I feel like the person posting that in the first place was not really acting in good faith - with as highly politicized as the topic is, and with how much people genuinely care about it given the way people’s rights to just live have been so quickly taken away, posting that was basically lobbing a grenade to watch what happens. It couldn’t just be an innocuous post because by nature of what it was, it wasn’t innocuous, and there was no way to not know that. People were going to get angry and the comment section was, very predictably, both here and in the Starfield comm it was cross posted to, going to turn into a dumpster fire. It felt like, to me, that the OP had an ax to grind, and that came out in their replies to people who were upset. It was by nature an incendiary post, and got incendiary reactions.
The recent exchange surrounding that post has raised serious concerns about the quality of discourse on this platform. Rather than engaging in reasoned debate to dissect the complexities of the issue, many participants seem to resort to inflammatory rhetoric. This unfortunate trend undermines the very purpose of a discussion forum and has led me to reconsider my continued participation here.
It is meaningless to engage in bad faith discussions. Are you aware of the paradox of tolerance? Tolerating intolerance only serves the purposes of the intolerant, while the tolerant get pushed aside (which could mean anything from disenfranchisement to death)
Therefore, the tolerant must be intolerant towards intolerance.
There exists no good faith or tolerant argument in which removing pronouns makes sense, it is at its base a message of intolerance.
There are no complexities and no discussions to be had, you are either intolerant yourself, or naïve, if you think this is a topic that can be discussed.
The intent of my original post was not to advocate for intolerance, but to question how moderation decisions are made, especially when there appears to be inconsistency. In doing so, I hoped to promote reasoned debate on that specific issue, not to engage in bad faith discussions.
While I understand that certain topics may be inherently fraught, the objective was to consider how platform moderation intersects with issues of free choice and community standards. That said, if the prevailing consensus is that some subjects are too divisive for productive discourse, then that too is a topic worth discussing.
I’m kind of curious to here about Nexus’ inconsistency. As far as I can tell they’ve been pretty consistent if the mod gets their attention. There was a Spider-Man mod that removed a pride flag, and Nexus removed that too. That feels consistent to me.
Calling people the things they literally are is not name-calling. For example, conservatives tried to overthrow our government, tried to overthrow our democracy, and have been sending elementary schools in my town bomb threats for weeks. It’s not name calling to say they’re terrorists.
Edit: To clarify, the bomb threats are because a librarian joked about having a “woke agenda.” These are the same types of people.
Not at all. I believe that people should have freedom of choice for how they want to play their games. Everyone has a different escape from reality.
I understand that Nexus Mods have the right to choose what they want to host, that’s not the point. I believe that the moderators of the site need to choose what really crosses the line. The mod itself is harmless. Do you agree with hosting the Kill All Children mod for Skyrim still? If so, why?
If the reality you want to escape from is that “sometimes people use pronouns that are different from the ones I think they should use”, you’re an intolerant bigot.
If someone made a mod to remove black people from the game because “sometimes I want to escape from the reality that black people exist” it would be entirely justified to call that person a racist. This is no different.
I’d like to clarify that my argument is centered around the role of platform moderation and how they determine what content crosses ethical or moral lines. While you’ve offered an extreme example with the hypothetical mod that removes black people, the comparison doesn’t precisely align with the mod under discussion.
I used the ‘Kill All Children’ mod for Skyrim as an example to point out inconsistencies in moderation decisions. The objective is to question where the line should be drawn and who gets to draw it, not to endorse intolerant or bigoted views.
No, I haven’t offered an extreme example. I’ve offered an identical example. Escaping from the reality that black people exist, and escaping from the reality that people can in fact just choose their own pronouns are not meaningfully different in any way. In both cases someone is trying to erase from their personal reality the existence of an entire group of people, in a way that is targeted on specific lines of bigotry.
If you’re not willing to acknowledge that simple fact then you’re not ready to have this conservation.
That’s why there is a meaningful difference between this and the kill all children mod. While tasteless and gross, there’s never been any meaningful indication that the people installing kill all children actually want to see children, as a class of people, erased from existence. They’re engaged in some extremely unpleasant roleplaying, but barring the rare exceptions that will exist in any sufficient sample size they’re not actively expressing views about the real world through this choice. OTOH the pronoun removal mod is very much about expressing a desire to, at best, refuse to acknowledge the existence of a group of people, and far more likely a desire that said group not exist at all. And if you don’t believe that desire exists in a not insignificant number of people then I beg you to look outside your window for once in your life.
We can draw a moral line between these two things by applying Popper’s paradox of tolerance; the only thing a tolerant society cannot tolerate is intolerance. There is a clear moral justification for the suppression of expression when it is an expression of intolerance. That is the moral principle that Nexus are applying here (whether they are conscious of it or not).
