Would you have supported renaming the Brahim if ..

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!

 

Urg stop you're making me die inside with all those damn smiley faces.

 

Haha, I understood who you were referring to though.

 

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.

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.

(Not to mention dangerously close to Aldous Huxley'a A Brave New World.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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"

 

I always preferred the Hobbit, childlike as it is.

 

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

Not that Beth seems to care about plot consistency, but in-game it would be pretty weird that Brahmin suddenly changed their name.

 

Quick, someone call a WAAAAHHHHmbulence.