ACIDHEDZ'S PROFILE

author=Halrsic

author=Sated
When you state that:

Insulting is subjective.

And then state:

Nothing I've said is an insult.

You're not being very rational.

XDDD TDFW

Both points of view can be subjectively true, however since the definition of the word insult specifies that I intend to be hurtful in some way, and I'm not, I am not actually insulting anyone.
Their perception of it is irrelevant to this fact, since facts don't care how you feel about them.

author=pianotm
I'm not going to take sides in this debate itself, because I think I'm looking at two extremist points of view here, and reality is somewhere in the middle, and nobody seems to be going there. It's Acid's overall response to a problem he is clearly having that I'm taking issue with.

Acid, you're definitely going over-aggressive here. I see a lot of the points you make, I disagree with others, but they are absolutely lost in the fact that this is an absolute overreaction to what is ostensibly a personal problem you're having with the people on this site. Liberty is being super patient here (assuming you haven't been banned while I'm writing this). If this discussion were going on a site that I modded, you'd be banned one week bare minimum, not because your opinion is unpopular, but because you're essentially having a pissing contest with everyone who disagrees with you.

No, the problem is that I am a logical, rational person.
Your view that I am being extremest is subjective. An opinion. One that you have failed to support.

Everything you said about me, in fact, is just that. An opinion.
People who base everything on opinions, and never back anything they think or say up, are one of the biggest problems with the world today.
Whether it's some anti-vaccine nut refusing to acknowledge evidence that proves them wrong, or a mod on a forum trying to dictate how everyone should feel, just because they didn't like a joke, it's all the same psychology.

And if you banned me based not on facts, logic, or reason, but simply to shut me up, then you're no better than Stalin sending people to the Gulags.
Again, the psychology is the same. The only difference is the degree it's being employed.

author=NeverSilent
You have developed an unhealthy obsession over this topic. Take a step back and reconsider whether all this aggression and anger is really still appropriate in relation to the significance of the issue you yourself seem to take offense on.

In a casual atmosphere, you and your friends might not get angry at all when you sling swear words at each other, you might even consider it funny. Still, you don't go around on the street insulting people at random. The point of "political correctness" isn't to deny you your sense of humour or freedom of creative expression. It's not too much to ask for you to think about whether your words might insult or hurt other people before you put them out there in the world for everyone to see.

Your freedom ends where other people's begins. If you can't be bothered to be considerate of others, then you should reevaluate your priorities.

Who are you to say my reaction isn't correct?
Are you being considerate towards me and my feelings by saying that?

Making a game isn't doing anything at random.
And you weren't paying attention. Anything might offend someone. I have no control over that. If I put meat in a game as a healing item, I could offend vegetarians and vegans. And saying that's okay, but using any kind of joke is wrong, is hypocritical. You're making arbitrary value judgement based on NOTHING.

And where does their freedom begin and mine end?
What about the people who run the site? Their justification is that it's their site, they can do whatever they want. Which is the same justification used throughout history by people in power to do whatever the wanted, to whomever they wanted.
Wrong is wrong. All you're doing is quibbling over degrees.

Am I not also allowed consideration? Shit goes both ways you know.

As someone who likes to use hard edge comedy in my games, I often butt heads with people over what is or isn't acceptable.

My view is that offense is taken, not given. If a joke (or anything else) offends you, that's your problem. Not everyone will feel the same way.

What really gets on my nerves, is that the same PC brigade types who claim to be so understanding and considerate of others, toss all that out the window as soon as you "trigger them".
Then they resort to the same logical fallacies as the people they claim to be against. If they don't just attack you outright.

Being dismissive of anything said to contest them, taking things out of context, and generally trying to brow beat anyone who disagrees with them into shutting up. Even resorting to threats and removing what people have said to silence them.

The question then becomes, is there EVER an acceptable line that shouldn't be crossed? At what point does it stop being action against truly negative stuff, and just become people playing "nanny state" based on their own, personal, reactions?
When should we see it as an insult because people think we can't make up our own minds about how we feel?

