Is Civ 6 PC: A continuation.

[Birdjaguar]

Imagine taking a comment about having a pinterest mood board about "white men hate" seriously

Moderator Action: Just like in the Civ forums, if you want to comment on moderation actions, you should do so via PM with the moderator and not publicly. PDMA is still not allowed. Moderator actions are indicated by bold Red edits. Green and Blue posts can be nudges or information related. This post is informational to you so you know what is permitted in the future. If you have further comments on this please PM me. Birdjaguar

You may freely respond to any of my non moderator posts just like any other post.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

My point was if I, a white male, travelled to China and experienced some form of racism towards me is it negated, and not considered worse, because of my European heritage, even though I and my supposed group aren't in a place of power?

In general my understanding of racism is similar to that of cultural appropriation. I.e., appropriation of the oppressed/exploited/marginalized culture by the dominant culture is some degree of harmful, whereas the opposite falls somewhere on the spectrum of harmless to possibly empowering or leveling the playing field. Basically, if appropriation happens to go against the stream of power dynamics, it is okay, whereas if it goes with the stream it is probably not.

It gets complicated in the case of the U.S. and China though, because as I said previously, the effect of colonialism are baked into every culture on the planet. So with the case of your example, we are balancing several different power struggles at play:

1) The present and immediate oppression of said white male by the dominant Chinese culture/ethnicity. (pro racist)
2) The also present and immediate reality that if white male comes from America or Europe, he is still technically part of a more dominant and economically privileged global culture that tends to consume at the exploitation of Chinese resources and labor. (anti racist)
3) The historical problem that is the conquest and establishment of European spheres of influence in Chinese that remains in semi-recent memory and was a huge affront to Chinese national identity. (anti racist)

And, quite possibly in the near future, the reality that China is setting up soft control over many of the world's major ports and laying the groundwork for a massive shift in global power...it may actually exceed the US/Europe as the dominant cultural power. (pro racist, if it ever actually manifests; anti racist if it's just currently preemptive anti-Chinese conspiracy theories?)

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Keep in mind that atleast in europe, people different alot about ethnicity rather than skin color even if it have probably gotten better with formation of EU, also many europeans have though of US and maybe the americas a whole as an inferior place and seems to still do so today, many seems to see US and China as basically the same thing.

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course individual black people can be racially prejudiced. Louis Farrakhan is an example of a black man who has referred to Jewish people as termites and cockroaches. This is bigotry.

I do have to admit, I've gotten into this difference a couple times offline, and there are relatively few topics that illicit as reliably the immediate urge in your conversational partner to go walk into traffic so they never have to hear dbags(like me, in the conversation, generally) argue the point again. Pieces of **** are pieces of ****. Most of the pieces of **** with power are white*. Not all of them are. Ergo, not all the pieces of **** with power in any given situation are white even if, on the totality, they tend to be that way. In 2021. In America. Wherever you happen to be. This is really simple and most people seem sort of insulted that we would go back to "this person can't be racist, oh but they're a bigot." Like we thought they were special enough to need this little star badge of understanding on their walking helmet, or something.

*Which doesn't really exist, remember? Except that it obviously does, only that it's a one way term when rendered explicit rather than implied. Guilt but not pride, etc. At least presented as such.

 

[Archon_Wing]

@Archon_Wing

PC whines are mostly trash which is why I didn't justify it with a proper response. At one point it was about freedom of speech, but these days most of it is just about outrage culture. It's just something to fling poop at because you assumed some people said something.

Of course, this is the most benign use of it; the other half is just "why can't I yell homophobic or racist slurs without being heckled?" "Why did Twitter ban me? I have a right to Twitter!"

It is disgusting that Firaxis decides to go for something new and pick lesser known leaders and civs because having the same dozen choice over 10 games is boring as hell that people whine over it. edit: Said part was left out

This is the same franchise where Gandhi is a nuclear warlord and Cleopatra stares down at your crotch. People who think Civ is PC probably are scrubs that probably think 4 cities is a real empire.

 

[João III]

No, it should state, "humans typically have two nipples, although as with pretty much everything, there are occasional albeit infrequent exceptions."
Also, biological sex is often much more complex than something as (relatively) cut-and-dry as "how many nipples does this person have". Here's a link with a good infographic for demonstrating just how complex sex can be. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...xtraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

Would you then add that to every statement on human biology? I don't think human biology should be discussed in terms of qualifiers for every possible outcome, I think that'd be counterintuitive.
Also, I don't deny that the process of determining sex is complex. However, I think the outcome is fairly simple. Ultimately, I don't think it's fair to say "human sex is a spectrum" when 99.75% of humans are on one end or the other.

