Slavery

[Chapparita de la Nariz]

You don't get to control what other people say. You post on a public forum, you're inviting opinions and they aren't all going to be sunshine and rainbows.

I'm not attempting to control it. I'm responding to it, and asking about the depth of the reaction which appears (at least to me) to be out of proportion with what people keep saying is unimportant to them. If posting to a thread invites a response, per your earlier post, then that would mean my responses to their posts are welcome additions to this discussion and shouldn't be interpreted as trying to control anything. Apparently, I'm doing the very thing you said is the norm

 

[Algona]

I find it offensive because not only is that not true, to say so suggests that slavery was/is justifiable - an inevitable act borne of need, which is culturally insensitive, historically inaccurate, and highly offensive.

Thanks for your answer and further postings.

Which culture is that Quest being culturally insensitive to and how?

How legitimate is objection to historical accuracy in a game that has elements of fantasy and science fiction like healing the dead and colonies on Mars, combined with plenty of anachronisms such as beyond Era troops and GBs?

It seems a bit tail biting to say something is offensive because it's offensive.

I'm trying to understand the basis for your finding that Quest offensive. Call it curiosity on my part. In five tears on this forum I've seen folk get unhappy about how the game treats Whale Oil, Columbus, the Atomic Bombing of Japan, and some other aspects of the game folk found offensive at one point or another.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your postings I'd like to ask you to reword the Quest capturing the essential essence of the game element of deciding which factor to possibly back in a civil war similar to the American Civil War. There's two restrictions.

Do it in the same or fewer number of words.

Do it with the perspective of a German who has the same understanding of American History and current American thinking regarding that history that you have of the same period of German history and current German thinking about that history.

 

[Chapparita de la Nariz]

You don't get to control what other people say. You post on a public forum, you're inviting opinions and they aren't all going to be sunshine and rainbows.

Lol! I've lived enough life in 12 different countries under varying conditions of peace and war. I understand that all responses aren't going to be sunshine and rsinbows, nor did I request it. I only asked why those who said they weren't interested in the party but showed up and insulted the host. I find it hard to believe that my question about their reactions could be seen as being unreasonable, while their reactions are seen as expected and is reasonable. By the way, I happen to like the rain and thunderstorms.

 

[Graviton]

Lol! I've lived enough life in 12 different countries under varying conditions of peace and war. I understand that all responses aren't going to be sunshine and rsinbows, nor did I request it. I only asked why those who said they weren't interested in the party but showed up and insulted the host. I find it hard to believe that my question about their reactions could be seen as being unreasonable, while their reactions are seen as expected and is reasonable.

I didn't say anything was unreasonable except your expectations of where the responsibility lies for your offense, and what Inno is trying or not trying to say with its quest verbiage. You keep complaining that some people are being mean. Neither did I say they were reasonable, I simply answered your questions in two different posts about why people aren't replying the way you think they should. This is going nowhere fast, you're indeed chasing your tail.

So what exactly is this conversation that you allegedly want to have? The morality of slavery? The morality of Inno? Why Inno owes you something? Virtue signaling? Forum etiquette? Pick something and stick with it.

 

[Chapparita de la Nariz]

Thanks for your answer and further postings.

Which culture is that Quest being culturally insensitive to and how?

How legitimate is objection to historical accuracy in a game that has elements of fantasy and science fiction like healing the dead and colonies on Mars, combined with plenty of anachronisms such as beyond Era troops and GBs?

It seems a bit tail biting to say something is offensive because it's offensive.

I'm trying to understand the basis for your finding that Quest offensive. Call it curiosity on my part. In five tears on this forum I've seen folk get unhappy about how the game treats Whale Oil, Columbus, the Atomic Bombing of Japan, and some other aspects of the game folk found offensive at one point or another.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your postings I'd like to ask you to reword the Quest capturing the essential essence of the game element of deciding which factor to possibly back in a civil war similar to the American Civil War. There's two restrictions.

Do it in the same or fewer words.

Do it with the perspective of a German who has the same understanding of American History and current American thinking regarding that history that you have of the same period of German history and current German thinking about that history.

I already explained why I found it offensive. I'm not sure where else to say. Is there a part of my response, in particular, upon which you'd like me to respond? I think it's offensive towards American culture, not just one ethnic group.

Since I both lived in Germany for years, am fluent in German, and had many of these discussions with Germans, especially those in the East who had never personally interacted with person of color, I think I'm qualified to quickly drum up a few ways to rewrite that narrative. One thing I know for sure is that just as accessible as the existing perspective and language, are other perspectives and languages. And given Germany 's history of, and relationship with, war, one thing I absolutely learned while living there is the importance of the inclusion of multiple experiences related to eat and the importance of asking questions about that lived experience. So, I don't believe that the perspective within the gane,which is singularly prsented, is the only perspective to which the writers had access.

For example, another advisor could have rebutted that statement with something like, "that's a load of shoddyocracy! If we let them have their way, they'll be making slaves out of all of us!" Or " don't listen to him; he's telling a thumper! It's not a neccesity; it's a choice - a misguided choice made long before this pending war " Or "his thinking is cracked and will tear this country apart! Economic necessity? No, it's system of moral corruption built a bed of greed." This is just off the top Of my head. Given more time, I can think of a few more and/or better responses. My point with these quick examples is that just offering a rebuttal would have changed the tone of the narrative so that that statement isn't being treated as fact.

I didn't say anything was unreasonable except your expectations of where the responsibility lies for your offense, and what Inno is trying or not trying to say with its quest verbiage. You keep complaining that some people are being mean. Neither did I say they were reasonable, I simply answered your questions in two different posts about why people aren't replying the way you think they should. This is going nowhere fast, you're indeed chasing your tail.

So what exactly is this conversation that you allegedly want to have? The morality of slavery? The morality of Inno? Why Inno owes you something? Virtue signaling? Forum etiquette? Pick something and stick with it.

you alluded to me trying to control people responses after explaining to me that people responding, in whatever manner they choose, is apart of this process and is welcome. Your comment about sunshine and rainbows was basically telling me to manage my expectations around people's responses. So, you basically told me that my expectations were unreasonable twice - in terms of me being offended and in terms of the tone people were taking with McClurek. Each time, I only responded to your posts. If you want me to pick one topic, I suggest you do the same and then my responses will follow suit.

I didn't say anything was unreasonable except your expectations of where the responsibility lies for your offense, and what Inno is trying or not trying to say with its quest verbiage. You keep complaining that some people are being mean. Neither did I say they were reasonable, I simply answered your questions in two different posts about why people aren't replying the way you think they should. This is going nowhere fast, you're indeed chasing your tail.

So what exactly is this conversation that you allegedly want to have? The morality of slavery? The morality of Inno? Why Inno owes you something? Virtue signaling? Forum etiquette? Pick something and stick with it.

I didn't start the conversation, and so I wasn't looking to have anything. I never said anybody owed me anything, and I never questioned anyone's morality. I just applied the logic you have me to the posts I felt were unnecessarily provocative. Since all responses aren't expected to be sunshine and rainbows, I thought it fair that your advice be equitably spread around.

Thanks for your answer and further postings.

Which culture is that Quest being culturally insensitive to and how?

How legitimate is objection to historical accuracy in a game that has elements of fantasy and science fiction like healing the dead and colonies on Mars, combined with plenty of anachronisms such as beyond Era troops and GBs?

It seems a bit tail biting to say something is offensive because it's offensive.

I'm trying to understand the basis for your finding that Quest offensive. Call it curiosity on my part. In five tears on this forum I've seen folk get unhappy about how the game treats Whale Oil, Columbus, the Atomic Bombing of Japan, and some other aspects of the game folk found offensive at one point or another.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your postings I'd like to ask you to reword the Quest capturing the essential essence of the game element of deciding which factor to possibly back in a civil war similar to the American Civil War. There's two restrictions.

Do it in the same or fewer number of words.

Do it with the perspective of a German who has the same understanding of American History and current American thinking regarding that history that you have of the same period of German history and current German thinking about that history.

by the way, I didn't know this game included things like healing the dead and living in mars. I'm not sure why the inclusion of that would make an objection to a historical inaccuracy out of place. If it was important enough to be included, then there were some options on how it would be used to build the story. I just don't agree with the option that was chosen.

 

[Emberguard]

by the way, I didn't know this game included things like healing the dead and living in mars. I'm not sure why the inclusion of that would make an objection to a historical inaccuracy out of place. If it was important enough to be included, then there were some options on how it would be used to build the story. I just don't agree with the option that was chosen.

Healing the dead - you can revive a unit after battle
Living in Mars - the latest age gives you a colony on Mars to work with.

 

[Algona]

'm not sure where else to say. Is there a part of my response, in particular, upon which you'd like me to respond?

Yes, the part I quoted and asked about in my post that you just quoted.

You stated that one of the reasons you found the Quest offensive is that it is culturally insensitive. I asked to which culture and how?

----------

I asked if it's reasonable to be offended by historical innaccracy:

I'm not sure why the inclusion of that would make an objection to a historical inaccuracy out of place.

Since the game is not historically accurate nor does it make claims to being historically accurate, I am asking why you find it offensive that the game is not historically accurate?

----------

I also noted that the third reason you gave for the Quest being being offensive was that it was offensive

----------

I then asked you to rewrite the Quest. Which you didn't do,despite presenting yourself as a person who can do so because of your life experience. instead writing something else

I'm left where I started, not understanding why you find that Quest offensive since you haven't clarified your original objections that I asked about:

I find it offensive because not only is that not true, to say so suggests that slavery was/is justifiable - an inevitable act borne of need, which is culturally insensitive, historically inaccurate, and highly offensive.

 

[Chapparita de la Nariz]

Yes, the part I quoted and asked about in my post that you just quoted.

You stated that one of the reasons you found the Quest offensive is that it is culturally insensitive. I asked to which culture and how?

----------

I asked if it's reasonable to be offended by historical innaccracy:



Since the game is not historically accurate nor does it make claims to being historically accurate, I am asking why you find it offensive that the game is not historically accurate?

----------

I also noted that the third reason you gave for the Quest being being offensive was that it was offensive

----------

I then asked you to rewrite the Quest. Which you didn't do,despite presenting yourself as a person who can do so because of your life experience. instead writing something else

I'm left where I started, not understanding why you find that Quest offensive since you haven't clarified your original objections that I asked about:

Thanks for explaining your question. Even though the game doesn't make claims about historical accuracy, the authors are pulling from real history, not some fantasy, to build this portion of the quests. I don't know if that's true throughout, but in this case, they're actually referencing real historical occasions and propaganda in their world. It's my position that if they're going to do so, they should do so more responsibly by offering a more comprehensive view of multiple perspectives.

I don't remember noting that the third reason I gave for the quest being offensive was because it was offensive. I don't remember using circular logic like that, but it's possible since I was typing so fast. In terms of you bringing up here, if I did make that mistake, was there a question in relation to it?

I offered possible responses to change the quest narrative, and did so taking the perimeters you outlined into consideration. Like I said earlier in previous posts, one rebuttal could change the tone and provide a counter narrative. so I don't understand your feedback. Are you saying the rebuttals I posted don't work for you or that I didn't do what you requested? I lived abroad since I was 19, and lived in Germany before and after the wall came down. I lived in Berlin, Frankfurt, and Stuttgart (Ditzengen). I have had variations of this discussion with actual Germans many times over the years, and the suggested revisions I offered align with the interactions I personally witnessed and/or participated in. So, yes, my experience does count for something.

I answered your question about which culture. I said North American culture, and I even explained why. I find it culturally insensitive that the narrative doesn't acknowledge slavery as anything more than an economic transaction, despite it being a socio-cultural and political institution before the war. To not acknowledge that doesn't acknowledge the racism inherent within slavery, but makes it only about microeconomics (inputs and outputs) which is a mischaracterization.

I'm thinking that either I'm missing some of your posts or you're missing some of mine because some of the things you said I didn't answer, I actually did.

Yes, the part I quoted and asked about in my post that you just quoted.

You stated that one of the reasons you found the Quest offensive is that it is culturally insensitive. I asked to which culture and how?

----------

I asked if it's reasonable to be offended by historical innaccracy:



Since the game is not historically accurate nor does it make claims to being historically accurate, I am asking why you find it offensive that the game is not historically accurate?

----------

I also noted that the third reason you gave for the Quest being being offensive was that it was offensive

----------

I then asked you to rewrite the Quest. Which you didn't do,despite presenting yourself as a person who can do so because of your life experience. instead writing something else

I'm left where I started, not understanding why you find that Quest offensive since you haven't clarified your original objections that I asked about:

I find it offensive to simply characterize slavery as simply an economic tool. It's a mischaracterization that first acknowledge that slavery existed in other systems besides our economic system (i.e. socio -cultural systems, political system, education system, religious system, etc), and what allowed it to permeate all of those systems was institutional racism. The money came later and, even then, it only came to a few. I think to not offer a rebuttal is irresponsible.

I think I got to all of your questions, but please let me know if I missed something.

Healing the dead - you can revive a unit after battle
Living in Mars - the latest age gives you a colony on Mars to work with.

Thanks for explaining. I didn't know about those features. I started playing the game at my nephew's request, who is autistic (high functioning, but still). This is one of the ways in which he feels comfortable engaging others, and so there's a lot I don't know about the game yet, as I'm progressing through it as I keep pace with him. So there's a lot I haven't explored yet. What I can so, though, is that they appear to be mixing reality with fantasy as it is neither purely one of the other. So, I only asked why not pull in a more nuanced view of the reality they already referenced and included.

 

[Emberguard]

they appear to be mixing reality with fantasy as it is neither purely one of the other.

I guess they wanted to make it historical "flavour"/"theme" more then historical "accurate". There's a lot of historical themed tv series and movies that aren't remotely historical except by theme

 

[DreadfulCadillac]

I hate slavery. But at the time it was nessesary to keep the north, and the souths economy running. The north depended on the cotton from the south, which was picked by slaves.

Im not saying that the economy couldnt have developed in another way,it could have. But it didnt. Back then how the economy was it was nessary.

Also,Why are you offended by historical fact?
Im sorry but if you are going to be offended by stuff, pick a 21st century problem that affects our lifes now.

(there are Many to choose from, trust me!)
In fact if yiou want, i will send you a list of problems that affect our lives today.Just dm me asking for a list of them.Those are thing u can pick a side and get offended over.
(trust me there are many)
Also im going to take a example of somthing that i hate happened in histor, but did.
(before i go any furthur let me remind you all im not anti semitic, im actually jewish!)

The holocaust.
6 MILLION jews were killed.

Countless million more of other ethnicitys were killed.

This saddens me deeply. However im not offended by it.
Why?
Because its the past.Why would i waste time being offended on somthing i cant change because it already happened?

Personlly i do not belivie that that quote is saying that slavery is good.

 

[Agent327]

I've written two dissertations and have two doctorates.

And it is important for the discussion we know this because?

BTW, how did you like the Martin Luther King, Sacajawea and Rosa Parks Questlines?
Were they correct enough for you?

 

[barra370804]

insensitive

Yeah I'm not sure about this one either. White slaves were a thing (not in America but still) Not all slaves were of one ethnicity.

I think it's offensive towards American culture

America didn't have the first (or last) slaves, to say this is offensive, but then say it's only offensive to Americans is unfair.

I find it offensive to simply characterize slavery as simply an economic tool.

That's what slavery was in the eyes of the people back then, whether you like it or not.

I started playing the game at my nephew's request, who is autistic (high functioning, but still). This is one of the ways in which he feels comfortable engaging others, and so there's a lot I don't know about the game yet, as I'm progressing through it as I keep pace with him.

