CD PROJEKT RED Announces New Witcher Trilogy, Two Additional Witcher Games, a Cyberpunk 2077 Sequel, and Entirely New IP

hubaduba said:
Did you assume xir's gender, or did Destructoid?
Click to expand...

Look, if someone specifically requests non-traditional pronouns, I'd be happy to oblige. I might slip up on occasion, but I'll do my best to address them the way they request. It is the decent thing to do.

Short of a specific request though, I am always going to default to traditional cis-gendered pronouns.

We live in a cis-normative world, and that will never change, because as popular as the gender-bending narrative is in the media these days, non-cis gendered people are a distinct minority. We cant be expected to address everyone as "they" until being informed of their preference just because it may not apply to a small minority of people.

If someone looks like they have an X and a Y chromosome, I am going to default to "he", if someone looks like they have two X chromosomes I am going to default to "she", and if anyone has a problem with that, they can **** right off.

The only time anyone should be criticized for their use of pronouns is if they have been informed that someone desires a different use of pronouns and they proceed to repeatedly and intentionally disregard that request. That is inappropriate and insulting. But th enon-binary crowd also needs to understand that mistakes will happen as this is not intuitive to a large majority of earths population. If someone tries and fails on occasion, they shouldn't be ostracized for it.

...and even if someone reqests alternate pronouns, not all requests need to be obliged by. There are three choices. He, she or they. Pick one. If they start making **** up and what to be called "zhe" or "tractor" or some other nonsense then it should be acceptable to disregard that stupid request. This is not a game of "let's get creative."
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra said:
What a shame.

ESG will never be installed on any machine of mine.

I presume they will still maintain GoG at least? GoG I have no problem with.
Click to expand...
LOL, no not EGS as in epic game store.

ESG as in "Environmental, social, and corporate governance" score. The official metric to measure how woke a company is.
 
I'm vaguely aware of ESG but I hadn't remembered it as an acronym (saw it mentioned in an article about either for CDPR or someone else in relation to money/grants they got). I'm pretty sure I've seen it listed for either just Poland or perhaps some other parts of Europe.
 
The fact that there is no clear straightforward information readily available on ESG's actual scoring criteria is cause for worry in of itself. Basically it is an arbitrary score made up by auditors based on the company's past reputation and publicly available or volunteered information.

Big investors and banks actively use this metric to decide whether to finance companies, or how much money to invest in them.

How did this become a thing? How did they convince investors that ESG score matters? I have no clue, but apparently if your company has a low ESG score that makes it less appealing to big money.

Of course not all of the things making up an ESG score are bad, but it puts too much emphasis on things not related to the product itself. A typical ESG score might be 10% influenced by the product quality and customer satisfaction. What's the 90%? Politics, environmentalism, equity, activism, shareholder satisfaction, among other things, but it varies on a case by case basis. It's a complete wild west.

So if CDPR starts to work towards bettering their ESG score instead of making good games, that's a big problem.
 
MadMummy76 said:
That's exactly what it is, only for companies. But I'd not be surprised if something similar emerged for individuals as well. I mean paypal just tried to introduce a "fine" for wrongthink. But they had to backpedal due to their stocks falling like a rock when it was made public.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how paypal is a part of that information game.

Sounds more like they were considering combating "false advertising" types of problems to me. Paypal isn't excactly a speech platform. I don't see how what you suggest even applies to them.

All of that said, promoting verifiable false information as true in order to try to misinform people and gain a desired outcome is rampant these days and probably the largest problem modern societies face. There is a huge difference between having a different opinion on a subject and promoting outright lies.

The issue is that no one has come up with a good way of being an arbiter of what is truth, and as such policing it will always be problematic.
 
Zarathustra said:
I don't really see how paypal is a part of that information game.
Click to expand...
They control the money, many people use it as a paymant processor, they are the go between, so they have wider reach and ability to censor than any single media outlet on its own.
Zarathustra said:
Sounds more like they were considering combating "false advertising" types of problems to me. Paypal isn't excactly a speech platform. I don't see how what you suggest even applies to them.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's what the pretense used was, but the TOS was deliberately vague enough so it can be applied to any expression they find problematic.
Zarathustra said:
All of that said, promoting verifiable false information as true in order to try to misinform people and gain a desired outcome is rampant these days and probably the largest problem modern societies face. There is a huge difference between having a different opinion on a subject and promoting outright lies.
Click to expand...
Yes there is and paypal made no attempt to make any distinction between the two.
Zarathustra said:
The issue is that no one has come up with a good way of being an arbiter of what is truth, and as such policing it will always be problematic.
Click to expand...
No, that's exactly the problem, there should be no arbiters of truth. I mean listen to yourself, you really want a ministry of truth? Especially in a form of a corporation?
 
MadMummy76 said:
No, that's exactly the problem, there should be no arbiters of truth. I mean listen to yourself, you really want a ministry of truth? Especially in a form of a corporation?
Click to expand...

I'm all for the marketplace of ideas, and that opinions should be free and unhindered and everyone should be allowed to express theirs.

