Is Civ 6 PC: A continuation.

[Lexicus]

I would say yes.

Fair enough. But there seems to be an inconsistency here in thinking that it's okay to fire someone for saying something racist, but not okay for saying "I support Black Lives Matter" or something similar. I absolutely agree with you that being racist is objectively a bad thing in a way that supporting BLM obviously is not, but the mere fact of our agreement on that can't really be the basis for policies that actually govern how institutions behave (let alone laws which have even greater force).
Basically, what I'm saying is, I think people are entitled to due process at work...just as they are entitled to due process under the law.

And please, before you say anything else, know that I'm really much closer to PhoenicianGold and you on this than I am to someone like DogeEnricoDandolo. I do have mixed feelings on the practical value of socially ostracizing racists...but I do think if we're going to have a society ruled by law we need to not subject people to arbitrary treatment through policy (whether that be law or corporate governance) - not even, necessarily, if they utter things that are objectively hateful and terrible.
We should mostly proceed on the assumption that people can be rehabilitated, and that displays of racism and other problematic ideas and behaviors are learned, and can be unlearned.

I also ultimately do not believe that ending racism and white supremacy in the US (and some, but not all, other places) is principally a matter of changing hearts and minds. It is, now, more a matter of massively redistributing property than anything else.

 

[Lexicus]

But to get back to Civ 6...I honestly think that many of the design choices claimed to be "diversity/affirmative action" were probably deliberately made to provoke controversy and get the game more attention...like maybe they picked Cleo for Greece not as part of a feminist conspiracy against the fundamental order of the universe or whatever the wingnuts are trying to imply, but just because they wanted to do some bold new things that would get them talked about...

 

[Guynemer]

Fair enough. But there seems to be an inconsistency here in thinking that it's okay to fire someone for saying something racist, but not okay for saying "I support Black Lives Matter" or something similar. I absolutely agree with you that being racist is objectively a bad thing in a way that supporting BLM obviously is not, but the mere fact of our agreement on that can't really be the basis for policies that actually govern how institutions behave (let alone laws which have even greater force).
Basically, what I'm saying is, I think people are entitled to due process at work...just as they are entitled to due process under the law.

And please, before you say anything else, know that I'm really much closer to PhoenicianGold and you on this than I am to someone like DogeEnricoDandolo. I do have mixed feelings on the practical value of socially ostracizing racists...but I do think if we're going to have a society ruled by law we need to not subject people to arbitrary treatment through policy (whether that be law or corporate governance) - not even, necessarily, if they utter things that are objectively hateful and terrible.
We should mostly proceed on the assumption that people can be rehabilitated, and that displays of racism and other problematic ideas and behaviors are learned, and can be unlearned.

I also ultimately do not believe that ending racism and white supremacy in the US (and some, but not all, other places) is principally a matter of changing hearts and minds. It is, now, more a matter of massively redistributing property than anything else.

But law and corporate governance and social interactions, are not the same things (thank goodness!), and I don't think such interactions need to be--or should be--held to the same standards as the law.

 

[Lexicus]

But law and corporate governance and social interactions, are not the same things (thank goodness!), and I don't think such interactions need to be--or should be--held to the same standards as the law.

Imo, corporate governance should be treated like law for purposes of this discussion, though not necessarily for all purposes, but I would agree that social interaction is not subject to the same rules and if you want to cut ties with racists in your life, I've already been there and done that myself. There is probably a debate over whether it is, ultimately, productive but I see little point in that discussion.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

snip

But the premise of the discussion is broader than that, isn't it? It is whether it is fair to punish someone who holds a politically incorrect belief, against the political current. Guynemer just picked the most obvious case of it with the most common soundbites about white supremacy to get a cheap shot at a logical high ground but you can't mount your entire thesis on that one most obvious example, as we all know that most people (ones with a brain, that is) agree white supremacy is ugly, other matters that are considered politically incorrect are in grey areas.
A few years ago, it was generally agreed upon that "sex is what you are at birth, gender is a social construct about how you express yourself." That was until last year when an accountant got fired over her belief that sex was determined by biology, which set off the entire chain of events related to JK Rowling. You surely said a lot about science and academia, I'm a chemist myself, has academia collectively agreed upon this new notion of biological sexes at some points in the last few years that I missed?
A white employee who believes in white supremacy getting fired has to be the most cliche example to be had in a discussion about political correctness. Flip that hypothesis around, a black employee, after saying a darnedest thing about white people, believes he cannot be racist because there is a belief going on in sociology that black people cannot be racist because they don't hold any institution power.

