It did not turn into white supremacy, i used white supremacy as a counter example to your example, thats all.

That was exactly what bothered me, because it implies the fact that if some group is known to make trouble like doxing and whatever, people should leave them alone?
Somehow that doesnt seem right, because it empowers the strategy of trouble-making, and if someone challenges the trouble makers, its their own fault if said trouble makers come after them...do we still live in a civilised society here?

With the particular case of a game store i agree, but still, in a civilised society, trouble makers do face consequences, instead of the victims of said trouble makers being called guilty for not knowing any better than to upset the trouble makers, even unwillingly

I probably should have been more specific, 'hate speech' as it is being used today is not following any standard definition. My first real experience with people calling out hate speech was after seeing that video with jordan peterson and cathy newman, and seeing all the good points that jordan peterson was making, I then saw a video of a bunch of lunatics almost violently protesting against him speaking his 'hate speech' at a university. I watched his speech there, nothing he said was even remotely hateful, he wasn't saying anything that falls under the definition you posted.

Every other time I've seen hate speech called out, it has nothing to do with that definition of hate speech. That's even without going into the reality that people can be offended by literally anything, so defining what 'hate speech' is based on some subjective individual interpretation is a huge problem.

The end goal is just my personal experience, what I have discovered over the last year talking to people who are hardcore on political correctness. It might not apply at large, but increasingly I'm finding that's not the case.
Just as an aside, isn't it interesting how games journalists are able to post articles about how white men are a problem in gaming, and it's not considered hate speech? People are selectively applying hate speech to things they don't like, otherwise we would have the same sorts of mobs demanding those writers get fired from their jobs for hate speech.

haha - I only mentioned WS because that's what PanzerFranzz used when he quoted me. So yeah, let's assume that instead of WS it's just any generic group that decides to make these things personal, regardless of focus or ideology or whatever. I'm over here thinking, "White Supremacy?!? I could have sworn we were talking about a store." : )

But anyway, in this thread I've always been thinking in the context of the store, because that's the entity at the heart of the matter in this instance. If someone wants to go do this on their own, then he or she should feel free to have a go at it (but - again - don't be surprised when the harassment comes). But when a store does it, there is more than just that one person facing the results.

So I'm not saying that the groups doing these harassment campaigns should get a pass, but I firmly believe it's a bad idea for a store to get involved.

The white supremacy is just one example of the current exaggeration of outrage culture. If one says they dislike illegal immigration, it's turned into hatred because of race and you become alt-right, Nazi white supremacists.

You use a meme that derived from people who actually used the phrase. They'd take offense at being mis-pronouned and call people out by saying it. Even when people pointed out that this can be silly in the Internet when noone knows anyone else's gender and all they did was use the neutral pronoun "he", they'd persist. So the "meme" developed to mock the people who crudely overuse the phrase. But now that phrase is considered "transphobic" by them while they ignore the real point.

A gif critical of "games journalists" trashing people buying games. And let's face it, there is a new article every week from these trash magazines, calling gamers names even though these people are supposedly their customer base to read their reviews. The latest flak being how Ubisoft shouldn't have caved and left their games censored for all because the Chinese government demanded changes in China which followed how "entitled" gamers are for being upset over the fact that Blizzard's featured announcement was a mobile game. Any criticism of these journalists and their obvious clickbait propaganda makes one a Gamergater and through a stupid stretch of logic makes one again an alt-right transphobic Nazi white supremacist again. Just like PC Master Race was "problematic" because "Master Race".

And now tweeting something unrelated on a hashtag, is now a direct offense and is the same as transphobia and transmisogyny too.

You can say a company "shouldn't get involved, but what I've been saying all along, it's unavoidable. No matter what happens, this outrage mob strikes. The only path to mild success to taming them seems to be unapologetic. It's all playground stuff. You have bullies stealing other kids lunch money. The successful children are those who stand up for themselves which makes the bullies go away to a weaker target. Apologizing and acting scared just empowers the bullies where not only is someone losing their lunch money daily but are then forced to do their homework for them too.

