Support NeoGAF

[elrechazado]

You're certainly not expressing yourself clearly at all.

I know right? If someone doesn't read the words I wrote, I'm clearly having an expression problem. You keep projecting what you think my argument is. And given some of the moronic bullshit replies that have been spewed that you've obviously been reading, maybe I can forgive you for reading 2 words of my reply then assuming I'm saying something I'm not.

If you actually care, go ahead and r e a d. If not, continue to project your assumptions of what you think I am probably saying, instead of reading what I'm actually saying. That would be hard though. Apparently.

 

[Truelize]

This thread has lasted me longer than the game would.

And oddly my computer didn't die downloading the page!

:lol I'm on my second playthrough. Getting 100% of the items was awesome. Best game I've played since Fallout 3.

 

[KHarvey16]

Oh come on now, this is crazy. He's in a position to affect policy? What?? If anything this controversy has slightly elevated his stature from completely unknown, to known by a few internet geeks. Obama, who's actively campaigned against gay marriage, used the issue to help elevate him to the most powerful position in the land, isn't in a place to affect policy, but this guy is somehow the head of some organization more powerful than the presidency. Seriously. Seriously? Really?

When you guys hold Obama to the same criteria as this guy, then I'll believe your outrage. When you stop voting for him, because he's campaigned and dealt a bigger blow to gay marriage than OSC could ever dream of doing, then let's talk. Until then, it's a one way street, where you forgive Obama for crushing gay marriage under his foot, and hold some guy I hadn't even heard of before this stupid controversy up to a higher standard than the president of the united states (which, you know, really does affect policy).

I know, I know, the hypocrisy should be ignored because of some difference that us lay people in internet land fail to understand. It's video games, serious business, over the president, which is not serious business. We shouldn't believe Obama, even though he says gay marriage is wrong, he really means something else, we shouldn't believe his words, instead we should "hope" he'll do the right thing in the future and actively campaign to legalize gay marriage.

And again, I'm PRO gay marriage. Actually, I'm the rare pro gay marriage, anti death penalty conservative. :lol :lol I have no home. I say live and let live, I don't give a flying fuck what two dudes or two gals do on their own time. I really don't. I have gay friends. So I do not give a shit. I voted Republican, and they had the same position as Obama on this matter, and now you'll say I'm a hypocrite, except, I'm not boycotting this game. That's the difference. In fact, I bought it tonight (I always planned to buy it though), and it's really good.

The fact of the matter is that OSC's position on gay marriage is more mainstream than the consensus here on NeoGaf. We'd all like to think the public is where we are on the issue, but they are not. They. Are. Not. Period. He's expressing a view that's quite mainstream. Wrong, but mainstream. We buy products EVERY day from people who hold these views, and if they had the platform that OSC has, many would raise them.

How many times does it need to be repeated? You condensing his position to an opposition to gay marriage is completely missing the point. No one is refusing to buy the game simply because he is against gay marriage. This has been discussed!

And AGAIN, Obama voted against gay marriage bans on the national level and believes states should decide for themselves. Many republicans, and surely OSC, want federal bans. If the difference between these positions escapes you I'm not sure what to say.

 

[KHarvey16]

I know right? If someone doesn't read the words I wrote, I'm clearly having an expression problem. You keep projecting what you think my argument is. And given some of the moronic bullshit replies that have been spewed that you've obviously been reading, maybe I can forgive you for reading 2 words of my reply then assuming I'm saying something I'm not.

If you actually care, go ahead and r e a d. If not, continue to project your assumptions of what you think I am probably saying, instead of reading what I'm actually saying. That would be hard though. Apparently.

Please re-state your argument. Use small words!

 

[mollipen]

Shadow Complex is awesome guys. You are missing out.

But I guess sitting on a video game forum talking about this is much more fun.

"Talking about this" is exactly what a video game forum is for. In fact, I'm almost positive that existing as a means of talking about stuff is what every single message forum exists for.

 

[elrechazado]

The President has said let the states decide. If Mr. Obama had the same views as OSC then Obama would aggressively pursue a SSM ban amendment. I dont believe Obama has ever said gays are wrong, a mistake, etc. as OSC has.

You might want to google the obama justice department's briefs in the marriage cases. Betrayal was the nicest word that marriage equality proponents have used. If you want to talk about Obama, why is he actively allowing the discharge of loyal soldiers under DADT? A policy that he promised to repeal, but now refuses. Why do he or any of the democrats with a supermajority repeal DOMA? You said he'd like to let the states decide. Well, he has the votes in the senate and the house if his party's platform is to be believed. Repeal DOMA, send the issue to the states. Sign the bill Mr. President. We can go on and on. Those who actually have the ability and political power to rectify the inequality in marriage have done nothing, or at worst actively set back the cause.

But apparently we can do the mental gymnastics to make out a single non politician as the greater threat to equality. I know who is more culpable. At least we know where OSC stands and he doesn't lie to our faces.

And yes, as a principled libertarian, I'm in favor of obama and the democrats (or the reublicans, but we know they never will) doing exactly what I just criticized them for not doing.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

"Talking about this" is exactly what a video game forum is for. In fact, I'm almost positive that existing as a means of talking about stuff is what every single message forum exists for.