Would you or Guynemer, the employer of the year, fire that black person for holding that belief, or will you let the latest political fad absolve him? Not so black and white anymore, isn't it?
The fact is white supremacy and white nationalism and neo-nazism are the most extreme of racism, but in a PC climate, you don't have to go to that extreme to be hurled the "racist" label at. Something as small as disapproving the casting choice of a black person in a role of a white historical figure, or a traditionally white role like the Little Mermaid, can be considered racist, which takes away the gravitas of the meaning of the word.

to a more enlightened society.

And please, political correctness and woke culture originate from America, tell me how enlightened you have been in the last few years. I hope you used the phrase in the case about white supremacy only, and not in the entire PC spectrum. Saying other countries are enlightened societies cuz they think like America is some classic American stuffs if I've ever seen one.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But to get back to Civ 6...I honestly think that many of the design choices claimed to be "diversity/affirmative action" were probably deliberately made to provoke controversy and get the game more attention...like maybe they picked Cleo for Greece not as part of a feminist conspiracy against the fundamental order of the universe or whatever the wingnuts are trying to imply, but just because they wanted to do some bold new things that would get them talked about...

No Cleopatra isn't for Greece. She's been for Egypt like she's been in the past, however that doesn't stop people from criticizing her because they want a proper Egyptian leader, not one that was Hellenistic.
But Gorgo is a Greek leader and Alexander leads his own Macedonian civ which is just as controversial, though not for me.

 

[amadeus]

I think the game only needs as much historical accuracy as to make the game feel historical to the majority of players. Joan of Arc never ruled France, but I’m willing to suspend my disbelief because she was tangentially related in French political history, at least as far as I know.

Cleopatra, I don’t know what her ethnicity was, but I associate her with Egypt and that’s enough for me. I don’t think there’s wrong with taking a bit of creative license; you have to if you want to make a game.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Whoa, look at all the sixers.

 

[Estebonrober]

But the premise of the discussion is broader than that, isn't it? It is whether it is fair to punish someone who holds a politically incorrect belief, against the political current. Guynemer just picked the most obvious case of it with the most common soundbites about white supremacy to get a cheap shot at a logical high ground but you can't mount your entire thesis on that one most obvious example, as we all know that most people (ones with a brain, that is) agree white supremacy is ugly, other matters that are considered politically incorrect are in grey areas.
A few years ago, it was generally agreed upon that "sex is what you are at birth, gender is a social construct about how you express yourself." That was until last year when an accountant got fired over her belief that sex was determined by biology, which set off the entire chain of events related to JK Rowling. You surely said a lot about science and academia, I'm a chemist myself, has academia collectively agreed upon this new notion of biological sexes at some points in the last few years that I missed?
A white employee who believes in white supremacy getting fired has to be the most cliche example to be had in a discussion about political correctness. Flip that hypothesis around, a black employee, after saying a darnedest thing about white people, believes he cannot be racist because there is a belief going on in sociology that black people cannot be racist because they don't hold any institution power.

Would you or Guynemer, the employer of the year, fire that black person for holding that belief, or will you let the latest political fad absolve him? Not so black and white anymore, isn't it?
The fact is white supremacy and white nationalism and neo-nazism are the most extreme of racism, but in a PC climate, you don't have to go to that extreme to be hurled the "racist" label at. Something as small as disapproving the casting choice of a black person in a role of a white historical figure, or a traditionally white role like the Little Mermaid, can be considered racist, which takes away the gravitas of the meaning of the word.

And please, political correctness and woke culture originate from America, tell me how enlightened you have been in the last few years. I hope you used the phrase in the case about white supremacy only, and not in the entire PC spectrum. Saying other countries are enlightened societies cuz they think like America is some classic American stuffs if I've ever seen one.

Almost everything in this post is actually dead wrong or the wrong response to how the world is changing around you in the last twenty years.

Yes academia has had a long and murky relationship with gender and sex, recent papers tend to assign gender across spectrums, make of it what you will, but it is supported with research into hormones, bacterial biomes, and neurological growth. The real edgelord take these days seem to be that its indicative of an error in biological coding whether hormone or genetic driven. Regardless, assigning this as the new thing to get outraged about and cancel stuff is dumb imo, but it is going to be a thing until people stop being outraged about it. (outside of western culture gender fluidity was much more accepted until the British takeover and the pushing of Victorian era values)

Second, yes minorities in America often hold racist beliefs. I'm instantly thinking of how black and east Asians think of each other in my anecdotal experience. This is not on the same level as white racism (even though it is still bad and based on ignorance) in America because of the power dynamic. This is where those outrageous intersectional studies would also do you some good. Also in the example given it was presumed a hostile work environment was being created, which is the reason for firing not the ignorant belief. The same would apply for your example.

