There is no name calling involved in calling a bigot a bigot. The whole “polite discussion” thing is at best a thin veneer of respectability slapped on an obvious dog whistle.
Free speech does not mean freedom of consequence and it is well within Nexus Mods’s rights to not tolerate transphobia on their platform. I would even call that the bare minimum, actually.
If OP really wants honest and constructive discourse they should come out and actually express an opinion instead of hiding behind the fallacy of having “constructive” Interactions about whether or not fascism is ok.
While I appreciate your perspective, it seems there’s a misunderstanding. I’m not advocating for bigotry or hiding behind ‘polite discussion’ as a shield for harmful views. My interest is in the broader context of what content is so problematic that it requires removal and under what guidelines. Free speech indeed comes with consequences, which is why it’s important to examine those guidelines and their consistent application. This is not about condoning transphobia or any form of bigotry; it’s about discussing the thresholds and criteria that platforms like Nexus Mods use to make their moderation decisions. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for any community that wishes to maintain both openness and respect.
You talk about the “complexities of the subject matter”. There are none. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the aforementioned mod. It was only created as a dog whistle and a beacon for bigots. Rational discussion cannot and should not be had when one party is not acting in good faith. I see no legitimate reason to dispute that ban, do you ?
I’ve been playing Max Payne 3. It stopped working at the end of Chapter 6 on my PS3 so I found a completed save and started playing it on my Steam Deck from where I left off.
Also Cyberpunk 2077. I avoided it up until now partially due to how buggy it was at release and how things like the police mechanics were still lacking. Keanu Reeves being in the game was another thing. I find celebrity worship really off putting and based off of Reddit’s reaction I kind of assumed that would be a bigger part of the game with lots of obnoxious winks to the audience. I just got started but the game seems neat so far. I like the atmosphere a lot.
OK, I’ve read all your comments throughout this thread - I’ve responded to quite a few of them - and now I’m going to say this, and sign off.
Even assuming - as I have tried very hard to do so far - that you’re asking these questions in good faith, there’s very simple reason why no one wants to engage with you, why you’re getting down votes and tired, dismissive answers… this is a settled issue.
There is no meaningful or useful new debate to be had here. You’re turning up in the middle of a PhD physics lecture demanding to have a discussion about whether the Earth orbits the sun. We’ve been there, we had that argument, and the fact that you’re not willing to educate yourself sufficiently on the subject does not mean that you get to throw it out to the floor for fresh discussion as if there’s anything to be gained from that.
That’s why no one wants to have a thrilling intellectual debate with you about this. Because it’s boring, it’s old, and you have not raised a single new or interesting point in this entire thread. And while you’re treating this as intellectual exercise, real people’s lives are being destroyed by the bigots that you are - knowingly or unknowingly - carrying water for.
If all this is news to you, if you thought you were somehow at the forefront of cutting edge intellectual discussion here, then please take this as an opportunity to do some learning and growing. Spend some time listening to marginalized voices. Ask questions - respectfully and without making demands of people’s time - instead of asking for debate.
If you really do mean all this in good faith then I wish you the best and I hope to see you grow and learn from the experience, for your own sake as much as anyone else’s. We all have to start somewhere.
The intent of my posts was not to reopen settled debates, but to explore the principles that underlie how moderation decisions are made on platforms that host user-generated content. I believe this is a worthy subject of inquiry because it can affect various communities in different ways. While you see this issue as settled, the modding community is ever-evolving, and new scenarios that challenge established norms will likely continue to arise. I assure you that my intent is to engage in good faith, and I am open to learning from this experience. If you choose not to engage further, I respect your decision.
You’re coming at this from the angle that this is some strange new reality that the world has never encountered before, but it truly isn’t. This is not an “evolving new situation”, we’re not on the bold frontiers of strange new norms. It’s just bigotry. Bigotry isn’t new, it’s as old as mankind.
There’s a reason we’re all citing philosophical principles laid down in the 1940’s, almost like the world suddenly had a pressing need to reckon with the true cost of allowing violent intolerance to grow unchecked… Maybe some recent event prompted that?