That is what GoG wrought for themselves as they've continually caved. They tried apologizing, how did that work out for them with PC Master Race? Did it seem as if they were buying themselves some relief? Sure doesn't look like it as these offendatrons are looking for more to complain about, not less. They even sent Konrad to ResetEra to talk to them, which helped not a wit. And as a result there has been more outrage, not less. It's not PR problems, except as it relates to a failure to understand mob psychology. If a company gives these people an inch, they soon demand a mile. And I believe that firing Linko made the overall situation far worse and not better. It was not his problem, it's been CDPR/GoG's failure on an upper management level.

If CDPR/GoG wants to keep losing their lunch money, there is no helping them. The mob will keep asking for more and more. If you spy on these groups, they are ready to riot when Cyberpunk 2077 doesn't cater to more than 2 sexes. Now, I want you to explain to me how that is even possible or feasible in a game that is seemingly fully voice acting playable male and female characters in about 20 different languages already...that's 40 different voice clips 20*2. Do the math for supporting the sex/gender rainbow in a videogame of this type...

You don't consider the present science to be science because it frankly refuses to confirm your, apologies, quasi-religious preconceptions, that's why you can tell yourself you wouldn't suppress scientific discovery on campus when in fact that's what you're absolutely calling for. And I didn't just say "scientific ideas", I also said "humanist". That's literally your rationalism with a bit of atheism and philantrophy on top. These are the supposedly "harmful ideas" you intended to ban from campus in above post. And nothing, nothing in there is "hateful". Nothing in there infringes on your rights. It just recognizes that trans people exist. It just calls for actual civility in our dealings with the group.

You're calling people according to the social role they assume, that's an issue of nomenclature, of politeness and, if you wish, an issue of civility. It's not an issue of truth, and certainly not an issue of biology. You're definitely calling adoptive parents the "parents" of a child, and they are, because they have adopted that social role, even though going by strict biology – the very definition of the word "parent" – it's a complete load of hogwash to call them that, wishful thinking on their part, delusion, the works. It's the very same with trans people. They can not change their biological sex, but they can change their social role (which I won't call "gender" right now because that would muddle the point for you).

You understand that consistently reminding adoptive parents they're not the "real" parents is a purposeful and horrible provocation. I understand that you, at the very least, refrain from purposefully misgendering trans people, that is great, and I don't see why anyone should scold you for accidentally doing so. But you also have to look around and see what great purveyors of the "civil debate" make a point out of consistently misgendering trans people, hence provoking the living shit out of them.

And that's when you've found the reactionary shit gibbons.

I honestly don't know what science you're referring to that refuses to confirm preconceptions. Science itself is just a methodology to determine what's most likely to be true, based on evidence and reason. I don't think we should limit what we can examine through science based on anything, including feelings.

I intentionally left out humanist from my response only because I need more context to determine whether it's appropriate to have 'humanist' ideas on a college campus. If any of those ideas try to circumvent critical thinking or open inquiry, then they probably aren't. The best place to be exposed to and challenge different ideas through critical thinking is at a college or university.

I didn't say those ideas were hateful, I said they cause despair. When I'm not allowed to say that what I'm seeing is there, for example if they show me a pen and I'm required to say that the object is a chair, that causes grief and despair. Though honestly that entire statement I made about despair was obviously satire.

If your argument is simply 'trans people exist', then I absolutely agree with you that they exist. If you try to slip in anything else to that claim in addition to that statement I may not.

No I'm not, I'm calling people according to their physical form. How can I possibly know what someone's assumed social role is? Nor why I would care? There's a necessary distinction between someone's gender/ sex is and what someone's gender role is. They can be a woman and take on more traditionally masculine roles in society. Taking on those roles doesn't mean they're actually male, they're not suddenly unable to physically bear children.

The nazi ideology was/is completely rational, they've just exercised their God given right to think critical about the Jew question, they've openly inquired whether to kill them off, and debated their completely valid stance on the marketplace of ideas (including university campus) in civil discourse with each other, in line with their idea of science, but it's the humanist component you need to determine it's not OK to burn six million people because they're inconvenient to you. Maybe that helps with the decision.

