PanzerFranzz: No, I am arguing because your opinion is demonstratably a radical fringe position mascarading as mainstream truth. The emperor is naked and it's not pretty.

PanzerFranzz: I'll let the authors of the study refute your point on political correctness for me - short-answer: multi-variable anaylsis was used and your concerns are unfounded:

"How did you define political correctness?

‘Political correctness’ is a complex and subjective phenomenon, with no single definition. As such, we did not provide respondents with a definition but instead our study contained many questions that seek to explore different angles of the subject. These included asking about dynamics of discourse on multiple subject areas: race and racism; sex, gender, and sexuality; immigration; and Islam and Muslims. For each of these subjects, we gauged whether Americans think people have become “too sensitive”. We also measured whether “today in America” people feel “pressure to think a certain way” about each of these subjects, or if instead it was “acceptable” for them to express their views. We further asked Americans whether they experienced pressure in the context of being with “people like me.” Additionally, we asked whether “political correctness is a problem” directly. Finally, we explored these subjects in our in-depth interviews and focus groups. Depending on the framing of the question used, we found that between half and 80% of Americans reported a degree of frustration or self-censorship."

PanzerFranzz: I do not think there is any academic proof that just because a given demographic is 7 percentage of the population that it wil become a majority in the future. Acoording to a morning consult poll (https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015e-0bfa-d354-abfe-abfa67c10000), 7% of white americans express a favorable view of white supremacists, if we apply your logic to that group, we will shortly have a country in the US where about half the country has a positive view of white supremacists.

firstpastthepost: ....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.

devoras: Fundamentally political correctness is used as a strategy to unfairly attack things that someone doesn't agree with. The core value that most of our other freedoms and prosperity is based on in the western world is that an individual's ability to reason things out for themselves is a fundamental right. 'Hateful' speech and ideas are absolutely free to be spoken, unless they stray into a call to action. Trying to deplatform ideas you don't agree with hurts everyone, because without those ideas being critically analyzed they will not be properly dismissed or accepted based on their own merits. That's why free speech has become such a hot issue lately, with some people using the vague made up word 'hate speech' to try and dismiss ideas they don't like without considering them. We need critical thinking, not critical theory. If someone is actually engaging in 'hate speech', that will become clear pretty quickly and most people won't agree with them; the problem comes in when someone else tries to define what 'hate speech' is and prevent me from hearing it based on their opinion. That's a dangerous thing.

In addition, how someone else takes something that I say is not my responsibility, I don't control them; and they don't know what my motivation is. They can say that they were offended and why, but they have no right to force me to change how I think or what I say based on their demands, especially if there was no intent to cause offense. We don't need political correctness, basic professional civility worked great 20 years ago; all this political correctness is increasing societal problems, not decreasing them.

My main contentions with it in regard to gaming, they are trying to tear down the forms of entertainment that I enjoy, particulaly gaming, though thankfully they have had limited success in undermining gaming compared to movies and old tv shows. Instead of creating something new, making their own new entertainment that cater to their demographic, they instead want to destroy the kind of entertainment that I like for some inexplicable reason. You don't see me going through and making remakes of old romantic movies or soap operas that they love and changing them to have more explosions, battles, spaceships, action, and scantily clad women into them, and less romance and drama because there's too much toxic femininity in them and not enough male representation. If they enjoy something different to myself, all power to them, but I expect the same in return.

People are different, they like different things, make different choices, and that's not actually a problem that someone needs to solve. That's a result of people having true freedom. I interpret these attempts to force things into movies, games, all entertainment really, as an attempt to undermine our freedom to choose.

firstpastthepost: Actually I replied with well laid out common sense, and you're replying by saying that it's a "radical fringe position" To say that GoG's response wasn't politically motivated. Are you for real? You're not even trying to make an argument, you're just making stuff up.

PanzerFranzz: No, I am arguing because your opinion is demonstratably a radical fringe position mascarading as mainstream truth. The emperor is naked and it's not pretty.

firstpastthepost: I never said I had academic proof of this. I was simply pointing out an interesting study that points to a potential tipping point.

