SJW Cancer strikes again.... Overwatch Tracer...

[quote=Mooninites]title[/quote]

[quote=Searz]Are you kidding me? This is your pathetic attempt at a discussion thread? At least post some relevant info.. Allow me to help: [url=http://overwatch.blizzplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/tracer-victory-pose-2-over-the-shoulder.png]This was the pose[/url]. [url=http://i.imgur.com/8T07K2X.png]This was the complaint[/url]. [url=http://i.imgur.com/opY4quZ.png]And this was the response from the game director[/url]. [url=http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/e664c920815708199f5a3e4f82e2096a/203611210/hanzo-victory-pose-3-over-the-shoulder.png]A quick google search reveals that there are at least 3 male characters with a very similar pose (with the exact same name)[/url], so complaining about that seems like a simple case of Tumblr retardation. Bonus parody video: [embed=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydii76-1l5w] [url=http://www.nerfnow.com/img/1780/2820.png]And a comic[/url].[/quote]

[quote=Meiyjhe][quote=Searz]Bonus parody video: [embed=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydii76-1l5w][/quote]Lel Imo, this is one of the least worrisome topics SJWs have influenced in the last few years. It isn't really censorship or taking away a part of the experience when Widowmaker is still there for the ones that want to experience the booty. Much more worrisome things to talk about would be how SJWs are influencing universities and how they take away freedom of speech from them (just google "SJW" and "universities" to see how much shit is happening there). A guy cannot have his stupid haircut because it is considered "cultural appropriation" which is also one of the most bs things I have ever heard of[url=https://www.facebook.com/shitwankindustries/videos/1086029074753094/](1)[/url]. Historical art and books are being destroyed [url=http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/02/18/black-students-burn-paintings-of-whites-in-south-africa-protest/](2)[/url][url=http://www.therebel.media/universities_bring_book_burning_back_one_page_at_a_time](3)[/url]. Martin Luther King is now considered sexist and they want to edit it because his quote “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…” isn't inclusive enough towards women. [url=http://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/01/25/2438507/](4)[/url] People are being censored for being who they are and history is being destroyed because it is "too white" or "not inclusive enough". These are the things we should be outraged about, but the removal of a pose ain't one.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][img=http://cdn2.crushable.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Princess-Bride-you-keep-using-that-word.gif] Freedom of speech, at least in the US (and a lot of other places too), is the right to communicate your opinions/ideas without fear of [b]government[/b] retaliation/censorship, full stop. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says in relation to your speech (their response to you will generally be covered by free speech too, just btw*), it doesn't mean someone can't ask you to not say something they find offensive because "free speech", and it doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of the things you say (like if you got fired from your job for saying something sexist/racist/etc). If people could stop misusing that term, that'd be great, since it is completely unrelated to anything being discussed here. The government is not censoring your speech because they don't like it and you are not being thrown in jail because you said something the government didn't like, which is what freedom of speech being "taken away" actually looks like. No one's freedom of speech/expression is being impinged on because one black person said they thought a white person shouldn't wear dreadlocks because they feel that it's cultural appropriation (just as an example); that has nothing to with what "freedom of speech" actually is. Disclaimer: I don't agree with people doing things like the example I used above, but I also am really tired of people misusing the phrases "freedom of speech" and "free speech" in relation to situations that have nothing to do with what that concept actually is. *Obviously if someone's response to you falls under hate speech, libel/slander, and other forms of speech/expression that are not protected by freedom of speech (in the US) they can face legal repercussions, but that isn't what I was referring to.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]it doesn't mean someone can't ask you to not say something[/quote]Holy negatives batman! [quote]No one's freedom of speech/expression is being impinged on because one black person said they thought a white person shouldn't wear dreadlocks because they feel that it's cultural appropriation (just as an example); that has nothing to with what "freedom of speech" actually is.[/quote]While it does seem like that could be incorrect use of the term, are you sure he meant that the link had something to do with that? Because, I mean, I'd like to think that it's fairly obvious that cultural appropriation has nothing to do with free speech. Could he not be referring to something else? [quote=Meiyjhe]People are being censored for being who they are and history is being destroyed because it is "too white" or "not inclusive enough". These are the things we should be outraged about, but the removal of a pose ain't one.[/quote][img=http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/clashofclans/images/c/ce/Why_not_both%3F.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130824200436] I believe this is the fallacy of relative privation. Don't be a baddie; don't use fallacies.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]That first statement was correct grammatically and its point is clear. Also, he made a comment about "free speech" then immediately followed it with examples of it supposedly being taken away from universities, even though all of the said examples have nothing to do with the freedom of speech/expression as a fundamental right. I understand that there is an issue with the way people are acting in this sense, but I also have a problem with the fact that people continually misuse "free speech" in an attempt to make this issue seem to be something it just isn't.[/quote]

[quote=Meiyjhe][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]That statement was correct grammatically and its point is clear. Also, he made a comment about "free speech" then immediately followed it with examples of it supposedly being taken away from universities, even though all of the said examples have nothing to do with the freedom of speech/expression as a fundamental right.[/quote]My intent was more listing examples of how SJWs are censoring people and culture rather than censoring a specific product. SJW's are doing their best to push their ideology on people and if you are a straight white male and choose not to follow their ideology. The fact that more voice is given to SJWs who redicule and belittle straight white men just for who they are, is taking away the voice of this group of people. It doesn't contradict freedom of speech, but it does limit people's capabilities of performing freedom of speech. This is why it was an important part of my statement towards censorship of people and culture. The fact that my statement afterwards was unrelated was because they were individual statements. I would've provided a link for the first statement as well, but there was no link that I was familiar with that would round up the point I was trying to make properly. It is more a combination of bits and pieces I have gathered from news over the past few weeks. I should've stated what I meant with the limiting of freedom of speech more properly I guess, but hereby what I meant with it. [quote=searz]I believe this is the fallacy of relative privation. Don't be a baddie; don't use fallacies.[/quote]It is good to be critical of decisions a company makes and it is also good to be on the edge of your seat when it comes to censorship. In this case however, it is just one silly pose that does not impact the artistic vision of the creators. The creators themselves have noted this: [i]"We wouldn’t do anything to sacrifice our creative vision for Overwatch, and we’re not going to remove something solely because someone may take issue with it. Our goal isn’t to water down or homogenize the world, or the diverse cast of heroes we’ve built within it. We have poured so much of our heart and souls into this game that it would be a travesty for us to do so.[/i] [i][/i] [i]We understand that not everyone will agree with our decision, and that’s okay. That’s what these kinds of public tests are for. This wasn’t pandering or caving, though. This was the right call from our perspective, and we think the game will be just as fun the next time you play it.[/i] [i][/i] [i]If it isn’t, feel free to continue sharing your concerns, thoughts, and feedback about this and other issues you may have with the game, please just keep the discussion respectful."[/i] Which indicates to me that they feel taking away the pose would do nothing to take away from their game, they even state it adds to their game as they feel it would fit their own perspective more so. I found that a lot of people create a lot more fuss about it than there has to be. It is healthy to critique, but the fact that OP called this action a case of "SJW's cancer strikes again" I found unreasonable. Thus I thought it would be good to bring out cases where SJW's [i]are[/i] actually taking it too far.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=Meiyjhe][i]"We wouldn’t do anything to sacrifice our creative vision for Overwatch, and we’re not going to remove something solely because someone may take issue with it. Our goal isn’t to water down or homogenize the world, or the diverse cast of heroes we’ve built within it. We have poured so much of our heart and souls into this game that it would be a travesty for us to do so.[/i][/quote]Which seems pretty contradictory considering [url=http://i.imgur.com/opY4quZ.png]this first response[/url]. This is just a typical bullshit statement to save face and try to calm both sides down. The most stupid part about this whole ordeal is that it's a pose that already exists in the game. It's already coded in there, it's not some concept. It makes absolutely zero sense to remove it. Don't like it? USE ANOTHER ONE. If they wanted to do the right thing they'd simply add more poses, to fit everybody, not remove/replace because of clamoring morons. [quote=The_Nameless_Bard]That first statement was correct grammatically and its point is clear.[/quote]I know. It's just extrasuperfuntimes whenever there's 3+ negatives in a sentence :D[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]Freedom of speech, at least in the US (and a lot of other places too), is the right to communicate your opinions/ideas without fear of [being censored by] [b]government[/b][/quote]I honestly think this definition is too restrictive. Replace "government" with "organized groups" and I think it would probably be more accurate (a government is an organized group, so that part still holds true). Because there are things like this happening: [embed=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0] And this is likely the kind of thing that Meijyhe is the referring to.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard]I was mostly referring to the US bill of rights (quoted below) when I said that, which should be obvious from the way I worded it [quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote] And in that case saying "organized groups" is not "more accurate".[/quote]