The fact that bigots are communicating their bigotry through mods for videogames now doesn’t change what bigotry is, or how we fight it. This shit is older than any of us here, and the tools and principles are well established.
And the fact that bigots will frame their bigotry in dog whistles with just enough ambiguity that people like you can say “Maybe this was completely innocent” isn’t an accident, it’s by design. That quote from Lee Atwater I shared earlier? He’s talking about the politics of the early 1970s. Most of us weren’t alive then. Again, this is nothing new. The only change is that right now their target is trans people, because they always point their hate at the target society is least willing to defend. Pick off the weak from the herd.
If you’re trying to better understand how this stuff works, I respect that. Just because things have been understood for a long time, doesn’t mean everyone knows them. I didn’t start out magically knowing this stuff either. In my college days I styled myself as a free speech absolutist, someone who would on sheer magnificent principle defend the rights of a Nazi to be a Nazi. I learned better when I actually met and talked to the people that my “principles” were actively harming. So yes, I get it, and if you’re here to learn I commend that.
But please, don’t frame it as a debate. “Should we tolerate the free speech of bigots” is only a debate for the bigots, because like any guilty party they will never stop trying to relitigate their case. They can only benefit from this “debate” and the rest of us can only lose.
They will say things like “You’re just as bad as us if you censor us” to which we say “No, we are not, because our refusal to engage comes from clear moral principles, while yours comes from hatred.”
They will say “If you censor us, where do you draw the line?” to which we say “At the limits of your intolerance. We will tolerate, within reason, everything that is not an expression of bigotry and hatred.”
They will say “You cannot judge our intent or know our souls. How can you assign blame to our actions?” to which we say “We will judge you by your actions. The drunk driver doesn’t mean to cause harm, but we still criminalize the behaviour because it is harmful. If you do not intend to be a bigot, but you choose to actively express bigotry, we will hold you accountable for your actions all the same. A racist prank is still racist. Saying ‘Just kidding’ doesn’t undo the harm spread by your words. It is on you to learn these things and be better.”
They will say “But you could get it wrong. What if you misjudge the innocent?” to which we say “This could apply to any action of society. The innocent are convicted of crimes they did not commit, but this does undermine the value of having laws, it only reinforces that we must apply those laws as carefully and as justly as possible, that we must never forget the human cost of these decisions. It does not invalidate the decisions.”
They will find every angle, seek every accommodation, because they have nothing to lose by trying. They will never stop, and we can only let their arguments fall on deaf ears.
I’m not saying that there is absolutely no room for discussion to be had within this realm. There is always room for discussion in any subject. But you need to be mindful of the difference between “I think our models of climate change could be improved in this specific way…” vs “Is climate science real?” You won’t get any traction by arriving at a school and trying to dig up the foundations. Educate yourself on the fundamentals, and from there you can seek out specific areas where meaningful argument can be made, without needlessly relitigating core principles.
Your detailed response outlines a nuanced stance on the issue, framing it within a long historical context. However, I believe that framing the issue as ‘already resolved’ dismisses the evolving complexities of online moderation, and how it intersects with the fluid nature of speech and social norms.
Historical Precedence: While it’s true that bigotry has existed throughout human history, how we engage with it has evolved, especially in the digital era. To suggest that the ‘tools and principles are well-established’ may not fully capture the complexity of online spaces where interaction occurs asynchronously, across cultures, and without the benefit of vocal tone or facial expression.
Freedom of Speech: You critique the notion of debating whether we should ‘tolerate the free speech of bigots.’ However, even well-intended moderation can have a chilling effect on speech. How do we prevent the slippery slope where the bounds of acceptable speech continually narrow?
Intent vs Impact: You suggest judging people solely by their actions, but this discounts the complex interplay between intent and interpretation. Who gets to define what constitutes bigotry in a statement open to multiple interpretations?
Potential for Misjudgment: You accept that innocent people could be wrongly accused but say that this doesn’t invalidate the act of moderation. While true, this doesn’t address the ethical dilemma of sacrificing individual fairness for collective security.
The Role of Debate: The dismissal of debate as a tool available only to bigots undermines the basis of democratic society. Even well-established principles benefit from regular scrutiny. Shouldn’t we always strive to challenge our existing models to account for new variables?