Having a opinion that a black girl should not play Ariel is not controversial enough to cause a hostile work environment, but sure its potent enough to annoy people you are already clearly annoyed by. . .

PC and wokeness in America is part of a multi cultural nation trying to stitch its fabric together without one single dominant culture (like the very point of a dynamic culture built on the idea of the rule of law rather then the rule of man). So while the adjustment periods are tough and uncomfortable, rest assured we are making headway. There is plenty of backlash to PC and wokeness when it goes to far and we will proceed to hash this stuff out. Asking it to go away is the epitome of "white privilege".

Or in other words "Adam Corolla and Dennis Prager can eat a bag of dicks".

Civ 6 can be both PC and white supremacist. I still like playing it, be calm and nuke Ghandi.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm a chemist myself

I suggest sticking to what you're good at; social criticism is not it.

has academia collectively agreed upon this new notion of biological sexes at some points in the last few years that I missed?

Hmm...neither is biology apparently

long but informative tweet thread by someone who knows the facts, which don't care about your feelings:

Spoiler :

No Cleopatra isn't for Greece. She's been for Egypt like she's been in the past, however that doesn't stop people from criticizing her because they want a proper Egyptian leader, not one that was Hellenistic.

Yes, d'oh. I mean, I think it was dumb to make her the leader of Egypt because you have Nefertiti or Hatshepsut available if you want a woman there, but what are you gonna do? Ultimately I don't play Civ 6 not because of the choices of leaders but because I didn't like 1-upt in Civ 5, and Civ 4 is my favorite game

 

[Kyriakos]

Actually it's not that PC, or even just C; for example they don't have the Hagia Sophia as the background for the byzantine leader.

 

[Gorbles]

Are you referring directly to me? Please enlighten me, what form of harm and damage have I caused?

I'm not referring directly to you. Or indeed to you at all. You were the one talking about these positive, endearing stories about how people from these hateful groups have learned and shared their experiences for the better of society. I'm asking about all the ones from those groups that don't.

From your tone I guess I don't know. Do you?

I don't think you do, but I'm open to you proving otherwise. Are you going to answer?

Wow, I guess it's superior to prefer any amount of hypothetical bad to hypothetical good.

It is?

I mean, you seem to be taking mild criticism incredibly personally here. Is there a reason for this?

 

[EnglishEdward]

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.

Alas, keeping silent does not always work in work environments.

People may state the faction line and any hesitation in re-iterating it back may mean that one is regarded
as not on board with it, and a 'with us or against us mentality' means that one is perceived as a hostile.

 

[Estebonrober]

Alas, keeping silent does not always work in work environments.

People may state the faction line and any hesitation in re-iterating it back may mean that one is regarded
as not on board with it, and a 'with us or against us mentality' means that one is perceived as a hostile.

You will not get fired for this and if somehow you did actually manage to get fired for this there would be backlash. I'm glad the one in a billion example has so resonated in minds that it makes people more nervous then the one in ten example of a lgbtq or minority being discriminated against. Boy that MSM is doing such a good job promoting socialist commie gay values on everyone!

 

[EgonSpengler]

Well, that's an interesting point because I think that you would not agree that someone who was, say, fired for expressing sympathy with Black Lives Matter was just "suffering consequences for their actions" or something similar. I think you would agree that this constituted an egregious imposition into someone's private life on the part of an employer.

Well, leave aside the term "censor" for a moment and just tell me whether you think what I described would be an injustice.

I'm still trying to frame this in my head, so pardon me while I think out loud a little bit, but you're getting at something that bugs me about the arguments over "political correctness" and "cancel culture", which is that it seems to studiously ignore evaluating the merits of a given act or position. I don't really think that a guideline for behavior that treats every idea the same is useful. So, in your example, I think I would consider it an injustice if someone got fired for supporting BLM, but I would not consider it an injustice if someone got fired for saying things that supported "racial superiority." The latter is inherently, if inspecifically, threatening and the former is not. BLM is about racial equality and 'racial superiority' is about racial inequality, which is again inherently threatening in the context of the US (though, is there a country or culture where "racial superiority" does not have a negative history?). If an employee was in being belligerent or making their colleagues feel unsafe, and wouldn't stop, I'd feel obliged to let them go. (So if a supporter of BLM was doing in it a confrontational or belligerent way, I'd have to let them go, but that wouldn't be about BLM, it would be about them being a [tool].)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

(though, is there a country or culture where "racial superiority" does not have a negative history?).

The effects of some form of racial subjugation are found in every country on the planet. But I think we are both in agreement that just because injustice is pervasive and possibly inevitable, that doesn't mean we can't do anything about them or cease efforts to mitigate them.

If an employee was in being belligerent or making their colleagues feel unsafe, and wouldn't stop, I'd feel obliged to let them go. (So if a supporter of BLM was doing in it a confrontational or belligerent way, I'd have to let them go, but that wouldn't be about BLM, it would be about them being a [tool].)

To me those are two separate issues that may or may not coincide. One is a strictly behavioral problem that is content-neutral and therefore justifies being let go regardless of the employee's particular beliefs. The other is a values based problem that runs deeper and tends to not only reflect the individual's poor experience and empathy (something which take much more effort to improve than merely correcting habits), but tends to affect much more than just their behavior but also their character, how they treat people generally, what misinformation they spread in the world, the poor standards of conduct they normalize in society, etc. etc.

Holding a wrong opinion is inevitable, but I don't think many people realize that holding on to wrong opinions (one of which, I might add, is being ambivalently open-minded about even the most decisive issues) and normalizing that as acceptable is actually damaging to society. At least moreso than they think casually holding opinions might be.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Second, yes minorities in America often hold racist beliefs. I'm instantly thinking of how black and east Asians think of each other in my anecdotal experience. This is not on the same level as white racism (even though it is still bad and based on ignorance) in America because of the power dynamic. This is where those outrageous intersectional studies would also do you some good. Also in the example given it was presumed a hostile work environment was being created, which is the reason for firing not the ignorant belief. The same would apply for your example.

Isn't racism bad and on the same level no matter what group of people is doing it?

PC and wokeness in America is part of a multi cultural nation trying to stitch its fabric together without one single dominant culture (like the very point of a dynamic culture built on the idea of the rule of law rather then the rule of man). So while the adjustment periods are tough and uncomfortable, rest assured we are making headway. There is plenty of backlash to PC and wokeness when it goes to far and we will proceed to hash this stuff out. Asking it to go away is the epitome of "white privilege".

There are plenty of minorities that want wokeness and PC culture to go away. A majority of the Hispanic community thinks that the term Latinx, for example, is silly.

Actually it's not that PC, or even just C; for example they don't have the Hagia Sophia as the background for the byzantine leader.

Not sure what that has to do with the topic but I agree with you that the background isn't good. Probably not the Hagia Sophia because they already put it in the background for Suleiman but they could have least gave Basil II the Hippodrome.

 

[fy00sh]

Isn't racism bad and on the same level no matter what group of people is doing it?

Yes, all racism is bad, but racism is worse when it's enforced through power structures than when it's just interpersonal racism, and generally, white people are able to enforce racism in systemic ways much more often that POC are. That's what makes white-on-nonwhite racism tend to be worse than other forms. edit: Specifically in the context of the USA. If we talk about other countries, the dynamic obviously changes.

There are plenty of minorities that want wokeness and PC culture to go away. A majority of the Hispanic community thinks that the term Latinx, for example, is silly.

A point on the "LatinX" thing - even the people that care about having an inclusive/gender-neutral term dislike "LatinX" because it's not even pronounceable in Spanish - "Latine" (lah-TEEN-ay) is preferred by the vast majority of people who've heard of the term. It's pronounceable in Spanish, and helps promote usage of a type of lenguaje inclusivo which actually sounds somewhat natural in Spanish, it's preferred by enbies (including me). And yeah, plenty of Latines are/would be against even that term, but to me that's just not a very convincing argument against promoting its usage.
Also, responding to the quote from @Estebonrober you were responding to, I feel like I agree with what they were saying, I just would've left it at "privilege" rather than specifically "white privilege". Because yeah, anti-wokeness isn't an exclusively a white thing, but not caring about the concerns being raised at all is definitely something that'd have to come from a place of privilege, I think.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, all racism is bad, but racism is worse when it's enforced through power structures than when it's just interpersonal racism, and generally, white people are able to enforce racism in systemic ways much more often that POC are. That's what makes white-on-nonwhite racism tend to be worse than other forms.

That's a very easy thing to say in America, but that's not a justifiable answer to say what is currently happening in China right now with the government and the Uyghur people.

 

[João III]

I suggest sticking to what you're good at; social criticism is not it.

Big "shut up and dribble" energy

Hmm...neither is biology apparently

long but informative tweet thread by someone who knows the facts, which don't care about your feelings

While I personally respect someone's pronouns of choice, I disagree with the notion of basing biology on outlier occurrences. Some people are born with more than two nipples, should standard human biology state "there is no defined number of human nipples, as people can be born with any number of nipples", even though <0.5% of people are born with a third nipple?