Some Flirts and Jokes Removed on the PTR, Fathom Dweller Available in NA, DLC #791

[Orby]

Nope. Also if we gonna play the game that we are supposed to remove everything because someone find it offensive then you can't have anything in the game. Anyone can find anything offensive.

Only until people are affected by said thing. Just because said thing is bad, or as bad, as wrong thinking, sexual innuendo, or pee pee jokes doesn't mean they will remove it... Maybe if all the team were affected by a lot of the bad things and subjects in the game then those things will be removed. a bit like how Jimmy doesn't give a shit about curing spinal paralysis until he is paralyzed from the neck down (dark example I am sorry)

[Kumorii]

By saying 'anyone can find anything offensive', you're assuming that there is a lack of reason and thought behind decision making. So let's leave it.

The developers aren't just going to go, 'well there's a set of people who find the colour yellow offensive, so let's remove it'.

No i just don't assume that everyone has the same stance and only think my pov and the ones who share it are in the right. Especially when it comes to the topic at hand which is so obviously subjective and you will find view all over the place of it. Why is it OK to find X offensive and not Y? And are you the arbiter of which is correct?

Personally my view is that finding things offensive is human. We all find things offensive due different backgrounds. It's a fact of life. Thinking there is an objective stance to it which your comment "rational and thought" implies that it does is a bit arrogant. Because it gives you right to dismiss other views you don't agree with. While Insisting your view of what's offensive is correct and should be adhered to.

Your peanut thing is an objective thing causing real harm which doesn't apply to this subjective topic of what's offensive. I never made an argument selfishness doesn't exist. My argument is that in this context its non arguement because both sides are selfish in their own right depending on which side you are looking from.

But I think I've made my point. If you don't agree, that's completely OK.

[DingDongKing]

No i just don't assume that everyone has the same stance and only think my pov and the ones who share it are in the right. Especially when it comes to the topic at hand which is so obviously subjective and you will find view all over the place of it. Why is it OK to find X offensive and not Y? And are you the arbiter of which is correct?

Personally my view is that finding things offensive is human. We all find things offensive due different backgrounds. It's a fact of life. Thinking there is an objective stance to it which your comment "rational and thought" implies that it does. Because it gives you right to dismiss other views you don't agree with. While Insisting your view of what's offensive is correct and should be adhered to.

Your peanut thing is an objective thing causing real harm which doesn't apply to this subjective topic of what's offensive. I never made an argument selfishness doesn't exist. My argument is that in this context its non arguement because both sides are selfish in their own right depending on which side you are looking from.

But I think I've made my point. If you don't agree, that's completely OK.

I don't agree with you. And I don't expect you to agree with me, because we're clearly on different paths.

I personally am not affected by the content staying or going. But there are clearly enough people who want it gone, so fine.

[Kumorii]

Only until people are affected by said thing. Just because said thing is bad, or as bad, as wrong thinking, sexual innuendo, or pee pee jokes doesn't mean they will remove it... Maybe if all the team were affected by a lot of the bad things and subjects in the game then those things will be removed. a bit like how Jimmy doesn't give a shit about curing spinal paralysis until he is paralyzed from the neck down (dark example I am sorry)

Which makes it selfish ironically...
Then again I have a hard time relating to finding things so offensive I want to change it. We all have our own backgrounds and strife. We all find different things "offensive" or spark a feeling of discomfort. I wouldn't feel comfortable in making sure others have to avoid what I find discomfort in.
Usually when a things like that gets brought up in groups or whatever situation. I can't be alone in noticing how the atmosphere changes. Everyone starts to walk on eggshells, it becomes more stiff, people are worried what they say next might offend someone etc etc. I just hate that.

Then we have the issue that if you do find something offensive, or hell even fear something, avoiding it or sheltering yourself from it only makes it worse when exposed to it. So it becomes a downward spiral. While exposing yourself to it and learn that there is no real danger in feeling discomfort or being "offended" you will become more tolerant to it.

[Orby]

Which makes it selfish ironically...
Then again I have a hard time relating to finding things so offensive I want to change it. We all have our own backgrounds and strife. We all find different things "offensive" or spark a feeling of discomfort. I wouldn't feel comfortable in making sure others have to avoid what I find discomfort in.
Usually when a things like that gets brought up in groups or whatever situation. I can't be alone in noticing how the atmosphere changes. Everyone starts to walk on eggshells, it becomes more stiff, people are worried what they say next might offend someone etc etc. I just hate that.

Then we have the issue that if you do find something offensive, or hell even fear something, avoiding it or sheltering yourself from it only makes it worse when exposed to it. So it becomes a downward spiral. While exposing yourself to it and learn that there is no real danger in feeling discomfort or being "offended" you will become more tolerant to it.

Personally I don't blame the people who wanted it removed, I see alot of people blaming them, they are not the ones to blame. Blame the dumb asses who decided to cube crawl, and touch ass and sexually harass people, if these twats kept their hands to themselves and decided to be decent people we might still have all of those things still in game. I do think people are shifting the blame unrightfully in this whole case here, mainly because they are the ones removing it.

[Relapses]

Personally I don't blame the people who wanted it removed, I see alot of people blaming them, they are not the ones to blame. Blame the dumb asses who decided to cube crawl, and touch ass and sexually harass people, if these twats kept their hands to themselves and decided to be decent people we might still have all of those things still in game. I do think people are shifting the blame unrightfully in this whole case here, mainly because they are the ones removing it.

I don't think that's the right way to approach it, especially considering the very reason some of those things are in the game is specifically because those people were terrible human beings. Like I said elsewhere in this topic, these things shouldn't have been in the game in the first place. And if you've since grown a fond attachment to the high brow adult humor that is a fishing supply NPC named Master Baiter then, well, that's not really a WoW problem when it's removed, is it?

[Dacia Ultan]

The jokes are fictional as well. They apparently said they were removing them to be more inclusive even though one of the jokes removed was the male blood elf saying Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me? And the removal of stuff is never makes anything inclusive, you add if you want to be inclusive.

Oh, I get it; you have a tenuous-at-best grasp of what the word "inclusive" means.

If you think black blood elves is something the game needs to be inclusive to the people who role play themselves as black blood elves in real life you don't remove blood elves from the game you make some fucking black blood elf skins. You worried that disabled people don't have any representation in your game you don't remove the models and switch the game from third to first person mode with invisible hands in case people with a missing limb get offended you add some models with disabilities.

Reductio ad absurdum. And when they did add black blood elves (among other options); people complained about that as much as they're currently complaining about the pointless and irrelevant removal of "bull in leather" jokes.

When you try and defend the removal of almost completely harmless jokes except to the most fragile of people in a game with very dark topics like rape and mass genocide then yes you are crying.

I'd say that you must therefore be doing that thing where you define "crying" as "any real or perceived complaint about something that you don't personally see as an issue," except "trying to defend" the removal of the jokes wouldn't even be a complaint (quite the opposite, in fact). And you're also conveniently ignoring the fact that no one is defending the removal of the jokes; the general consensus is that removing the jokes was pointless and irrelevant.

'Crying' and 'yelling' are both terms people use to mischaracterise views they disagree with...

No; they are ways to characterize a statement as, respectively, either petulant or an overreaction; while some people may "mischaracterize" statements as such just because they "disagree," neither is invariably the case. And once you start spamming reactionary dog whistles while accusing the other side of trying to make some sort of "political" statement: you are overreacting, and it's gone well beyond "disagreement."

People like relapses and dacia make me thank the universe ever day for not being born in America. Imagine having such a puritan view of the world.

So...according to you, only a "puritan" would refrain from freaking out and railing against straw over the removal of a few lines of dialogue. Do you just not know what that word means, or what?

The only one of us to use that word here is you.

Yeah...no. Multiple people have been throwing that little dog whistle around. And not in the ironic way that @Valkyrst used it, either.

I don't think that's the right way to approach it, especially considering the very reason some of those things are in the game is specifically because those people were terrible human beings. Like I said elsewhere in this topic, these things shouldn't have been in the game in the first place.

I don't know; /burp and /fart emotes and fart jokes don't really seem like "terrible human being" territory to me. Neither do the tauren "wet tongue" flirt and "bull in leather" joke. As I stated elsewhere: I suspect that a few things might have gotten removed just because someone deemed them dated (like "shout-out to my boys in Gnomeregan") or just stupid.

And if you've since grown a fond attachment to the high brow adult humor that is a fishing supply NPC named Master Baiter then, well, that's not really a WoW problem when it's removed, is it?

On the one hand: I like that the character actually has a name now, much less that it's kind of a deep-cut reference. On the other: I kind of found that one funny. (The character is a fisherbear, after all.)

[DingDongKing]

Oh, I get it; you have a tenuous-at-best grasp of what the word "inclusive" means.

Reductio ad absurdum. And when they did add black blood elves (among other options); people complained about that as much as they're currently complaining about the pointless and irrelevant removal of "bull in leather" jokes.

I'd say that you must therefore be doing that thing where you define "crying" as "any real or perceived complaint about something that you don't personally see as an issue," except "trying to defend" the removal of the jokes wouldn't even be a complaint (quite the opposite, in fact). And you're also conveniently ignoring the fact that no one is defending the removal of the jokes; the general consensus is that removing the jokes was pointless and irrelevant.

No; they are ways to characterize a statement as, respectively, either petulant or an overreaction; while some people may "mischaracterize" statements as such just because they "disagree," neither is invariably the case. And once you start spamming reactionary dog whistles while accusing the other side of trying to make some sort of "political" statement: you are overreacting, and it's gone well beyond "disagreement."

So...according to you, only a "puritan" would refrain from freaking out and railing against straw over the removal of a few lines of dialogue. Do you just not know what that word means, or what?

Yeah...no. Multiple people have been throwing that little dog whistle around. And not in the ironic way that @Valkyrst used it, either.

I don't know; /burp and /fart emotes and fart jokes don't really seem like "terrible human being" territory to me. Neither do the tauren "wet tongue" flirt and "bull in leather" joke. As I stated elsewhere: I suspect that a few things might have gotten removed just because someone deemed them dated (like "shout-out to my boys in Gnomeregan") or just stupid.

On the one hand: I like that the character actually has a name now, much less that it's kind of a deep-cut reference. On the other: I kind of found that one funny. (The character is a fisherbear, after all.)

Sensible post. Will be duly ignored by the ‘anti-woke’ crowd.

[Relapses]

I don't know; /burp and /fart emotes and fart jokes don't really seem like "terrible human being" territory to me. Neither do the tauren "wet tongue" flirt and "bull in leather" joke. As I stated elsewhere: I suspect that a few things might have gotten removed just because someone deemed them dated (like "shout-out to my boys in Gnomeregan") or just stupid.

On the one hand: I like that the character actually has a name now, much less that it's kind of a deep-cut reference. On the other: I kind of found that one funny. (The character is a fisherbear, after all.)

There are two separate types of changes happening.

1.) Changes because shitty people added shitty things to the game
2.) Changes because it no longer reflects the values of the current development team

My position is firmly that regardless of the reason behind the changes it's not up to us as players to argue about the validity of their removal. It's hard to know which of the two groups any given change falls into unless a developer comes and tells the story behind it (which is extremely unlikely to happen due to NDAs) so I think it's better to just leave it at what we know... which are the first hand accounts from the developers on Twitter and Blizzard's official statement on this.

[DarkAmbient]

Yeah...no. Multiple people have been throwing that little dog whistle around. And not in the ironic way that @Valkyrst used it, either.

Please note that I said "the only one of us", i.e. the only one out of Valkyrst and I. I did not say "the only person in this thread". You do understand the difference, yes?

[Dacia Ultan]

There are two separate types of changes happening.

1.) Changes because shitty people added shitty things to the game
2.) Changes because it no longer reflects the values of the current development team

My position is firmly that regardless of the reason behind the changes it's not up to us as players to argue about the validity of their removal. It's hard to know which of the two groups any given change falls into unless a developer comes and tells the story behind it (which is extremely unlikely to happen due to NDAs) so I think it's better to just leave it at what we know... which are the first hand accounts from the developers on Twitter and Blizzard's official statement on this.

I mean...I'm just not sure what kind of "values" would require the removal of /burp and /fart. And, on the contrary: I think we're entirely entitled to criticize weird unexplained decisions that seem irrelevant to the issue proper.

Please note that I said "the only one of us", i.e. the only one out of Valkyrst and I. I did not say "the only person in this thread". You do understand the difference, yes? Perhaps English isn't your first language, in which case you are forgiven.

I understand that you're splitting hairs, because nowhere in the English language is there a rule in which your wording, in the context of a greater discussion, would refer specifically to an exchange between two people rather than to the discussion as a whole. And you were a bit too slow in editing that last part out; so...yeah. Not even going to touch that.

[DingDongKing]

I mean...I'm just not sure what kind of "values" would require the removal of /burp and /fart. And, on the contrary: I think we're entirely entitled to criticize weird unexplained decisions that seem irrelevant to the issue proper.

I understand that you're splitting hairs, because nowhere in the English language is there a rule in which your wording, in the context of a greater discussion, would refer specifically to an exchange between two people rather than to the discussion as a whole. And you were a bit too slow in editing that last part out; so...yeah. Not even going to delve into why that's sketch.

When the guy has to start claiming English isn’t someone’s first language, you know it’s a lost cause.

[Dacia Ultan]

When the guy has to start claiming English isn’t someone’s first language, you know it’s a lost cause.

Or, at very least: that he's desperately trying to cover his ass by being condescending rather than just admitting error.

[DarkAmbient]

I understand that you're splitting hairs, because nowhere in the English language is there a rule in which your wording, in the context of a greater discussion, would refer specifically to an exchange between two people rather than to the discussion as a whole. And you were a bit too slow in editing that last part out; so...yeah. Not even going to touch that.

You are being utterly disingenuous. The poster was clearly referring to me, and I clearly replied to them on that basis, but you then decided to reply to me as if my response to them had meant something different. So you'll forgive me for wondering why you would so obviously misrepresent what I wrote, because anyone who is fluent in English would understand the meaning of that simple exchange.

If you (and others in this thread) can't engage in good faith then do us all a favour and don't bother at all.

[DingDongKing]

You are being utterly disingenuous. The poster was clearly referring to me, and I clearly replied to them on that basis, but you then decided to reply to me as if my response to them had meant something different. So you'll forgive me for wondering why you would so obviously misrepresent what I wrote, because anyone who is fluent in English would understand the meaning of that simple exchange.

If you (and others in this thread) can't engage in good faith then do us all a favour and don't bother at all.

Nope, wasn’t referring to you. Like I pointed out, but you clearly decided to ignore. I’m discussing the wider use of the word ‘woke’, because there’s a really fucking stupid appropriation of it occurring, where people use it as a pejorative term. Same way people now see the word ‘inclusive’ or it’s variants as some taboo word. The only person not engaging in good faith is you.

[Grimbold21]

It's always amusing to see the endorsement of the infantilization and sheltering of people, regardless of the level at which it occurs.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, wasn’t referring to you. Like I pointed out, but you clearly decided to ignore. I’m discussing the wider use of the word ‘woke’, because there’s a really fucking stupid appropriation of it occurring, where people use it as a pejorative term. Same way people now see the word ‘inclusive’ or it’s variants as some taboo word. The only person not engaging in good faith is you.

This is explained quite simply, actually.

Strawmen, or perhaps more accurately, extremes.

These conversations, debates, exchange of insults or what have you, are generally had with extremes, with what people consider to be the most extreme (and detrimental funny enough) representation of a given idea or group.

I don't know why this is surprising. For years now, we have had these discussions based on the most ridiculous or caricatures of such ideas, woke being one of them.

I'll bet you can have a chat with any "normal" person and they'll tell you that they're in favor of most issues that underpin these debates. It's in the "but"s that the divergence is created, normally by the "woke" crowd, but that's my own bias at work.

[DarkAmbient]

Nope, wasn’t referring to you. Like I pointed out, but you clearly decided to ignore. I’m discussing the wider use of the word ‘woke’, because there’s a really fucking stupid appropriation of it occurring, where people use it as a pejorative term. Same way people now see the word ‘inclusive’ or it’s variants as some taboo word. The only person not engaging in good faith is you.

Nope. You replied to my comment about therapy by saying "And screaming woke at everything is totally healthy" and when it was pointed out that I never said the word you tried to pretend it was a general remark about the thread. Just converse like a normal person who's chatting with other random people, it's easier and more pleasant all round. There's no need to misrepresent anyone.

[Relapses]

I mean...I'm just not sure what kind of "values" would require the removal of /burp and /fart. And, on the contrary: I think we're entirely entitled to criticize weird unexplained decisions that seem irrelevant to the issue proper.

If I'd wager a guess it's Blizzard seeking to remove as many "built-in" tools for player harassment as they can. I don't necessarily agree with the decision but I'm not going to rail against the dying light of the sun about how WoW has been irrevocably changed because I can no longer /fart on a half-naked female Night Elf dancing on the upstairs bed of Goldshire Inn on Moon Guard.

[Dacia Ultan]

You are being utterly disingenuous. The poster was clearly referring to me, and I clearly replied to them on that basis, but you then decided to reply to me as if my response to them had meant something different. So you'll forgive me for wondering why you would so obviously misrepresent what I wrote, because anyone who is fluent in English would understand the meaning of that simple exchange.

In a word: bull, and I don't mean a tauren who should still be able to joke about wearing leather. For one: @Valkyrst was not referring specifically to you (and has already made that clear), but to the discussion as a whole. For another: you're accusing others of being "disingenuous" and less-than-fluent in the language, while yourself splitting hairs rather than just admitting that you were the one who misinterpreted the context.

If you (and others in this thread) can't engage in good faith then do us all a favour and don't bother at all.

Oh, the irony. If you really feel that way: how about you just take your toys and go home?

It's always amusing to see the endorsement of the infantilization and sheltering of people, regardless of the level at which it occurs.

Cute straw. Next contestant?

If I'd wager a guess it's Blizzard seeking to remove as many "built-in" tools for player harassment as they can. I don't necessarily agree with the decision but I'm not going to rail against the dying light of the sun about how WoW has been irrevocably changed because I can no longer /fart on a half-naked female Night Elf dancing on the upstairs bed of Goldshire Inn on Moon Guard.

Neither am I, but I really don't recall /burp and /fart being used for harassment at all. (In terms of harassment: the main things I've dealt with either involved macros, or were along the lines of "PvPer being a douchebag while I'm trying to quest." But those are things that they can't really mitigate without fucking things up for PvPers who aren't douchebags, or something.) And if I go back to the game—which I might, if the ethics scandal is actually addressed—I'm likely to re-create at very least /burp via macro anyway.

[Grimbold21]

Cute straw. Next contestant?

Just making use of the same patronizing currency