Haven't I just said the same thing in second sentence and sentence that you haven't included into qoute?
^This. I'm yet to see someone push for white Shaft or straight male among Purple Lantern Corps.

It isn't meaningless when some of them are partners and you have a huge release coming up. What the hell good is it if GOG's success comes at the expense of CDPR?

There are significant differences between Steam and CDPR/GOG, so don't assume that what works for one is necessarily going to work for the other -- especially as some of what we're discussing here may have to be reconsidered by Steam in the not-so-distant future.

Our freedom has already been undermined. I think it has more to do with keeping us at each others' throats so we don't band together and rid ourselves once and for all of the parasites that have ruled over us for centuries.

What are you talking about?

Yes, exactly. GOG and Steam are different. Steam doesn't manage promotion of games it sells on social networks. GOG does. And has a backlash for it.

And who would that be?

And what expense is that really? I've pointed out before that these same groups are supposedly already boycotting. You can't lose sales that don't exist. But what is the expense to GoG if they renege on their contract with the publisher and don't feature a particular game like they promised to do? Well, that publisher won't be very happy. Other publishers may start to doubt GoG too. Is it really worth business partners to cave into a mob. A mob that already claims to be boycotting you?

These forums; these journalists have been bad-mouthing CDPR for years. I think you are vastly overestimated the significance of this mob. As I was saying Mark Kern was talking about this last night for a bit. How they had to bring the old school marketing executives up to speed at Blizzard because they would overreact to every Twitter storm. He was part of one in the Gamergate days when he tried to get journalists to talk to figures prominent in Gamergate with the usual result. He got labelled as a Gamergater just like Total Biscuit. And all he was trying to do is get the two sides together to talk and work out differences.

He had a lot of things to say on the matter. It was an awesome Live Stream. He was explaining the way he sees it. Once upon a time, print journalism was king, but now with the Internet and streamers and Youtube and people using ad block, all the revenues are drying up for the gaming journals. He described this as their flailing attempt at maintaining ad revenue. That instead of writing good reviews, they need to create controversy so more people will visit their sites. It also explains why these same journalists are on the attack against Streamers and Youtubers because these are the people pulling their readers away, their competition. Mark said these magazines are trading short term gains for integrity, which is starting to catch up with them. His suggestion for any real journalists left was to give up gaming reviews and start self-publishing books, because that seems to be a rising and successful business if you are a quality writer.

Yes and, circularly, the "political correctness you talk about" is the one you talk about. You don't broaden your awareness to its multiplicity, so it feels like a simple homogeneous collective idea to you. You're in for some confusing moments, when your anti-pc army will fail to rise like one man for this or that alleged "p.c. abuse".

Keep believing in your mini-chessboard and its two or three coloured pawns, if it reflects your experience. In reality many more different sensitivities coexist, rooted differently, even when they communicate through the misleading poverty of trendy buzzwords.

Was this stream recorded? If yes, can you post a link?

The Mod agreed with me, asked the forum to follow suit with the point I was making, and I got low rated. XD

Sorry Chandra. If I were you I'd get the hell out of here and save yourself. Get down to the Bahamas, and drown yourself in a bottle of really really nice spiced rum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT3zMvTdTrs&feature=youtu.be

Most of it is about the current state of Blizzard and what things were like when he was there and how he thinks its going with Activision now.

I need to grab some sleep so quickly...vg247 was one partner. I don't know if the relationship was patched up or precisely how important it was/is, but that's the sort of thing I'm getting at. I have to assume that it is of some importance to CDPR because they've undertaken damage control that has itself caused further difficulties.

Seriously, do you not know how surveys work?

7% = ok with political correctness
80% = don't like political correctness
13% = no opinion either way

You can't just subtract one side from the other and never actually look at the study or the argument of the guy who posted it who clearly said that 80% said they didn't like political correctness.

I also notice that you have no capability to process nuance. Just because 80% of people say they don't like political correctness it doesn't mean they are for no holds barred rudeness, it just means they find it distasteful to some degree. That 80% figure will swing wildly to the lower end once you start giving specific examples of things that may by offensive.

The other thing I notice is that you're very unwilling to tackle the idea that the study, that you obviously didn't read, is not really a very well done study and that the 80% figure they present in it very well may be wrong.

And? How does that prove that there more than 7% of US citizens will be offended by Postal 2 or GamerGate reference?

It doesn't prove it. No more than the study proves your point. I was pointing out you're using a flawed study in a flawed way to prove a flawed point. I wasn't trying to prove anything beyond the fact that you're using a study (a flawed study) to make a point that isn't actually related to the study.

You can't correlate the study to how many people will find Postal offensive because there is no correlation, What you're saying amounts to the same thing as saying, "I know a guy who ate Skittles and got cancer, ergo Skittles cause cancer." There is no direct correlation between the two things you're talking about.

You mean that there iis no connection between a game that ins against Political Correctness and people's attitude towards Political Correctness?

Yes. There is no direct correlation that speaks to the mass appeal of a video game as it pertains to the games content and how many people are strictly politically correct according to a flawed study.

I feel like you're deliberately playing dumb here. Because this really is a simple logic problem. I'll break it down for you in the simplest terms possible:

1. The study is likely flawed and the number provided is likely wrong.
2. Even if someone says they are against political correctness it doesn't mean they are incapable of being offended by something.
3. Even if someone says they are strictly politically correct it doesn't mean they are incapable of understanding a joke.
4. There is a difference between "being against political correctness" and trying to be edgy. The game isn't railing against political correctness.
5. There are other variables in people's decision making when it comes to whether they will purchase a game or if they like a game.
6. And I can't stress this enough, because you live in a world of only black and white apparently. A persons general stance on political correctness is not directly correlated to whether on not they will enjoy a given piece of media, people are complex things that are capable of thinking and feeling multiple things at the same time. At least most of us are.

Ok. Now I'll break down some of your misconceptions:

1. Political Correctness is not about undrerstanding or not understanding a joke. And not about being or not being offended. It's about offense being a punishable crime. If you think that a joke or critisizm towards some group of people shouldn't be allowed simply because it is directed to that specific group of people, and the same joke towards other group of people is fine - than you are for Political Correctness.

If you think that all groups of people should be treated equally, for example if it is ok to kill white straight men in the game, it is ok to kill black queer women in the game too - you are not for Political Correctness. And Postal 2 does exactly that. If you think that Postal jokes are tastless and offensive - that's fine, as long as you don't consider that to be a reason for the game to be removed from the store, or denying it promotion on Tweeter. Only people who are pro-PC will go and protest against the game or derived material (like screenshot with the grave for Gaming Journalism).

2. Yes, different people have differeent tastes. And those tastes go beyond their political stance. But again, as I've said in #1 only "social activists", who according to the study constitute no more than 7% of Americans, will rail against the game if it has offensive jokes. That doesn't mean that all 7% will be offended, or that there will no be someone offended among other 93%, but only "social activists" if offended will make that a reason for protest.

3. Yes, the study itself maybe flawed. But you don't have any other study that disproves notion that less than 7% Americans are pro-PC. Thus your claim (or rather richlind33's claim) that Postal 2 ad on twitter will offend more people than appeal to is totally unfounded.

Again if study linked by PanzerFranzz doesn't prove that less than 7% of Americans will be against Postal 2 ad on tweeter, that is not automatic proof that Postal 2 ad on tweeter wouldn't be effective.