What does he think about this quest narrative?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

I find it offensive because not only is that not true, to say so suggests that slavery was/is justifiable - an inevitable act borne of need, which is culturally insensitive, historically inaccurate, and highly offensive. It essentially provides an economical justification that affirms slavery which, while an economical institution, was also a socio-cultural and political institution - one which preceded the Civil War. The statement doesn't acknowledge that, which I find short-sighted. I'm fine with playing a game that uses historical rdferences, but if it's going to do so, then I think those references should be historically accurate and culturally sensitive. For example, this same line of quests keeps using veiled and loaded language that characterizes Native Americans as limited and slow. We now that's not true, so how does it enhance the game or the game experience to reference them as such? All it does is providec a platform for the ignorant propaganda from that time. I don't deny that the perspective did exist, but since we know it's damaging and inaccurate, why not at least present a more comprehensive perspective? That storyline needs to be updated and, in addition to including a more historically sensitive approach to writing, there needs to be a more historically accurate approach if nothing else.

It's one thing to say that the South exploited a people and a system to further it's political end. It's another thing to frame it as a necessity. Doing so absolves the actors of fully acknowledging their free will, and it disregards not only the sociopolitical context of slavery (as if it were only a political or economical institution), but it doesn't speak to the motivation of slavery before the war.

I found the reference offensive, insensitive, and historically inaccurate and incomplete, and I am fine if I stand on that island by myself. Or, in this case, with McClurek - thank you McClurek. I find it odd, though, that there are some people who find the core issue too irrelevant to be broached, and yet reacting to someone who is interested in the conversation is worth their time and energy. If you really don't care, then why reply at all? If you care and just happen to disagree, why reply with sarcasm as if doing so strengthens your position? Why not just move on to a different discussion that is more worthy of your time?
I get that everyone isn't going care or agree, but if one really doesn't care or agree, why respond with such vehemence? if it's a non-issue for you, then the fact that I care should also be a non-issue, especially since I'm not asking anything of you - not your support or agreement, not one thing.

I can appreciate that. Thank for doing so without sarcasm and aggression.

the Native Americans were actually the locals. I'm referring to repeated references of them as "inferior" - as a people, their technology, etc. There were multiple characterizations of them as inferior. Delayed technological advances and inferiority are not the same thing.

this is where we differ - I don't consider the threat non-existent, and the fact that you do tells me enough about how different our lives are. Either way, I find it hypocritical for someone to say this isn't worthy of discussion and then continue the discussion. I'm not being hypocritical. I expressed a priority and am speaking to it.

Since it would satisfy people like me (a group I'm happy to be a part of) and others wouldn't notice or care, I also think it's an easy win-win solution.

I forgot to say thank you for letting me know this. Thank you.

Barra reminded me of that as well, which was helpful, so thank you for that. I am relatively new to the game, but what I remember from earlier quests was that the leader had multiple advisors with sometimes varying perspectives which sometimes provided more information and considerations. I would have appreciated that here.

I'm not attempting to control it. I'm responding to it, and asking about the depth of the reaction which appears (at least to me) to be out of proportion with what people keep saying is unimportant to them. If posting to a thread invites a response, per your earlier post, then that would mean my responses to their posts are welcome additions to this discussion and shouldn't be interpreted as trying to control anything. Apparently, I'm doing the very thing you said is the norm

Lol! I've lived enough life in 12 different countries under varying conditions of peace and war. I understand that all responses aren't going to be sunshine and rsinbows, nor did I request it. I only asked why those who said they weren't interested in the party but showed up and insulted the host. I find it hard to believe that my question about their reactions could be seen as being unreasonable, while their reactions are seen as expected and is reasonable. By the way, I happen to like the rain and thunderstorms.

I already explained why I found it offensive. I'm not sure where else to say. Is there a part of my response, in particular, upon which you'd like me to respond? I think it's offensive towards American culture, not just one ethnic group.

Since I both lived in Germany for years, am fluent in German, and had many of these discussions with Germans, especially those in the East who had never personally interacted with person of color, I think I'm qualified to quickly drum up a few ways to rewrite that narrative. One thing I know for sure is that just as accessible as the existing perspective and language, are other perspectives and languages. And given Germany 's history of, and relationship with, war, one thing I absolutely learned while living there is the importance of the inclusion of multiple experiences related to eat and the importance of asking questions about that lived experience. So, I don't believe that the perspective within the gane,which is singularly prsented, is the only perspective to which the writers had access.

For example, another advisor could have rebutted that statement with something like, "that's a load of shoddyocracy! If we let them have their way, they'll be making slaves out of all of us!" Or " don't listen to him; he's telling a thumper! It's not a neccesity; it's a choice - a misguided choice made long before this pending war " Or "his thinking is cracked and will tear this country apart! Economic necessity? No, it's system of moral corruption built a bed of greed." This is just off the top Of my head. Given more time, I can think of a few more and/or better responses. My point with these quick examples is that just offering a rebuttal would have changed the tone of the narrative so that that statement isn't being treated as fact.

I find it offensive to simply characterize slavery as simply an economic tool. It's a mischaracterization that first acknowledge that slavery existed in other systems besides our economic system (i.e. socio -cultural systems, political system, education system, religious system, etc), and what allowed it to permeate all of those systems was institutional racism. The money came later and, even then, it only came to a few. I think to not offer a rebuttal is irresponsible.

I think I got to all of your questions, but please let me know if I missed something.

Thanks for explaining. I didn't know about those features. I started playing the game at my nephew's request, who is autistic (high functioning, but still). This is one of the ways in which he feels comfortable engaging others, and so there's a lot I don't know about the game yet, as I'm progressing through it as I keep pace with him. So there's a lot I haven't explored yet. What I can so, though, is that they appear to be mixing reality with fantasy as it is neither purely one of the other. So, I only asked why not pull in a more nuanced view of the reality they already referenced and included.

Way too many words to signal your virtue that I have no interest in reading.

So let's get back to the original point. If you're so offended by all of this, what are you doing about the real slavery that exists in the world today? The slavery that made your phone?

It's a whole lot easier to signal your virtue than to actually be virtuous. What are you doing to actually be virtuous? Lecturing us and Inno games certainly is not that. It's all about you, feeding your ego, showing how smart and woke you are. How you;re so much better than us.

So, how much better are you? What are you doing? With your time and money? You know, those things that cost YOU something as opposed to your empty words which are cheap.

Completely insufferable.

 

[DeletedUser32973]

I'm offended (not really) that people feel the need to come into a game and express moral outrage to get changes made because they're looking for anything to get offended at. The world needs to grow a thicker skin, because the amount of people crying foul at the smallest of things seems to be growing. Stop looking for issues where there aren't any, and maybe you'll be a bit happier in life.

 

[Algona]

I don't remember noting that the third reason I gave for the quest being offensive was because it was offensive

Your words from your quote. Argue with them.

Even though the game doesn't make claims about historical accuracy,

I reject your underlying assumption that a work of fiction (and yes, a game is fiction) that liberally makes use of anachronisms and fiction and doesn't claim historical accuracy can or should be judged for historical accuracy.

Yeah I'm not sure about this one either. White slaves were a thing (not in America but still) Not all slaves were of one ethnicity.

That's not what I'm asking about at all, nor is it a point I am willing to discuss here. This is what I don't get:

I said North American culture, and I even explained why.

Can you explain what you mean by North American culture? I've seen you make these explicit references:

Native Americans

the South

Native Americans

First Nations

Did I miss one? My confusion arises from some serious lack of communication on your part. The thread is titled slavery. The original post is about slavery. The only Quest that is quoted is about slavery and you quoted it when you initially responded in this thread explaining why you were offended.

I asked you what Culture was being treated with insensitivity and you still haven't answered in a way that would make me think you are even addressing slavery until this post:

I find it offensive to simply characterize slavery as simply an economic tool.

Thanks for getting back on topic.

So let's look at the Quest again.

