Little Devil Inside still confirmed for Linux despite PlayStation exclusivity

Just like tomahawk-wielding, scalp-hunting, firewater-guzzling, feather-wearing savages in a modern game would be in bad taste, don't you agree? Or tiny buck-toothed yellow men with coolie hats if you prefer that particular outdated trope.

That's just the point this wasn't *anything* like that and people seeing the blow guns as joins might want to read up on freud.

The dev apparently disagrees with you, seeing as they changed the model.

They changed the model because the cost of doing that was less than the projected cost of having the whiners continuing to cry racism.

if you read the statement linked in the article you will see that they dont think the model is racist but changed it to avoid offending any people in any way;
https://www.facebook.com/projectldi/posts/3034969673204804

the TLDR; "we never saw it as, nor intended it to be racist, somebody think it is, we are sorry, we will change. please dont hate us"


From your post I guess you think it's racist, and your entitled to your opinion - I tried and failed to change it. But the developers clearly don't they just rolled over and took the easy way out, I don't really blame them considering the PR hell they would have likely encountered otherwise in the current political climate. But I find it absurd that is has gotten to this point, mob rule is never a good thing.

Guppy, you should join a carnival, you could make good money with that mind reading ability of yours

Guppy, you should join a carnival, you could make good money with that reading ability of yours

fixed it for you <3

From your post I guess you think it's racist, and your entitled to your opinion - I tried and failed to change it. But the developers clearly don't they just rolled over and took the easy way out, I don't really blame them considering the PR hell they would have likely encountered otherwise in the current political climate.

The developer didn't intend to offend, that seems clear. But if someone points out that you inadvertently did or said something offensive, like perpetuated a stereotype, there's no good reason to double down on the issue if you can simply make it right. Sometimes the easy way out is the best way out.

This blooming generation we live in, saying the masks in this video game, yes video game, fictional not real yet people are complaining about it. In my day we had Jim Davidson on the TV doing impressions of how African people speak, he just got laughed at no one complained. This whole racist thing has gone too far, from knocking down statues to protesting in crowds, breaking the distancing laws. I am not racist in any way, shape or form, but this generation has gone completely mad, finding fault in everything and now in a computer game. So future generations will follow in their parents footsteps and carry on destroying history and take away freedom of speech, art, creativity altogether. Bring back Alf Garnett in Till Death Do Us Part and you'll see what real racism in character is actually like, but back then we all laughed about it. Then a couple of weeks ago they were going to take down the Germans episode of Fawlty Towers, which was made back in 1975. Instead of taking it down they have put a warning up saying it might upset some viewers. It's pure genius comedy from the mind of John Cleese from Monty Python. Sorry to go on, but really as if we all ain't got enough to worry about.

Do you want some dressing with that word salad, clatterfordslim?

[All the talking points]

If you're a comedian and the only thing you can do is punch down at different cultures and races, I don't think you're very creative. Come up with better jokes man. It can't be that hard. Joke about people, not stereotypes. Punch up, not down. Or make fun of your own race and culture, like many great comedians do.

Adding content warnings or information about context takes nothing away from comedy. That sort of thing is perfectly fine. And so is taking episodes/movies off of streaming services. These are private companies and they get to decide what they sell. Hard to argue against that. Still, none of that is being "erased". It's still on our DVDs and various other media.

Your silly bit about activism is barely worth an answer. As if these statues (of which almost none are of historical or artistic value) were somehow more important than actual issues. Statues are monuments to people, they're not history. There's nothing you can learn from them that you can't learn better in a history book, a documentary, or a museum. Context is important. Or did we forget about Hitler after (most of) his statues were torn down? Or about Saddam Hussein?

The "erasing history" silliness doesn't make a lick of sense. As if you could erase history these days even if you tried.


PS: If you ever need to start a sentence with something along the lines of "I'm not a racist, but", you're probably heading down the wrong path. It doesn't necessarily mean you're a racist, but it does mean you're about to defend racism in some form. There's no other reason to say those words.

I'm a bit disappointed that this game is unrelated to Litil Divil.

Or make fun of your own race and culture, like many great comedians do.

So, what comedians may and mustn't say is based on their races? Isn't that the definition of racism? What about comedians of mixed race, are they allowed to do jokes about two races or neither of them? May I tell Jewish jokes if I'm 1/4 Jew, for example? Or 1/8? Or less? What are the rules? I heard there were scientific research works in Germany in 1930s, I should look for them...

An old comedy video I found yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z3wUD3AZg4. Is it offensive and racist or still fun? Or both partially, depending on a viewer's race?

So, what comedians may and mustn't say is based on their races?

It's called punching up vs punching down.

Isn't that the definition of racism?

No.

Racism requires social power to codify prejudices into laws and social rules. This is 101 stuff, please read up on the basics.

Racism requires social power to codify prejudices into laws and social rules. This is 101 stuff, please read up on the basics.