When does it become hypocritical to say that it's okay to use a topic in one way, for one reason, but not in another way for another reason?
At what point are people making arbitrary value judgements based on personal bias, rather than any actual logic or reason?
After all, people who do things like being against gay marriage are doing the same thing. Using their personal feelings to try and dictate thoughts and behavior.
Someone who says "you can't joke about that" is engaging in the exact same psychology. "I don't like, it, therefore it's wrong and you can't do it".

It's EASY to say things like, just don't be rude. Don't be a jerk. But what is rude, and what is being a jerk are subjective.
What one person finds rude, another wont. What one person thinks is being a jerk, another wont.

On top of all that, people have watered down words like sexism and racism to the point of near meaninglessness. They'll use them to shout down anything they don't like, or makes them uncomfortable.
An example.
There's a youtube series called Tamara's Never Seen, by a woman named Tamara who watches movies she's never seen. She watched Ghostbusters, the original.
And she called several things in the movie sexist... but all it really amounted to, was that it was things she didn't like, or was made uncomfortable by.
How can you really trust anyone using those words, when they get tossed around so freely and arbitrarily?

Where do you stand on this?
Where does the line get drawn?
At what point do we, as content creators, have to say that it isn't our job to protect everyone, and it's incredibly condescending to even try?

REALLY GREAT MODS YOU HAVE HERE!

Since you gave me no other way to respond...
IE "Reason was: "But is there any kind of insulting hate speech - racism, sexism, etc? We've had this discussion before and if I find that kind of stuff is in there, I'll be removing the game."

1. No there isn't.
2. The other game had none of those things either, it had jokes. Which were always social satire aimed at people who get offended easily. Just because you didn't find it funny, or just didn't get it, doesn't mean I was actually trying to piss people off, or insult anyone. I sure as fuck wasn't engaging in any "hate speech" or those "isms" you so freely toss around.
For someone who has such a problem with people insulting each other, you've shown a remarkable lack of restraint in degrading and insulting me. Both personally, and intellectually.
3...
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Stephen Fry

And if Stephen Fry ran the site that would be his prerogative, however we do and we hold the right to deny anything we think goes beyond the rules we have on hate speech. In this case, the discussions we've had in the past do not give me any reason to believe that you'd handle any subjects of the like in any way responsibly or capably, so I'm afraid no. In this case, this game will not be allowed on the site. There are many other sites out there that would allow that kind of game, but not this one. Sorry.

Wrong is wrong, and playing nanny state for the people who use this site, and are the reason it exists, just because YOU don't like something is WRONG. If it wasn't for the people who use this site, it wouldn't exist. And yet you treat them all like children who can't make decisions for themselves.

You BELIEVE. Beliefs aren't facts.
YOUR idea of responsibly. YOUR idea of capably. What makes you think YOU are capable or responsible? Other than your belief that it's true? Which means dick!

"1. Refrain from personal attacks
If you disagree with users, aim your rebuttals and comments at their ideas and points, and not the people themselves. In other words, don't be a dick. Name-calling, slander/libel, and other forms of personal attacks are off limits in our community. Retaliating in kind should be kept to personal forms of communication, if done at all."

You saying what I'm doing is hate speech is slander. Which you CANNOT back up, because it's based on nothing but your personal feelings. It's also extremely insulting.
Calling a joke hate speech just because YOU don't like it, is no different than someone telling gay people they can't get married just because they don't like it.

"7. Be courteous
Be polite and fair in your contributions to RMN, be they posts, games, reviews or the like. Refrain from posting image macros or other internet memes.
Keep in mind that by posting screenshots or blog entries, you'll inevitably push other people's contributions off the front page. Although this is unavoidable, it is common courtesy to put some extra effort into creating entries with actual content.
Accept criticism without lashing out. Keep in mind that feedback isn't a personal attack and people have the right to like/dislike any games or material they want.
Give criticism without making it an attack. Rationalize or justify your criticism, and deliver it with tact."

You have shown ZERO tact when dealing with me. You have not ONCE rationalized or justified your continued degrading remarks towards me or my work. Because you're never wrong. You never make mistakes. Your point of view is the only one that's right.
You made an assumption about my last game, which I gave you PROOF was entirely wrong. That there was not only context for the jokes I used, but a great deal of it. But you still insist on degrading me by calling it hate speech, based on NOTHING! It has to be true, just because YOU think it is.

You were never going to allow any game I ever submitted, because you've allowed yourself to become biased. You have no REASON to deny this game. You just WANT there to be something wrong with it.

And for the LAST FUCKING TIME there is NO hate speech in anything I've ever done. You just don't like it. So why don't you just admit this is entirely personal, and has nothing to do with the rules.

You are dismissing me, and everything I say, based on nothing but your own personal bias towards me. You don't care about the truth. You don't care about context. You made up your mind about me, and absolutely nothing I say or do will ever change it.
You're everything you claim to be against.
LIBERTY.
lib·er·ty
ˈlibərdē/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
"compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty"
synonyms: independence, freedom, autonomy, sovereignty, self-government, self-rule, self-determination; More
2.
the power or scope to act as one pleases.
"individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences"
synonyms: freedom, independence, free rein, license, self-determination, free will, latitude
"personal liberty"

So go ahead and ban me again for standing up to you.
Go ahead and remove this post. Prove me right and show yourself for what you really are. An enemy to logic, reason, facts, free thought and LIBERTY!

@Liberty
You say...
"this article was accepted by staff because it has merit beyond just one person saying they don't like x or y."
Second sentence of the article...
"I find most of the stories, especially in video games, repetitive and boring, not just “inspired” by great art"

The entire article is literally the poster coming up with justifications for their own personal dislike of revenge plots. Topped off with a healthy dose of snobbery.

The first two sections just detail why people use revenge plots. The third, which is where they're supposedly making a point... Boils down to, I think straight forward revenge plots are boring, and if you use one you are "destined to be generic and mediocre" therefore you should "aim higher".

The final section, supposed alternatives...
I simply have to ask myself how precisely that's supposedly "aiming higher". Because the whole "your people killed my people, and I have prejudice towards all of you because of it", is just as much a cliche. Or trope if you prefer.

I didn't insult them, I called them on their BS. How they feel about that is irrelevant. It's called an appeal to outrage fallacy.
It's also extremely hypocritical to say I'm right about them being pretentious, then say I'm acting childish. I presented my view, they responded by using an ad hominem and being pretentious.

@MAS
First off, your OPINION of Pratchett is irrelevant.
You didn't address anything I said. Your reply consisted entirely of how much you don't like the author I quoted.
If normal people are so interesting, then why doesn't anyone do stories about them? Stories are always about either extraordinary people, or people in extraordinary circumstances.

Pratchett is only one of my influences. HP Lovecraft and Hunter S Thompson are two other major ones. Not that it matters in the slightest, since it's irrelevant to what I've said.

I just happen to like that quote because it's true. Things become cliches because they are universal, easy to understand, and cut to the heart of human emotion. Hammers and screwdrivers.

Most murders happen when someone gets pissed off at someone they know, or for gain. They rarely have anything "deeper" to them than that. That is the mundanity of human "evil".
Your post is the clamoring of a child pleading for everything to have some sort of "greater" meaning, when more oft than not, there's none at all. The vast majority of people don't do things because of convoluted reasons. They are petty, driven by their emotions, and simple. And quite often... they're just stupid and apathetic.
Every year here in the States people leave their children in the car during the summer, and they die. Why? Because they didn't think about it. There isn't any greater meaning to it. They were just being stupid.
And quite frankly, some people really are just born bad. Not every criminal has a dark past, because most of them either felt forced to do whatever it was they did, or simply don't care about the effect it had on others.
Most people with prejudices don't have any reason for having them at all. Usually they have them because their parents did, and they did because their parents did.

It may not be nice. It may not feel good. But reality doesn't care if you like it or not. It just is.

Hate and love are probably the two most powerful emotions humans experience. And revenge is usually sitting firmly at their crossroads. Revenge is something that can compel a person to act. It may not have any "greater" meaning, but it's honest and realistic.

And lastly, to restate a point I made earlier. I didn't insult you. I told you what I thought about what you said. If you felt insulted, that's your problem. I found your article highly condescending, and to be nothing but your own dislike dressed up as advice. So I said so. And you have done nothing to offer rebuttal, nor to dispel my impression of you. In fact, all you've done is reinforce it.