Would you have supported renaming the Brahim if ..

Would support renaming Brahmin if he was named after priest of your faith?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • No

    Votes: 26 86.7%

  • Total voters
    30
Now that there are four posts after me, I can post I believe. I have already corrected this, see my post 116 which I has been edited a few times, didn't notice it right? That is what is broken with that suggestion. If I edit a post, it is logical to expect that it be repositioned as the latest post, which does not happen and as a result the post is ignored. Or may be it is just my :-(passive:xaggressive behavior talking, unlike :mad:aggressive:mad:aggressive behavior of some. Honestly, are you interested in the real points made here by me, the Freedom of Expression in Art guys or just in having fun bashing someone?
 
Last edited:
Here's my take on the basic rules of posting. This is very simple, so follow along:

You can post as long as there is a post after yours. If not, edit your post.

See? Try that. No need to wait for 4 posts. Oh, this also sort of applies for making threads. Do not make a new thread if one already exists for the same purpose.
 
Now I understand Walps problem. You - Laxite just don't get it ...

*Edit you really ARE @Ninja posting ... right before I did!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1> I don't see anything offensive in Reagan's portrayal. He is man, shown as a man (as against as a beast), shown in patriotic colors, it is possible you could kill him in the game, but I think it is extremely unlikely that you would have Reagan Steaks, Reagan Hides and Kill Regans massacres.
Indeed, but the reason for choosing it [this] was simply that it's a work of obvious fiction. Nothing the comic can present of him can be slanderous, because none of it can ever be mistaken for truth. In theory the adventures could be offensive ~possibly to any country depicted as incompetent; but I have no issue with "virtually offensive" fiction. It is usually telling it like it is ~in their fictional reality... and so what? It's a fictional reality.

J.R.R. Tolkien was Christian; wrote a war novel about the fall of gods, in a world filled with their works, and a god's macguffin [the one ring]... You wouldn't think it, but the movies and books seem to be well accepted by Christians (and this has not gone unnoticed as ~unexpected). It seems quite the same with Harry Potter as well.

2> Social Contract only needed in homogeneous on world: It is already pretty much one-world as far as media and communications go, and it is heterogeneous which means differing conflicting views are likely to arise. If we routinely go against these views as an expression of freedom of speech, then we should expect a conflict filled world and outside video games this time.

Thanks
That's the world we live in, and always have. Contrary to the assumption ~at a glance, I think the alternative you hint at would be even more onerous. :mrgreen:

(Not to mention dangerously close to Aldous Huxley'a A Brave New World.)
 
Last edited:
@Ninja#122: Thanks, even a 'really dumb' person like me can understand this rule. Nowhere was this obvious in other posts. @Gizmojunk#126: The point you make about fictional reality vs. non fictional reality is true, in that case we must then depend on that fact that everyone is able to keep that in mind all the time and suppress their emotional response (and whether we like it or not humans are emotional beings). If they don't and trouble comes knocking the door, then I hope that Freedom of Speech in Arts guys own up to it and not take conscientious objector route (nothing personal, but I can offend a group right?). I love Tolkien and have read all 5 books, I can see why it was palatable. It is not actually about fall of gods, it is about the fall of evil as represented by the Ring. I have not read the Brave New World. I have read George Orwell, I don't know how similar they are, but there are many constitutions written around the non-Locke version of Social Contract and none of them are Orwellian and draconian. And the fictional vs. non-fictional kind of products have splash screens claiming to be so. If bethesda were to put such a screen in the beginning, that would be the best thing. Now that suggestion may be offensive to some, but then I am talking about a fictional reality and I can offend large number of people right? Sarcasm aside, thanks for your post.
 
Last edited:
LoTR (all three volumes) are but a paragraph in the Silmarillion; Tolkien's history of Middle Earth ~all the way back to creation. Sauron and Gandalf are essentially angels [one of them fallen].

As for the disclaimer... I see it as equivalent to putting the same thing on Will Farrel's "Elf", and Tim Allen's "The Santa Claus". If people are adults, then they are responsible for their own tempers. What you suggest can be extended to calling the police on one's neighbor because of the [species of] meat they are cooking at their backyard barbecue, or claiming great [religious] offense at their holiday decorations ~whether or not they live nearby; and we've seen some of that crap here ~sad to say. There comes a time when Politically Correct becomes stupid.

FO3 was canceled in India, probably because someone at Microsoft was scared, and that surprised a lot of people ~considering GTA5 released there, among others. Brahman are cows, and that's what they call cows in FO3. It's no one else's fault that the name for cows has an alternate meaning. Ask yourself this: Would anyone living in the post apocalyptic US know the alternate meaning of the name for a kind of cattle? Would they tip-toe around unknown sensitivities for a country (that as far as we know) isn't there anymore?

*You know that the next step from how dare they use "Brahman" is "How dare they imagine we were destroyed!"... This is fiction, and not worth anyone's time seriously debating virtual offensive content. I'm sure most of us already think it insane that countries ban fiction books & games for imaginary taboos ~like showing morphine injection.
 
Last edited:
I did read Silmarian. Sauran -> Lucifer, Gandalf -> I don't know who but I forget what the gods were called, Valar I think? I am not sure if they were not killed or anything, just went to their island right and there were 3 of them? Silmarian was a difficult to read book for me, mainly because I was spoiled by the action-packed worlds in the other 4 and I almost forced myself to it and looked it up for references to the Ring , Angabad, Suron etc. Anyway, brings back memories.
 
Ilúvatar > Ainur / Valar > Mayar

Morgoth was an Ainur, Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf and Radagast are mayar, the Balrogs, etc are lower ranked Mayar corrupted by Morgoth. Kankra is a child of Ungoliant, which seems to be neither Ainur nor Mayar. Sauron isn't really the Satan, he was a servant of Morgoth who fitts the bill of Lucifer.
 
It's the name of a valley in Mordor, but probably a reference to Utumno the first lair/fortress of Morgoth where he bred most of his creatures, like giant Vampire-Bats, Werwolfs, Dragons and the like, and the home to many Balrogs before the second defeat and banishment of Melkor/Morgoth.
 
I did read Silmarian. Sauran -> Lucifer, Gandalf -> I don't know who but I forget what the gods were called, Valar I think? I am not sure if they were not killed or anything, just went to their island right and there were 3 of them? Silmarian was a difficult to read book for me, mainly because I was spoiled by the action-packed worlds in the other 4 and I almost forced myself to it and looked it up for references to the Ring , Angabad, Suron etc. Anyway, brings back memories.

After reading through this posting, I find it odd that you would not push for the removal of JRR Tolkiens work, especially his assorted "myth" works as it is clearly makes light of dwarfism, and even infers that somehow arn't even human.
 
If it makes you sleep better at night there's also a certain species of lizards called the jesus christ lizard.

Yes : i would totally support a two headed cow species named "Mullah" :P
 
Last edited:
Ilúvatar > Ainur / Valar > Mayar

Morgoth was an Ainur, Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf and Radagast are mayar, the Balrogs, etc are lower ranked Mayar corrupted by Morgoth. Kankra is a child of Ungoliant, which seems to be neither Ainur nor Mayar. Sauron isn't really the Satan, he was a servant of Morgoth who fitts the bill of Lucifer.

I always preferred the Hobbit, childlike as it is.
 
I did not intend this to be religious debate. It is very hard to have one within forum rules as I found out on Bethesda forums. 1> No Brahma is not a bull. The wiki link points to a non-existent page. Please search for Brahma on wiki. I could talk on depictions of various entities, but don't want to so that we do not get in deep religious debates here. 2> Atheist argument: Even atheist respect somebody or some concept. Substitute Brahmin with Einstein, Gandhi, Mandela whoever you respect and see if it is jarring. That is the point. If Brahim were to be named as something offensive to a large group, would you support renaming it?
Respect and worship are different things. I'm an atheist. I think Einstein was a great scientist and Mandela a great man, and I respect them. But as long as the use is not outright insulting (say, naming Mandela a chimpanzee would be an obvious racist slur, so that wouldn't be OK), I really don't care, I'd at most find it funny, the way I find funny Richter (an infamous pseudo-scientist of the mid to late 50's in my country) called his cat Epsilon, like the Greek letter most commonly used to depict arbitrarily small values. I frankly don't care if they use their names in non-insulting ways.

I have 6 points to make over the last several posts:
1> Firstly Bethesda surely knows its audience and it seems to be large enough that they would think numbers make something right as opposed to moral arguments.
As much as I dislike Bethesda's games, assuming there is anything wrong in naming a cow "brahmin", that's not on Beth's. It predates Beth's ownership of the IP.
2> I am not sure how many people actually did the exercise about substituting the Brahmin name with a priest of their religion or something they respect honestly without treating it as an opportunity to be witty or support their pre-made conviction.
I did as much as I could, but I have to admit the premise is a bit silly to me. My name is Mario, and I wouldn't be offended by cows in the Fallout universe being called Mario (on the contrary, it would make me another great costume for parties).

Yet your opinion is that your personal feelings should overwrite the expression of others.
Not really, if you want I can flood this with plenty of yes votes to prove that it is not "just" my personal opinion. I understand most of the view points here. I would request that please give a thought to what I have been saying and if you really think more than one person would not think this way, if you really think it would be good to have a something that is against a group of people?
Firstly, you seem to be the only one that seems to be interpreting this as being against a group of people. As mentioned, they are even portrayed in a positive light, maybe even the only beings as objectively positive-only.
Secondly, how on Earth are you Hindu, a religion where cows are sacred, and you are offended because something you kill to eat and stuff has the name of a caste and not by the fact this something you kill to eat is a cow? That for a start sounds rather inconsistent.
Thirdly, and I'm repeating Walpknut here, you are vouching for forcing someone to change the name of something on their fictional world. That IS overwriting somebody else expression, and that IS violating that freedom of expression. Freedom makes you responsible by consequences, not by forcing you not to do things. The only rational consequence here to 'suffer' would be that you don't buy their games because you felt offendeded, and that's it. What you are proposing, instead, is censorship, and if you want to talk offending groups of people, a whole lot of people was killed in my country as a means to censoring their ideas.

1> I am not saying the polls are wrong. I acknowledged that when i said Bethesda knows its audience. Were this audience to be expanded, it would tell a different story.
Eh, don't assume that because people share your demographics they are offended by the same things as you. Some people realize that a name might be just a name, and the only actual Indian people I remember from the Fallout franchise was actually pretty badass. Aradesh was the father of the only actual Republic we know in game, the father of the new world. But it's OK, keep complaining because they chose a name for cows and you decided to feel offended by that choice, and ignore the fact a demographic you share is portrayed in one of the most positive lights out there. Interplay and Bethesda must really hate Indians and Hinduists!

3> Brahmins sustain life: Interesting point, really. Agree that a cow is not shown in a bad terrible way. You can kill it, eat its meat, use its hide, hold cow massacres, have cow jokes, great, no problem. But you cannot do that to a group of human beings. That is the point. (I don't plan to take the cannibal perk :smile:)
Actually, insensitive as it would be, you probably could. In fact, human massacres are pretty much on in the world of gaming. What do you think a war is, if not a human massacre? Haven't you seen any games on war? There's literally like four AAA titles every year.

After the immigration law change in 1960s, US is becoming a multi-religious country, it has many radically different religions, including atheism, which is absence of one ( it is like the numbering system that starts with 0, or None option), as opposed to many derivatives of the same religion. In my humble opinion, we need to be sensitive to that.
There is a difference between being sensitive and taking into account every possible unreasonable cause for people to feel offended. If you go and put your only Indian character to be a goofy idiot, OK, you can rightfully feel offended, because that's probably intentional. They could have made their comic relief in so many ways, yet they chose that. But the cow name, really? You are reading way too much into something that just isn't there.

The religious debate is needed because the original fallout used a religious hum icon, perhaps inadvertently, as a butcher-able deformed animal.
This was not corrected even after Bethesda knew about it at least since Fallout 3 release and did nothing.
So a corrective action should at least be debated. The US debate is here. India debate will start elsewhere since this is mainly a US board.
I am sure you did not read that the cattle was first bred in early 1900.
Even then it gives a legacy of 115 years, the fallout legacy is 17 years, the hindu legacy is 5000 years.
I brought it up in 2015 because this is the first fallout game played.
Bye.
Not that Beth seems to care about plot consistency, but in-game it would be pretty weird that Brahmin suddenly changed their name.

All Br* words are ancient Sanskrit words and according to wikipedia they come from the root "Br".
Does that include Braille and Brasil?

If offending religions sounds rational and logical to you because you are an atheist or because it is done as many times as you pointed by your good examples, good luck and I request you to develop some ethics based value system.
You are being a bit of a hypocrite here. You are the one who started the whole "what would happen if it would be against the major religions of the US?". Well, it was shown, and contrary to what *you* are pointing at, those were actually aimed at the religious figures, and made them the big bad villains, rather than just having a mere naming coincidence. And he showed you what happened: pretty much nothing, the same old "I'm offended by everything" got offended, and everyone else wrote it off as games will be games. I have a friend who is an Evangelist and plays Assasin's Creed, so...

If what we see in Fallout regarding the use of the term Brahma/Brahmin is offensive, I wonder if other companies are being scrutinized for their less tactful use of the same:


View attachment 2512
They should be scrutinized for making shitty beer, first.

laxite,Freedom is more important than people's feelings and the state should never be able to modify or censor anything.
for example,Germany censored Wolfenstein:the new order (the first game of this famous and important saga). The censorship changed the word nazism with "regime",changed swasticas with another symbol and so on. Can't you see how wrong it is? this is like try to make people forget about nazism becose governement and pression gruops are worried that nazism is a too blunt theme to appear in vieogame in germany in 2015. Also censorship treads on the personal freedom and cretivity of an artist/producer and on personal freedom of the consumer who cannot buy something with the money for which he has worked for
Wolfenstein is way older than TNO...
 
Back
Top