Civ6 Gender Biased?

[nzcamel]

Tags are for search terms, not for debate.

C'mon folks, we're better than this.

That is a cop out Gorbles. "Not for chicks" is a very strong indicator of how the OP feels; and shows that she feels the whole female gender is on the same page.

Maybe moving forward with expansion packs, there might be different ways to interact with barbarians. Maybe for some cost to the player, you could develop different levels of interaction with a barbarian camp. Something like the following:

STEP 1: MERCY AND BEFRIENDING: If you attack and reduce a barbarian inside an encampment into red health, you have the option of befriending instead of taking the encampment and money. You pay the barb encampment X gold, and then the unit inside disappears (it's off healing at your nearest city.) It's then your responsibility to defend that encampment from other barbarians and civs for X turns. After X turns have passed, the barbarian that was healing in your city has to make it back to the encampment without being captured (it functions as a civilian at this point.) If it makes it back and the encampment is still there, you move on to step 2. (If it fails or you fail to defend, you lose the gold investment.)

STEP 2: PEACE, DEVELOPMENT, AND MERCENARY: During this stage, the barbarians will not attack you. You can pay them to send a scout in a direction and attack whatever they find there (that isn't your property.) You can pay them more to send a scout in a direction and only attack a certain target civ or city state or barbarians. You can also purchase units at the barb encampment under their control (to protect your investment and increase the mercenary output.) You can also send trade routes (for no personal yield gains) to the encampment. Once you have invested X amount of gold into the barb encampment and have sent X amount of food and hammers to the encampment via trade routes, you move to step 3.

STEP 3: MERCENARY OUTPOST: the barb encampment appears as just that to other players, but to you it's under a (insert color that isn't already in use) banner. You can continue to pay the encampment to send raids at reduced costs. Anything that they pillage is theirs (except if you're playing as a new civ, maybe Alexander, who receives pillage yields and can steal great works via mercenary raids.) You can also pay for walls and other fortifications at the barb camp, and once you do so, your units can heal at the camp as if within one of your cities. Once you have invested X gold into mercenary projects and have sent X food and hammers via trade route, you have the option of paying X gold to move on to step 4.

STEP 4: CAPITULATION: The barb camp becomes one of your cities.

BTW, let's try to keep this thread more creative and less judgemental and finger-pointing.

I like your ideas re barbs; but I suspect that allowing them may give leading players or civs in a game another leg up over the competition. Barbarians exist to maintain pressure, where there otherwise wouldn't be any.

I also miss the passive-aggressive, "war without being at war" element that had been in previous civ games, I think it was Civ3 that had a pirate naval unit you could build that flew under a pirate flag and you could mess with people that you were at peace with. Sure, spies can do that to a degree, but it's too little to late, I want to be able to mess with someone without being at war with them and it seems that alternate barb interactions would be a good way to go.

I haven't used them, because my games haven't played out this way; but do Privateers give you any flexibility along these lines?

 

[ShakaKhan]

I like your ideas re barbs; but I suspect that allowing them may give leading players or civs in a game another leg up over the competition. Barbarians exist to maintain pressure, where there otherwise wouldn't be any

Maybe and maybe not. True the leading civ probably has the most cities and therefore the most commercial hubs and strongest economy, but the fact that it has the most cities also means that it would (or would like to) invest considerably more in both infrastructure for their cities and would need more military to defend their assets. If they have a tech lead, that also means that there is more "stuff" that they need, or at least would like to have. A civ that is smaller and possibly behind a little may have less resources to spread around, but also has significantly less "+1 stuff" that they'd be able to invest in. Additionally, it's not really a 1 vs. 1 basis; the civ that is in the lead will be targeted by everyone else (or at least they should; the AI intensifies their relations with you if you start to pull ahead of them, they should, then, intensify their relations with other AIs for the same reason...) so everyone else will attempt to slow down the leader. You may be right, but I think this mechanic would serve more as leveling the playing field.

I haven't used them, because my games haven't played out this way; but do Privateers give you any flexibility along these lines?

Honestly don't know for sure. Play mostly pangaea, haven't invested in naval strategy too much. But from the reading, privateers and coastal raids are invisible to opponents until it's too late, but they still fly under you country's banner, so according to the rules as I understand them, you wouldn't be allowed to do this to a player that you're at peace with. But as I said, never tried it. someone else will have to confirm/refute.

