I see what you did there

We will have to disagree. I re-emphasised my point that the virtue signalling was of no actual substance by stating that I considered it a meaningless gesture. In the broad and universal definition I was given to respond to, it is clear that not all virtue signalling is meaningless. I feel I did make clear why I didn’t need the term explaining to me. Although I accept that my understanding of the term wasn’t explicitly obvious, I tend to find that if you disagree with someone’s use of a a term, assuming that they don’t understand it and giving them a chapter and verse explanation is likely to irritate them.

The above is my response to your point about the concept of ignorance. It is always OK to challenge people’s opinions and draw their attention to facts and counter arguments. It isn’t ok to proceed from the basis that they don’t know what they are talking about.

Regarding the soya milk, I of course have no idea what the person behind the decision to rename the rioters does away from renaming rioters. Just as I have no idea what a fictitious person wanting to subtly show people they are a vegan by posting such a picture does for animal rights. I was not attempting to evaluate the actions or ethics of either, wholistically. As a player of a game posting on a forum dedicated to that game, I consider it to be legitimate to evaluate a change made to the game in isolation. And I stand by the view that changing the names of those adds is designed to send a certain message, but achieves nothing. Nobody’s views about the moral or ethical implications of the current real world rioting has been changed as a result and nobody is more or less likely to adopt a different attitude to race relations as a result. It’s a change that says ‘look, we’re sensitive’, but I seriously doubt anybody reasonable would complain about the adds in BOP being named rioters in the context they are presented in. If anything, it has dragged the issue into the game, not taken it out of it.

I kind of figured this would blow up a bit when I made this thread, and I wasn’t trying to start trouble, but I also thought that sooner or later someone was going to say something about it because the devs just snuck it into an update note about changing some names and that’s it. Personally, I get the sensitivity and all that, but I also think it’s rather silly, since stopping destructive rioters is a good thing, so why would we not want to do that?

So, there’s my two cents before my thread is closed or deleted.

Yes, let's make sure to remove anything and everything which could ever be considered even questionably offensive. This should not only include specific words but phrases, statistics and entire philosophies because only stopping at single words may itself be considered offensive.




The best way to avoid a slippery slope is to avoid the slippery slope.

But if groupthink is your thing (BeOffended), knock yourself out.

In my opinion it's more reasonable to assume it's a 'better be safe than sorry' rather than a 'look how sensitive we are'. As has already been pointed out in this thread tensions are high, and this is at the end of the day a business. The hassle isn't worth it regardless of their personal feelings one way or the other. It's highly unlikely, and more importantly, inconsistent with past actions to believe they are trying to send a message with this change.

I hate to keep doing this but a lot of your arguments are circular. You was the one to use a controversial term first, a term that would be likely to irritate some people, and I suspect you were fully aware of that, is your issue really that people shouldn't try to irritate other people? That seems inconsistent. Perhaps you thought you were in an environment where you thought using that term wouldn't be controversial. I suspect you didn't care about anyone who disagreed with your use of the term because you could just brush them off as self-righteous as you went on to do.

This is exactly what I meant by tribalism. Because I doubt after all i've said that you think it is reasonable to get irritated at the word you used, but I suspect you think it's still ok for you to get irritated in the way you did.

FYI I can go on and on given half a chance, free to exit when you want, no hard feelings, it's always good to be able to actually have a discussion.

EDIT: My last two para's seem more aggressive than intended, call me a snowflake for saying sorry all the time but I don't care

Now, this I didn’t notice at all! Yeah, that should probably be changed or removed. More so than changing the word “rioters.”

I just remembered something else too! The funhouse mission in the early part of the game has you get a feat on villain side for setting downed cops on fire! I get that you’re playing at being “evil,” but that never sat right with me, and always felt like it was going too far.

And, yet, here we are today, and they change some names over real world events and sensitivity and whatever, but the funhouse mission remains the same? They should go back and remove that part of that mission too.

You said that I hadn’t pointed out something ‘when I had the chance’. I felt that I did. So I highlighted where I did this and for clarity, explained it further. Now you’re telling me my arguments are circular. I feel I can’t actually progress our discussion any further.

I found your friend’s replies to me patronising in tone ‘I’ll type this slowly...’ and content ‘let me explain this term you’ve just used that I clearly understand better than you do’. It is I hope obvious to you now, even if it wasn’t earlier in the thread, that I have a clear understanding of its meaning and implications.

If you’re telling me anyone using the term ‘virtue signalling’ leaves the door open to snarky and irritable responses, because it is a controversial and to some extent, disputed concept, then I can see your point of view on that, but please don’t imply that I’m employing some sort of double standard by expressing my irritation at people deliberately condescending me because I happened to use a nuanced and complex term, in an appropriate context and in a qualified way. I’m entitled to comment on what happens in this game.

As an aside, my Facebook feed is overwhelmed with discussions, memes and articles about the current situation and I have made not a single comment about it. I’m not actively looking for arguments on the current situation in the world, I was commenting on a very narrow and specific thing, the ‘rioters’ name change.

Thank you, I think I’ll park this here.

I think you're reversing. The circular part is the irritation where you get to decide the parameters of what is and isn't annoying, offensive, naunced or whatever, the circular part is getting frustrated at someone's patronising/snarky tone yet failing to take note of your own, the circular part is acting like you are the only one using words and phrases in an appropriate and qualified way

Everyone is entitled to give their takes on your comments as much as you are entitled to comment on the game. In now way is your entitlement to comment being infringed upon by Hvaesvelg replying to you. It's just a disagreement, he didn't tell you to shut up, why are you acting like he did?

I do feel our conversation will not continue to be constructive as long as you keep reversing. You've gone back to dodging any responsibility for your words yet expect everyone else to bow down to your special definitions and personal feelings. Don't throw stones in glass houses and all that.

As an aside, I'm totally shocked this thread hasn't been whacked yet.