Please do not listen to the leftside, lgbt and other freaks lobby. Make this game as realistic as you see it. And only acceptable black skin character is Krecik. Love from Poland!!!
I’m a moderate, primarily because I care more about issues than party platform, but I lean heavily to the left. I support democratic socialism, and I think LGBT aren’t freaks and deserve the same human rights everyone else.
And I don’t give a flying fuck if a game has anything deemed inappropriate. it’s a game and no one is forcing you to buy it, and if a story is depicting history accurately, if that’s the goal, then it shouldn’t be shying away from anything to further cement that realism.
Please don’t generalize.
4 Likes
Well he’s right in saying it’s the left side who created the SJW shit storm that has been going on the past ten years or so. I cannot for the life of my think of any right wingers who are SJWs. Granted ive seen a decent chunk of lefties distance themselves from that movement, but there don’t seem to be many in comparison to the amount of regressives.
And I see few homophobes, and extreme zealots on the left, this is because both are extreme version of that particular side. That doesn’t matter, judge people as individuals, trying to argue saying “Well the left has so many SJWs, he he he” Doesn’t accomplish anything. It is simply generalization, that’s it.
The left didn’t create anything, people from the left did.
“but there don’t seem to be many in comparison to the amount of regressives.”
They are a minority, but an extremely vocal and dangerous one.
I don’t think we have anything to worry about for this game, Daniel Vavra took gamergates side during that “event”, it’s unlikely he’d cave to SJW demands.
3 Likes
Well I think that this topic is pointless anyway.
No disrespect to you @bear93 but I have no idea what “racist allegations” are you talking about.
There were some people wanting POC, but it was just a small group.
2 Likes
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people fighting for justice for all.
I do agree that there is a left-wing element that is OVERLY politically correct, which overlaps with that movement. That’s the element I don’t like.
But I think there’s also an element of not understanding–maybe not even being ABLE TO understand–where other people are coming from. So I think it’s a bit harsh and ignorant to call it a shit storm. It’s easy to laugh it off when you’re not in the shoes of someone who doesn’t have the same rights as everyone else. Someone who is, for example, racially discriminated against, where there’s a country that has a past, present, and future of deep, embedded racism. A lot of people just can’t understand that.
But when it comes to video games, it’s like a movie. It’s art. And free speech, when it comes to a video game, is going to win as no one is forcing you to purchase. It doesn’t matter what content is in the game. Anyone who tries to argue against that, IMO, is being overly politically correct.
But a gay couple fighting for the right to get married, that’s a bit different. Everyone deserves to fall in love. To be happy. Who gives a fuck, ya know? A short existence we live on a small dot in the vastness of space. People need to grow up.
Is this not a generalization? I can’t take you seriously when you condemn me for doing something that you yourself are guilty of.
I never claimed there was, how ever SJW also known as “regressives”, are not for equality, they are anti free speech, generally racist towards whites, and blame men for all the problems in the world.
I have no idea why you’re bringing up gay marriage, i personally couldn’t give less of a shit what people do with their personal lives since I’m a Libertarian. I’m not condemning liberalism or equality, I’m condemning SJWs, which stand for neither of those things.
1 Like
How are SJW known as regressive when SJW is a progressive movement? headscratch
And I brought up gay rights as that’s a fighting cause for SJW; while I support them in defense of rights for all–in my example, gay rights–I think that some views are OVERLY political correct. That was my whole point.
Not sure where the confusion is.
This is kind of where I stand on it:
1 Like
Well, they might be progressive in some aspects, but censoring free speech and overall lowering personal, economic and and other freedoms of individuals for some “higher good” sake is the most regressive thing I ever heard of… I really hoped we are all over such totalistic bullshit.
I don´t want to change freedom of speech of 100% of citizens for the right to “not get offended” for some new privileged class of gender queers, feminists and such - which is only about 10% of citizens. Thats just not good trade at all.