Not only can you be a defender of free speech and still support the suppression of intolerant speech; it is in fact absolutely necessary to do so. If tolerated, the intolerant will use their freedom of speech to destroy everyone else’s while pushing their intolerant ideals. It is therefore - paradoxically - impossible to support free speech while supporting the free speech of bigots. To be true champions of free speech we must be intolerant of the intolerant.
In response to the point you’ve raised, the issue of platform moderation does involve a complex balance between allowing diversity of opinion and restricting what is considered harmful or intolerant. However, it’s crucial to note that not all forms of censorship or moderation are created equal.
Your argument posits that the ‘Kill All Children’ mod and the pronoun-removal mod are qualitatively different, based on the intent or impact behind them. The latter, you say, has real-world implications, as it aims to negate the existence of a specific group, while the former is seen as “extremely unpleasant role-playing” that isn’t necessarily a call for real-world action against children.
Yet, the stance seems to be rooted in the assumption that everyone who would use the pronoun-removal mod does so with malicious intent to deny the existence of non-binary or transgender people. While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.
The use of Popper’s paradox of tolerance in this discussion is intriguing but might oversimplify the complexities involved in moderating a digital platform. While intolerance shouldn’t be tolerated, determining what constitutes ‘intolerance’ is often subjective and open to interpretation. Therefore, it’s crucial for platform moderators to engage in transparent and reasoned decision-making processes when determining what is allowed and what is not.
Your last point suggests that it’s not just permissible but necessary to restrict the free speech of those considered intolerant to protect free speech for all. However, this approach can easily lead to a slippery slope where the definition of ‘intolerance’ becomes malleable, potentially leading to an erosion of the very free speech rights that the policy aims to protect.
The issue is not straightforward, and the boundaries of what should or shouldn’t be tolerated in an online community are often fluid. Thus, there remains a need for a nuanced conversation around these topics, which goes beyond labelling something as intolerant and calling for its suppression.
While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.
Give me one single scenario in which a person needs to remove the option to select your characters pronouns, without that decision carrying, as you put it, ideological baggage.
A scenario that comes to mind is one where a player simply wants to streamline their game experience, eliminating any elements they perceive as non-essential to their gameplay. This wouldn’t necessarily imply ideological baggage; it could simply be an attempt to customize the game to better suit their individual preferences. However, I acknowledge that the topic is complex and there’s a lot to consider in the broader conversation about platform moderation.
Fair point about the default option being prefilled. However, the idea of what ‘streamlining’ means can differ among individuals. Some might want to remove elements they find non-essential, even if those elements are prefilled. It’s about catering to one’s own idea of what the game should be. Why should the interpretation of ‘streamlining’ be limited to your understanding?
Oh, now I see. It was never about the pronouns, it’s just about streamlining the user experience. How could I have been so stupid, thinking that the only intent behind this mod was bigoty, when in reality it was innocent streamlining.
…
Dude, the dog whistle isn’t subtle. Could you stop?
My aim is to discuss what types of content should be removed and why. The mod’s creator did include comments that violate guidelines, so its removal is justified on that basis. However, dismissing the topic as a ‘dog whistle’ doesn’t help us explore the larger questions around platform moderation and community standards.
If you wanted to discuss that, your first step would be to look for Nexusmods moderation policy and read it. Or if they don’t have one published to note that fact.
Then start a post discussing that moderation policy and asking how moderation should be done.
Instead you started your post by focusing on the removal of a particular bigoted mod, which of course makes it a needlessly charged discussion if you’re looking for purely rational discussion about how moderation decisions are made. Then you keep making these absurd arguments — like claiming this mod may have just been about streamlining. This looks like trolling. And it talks like trolling. You claim I’m missing the point. I don’t think I am. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it’s probably a maga troll that’s “just asking questions”.
While I acknowledge that the discussion started with the example of a specific mod, the intent was to use that as a jumping-off point for broader questions about moderation. However, I concede that the charged nature of that particular mod has perhaps overshadowed the broader discussion I was aiming for. I did review Nexus Mods guidelines, and the mod in question was rightly removed based on them. The idea was to prompt thought about how these policies are crafted and applied across a range of content. The mention of ‘streamlining’ was intended to explore the various motivations behind mod creation, not to justify this specific mod’s existence. I assure you, this is not an attempt at trolling but rather an effort to foster a meaningful conversation about platform governance.
I just finished the 2nd boss. This game feel funny to me. I played Soul Like with parrying consecutively (Sekiro , Wo Long, Jedi Survivor), so my instinct is to parry, but not seeing stagger bar and hearing people calling it Blood Bourne cause me to try to dodge primarily instead. Hey, it got me this far.
I will try playing it with parrying and see if it make my life easier. Those damn charging enemy with their multi hit drill require parrying on every tick. I’m not gonna Daigo that shit lol.
I think this game need Hanbei to teach the player basic. Those punching bags are so useless.
It's a scifi roguelike where you lead a team of prospectors to try to recover valuables from across space to make enough money to retire.
Kind of in an odd spot source-wise, as the recent source code technically isn't open/available (last open releases were 10+ years ago), so it may no longer really fit, but seemed worth mentioning nevertheless.
As someone who was hyped for Cyberpunk but backed out due to all the negative press, I'm cautiously optimistic about Phantom Liberty. I was a little concerned back when they announced the game would only have one major expansion, but the free update revamping the game has eased a lot of those concerns. Looking forward to finally picking up Cyberpunk once the update and expansion are out.
I played on my launch ps4 system. Had to reformat the drive to resolve some hard locks when loading. But goddamn when I finally got into it, I found the game so enjoyable. The quests, and stories hidden in some the corners were great and detailed. My only true complaint was a bit of a shallow open world experience (wanted mini games, better cop interactions etc.) Once I cranked up the difficulty and really loved the combat. Even doing leveling loops just fragging or slicing apart groups was satisfying. I cannot wait to load it up on pc with PL and see how far it’s come.
Hold the parry button rather than clicking it quickly. When you first hold the parry button is when the window starts, and it lasts a few frames while held. This works for perfect guard as well.
You’ll still need to time it properly, but holding it longer should have a noticeable improvement in the consistency of your parries.
I start ‘solving’ the game’s puzzles in my dreams, or random mechanics from the game show up in my dreams somehow. When that happens I know a game has its hooks deep into me.
I’m glad I’ve barely started it even though it’s been in my library for a while. Hopefully this is much closer to their vision. Looking forward to Thursday!
I’m one of the foolish ones that actually pre-ordered the game. Was super hyped for it too, did a countdown till midnight so that I can start playing at launch, and I even live streamed it (and also had a few other streams going on two laptops). Took the day off to play the game as well.
The clock hit 00:00 and less than 30 minutes into the game, I ran into my first bug. I stuck was in a dialog loop and couldn’t get out no matter what I tried, so was for forced to load an earlier save. Then I got stuck somewhere else, or something funky would happen. I’d never been so utterly disappointed in a game until Cyberpunk came along. So anyways, I was so put off by it that I’d decided not to play it any further, until they patched it all up. So the first patch came along, but this time I decided to read the reviews first - still plenty of bugs. Thought I’d wait for the next one, noope, still buggy. And the next one. And the next. And then I decided to ignore the game completely, until not only they fixed the bugs, but also added QoL stuff into the game. Like better AI, better peds, better driving etc. Make the city more immersive. I mean, I had waited for so long, so might as well wait and play until it’s at it’s best version.
So, not only will I not play now, nor when 2.0 comes out, I’ll play it only when Phantom Liberty is out, and will enjoy the game, for the first-ish time, the way it was meant to be played.
Assuming of course that Phantom Liberty isn’t a dud, but having learnt from my previous experience, I might wait a bit after it comes out and see if they release a post-launch patch or something first.
Never again pre-ordering a game… unless it’s a Zelda.
I was just totally disappointed by it… it was basically “Breath of the Wild, Director’s Cut/Remake”, and I didn’t enjoy the building mechanic at all, which seems to be what they had spent most of their time working on. If I’d waited for the reviews I don’t know if I would have bought it. I definitely would have waited for a sale at least.
Valid critique. I felt like it really built on the first game in positive ways in gameplay and story. They basically hid the existence of the Depths until the games release. I spent very little time building stuff, and a lot of time fucking around in the Depths.
For a game existing in the same world as the previous title, I think it worked well for what it was. Also, far fewer people complained about Far Cry 4/Far Cry Primal having the exact same map, slightly tweaked, so the complaints about it seemed a little confusing for me.
However, I would agree that while I think it’s bigger than a DLC, it really shouldn’t have been $70 brand new, especially when they had no plans to make DLC for it.
…did a countdown till midnight so that I can start playing at launch, and I even live streamed it (and also had a few other streams going on two laptops). Took the day off to play the game as well.
Every time I read stuff like this, I just shake my head, no matter what game is being discussed. I won’t say this has NEVER worked, but certainly not for the last decade or two. Games have just evolved to the point where big budget releases are always problematic right at launch. Whether it’s full of bugs like CP2077 or it has server issues like all the “live service” games, there is always something that makes playing right at launch just not viable.
I really like having learned delayed gratification. There are plenty of great games (and shows and movies and music) that I’m happy to wait to experience later when I’m ready for them. The only issue is just time-sensitive things like spoilers from other people or games that depend on live servers/seasonal events and I try to avoid those. And being patient often means better discounts, game of the year editions, multiple DLCs, humble bundles, more mods, etc. As long as you aren’t worried about FOMO, it means you’re far less likely to be surprised or upset over the quality or price point of any particular game.
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze