i noticed this too. maybe because "kamikaze" could be seen as "offensive"?

https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K/pull/4743

quote: Let your words be known, if someone feels offended, that's their problem, not the damn game's.

Or, alternatively, it's your problem because you said something insensitive and offensive.

quote: If I understand it right, he's talking about how a lot of people find normal things offensive these days, which, I agree with him, is ridiculous in a lot of situations.

And in a lot of situations, what one group of people finds "normal" is genuinely offensive to somebody else, for reasons that make sense if you're capable of putting yourself in their shoes for a minute - which a lot of people seem not to be capable of.

I am not sure about the renaming, but I am fairly confident the award icon was changed from being a representation of the Imperal Japan flag because somebody found that offensive. I don't care about it one way or another, but I can respect that somebody with deeper connections to the Pacific front of WW2 than I have might find either or both offensive.

Thank you, Malric, that was what I was trying to say.

In this case I don't really care what the name is either, they are both fine.

Forever,

1. since you already say:

quote: There are already too many stupid people in our world today, and it has nothing to do with brain matter, but with stupid choices based on feelings without any rationale.

, then you surely can explain the difference between your demand towards Aquanim and the (still hypothetical at this point) demand to take away the imperial japanese flag in a computer-game. Because there is a difference, and ratio tells us to treat different things different.

2. Lets say, we buff Krow-health by 50, would it be a good argument against the buff to say: "If people keep giving Krow more health, it will be totally op." In genral, those arguments are not very valid for the issue itself, that being the 50-hp-buff in this example.

3. The rational conclusion one would come to in case of the main topic is that it does not affect us in any way, exept if one might be a genuine japanese imperialist. Given that, do I need to point out the irony of an irrational, emotionaly driven rant about "stupid choices based on feelings without any rationale"? ESPECIALLY when the offense was based on pure assumption:

quote: maybe because "kamikaze" could be seen as "offensive"?

which seems to have been disproven by dyth68.

Oh well, I'm just tired of everything "offensive" these days, which is why I got confused about this change and started posting. Since this is a game battle, I'm going off topic too much now.

What I want to prove with the things I mentioned is to not change things because 1 person finds it offensive while 1000 people don't. It's not ok...

quote: , then you surely can explain the difference between your demand towards Aquanim and the (still hypothetical at this point) demand to take away the imperial Japanese flag in a computer game.

Since you mentioned this katastrophe now I feel offended by you and I demand that you call me "Master" from now on. Please don't you dare address me from now on without telling me that first or I will raise a COC complaint :D. All hail individual mindless sensitive offensive personality disorder!

So, the difference between your case and the case about the flag is that you demand something clearly humiliating to others, while I do not see how the flag-thing would scratch you in any way.

malric Lawesome9
I do definitely share your points. What I would like to add is that it is necessary to put thought into the specific issues. This has already been pointed out:

quote: And in a lot of situations, what one group of people finds "normal" is genuinely offensive to somebody else, for reasons that make sense if you're capable of putting yourself in their shoes for a minute - which a lot of people seem not to be capable of.

I would very well understand if someone whos relatives were forced to commit suicide in WWII would find the symbol tasteless. This community has also banned Hakenkreuz-maps for example. Putting myself in the shoes of Forever, I can only see 2 possibilities
for his claim: Either you genuinely believe you are entitled to mandatory be called master, which would point to some delusional narcicism, or you are just pulling some desperate, ironic example for what you think goes too far out of your butt. I am pretty sure we have the second option here. In this regard, Forever has done a good job in demonstrating what kind of people should not be taken too seriously.

I also share @Malrics point about there being too much discussion, but it is very enlightning to look (not just in this thread) who actually started the discussion. This thread could have been just Lawesome9 asking and someone else that actually knows what is going on answering and that would have been it. But someone was obviously offended by the possibility that others might be offended by something without knowledge what was going on, without putting themselves into the shoes of others and without good arguments for the specific subject of the thread. This is how we end up here.

Forever are you actually interested in a rational exchange of arguments with the possibility that both can change their opinion, if even just a little? I do not see how meming and being silly are worth my time, nor do I see a way in which it helps to strenghten you points.

quote: about there being too much discussion

I like discussing just about anything, if it can lead to some new point of view. But I also try to be not much involved emotionally.

The skill to put yourself in other people shoes is complex/hard/something to be learned. A (distant) alternative is a community in which people have some level of involvement and people can consider other different/opposing ideas because they have some connection.

I do agree with Forever that sometimes the "offensive" discussion goes to far (not in this forum/game), but generally I think best is to hold your ground and ignore the noise. For example in software development is currently a move to replace the terms "master/slave" with alternatives like "leaver/follower" (or alternatives). I find this honestly perplexing and annoying because master/slave describe well the relations between some components. Luckily I don't need to use this terminology much, but would still use what I think it's most descriptive if I need to. The fact that we "kill a unit in ZK" does not mean we think "kill someone" is ok and people should easily discern between the cases...