Revelation pretty much belongs into it’s own category given that it was probably written decades after the other new testament books, presumably after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Nah, that’s a cop out. People are allowed to experience this Fantasy Construction based on various IRL ethnic groups.
The line of “cultural appropriation” lies in say, wearing a war bonnet as if you were a non-awarded Plains/other tribe member in real life. Or randomly speaking in Patois outside of roleplay if that isn’t your culture.
??? I mean in an ideal universe, there are Natives on Blizzard’s payroll involved in the creative process, but not for the sake of “approval” but for the sake of making sure this fantasy universe that uses their culture has some semblance of respect and does their culture justice.
You don’t need, nor is there a way to actually obtain, the net or unanimous approval of an ethnic group for their representation into a fantasy universe.
It’s like asking the Queen of England for approval on Stormwind. It’s incoherent.
However, Creators do have an OBLIGATION to write all fantasy races within their universe based upon real world peoples with dignity and justice.
I am not a writer, nor a roleplayer.
Just a random afroindigenous Nasa mixed lightskin Latino who is Catholic with folk traditions and initiated in Haitian voodoo with thoughts on the various in-game dynamics based upon my heritage and culture.
1 Like
It is entirely normal to give them a pass because its a kind of art and artfreedom is a constitutional right.
Or do you really think the humans mirror the culture of europe?
I’m just going to repeat myself
1 Like
I feel like this kind of Germanesque concatenation is way cooler than “artistic freedom” or “freedom of expression” and wanted to voice my support of your grammar if maybe not your ideas.
We libs believe in gunfreedom and speechfreedom and assemblyfreedom and unlawfulsearchandseizurefreedom.
Anyway carry on being your beautiful selves
M … What if the “respectful” history of one country coincides with the “shameful” history of the other side?
No. A “shameful” story can be ignored, only culture can be used.
…
…
…
Okay, I’ll go the rough and stupid path. How can the Alliance (in particular human) kill and defeat tauren, trolls, goblins, so that the narrative does not become racist and anti-Semitic? Or will any story in a similar direction be painted in dark colors?
Although, it will be racist when portraying these events as “permissible” or “encouraged”. And if the tauren / trolls / goblins attack first, then … “how dare you show the victims of history as villains”? At
a justified attack on human would it be an “evil European” who ignores the culture of European countries?
…
…
…
Anew. Each race is presented with the utmost respect and is generally written by the correct connoisseurs of the culture of the source nations. Is the repetition of the events of reality permissible in this situation?
…
If you show events the same for all parties to the conflict. If you do not show “your” side of the wrong.
…
And what to do with the Germans-Orcs-Garrosh?
…
In the “correct” narrative, Garrosh did not happen.
…
And if it happens? Does the player character automatically join the “opposition”?
…
What if the player agrees with the “wrong” Garrosh’s point of view? Two contradictory …
…
Split races into groups!
…
This does not solve the problem of the losing side! The loser will still be shown to be wrong and defeated, and maintaining the conflict in an eternal state of “balance” is nonsense!
…
Let PvP victories determine the fate of history.
…
How are you going to balance that? Then miners and communities will enter the fight, and then the consequences in the form of “75% of the Horde, even if the balance is perfect”!
…
Proportions! One victory of the smaller community is equal to ten victories of the larger one.
…
Then you will offend more people if the minority wins.
…
Disconnection. Mda.
I know the angels of the Old Testament took on inhuman forms and there’s more accounts of them punishing people (while still helping people, such as helping Lot’s family escape an angry mob in Sodom). I know that the “kind and soft winged humans” portrayal of angels - or just their portrayal in most works of fiction - is mostly inaccurate to Scripture (Supernatural is more accurate than most but still gets some things wrong).
The fact that you conflate enforcing laws with cruelty, and disregard that in the Old Testament God paved the way for Christ to redeem us, says a lot.
You still don´t get it. Art is free in creation, and has to be so.
There is no claim on the part of WOW to be culturally correct, and thus they also do not have to fulfill your demand.
The artistic freedom is constitutionally protected, is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.
Free speaking, free exercise of religion, free representation of art, I’d rather have 100 disrespectful works to my own culture (there are certainly tens of thousands of them), than that I would restrict these rights.
If you walk away from the ground of the Constitution, then you respect it only to the extent that it meets your requirements.
I’m not American but i’m 100% sure this isnt a “constitutional right”
The right to freedom of speech has limits. For example in most developed countries freedom of speech excludes hate speech and that also includes depictions of hate in art.
2 Likes
its called "“freedom of expression” in the us constitution.
But wow is no “hate in art”; its not even an existing atemp to be culturally correct or reflecting the cultures. No race in all of WOW is even remotely…culturally accurate.
Its an fantasy Universe, and not a fascist-Propaganda-writing.
Just gonna keep repeating this point because no this is bare minimum in the 21st century
4 Likes
And he repeats himself, still showing that he doesn’t understand that no work in WOW even makes the CLAIM to reflect an rl culture.
This is like a self-fulfilling prophecy, you demand that they treat this culture with dignity, if they refer to it, in the same breath Blizzard would have to admit that they refer to it, which they would never do, because they are inspired by architecture and individual elements of RL cultures to build their fantasy cultures, but never want to and will claim to reflect an RL people entirely.
So if they would fulfill your demand, they would have to write this people as if it was this RL people, and would therefore limit their development.
So it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
i hope i must it not explain again…
Freedom of expression doesn’t protect cultural appropriation.
Freedom of expression doesn’t mean freedom from criticism.
3 Likes
No, it doesn’t, but it protects the right of the artist to represent himself in such a way without being legally prosecuted for his work and even protect its work. So if you would make demands, he would easily win before any court in the western states.
True, but that’s a thing with art, I think there is no work of art that is NOT criticized by other artists anyway 
Actually it doesn’t.
Hate speech and discrimination is not protected by the consitution and it’s actually governed by the court of Law.
“Freedom of speech” is literally not freedom to discriminate.
Freedom of speech is not a protected right in the court of law.
1 Like
again: WOW IS NO HATESPEECH, so why are you arguing on that point? We talk still about wow and the freedom of artists by making this world, not about the limits of the right of an citizens.
Yes but are also talking about cultural appropriation and the dignity snd respect shown to cultures that WoW takes influence from when creating these races.
Baal is right here.
Take goblins being harmful stereotypes of jewish people for example. Especially how it’s recently come to light that the previous writing team knew it was racist and didn’t care.
1 Like
If the court finds discrimination - and only then - from a purely constitutional point of view, Freedom of Speech is unrestricted for the time being and must be considered from situation to situation.
One thing can be called open expression of opinion in one situation, but discrimination in another situation, the Zeitgeist of the times always plays a big role in the assessment.
wrong, actually…it is in the usa, and in my own country too.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The lawmakers are not allowed to restrict the right to create a law against it at all. It is simply forbidden.
So in other words, it is protected.
I’m pretty sure that in America this just allows freedom of religion and free speech in media which means the US constitution restricts government laws of censorship and no law can be created to censor any media. Not protect the indiviuals right to be racist.
You are from Germany yes? (I think i remeber that from other convos)
I’m Canadian and our constitutional rights are different.
Freedom of expression in Canada is protected as a “fundamental freedom” by Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The Charter also permits the government to enforce “reasonable” limits. Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories of restricted speech in Canada.
Clearly Canada and the US are different in this regard and I’m more knowlegeble on the limitations on hate speech and cultural appropriation in my own country which may muddle this discussion.
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorshipp, or legal sanction. The term freedom of expression is usually used synonymously but, in legal sense, includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
This is in the usa, but a court must decide from situation to situation which rights are more important.
Yeah i’m from germany^^