Well, one-fourth of one percent (0.25%) of 7.5 billion is nearly twenty million people, so no, I don't think that "standard human biology" should ignore the existence of those people.
More generally, I think that letting people understand that even if they're outliers, they are valid and there's nothing wrong with them is more important than...whatever benefit you derive (and I admit, I am unclear on what that is) from pretending intersex people don't exist.

Huh, I'm re-reading my comment and I don't see where I deny the existence of people anywhere? I know reading's hard but please don't put words in my mouth.
I see this as similar to having 99 scientists believe in climate change and 1 denies it, so people give their beliefs equal weight in debate despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of the former making the answer clear. You'd probably think it silly if I said "climate change is real, but there are doubts".
If 99.75% were a probability, it'd be considered a guarantee; so when 99.75% of the human population are either male or female, I'd say evidence supports there being two human sexes: male and female. Are there outliers? Sure, and they're people too. Just because they have abnormal biology doesn't change that, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to say "biology is complicated" when >99% of outcomes are one of two sexes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

PC whines are mostly trash which is why I didn't justify it with a proper response. At one point it was about freedom of speech, but these days most of it is just about outrage culture. It's just something to fling poop at because you assumed some people said something.

Of course, this is the most benign use of it; the other half is just "why can't I yell homophobic or racist slurs without being heckled?"

It is disgusting that Firaxis decides to go for something new and pick lesser known leaders and civs because having the same dozen choice over 10 games is boring as hell. Just because a country doesn't appear much

This is the same franchise where Gandhi is a nuclear warlord and Cleopatra stares down at your crotch. People who think Civ is PC probably are scrubs that probably think 4 cities is a real empire.

You may well not approve of choices made by firaxis or others, but unless you have insight into the whys of their decision, it might be better to keep your obviously strong opinions tempered when in public. If Firaxis shows up her and joins in, then you could ask about their decision making process.

 

[Lexicus]

Huh, I'm re-reading my comment and I don't see where I deny the existence of people anywhere? I know reading's hard but please don't put words in my mouth.

Well, can you explain exactly what you mean by this, particularly the bolded text:

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?

Did this not mean something like "standard human biology should ignore the outliers"?

If 99.75% were a probability, it'd be considered a guarantee; so when 99.75% of the human population are either male or female, I'd say evidence supports there being two human sexes: male and female. Are there outliers? Sure, and they're people too. Just because they have abnormal biology doesn't change that, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to say "biology is complicated" when >99% of outcomes are one of two sexes.

Actually tho part of the point of those tweets is that we just assume 99.75% of people are either male or female, unambiguously. You don't actually know whether 99.75% of the human population is either male or female because you certainly haven't gone and checked billions of people's cells, hormones, chromosomes and so on.

 

[Archon_Wing]

You may well not approve of choices made by firaxis or others, but unless you have insight into the whys of their decision, it might be better to keep your obviously strong opinions tempered when in public. If Firaxis shows up her and joins in, then you could ask about their decision making process.

I disagree. I don't think there's any point holding back, if they have good points, they can refute me.

Also I wrote my post incorrectly. I was saying that I thought it was disgusting that Firaxis decides to do something different and people were bashing them but left out the 2nd part. I suppose that would have made my post sound anti-Firaxis when it was not.

Although my point was that there's nothing PC about this franchise, and arguments suggesting it were ignorant. What did you perceive my post as?

 

[João III]

Did this not mean something like "standard human biology should ignore the outliers"?

No, that's you inserting your own interpretation to meet a preconceived opinion. I'm saying it's unreasonable to base what's considered normal human biology on fringe cases, but to equate that with denying the existence of people is absurd.

Actually tho part of the point of those tweets is that we just assume 99.75% of people are either male or female, unambiguously. You don't actually know whether 99.75% of the human population is either male or female because you certainly haven't gone and checked billions of people's cells, hormones, chromosomes and so on.

Well, I'll be waiting for statistical evidence to the contrary

 

[EgonSpengler]

Making policy on the basis of our shared opinion that the racist is harmful and the BLM supporter is not is actually a recipe for total disaster and, ultimately, the complete destruction of the rule of law. Due process needs to be based on actual harms done, not on an opinion - even a widely-shared, consensus opinion - that someone's statements or beliefs are just bad or wrong in some abstract sense.

