187 réponses à ce sujet

[canarius]

Bioware should be ashamed that the only time their game gets mentioned is because of the social pandering and not the quality of their games. It's their fault that they promote their "non - straight white male" characters instead of the game itself.

[Heathen Oxman]

^ Their game does get mentioned for its gameplay......on actual gaming websites.

[Heathen Oxman]

I'm not from US so this doesn't apply to me.

 

Free speech doesn't mean that you can say whatever. It has opened doors to criticism and opinion's, especially towards politicans and others in power, cause they couldn't be criticized before and could do whatever, because of that. In any point freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone can say what they want and promote their messages no matter what they are.

 

"Free speech" in the U.S. only means that the government can't censor you.

 

It doesn't apply to private companies.  And, as a private company, Bioware has no obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to provide a platform to espouse hate speech. 

[leaguer of one]

Bioware should be ashamed that the only time their game gets mentioned is because of the social pandering and not the quality of their games. It's their fault that they promote their "non - straight white male" characters instead of the game itself.

Some one needs to learn what social pandering is. It's not pandering if it has a particular character in it. It would be say bw is pandering to black women because Vivie's in dai.

[leaguer of one]

They're free to say something back, just as I'm free to say something first.

That's not what freedom of speech means.

 

I'm sad that american use it and they don't even understand what that means. I was only raised in the US and I have a better understanding of it then Jack does.

[leaguer of one]

 

 

 

Oh, boy...

 

I'm not going to awnser this either.

 

 

 

Ok , out side of library books and the entire 1950's it has not happened.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Freedom of speech is not permission for hate speech though. There is social norms that usually prevents people from saying offensive stuff to each other and if those won't work, threat of getting punched usually does. Freedom of speech also has limitations in terms of not threatening others or offending their honour etc. It's not like freedom of speech is permission to say what ever you want without any social consequences.

So threatening to punch someone over words they spoke with their own lips ,exercising their bodily autonomy is fine under your "social norms" but speaking in a why that can offend someone is not?

This is what your social norms dictate? And you don't just acknowledge that, you espouse it? I mean, I could be wrong, I might have misinterpreted your tone -internet does that, my apologies if that's the case- ,do you actually consider that a healthy mindset?

[leaguer of one]

Hate speech is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, actually. Social consequence is fine, but every human being should have the right to say what they want without being censored. That includes hate speech against any and all groups. Even if you don't dislike said groups, it's the thought that counts. We're living in an increasingly 1984-esque world. The news media condemns a white student for putting a rope and Confederate flag over a black statue, and he's arrested. However, the news media calls heroes a group of black students who threw their own **** at a white statue, claiming they were "fighting racism", and they were praised. Our world is increasingly losing free speech and succumbing to political correctness, which is more or less the idea minorities are superior to the majority rather than equal. But soon even the minorities won't have free speech. Soon everything'll be censored.

 

If the government can arrest me for insulting a transsexual, what's to stop them from arresting someone else who criticizes a politician or the President?

And you still don't understand. freedom of speech does not mean third parties have to allow people to say what they want. It only covers the government. And company can censor, ban, or banish  any person from their property, tangible or digital, for anything from what the person does or say which the government can't do nothing about it with the exception of it being about sex, race,religion belief, or gender. Only another third party can react to it.

 

What that means is if bw does not have a way to say bad thing the Krem for who he is, it's not  a violation of free speech, being:

bw is a 3rd party and not covers in the laws of freedom of speech.

bw is a Canadian company and the freedom of speech laws  are american laws.

 

This even applies to any ban bw may have for you pushing your hateful views.(Which is going to happen soon.)

 

So learn what it is and stop using freedom of speech out side of it's context.

[Junebug]

"Freedom of speech" only keeps the government from persecuting you for what you say. Not from companies, not from the people, not from the media. So to my fellow Americans saying otherwise, please stop talking. You're embarrassing me.

 

And again, good job Bioware for treating transgender people like people

[The Hierophant]

So threatening to punch someone over words they spoke with their own lips ,exercising their bodily autonomy is fine under your "social norms" but speaking in a why that can offend someone is not?
This is what your social norms dictate? And you don't just acknowledge that, you espouse it? I mean, I could be wrong, I might have misinterpreted your tone -internet does that, my apologies if that's the case- ,do you actually consider that a healthy mindset?

Don't know what country Panda's from, but here In the US if you threaten to or punch someone over an insult you'll most likely face legal consequences.

[Lebanese Dude]

Don't know what country Panda's from, but here In the US if you threaten to or punch someone over an insult you'll most likely face legal consequences.

 

Let's not go there. You can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean people won't laugh you out of the courtroom.

 

You sue someone for getting punched. They counter-sue for emotional distress.

 

Better to avoid the courtroom altogether and not insult anyone to begin with.

[WildOrchid]

Oh is that typical "jack" dude again, ranting about nonsense.

 

Too bad you can't block the quoted posts from said blocked member. I read some and there are not enough Picard/Jesus facepalms in the net.

[AlanC9]

Let's not go there. You can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean people won't laugh you out of the courtroom.
 
You sue someone for getting punched. They counter-sue for emotional distress.
 
Better to avoid the courtroom altogether and not insult anyone to begin with.

What about skipping the lawsuit and just going straight to pressing charges for assault?

[The Hierophant]

Let's not go there. You can sue anyone for anything. It doesn't mean people won't laugh you out of the courtroom.

