I see what you did there

I guess things got a little too close to reality since the "rioters" in BoP Metro were just renamed to "Luthor Zealots." I noticed it right away, and at first thought that it was a change on the villains side since I was playing with a villain character at the time, but then I switched to a hero and it was the same. Then it dawned on me.

LOL

It had occurred to me too when I saw them.

When you are dealing with the ivy missions one of the cops says, and I quote "I'm going to put my boot on your neck" the first time I heard that recently I couldn't help but wince and think "oh sh*t. That has totally different impact today, than it did yesterday."

While I don't condone the riots in real life. But in a game the word "rioters" is now a bad word?

Let us look at this from the companies point of view.... Okay they renamed the "rioters" to Luthor Zealots. They are staying Politically correct so as not to upset anyone . Hey this is the exact same game that has a "Winter Event" every year in December. No one ever comes close to referring to it as the Christmas Event so they do not upset any of the other religious groups that have people playing the game... Then let us take a look at the stuff we get as Winter Furniture .. Pine trees with colored lights, Wreaths and a ton of other stuff the vast majority of us would automatically see as Christmas decorations not to mention the fact that Winter does not officially begin the last time I checked until December 20th or 21st and then runs through January, February and almost all of March. Yet out "WINER EVENT" always starts in early December, just to refresh your memory that's before it is even actually winter yet. .. and runs through that holiday those Christians celebrate every year at that time LOL.

Now to be honest.. I could be mistaken but I could swear those former "rioters" were attacking shipment of weapons in those crates with the intention of stealing them... Not sure how that makes them Luthor Zealots when they are stealing from him???? <--color me dazed and confused. Oh and let us add in that I wonder just how many people actually protesting view themselves as rioters to begin with?

Now in all honesty some times I tend to tone out the mindless ramblings of the npcs on street so I missed this one but my guess would be after it has been pointed out today I'd say as soon as tomorrow it will be gone. Frankly that is a bit nasty to have a Police Officer saying in game even if there were no protests going on at the moment. I imagine the Daybreak lawyers are running the halls screaming "get that out of game! get that out of game NOW!"

I don’t know why references to Christmas are left out of the Christmas seasonal, yet they have a separate seasonal that is ACTUALLY NAMED after a Christian saint’s day.

If the devs think having NPCs named rioters is sensitive or offensive at the moment, what are their plans for the fire and munitions power sets? It’s a nonsensical change. The term ‘virtue signalling’ comes to mind.

Are any of the rioters African-American and if so are they gassed first?

Because I can see that being an issue.

I believe this was done in the best business interest of the company, since tensions in the US are at an extremely high level right now.

Everyone virtue signals. It's one of the ways humans interact with other people. Words, actions, facial expressions can all signal what virtues you hold. This is all virtue signaling. Complaining about virtue signaling also signals some virtues, or, depending on perspective, lack thereof.

Thanks for the lecture, but the point out of my post is that it’s a meaningless gesture - it does not address any of the sensitivities or substance of anything, nor does it appease or address feedback or complaints. It’s a ‘look at us, look how woke we are’ act. Just like the Christmas seasonal avoiding references to Christmas is. A rioter is a rioter. It hasn’t become a taboo word.

What a sad world we live in when we race to remove an innocuous word like "rioter" from usage because we're afraid it will hurt the feelings of rioters.

Or...get this...I'll type it slowly...the dev team just MIGHT have wanted to not vividly remind people of what is going on. They might just want to provide some escapism for a few moments.

I mean, I guess I'm a little envious that you two are so detached from everything, but between the pandemic and the "civil unrest" (an EXISTENTIAL CRISIS for a particular subset of the population) some of us could use a little break when we shoot laser beams while wearing spandex. Just for a few minutes.

But nah, let's get angry at the dev team for perhaps trying to take the consideration of some of their players because you guys aren't personally affected by it. You've signaled your virtues loud and clear.

Your self righteousness is breathtaking. I’m not angry with the devs, although I am prepared to admit to a certain irritation with your attempts to pontificate on the subject, at this point.

You talk about removing the word rioters giving people “a little break” from these real life events. That’s your point, right?

When the penny drops that we are only discussing this because of the change they made, and not because there used to be adds named rioters, then you’ll have actually grasped the point. The change is what has got people talking about the adds in BOP: Metropolis.

Hraesvelg is a big boy i'm sure he can defend himself, but since this thread may well disappear before our friends on the other side of the Atlantic wake up I just wanted to chime in.

What is actually breathtaking is trying to call Hvaesvelg self-righteous, especially in the context you are trying to frame it, like he is some SJW. Let's be real here, if you've ever paid attention to people's postings around here you'd know he is very much on the Anti side so it's truly funny to me to see you try to fit him in as an SJW. You're just projecting everything you disagree with onto him simply because he doesn't see eye to eye with you on this one issue.

You can't fight tribalism with tribalism. But it's funny to watch you try.