I once found a message board where there was only one guy as a registered member and every thread was about how much he loved Nurse Joy.

It was pretty surreal.

 

[Truelize]

"Talking about this" is exactly what a video game forum is for. In fact, I'm almost positive that existing as a means of talking about stuff is what every single message forum exists for.

Yeah and it's been time well spent for all of you. You have all made a big difference in the world.

All I know is that playing this game gave me enjoyment.

I doubt that arguing over a topic in a forum for 3 days has added real smiles to the faces of many of you in here. That's a lot of time for not much enjoyment.

 

[drakesfortune]

I stopped reading here as its apparent you dont know what youre talking about, who OSC is and what board he sits on (NOM).

Hes not completely unknown. Do some research.

Yeah, you're right, I'll walk down the block and mention his name and find precisely zero people on my street who have heard of this clown OSC. And when I mention Obama...again nobody will have any clue who he is. I bet if you surveyed 1000 Americans randomly that zero would have heard of this guy, and 1000 would have heard of Obama. I bet you of those 1000 at least 800 would know that he's anti gay marriage. OSC has NO power. None. Do you think the democratic super majority in the congress is listening to an anti gay marriage Mormon, or the democratic president?

But again, you'll vote into power a man who's crushing gay marriage under his foot, has all the power in the world to influence the public on this issue and instead kills gay marriage, and then with your other hand, you'll slap some dude who has precisely zero policy influence on the powers that be in Washington right now. Last time I checked, Democrats ran the show, and they hate Mormons. Democrats hold the power RIGHT NOW to change the issue, and they don't. OSC has no such power, and never will.

I was hit by a car when I was 13 and nearly killed. When the medics showed up they asked me, "who's the president of the United States?" to see if I was in my right mind. They didn't ask me who's the head of this council nobody outside of Utah has heard of. They asked who the president was. I ask you again, who holds the power here, Obama, or this skull and crossbones council that I've never heard of before today that apparently is pulling the strings of Democrats in Washington? And if this council has such power to affect Democrats in Washington, then shouldn't we stand against the Democrats in Washington? I mean, if they're that easily influenced by Utah Mormons, we should certainly put a stop to it.

Your vote is infinitely more powerful than your boycott of a video game. 10 or 100 or even 1000 lost sales will not even be a blip on the radar of Epic, or Chair, and to OSC we're talking pennies. I guess what I'm saying is that if you really want to make a difference, you'd oppose Obama, since he's a much bigger player than Card. If you oppose Obama, and campaign against him half as hard as you do OSC, then I'd have no issue with you boycotting OSC. That's a principled stand. I can be down with that. However, if you can vote for Obama who's impact on this issue is indisputably magnitudes more influential, and then say we should boycott OSC, then I simply see it as politics and not even remotely a principled stand.

 

[pvpness]

Peter David makes zero sense. I say that as a Peter David fan.



This goes beyond Orson's repellant personal beliefs. Shadow Complex is based on a book of conservative propaganda. Even if you limit your criticisms to the Empire books and leave out everything Card has said and done in his life you still have plenty of ammo.

Empire is a masturbatory right-wing fantasy in which evil liberals in "blue states" try to take over the US, while heroic Fox-News watching red-meat eaters valiantly fight against them. What?

Why would you base a game on a book that holds half the population of the United States in contempt? This is not satire or intelligent commentary. You don't have to read Card's personal essays to find incriminating material, it's written into Empire:



The entire point of the book is to let Card have some fictional cyphers express his personal beliefs. What the characters Cole and Malich say above is exactly what Card believes.

Peter David might have a point if Empire was a great book worth exploring in game form but Card had some objectionable personal beliefs he expressed in other media. But he's expressing them in the book itself. A book that is terribly written and all-around awful.

Freedom of speech includes the right to buy or not buy what you please and right to inform others that a game is based on right-wing propaganda by a bigoted author who last wrote something worthwhile before many reading this were born.

Lovecraft and Howard (both of which I love as authors) were not propagandists and both were products of their times. (And both were a million times better than Empire-era Card) That said, if Solomon Kane had been written last year and someone based a game on it this year I would greatly question their judgement. (Given that it's full of racist tropes)

Man, I'm not trying to call you out personally or anything but I'm having trouble swallowing this whole, "masturbatory right-wing fantasy" line. It's the same words from like a dozen different people in this thread.

Did you read Empire? The book isn't a right wing jerk off fest, though i could see how a cursory glance would suggest such a thing. I'm gonna lay it out, without spoiler covers this time. The entire book is about one mans' plot (Averell Torrent) to take the United States from their Republic phase into its Empire phase. He manages to do this simply by pitting both left and the right against one another by playing off of their (often cartoon-esque) ignorant hate for one another. He sets it up so it looks like the (right wing as assumed by the left wing) military is going to put America under marshal law after the deaths of the president and vice president, eliminating what remaining freedom there actually is, thus prompting into action another of his students (a leftist madman) into launching an assault on New york city with his "progressive restoration movement" and this sparks basically a second American civil war. Long story short, by the resolution of this entirely planned 2nd civil war, the vast majority of America that's caught in the middle put Averell Torrent up for both the republican nomination and the democratic nomination ensuring he wins the presidency uncontested, thus laying the foundation for an Empire.