I disagree. How low and powerless you are, you can still be racist. (In fact, it seems to happen more often for people not feeling much proud of anything else than their colour.) You racism doesn't need to be "successful" for you qualifying as racist.

I disagree

ok boomer

I disagree

ok boomer

Your "argument" has not been convincing.

Let's start here:
"Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." See, no social power needed to do so.

Your "argument" has not been convincing.

It wasn't an argument. It was a dismissal.

Your "argument" has not been convincing.

It wasn't an argument. It was a dismissal.

So what millions of powerless white supremacists are doing is not racism because they are powerless?
Absolution to them, I hear you?

White supremacists aren't powerless, they have structural power in society. All of "western society" is build to serve white people, so even the ones personally powerless are still empowered in day to day life. See all the white people being able to brandish guns unmolested in public in the US, while black people are shot just for holding their wallet in hand.

Please, do some research first.

I can recommend a few books, in German even:

• Noah Sow, "Deutschland Schwarz Weiß"


• Alice Hasters, "Was weiße Menschen nicht über Rassismus hören wollen: aber wissen sollten"


• Reni Eddo-Lodge, "Warum ich nicht länger mit Weißen über Hautfarbe spreche" (To be fair, that one is a translation. The original title is "Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race")

White supremacists aren't powerless, they have structural power in society.

... and if they wouldn't, thinking the very same wouldn't be racism?
Sorry, this is nonsense.
Racism is a way of thinking and while it's obviously more dangerous with power, the thinking stays the same without, and deserves the very same name.

And no, I'm not getting some books to find something to prove your point. If you find anything that says that racism is not racism without power, feel invited to cite it.

PS: "ok boomer" is by far not the quality of messages I'm used to from you.


Last edited by Eike on 4 July 2020 at 8:19 pm UTC

There's no point arguing against an uninformed position. Hence the dismissal.

I really should stay away from such hot topics, but....

I'm happy when there's someone able to actually discuss stuff. The worst about DrMcCoy here was his attitude about his favorite definition, like "I'm right, everybody seeing it differently is wrong and has to inform themselves, ok boomer, I'm out (but I'm still right)". (And yes, I'm still surprised and disappointed to read something like that from him.)

anyway, racism from a dictionary definition description can be tweaked, but unfortunately it's actually devoid of meaning without the social context to give it power. Race itself is a social construct, with no basis in science or fact itself, and so racism becomes something only with definition of society giving it power.

Without backing power therefore, I would argue that prejudice is a better word than racism. Anyone can be prejudiced based on differences in the amount of melanin in one's skin, and there can be historical good and bad reasons behind that no doubt, but no you can't really be racist if you've no power to enforce that prejudice on others.

Basically, any discussion about who is racist or not has to include and factor in the power and hierarchy dynamics of social groups.

That way of defining racism would lead to absurd consequences: If the racist side would lose its power, they would suddenly stop being racist, despite feeling the same way based on the same construct.

In my opinion, we should differentiate between say racist persons, racist ideas and a racist system. The latter obviously cannot be in place without power, but the racist person with racist ideas stays the same no matter if gaining, losing or never having any powers. They can be racist alone on an island.

It seems to me some people are trying to put too much into a single word, which just needs some more words. (I met the same with the word "peace", which according to some doesn't mean the absence of war, or violence, but seemingly free cake to everybody as well.)


Last edited by Eike on 5 July 2020 at 3:36 pm UTC

Racism obviously has overtones of unwanted, unacceptable behaviour. As a thought exercise however: if someone has prejudicial thinking, but does not carry out discrimination, are they racist?

Yes. Racism is a way of thinking (which often leads to a way of acting, of course).

On the flip side, if someone carries out discrimination but are not consciously aware of it, are they racist?

(Discrimination base on colour and stuff you mean, I guess.) Yes, I think so, and yes, that might mean that many people are racist which would strongly and in good conscience deny it. (I'm not talking about those "I'm not a racist, but..." people here!)

And then, let's go a step further. If someone is discriminating against another based upon ethnic or racial grounds, what if it's because they've been oppressed are are looking to restore some balance? I mean, if some has been a slave because of the colour of their skin, and then chooses to stay away from others resembling their oppressors, are they then being racist?

That's a tough question I don't have clear answer for. What would be yours?
But, adressing the elephant in the room: People of colour can be racists, too.

It's not quite so simple to resolve such things in any kind of short terms. This makes heavy reading and discussion on the matter quite critical, and why, in my view, one cannot simply divorce racism from power.

I don't say it's simple, I'm saying mixing everything into a single term is often not the answer, and in this case, it isn't either. Why not talk about racist people (people thinking their group would be superior based on their idea of a "race") and a racist system (many racist people oppressing other people they consider being of another "race")? It avoids the problems with mixing all into one term, like giving different terms to two people thinking exactly the same (racist) thing of one another.

Cramming too much in a word makes conversation harder, not easier.


Last edited by Eike on 5 July 2020 at 4:20 pm UTC