NationStates Jolt Archive

Moderators, I posted this in general discussion. It was recommended that it be posted here also.

Fellow players. Ok, I admit it. I'm an old fart and think differently from the younger generation [just ask my neo-adult children]. However, I strongly believe in a live-and-let-live policy and abjure anyone and anything which targets groups or individuals for ridicule or discrimination. I guess 3 tours in Viet Nam affected my world view.

I find a statement in a recent "issue" particularly offensive... <so kids can enjoy good books without interference from religious wackos, like Christians>

If you agree with my sentiment, I urge you to email the game moderators and request a change in this particular issue. A small thing, but if an outhouse and crescent moon can rally thousands of moslems to get upset about an American cartoon strip calling it 'hate speech', p'raps it's time to point out this as being offensive as well. I doubt that the substitution of 'moslem' or 'jew' would appeal very much either. Let's keep it fictional.

Flame on...

N of Monacatootha

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] 1 duplicate topic deleted. [/modedit]

The aim is to make the options difficult to choose from. It's nothing anti-Christian, just a small comment to make you think about whether you're making the right decision.

Actually, as this discusses a domestic issue in the game, iMove :arrow: "Got Issues?"

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

...

Although your complaint is understandable, it's also important to remember that this is just a game and that it is, indeed, fictional. The original version of that issue said "...religious wackos, like The Catholic Church."

Now, I, myself, am Catholic (and glad to be so). However, I chose not to take this personally. After all, these are fictional characters living in your simulated country arguing different points-of-view, and being rather extreme about it. Also, like Sirocco said, it's meant to make you think.

It's parody. It's satire. It should be taken as such. My personal opinion on the matter is that it's important to be able to poke fun at oneself and to laugh at oneself. Some people, simply put, get way too uptight over little things. Do you really want to be like them?

"Think about it for a moment." :wink:

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder of The Realm of Ambrosia

I am also a practicing RC so if we're poking fun, let's make it fun. Like how about the Holy-Roller-AME-Zionist-Islamicist Liberation Church. It insults almost everyone!

I notice, along the same lines that a recent 'issue' re language did not identify Eubonics by name but the jive talkin' was hard to miss. I guess not too many AA's play NS?

N of Monacatootha

Let me guess, "AA's" = African Americans?

(There was a thread about this recently. Europeans, including me, found that term very patronising. "African English" would be seen as hugely patronising over here, implying some sort of difference to "English". Why can't you just call Americans, Americans and add "black" if it's absolutely necessary to identify race?)

As for your statement "I'd guess not too many AA's play NS" - what makes you say that?

Maybe they do.

Maybe they have a sense of humour.

You seem to be bending over so far to be "politically correct" that you are seeing insults to groups where none was intended - or taken. Except by you.

White Lotus, it'd be GREAT if we could just call them Americans and throw in Black, but they won't have it. Everyone's equal here, but they're MORE equal than the rest of us.

I'm with Monacatootha.
Christians get officially singled out for bile that would not be spewed upon Jewish, Islamic or Hindu players; it's not right.

Can you imagine the publicity that NS would get if it was "from religious wackos like Muslims/Jews/Shintos"?

Society today is very politically correct ; it's "alright" to hassle the majority.

Would it help if the wording were changed to "religious wackos, like right-wing fundamentalist Christians"? Or would those of you who consider yourselves sane right-wing fundies still take offense? :)

What if it just said "religious wackos, like my opponent?", referring to the person arguing the other option? That would make it clear that no specific religion or denomination is being targeted.

Regarding "African Americans": the non-offensive term for referring to U.S. citizens of African descent has been changing every decade or two for some time -- not because white people want to change it, but because the people of African descent do! Back in Abraham Lincoln's time, "Negroes" and "colored people" were considered polite, inoffensive terms, and that mostly held true up through the 1950s, though "colored people" fell out of favor somewhat earlier.

In the '60s, "black is beautiful" was a slogan used to renew their pride in their racial heritage, so that's when they started wanted to be called "blacks" or "black people" instead of "Negroes". Some time in the '70s or '80s, they decided they wanted to be called "African Americans" instead. (This may have been about the same time the indigenous people we used to call "American Indians" -- to distinguish them from the Indians who actually lived in India -- started preferring the term "Native Americans".)

Also around the '80s, the term "people of color" became the preferred term if you wanted to include Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, and anybody else who was slightly darker than Western Europeans. But not "colored people" -- that was considered mighty offensive by then, though the difference may seem very slight to outsiders.

Basically, if we want to talk about all Americans, we do just say "Americans". (Though other nations on both the North and South American continents sometimes even take offense at that term, as it seems to imply that they don't count as being part of North America or South America. But "USians" is a very awkward term and "United Statesians" is worse, so I don't know what we can do about it.) But if we want to talk specifically about the ones with African ancestry, we have to use the term they prefer, which is (currently) "African American".

So if any of you Europeans think it sounds condescending, sorry, that's your problem... 8)

I'm a practising Christian, and I have no problem with these issues. This is a game. Perhaps if it were a game run by the government, yes I'd see a problem, but this is privately owned, and they can pretty much do whatever they want. This is satirical stereotyping - a lot of other groups of people get hit in game issues as well(I even wrote one subtly referring to the Muslim month of Ramadhan, but if it gets accepted, it will be in several months thanks to the backlog). Oh, and furthermore, let's not bring US law into this. Max Barry is an Australian, and I believe [violet] is as well; Nationstates is based in Australia. Thus, bring this up with the Australian government if you feel Nationstates is breaking discrimination laws or anything of the sort.

Personally, I don't like the discrimination against Christianity today either, but this game is just a game, so there's no need to take it personally.

I hated that issue... I wanted tyo vote for Harry Potter, but when I read that option all the way, I noticed that it bashed religion...so i just dismiss it.

Same thing with the religious advisor issue... you're either catholic or atheist...

*sigh* What can u expect, the issues are biased

Like I've said a few times-

I'm a Christian. What other people say about my faith usually doesn't bother me at all, unless it's a cutting comment. The issues are made to be very extreme in their choices. If it's a religion issue, you can bet there's going to be a religion bashing choice. The religion of choice to bash is Christianity.

Should that bother us? Not at all. Does it? YES.

I look at it as a game (Wait, it is a game! :P ). Just take everything with a grain of salt and a good attitude and you'll be ok.

~Bas

I agree with Monacatootha about that issue in the orginal topic. I am not a Christian but I did find it offensive, I don't like it when any religion gets pointed out in things like that even if it is just a game or not. I don't see why it couldn't be wacko's instead of religious wackos or change it to something at least.
I also agree with Raysia that the issues are biased. I noticed it as well and it also is seemingly reflected when reading about the nation or how your nation can have a lack of civil rights and other such things like that just because you try and keep the government small and taxes not very high so I try and not let it get to me and it really doesn't to much at all and I just play the game and usualy pick the issue I agree with best even if it does have something in it I don't like and pretend it's not there, unless like some issues that are hard when your only choice is one extreme or the other then I just dismiss it even if i don't want to cuz I would want some change done that option isn't there.
So i dont let it get to me but the one thing I didn't like was the religious wacko's like Christan's part of the game.

I agree with Monacatootha about that issue in the orginal topic. I am not a Christian but I did find it offensive, I don't like it when any religion gets pointed out in things like that even if it is just a game or not. I don't see why it couldn't be wacko's instead of religious wackos or change it to something at least.
The 'religious wackos' are not christians in general. I think, it is clear in this issue, that the 'wackos' are the ones, that have failed to realize, that the middle age has ended and who want to ban books for religious reasons. Since I think, that only a few christians are that strange-minded, I think the issue only insults a small minority.

My thoughts exactly -- thank you for saying it so well!

There are people in real life who feel that the Harry Potter books should be banned because "any magical power that does not come directly from God must be Satanic." And most of these people do identify themselves as Christians of some sort. Most people with any sense realize that these extremists are not representative of the vast majority of Christians.

The religious leader in this issue who feels that Harry Potter books should not only be banned but burned -- with salt, mind you -- is an exaggerated, satiric version of these extremists. (Not as exaggerated as you may think, either, as Google will show you.) I agree completely that the only people who should feel insulted by this issue are the extremists themselves.

However, since some people here do feel insulted, I still think the best solution would be to change the line to something like "religious wackos, like the ones who proposed this ban". Or change the first person's description from "religious leader @@RANDOMNAME@@" to "@@RANDOMNAME@@, leader of the First Church of @@NAME@@", and then have the other person refer to "religious wackos, like the First Church of @@NAME@@". Since that is an obviously nonexistent fictitious church, nobody can be offended, right?

It's meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The idea that "religious whackos" includes, say, all Christians, is a helpful hint to the bias indicated by the choice. The people talking, like most of the people talking in the issues, are supposed to be extremists. I personally think it sounds better than "like Christians" than "like Catholics" - because more people will recognize it as a broad overgeneralization.

Can you imagine the publicity that NS would get if it was "from religious wackos like Muslims/Jews/Shintos"?

Society today is very politically correct ; it's "alright" to hassle the majority.

It's not about political correctness, the whole point is that Christians are the majority, and that's why it was chosen as the subject of satire, because the person who wrote it was white, therefore he refers to the most easily understandble "white" references. Same reason why we have only Catholicism as the mainstream choice with the spiritual advisor issue but not Islam/Hinduism/budhism etc.

It's not "hassling" Christians in anyway, and by you nitpicking things like this, aren't you simply proving the case. :wink:

Had NS be actually an Indian game, the references would have just as easily changed to "Hindu" instead of "Christian", and maybe some sport other than "baseball"(whatever the Indian national sport may be) with the sporting issue.

All these reference groups are mentioned because they are the majority and hence the most easily relatable ones for people.

Still.. When you name specific groups or ideas, you limit the game play.

You're either Anti-Christian or you're anti-harry potter.

You're either Atheist or Catholic.

You're either cannibals or Vegans.

You either clone armies or you shun technology.

I mean, I understand the fun in extremism... but seriously now.

Ahhh more religious whackos - it is a joke, albeit one of not the best taste. But I guess some jokes are too close to the truth so they can be found offensive.

Personally as a Christian you must believe that living by the law of christ is the best way to go. Christ besides laying down this law & simplifying matters also said we should have love amongst ourselves. He said we should love one another as he loved us. he also said that you will know his people by his fruits or what they have produced. Sorry to get all preachy - probably unavoidable concedering the content of this topic - but do you think it's not without some reason some people can rationally say Christians, Catholics, ect. ect, religions in general can be call things like this as a whole, concedering what they have done, and how they've been used to take advantage of individuals throughout history. Somebody I know likend religion in general as a system of control - and I thought it made some sense, I know how religious policies and stances have changed to fit the social political climate of the masses in order to maintain a degree of control - they have differed from the world of God and trusted thier own judgment in matters of what is right and wrong and in matters of faith & so have only added to the suffering of this world.

Sorry lemme stop this here and allow you guys ample flame time ;)
Ill be back :lol:

Ahhh more religious whackos - it is a joke, albeit one of not the best taste. But I guess some jokes are too close to the truth so they can be found offensive.

Personally as a Christian you must believe that living by the law of christ is the best way to go. Christ besides laying down this law & simplifying matters also said we should have love amongst ourselves. He said we should love one another as he loved us. he also said that you will know his people by his fruits or what they have produced. Sorry to get all preachy - probably unavoidable concedering the content of this topic - but do you think it's not without some reason some people can rationally say Christians, Catholics, ect. ect, religions in general can be call things like this as a whole, concedering what they have done, and how they've been used to take advantage of individuals throughout history. Somebody I know likend religion in general as a system of control - and I thought it made some sense, I know how religious policies and stances have changed to fit the social political climate of the masses in order to maintain a degree of control - they have differed from the world of God and trusted thier own judgment in matters of what is right and wrong and in matters of faith & so have only added to the suffering of this world.

Sorry lemme stop this here and allow you guys ample flame time ;)
Ill be back :lol:The issue of whether or not it is a joke is not the issue.. the issue is that this issue effects our nations in the game. THe game says I can't have a harry poitter/religion-loving nation, and we're kinda upset.

Then why not branch some issues off these? *goes off to write a couple right now*

The issue of whether or not it is a joke is not the issue.. the issue is that this issue effects our nations in the game. THe game says I can't have a harry poitter/religion-loving nation, and we're kinda upset.

Actually, no, it doesn't. I haven't seen any evidence that choosing the pro-Potter option reduces your people's devoutness. (Is that the right word? Looks odd.) Assuming that it does seems like a mighty big assumption to me.

I certainly don't see any conflict between liking Harry Potter and Christianity. My attitude is that magic doesn't exist at all, so fictional depictions of it can show it any way they want. The whole issue of whether it comes from God or Satan is pointless -- since it doesn't exist, it doesn't come from anyone...

