This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Thereâs not. At least not for the D/I/E crowd. They brook no compromise. In fact, they even mock the idea of a âmiddle groundâ or âcompromiseâ. Itâs even written into the core of their ideology not to compromise - the very concept of âcompromiseâ and âmiddle groundâ is seen as a tool of the oppressive white male dominated cisheternormative colonial system.
But why not? What policy or language in the EULA/TOS will protect player/group freedom of association? If weâre operating under a D/I/E framework, any recruitment criterion on the basis of an âidentity categoryâ is a form of discrimination.
This will also affect those âsafe spaceâ groups for women and LGBTQIAA+. Unless itâs applied unequitably, which it usually is based on experience.
Just because you say âthere could be a middle groundâ doesnât mean there will be. Youâre just soft-selling D/I/E ideology and Iâm not convinced.
âSlippery slopeâ isnât an actual fallacy and in many cases is a sound basis for a reasonable and coherent argument. Throwing out names of fallacies is not an argument.
Itâs not. This stuff is in England too. Itâs in Sweden. Itâs in South Africa. Itâs in Canada. Itâs all over.
Maybe I just know more about this given that Iâm inundated with it and forced to read it and study it in graduate school, and thatâs why youâre not getting it.
If you think a classically liberal viewpoint is âhyper-partisanâ, you might be a radical dude.
At any rate, you are pulling the discussion off-topic. If you have anything substantive to say about specific points I raised, Iâm all ears and eager to discuss. But if youâre just gonna fling things at the wall and accuse me personally rather than addressing the merits of my arguments then I am not interested. An entire discussion was already deleted once because of derailing.
EDIT: Ironically, you talk about âfalse dichotomyâ while accusing a moderate, clasically liberal dude of being âhyper-partisanâ because he doesnât like bits of radicial political ideologies being forced into the EULA/TOS of the game he plays.
1 Like
You pull 1 or 2 words and imagine a novel behind them. Let me try again.
My criticism: This is a direct personal attack on people that hold an ideology. You could replace your target group and say, for illustrative purposes, âChristians are not particularly friendlyâ or âCommunists are not particularly friendlyâ. This is not a substantive argument. This is an inflammatory polemic.
My criticism of your response: You are cherry-picking words to mean something CCP_Swift didnât intend. The full quote:
At CCP Games, we are committed to maintaining a friendly and inclusive community
There is nothing about âadhering to The Inclusive Ideologyâ which you then use as a strawman to attack. Inclusivity is a spectrum that is not measurable and very subjective.
A reasonable expectation of having an inclusive environment includes moderation that eliminates slurs of any kind. There are notable blogs and videos that document that up to today, this behavior is not moderated well. Therefore a reasonable conclusion could be that such language is going to be policed more strongly going forward.
It is unreasonable to take that whole statement to mean âCCP Games is now rigorously and zealously following Inclusivity ideology,â whatever you wish that to mean. You take this unreasonable stance and elaborate to such an extreme degree it is hard to engage with. On the one hand, I want to engage with you, but on the other your priors are so vastly different that from the get-go weâre almost speaking a different language. If I were to engage with your specific points beyond this it would not be in earnest good-faith to either my own view, or your own view, so I can only stop at the very top and say âdude, youâre going off on a wild tangentâ.
A fair question, but letâs examine the whole quote again:
Companies that say they âcelebrate diversityâ in this context usually means âwe as a company are thankful our playerbase arenât just made up of [one kind of group]â and just pay lip service to that. So itâs just hollow lip service here.
Youâre not espousing âclassically liberalâ philosophies. Classically liberal philosophies in the spirit of John Lockeâs Second Treatise or the classic liberalism of the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers would say that business is free to conduct itself however it wants so long as certain fundamental rights of certain people are respected, and I do not see how a game like Eve Online can possibly infringe on any of those.
You bring up the Right of Free Speech and the Right of Free Association but Eve Online is a private game owned by a private company. Under classic liberalism they are welcome to govern their game however they wish and customers are free to leave and form their own competing game that treats these liberties differently. As it is not a public square nor a government none of the considerations surrounding the USAâs First Amendment applies, as private business is just that. You and I both might hate it, but liberties means a business has the freedom to do things you and I dislike.
They donât even have to give you a platform here since this is their private space to talk. Theyâve already deleted some of it. Letâs hope this further conversation is not, but we have no fundamental liberty being infringed upon if they still delete it. We have numerous other alternatives (r/eve, facebook, etc) where speech can be made.
Within a private sphere like their game, the organizing of players in Associations can be done however they please. Why are Coalitions not an Officially Supported Entity? Because players created this emergent behavior without their help and CCP tolerates it, but they are not required to. Them trying to stamp out the âcoalitionâ type of Association between players also does not infringe on any fundamental rights; players are still free to Associate outside the game (and they often do, on Discord for example).
You can claim to be âclassically liberalâ and myself a âradicalâ, but I beg to differ.
Edit: And now weâre back into real-world politics again.
2 Likes
tl;dr
I stopped reading when you started talking about freedom of speech on a video game with a eula and tos that you agree to before logging in. Just because you want to say negative things doesnt mean you should. Rules on language put through this company service is the stopgap your brain should have built in between your brain and your fingers. If you canât control yourself, be controlled. It really is that simple.
You donât have to like it, but you do have to accept it if you continue to access the services of CCP, which are stipulated in the eula and tos.
Hohum back in my day we used to beat up the âothersâ and were cool for doing it! Thatâs really all your argument comes down to.
2 Likes
Sometimes the rules need to be broken to outline the broken system.
1 Like
Im glad to see people more eloquent than me have been able to voice their concerns regarding some of the demogoguery in this thread.
Sorry to everyone that I got a little heated. Esp. @Io_Koval , who while I know we probably disagree a lot on other things, I can certainly respect for having a calmer head than I at least 
4 Likes
Er.
Positive discrimination is discrimination that favors someone on the basis of their identity. For example: affirmative action.
Negative discrimination is discrimination that disfavors someone on the basis of their identity.
4 Likes
but by favoring one demographic, youâre disfavoring another, so itâs still discriminationâŚ
1 Like
CCP is asking us to help it promote ideologies popular in the tech industry. I believe this to be mistaken on a number of levels.
Theyâll figure it out eventually, I hope.
2 Likes
Famous last words. 
Blocked for threatening response! 
kidding.
Removed some off topic/rule breaking posts. As ISD have had to wade into this thread a few times now and clean it up, any moderation action going forward will have heavier consequences. Thank you.
5 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
To make it fair it should be three strikes yourâe out & instead of booting the membership give them a criminal rating. IE Yellow or Red w/ the skull so the community knows. This can even be a probationary period where good behavior clears your record. This way wonât disrupt game play throughout the system.
1 Like
Social Credit System, awesome!
1 Like
Social credit systems are not so bad if you are the master of it.
CCPs are subject to the alien technology of central control systems; think monarchies. #clif_high The trouble is humans are not insects.
Can CCP find its humanity? I hope to be proven wrong but I canât see it happening via OP.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Im going with âyesâ then as CCP cant seem to say ânoâ.
1 Like