 

[Gorbles]

That is a cop out Gorbles. "Not for chicks" is a very strong indicator of how the OP feels; and shows that she feels the whole female gender is on the same page.

I'm not required to follow every debate til the ends of the earth, particularly when the participants have quite obviously made up their minds on a topic.

"not for chicks" is indeed how the OP feels. It has no relation to the entire female gender and / or the OP's opinions on it, because that's a gross generalisation on your behalf.

Even so, responding with an ad hominem generalization to another ad hominem generalization is a response in kind. OP and the post you quoted (along with the cooking one) all freely committed this fallacy, and I'm not willing to give such generalization the time of day. It doesn't deserve it.

Rather, in a game that abstracts mechanics around a historical theme, I question how one could place avoidance of war as a "rational" anticipation. The vast majority of civs in the game, if not all of them, made or preserved their existence through war. That is reality independent of social construct surrounding the creation of this game. In a game that models these civs, even poorly and within bounds of a video game rather than pure historical representation, anticipating war *is* the rational conclusion, and so is using it.

Assigning gender bias to this is click-bait levels of red herring, akin to claiming chess is gender-biased towards women because you don't have war/violence or gender-biased towards men because you capture pieces. The irony here is that someone making a similar claim about civ goes on to make a generalization about rationality .

There are sound arguments to be made that barbs are a poor implementation in this game, including strict gameplay ones (especially their influence on opening build decisions --> overwhelmingly pushing incentive to doing the same openings each game). However OP hasn't made these arguments, or any about why besides personal preference war should not be a central theme in the game. There are indeed other titles where war is outside the scope, both within and beyond the strategy genre.

The fallacy fallacy rears its ugly head. The existence of such does not invalidate the point being made (which is why I try not to raise "ad hominem" unless I'm feeling particularly narky or trying to prove hypocrisy) - on either side.

You make good points about the rational anticipation of war, and without the whole gender bias thing it would be a solid point. But gender bias is inherent in both historical study and the analysis of why we, as a race, frequently have gone to war with ourselves. Not to mention it's highly-romanticised in literature (without getting sidetracked on a classist tangent wrt. schooling, the prominence of literature, etc, through the ages).

Chess is abstract; a game of pure tactics. Civilisation is a game with nuclear weapons, the newest entry of which being decried for being "cartoony" and "not realistic enough". The depiction is, naturally, important.

That said, this is far, far from what I was originally debating. People were attempting to pick the OP apart solely based on the notion of gender, and not the validity of the thoughts themselves. Combine this with a male-dominated demographic (web forums in general are, and without exception every single one I've been on, has been) and considering the general ideological leanings of the site's populace, and you have a very unwelcoming set of attitudes for such a topic.

Which is weird, because we have twenty page debates once a week on the endless SOD / MUPT debate. The pushback to this specific topic focus, from me as an observer, points to something that lies along ideological lines instead of actual CivFanatic lines. Which is why I decided to post, in a nutshell, and as usual on these kinds of topics I'm now regretting it

 

[Ryika]

Combine this with a male-dominated demographic (web forums in general are, and without exception every single one I've been on, has been)

Forums are not male-dominated, it is just that females and all other genders that are not male have to hide behind a male identity so they're not constantly being harassed and violently argued against by male misogynists. People could be killed - or worse! - if they show that they're not male and the people from a certain imageboard find out their information.

That said, this is far, far from what I was originally debating. People were attempting to pick the OP apart solely based on the notion of gender, and not the validity of the thoughts themselves.

(I'll just keep pretending the OP was serious about their post.)

And rightfully so. Gender has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and by making it about gender instead of making it an option about peaceful options vs. military options, the OP has dug their own grave. Stereotyping two whole genders is not how you start a discussion about game mechanics. It's on the same level of saying that this game is not for black people because there is no Ghetto-District. (Which btw would be hilarious trolling, but probably quickly closed by the mods.)

Which is weird, because we have twenty page debates once a week on the endless SOD / MUPT debate. The pushback to this specific topic focus, from me as an observer, points to something that lies along ideological lines instead of actual CivFanatic lines.

It's most certainly ideological, but not the way you think about it. OPs post came from the perspective of a gender ideologue, and the people who responded did so in the way most people would respond when confronted with bigoted comments, by reacting to the bigotry on display, not the context that's built around it. You don't have to be an ideologue to be appalled and disgusted by a post that contains such obvious stereotyping of females and males alike.