You sue someone for getting punched. They counter-sue for emotional distress.

Better to avoid the courtroom altogether and not insult anyone to begin with.

No. Being or feeling insulted is no justification for assault. It doesn't matter if the KKK is marching down the street chanting their garbage, or a man's wife challenged their manhood, or someone cracked a joke on your hairline, you don't put your hands on people. If you do you go to jail, and depending on the details in the police report the presiding judge would most likely toss the aggressor's lawsuit.

[Lebanese Dude]

No. Being or feeling insulted is no justification for assault. It doesn't matter if the KKK is marching down the street chanting their garbage, or a man's wife challenged their manhood, or someone cracked a joke on your hairline, you don't put your hands on people. If you do you go to jail, and depending on the details in the police report the presiding judge would most likely toss the aggressor's lawsuit.

 

What about skipping the lawsuit and just going straight to pressing charges for assault?

 

What are you arguing here?

 

I'm not advocating assault. I'm just saying that it's better to avoid the situation altogether by not insulting someone to begin with.

Didn't they teach you this **** in Kindergarten?

 

If you're comparing yourselves to the KKK or wife-beaters then you need to reconsider your position. Those are some extreme examples to use.

[The Hierophant]

What are you arguing here?

I'm not advocating assault. I'm just saying that it's better to avoid the situation altogether by not insulting someone to begin with.
Didn't they teach you this **** in Kindergarten?

If you're comparing yourselves to the KKK or wife-beaters then you need to reconsider your position. Those are some extreme examples to use.

Going through life. and trying not to insult anyone is darn near impossible when said people could take offence at anything they perceive as a slight. You don't need to make racist, anti LGBT, anti religious, socioeconomic, intelligence, or appearance related comments in order to insult people. We live in a world where just looking at someone, disagreeing with, or plain existing is an insult to people.

So again living in fear of being assaulted because someone might be offended only promotes tyranny, and abuse. That's unrealistic.

[Lebanese Dude]

Going through life. and trying not to insult anyone is darn near impossible when said people could take offence at anything they perceive as a slight. You don't need to make racist, anti LGBT, anti religious, socioeconomic, intelligence, or appearance related comments in order to insult people. We live in a world where just looking at someone, disagreeing with, or plain existing is an insult to people.

So again living in fear of being assaulted because someone might be offended only promotes tyranny, and abuse. That's unrealistic.

Haven't you seen me have arguments with people on this forum? lol

 

You just quoted almost everything you shouldn't insult people for. 

 

Insult people's stupid opinions? Fine. Insult them for their supposedly deplorable actions? Great. Insult their character/person for the criteria you mentioned? Crossed a line.

 

That includes transgender issues, which is the entire point of this thread.

[leaguer of one]

Going through life. and trying not to insult anyone is darn near impossible when said people could take offence at anything they perceive as a slight. You don't need to make racist, anti LGBT, anti religious, socioeconomic, intelligence, or appearance related comments in order to insult people. We live in a world where just looking at someone, disagreeing with, or plain existing is an insult to people.

So again living in fear of being assaulted because someone might be offended only promotes tyranny, and abuse. That's unrealistic.

True but it's another thing dive face first into it.

[AWTEW]

This is pretty weak tea. I know your claim is that the meanies at Bio will ban you if you tell the whole truth -- as we all know, this whole world is a conspiracy against straight white males -- but can't you make some kind of argument?

 

First of all, cut the straight white male  Cr**. They are human beings too, and it's pretty petty to always blame them for everything.

Secondly, I'am not a male. But right, I forgot,  apparently all female gamers are automatically supposed to hate SWM.

Thirdly, I'm still not going to go further into any political discussion.

[Lebanese Dude]

First of all, cut the straight white male  Cr**. They are human beings too, and it's pretty petty to always blame them for everything.

Secondly, I'am not a male. But right, I forgot,  apparently all female gamers are automatically supposed to hate SWM.

Thirdly, I'm still not going to go further into any political discussion.

 

So stop replying?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I sincerely hope that they make Maevaris Tilani a party member in the next game, if only to see how people would react to an actual full-time transgender character in the game. The meltdowns.

I don't want her as a party member, but her being transsexual is not why. Her being a typical Tevinter magister is why I don't want her on my team.

[Lebanese Dude]

I don't want her as a party member, but her being transsexual is not why. Her being a typical Tevinter magister is why I don't want her on my team.

 

.... but she's not a typical Tevinter magister... 

[CronoDragoon]

I don't want her as a party member, but her being transsexual is not why. Her being a typical Tevinter magister is why I don't want her on my team.

 

According to the comics, Dorian, and the War Table mission with Mae, it seems there's quite a bit of tension developing in Tevinter between those who like the status quo and those who want Tevinter to change. So the concept of what a typical Tevinter magister is might be very much in flux by DA4. My only concern here is that they'd need another angle on it so it doesn't feel like a retread of Dorian's discussions. However, if they want to put in a progressive Tevinter magister, I think it's fair to say she'd be a good choice as she already has some pull with the fandom.

[leaguer of one]

Her being a typical Tevinter magister is why I don't want her on my team.

[AlanC9]

First of all, cut the straight white male  Cr**. They are human beings too, and it's pretty petty to always blame them for everything.

Yeah, I know. I just wish we weren't so goddamn embarrassing.