Throughout most of US history questioning the existence of God would have been considered "inherently threatening." During the 1960s and 70s many people were punished for opposing the Vietnam War as this was considered "inherently threatening." Hell, in the 50s and 60s advocacy for civil rights and racial equality was deemed by many to be "inherently threatening" and people who engaged in those movements were treated accordingly. The left rightfully had a whole free speech movement to put a stop to that crap and it's fairly distressing to see those lessons have apparently been unlearned.

If people are entitled to due process, then you can't just proceed against them based on a vague notion that their statements or beliefs are "threatening." You need to show actual harm, an actual crime. Now, I think that in most cases where people are "cancelled" for racist or sexist behavior, it will be downright easy to show actual harm from their actions or statements, as in my example where the employee is fired after creating a hostile work environment for her non-white coworkers. In that example the employee has not been fired because she has "harmful" views, she has been fired because she - to put it in the sanitized language of the HR communication - did not work well with others.

I guess I'm confused. Are you envisioning a scenario where someone gets fired for views they voiced in private? I was thinking of language used in the presence of colleagues, or perhaps something visible, like a bumper-sticker, a tattoo, or a poster on someone's wall. I guess I was assuming that we came to know the person's views because they told us. As for showing actual harm, I think it's reasonable to say that voicing threatening views is enough. That creates the "hostile work environment", as you say. As for due process, again I'm unclear on the scenario you're outlining. Are you envisioning some kind of "he said, she said" situation, where one employee makes a claim against another and you can't tell who's telling the truth?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, Egon, people do lie. Management, if nothing else, when they have a reason to want you gone. Whatever the reason is, they will seek a justification. Society is in charge of justifications. Where does public life begin for the online presence of a remote employee? It certainly feels like there is a... momentum... of accountability and diminished private protections in the form of strenuous justifications.

Would the normal human biology conversation find the use of the term "normative" as distinct from the colloquial of "normal" a useful tool?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I disagree. I don't think there's any point holding back, if they have good points, they can refute me.

Also I wrote my post incorrectly. I was saying that I thought it was disgusting that Firaxis decides to do something different and people were bashing them but left out the 2nd part. I suppose that would have made my post sound anti-Firaxis when it was not.

Although my point was that there's nothing PC about this franchise, and arguments suggesting it were ignorant. What did you perceive my post as?

OT is not a place for Firaxis ranting. We have many other forums for that. It's focus is other topics not covered under the Civ category. Firaxis doesn't hang out here and is unlikely to join our discussions. Discussing political correctness in OT is just fine. Taking Donald Trump to task is fine. Firaxis "hate" should be kept in the Civ forums under their guidelines for civility.

 

[Lexicus]

I guess I'm confused. Are you envisioning a scenario where someone gets fired for views they voiced in private?

This is part of the fun ambiguity. These pretend "cancel culture" scenarios are always posed in terms that make it unclear exactly what anyone is talking about. But since "cancel culture" is really a series of tropes rather than anything concrete and real, that's only to be expected. You notice that in real-world "cancellations" conservatives tend to whine about someone getting fired or dropped from a speaking list because of "their views," in some metaphysical sense, when the real story is often something more like "this person was creating a hostile work environment" or "this person's scholarship is regarded poorly by others in their field." Generally speaking I think it's best to emphasize that we want to discuss concrete, realistic scenarios (or actual events) rather than entertaining idiotic right-wing tropes about the Thought Police.

to base what's considered normal human biology on fringe cases, but to equate that with denying the existence of people is absurd.

Well, let me extend you a second invitation to explain what the bold text actually means in practice.

Well, I'll be waiting for statistical evidence to the contrary

You'll be waiting a long time because I don't particularly care what sex people are. If you want to prove that 99.75% of people have an 'obvious' biological sex (again, for what purpose, I do not know), you'll need to do the work.

 

[Lexicus]

Really it's worth pointing out that of course this debate is not about "biological sex" per se but about whether people's biological sex matches with their gender presentation. You can assert that this is the case 99.75% of the time (or whatever arbitrary number we pick) and that this is just "reality" but if you aren't even interested in investigating the actual reality why are you making the assertion? Do you really even know whether your own biological sex, with all the complication described in that Twitter thread, matches your gender presentation?

 

[Archon_Wing]

OT is not a place for Firaxis ranting. We have many other forums for that. It's focus is other topics not covered under the Civ category. Firaxis doesn't hang out here and is unlikely to join our discussions. Discussing political correctness in OT is just fine. Taking Donald Trump to task is fine. Firaxis "hate" should be kept in the Civ forums under their guidelines for civility.

I think you've misunderstood my post. It's not a criticism of Firaxis at all but rather the attitude towards political correctness. While Firaxis is an example, there have been many incidents in the gaming world where people have cried political correctness when game developers choose "diversity." It's become a bad word. As if companies catering to fans is a bad thing.

It's particularly stirring when it's almost inevitably involving adding characters that are women or not white being decried as political correctness. To me, it's just a way to start out a mob and cause trouble out of nothing.

 

[João III]

Well, let me extend you a second invitation to explain what the bold text actually means in practice.

No, that's you inserting your own interpretation to meet a preconceived opinion.

You'll be waiting a long time because I don't particularly care what sex people are. If you want to prove that 99.75% of people have an 'obvious' biological sex (again, for what purpose, I do not know), you'll need to do the work.

You're the one that wants to overturn conventional understanding of human biology, so the burden of proof is on you. That may involve thinking on your part, which may be also be a burden.

Really it's worth pointing out that of course this is not about "biological sex" per se but about whether people's biological sex matches with their gender presentation. You can assert that this is the case 99.75% of the time (or whatever arbitrary number we pick) and that this is just "reality" but if you aren't even interested in investigating the actual reality why are you making the assertion?

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts, right? You're denying biology is, because it's not what you want it be. And something tells me reality won't be acceptable to you until it conforms with whatever you consider "actual reality". Totally unrelated, but have you ever met a true Scotsman?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think you've misunderstood my post. It's not a criticism of Firaxis at all but rather the attitude towards political correctness. While Firaxis is an example, there have been many incidents in the gaming world where people have cried political correctness when game developers choose "diversity." It's become a bad word. As if companies catering to fans is a bad thing.

It's particularly stirring when it's almost inevitably involving adding characters that are women or not white being decried as political correctness. To me, it's just a way to start out a mob and cause trouble out of nothing.

Then don't single out Firaxis and keep things at the general level. We don't want OT to become a place to bash Civ or Firaxis because we are a bit more lenient here. Civ specific conversations are best left in the appropriate civ forum rather than here. OT is not the place to discuss Firaxis game development decisions

 

[Lexicus]

You're the one that wants to overturn conventional understanding of human biology, so the burden of proof is on you. That may involve thinking on your part, which may be also be a burden.

Okay, let's take a step back here. I am simply asking you to clarify what you meant by these two statements, particularly the text I've marked out in bold:

I'm saying it's unreasonable to base what's considered normal human biology on fringe cases, but to equate that with denying the existence of people is absurd.

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?

My confusion is around the phrase "base/basing biology on". I don't know what this means in practice. Can you please explain it?

Moving on to this concept of "burden of proof," note that I have made no factual assertions that require any proof. The only assertion of fact I've made is that you, personally, do not know whether 99.75% of people have a gender presentation conforming in all respects to their biological sex (nor do you actually know whether 99.75%, or any other percentage of people, actually have a straightforward biological sex in the first place!). This fact requires no proof because it's self-evidently true; indeed, you tacitly admitted as much here:

Well, I'll be waiting for statistical evidence to the contrary

So basically, what you're telling me is you're content to treat your own assumptions as fact until someone else does the work required to prove your assumptions wrong. Which just makes the next part of the post even funnier:

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts, right?

I note that, at the time of this writing, you have adduced zero (0) facts to support...whatever argument you're making.

You're deny biology is, because it's not what you want it be. And something tells me reality won't be acceptable to you until it conforms with whatever you consider "actual reality". Totally unrelated, but have you ever met a true Scotsman?

Finally, this is straight-up projection. The only person in this discussion who has adduced any actual biological facts at all is me (refer to the Tweets about chromosomal, cellular, hormonal sex). You seem to be "basing" your arguments on your own assumptions and on what you want to be true, while being completely uninterested in actual biology or biological facts, all while accusing me of ignoring reality in favor of what I want to be true.

It's very strange. And I still don't know what you mean by "base what's considered normal human biology on fringe cases."

 

[fy00sh]

You're the one that wants to overturn conventional understanding of human biology, so the burden of proof is on you.

Lexicus's argument is "we don't know for a fact that 99.75% of people really are unambiguously one sex or the other, we just know they're close enough to one or the other that they never get further testing, for all we know there might be more people that are to some degree intersex than we know of", and your point seems to be "no, 99.75% of people are truly unambiguously one sex or the other". If that's not what you're arguing, please do tell me what you are. And if it is what you're arguing, then please understand that a lack of evidence for one point does not constitute evidence for an opposite point, and that just because an understanding of some topic is conventional doesn't mean it's necessarily true. If the "conventional understanding" is making a positive claim (which it is in this case), then it's the conventional understanding that has the burden of proof.