Perhaps if your amazing friend doesn’t want to be considered self righteous he should consider not posting in such a smug, condescending tone. It’s nothing to do with the disagreement. That is a matter of opinion.

I suppose you’re fine with people typing replies to you that begin with phrases like “I’ll type this again... slowly”.

I’m not. Find that breathtaking all you like. It has nothing to do with tribalism.

Let's try to be a bit more chill here, we've had disagreements in the past and still had good conversations, i'd like to keep it that way.

I just think you've got the wrong end of the stick with him. It's just this one issue, in my opinion you'd probably agree on most stuff. As for the 'friend' stuff, i'm not defending anyone, this is pretty much my normal mo, I don't care about the points as much as the arguments being presented.

Also a bit of self reflection wouldn't hurt, your tone in this thread was already quite flippant, and your "thanks for the lecture" came before his "I'll type that again slowly", don't pretend like you've been acting all polite.

His 'lecture' on virtue signalling was quite apt. It seems he is more seasoned than you currently with the arguments used around these subjects and he is more than aware that saying something is 'vitue signaling' is for lack of a better term, so last year. And as he pointed out doesn't actually work as the insult you think it does, and can easily be flipped on you.

If anything, my take on his first comment was that he was trying to guide you away from using easily debunkable points as someone more familiar with dealing with disagreements like this.

Nothing I said is meant as a personal attack, even the bit about him being more seasoned than you, it's not a jab (genuinely) it's just an observation, virtue signalling for lack of a better way of putting it is now more a normie term, most edgelords (again, for lack of a better way of putting it) won't use it because they know how flawed it is.

Sorry for the clouded language, I don't know if this thread will disappear for sure but no use in accelerating it.

I labelled something ‘virtue signalling’. I got a response where someone gave me their definition of virtue signalling and explained that everything is virtue signalling. As though I didn’t understand the term or had misapplied it. I dispute that. I used it as I intended to use it and I’m comfortable with my understanding of the term.

My point is and was that making a gesture like this calls attention to the debate about these current real world events, and is done to convey a message - perhaps or virtue, perhaps of neutrality I suppose - but it doesn’t impact or improve the situation or people’s perceptions. It’s like a social media post of a picture of someone’s lunch with a carton of soya milk - they’re letting us know they are a vegan, but the act of posting the picture is not doing animals or non-vegans any favours. It’s all about them.

All I can add is that nobody should make any assumptions about the level of sophistication and understanding other people have of real world issues/intellectual matters. Disagreement is not commensurate to ignorance.

But, (sorry this is gonna seem like an attack) from what I can see you didn't dispute it when you had the chance to. Nothing in that first response said anything about disputing his version of the term. Instead of focusing on the use of the term you by-passed it to go straight back to your initial point.

And to be fair disagreements generally revolve around people's use and interpretation of different terms. I think it's reasonable to think you had misapplied it, and it's reasonable for you stand firm on your interpretation, that's where the argument should have went in my opinion.

As for assumptions about understanding, isn't that entirely what everyone is doing every time they have a discussion? Your over arching point is you trying to explain to people stuff you are assuming they don't have the level of sophistication to understand? If you didn't assume they were just a little bit ignorant then there would be literally no point in discussing anything. You may not put it that way but I'm willing to bet whatever way you describe it would be functionally no different from what I have just said.

"Hello sir, I disagree with you"
"Yes, good sir, but as you know we are all equally informed and thus we have both done our due diligence to arrive at our conclusions, in short we disagree and there is nothing I can say to change your mind"
"Indeed, it seems there is nothing more to discuss, good day!"

Taking away any emotional implications of the word ignorant, generally we enter discussions to try to inform people of stuff they may be ignorant of.

Although I disagree with your overaching point I don't care all that much about having that discussion. It's just the same anti's vs sj's and the same old repeated arguments. We'll just talk past each other due to fundamental disagreements from the start.

The easy retort to the soy milk picture & the change specific to DCUO is that it tells you nothing about what they are doing, or more specific to your issue, you are implying that they are doing something you consider insignificant and it isn't helping, yet you don't know all the things they are doing. They could be doing a myriad of things to help, they could be doing nothing. It's like throwing it out there and hoping it sticks, works when you do have an actual poser, not so nice for the person that is genuinely into animal welfare (however reasonable that may or may not be) and zod forbid they share a silly picture on their social media....only for that picture to then be taken to some random website so people can point at the terrible virtue signaller.

From where I am sitting your posts suggest you think they could be making it less comfortable for people who might be offended. But if I am being honest I suspect you are not all that worried about people being offended and your actual grievance is that they are doing anything at all, effectively taking a stance on an agenda which you are presumably against.

This all seems like i'm trying to @ you. I'm not, I just find arguments interesting, I like trying to find patterns, consistency's or lack thereof and challenge them, obviously I have my underlying agenda's and biases which make me more likely to respond to certain people and arguments than others. And if I challenge them I'm generally doing so from a neutral stand point. In the sense that I'm testing the strength of both mine and the opposing arguments to see what works and what doesn't, in my opinion at least.