The point that you make about the number of people suppressing Linko's free speech being smaller than the number of white supremacists is a strange case to try and make. Of course it's smaller, not all radical left wing people would have been aware of the tweets or follow gaming news, so that point is kind of obvious. Even if white supremacists and radical left wing people were equally sized groups in raw numbers your statement would still be true.

That goes without saying that the idea of them suppressing Linko's free speech isn't a real argument either. He isn't afforded a right of free speech when working as an agent of a business. Nor is he or the business afforded a right to free speech on an independently owned media platform.

goral: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/open_letter_to_gog_the_linko90_support_thread/
It seems to me that GOG/CD Projekt executives are giant leftist ****** who give in to smallest pressure by SJWs. WTF is with that? With decisions like these you give me another reason to shop at Steam not here. GOGmixes are gone also because some publishers didn't like many of the lists (like my "Beamdog is the parasite of the industry" which had over 500 votes and which GOG deleted long before the layout change). You don't negotiate with terrorists (i.e. leftists who make demands and blew everything out of proportions).

Obudźcie się zanim będzie za późno. Próba przypodobania się ******** czy innym zoofilom nie sprawi, że wasze akcje skoczą w górę, a stracicie za to lojalnych klientów.

* Moded. Please refrain from excessive usage of swear words.

richlind33: Servile establishmentarians are a "radical fringe", and *you* represent the true mainstream? lol

You know why that's funny, bruh? Because it leaves two possibilities...

1) You've allowed the polarization in the West to reach a level that is likely to culminate in absolute chaos.

2) you've waged a "revolution" that has proven to be completely ineffectual.

But hey, thanks for taking full responsibility for this clusterfuck. ;p

PanzerFranzz: No, I don't represent the mainstream. 80% of people do. And those 80% who would not offended by anything Linko90 said and would think it's unfair that he was fired because of the actions of a radical fringe.

PanzerFranzz: So, I can understand your response that you withdraw your proposal that we should take all ideas with 7% support seriously (as they will soon become mainstream) to be withdrawn? I am glad that we can agree that both white supremacists and radical progressive activists are both fringe radical groups who shouldn't be allowed positions of influence in gaming.

We in the west have valued free speech not just in the law, but in practice, in our culture. Not only should the government make no laws suppressing free speech, but we should live in a society where people are free to speak their mind without losing their job. What's the alternative, are you taking the black-listing of communists in Hollywood as your model? Is that what you are proposing we replace our existing system with, one in which cyber-lynch mobs can ruin people's lives over a passing remark or tweet deemed offensive by a smaller percentage of people than hold a positive view of white supremacists?

I don't want to live in that place, so I'll keep talking.

richlind33: Extreme polarization precludes the possibility of an "80% mainstream", but if we assume for the sake of argument that there is one, do you think it would want to disallow GOG from deciding for itself what is best for it's business?

PanzerFranzz: No, I don't think so. What I concerned with is GOG having all the information possible before making their decisions. If I was some guy sitting in an office in Poland watching a post-modern version of Red Guard's Cultural Revolution taking place in the US, I might start to get the feeling that all people in the states and other parts of Europe actually think that way. All I am doing to providing a lone data point buried in a forum to hopefully remind that guy in that office (that *might* read this) that most of us think the PC fringe is just as "crazy" as he does. And more importantly, they represent a 1/15th of the general population and probably a similar percentage of their customers. Hopefully the next time leftist outrage is manufactured, the guy will have a bit more courage to say "you know what, what about not apologizing? What about just ignoring them? I mean, it's not like we take neo-nazis seriously, why should we take their demographic equivalent on the far left seriously - look at this study... it turns out there are a lot less people who think that way then we thought..." I'm just here to provide the facts to generate a conversation so that they can make an informed decision - Just the facts, ma'am.

firstpastthepost: Cool. I understand now that you’re deliberately mischaracterizing what I say just to be a dick while trying to sound smart. You’ve proven yourself to be full of shit. No point talking to you it seems.

richlind33: Isn't it painfully obvious that we're talking about a minority that is extremely well-funded?