such an overused example that what about other values?
How about your right to be proud of your own lineage and culture? In my own country for example, despite it being a centuries old tradition, many schools have been advised to abandon the use of religious traditions such as christmas and spring ceremonies in the church, to be less alienating to minorities- Even when the said minorities have never been forced to attend the said events.
Or how about wanting a decent, free and an acceptable standard of living?
Because unsurprisingly, multiculturalism and uncontrolled globalisation has been incredibly unfair for the common folk, from their businesses and works disappearing overseas to their own living states being driven to the ground by uncontrolled migrant workers (see: central europe & mediterranean countries).
Unsurprisingly, when you tell people without any rational arguments that they are just “wrong” or “racists” or they need to go and change because somehow their traditional values are incompatible with the new values the lobbyers and cultural forces are trying to pile-drive in, there’s a hard outcry and a reaction from the right, which is currently showing as a paradigm change, regardless of which european country you look at.
There’s a dozen other examples I could pick, ranging from forced egalitarianism (gender quotas) to ruining perfectly good cultural franchises (movies, stories, games) for the sake of forced inclusivity.
If you think I’m just doing this for the sake of memes and after watching your daily dose of “Jordan Peterson/Ben shapiro DESTROYS (insert a deragatory SJW term here)”, then you’ll be disappointment because I definitely see a massive change in the way how we talk about these things and how they have developed from the 2008 to these days- And I’m not saying change is bad, I’m saying that when it is baseless and holds no rational basis or morally sound arguments behind it, it shouldn’t be advocated for.
Traditional western values are great because they have, quite simply, created the safest, most bountiful and the most stable form of governments in the history of mankind, and have paved way for the most peaceful time in Human history.
Now, those values are being challenged. I’d be OK if they were challenged with rational thought, wisdom and evaluation, but they aren’t. And that’s why the reaction is also so violent.
3 Likes
Well that’s entirely the point of Chomskyite thought, police the vocabulary of everyone in order to ensure loyalty to the party line. Any sort of authoritarian, illiberal group does this, it’s how the mystique of power is maintained by the elite.
Combine this with ideological purity tests and this is how you create a hierarchical dystopia where the ultimate “good” is becoming the faceless, unthinking NPC drone the supreme leader has ordered one to become.
2 Likes
![:popcorn:](https://d1bg94bbsh66ji.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/popcorn.png?v=6" ":popcorn:")
OT: my shrinking amount of free time IRL means I can’t really RP as much as I used to. I don’t want to be an adult anymore.
Where do you draw the historical accuracy line? Because Battlefield One has men running on top of blimbs and medics get people up by jamming a needle up their butt while infantry fires weapons like they were out of current U.S. Army stock. Pretty sure I’ve read somewhere that the uniforms in Battlefield One weren’t period correct either.
Video game companies already take a lot of shortcuts in these historical shooters to make the game enjoyable. You can just chalk this up to the list as well. Seems to me like the historical accuracy is more of an easy way to criticise a company for being more inclusive than actual outrage from WWII history buffs. Because I at least can’t remember anything similar during the Battlefield One release.
2 Likes
Well, there’s your answer essentially!
Clearly the fans see that the line goes in “making necessary sacrifices to historical accurarcy cater to a a select market segment”, and adding minorities in vast amounts to a story that basically has no basis for the events at all, is clearly going past that line.
Now, two things to remember here: I’m not saying the fans are right. I’m not saying that they should have the choice to dictate what goes into the game and what doesn’t. That’s ultimately up to the developers.
What I am saying that there is, however, both terminologically and practically a real big difference between “Sacrificing minor thematic historical accuracy and mechanics to make a functional game” vs “completely changing the setting to fit a corporate agenda or a cultural point”.
The key here is glaringness. How easily does it stand out?
For a complete layman who has absolutely no concrete knowledge on either WW1, but recognizes the main themes (gas weapons, zeppelins, horses & bayonet charges, early tanks), a slightly less authentic uniform may not stand out very glaringly- Whereas, for someone like Matt Easton or myself- We instantly notice that something is off- And that takes some enjoyement from the game for me, but I can still play the game, fine.
Whereas, everybody knows for sure that the female & minority representation in WW2 themed game is absolutely and utterly baseless (I’m aware of the soviet sniper & Harlem Hellfighters exceptions), and it stands out so sorely out of the game that it bothers the person. It’s kind of the same as if you suddenly uploaded an unreal engine-based model into the current game of the WoW- It’d not fit, at all.
And that is where the issue lies. Sacrificing so much authenticity, for something so little, towards an audience that (clearly), time and time again, isn’t too happy about being forced to swallow agendas.
God I’m not going to quote everything because so many words when you really don’t need them. Balop was 100% right. You’re wordy for the sake of flexing your words, not for any actual point.
I’m glad you pointed to all of a single case where the guy failed to defend himself because his “It was an inside joke with his girlfriend” defence fell apart after he posted the video to his youtube channel weird huh.
The rest of your specifics were…not specifics. At all. Nothing about tearing down ‘western values’ (what values are those again?) or cultural integrity.
Oh aye? What’s changed? People not laughing so much at your rape jokes anymore?
11 Likes
Where is this corporate agenda and cultural point coming from? Is not at all possible that the company just wants to make games where there is representation for both of the genders? Because there are also women who play video games. That seems a lot more plausible to me than some kind of a corporate agenda, because I’ve never really felt that women are some kind of an agenda. They’re not even a minority.
1 Like
Doesn’t really matter if it was made public or not. But, agree to disagree.
You say I write too much but then you don’t actually read any of it.
/clap
There you go. Western values. Pretty great. I already gave plenty of examples so I don’t need to repeat myself.
What’s changed that you can actually go to jail/be fined for making a joke. What’s changed is that people who dare to point out rational facts about gender roles in a society and anti-libertarian arguments get shut down by people who cite sources with little to no peer reviews or based references.
If you seriously can’t see the difference in the political atmosphere that has happened over the years, then I can’t help you. Whether we’re talking about national issues such as the talk about Brexit within Britain and it’s implications or the reason why the migrant crisis was handled so terribly in Europe, there’s plenty of cases to choose from.
I don’t mind that at all. I think representation is important, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of the story.
I mean, take GTA: San Andreas for example. Imagine if the studio had released an alternative version where CJ was white instead of Black, the backlash would have been insane- Because you’re sacrificing the story and all the nuances to please somebody who gets uppity about them not being represented in a game.
On the contrary, I love when there’s diversity, when it serves the gameplay and the choices you make. Take Dragon commander, Dragon Age games (?), for one. I could probably think of other examples too, but I think my point comes across with that one.
2 Likes
Actually it kinda does, in the same way that there’s a difference between an in-joke between you+your girlfriend in your house and shouting “GAS THE JEWS!” on the streetcorner. Or do you think incitement to violence should be okay?
Are you telling me that only people in “the west” (a somewhat nebulous concept already given the wide variety of cultures) want to be have a “decent, free life” and are “proud of their lineage and culture”?
Especially that second one. Like you can’t really… SURELY you can’t be proposing that being proud of ones lineage/culture is a uniquely ‘western’ concept.
Do people in Togo not want to live a decent, free, acceptable-living-standard life because that’s a ‘western’ culture?
Comedians not coming to public areas such as campuses is a direct reaction to this- Because, unsurprisingly, when you let someone arbitrarily decide what is “inciting violence” and what isn’t, you step into a slippery slope.
He very clearly gives context at the start of the video about the purpose of his actions.
Hate-speech crimes and inciting violence laws in general are quite problematic, because drawing the line is incredibly hard. But ultimately, the context and the situation should be analyzed.
We know the context.
We know there was no intention of inciting violence.
Being edgy is not criminal, lol.
I think you should be allowed to say whatever the hell you want- But the moment it is done with malicious purpose (unquestionably and undeniably), AND with intent to harm an individual/group/business, there should be repercussions.
I don’t think those measurements were filled with this case.
No, but we are certainly the most adamant in carrying out our values?
Take a look at China, Middle East or Northern Sahara. Would you with a straight face say that they really attempt to promote concepts like that?
No. They do not. They are oppressive as hell, they routinely beat up opposition, treat people in incredibly inhuman conditions, regularly restrict freedom of speech, and in many cases restrict their cultural integrity (see the muslim minority’s state in China atm).
There’s a reason our idea sells so well and people want to come here, because unsurprisingly, it’s a really decent way to live.
Mind you, I’m not saying we’re flawless. But it certainly beats the alternative, as history shows.
Probably, it’s entirely human to want that. Only that they don’t actually realize them.
1 Like
So you’re presumably vehemently anti alt-right and the conciliatory tone I read into your initial post positing that they were a response to “western values” being threatened is surely a misread on my part, right?
Becuase alt-right are neo-n@zis.
Unless you’re taking the position that the natural response to the fining of a guy making n@zi jokes is to then endorse actual n@zi policies and that’s definitely a western value we should be endorsing. “Well you thought we were joking so now we’re actually gonna do it”.
Again, I’m sure you’re not saying that, it’s just how your posts read to me. Hopefully you can correct me and reassure me that you’re not actually trying to explain or soften their attitudes which have demonstrably resulted in violence and death.
So “western traditional values” now are just “being human, while not being in poverty so it’s easier to be happy”
dope
Here’s another pet peeve in addition:
draenei shamans (of ALL THE RACES) got new HD totems. They look cool af.
But -why-. Has anyone seen the troll shaman totems? They look bad. Why the draenei of all races?
You’re wrong in both cases.
First of all, Alt-right, unsurprisingly, is whatever the hell you want it to mean, anywhere from neo-third reich people to people who support right-wing policies and tighter immigration laws.
Depending on the definition you dig up from the google, you get several different ones, and the wikipedia article on it cites it being a term “loosely” connected with white supremacist groups and alike, whereas other sources classify it as an alternative right: An alternative to the current left-leaning, cultural marxist policies, and anything in-between.
I don’t really like using the term as a result. If you ask whether I agree with third reich policies, or genocidal ideas, then no, I absolutely do not. But there are many other ideas I agree upon, such as cultural integrity, social roles in societies and border control & immigration policies.
He is not endorsing third reich values. He’s making a joke. A horrible joke, which is why many people find it horribly funny- And others don’t. That’s the whole point. It’s supposed to shock, and to disturb you.
And I will defend that guys right to make that joke. As much as anybody elses.
Or are you saying we’re not allowed to joke about horrible events of history? Sure, you can (as I said) definitely make the case that it was an inappropriate, hateful or a tasteless joke and scrutinize him for that- But the moment you start putting cuffs on him, you’re a tyrant.
You either have freedom of speech, or you don’t. There’s no gray area or in-between.
South Korea, Finland (yes, we were actually categorized as a 3rd world country after the 2nd world war), Taiwan, Australia and several other countries, after adopting western values, rose from their poverty and found stable and good economies with reasonably well established and civilized institutions- Much thank to the western culture, hell, even China did, after it opened up to free-trade and loosened several of its policies to be more western-like, as did the Soviet Union after its collapse.
I’m not saying the poverty argument is entirely wrong, Maslow’s need hierarchy certainly gives it some merit, but it seems clear to me that one of the major reasons why several african, middle-eastern and other similar countries are still lagging so much behind the west in terms of measured happiness, is because they either do not share the western values, or they are not very high on the value ranking, or because their actions are incompatible with their wants.
This idea that people are lagging behind because of lack of development because of lack of resources is very old and in many ways a lazy way of looking at a much more deeper issue, one that has multiple layers.
3 Likes
The crucial thing to remember, is that most people can’t tell the difference between freedom of speech or expression, and freedom from consequences.
Freedom of Speech is a right that we (likely) all enjoy. We -can- say what we like. I certainly have it. I can say that my countries government are a bunch of self serving cowardly incompetents. I could say that to their faces, I have that absolute freedom of speech. I could stand outside Number 10 and call Theresa May just about anything I like. I couldn’t be arrested for it. If I made actual -threats of violence- then the Consequences are that the police would probably move me away, and maybe caution me, because making a threat is a criminal offence. In the latter case, I still have my Freedom of Speech, but I would also have to face the consequences of exercising that right. Its called being a grown up and taking responsibility for your own actions.
You mention ‘Thought Police’ and how we had gotten rid of it in the last few decades, well that is true. If I had called the Nationalist Socialist Party a bunch of Self-Serving Cowardly Incompetents in 1940’s Germany, I would have been executed.
That’s the difference. Freedom of Speech means you cannot be -persecuted- for your words alone. Only if they include threats or incitement to violence. It does not mean that other people have to listen, agree, or give you a platform for your views. That’s their freedom in operation as well.
There was a famous few cases where Far Right speakers were ‘No Platformed’ by Universities in the UK and started screeching that they were not allowed Freedom of Speech. They were. What they meant was that they wanted freedom of speech without consequences. The Universities went "Well, no, based on what you have said/done , we don’t want to give you a platform to air your views. That’s not denying them freedom of speech. That is making them accept the consequences of enacting their Freedom of Speech.
Perfectly acceptable, I am proud to be English, of mixed Scots/Irish parents. I know that my country did some absolutely horrendous things in the past, I may deplore its current direction, but I am still staunchly proud to be English. Every year we see scare stories in the media saying "You can’t say “Happy Christmas anymore in case it offends X Minority religion” “They’re banning X in Schools because of Johnny Foreigner!” Its utter rubbish. All across the country outside Gurdwara’s Mosques, Synagogues and of course Churches, are billboards wishing everyone a Happy Christmas. Heck, the Muslim Council of Great Britain every year takes out a full page advert in the national press which basically says “Don’t believe the hype, we have nothing against Christmas, we revere Jesus as well, We aren’t offended if you wish us Happy Christmas, and oh, by the way, Happy Christmas everyone!”
(Fun fact, the person most named in the Muslim holy book the Qu’ran is not actually Mohammed, it is Jesus)
Doesn’t everyone?
Hang on… Those are two different things. I mean I live in a country that has been multicultural for more than two thousand years (What did the Romans ever do for us?) and that’s not the problem. Businesses and work disappearing overseas is due to corporate greed, and -everyone- suffers. It also vastly predated the current ‘immigrant panic’. WIth the advent of the internet and advanced telephone systems, Greedy Fecking company A goes “We can lay off British Workers, and get a call centre in India to do the job for a tenth of the cost” Who benefits? Obviously British Workers lose their jobs. it utterly -screws- the economy of the country the jobs go to, because it artificially keeps wages low in that country, and by extent, the living standard. It doesn’t benefit the customer, because no matter how skilled the Indian Call centre worker, If you say ‘Earls Court’, they will understandably look for a town or city called that, without knowing that it is a place in London. And why should they? I couldn’t name famous places in Gujurat. They are even told to use false names. Imagine how soul destroying that is, having to go to work, and pretend to be someone else, because your own name isn’t good enough for the job? It doesn’t fool anyone, you can tell by the accent if a Brit caller, and to be fair, if they answered the phone and said “Hello my name is Raj, or Manpreet or whatever”, they could just as easily be from Birmingham, or Coventry, and not Dehli. I could rant about that for ages, I think it is a despicable practice, but it is companies in Europe that drive that, not immigrants
Quotas are bad, and patronising. I was actually told never to put my age on my CV, and the people telling me that said “In a sensible world, you wouldn’t even have to give your name, they should judge your qualifications, whether you are Dave, Jaswinder, Doris or Pawel.”
It depends. If it is important to the story that a character is of a certain ethnicity, then they should follow the narrative. For example “12 Years a Slave” would make zero sense if they cast a white dude as the lead, Having Josef Stalin played by a Black dude would make no sense either. But take a character like ‘Nick Fury’ from the Avengers. It makes no difference whether a white dude, black dude, Asian dude or whatever plays him, it is the character that is important. That’s not ‘Inclusivity’ that’s just “WHo can pull this role off really well?”
Its like the kick off about Idris Elba playing James Bond. So -what-? James Bond is so fictional and such a long running novel and film franchise that he should be 98 by now? He’s a modern day British Myth, not a serious depiction. Is it really more unrealistic to have a black dude play him, than to assume that somehow Britain’s top agent has remained ageless for more than 60 years?
Lemme give you a couple of examples.
Jokes about ‘the Krauts’ are a bit poor taste these days, but when Henning Wehn makes them we laugh. Why? Because he is German, and sending up his own people, and us we’re laughing -with him- at both of our nations attitudes towards the war, not -at- him.
Likewise Shappi Khorsandi, she’s a Muslim comedian, and constantly sends up her own religion and culture, and again, we laugh -with her- not -at her-.
Maybe its the Brit in me, we are a naturally very self-deprecating people who mock ourselves, and appreciate when others do so.
Jokes aren’t the problem, it is who tells them, how, and why.
7 Likes
Correcting myself there, SHappi Khorsdadi is actually Atheist, but a large amount of her jokes stem from Islam, as her family had to flee after the Iranian Revolution.
3 Likes
As a minor addition to this, the character of Bond is actually Scottish as I recall. How many of the actors portraying him have been the same?
Otherwise, articulate post. 
“The novel reveals Bond is the son of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond, of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, of the Canton de Vaud”
Only Connery has been Scottish iirc.
Only Connery as I remember, The others were Australian, English or Irish, oh, and one South African, the Second Actor to play him, albeit on a radio play. One that most people would never guess without Google.