At the same time, I also believe there needs to be consequences for intentionally spreading disinformation with the intent to deceive and manipulate the population. Outright lies with no factual basis what so ever have come to dominate many facets of the media landscape to the point where it risks our freedoms, as many people have been convinced of complete falsehoods.

Whats worse, many of these falsehoods originate from cynical dystopian authoritarian states beyond our borders who would love nothing more than for global freedom and democracy to die. It is an existential crisis that threatens to end the "great experiment" that is our American republic.

I don't claim to have the answer to how to accomplish it, but coming up with a set of standards for what constitutes not opinion, but intentional disinformation ought to be possible with thorough research, and should be strictly enforced. If we don't, our days as a great nation may be numbered.

This should not be incompatible with our first amendment rights. The supreme court came up with a standard that governs cases in which the first amendment does not apply over a hundred years ago in 1919 in Schenck v. United States , the prime example of which being "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" due to the objective detrimental effect that has to society, and its intent to harm. Intentional disinformation with intent to harm should also be able to be policed under this standard without there being a constitutional problem.

The first amendment is intended to protect people from being punished by the government for their opinions and ideas, but there is no inherent "right to misinform", "right to deceive" or "right to lie", and when these lies threaten our nation, we need a way to deal with them.

For instance, I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that the First Amendment should be able to be used as a defense in fraud cases, where defendants have intentionally misrepresented themselves and/or provided other misinformation in order to get their hands on others money. If a first amendment defense does not work in a case like this, there are plenty of other cases where intentionally spreading falsehoods with malintent should be able to have consequences.

In constitutional arguments, the constitution usually stands supreme unless an aspect of the constitution infringes on another aspect of the constitution. Usually this is expressed as "you have your right, as long as that right doesn't infringe on someone else's right". Our founding fathers would be rotating in their graves if they saw attempts to use the first amendment as protection in order to attempt to undermine the government for, by and of the people. Certainly criticizing the actions of any government is and should be protected, but an attack on the system that is used to select governments is an attack on the very core of our nation and its values.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know that I blame the speaker of mistruth as much as I do the believer.

Yeah, it’s wrong to do so with intention to deceive, but I think it’s equallly wrong to allow yourself to be led by the nose without informing yourself and coming to your own conclusions based on facts.

I also have to draw a distinction between fact and truth - I suppose, although you would think they would be mostly synonymous.
 
Brian_B said:
I don’t know that I blame the speaker of mistruth as much as I do the believer.

Yeah, it’s wrong to do so with intention to deceive, but I think it’s equallly wrong to allow yourself to be led by the nose without informing yourself and coming to your own conclusions based on facts.

I also have to draw a distinction between fact and truth - I suppose, although you would think they would be mostly synonymous.
Click to expand...
They are... sadly today's political climate and ostrich level perception of systemic issues means people look for someone saying what they want to hear rather than accept that scientists are speaking fact based on empirical data.
 
Zarathustra said:
I'm all for the marketplace of ideas, and that opinions should be free and unhindered and everyone should be allowed to express theirs.
Click to expand...
Free marketplace of ideas only works if there is a free marketplace. Unfortunately what social media cultivated is an echo chamber forum. They keep feeding you more of the same crap you are already listening to. You have to actively work on finding alternative voices. If youtube, twitter, etc would be really a free marketplace of ideas, there would be no fear of "radicalization". Which is going on now on both the conservative and progressive side.
Zarathustra said:
At the same time, I also believe there needs to be consequences for intentionally spreading disinformation with the intent to deceive and manipulate the population. Outright lies with no factual basis what so ever have come to dominate many facets of the media landscape to the point where it risks our freedoms, as many people have been convinced of complete falsehoods.
Click to expand...
If there are consequences for speech it is no longer free. If we had a proper level playing field not influenced by adsense and recommendation engines, the misinformation would always loose to the truth. But as we stand it happens often that youtube bans the debunking of misinformation while leaving the actual misinformation up. If they introduced fines it would be a catastrophe. Imagine an outsourced minimum wage moderator deciding what is misinformation.

Zarathustra said:
Whats worse, many of these falsehoods originate from cynical dystopian authoritarian states beyond our borders who would love nothing more than for global freedom and democracy to die. It is an existential crisis that threatens to end the "great experiment" that is our American republic.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about needing their help.
Zarathustra said:
I don't claim to have the answer to how to accomplish it, but coming up with a set of standards for what constitutes not opinion, but intentional disinformation ought to be possible with thorough research, and should be strictly enforced. If we don't, our days as a great nation may be numbered.
Click to expand...
That's were the money comes in, there is just no way every bit of information shared on social media can be vetted. Or prepare for a 2 year waiting list to upload a video on youtube.
Zarathustra said:
Intentional disinformation with intent to harm should also be able to be policed under this standard without there being a constitutional problem.
Click to expand...
I agree, but not by for-profit corporations. I mean it is their monetary interest to fine as many people as possible. And if they are going to do that, why not do it to their political opponents?


I'm not looking at this in context of US laws and constitution as I'm not from the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top