 

[Felis Renidens]

In a sense, I think that you could make a case that there are 2 sets of aboriginals in this game: Barbarians and City States.

To create a "harmonious approach to working with aboriginals" I would highly recommend turning off barbarians while also increasing the # of city states in the game, to compensate for the area of land that would normally be inhabited by the now missing barbarians.

Although barbarians have gotten tougher in Civ 6. The fact that they are always hostile is not a change from Civ 5 to Civ 6 (which the OP has played "for a couple of years").

Well, CivBE had Stations (limited CS) and Aliens (barbarians that are not automatically hostile).
Colonization had the natives that were something different.
In a way Civ6 Barbs are more scary but not hostile until they scout you or you get near their base.
To make them a bit more "peaceful" the scout can ask for a "gift" when he spots your city, a small one at first but getting larger every time. If you pay he will go scout someone else. If you get on their lands they'll start spawning to drive you out and if successful will send a raiding party to "punish" you.
In a more advanced version you may be able to speak with the chief in some way to demand tribute, ask\demand them to leave you alone, bribe them to attack a neighbor, buy some mercenaries or ransom captured civilians. But that will make City States look tame.
Perhaps (in spirit of what @ShakaKhan suggested) having a pacified camp near you for quite some time (if you just pay them to not attack you and your allies and nobody trespasses their territory) will make them become a city or a settler under your control or if they are left alone they'll become a neutral city that can be conquered (like in civ4) or bought or maybe brought under your influence (becoming yours) if you trade with them (assuming they will not attack traders going to them it's like trading with any foreign city). Gain influence for each trader you send, for gifts given and for converting them to your religion, once you reach a certain amount the barb city is yours).
That's a different game than CS which give special bonuses.
Those are just ideas. In this way they are still a menace (even if by constant demand for "gifts") but you may get an extra city if you are patient enough. Also you can avoid the early horse raid by paying some gold, and destroy them later.

 

[Ryika]

To make them a bit more "peaceful" the scout can ask for a "gift" when he spots your city, a small one at first but getting larger every time. If you pay he will go scout someone else. If you get on their lands they'll start spawning to drive you out and if successful will send a raiding party to "punish" you.

The problem with that is that it goes directly against what Barbarians are designed to do - force you to have some units ready, and restrict how quickly you can expand.

Beyond Earth's Aliens are the perfect example for why that's a good thing, because they did not at all fill that role due to not being hostile by default. Thus, and because being in negative health gave you mild penalties, ideal strategies revolved around mass-expansion while ignoring Military for as long as you can get away with.

Of course that doesn't mean that Barbarians can't be changed, and that you can't reenvision their role in the game, but it's not as simple as just adding more options for the barbarians, because that will completely change how the early game is played. You would have to add more mechanics (or repurpose/strengthen other mechanics) that slow you down if mass expansion into snowballing out of control (again, that's Beyond Earth in a nutshell when you play efficient strategies) is not what you want your game to be.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Really? I remember BE Aliens usually destroying unescorted settlers. But then, it's not that I invest too much in military in my Civ games. . An aggressive civ nearby can make me want a few more units. In BE the other factions were usually not aggressive (at least in my difficulty).

But sure, it will have to be balanced. Or maybe more aggressive (and demand more money) on higher difficulty levels so that you'll probably need to destroy them anyway. On lower difficulties they don't restrict expansion anyway and don't require many units to deal with.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, Aliens destroy unescorted Civilian Units, but they don't attack Military Units that escort Civilian Units, unless provoked. So what you do is just use 1 Soldier to escort your Settlers one after the other.

 

[Gorbles]

Forums are not male-dominated, it is just that females and all other genders that are not male have to hide behind a male identity so they're not constantly being harassed and violently argued against by male misogynists. People could be killed - or worse! - if they show that they're not male and the people from a certain imageboard find out their information.

You're trying too hard, Ryika.

If you can't prove that people who present as a man aren't in fact, men, then you've got nothing. But it's nice to see you believing in and supporting the protections of women being harassed online

 

[Felis Renidens]

As long as your path does not go near any nests. Any way, barbarians don't need to be exactly the same and there can be other incentives (like aggressive civs that will want to capture a poorly defended settler and use it to further their expansion). AI probably should be tuned to attack city centers more often and more effectively rather than just laying a long siege.