So you nonsensically substituted the word "hate" with "despair" as a kind of spur of the moment euphemism and called that an entirely new argument. Sorry, I'm not playing hide-and-seek with a three year old. You're hiding behind a table leg. I won't pretend I can't see you.

It is definitely important to consider ethical questions along with scientific ones. I didn't know you were using the term humanist to essentially mean philosophy. I agree we should consider philosophy and ethics along with science, especially considering the postmodernism that I've encountered seems to only concern itself with power, no matter how it's attained. That sounds like a form of utilitarianism, those people would be better served by taking philosophy to expose them to other ideas like deontology; instead of the idea of an act being moral based on it helping the most people in utilitarianism, deontology suggests that an action can be right or wrong in itself regardless of the consequences of the action. Murdering people is obviously an immoral act, you can't ever justify it as being a moral or good action. I would say that lying in order to achieve power is also an immoral act, though not on the same scale; you can't achieve a good or moral outcome by using immoral means, the ends don't justify the means. This is another very deep and interesting topic.

I honestly don't think people should need to be taught not to mass murder or assault people. As far as I'm concerned that's a matter of common sense.

I was essentially just using the same strategy and flipping it to show how bad the argument for hate speech was. And you seemed to agree with me once I did that.

I noticed you dropped the conversation about gender. I would just like to point out that in australia now, there are people trying to push into law that sex and gender are the same thing, while keeping the idea that gender is malleable. That's the end result of this push, so I don't accept the redefinition of gender to be fluid. Gender roles are fluid, gender and sex are not.

In any case, I'm suddenly aware just how far off topic I've gone and I'll stop, this probably isn't the place. Sorry, I don't often get a chance to discuss these things, and thank you for discussing them with me Vainamoinen.

Since the terms murder and morality are both artificial constructs derived from societal codes of conduct and belief systems, teaching someone to behave in accordance with these is not unnecessary. While I was following what you were trying to say earlier, I'm having trouble reconciling this statement with the rest of your analysis.

"Common sense" is not far from "common knowledge". Where knowledge denotes factual information, sense denotes behavioral expectation. Both are learned, and if truly "common", then they have been taught to and understood by all members of society. Whether these lessons are observed or rigidly instructed in a formal method, they ARE taught.

And we can't be naive enough to believe that just because a person has been exposed to these common ideals as a child that 1. Full and perfect understanding has been achieved, and 2. Outside influence has not altered the individual's understanding of these ideals since first exposure. Constant education, from behavioral observation or more rigid methods, is needed to reinforce the ideals of a wider society. Ergo, if say not assaulting someone is common sense, then this must be constantly reinforced by society, and this is achieved via education, formal or otherwise.

You're right, I was in error. Though I don't believe some aspects are entirely constructs, I do think most people have some understanding that hurting another person is a bad thing through basic empathy; and only try to wrongly justify it to themselves through some mental gymnastics. Though I can't say for sure whether that's because of how I was raised/ educated, or whether it is actually a standard psychological aspect of humanity. It's sort of a form of the nature vs nurture debate. The truth is I don't really know enough to make any statement about the subject, I haven't thought about it in any depth.

The only way that you'e talking to someone that is confirming some notion that political correctness has the end goal of communism is if you're talking to people who have no clue what they're talking about. And something tells me it's not the "politically correct people" who are confirming this for you.

How you can connect the dots from people being politically correct to something like workers seizing the means of production is beyond me. Again, this is the same thing I've seen from any number of right wing conspiracy outlets where they conflate various conspiracy theories to be part of one large pattern. Usually this requires completely ignoring the facts about everything they are trying to connect.

It's no different than the people who say that nazis are the same thing as socialists because they were "national socialists". Its shows a complete lack of understanding of political theory and history. One that shows that those people are either being wilfully ignorant or have never read a book.

So far as your aside about how it should be hate speech to say something offensive about white people. I agree that if all things were equal that it would be the only fair approach. The problem is that things aren't equal. This is the same argument people make about "white genocide" and having a straight pride flag. The only way you can make the leap to saying that is fair is to be completely wilfully ignorant of history. I know a lot of people rail against the idea of white privilege, but you'd have to be a fool not to recognize that it's a real thing. Of course, privilege is relative, and white men can be less privileged than other races and genders in given circumstances, but the overall privilege of white men in western society is obvious.

Well, you're already later in your post suggesting the same ideas that are important to communism, like equality of outcome. That's where my dots often start, just one dot but there's usually more. The next dot over is likely an opposition to merit.

It's not obvious, it would take a complicated analysis to determine. Let's say as an example if you look at a population and you see a much larger percentage of white men in high positions in companies. If you're suggesting that white men have a majority because of racism and sexism and not some other factors, you have to prove a causal link between them. It's possible that racism and sexism might be part of it, but I'd bet it's a very small part, you would have to look at commitment and hours worked, performance, you could look at personal outlook of the individuals studied, any cultural norms that might explain the difference, etc, etc. Having more white males in those positions might not be any sort of priveledge at all, perhaps those white males are working harder or smarter than their competition. I'm not saying that's the case, just that you can't look at a conclusion and just say that something isn't fair without understanding why they're not fair. Then we can do something about it, once we understand the why. 'White priviledge' is assuming racism is the only reason that minorities haven't achieved more, instead of helping to empower those minorities to achieve, it's teaching them to blame others for their problems. That's not good for anyone, and is likely to keep them in less powerful positions. Success is more about mindset, having an internal locus of control instead of an external one, than anything else. If you think any company that's out for profit wouldn't drop a white man for a minority in a heartbeat if the minority was a better employee and could get them a bunch more money, you're mistaken.

In any case, the path to prosperity doesn't involve tearing people higher than you down, but elevating yourself to be at their level or surpass them. That includes helping any coworkers, bosses, employees, family around you, it's always better to help raise people up than tear them down; yes, even if them achieving their full potential allows them to surpass you. It's a great sense of pride to guide someone to the point where they're able to surpass you and achieve their potential. Even if you succeed in tearing all those white men down from their positions, that doesn't mean everyone else has somehow risen up to their position, it just means that we've all been diminished as a whole. We need the best people, most effective people in the top positions. If you want more minorities in those positions, help teach them to compete to the point where they can take those positions over through skill and merit. It's absolutely possible, they're not inherently disadvantaged because of their race, we're all equal.

Really? So the color of one's skin supposedly leads to a particular outcome? To counter let me suggest you look at how the Asian population stacks up in American society using all the same criteria that people use to prove "white privilege". Look it up, the stats speak for themselves. And as to men, is it really privilege to work more hours per week, work more dangerous jobs and be the subject of about 8 times the workplace injuries of females, die sooner as a population, are now the minority going to and graduating college with a degree, are the vast majority of the homeless, etc.

It's funny what people call "obvious".

What's really happening is that certain interest groups cherry pick statistics in order to present a privilege gap. While ignoring all the other statistics and reasons that might say otherwise. Let me ask you why, all of a sudden, all the privilege talk is focused on certain fields such as videogames and other STEM sciences? Have you wondered why? Maybe it has to do with the fact that statistics aren't so helpful to the cause anymore unless one exceedingly cherry picks.

As the saying goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Getting back to the topic at hand, words and subsequent actions should be judged on their own merit in a color blind way. Additional intent shouldn't be brought into it. This idea that criticism of games journalism is really something else is distraction. That voting a particular way means anything more than preferring that candidate to another. That using a hashtag that was spot on appropriate for advertising classic games means anything more than an edgy attempt at advertising. All these things should be looked at on their specific merits.

This whole idea of "privilege" warranting extra protection and an additional right of hateful criticism is a toxic cancer in today's society. I grew up in a mobile home park, do I get additional "privileges" for that? Where does this stop? Or do people get to keep making up reasons why that are being "oppressed"?

This new trend in society that tries to manufacture offense is the problem. It's people making excuses in a vain attempt to get their way in their activist power struggle using deception.

I am late to this news, but eventually found it through TheQuartering on Youtube. I just dropped in here to say these actions by GOG are cowardly and in poor taste; I will not purchase from you again nor buy any first party CD Projekt video games in the future as long as the status quo is in effect. Corporations being shot-shy from manufactured outrage is a massive social problem and I had thought GOG was a more modern and intelligent company capable of knowing the difference.