Moral High Ground: Your argument assumes a moral high ground, positioning any differing opinion as inherently stemming from hatred or ignorance. This approach precludes constructive discussion and leaves no room for the reevaluation of norms and rules.
In sum, I respect your position but believe that it does not leave room for the complexities and nuances of this discussion. Insinuating that only ‘bigots’ would want to engage in a debate about freedom of speech and platform moderation is reductive and does not further a meaningful conversation about how we navigate these tricky waters.
I’ve been playing a lot and it’s the first soulslike that’s genuinely great. It obviously borrows a lot but the mechanics they added in like the arm, skill tree, weapon assembling etc. do a great job at expanding some ideas rather then just copy pasting.
I agree with some people that it’s deceptively more similar to Sekiro than Dark Souls. Even with the first dodge upgrade I feel like it’s a bit undertuned compared to perfect blocks. Dodging feels finnicky because it has little I-frames and many enemies and bosses have insane tracking that’s hard to dodge. Hopefully they might balance it out a little in the future.
I’m very happy the game didn’t turn out to just be puppets as the first few areas suggest. The game really gets going when you come across some real monster variety. The area I’m in now is straight out of resident evil 4.
The one other complaint I have is the dialogue. It’s so hit or miss. Like it’s trying to be Bloodborne but also a comedy? It feels bizarre to see a lot of horror and be completely taken out by Gemminy making jokes. Just doesn’t work for me.
This is an “expansion” not a “DLC” according to CDPR. It’s a lot bigger than your normal DLC. Up to you if you think that’s enough.
I think it’s also a chance for them to try to find some redemption. Journalists have a lot to sink their teeth into with the whole meta story of the game so I think that might have added some encouragement.
How is a paid DLC any sort of redemption for shit that should’ve been in the game from the get-go? If it was free it would easier to understand but it seems like it’s 30€?
It’s not a redemption arc to get (years later) fixes to stuff that should’ve worked at launch and game systens that were advertised to be there from the get-go.
Idk if I just hold those companies to higher standard but this doesn’t redeem them in my eyes. This just means they weren’t as dogshit as they could’ve been if they just bailed. But they still lied and released a shit product. That shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
If everything was there from the get-go, how would there be a redemption arc? There would be nothing to redeem.
A redemption arc is when someone or something starts bad or reviled, and eventually comes to be seen through other eyes. Looks like that applies to CDPR and Cyberpunk to me.
Redemption arc would mean from bad to good. Not dogshit to slightly less dogshit. Maybe if they had given the DLC for free as an apology or something, but just fixing some of the issues years later isn’t a redemption arc.
Well I’m having plenty of fun with it, and I haven’t even installed 2.0. If it was a release from this year it would be my second favourite after Baldur’s Gate. So I strongly disagree with your dogshit assertion. If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc. And from the looks of OpenCritic, seems like a very universal feeling.
I’m talking about the company. They’re dogshit for releasing it in the state they did and slightly less so for ultimately fixing at least some issues and giving some of the promised features.
If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc
Not even close. Especially with the DLC, how would making paid DLC in any way redeem the company?
“Slightly less dogshit”? Have you played 2.0 yet? Have you even played 1.6? Doesn’t sound like it. They put in a ton of fixes an QoL in the last two years and this latest patch is just one more FREE update. They didn’t “fix some of the issues years later”. They fixed most of the issues over the last two years and now are providing optional new content. The redemption is that after fixing all that, the new content is apparently free from the issues that plagued the original launch.
And it’s VERY clear from the way you’re talking that nothing they do could redeem them in your eyes. I’m pretty sure they didn’t shit in your breakfast cereal so you can stop acting like they did. It was one bad launch, not a pattern of bad games or anything like that. And they worked hard to remedy the issue. Just because you want MORE free stuff than the content they’ve added in the last two years, doesn’t make them a bad company. Kinda makes you sound bad tho…
I’m just going to quote another comment I wrote about this for starters
I’m talking about the company. They’re dogshit for releasing it in the state they did and slightly less so for ultimately fixing at least some issues and giving some of the promised features.
If the DLC and 2.0 make it better then it’s for sure a redemption arc
Not even close. Especially with the DLC, how would making paid DLC in any way redeem the company?
I’m not giving them kudos for finally fixing stuff and bringing stuff they should’ve had in the first place. Much less calling bare minimum like that a “redemption arc”.
And it’s VERY clear from the way you’re talking that nothing they do could redeem them in your eyes.
They bungled the false advertising, hype and overall the state the game was in launch so bad that it sure is hard. Then again, all big gaming companies are dogshit like that and I haven’t seen anyone else coming back either. And people keep forgiving them, buying their games and nothing changes. CDPR just had a bigger fall than the rest, coming off the Witcher 3 hype and having created the massive hype for 2077.
It was one bad launch, not a pattern of bad games or anything like that.
It was a massive overhyping and misleading of customers. Then releasing the game in a such a bad state. I just don’t like it when any company does that,
I’ve been playing Prey. Just finished replaying Dishonored a few weeks ago, which led to playing dishonored 2 and death of the outsider. So, I was feeling a stealth sim and decided that after several years of owning the game I should give it a shot. It’s been fun so far.
It’s interesting. It’s more of a linear adventure game that doesn’t really give you a ton of wiggle room but it’s got a pretty unique story that combines well with some gameplay mechanics. I also really liked the visuals.
Ahh nuts, you’re right. It was harder to find the right one than I expected and didn’t even realize it was an April Fools joke. Thanks for the correction!
At the end of the day, Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty DLC probably won’t change your mind if you just disliked the base game
so, no. but if you were okay with how it was before you’ll probably like it more now. it’s still not the game they marketed but it’s unlikely it ever would be.
I really enjoyed the base game, I just waited a little after launch (like always) to play with some bug fixes updates.
I was just coming back from a gigantic period in my life where I didn’t game much, and never on PC - Cyberpunk was the first AAA I played right after coming back. This meant I wasn’t following the game for years and building a lot of expectations, and it didn’t disappoint me because “mechanic X was missing!” because I never knew I could expect X anyways.
I also wanted something a bit more linear, but still an open world, which is something this game balances pretty well.
The end result is that I really liked it. In fact, I prefer it to GTA V, which is a game that, in my opinion, struggles with balancing it’s mission structure with the actual game world.
When I’m researching things about the game even when I’m not playing.
Starfield is definitely doing that for me. Before that Distant Worlds 2, X4 Foundations, Elite Dangerous, Skyrim, Space Engineers, Empyrion, GTA V, and Minecraft have all done that.
Personally, I think it’s absurd to remove a mod that harms nobody. As a nonbinary person, I was ecstatic to see “they/them” as a pronoun choice, but I understand that having to choose pronouns can be triggering for some people, just as much as not having the option can be triggering for others. Why not let people play the game the way they want? Isn’t that the appeal of a Bethesda game, after all?
I’m pretty sure Nexus Mods admins have the ability to lock comments on a mod - why not just do that for controversial mods like this one? People who want it could still use it, just without the hatred and vitriol that might otherwise be in the comments.
I completely agree with your perspective. The essence of a Bethesda game, and many other sandbox-style games, is the freedom to tailor the experience to one’s own preferences. Removing a mod that is essentially harmless takes away from that freedom and raises questions about the influence of ideological stances in the moderation process.
As you suggested, locking the comments could serve as a reasonable compromise. It would allow those who wish to use the mod to do so, while mitigating the potential for inflammatory discussions. This way, the community retains its diversity of choice without being subjected to a single viewpoint.
From what people who had seen the mod page were saying when this all started blowing up, was that it was removed not for what the mod did, but for what the author of the mod put in the mod description page (basically full of racist, sexist, homo and transphobic bullshit), which was a violation of their rules. Plenty of other mods that remove the pronouns option still exist on Nexus, but without the bigotry clearly laid down in their descriptions.
If it’s indeed the case that the mod was removed due to the author’s statements in the mod description, then the removal is justifiable based on those grounds. This would then be less about the content of the mod itself and more about adherence to platform guidelines. It also highlights the importance of understanding the complete context behind moderation decisions, rather than focusing solely on the mod’s functionality.
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze