Let's take a quick look at this board index.

That's basically what I'm asking for. Right now, GOG combines general, off topics, and politics are supposed to be quarantined, but well, that's not gone so well.

Well most politics are verboten here so we wouldn;t need that one(though imo they should have a small subforum/thread for it in general so people could talk about such while being contained), and this general forums is already for offtopic posts. We could have a gaming general and an offtopic general but people would likely not stick to the right one from time to time/etc.

I agree with you. https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_transparency_and_game_curation/post72 : This was posted in a different thread. Essentually a detailed explanation is given to the Devs of a rejected game, but that information is for the Devs only--likely due to NDA baloney--but the Devs can share the info if they want. If this is true why haven't we ever seen this detailed information from a Dev whose game was rejected, or have we? Everytime I hear an answer it is that annoying 'the game was too niche' answer. I want more information but it doesn't seem available.

Maybe I am just from a different frame of reference but my understanding was that JRPGs and VNs were niche games, as are dungeon crawlers, as are survival horror games, as are fishing simulators. I will respectfully disagree that the games accepted are fairly consistent. As, some niche games like VNs get accepted, others are missing, there are censored versions (against the interest of most of the audience for those titles, at least as far as I can see). The closest thing to consistency I have seen is, perhaps, positive Steam feedback prior to releases here (though imo this is a very flawed metric by which to judge GOG's audience taste, for a number of reasons).

IME people who aren't targetted/affected by discrimination are generally ignorant of it, both in terms of frequency and severity.

That aside, should we compare the number of times we've seen negativity from or to a certain group? If you've seen a single gay guy blame hets for overpopulation and I've seen millions of hets blame gays for aids... are those events equal in terms of blame, discrimination or hatred? If one guy has been shot 47 times and another got a paper cut, have they both suffered equally?

Everyone's going to argue issues based on their personal experiences, but at what point do people consider the points of others to have merit? Do we care about "truth", however we define that? Do we work towards an "objective" understanding of reality?

Or do we just continue to call each other bigots and whiners?

This is the internet, where sometimes people find it easier to just click an up or down button than take the time to explain why they feel as they do. Don't take it personally.

One point I'll make is that there are issues where most people have very strong opinions.... abortion, gay rights, immigration... etc. Some people can feel the issue is SO important that anything other than full agreement with their own position is wrong. That means that even a "middle ground" can be seen as wrong. Would you downvote someone who wanted to find a middle ground for slavery? Child rape? (FYI, I didn't downvote you)

Further, there are issues that people feel NEED to be fought over... that taking a live and let live approach, or a wait and see approach, or a let's find a compromise approach are all either too little too late or actually harmful to what should be done. You point fingers at people on other sides, claiming they "bear some responsibility", but are then surprised people downvote your own position. No position is immune to criticism.

If you feel I missed something or responded poorly, feel free to elaborate.

True, but then, maybe my 'Dylan goes electric' comment deserves to be low rated.

When he went electric, people rioted and he got countless death threats.
I guess being low rated should be expected.

Well, on my part it's simply consern that if I don't provide counterpoint to SJWs, who claim that we live in white suprematist patriarchy and if I so much as wince to man-on-man sex - I must have desire to kill all gay, some people can start thinking that SJWs are right.
Actually, it's not. It's people, who simply don't want to excercise critical thinking and do research, are immune to reason.

Because the problems in people's lives still exist, so they continue to argue about them? If someone punched you every day, would you complain once and never again, because it would be "pointless"?

I disagree. Even the most polarizing issues can still have people changing their minds over time. Changed minds comes from dialog, social pressure and notable events. If people never talked about issues, nothing would change, and the alternative to wanting change withOUT dialog is violence, which isn't a good thing.



I didn't get the reference, myself.

Anybody can be a victim, but do you actually think that heteros and gays suffer the same amount??

I'm not arguing with that. In fact, I totally agree with that assesment. ;)

Are you asking me? It was I who was called homophobe and nazi for critisizing game developers who spent less time and effort on gameplay and story consistency than on putting into their game as much "social justice message" as possible.

It was SJWs, who harassed and doxxed Linko90, so he had to leave his job at GOG and later leave his new job at some youtuber community. People today demand censorship in the name of "social justice", not "tradition and nation wellfare".

Oh, and since you're so conserned about negative attitude towards gay people, what do you think of Islam? Eh?
Today? In US and Europe?

Common sense and logic like this will NOT BE TOLERATED! :P

Yes, that's exactly the nonsense I try to oppose and debunk. "Steam refugees"? WTF?! Not only Valve officially declared Steam as platform with minimal censorship, most forums there are far more free for discussion than here.

And yes, I too miss the good old days, when every second game didn't try to push SJ and PC agendas at my throat. So if you want talk about games and companies - remind me, why developers of "Not Tonight" used Brexit as a starting point of their distopian UK?

The reference is to Bob Dylan causing outrage by showing up at the 1965(?) Newport Folk Festival and eschewing acoustic folk for electric guitar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Dylan_controversy

The basic gist is that even something "great" can cause people to boo if it's different than what they expected. And in the audience's defense, it had to that point been exclusively an acoustic folk festival (thus the name).

I didn't fully grasp how that related here, however.

It doesn't relate. :P
The title is what made me think of it.
When I saw "GOG Goes SJW" the headline "Dylan Goes Electric" popped into my head, probably because they sounded so much alike, so I made the joke.