SpokenTruth said:
mornelithe said:
SpokenTruth said:
If any of you make a decision to no longer purchase the game based on this decision, I pity you.
You take the principle of self-censorship as a greater evil over the objectification and subjugation of an entire gender. |
No, you take the principle of a function you don't have to use, as a reason to self-censor, I pity you. Gaming is not obligatory, a function in a game you disagree with, is not obligatory, your personal preference is not relevant to anyone else, in the world. And for the record, I wouldn't have used the function, even if I owned a Wii U. It's not interesting to me.
What is interesting to me is this objectification you're so concerned with, for only one gender. Which is very typical of this debate. Butchering male children is fine, divorce law inequality is fine, 92%+ of workplace deaths, and 3 of 4 suicides being male is fine. But hey, you keep on tooting that non-obligatory functionality in a fictional world horn.
|
You have a point. And it actually strengthens mine. The fact the feature was not obligatory only makes the idea that people are more angry at its removal than the implicit underlying cultural issue all the more pitiful. Thanks.
|
No, I'm angry at the implications it could have in the future. The problem with self-censorship is that once it starts, it's really difficult/impossible to say no to it in the future. Right now, you may not care, in the future it may actually be something you do cherish. But, it'll be impossible to do anything about, because of situations like this.