Geez, there are so many things to take offense at in the world (like millions of children going hungry and /or homeless every day in the rich ol' US of A). Get a sense of proportion, will you?

You all are right out of Issue #13, Option 3, " . . . But surely the right to not have your religious beliefs mocked by others is worth something, too? We mustn't put up with intolerance." :roll:

[quote="Blab"]Geez, there are so many things to take offense at in the world (like millions of children going hungry and /or homeless every day in the rich ol' US of A). Get a sense of proportion, will you?

A sense of proportion? The US government provides school breakfast and lunch programs all year round for qualifying children. In Bangladesh where I spent 18 months in the Peace Corps after 3 yrs in Vietnam I saw people starve after a typhoon destroyed their crops and livlihood. I've seen Bhuddist monks set themselves on fire for their beliefs and Moslems slaughter Hindus and Bhuddists for their beliefs.

I think, as you sit in your Ivory Tower protected by the very people you vilify with your trite responses, that a sense of proportion is something you significantly lack.

Proportion:

Stalin: 22,000,000
Mao Tse Tung: 60,000,000+
Hitler: 6,000,000+
Pol Pot: 1,500,000+
Rwanda: 1,200,000+
Malosevic: 275,000+

Or perhaps it's because your real world is on MTV? My view of the real world has been earned as a participant not a spectator.

And I would also remind any who are reading these posts that this game is frequently incorporated into the government/social studies classes of many public schools in many nations. It's what attracted me to it in the first place.

N of M

[quote="Blab"]Geez, there are so many things to take offense at in the world (like millions of children going hungry and /or homeless every day in the rich ol' US of A). Get a sense of proportion, will you?

A sense of proportion? The US government provides school breakfast and lunch programs all year round for qualifying children. In Bangladesh where I spent 18 months in the Peace Corps after 3 yrs in Vietnam I saw people starve after a typhoon destroyed their crops and livlihood. I've seen Bhuddist monks set themselves on fire for their beliefs and Moslems slaughter Hindus and Bhuddists for their beliefs.

I think, as you sit in your Ivory Tower protected by the very people you vilify with your trite responses, that a sense of proportion is something you significantly lack.

Proportion:

Stalin: 22,000,000
Mao Tse Tung: 60,000,000+
Hitler: 6,000,000+
Pol Pot: 1,500,000+
Rwanda: 1,200,000+
Malosevic: 275,000+

Or perhaps it's because your real world is on MTV? My view of the real world has been earned as a participant not a spectator.

And I would also remind any who are reading these posts that this game is frequently incorporated into the government/social studies classes of many public schools in many nations. It's what attracted me to it in the first place.

N of M

This is not the place to discuss politics.

I can understand how the use of the 'religious wackos' bit makes it difficult for christians to allow the harry potter book, thereby forcing them to either choose the other option or dismiss, but as for the insulting nation of the comment, do not forget that it is given as the view of one individual citizen in your fictional nation. Some real people would say stuff like that, so why shouldn't fictional people? If no-one ever did anything bad in fiction, there would be no good vs. evil books, films, etc.

This is not the place to discuss politics.
I agree and I am responding to the gentleman here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115176).

I think the reaction would be a lot different if it was something like "those crazy jews want us to wear those funny hats all the time" or "those psychotic muslims want our women to wear bed sheets". The people responsible for editing these particular issues are obviously anti-Christian and are blatantly showing their prejudices. The issues really should be changed to something less offensive.

Actually, a lot of groups get bashed in this game. One in particular recalls the spoof of Wiccans in the issue about Violent Violetists. :roll:

the issue is that this issue effects our nations in the game. THe game says I can't have a harry poitter/religion-loving nation, and we're kinda upset.

I happen to concur. I more or less base my choises around celtic druidism, which IS a religion, but not christian or any of the 'main religions'.

My society shouldn't be anti-religion, it's a theocracy! But they'd probably love the magic in harry potter since it's very much like the old celtic myths.

One in particular recalls the spoof of Wiccans in the issue about Violent Violetists

The differences is that Wiccans are used to being spoofed and can laugh in love and light over most of them. At least.. most wiccans. Right-Wing Fundamentalist Wiccans exist too =P.

The differences is that Wiccans are used to being spoofed and can laugh in love and light over most of them.
I have to agree that a sense of humor is essential to play this game. Or, in a word, amen. :mrgreen: