I have to defend the OP here, he (I assume) didn't call anyone a racist or go into thought police PC overdrive fascist hippie commie mode.
I must respectfully disagree with you. First of all, I did not suggest that the OP was a member of the Thought Police, since you used my words. And nowhere in either of my posts did I actually accuse the OP of being a hippie, commie, or even a fascist. As far as my objection to the racism issue goes, I quote the OP here:
With the passion that some of you guys are arguing against me (I've given up by the way, as you've seen in post 52) you could be forgiven for thinking that you guys are more offended by me sticking up for native americans than I am by the original issue.
The part that I was objecting to was that the OP is suggesting that we, as a group, are objecting to his support of the Native American cause, because we disagree with some of the comments he has made. I don't see the logic in this, and by making this statement, he is subtly making the implication that the real reason for our dissent is not that we disagree with his original point, but that we collectively have a cultural bias toward Native Americans. In effect, it becomes a mild accusation of racism, when no racism has been expressed.
He just brought up a couple of questions which could have developed into an interesting debate; instead we've got a few valid points among dozens of straw men.
It's hard to have an interesting or constructive debate when people start throwing around catchy "netisms" like "Godwin's Law" and "Straw Man Arguments" If you feel the need to show how savvy and in touch you are with internet pop culture, then fine, throw the terms around. I don't really care. However, you should know that by its very definition, almost everything in an internet discussion group is a Straw Man argument, and actually accusing others of making these posts invalidates every legitimate and valid point after the Straw Man netism is raised. That includes your own post which included the Straw Man statement, because you only chose specific points of the posts that came before yours, and argued the points that you wished to make, and thereby making a Straw Man post in the process. In the end, it's all semantics anyway, and a Straw Man accusation is simply a hip and catchy cop-out for someone either too lazy or inarticulate to properly refute someone's point.
No, not changing position, just a willingness to listen to people and take their points on board. If you have read my posts I did not once call anyone racist,
Again, I disagree. You made a veiled assertion that was perceived as an accusation of racism, whether you intended to or not. You have also changed, or reversed your position a number of times.
But in the course of this thread of been called immature and ignorant, when all I did was start a debate then argue my case. I did not state that people did not have the right to argue against me. If you're not getting my points, or simply disagree, fine. But at least listen to the points I'm making before throwing around accusations.
I think that people have objected to some of the points that you have made, and for good reason, but I think that you're reading a little more into the objections than is really there. Aside from your assertion that political correctness is a good thing, I don't really have a lot of issues with the things that you've said here. I can understand that you might feel that a Terra map might cast the implication that Firaxis might be suggesting that the "native civs on the american continent" (Note the lack of capitals in that quote, I'm not referring to a specific civ or group.) might be "savages", and then draw the conclusion that these people represent Native Americans. I completely understand how you might arrive at a conclusion like that, I really do. What is being said in the thread is that you're getting yourself worked into a tizzy for nothing. There is no linkage there. The Barbarians are just barbarians. A loosely affiliated group of undeveloped people who haven't congealed into a society, and behave in a primitive fashion, and they are meant to represent no one in particular. Just the "wild and dangerous" part of the game. A bit of uncertainty as a game mechanic to make the beginning of the game a little more challenging. Sort of like the Flintstones with attitude.
What Lemon Merchant does not realise is that I'm totally on the same page as her regarding PC/free speech, but is simply assuming that I'm some kind of hippy radical just because I touched upon a sensitive issue (or at least, that's the way it seems to me, please correct me if I'm wrong). What I do know is, you know nothing about me, so why assume that you do? The native americans line you quoted there, was because I felt all I was doing was highlighting that Native Americans deserve a bit more respect than they were getting.
I don't actually believe that we are on the same page with this. You made the assertion that PC was a good thing, and basically, that we should all be more enlightened. I'm paraphrasing there for simplicity, but that is essentially what you were saying. To a point, I agree. I understand discrimination and hatred, I deal with it almost every day. Until recently, my partner and I lived in a very homophobic area of the country. Even so much as giving her a kiss in public could have actually endangered our safety. So yes, a certain amount of social sensitivity is a good thing. Despite what I might have sounded like above, I am actually quite liberal, for those of you who enjoy labels. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, gender bias, or any form of discrimination based on color or creed. If you say things like that in front of me, you will hear about it, believe me. That being said, I can't rightfully expect you not to think or say those things. I can give you an earful about it, but I can't really prevent you from doing it. It infringes on your freedom of expression, and since I don't want mine curbed, I must accept what you say. It doesn't mean I have to like it, but I have no right to stop it.
Do you see the distinction there? As I said before, you have the right to be offended by what I say, but in a free, democratic society that espouses the concept of free speech, I have the right to say it and offend you. The people who are pushing the concept of PC everywhere, and with everything they see, are the kind of people that see offenses in every little thing. They look for slights and offenses when they are not there, they see a conspiracy of hatred and intolerance everywhere they go, and they choose to look at the world in this sun-shiny, overly sensitive, "kinder and gentler" sort of way. They look for ways to socially and politically force our society to behave in a way that causes people to basically fear to say what is on their minds. It's a form of censorship, and it limits our freedom to live and think as we choose, and it's along the same vein as the religious right imposing their moral code on society. It's just as dangerous.
The real world is not a place full of sensitive caring souls. It's a brutal and cruel place, and you're as likely to get a stiff-arm to the throat as you are a smile from someone, no matter how much sensitivity training you have. It's nice to think that we all can be nice and caring to each other, but I worked in a big city ER for too long to be fooled by that idea. It's time that all of the PC people took off their blinders and really had a good look around.
I think the best explanation of the criticism that you have been facing here is expressed below. This is probably the best post in this thread:
The issue here (aside from your statement that "our" ancestors murdered them, when this is the internet) is that you have already made the link in your head between "Terra maps" and "offence to Native Americans" and seem to think that those arguing against you are arguing that this doesn't matter. Whereas it seems most people (if not all) are simply just not agreeing that the link is even there.
On a personal level, I think anyone who would even say a sentence about "having the right to be offended" doesn't really seem to grasp the concept of offence. It isn't a legal right, it's an emotional response. The only people (in my experience) who talk about this sort of "right" are the kinds of people who treat "being offended" as a conscious choice. These people (in my experience) tend to decide to be offended by most things, shout loudly about it and try to get certain phrases banned, and are incredibly intollerant (seemingly without seeing the irony) of anyone who actually says these things they find offensive.
Well said.
