Unless, as is the case, those 'smug in their righteousness' are trying to make it illegal, or at least socially unacceptable, to make a pizza without pineapple.
You say that as if I had not already raised the same point, in the same post, a few lines away. Also as if I hadn't referenced the J.S. Mills essay "On Liberty" several times, on EN World, in the last month or two. "illegal" and "socially unacceptable" are both significant and they are NOT the same thing, nor is it merely a difference of degree.
The homophobic makers of wedding cakes have been compelled to accept and make cakes for gays.
That indeed answers my question of a real-world example. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing is a topic of ongoing debate. There has also been debate about "right to refuse service to anyone" on the axis of race; there was a time when a black person driving from, say, Chicago to San Francisco, might experience difficulty if no one along the way would sell fuel or food to anyone black. IMO answers to such questions on the axis of race are often, but not always, useful precedents for parallel questions on the axis of sexuality. But before we go much further into the details, remember that this is a multi-national discussion, run from Canada, and the rulings of courts in the USA are not everyone's context.
You do realize that when you're discussing a population percentage of less than 0.01% it is okay to say 'none'? As in, statistically speaking, there were no blacks in Poland during the late medieval and early renaissance.... <snip> This means, it's okay to make a game set in fantasy (or even historic) Poland with no blacks. Further, The Witcher is specifically about Polish culture and folklore... so even if the percentage were to be a whopping whole 1%, it would still be okay to exclude them from game. Further more, the game is based on the books... so...they stayed true to the source.
Two points, A and B.
(A) The storyline of Witcher series is not, in its own words, set in a Poland or Poland-analogue which is somehow isolated from the rest of humanity.
Letho: "Nah, had it with these swamps. Need a change of scenery. Zerrikania, maybe?"
Geralt: "I've heard they have striped horses there."
Striped horses, hunh? Gee, where are there animals which one might describe as "striped horses"? Is it a place where Bad Guys come from, such as Azar Javed? That's a Persian name. I guess Zerrikania is "everywhere south or southeast of Poland, and non-Poles are all the same to me." If a Turk or Roma wandered into historical Poland, would they become a Zerrikanian in The Witcher? Is it true that the only good Zerrikanian is a dead Zerrikanian? (shrug) That's an artistic decision, and since I don't want censorship of "Custer's Revenge", I also don't want censorship of The Witcher.
(B) Whether it's ethical for Poles to decide "only Poles count as characters in the story of our nation", is debatable. It echoes the direct parallel of Germany deciding that only Aryan Germans count as characters in the story of their nation, which became German policy in the 1930s. Ethnic cleansing followed from that decision, as inevitably as night follows day. Some Poles supported, and others resisted, German enforcement of that policy in Poland. That is, some Poles told the Reich where to find Turks, Roma, Jews, Ethiopians and other non-Poles, while other Poles helped such people hide. It is currently illegal, in Poland, to publicly name the Poles who actively participated in that process. So, to answer your question exactly as asked: no, I do NOT realize that it's okay to treat 1% or .1% or .01% as zero, in a nation where *actual conversion to zero* is a few generations in the past, a nation which legally prohibits a full discussion of that past. The difference between "there are very few of us" and "there are NONE of us" matters more, to the families involved, than it matters to you. I *still* don't want government censorship of The Witcher.
Yes. CDPR has been the victim of a campaign of hate from the CNTRL Left.
I keep raising, and you keep ignoring, the distinction between "people expressing their opinions in editorials, reviews, or social media posts" versus "harassment by methods such as death threats, rape threats, hacking the target's accounts or websites, and/or doxxing the target's personal information." Do you see symmetry between how the harshest people on the Left treat CD Projekt, versus how the harshest people on the Right treat targets such as Leslie Jones, Felicia Day, or more recently, Kelly Marie Tran?
Imagine if someone made the game When We Kings, set in mythic Wakanda and some 'woke' person came along and complained "But where are all the Hispanics!"
Okay, I imagined that. I would respond: the movie "Black Panther" DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THAT AS A MORAL QUESTION. Wakandans turn away any Hispanics who show up on the border, and prevent them from passing through the non-rural parts of Wakanda, such as the capital city. Anyone who asks such a question, isn't literally "woke"; he must have slept through the multiple scenes in which T'Challa explicitly discusses whether this policy is necessary and ethical. Duh. Where in Andrzej Sapkowski's stories does Geralt discuss the existence and status of non-Polish humans, in such direct terms, and as a moral issue?
But don't demand all [-]pizza[/-] has to have [-]pineapple[/-] your PoC of choice [-]on[/-] in it.
Indeed, I make no such *demands*. There's no gorram way a penny's gonna go from my pocket, to the publisher of a game with an ethno-nationalist storyline; "never forget, never again" runs deep in my values; but that's my personal choice.
So when you say that there's "a campaign of hate from the CNTRL Left", to what extent does that campaign include death threats, rape threats, hacking the target's accounts or websites, and/or doxxing anyone's personal information?