3 Likes
I fail to see how they are progressives. The main thing they seem to be doing is bending over for radical islam, insisting there is a “rape culture” in the west, being racist , and constantly trying to censor anyone who disagrees with them.
While we’re on the topic let’s talk about that. For any gay person complaining that the are oppressed in any western country, they should go visit places like the middle east where they would be thrown off a wall, or go to Asia where many countries still do not allow gays to be married. Same thing for feminists.
In regards to the Bill Maher video. I’m not in a place where i can watch it right now, so i’ll have to do so later. But seeing how Bill Maher is extremely biased, and from his own admission a leftist i can hardly expect him to be non biased when it comes to this subject.
Oh you should really watch that video, its hillarious 
In good way also, I am not ironic 
Bill Maher in fact lot of time uses this thing, called “common sense” when talking about something
1 Like
Oh i will, but i can’t right now. I will give points to Bill Maher on one thing, and that is he is generally on point with political correctness.
I watched the video. He is funny and now I wished my English and my knowledge about american politics would be better.
1 Like
Yes, which is why I followed it with “THAT DOESN’T MATTER, JUDGE PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS”.
If you didn’t see it.
(Retracted: This isn’t a generalization, as it isn’t a statement about the right as a whole)
Irrelevant, it was still a generalization.
I’ll have to retract my previous comment, I just realized that I didn’t generalize at all-_____-
No. It’s not. Patterns emerge, this is a fact, you are the one that made a broad statement about a certain group based on specific cases (which is the definition of generalizing), and used that in an argument, I said not to. Pointing out that I see few homophobes and zealots on the left is not a statement about the right, it isn’t a generalization, as I didn’t say people on the right as a whole, are zealots and homophobes.
Saying “it’s the left side who created the SJW shit storm” is. But only if we use the definition I guess.
When did i claim it was a statement, or a generalization about the right? I never did, i was implying that you were generalizing the left, because you were.
So what you’re saying here is you generally don’t see homophobes or zealots on the left, how is this not the epitome of a generalization? Your statement seemed to imply that those kinds of people don’t exist on the left, and seemed to imply that it was specific to the right.
You don’t know what the word means. I just told you, but apparently you’ve decided to ignore it Here it is, as clear as possible:
“a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.”
Saying that I see few homophobes or zealots on the left is not a generalization at all, if I said “there aren’t any zealouts or homophobes on the left”, it would be, but I didn’t. I said FEW, not one time did I not say “few”. Changing my words (you changed “I see few” to “I generally don’t see”), then arguing against that altered position is called a “straw man”, which is a logical fallacy.
To top it off I only said “I see” meaning I was saying what I’ve seen, not what is fact. It can not be a broad statement if I’m only speaking from experience, not about the whole group. So you’ve failed again here.
This is utterly pathetic. You have no case at all. All you can do is try to pretend I said something other than what I did. I don’t buy that it implied anything to you, if it did, you wouldn’t feel the need to purposely alter my words, you’d use what I actually said and show me why it’s a generalization. But you can’t, as I didn’t.
Funny i could say the same about you. 
Take a look at the context in which you said it, and perhaps you’ll begin to understand why it was a generalization, and why your statement implied homophobia and zealotry did not exist on the left, and purely existed on the right.
I said
What i meant to imply, and what my statement implies is that being an SJW is exclusively a leftist thing, then you shot back at me with this.
Your statement implies pretty much the same thing mine did, you may not have meant to imply anything, but your statement did for reasons listed above.
I directly quoted you above, god forbid i didn’t write exactly what you said verbatim right below it.
So you’re making this assumption simply because i didn’t write word for word what you said? I didn’t feel the need to since i directly quoted you above. If i had wanted to “alter” your words, i could have easily done that within the quote to make it look more believable.
Did you miss the part where i directly quoted what you said twice? In addition to that, using the word generally did not hardly “twist” what you said. You said you see few homophobes and zealots on the left, there fore as a general rule or generally, you don’t see them.