Or, y’know, go with the original version of the trolley problem, where you start with the classic formulation (do you pull the lever?), then move to a new scenario;
“You’re a doctor, working in a hospital that has been cut off from outside resources by a disaster. You have five patients, one in need of a liver, one a heart, one a pair of kidneys, one a set of lungs, and one a pancreas. You have no suitable organs available, and all five patients will die without transplants, but there is a healthy young janitor working in the hospital who, by a stroke of extreme luck, is a compatible donor for all five patients. You could kill the janitor, harvest their organs, and save five people. Should you do it?”
Fascinatingly, almost everyone opts to pull the lever in the first part, but refuses to kill the janitor in the second, even though they are, from a deeply utilitarian perspective, the same choice. Unravelling why we see them as different is where things get really interesting.
Only this motherfucker could make a blockchain based product in 2023 and think he’s still ahead of the curve (and not, y’know, turning up to buy tickets on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg).
Originally he was a well liked, well respected autuer game designer from back in the days when that was still a thing. He made games like Populous, and people thought he was pretty cool.
Around the time of Black and White, the cracks started to show. He had bought into his own hype, and had a real tendency to over promise and under deliver. But, even though it didn’t exactly match up to some of his more grandiose descriptions, Black & White was still a very good game, so people didn’t mind.
Fable was where things really went off the rails. The thing is, Fable was a very good game, a fun but largely quite contained RPG, feeling more like a western take on a Zelda game than anything (as in the N64 Zelda games).
But it was not the game that Molyneux promised. Not even slightly. The game he described was one that would have nearly photo realistic graphics, and a vast open world where you could literally see a distant mountain peak and set off to climb it. A world where you could kill a man in a duel, and his son would grow up dedicating their life to one day hunting you down and killing you. A world where you could conquer whole nations with armies of darkness at your command.
Think Skyrim crossed with Mount & Blade crossed with Crusader Kings crossed with Star Citizen. Now imagine that game releasing at the same time as Morrowind.
So by this point people were starting to understand that Molyneux was fundamentally incapable of a) reigning in his imagination, and b) operating in the modern world of game development.
And then we got to Curiosity. If you don’t know, it was a mobile game where all you did was tap on a big cube made of layers of little cubes. Every time you tapped on a little cube it got destroyed, and everyone was working together on this, so each cube was destroyed for everyone. The goal was to destroy all the layers and reveal the centre, and whoever destroyed the last layer would win a prize. Kind of dumb, very simple. But Molyneux, Molyneux hyped this to the heavens. This wasn’t just a “game”, oh no, this was a grand social experiment the likes of which the world had never seen before, and the winner would recieve something “truly life changing.” Molyneux hammered that point a lot. “Life changing.”
What they recieved was that a character would be named after them in Godus, the Kickstarter game Molyneux was making. Oh, and they’d get “a portion” of the revenue from the game (it was never publicly stated how big that portion would be).
That was back in 2013. Ten years later Godus is still in early access, backers are clamouring for refunds after basically none of the Kickstarter promises were met, and the winner of Curiosity has not been contacted by the company since 2016.
He has never seen a cent of the money he was promised.
Honestly, it’s a really good game now. The writing is solid (not winning Oscars, but there are engaging and well written characters who will make you feel things), the combat is fun, you can flow freely between stealthy and loud as suits your preference, and there are hours upon hours of really enjoyable side missions. As a longtime Shadowrun tabletop player/gm I especially loved the gigs, each of which is just a self contained run. Go to this place, steal/plant/kill/ferry/rescue, get paid, done. They’re all great little puzzles to be solved in dozens of different ways.
I’m not trying to justify a day one purchase; I held off for over a year and I’m glad I did. But the game as it is now is well worth the money.
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.
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.