Is Civ 6 PC: A continuation.

DogeEnricoDandolo said:
Well, let them speak! If they don't speak their terrible opinions out loud, we don't have the chance to tell them that they are wrong or should see the world in a different way!
Click to expand...

Also, where have I said anything about not letting them speak?
 
DogeEnricoDandolo said:
Well, let them speak! If they don't speak their terrible opinions out loud, we don't have the chance to tell them that they are wrong or should see the world in a different way! There are a lot of videos online about ex-Klans member or people who were brought up in Westboro Baptist Church who got changed, surprisingly enough, not by the people who yelled labels at them but by the people who let them see a different perspective. There are people who are too far-gone that we can't change them, but there are that we can. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe people have a capability to change for the better. Otherwise, they will just recede to their own echo chamber where everyone shares with one another disgusting world views.
Click to expand...
And how many more of these kinds of folk have caused damage, or some other form of harm? How do you weight this, beyond a hypothetical you're putting forward in a forum thread? Do you even know, or do you simple prefer the hypothetical good over any amount of hypothetical bad?

This is a good example of my post, hah. We've gotten completely away from Civ 6 in favour of individual posters' perception of the (political) catchphrases in question.
 
DogeEnricoDandolo said:
@Guynemer Ok, let's say that is the situation, an employee believing in racial superiority and you fired her. Sure, and what did you achieve there? I'll tell you what you achieved, you were able to move a terrible person from one place to another, instead of her being your employee and your responsibility, you just made her, with her same terrible views/opinions, the responsibility of her future employer. Other employees in your company with the same terrible views now learned that instead of voicing their opinions publicly, they will now have to do it with anonymity. Nothing changes, same number of terrible people in the same society when you go home patting yourself on the back for combating racism successfully. Good job.
Click to expand...

Uh no, you've told a terrible person they need to rethink themselves or they won't be employable everywhere else they go. They aren't any employer's responsibility if they can't keep a job. If their views were at all founded in verifiable fact or not ethically impoverished, perhaps they could make the case that either they are in a sizeable majority of rational people whose truth and good are being silenced, or being oppressed by a small minority of irrationally intolerant employers. But that's not the case, because the employee is wrong to hold that view in the first place, so wrong that most educated and empathetic people would recognize it and even most casual people would intuit why it's probably wrong.

And your employees are no worse off, nor oppressed, nor tyrannized, because they only need fear of promoting terrible, misinformed, misanthropic views at work. Not normal, reasonable opinions that fall within the vast boundaries of common knowledge and decency. Your example is hyperbolic and really only holds water if you think anyone should seriously humor supremacist beliefs, which are almost always on their face ridiculous, ridiculously underthought, and ridiculously abhorrent to a more enlightened society.

Yes, the end result is they go online, and form alt-right movements and elect the worst people to office in a decentralized disestablishmentarian movement. But holding their former employer responsible for things that terrible people will inevitably agglomerate around to validate their disenfranchised bigotry is unfair to the employer and literally everyone else in society trying to do our part in encouraging community and social order.

When I said "When you are criticized, you get a chance to rethink your decision and make a change accordingly," it means if your "criticism" doesn't get followed up by some level of education, or some chances to let people change, that "criticism" doesn't achieve anything.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Doesn't help at all though if instead of listening to reason, we have instead normalized an internet culture which accepts indignation and apologism over introspection and social conscientiousness. It's all clapback and zero self-improvement.

Back to the first comment I made that you quoted, I said people were capable of change if there was enough compassion to allow the change to happen, but people won't change easily, or at all, if they are dealing with people like you, whose knee jerk reaction is "certain consequences/punishments must be dished out" instead of how to change bad world views, but apparently what you could only pick out from that initial comment was "CriTIcisM iS noT CenSoRshIP." If focusing on consequences truly works, the correctional system of America must be 5 stars. The same people you silence today without any effort into changing them are the same people going into the voting booth with you tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Just because people are advocating for regulation does not mean they are advocating necessarily for a punitive system. Nor are all punitive systems the same: oftentimes the "punishment" in question really needs to be tailored to the problematic behavior if the individual is going to connect the two and consciously improve. In the case of bigoted or inciting speech (and if I could somehow justify it, outright lies and sometimes horribly misinformed opinions haha), it is absolutely reasonable to remove that person from the very forum they are poisoning with it. They aren't being jailed, they aren't being fined, they aren't being whipped; their destructive behavior is being directly and specifically addressed by mitigating that behavior. In this case, it's not even so much a punishment so much as a direct fix.
 
Guynemer said:
Well, the only way I would know this hypothetical employee was racist would be if she said or did something. If she keeps said thoughts entirely to herself, I'd never know.
Click to expand...

But you understand that, like, "she said or did something" can range from "she tweeted something with Hispanic instead of LatinX in it" to "she called a customer the N-word" to "she stalked and murdered a black coworker"...so it doesn't help much.

I guess let me take a step back and ask do you think it is conceivable at all that an employee could suffer an injustice from an employer?
 
Given the premiss that it is a game:
  • that very much encourage warfare.
  • Allow you to destroy cities.
  • Capture/enslave civilian units.
  • Give various bonuses tied to colonization, including giving gold for beating units at lower tech level and less infamy for conquering civilizations behind you in tech.
  • Encouragment to pick authoritarian governments and policies.
  • Many civilizations have focused on warfare, pillaging and other mechanics.
  • Several civilizations are potrayed in sterotypical ways, not maybe as far as India in Civ V who's ability is named population growth.
  • Several of the leaders in the game, based on history could be described as warmongers or have other negative stuff attributed by them.
  • AI hate you for no reason whatsoever, especially on higher difficulties.
I don't think you can call the game political correct.
 
Lexicus said:
But you understand that, like, "she said or did something" can range from "she tweeted something with Hispanic instead of LatinX in it" to "she called a customer the N-word" to "she stalked and murdered a black coworker"...so it doesn't help much.
Click to expand...
Or saying a dumb joke asking if Hitler was a Lesbian or something like that. :p Cancel Culture can range from "Understandable" to "Why is this an issue to you?" Most of the time it could be the latter.
 
Gorbles said:
And how many more of these kinds of folk have caused damage, or some other form of harm?
Click to expand...
Are you referring directly to me? Please enlighten me, what form of harm and damage have I caused?
Gorbles said:
Do you even know,
Click to expand...
From your tone I guess I don't know. Do you?
Gorbles said:
Do you even know, or do you simple prefer the hypothetical good over any amount of hypothetical bad?
Click to expand...
Wow, I guess it's superior to prefer any amount of hypothetical bad to hypothetical good.
 
AriaLyric said:
From what I remember, a lot of discussion centered on things like leader gender ratios (spurred by the last addition to the New Frontier Pass, Joao III, being a man when previous precedent on gender ratios led many to predict a female leader), eurocentrism (again spurred by Portugal's inclusion, as each addition to the pass was drawing a civ/leader from a specific area of the world, and before Portugal was confirmed, we had already gotten a European pack (gaul and byzantium) and hadn't yet gotten a North American one), and a lack of a direct slavery mechanic in-game.
Click to expand...
This is ultimately going to get down to the question of what is the game and what isn’t. Taking at its most extreme ends, a totally historical simulation would have zero user input whatsoever, making for a rather boring game. The flip-side of this is having no preset civilizations at all and everything input by the user, which would be... probably equally uninteresting.

What happens then is we end up at a position where we need some balance. If players want a game that simulates more reality, then it will be more Eurocentric and male-centric as modern history was largely shaped by European domination and those leaders tended to be men. This is why I think adding too many unique bells and whistles to each civ is going to result in controversy; when everything is more abstract, the differences are really more superficial and it’s easier for the players to distance themselves from real world issues.

As for slavery, I’m not sure how I feel about it included as a game mechanism. Does it serve any function, really? Genocides also happened in history, but the consensus seems to be that we don’t really need to make ethnic cleansing part of the game in order to make it enjoyable.
 
amadeus said:
This is ultimately going to get down to the question of what is the game and what isn’t. Taking at its most extreme ends, a totally historical simulation would have zero user input whatsoever, making for a rather boring game. The flip-side of this is having no preset civilizations at all and everything input by the user, which would be... probably equally uninteresting.
Click to expand...