Like I said, I could see how a cursory glance at the book could come off like a right wing nutters wet dream, but in reality that's just not the case. The book follows primarily a solider named Malich, who at heart is more conservative than balanced. OSC goes a pretty decent length to develop his character and the character of Malich's wife (an open "liberal" who is always reminding Malich to come back to a more balanced perspective). The entire thing is an Augustus Ceaser story, more or less.

Ironically, OSC's characterization of both the left and the right (as clear over the top caricatures of their real life parallels) are being clearly displayed in this very thread, at this very moment.

 

[elrechazado]

Ironically, OSC's characterization of both the left and the right (as clear over the top caricatures of their real life parallels) are being clearly displayed in this very thread, at this very moment.

Either the guy you quoted was trying to be really...meta, or he's blissfully unaware of the unintentional self parody that he walked himself into with that rant.

 

[soldat7]

The reason (which I tried to express in my previous reply to you) is simple: it's good business to do so. Apple doesn't have to say publicly why they decided to ban an app from appearing in the iPhone app store, but lately they've said why a number of times. Comcast doesn't have to have a Twitter account where they try to help people who mention they're having issues with the company's products, but they do.

Chair doesn't have to say a damn thing about the situation and/or their relationship with Card, but it would be good business to do so, especially if nobody in the equation except Card is involved in the things Card is involved in. The fact that this thread exists and has such passioned responses is proof that there are people who do care about this situation, enough to possibly stop them from buying Shadow Complex.

Chair made Shadow Complex, and I'm pretty sure they want it to sell. If them making a quick public statement would help sway people, and increase the amount of copies they're going to sell, that's simply good business. Companies typically have this thing about not wanting the public to have a negative image of them; at least, the smart companies do.

Good business? But you want them to answer a loaded question. The only answer that you would accept would be "Yes, we are FOR same-sex marriage and against O.S. Card's radical and hateful opinions and actions." If they answered in any other way, you and others wouldn't be satisfied. If they do issue a response, I would fully expect it to be "We make games and do not comment on issues of sexuality." And that would probably be the wisest thing to say if pressed.

 

[mollipen]

Yeah and it's been time well spent for all of you. You have all made a big difference in the world.

All I know is that playing this game gave me enjoyment.

And I am willing to bet that all of that time you spent playing Shadow Complex has made a big difference in the world. Because, if it didn't, your comment is going to be awfully hypocritical.

Seriously... what's with the superiority attitude you've got going on? Some people, believe it or not, enjoy conversing with others about different topics, including when those topics lead to more heated discussions. If you don't enjoy such things, you don't need to be here. And, contrary to your belief, I am able to participate in this thread AND do a great many other things in my daily life, including playing games that I enjoy.

 

[KHarvey16]

Good business? But you want them to answer a loaded question. The only answer that you would accept would be "Yes, we are FOR same-sex marriage and against O.S. Card's radical and hateful opinions and actions." If they answered in any other way, you and others wouldn't be satisfied. If they do issue a response, I would fully expect it to be "We make games and do not comment on issues of sexuality." And that would probably be the wisest thing to say if pressed.

Are you suggesting consumers can't make the satisfactory(to them) answer to the question a condition of purchase? I don't know if I quite understand your position.

 

[deadatom]

Do you take the same stand against all organizations that band together to accomplish political goals? Back when Thurgood Marshall was GC of the NAACP during the civil rights era, would you have said "If Marshal simply spouted his silly views wherever he wished and was not involved financially or politically, then I would not care." ?

What you're really saying is "people who I disagree with are allowed to have their views but they really should never talk to others about them, join up with others who share them, or ever be involved in the political process."

Some of us welcome open debate, and recognize that the great political traditions of free speech and the free exchange of ideas in society means the same for all.

Do you disagree with "Dragona Akehi" views on the subject? Which parts? What are YOUR views?

It's like the aclu are in town taking a vacation on neogaf. Sorry buddy but not all opinions and views are equal. Do you think creationism is equivalant to evolution and should be openly debated in the public square? Because i feel that the ass backwards hicks who impose that in the public square are commiting child abuse on a massive scale.

Tell us what the limit of our negative laws in the bill of rights is acceptable. When it adversly affects millions? Or just yourself?

It's ironic that you are being critical of Dragona Akehi for supposedly trying to censor people. Since you are try to silence people's criticisms by saying that "criticism" = "censorship".

 

[pvpness]

Either the guy you quoted was trying to be really...meta, or he's blissfully unaware of the unintentional self parody that he walked himself into with that rant.

I can't decide if that's a beautiful or disgusting reality.

 

[mollipen]

Good business? But you want them to answer a loaded question. The only answer that you would accept would be "Yes, we are FOR same-sex marriage and against O.S. Card's radical and hateful opinions and actions." If they answered in any other way, you and others wouldn't be satisfied. If they do issue a response, I would fully expect it to be "We make games and do not comment on issues of sexuality." And that would probably be the wisest thing to say if pressed.

Honestly, I don't care what their opinions on same-sex marriage are; I do, however, care if money that I give to them in exchange for their game goes to help fund organizations that actively work to keep people from having equal rights.

If their answer was "yes, we support NOM" or whatever, I'd be satisfied! I wouldn't buy their game, but I'd be satisfied with their answer. As a consumer who will possibly be giving them my money, I think I have every right to ask that. If they are willing to answer, then I can make an informed decision - which would especially be good if I could feel secure in knowing that next to none of my money was going to those things. If they feel those of us with concerns aren't worth responding to, then my mixed feelings over the situation will more than likely just push me to instead using the money I would have spent on Shadow Complex on one of the many other XBLA games I've also been contemplating purchase of.

We - or, at least I - aren't going to them with the attitude of "tell us you aren't anti-gay or we hate you!" We're saying to them that we have a concern over the involvement of Card, their possible connection to him, and who our money would be funding. We don't want to know if they're the "good guys" or "bad guys", we simply want enough information to be able to make an informed decision on a purchase.

No matter what, the simple truth is this: if they have NO connection to Card other than thinking he's a talented writer, and their company in NO way supports anti-gay organizations like NOM, they have no reason whatsoever in not stating that publically.

 

[elrechazado]

Do you disagree with "Dragona Akehi" views on the subject? Which parts? What are YOUR views?

It's like the aclu are in town taking a vacation on neogaf. Sorry buddy but not all opinions and views are equal. Do you think creationism is equivalant to evolution and should be openly debated in the public square? Because i feel that the ass backwards hicks who impose that in the public square are commiting child abuse on a massive scale.

Tell us what the limit of our negative laws in the bill of rights is acceptable. When it adversly affects millions? Or just yourself?

It's ironic that you are being critical of Dragona Akehi for supposedly trying to censor people. Since you are try to silence people's criticisms by saying that "criticism" = "censorship".

It would be quite easy to get the answers to those questions by reading subsequent posts.

But you are committed to the antithesis of freedom. Reading the bolded text, we see "freedom for me, but not for thee." Yes, I do in fact believe that creationism should be openly debated in the public square. And that people should be able to protest in the most conservative areas on behalf of gay rights organizations. That blacks should be able to organize for their rights in public squares in alabama in 1955. That muslims and christians and jews and scientologists should be able to march in parades and espouse any views they want. Especially those that I find hilarious, moronic, abhorrent, or uncomfortable. Your attitude is more destructive and pernicious than all of the creationists in the world, and it's sad that you don't understand that.

"Tell us what the limit of our negative laws in the bill of rights is acceptable."

Can you translate that into English so I can attempt an answer?

And to the kharveys of the world, please note that this post is in response to someone who actually wants to stop people from talking about issues, and not replying to anyone else or saying that advocating a boycott is the same as what this person is advocating. Sad that this disclaimer is needed, but some reading comprehension issues here lately.

 

[BigKaboom2]

If you actually care, go ahead and r e a d. If not, continue to project your assumptions of what you think I am probably saying, instead of reading what I'm actually saying. That would be hard though. Apparently.

You're not going to get anything out of KHarvey except accusations of being illiterate and suggestions that if you read the entire 2000-post thread you'll inevitably discover your opinion to be utterly incorrect. I'm convinced he's not interested in debating anything but semantics.

I'm with you, though. Refusing to purchase something that you consider valuable and worth the price because you want the opinions of someone related to its creation to be stifled is ludicrous. If I refused to buy anything that was produced by someone I disagree with, my house would be bare. I personally think marriage is something that shouldn't be acknowledged by the government whatsoever as it's a violation of the separation of church and state as laid out by the First Amendment. I disagree strongly with anyone who thinks government-sponsored homosexual or heterosexual marriage should exist, but I'm certainly tolerant of those that do because I (sort of) understand the reasons why they oppose the First Amendment. Not a big deal to me, and when I'm looking to purchase art that doesn't even address the matter in question, it's not something that crosses my mind.

 

[IrishNinja]

Peter David makes zero sense. I say that as a Peter David fan.

(as a junior, i should know better than to post in these threads...)

I'm an off-and-on fan of David (X-Factor is the goods), but i see nothing inconsistent with what he said: he, like many, enjoyed the sci-fi series this guy did and wanted a part of it. I like to think i can enjoy fictional things with politics/ideas polar to my own.

granted, your selected quotes made it seem soapbox-y, but a) id need to read them in context, and b) some of my favorite books (Preacher, etc) are also of such nature.

anyway, with respect towards this thread's idea & everyone's right to vote or not with their dollar, ill go +1 to OSC = douche for his stance, but this work is not said to contain that message. if its half the fun ive heard it is, id rather like to support that and think of the crew involved, less so of OSC and his actions. for posterity, id also like to go +1 to the importance of the idea that if games are to (at some point) = art, one day that's gonna have to include some very ugly shit that none of us dig to fit said label.

 

[KHarvey16]

You're not going to get anything out of KHarvey except accusations of being illiterate and suggestions that if you read the entire 2000-post thread you'll inevitably discover your opinion to be utterly incorrect. I'm convinced he's not interested in debating anything but semantics.

I'm with you, though. Refusing to purchase something that you consider valuable and worth the price because you want the opinions of someone related to its creation to be stifled is ludicrous. If I refused to buy anything that was produced by someone I disagree with, my house would be bare. I personally think marriage is something that shouldn't be acknowledged by the government whatsoever as it's a violation of the separation of church and state as laid out by the First Amendment. I disagree strongly with anyone who thinks government-sponsored homosexual or heterosexual marriage should exist, but I'm certainly tolerant of those that do because I (sort of) understand the reasons why they oppose the First Amendment. Not a big deal to me, and when I'm looking to purchase art that doesn't even address the matter in question, it's not something that crosses my mind.

When criticizing me, it helps to not be guilty of the things I'm complaining about. You don't know what the argument is.

I asked elrechazao to re-state his position and he has not seen fit to do so. I've repeated myself ad nauseam for many pages now, it's really the least he could do. You're right, I'm clearly the one who isn't interested in debate.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

gaf's tendency to try and act smarter then it really is shines through in these kind of threads

 

[soldat7]

Honestly, I don't care what their opinions on same-sex marriage are; I do, however, care if money that I give to them in exchange for their game goes to help fund organizations that actively work to keep people from having equal rights.

If their answer was "yes, we support NOM" or whatever, I'd be satisfied! I wouldn't buy their game, but I'd be satisfied with their answer. As a consumer who will possibly be giving them my money, I think I have every right to ask that. If they are willing to answer, then I can make an informed decision - which would especially be good if I could feel secure in knowing that next to none of my money was going to those things. If they feel those of us with concerns aren't worth responding to, then my mixed feelings over the situation will more than likely just push me to instead using the money I would have spent on Shadow Complex on one of the many other XBLA games I've also been contemplating purchase of.

We - or, at least I - aren't going to them with the attitude of "tell us you aren't anti-gay or we hate you!" We're saying to them that we have a concern over the involvement of Card, their possible connection to him, and who our money would be funding. We don't want to know if they're the "good guys" or "bad guys", we simply want enough information to be able to make an informed decision on a purchase.

No matter what, the simple truth is this: if they have NO connection to Card other than thinking he's a talented writer, and their company in NO way supports anti-gay organizations like NOM, they have no reason whatsoever in not stating that publically.

I hear your argument but disagree that Chair really needs to say anything on the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be bullied into a response, in any event. Card, not Chair, made those statements. Perhaps you would be convinced to purchase their game if Chair stated openly that they were not anti-gay, but the vast majority here would STILL choose to boycott the game simply because Card might benefit, however tangentially.

Asking Chair a loaded question accomplishes nothing. They're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't (do you think they'll risk possibly alienating the Pro-Marriage™ folks)? No one should be forced or coerced into divulging their independent thoughts on race, religion, sexuality, etc., despite the fact that those thoughts might be against what we personally feel or even prove hateful. Chair remaining silent whilst letting people jump to their own conclusions is the best course of action outside of an outright "No comment."

 

[chiba]

I was already boycotting this game.

Spoiler

until the pc version is released, then it'll be lifted immediately.

 

[elrechazado]

When criticizing me, it helps to not be guilty of the things I'm complaining about. You don't know what the argument is.

I asked elrechazao to re-state his position and he has not seen fit to do so. I've repeated myself ad nauseam for many pages now, it's really the least he could do. You're right, I'm clearly the one who isn't interested in debate.

1 post by her, my reply, her reply, my reply. Done.

The point of our contention is four short posts on a single page that you seem unwilling to read, why would I waste my time with you further? Can you restate your request to me to restate my position? I'm too lazy to read the entire post that I'm quoting, honestly.....

 

[pvpness]

I have to say I disagree wholly with what PAD is saying. It isn't "mean spirited" or "narrow minded" to deny funds to a company whose choice in hiring led to this debacle.

It is when considering his critera on the subject...

The disconnect comes from those people who believe that boycotts are likewise a form of free expression. They're not. Boycotts are the opposite: They are designed to be punitive. To hurt someone financially. The message it sends is, "I dislike what you have to say and therefore am going to strike back at you in order to punish you for saying it." It has nothing to do with attacking the things the person says; it's about attacking the person.

-

Regardless of what ideals Chair may or may not hold, the fact of the matter is that they paid OSC to write novels for their gameworld. By "punishing" Chair as PAD would say, I would hope that they might get the idea that having business with OSC isn't good for their bottom line, and sever ties.

He also addresses this line of reasoning...

That is antithetical to the notion of a free society because it promotes a chilling effect. It's the equivalent of Archie Bunker growling, "Stifle yerself," because the message it sends is, "If you say something I don't like, I'm going to find a way to hurt you." Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Boycotts have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with trying to give the other guy a financial bloody nose.

But what if I had said to myself, "Hmmm. This is going to piss off a lot of people. I could wind up taking a financial hit over this. Probably it would be best if I just stayed away from such a hot-button issue." For that matter, what if anti-gay forces organized boycotts that hurt Marvel and Marvel management said, "Okay, that's it; no more stories having anything to do with gays or gay rights." Supporters of those causes would likely decry Marvel as being cowardly and knuckling under to financial pressure from the exact same tactics that are being called for here.

I'm sure you as much as I don't wanna live in a country (or world) where people are afraid to put out anything that might offend people. Which is usually where this line of reasoning leads to. They aren't gonna say, no more highering OSC for stuff, they're just flat out gonna dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator to make sure that nobody could possibly be offended by anything they produce. Which is gonna make things pretty bland in my opinion. I think that's what he's trying to get at with that last quote.

I don't see how PAD says anything short of reasonable with his statements on this subject, at least according to the metrics he's put forth. Which of course you can also disagree with as opinion.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I was already boycotting this game.

Spoiler

until the pc version is released, then it'll be lifted immediately.

It's published by Microsoft Games. What makes you think there will be a PC version?

They don't even release PC versions of games they announce for PC.

 

[KHarvey16]

1 post by her, my reply, her reply, my reply. Done.

The point of our contention is four short posts on a single page that you seem unwilling to read, why would I waste my time with you further? Can you restate your request to me to restate my position? I'm too lazy to read the entire post that I'm quoting honestly.....

Ah, see? I am the one not interested in debate.

I think you're suddenly lacking confidence in the strength of your position. Just me though.

 

[elrechazado]

Ah, see? I am the one not interested in debate.

I think you're suddenly lacking confidence in the strength of your position. Just me though.

So you not reading my posts in the first place, then asking me to repost my 4 posts, means that I'm not interested in a discussion. That's amazing how that works. Does the back button on your browser not work? Or maybe clicking on the thread numbers. That takes you to the posts you continue to refuse to read. Not reading them didn't stop you from coming out firing both pistols and making yourself look like a fool, then retreating into the "well, remake your entire argument". This is the internet, a written medium, not a speech and debate class where we have no recordings. Are Eee Ay Dee.

 

[chiba]

It's published by Microsoft Games. What makes you think there will be a PC version?

They don't even release PC versions of games they announce for PC.

there's always hope, don't crush my dreams;p

 

[Dragona Akehi]

It is when considering his critera on the subject...

-

He also address this line of reasoning...


I'm sure you as much as I don't wanna live in a country (or world) where people are afraid to put out anything that might offend people. Which is usually where this line of reasoning leads to. They aren't gonna say, no more highering OSC for stuff, they're just flat out gonna dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator to make sure that nobody could possibly be offended by anything they produce. Which is gonna make things pretty bland in my opinion. I think that's what he's trying to get at with that last quote.

I don't see how PAD says anything short of reasonable with his statements on this subject, at least according to the metrics he's put forth. Which of course you can also disagree with as opinion.

My problem lies with PAD's seeming argument that boycotting is an attempt at censoring or against free speech.

I honestly cannot think of anything more in the spirit of free speech than the ability to choose what I purchase or why.

Anyone should be able to create whatever he or she desires. That doesn't mean they should not have to suffer consequences for creating it.

By hiring OSC, Chair has gotten the consequence of me not buying their game. It isn't because I hate Chair, or that I think they should go bankrupt, but their business is not something I want.

 

[KHarvey16]

So you not reading my posts in the first place, then asking me to repost my 4 posts, means that I'm not interested in a discussion. That's amazing how that works. Does the back button on your browser not work? Or maybe clicking on the thread numbers. That takes you to the posts you continue to refuse to read. Not reading them didn't stop you from coming out firing both pistols and making yourself look like a fool, then retreating into the "well, remake your entire argument". This is the internet, a written medium, not a speech and debate class where we have no recordings. Are Eee Ay Dee.

Did we not discuss your post? It's clear I don't understand it the way you intended. Help me get it. Your protests over restating it are quickly becoming longer than what I requested in the first place. That's leading me to an unflattering conclusion.

 

[Divvy]

It is when considering his critera on the subject...

-

He also address this line of reasoning...


I'm sure you as much as I don't wanna live in a country (or world) where people are afraid to put out anything that might offend people. Which is usually where this line of reasoning leads to. They aren't gonna say, no more highering OSC for stuff, they're just flat out gonna dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator to make sure that nobody could possibly be offended by anything they produce. Which is gonna make things pretty bland in my opinion. I think that's what he's trying to get at with that last quote.

I don't see how PAD says anything short of reasonable with his statements on this subject, at least according to the metrics he's put forth. Which of course you can also disagree with as opinion.

It is unreasonable because he assumes that the author of the original article is calling for a boycott and that everyone who chooses to not purchase this game is participating in said boycott. However, most of the people who are refraining from purchasing the game due to his involvement have stated that they are in no way endorsing a boycott, but rather this is a personal choice that they have made and they don't care what decision other people make on the subject at hand. I personally have no interest in a boycott because that implies pressuring other people to follow in your actions.

 

[BigKaboom2]

Did we not discuss your post? It's clear I don't understand it the way you intended. Help me get it. Your protests over restating it are quickly becoming longer than what I requested in the first place. That's leading me to an unflattering conclusion.

Just re-read them. You wouldn't need to have them re-stated if you had responded to them in the first place rather than responding to straw men, then accusing other people of creating straw men when they don't know what you're talking about.

 

[KHarvey16]

Just re-read them. You wouldn't need to have them re-stated if you had responded to them in the first place rather than responding to straw men, then accusing other people of creating straw men when they don't know what you're talking about.

Should I add this to his tally or start a new one for you?

 

[CabbageRed]

I'm always happy to see consumers see the power in their purchase choices, and I think that actively taking steps to support your causes is commendable. But just so everyone knows, Google Ads has decided this thread is for the crazies.

 

[Margalis]

This is probably not a good place to get into serious literary discussion but there's a reason why Empire is popular among right-wing readership and commentators and why it's generally viewed as biased in that direction.

Card has tried to play it off as neutral commentary. But again, this is probably not a good place for in-depth textual analysis. I would simply point out that the talking head characters are almost as a rule reciting things that are in line with what we know Card believes.

It's fairly common in literature for one or more characters to speak with the voice of the author (intentional or not) and that's all over Empire. The way certain terms and phrases are used it's not credible to claim that the book is politically neutral, even before you add in the known quantity of Card's conservatism. A distaste for liberalism and "progressivism" comes through loud and clear.

The broad premise that "red" and "blue" people are manipulated into a civil war could be pulled off in neutral fashion but it wasn't here. Many of the characters give speeches that come almost verbatim from Card's political essays.

Edit: On the subject of a boycott, I'm not a big fan of large organizations monolithically deciding to boycott something when many of the rank and file just follow the pack and aren't educated on the issue. But as far as I know there is no large organization here, just a bunch of people saying they don't want to buy it. Which is free speech at it's finest.

 

[elrechazado]

That's leading me to an unflattering conclusion.

That you've been struck with internet blindness? We didn't discuss anything. You came in with both barrels attacking me without any reason to do so because you didn't read what I wrote. This foolishness about you wanting a rational discussion is bullshit, because in response to my initial reply dragona, you fired off ad hominems claiming that I was a hypocrite (for some unknown reason) and attempted pithy remarks. Pretending you want to have a real discussion now is a little late friend.

The words are there in black and white, in perfectly short sentences that should be easy to understand for anyone who cares to read them. Particularly the one where I agreed with Dragona that she had every right to boycott anyone she wants to.

Next time don't come in flying with the stupid personal insults without reading what you're replying to, and you won't be in this silly and awkward position of flying off the handle at someone who supports your right to boycott and protest and criticize OSC to your heart's desire.

 

[deadatom]

It would be quite easy to get the answers to those questions by reading subsequent posts.

But you are committed to the antithesis of freedom. Reading the bolded text, we see "freedom for me, but not for thee." Yes, I do in fact believe that creationism should be openly debated in the public square. And that people should be able to protest in the most conservative areas on behalf of gay rights organizations. That blacks should be able to organize for their rights in public squares in alabama in 1955. That muslims and christians and jews and scientologists should be able to march in parades and espouse any views they want. Especially those that I find hilarious, moronic, abhorrent, or uncomfortable. Your attitude is more destructive and pernicious than all of the creationists in the world, and it's sad that you don't understand that.

"Tell us what the limit of our negative laws in the bill of rights is acceptable."

Can you translate that into English so I can attempt an answer?

And to the kharveys of the world, please note that this post is in response to someone who actually wants to stop people from talking about issues, and not replying to anyone else or saying that advocating a boycott is the same as what this person is advocating. Sad that this disclaimer is needed, but some reading comprehension issues here lately.

Let me rephrase that. Alil dslyxic I am.

Tell me what limit would you take the negative rights in our constitution too? You already admited you would advocate for a parent's to impose ciriculum that is tantamount to childabuse. I am not talking about positive rights here.

Anyways, you are a liberatarian.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you two are arguing about.

 

[Divvy]

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you two are arguing about.

Just ignore it, maybe it'll go away.

 

[KHarvey16]

That you've been struck with internet blindness? This foolishness about you wanting a rational discussion is bullshit, because in response to my initial reply dragona, you fired off ad hominems claiming that I was a hypocrite (for some unknown reason) and attempted pithy remarks. Pretending you want to have a real discussion now is a little late friend.

The words are there in black and white, in perfectly short sentences that should be easy to understand for anyone who cares to read them. Particularly the one where I agreed with Dragona that she had every right to boycott anyone she wants to.

Next time don't come in flying with the stupid personal insults without reading what you're replying to, and you won't be in this silly and awkward position of flying off the handle at someone who supports your right to boycott and protest and criticize OSC to your heart's desire.

Unbelievable. What am I supposed to think when you feel writing that is easier and more productive than re-stating your position? My reply to you is still exactly what I wanted to say based on how I understand your point. It's obvious you aren't afraid to type paragraphs so what's the problem?

I'll be honest, I have no idea what you two are arguing about.

I'm literally just as in the dark as you are. I'm not asking him to restate his position as some nefarious strategy, I honestly don't know what he's saying.

 

[pvpness]

My problem lies with PAD's seeming argument that boycotting is an attempt at censoring or against free speech.

I honestly cannot think of anything more in the spirit of free speech than the ability to choose what I purchase or why.

Anyone should be able to create whatever he or she desires. That doesn't mean they should not have to suffer consequences for creating it.

By hiring OSC, Chair has gotten the consequence of me not buying their game. It isn't because I hate Chair, or that I think they should go bankrupt, but their business is not something I want.

I understand what your saying and I largely agree with you. The right to decline purchase is ours to weild as we see fit. I think it's the thin line between that and boycott which is where things get blurry. He suggests that he doesn't ever let someones stated opinions distract him from the products they put forward, which is a very utopian view of things I'll admit but progressive nonetheless.

I'm sure we can agree that hurting someone because they have a different opinion is bad. I think that's all he was really trying to say... because there is a definite difference between saying, "I'm not having any part of that" and attempting to whip a mob together in an attempt to suffocate something/someone.

I'm all for everyone being able to do what they want with their money, I'm not okay with a mob of people actively trying to hurt an individual or a group of individuals regardless of motivation as that is clearly not protected by free speech.

 

[pvpness]

It is unreasonable because he assumes that the author of the original article is calling for a boycott and that everyone who chooses to not purchase this game is participating in said boycott. However, most of the people who are refraining from purchasing the game due to his involvement have stated that they are in no way endorsing a boycott, but rather this is a personal choice that they have made and they don't care what decision other people make on the subject at hand. I personally have no interest in a boycott because that implies pressuring other people to follow in your actions.

I'm pretty sure PAD was addressing the issue of a boycott though. Whether there is one or not is neither here nor there in the context of his comments.

 

[GodfatherX]

Chair entertainment could make a game about killing orphan children and I would support them

Spoiler

as long as it goes into funding Advent Rising's spiritual successor

 

[KHarvey16]

I understand what your saying and I largely agree with you. The right to decline purchase is ours to weild as we see fit. I think it's the thin line between that and boycott which is where things get blurry. He suggests that he doesn't ever let someones stated opinions distract him from the products they put forward, which is a very utopian view of things I'll admit but progressive nonetheless.

I'm sure we can agree that hurting someone because they have a different opinion is bad. I think that's all he was really trying to say... because there is a definite difference between saying, "I'm not having any part of that" and attempting to whip a mob together in an attempt to suffocate something/someone.

I'm all for everyone being able to do what they want with their money, I'm not okay with a mob of people actively trying to hurt an individual or a group of individuals regardless of motivation as that is clearly not protected by free speech.

A mob is still made up of individuals making their own decisions. I don't entirely agree with separating a boycott from a specific person's decision to not buy something.

And again about punishing or actively hurting. The developers made a decision to work with this man. If I decide to not support them for that decision, how is it different from not buying the game because they decided to make it a side scroller or 2.5d? It's a decision they've made that I disagree with and deem worthy of not buying their product over.

 

[Technoob]

Should I add this to his tally or start a new one for you?

How about I help since he doesn't seem to want to waste more time talking to you.

Akehi makes post

elrechazao responds, pointing out an internal inconsistency in her personal beliefs

you jump in and call him out for political donations for some incomprehensible reason

Akehi responds, clarifying what she meant

elrechazao responds agreeing with the clarification, and pointing out (and this is IMPORTANT) that he agrees with the "people should be able to boycott" and that he was talking about her personal feelings, not saying she had the power to keep people from talking.

you get caught up on continuing the personal attacks, never even mentioning the merits of anything anyone is talking about, embarassing yourself, and then not even taking the time to look at what Akehi or elrechazao were discussing, apparently just freaking out on him because you saw he was disagreeing with her about...well something, so you just had to jump in.

Conclusion, you = personal attack and unserious posts from the get go.

 

[KHarvey16]

How about I help since he doesn't seem to want to waste more time talking to you.

Akehi makes post

elrechazao responds, pointing out an internal inconsistency in her personal beliefs

you jump in and call him out for political donations for some incomprehensible reason

Akehi responds, clarifying what she meant

elrechazao responds agreeing with the clarification, and pointing out (and this is IMPORTANT) that he agrees with the "people should be able to boycott" and that he was talking about her personal feelings, not saying she had the power to keep people from talking.

you get caught up on continuing the personal attacks, never even mentioning the merits of anything anyone is talking about, embarassing yourself, and then not even taking the time to look at what Akehi or elrechazao were discussing, apparently just freaking out on him because you saw he was disagreeing with her about...well something, so you just had to jump in.

Conclusion, you = personal attack and unserious posts from the get go.

I'll ask you the question I asked him: what inconsistency?

 

[Divvy]

I'm pretty sure PAD was addressing the issue of a boycott though. Whether there is one or not is neither here nor there in the context of his comments.

Well the original article basically can be summed down to "buy it, or don't buy it, make your own choice". However, PAD responded essentially saying that by saying that it's okay to not buy it for this reason, then you are promoting a boycott.

And Christian: Yes. You advocated boycotts. Right here: "That's why it's okay to skip buying Dragon Quest IX or Shadow Complex." Because if you didn't advocate boycotts, you would have said, "It's not okay to skip buying Shadow Complex purely because you don't like Orson Scott Card's opinions. It's not okay that Epic or Chair or Peter David wind up as part of collateral damage when not only have they said and done nothing to warrant it, but Peter David has been an outspoken supporter of gay causes."

 

[SimpleDesign]

Card is on the board of directors at NOM, that's a big step up from just being a run of the mill bigot voicing his opinion.

I wonder if Chair will hire a KKK member to work on a back story for their next game.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a non-profit organization that seeks to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage, and invalidate those already legally contracted, stating that they do so in order to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.