 

[Ryika]

You're trying too hard, Ryika.

With what exactly? It's an argument people have made. I agree that thinking that showing the female tag already puts ones life at risk is silly, but I've chatted and argued with people who thought like that more than once.

And it's not too hard to understand how it happens - if you have a history of mental problems and spend your days in communities that reinforce your fears and anxieties, developing paranoid personality disorder is a real danger.

So of course you get people who actually argue like that in good faith, and think that they put themselves into immediate danger.

If you can't prove that people who present as a man aren't in fact, men, then you've got nothing. But it's nice to see you believing in and supporting the protections of women being harassed online

Well, I know at least one person who does present as male while being female. That's anecdotal of course, but it shows that the logic of "says is male, so they're male!" is not without flaws.

Your claim however was that all online forums you've been in are male dominated, which you simply cannot prove, because at least on this site most people don't actually show their gender. Of the people who show their gender, more are male, but this could indeed be because females expect more negative experiences from showing their gender than males, or for any other reason.

Not that I really disagree with your conclusion, I think as an assumption it's perfectly valid and likely to be right.
But you made a definite claim about something you simply can't know.

But it's nice to see you believing in and supporting the protections of women being harassed online

Of course I do, I believe everybody should be protected from being harassed online, especially from harassment that is about who they are, and not what they have said or done.

To the extend that it's reasonable of course - I will never agree with the people who argue that expressing disagreement with a person is harassment.

 

[Gorbles]

This is why I said you need to try harder. A pedantic dispute over the qualification of "male-dominated" (which is still true, excepting the cases where women are the primary target) which you first used this hypothetical majority of women pretending to be men online to avoid harassment (remembering the context being web forums, specifically this one, but qualified by myself as "all I have visited personally" - including this one).

So now you said "I know at least one person". I have no doubt you do.

But "at least one person" does not tip the male majority on this forum and others to being the other way around, sorry. You have fun with this tangent, including the disturbing caveat of classifying harassment you agree with as simple "disagreement" (the joke there is the line that separates simple disagreement and actual harassment is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. yourself). Peace out.

 

[Abraxis]

With what exactly? It's an argument people have made. I agree that thinking that showing the female tag already puts ones life at risk is silly, but I've chatted and argued with people who thought like that more than once.

And it's not too hard to understand how it happens - if you have a history of mental problems and spend your days in communities that reinforce your fears and anxieties, developing paranoid personality disorder is a real danger.

So of course you get people who actually argue like that in good faith, and think that they put themselves into immediate danger.

I can very much confirm from first hand experience that there are some very screwed up people, not just "out there", but everywhere.
It's easy to think concerns like this are absurd, having never been exposed to it. Pedophiles, murderers, sadists, brutal savages... they're all just monsters to you until you actually get around and start meeting them. People whos only joy comes from isolating vulnerable people and taking every sort of advantage you could imagine, and some that hopefully you cannot -seriously sick stuff.
After you've seen it exposed, you realize it's not so rare as you'd thought. The way their disposition changes when they find out you're traveling alone. Not to concern -though they'll feign that, and not knowing any better that's all you'd see -though maybe you'd think there's something off about it. Once you do know what to look for, you see that thing that seemed a little off, rather as something more like hunger. The hint of something primitive, brutal, and desperate struggling beneath the thin veneer of civility. Sensing the chance to act freely and without consequence.

It's easy to sit in the comfort of your home, probably in the safety of suburbia, socialize here on a heavily moderated forum, and assume everyone is as reasonable as you are. That just isn't the case, not by a long shot. You don't understand how these people blend in to these environments. If there are rules, they're just hiding behind them, using justice as an excuse to abuse. Using political correctness as an excuse to harass. Using rationality to get away with insulting and disrespecting others. Using morality to shame and dominate. It works because there are so many genuinely naive or good natured people behaving this way as well, only they do so without seeing the damage they're causing.

How you aught to behave accordingly is simple. Stop asking yourself "Am I right in doing this", and instead focus on what will happen if you do this. Was OP's post absurd? Honestly, yeah, it was. I doubt she's coming back so hopefully there's no harm in saying so now. -My inclination was to ignore it, and so should have been all of yours, unless you wanted to contribute positively to her discussion. She put herself out there in a very compromising way. Any sensible person saw it, you didn't need to point it out.

Instead everyone jumped down her throat. Whether justified or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is, even if you were all perfectly pure in your intentions, that behaviour creates an environment where anyone of more devious intentions can come in and unleash -hidden nice and snug among everyone else not realizing what they're doing. Not realizing the environment they're creating, and the people it attracts.

Ultimately, and as some of us would have considered inevitably, this behaviour resulted in her being ostracized from the forum instead of feeling welcomed. Maybe her outlook was different from yours, maybe there was something wrong with her mentally, or maybe she just comes from some place with very different ideas. Ultimately, she just came here to talk about a game she liked and share that with others. If you disagreed with her, or people like her in the future, ignore them. Or humor them and be nice, focus instead on what you do have in common. There is nothing but your own pride telling you you need to tell them how they're wrong, either that, or something much more sinister.

 

[Ryika]

But "at least one person" does not tip the male majority on this forum and others to being the other way around, sorry.

I have never asserted nor claimed that it is the other way around, I have simply disputed your claim that you can know with certainty that these forums are male-dominated. They probably are, given that this game is about a strategy game, but there is no prove for this, and you have not even attempted to provide proof, you simply claimed it to be true without proof.

You have fun with this tangent, including the disturbing caveat of classifying harassment you agree with as simple "disagreement" (the joke there is the line that separates simple disagreement and actual harassment is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. yourself)

If you read carefully what I wrote, you'll see that I am very much aware of the subjectivity of my stance, and it is for that very reason that I wrote "I will never agree that...", instead of asserting that "Disagreement is not harassment!"

And yeah, I even agree that the line between disagreement and harassment can be blurry, and in heated dialog, many things we write are often a bit of both. That does however not change anything about my opinion that disagreement in itself is not harassment. "I disagree with what you wrote." is just that, a statement of disagreement. If a person cannot handle people disagreeing with them in such a way, then in my opinion it is them who should either avoid public discourse, or work on themselves to get a basic tolerance towards disagreement, because we cannot become better, and ideas cannot spread if we are unable to disagree with other people without having a heart attack as a result.

 

[Ryika]

If you disagreed with her, or people like her in the future, ignore them. Or humor them and be nice. There is nothing but your own pride telling you you need to tell them they're wrong, either that, or something much more sinister.

That's not what a forum is for though, forums are for discussions. Ignoring people who have different opinion from me goes against the very idea of a forum, and I don't see why I should have to hold back on an argument that is critical of an opinion that was uttered just because it could be uncomfortable for the other person to know that there are people who disagree with them.

Uttering polite disagreement - and the comments were polite for the most part, as far as I can see nobody "told her that she's wrong", they pointed out inconsistencies they found in her posts - is the very basis of a meaningful discussion, and meaningful discussions are required for us to make progress and improve, both as individuals, as well as for society as a whole.

If the OP felt ostracized by the people who disagreed with her, then well, tough luck. You have to be able to face some criticism to be part of a community, and if you can't stand that, then it is not on the community to change for you. All she had to do is abandon this thread, maybe ask the moderators to close it, and then reformulate their thoughts about the game without needlessly bringing gender into the discussion in a new thread.

If that's too much to ask... well sorry, but then you're probably better off not being part of a public forum with diverse opinions anyway, because you'll constantly run into disagreement.

 

[Abraxis]

You'd be right, If you think those first pages were filled with polite and welcoming discourse. If you really think that's the case then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But there is no disagreeing with the results. Not just her leaving, but this thread in general.

 

[Ryika]

You'd be right, If you think those first pages were filled with polite and welcoming discourse. If you really think that's the case then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But there is no disagreeing with the results.

No, I'm not saying that the first pages were filled with polite and welcoming discourse, I'm saying that nobody was overly rude towards the OP. People were certainly going at each other, as evidenced by the infractions that were issued, but I don't see anything particularly rude towards the OP.

If you still disagree with me, then instead of just agreeing to disagree, I would prefer if you pointed me to the posts that you see as overly impolite towards the OP. Because it may very well be that I'm just missing or misinterpreting a post, and that we don't actually disagree.

 

[Abraxis]

I'm not picking people out for criticism. As a general statement, she came here to talk about a videogame, not to have her fundamental beliefs ripped apart. I have never been anywhere where that was acceptable behaviour when meeting a stranger.

 

[Ryika]

I'm not picking people out for criticism. As a general statement, she came here to talk about a videogame, not to have her fundamental beliefs ripped apart. I have never been anywhere where that was acceptable behaviour when meeting a stranger.

In my opinion, if somebody comes to talk about a video game and does not want to have their fundamental beliefs challenged, then it is their own responsibility to make sure that what they write actually focuses on the topic they want to discuss, and their fundamental beliefs should have no part in it.

This would have been very easy here, as only the headline and the tag really reek of those fundamental beliefs, while the post itself is written in a way that would have avoided the offtopic part of the discussion. But the OP apparently couldn't help it, and so in my opinion people don't have the responsibility to hold back more than the OP. I agree that it would be nice if people ignored it, but in my opinion, expecting people to be considerate of what the OP is here for while not holding the OP to the same standard - she should not have brought those "fundamental beliefs" into the discussion in the first place - is unreasonable.

So we will indeed have to agree to disagree here.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You make good points about the rational anticipation of war, and without the whole gender bias thing it would be a solid point. But gender bias is inherent in both historical study and the analysis of why we, as a race, frequently have gone to war with ourselves. Not to mention it's highly-romanticised in literature (without getting sidetracked on a classist tangent wrt. schooling, the prominence of literature, etc, through the ages).

At the meta level, removing a bias that was demonstrably present in the setting you're modeling is strange, even if that bias exists. You're not going to get away from war in a game using history as a model.

That said, this is far, far from what I was originally debating. People were attempting to pick the OP apart solely based on the notion of gender, and not the validity of the thoughts themselves. Combine this with a male-dominated demographic (web forums in general are, and without exception every single one I've been on, has been) and considering the general ideological leanings of the site's populace, and you have a very unwelcoming set of attitudes for such a topic.

Most of the responses reacted to what were themselves biased assertions coupled with self-inconsistency. If OP wanted a bona-fide discussion on gender and its influence on the civ series as a whole, that's probably better suited to off topic. Even if it isn't, demonstrating poor knowledge of the game in tandem with the assumptions/expectations made is not going to connect well with the audience. Specifically, disingenuously shoehorning gender into barbs/war in civ is nonsense. The complaint itself wasn't rational.

Such posts tend to be ill-received regardless of who makes them or the topic at hand. This reaction is not out of the norm for irrational rant threads, and you can see equally civil examples in response to other irrational rant threads in this very forum .

Using rationality to get away with insulting and disrespecting others.

I question this one. What you are referencing is not "rationality". Maybe rationalization. To insult/disrespect from a rational perspective would require atypical criteria, probably major crime by the target or something beyond the scope of forum posts. Even then I doubt the utility.

Instead everyone jumped down her throat. Whether justified or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is, even if you were all perfectly pure in your intentions, that behaviour creates an environment where anyone of more devious intentions can come in and unleash -hidden nice and snug among everyone else not realizing what they're doing. Not realizing the environment they're creating, and the people it attracts.

What are your anticipated consequences of shifting policy in a way that blocks what you describe?

By the way, whether responses questioning logic are "justified" or not is *not* irrelevant. If you are not willing to concede that, you wind up in tortured logic land where even the people who resort to insults from a veiled position can make the same case you're making for OP. At the end of the day, you want a viable framework. Saying irrational things *should* get you a different response than making a consistent, measured argument that is consistent with your perception of the current state.

Any "safe" environment where that ceases to be true is more dangerous than anything we can post here.

I'm not picking people out for criticism. As a general statement, she came here to talk about a videogame, not to have her fundamental beliefs ripped apart. I have never been anywhere where that was acceptable behaviour when meeting a stranger.

I'd rather not assume motivations. If there WERE any "fundamental beliefs" that were questioned in the first 10 posts, what were they? Were they supported by evidence?

Not everyone subscribes to what you perceive as "acceptable behavior". Maybe others are uncomfortable with the notion that non-insulting belief frameworks that make someone uncomfortable should be suppressed, particularly when this protection is selective and inconsistent.

If someone claims x because y and it isn't true, then no matter how fundamental the belief in x because y, it still isn't true. I see no reason to privilege or assign extra consideration unless there's evidence to support it. It's not reasonable to trace blame on basic responses to irrational assertions to people who are willing to commit crimes/target others/make people fear.