"Your Grace! General Dee's ambassador told us about the independent South. The industry is not as advanced as in the North, and the high tariffs are deadly for its economy. They rely heavily on slave labor - but it is necessary to keep their economy running. "

So again, this time knowing I am secure in the knowledge that you actually are talking about slavery, how you would rewrite it to make it acceptable to you.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

I find it offensive because not only is that not true, to say so suggests that slavery was/is justifiable - an inevitable act borne of need, which is culturally insensitive, historically inaccurate, and highly offensive. It essentially provides an economical justification that affirms slavery which, while an economical institution, was also a socio-cultural and political institution - one which preceded the Civil War. The statement doesn't acknowledge that, which I find short-sighted. I'm fine with playing a game that uses historical rdferences, but if it's going to do so, then I think those references should be historically accurate and culturally sensitive. For example, this same line of quests keeps using veiled and loaded language that characterizes Native Americans as limited and slow. We now that's not true, so how does it enhance the game or the game experience to reference them as such? All it does is providec a platform for the ignorant propaganda from that time. I don't deny that the perspective did exist, but since we know it's damaging and inaccurate, why not at least present a more comprehensive perspective? That storyline needs to be updated and, in addition to including a more historically sensitive approach to writing, there needs to be a more historically accurate approach if nothing else.

Acknowledging historical shortcoming, is appropriate, while dissecting veiled or loaded language for the express purpose of being offended, is foolish at best.

Click Slave

.

 

[Chapparita de la Nariz]

I guess they wanted to make it historical "flavour"/"theme" more then historical "accurate". There's a lot of historical themed tv series and movies that aren't remotely historical except by theme

Maybe so. I don't have a tv, but I'm sure you're right about the shows. My guess is that producers probably don't take a whole lot of creative license with slavery because of how sensitive an issue it is.

 

[barra370804]

I don't have a tv

Those doctorates cost a lot eh?

 

[Graviton]

My point with these quick examples is that just offering a rebuttal would have changed the tone of the narrative so that that statement isn't being treated as fact.

Nobody but you and the now-disappeared OP is treating it as fact. The rest of us seem to understand that its purpose isn't to teach us anything nor make any ethical statements. It's a character in a game with a specific point of view that we modern humans don't agree with.

you alluded to me trying to control people responses after explaining to me that people responding, in whatever manner they choose, is apart of this process and is welcome.

And yet your comments on those responses seems to indicate that you think they should not post at all. You said:

I find it odd, though, that there are some people who find the core issue too irrelevant to be broached, and yet reacting to someone who is interested in the conversation is worth their time and energy.

If you really don't care, then why reply at all?

I get that everyone isn't going care or agree, but if one really doesn't care or agree, why respond with such vehemence?

I find it hypocritical for someone to say this isn't worthy of discussion and then continue the discussion.

You're spending a lot of time telling us why they shouldn't post. That's akin to telling them to shut up.

Your comment about sunshine and rainbows was basically telling me to manage my expectations around people's responses.

Yes! And this game.

So, you basically told me that my expectations were unreasonable twice

Yes, I did, which I said in my last post. You accused me of saying that the fact that you posted was unreasonable. I then explained that I didn't say your posting was unreasonable, but your expectations were. Glad that's established.

You chose to be offended. You can also choose not to be. Nobody inflicted anything on you, nobody is a victim of anything here. I think Razor is right, you're just here to make sure we know you're a good person for hating slavery. Well then, congratulations for hating slavery. I hate it too!

I never said anybody owed me anything,

You think Inno owes you new quest text.

 

[Chapparita de la Nariz]

And it is important for the discussion we know this because?

BTW, how did you like the Martin Luther King, Sacajawea and Rosa Parks Questlines?
Were they correct enough for you?

I mentioned my doctorates in response to another player's comments about it not being possible to address this within the game because it would take a dissertation to do so. Having written two dissertations, my response was that I thought his/her visit was inaccurate.

I haven't gotten to those quests yet. I'd offer to follow up with you once I get there, but the tone I'm getting from your thread leads me to believe it wouldn't be welcome.