It really heavily trended toward the latter in the latter half of the game's release cycle. GS had more returning civs and leaders than R&F did, and NFP was almost completely fanservice with nothing but returning and very highly requested civs (although to its credit, had almost entirely new leader selections).

I understand it, I think the devs mostly hit a good balance as far as gender and global representation (aside from some really questionable "did we need this?" choices like Scotland/Gaul, Canada, and even Babylon to an extent). Though for completely different reasons I wish they had stuck closer to the sort of representation we got in the DLC and R&F for at least one more year so we got just a smidge more fresh blood in the roster. But as far as representation goes, I think the game hit a fair balance between being "more PC" and not being "too PC," if that is the yardstick we are measuring by.

(though if we further bisected that into an issue of gender versus cultural representation, my balanced impression really only holds for gender representation--I still think there's just too much Europe in the final game for my tastes when we went from 3 civs in North Africa to only one, only one truly new Asian civ, and not even a city-state to be seen in the entire western half of North America...yet we somehow have Cardiff and Wolin and Bologna city-states.)
 
Also with regards to representation, India being a single civ is a hangover from Civ 1, and that part of the world is screaming for split and expanded representation by multiple civs from its history. That would be top of my to do list if I were working on Civ 7. Mughals, Maurya, Tamil, Harappan... lots of options across timeframes and geography.
 
amadeus said:
As for slavery, I’m not sure how I feel about it included as a game mechanism. Does it serve any function, really? Genocides also happened in history, but the consensus seems to be that we don’t really need to make ethnic cleansing part of the game in order to make it enjoyable.
Click to expand...
It is kind encouraged in Civ VI. You can win the game while playing in a way that is pretty much pure evil. The goal is to win the game which can basically be said to be the last civilization remaning, even if it is not a sustainable victory, if your civilization just last a day longer than the rest it would be a victory in civ terms. Also if any other civilization is getting close to a victory, you are encouraged to destroy them, even if the victory would not hurt anyone. Bascially the game rules encourage you to play in a way which could be described as destructive and evil.

In the game Dark Reign, the Imperium may at first look like the classic evil faction, however the backstory is they took a dying and dysfunctional world and turned things around completely, it is not purposeless evil, unlike in civ in which you can win with what can be described as evil without any purpose other than achiving the victory goal.
 
Guynemer said:
Every day in every city on the planet, yes.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that these injustices should be largely taken as a given, and not worried about overmuch? Or am I misreading tone here?

amadeus said:
Does it serve any function, really?
Click to expand...

In Civ 4 you can get more hammers with it than any other way, at least for most of the game.

amadeus said:
If players want a game that simulates more reality, then it will be more Eurocentric and male-centric as modern history was largely shaped by European domination and those leaders tended to be men.
Click to expand...

Just want to point out that Civilization covers a 6,000 year period extending far beyond just the modern era. And that for most of that time period, Europe was a savage backwater with nothing very interesting going on.
 
Guynemer said:
Definitely misreading the tone.
Click to expand...

Okay, great, so let's go back to my question which you never answered: employee makes a pro-BLM remark on the job and as a result gets fired. Has an injustice been done here? One that society should care about?
 
Lexicus said:
In Civ 4 you can get more hammers with it than any other way, at least for most of the game.
Click to expand...
I mean you could substitute another, less controversial, mechanic for the same effect. I had Civ4 but haven't played it in many years. See personal title for what I'm playing now. :p

Lexicus said:
Just want to point out that Civilization covers a 6,000 year period extending far beyond just the modern era. And that for most of that time period, Europe was a savage backwater with nothing very interesting going on.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking about it as far as years/turn go; the closer we get to the modern era, the more the game "slows down," so I think having more European influence than not reflects how the game itself is structured.
 
Civ IV eventually give you unhappiness for having slavery civic and have various mechanics to keep civilizations alive in some form and encourage decolonization, warfare is also more costly since odds are greater to lose units.
 
Lexicus said:
Okay, great, so let's go back to my question which you never answered: employee makes a pro-BLM remark on the job and as a result gets fired. Has an injustice been done here? One that society should care about?
Click to expand...

I would say yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom