Language: Let's remove all mentions of "Morality" from Anti-Risque.

[thadian]

TL/DR - Solution: instead of Moral/Morality mentions in attributes, personality, and other areas of the game, use Prude. Prude is a non-derogatory word.

People who hate risque stuff pretend to be moral (and often are not), and cite morality (usually an immoral, high control concept of morality). This tactic is antagonistic and aggressive. Since this game joined the Pro-Rainbow crowd (good move, for real), I would like to see the removal of the antagonism that is "you are risque which is immoral, or you are a moral puritan". Risque people have morals - are often more moral, and Ethics has a lot of different proposed moralities. Let's just change it from "Moral" to something that isn't antagonistic. It's not like you're calling Anti-Risque people "square" or "vanilla" (both terms in risque spaces for Non-Risque people). Anti-Risque people are often called Puritans.

What is the default? If the default is "most people are not risque", then "people who are risque are weird" and "Risque" should just be renamed "Immoral". Because if Vanilla is named Moral, the opposite of Moral is not Risque, it's Immoral, right?

Is the default "most people are risque?" - If so, we don't need a term for it, it's the norm and weird non-risque people are Vanilla Squares.

How about this - there is no default. Neither is "weird" and both are "normal" and neither one is attached to morality. One is "risque" and the other is "prude". Much better than one being "immoral" on the basis the other one gets to be named "moral".

 

EDIT: Priggish means "self-righteously moralistic and superior" - maybe rename all instances of Non-Risque to be either Prude (I don't wanna...) and Priggish (I don't want you to be allowed to enjoy/do..."

Edited August 31 by thadian

[MisterSocko]

1 hour ago, thadian said:

Prude is a non-derogatory word.

I don't know about that. When you tell someone "you're such a prude!", generally you don't mean "I'm neutrally stating the fact that you don't enjoy risque content", you mean "geez, you are so stuck up and boring".

[MisterSocko]

1 hour ago, thadian said:

People who hate risque stuff pretend to be moral (and often are not)

It's also quite funny to have such a simplistic view of things while defending a "let's be as inclusive and non-antagonistic as possible!" idea, sorry to say.

Some people don't like risque stuff because it's really just not their thing. It's not because they think they're better than you, and they're not hypocrites who secretly have intercourse with farm animals. They just don't like risque stuff, it happens.

[St. Templar]

"Morality" has a place in wrestling and in business, which this game takes pains to attempt to quantify.

Your personal viewpoint is your personal viewpoint, but most people in all cultures have some sense of what is moral/immoral (or even right/wrong). Their personal level of hypocrisy doesn't play into the fact that they do recognize it and, when confronted directly by something they deem immoral (or wrong), they tend to have a certain level of rejection of it (whether it's a mild sense of titillation for doing something "wrong" or a sense of anger or outright hatred). These extend to the business world and into what corporations deem to be moral/immoral (which for them is a measure of profitability, in most cases).

Hypocrisy doesn't play into our personal ethics or morality. An individual's rejection of the wider view of morality/immorality/ethical behavior doesn't play into the viewpoint that most people have. Witness the widespread rejection of business practices that have populated social media over issues of morality. You (or I or anyone else) might think it's a hypocritical act, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Not to mention the long-held conceit that modern professional wrestling is a form of "morality play" and most promotions continue to recognize some level of "good guy/bad guy" dynamic, even if it's nowhere near as solid as it was in the first three-quarters of the twentieth century.

Morality definitely has a place in this game. If a particular player wants to reject that, then there are products your company can use that fly in the face of commonly-accepted ideals of morality. At the other end of the spectrum, there are products that are strongly based in religion and morality. There's already something for everybody. Why remove something when there already are ways to work around it for an individual's personal peccadilloes?

St.T

 

[thadian]

9 hours ago, MisterSocko said:

I don't know about that. When you tell someone "you're such a prude!", generally you don't mean "I'm neutrally stating the fact that you don't enjoy risque content", you mean "geez, you are so stuck up and boring".

Moral is a BIG word: Imagine if all the LGBT+ stuff was labeled in-game as Immoral, and descriptors of "Moral" included "does not want LGBT+ stuff". That would be antagonistic, obviously. But a LOT of people believe it - and in their "personal morality", maybe it is. But they are the same group who is Anti-Risque. We shouldn't cave to them.

For the same reason LGBT+ stuff in-game shouldn't be attached to morality, neither should Risque.

10 hours ago, MisterSocko said:

I don't know about that. When you tell someone "you're such a prude!", generally you don't mean "I'm neutrally stating the fact that you don't enjoy risque content", you mean "geez, you are so stuck up and boring".

Sure, when you say it like that it can be used as a pejorative, but so can anything. I invite you to the US South where everything that is commonly "nice" is said in a way that it's actually an insult, "bless your heart", "i'll pray for you".

Morality has nothing to do with being Risque - morality can have a place in wrestling, BUT, morality is subjective and is just "my opinion of good/bad vs yours". Ethics attempts to dig a lot deeper and devise moral systems. The opposite of Risque would be Prudish or Priggish, depending on whether you "don't wanna" or "want nobody to". The opposite of moral is immoral.

9 hours ago, MisterSocko said:

It's also quite funny to have such a simplistic view of things while defending a "let's be as inclusive and non-antagonistic as possible!" idea, sorry to say.

Some people don't like risque stuff because it's really just not their thing. It's not because they think they're better than you, and they're not hypocrites who secretly have intercourse with farm animals. They just don't like risque stuff, it happens.

1. And yes - people who swing the axe of morality upon others are usually not moral, when inspected much closer. And their movements tend to use unethical tactics. I am involved in, and have been in the past, a few Risque communities, and most people were highly moral. In these spaces, the respectful term for Non-Risque people is "Vanilla" or "Square". I have, in the past, been involved in "moral communities who hate Risque" - they are between Prudish and Priggish and most were far less moral. It's just a word they use to demonize people who are different. This is not a narrow or naive view, this is a view that has been derived from decades of personal experience and many hours of conversations with self-described "moral leaders". That is the opposite of narrow,. Narrow is saying "Risque is immoral".
 

2. Some people don't like Risque things, cool. There are words to describe that. However, "moral" is not that word. There should be an in-game means to differentiate those who want Risque stuff and those who abhor it. Moral is NOT that word. Most of the people who do use "Moral" to describe anything "Risque" do include positive LGBT+ representation in that category.

3. The farm animals comment is really weird, but you made my point for me - moral is a big word, and when big words are used recklessly like that, it does naturally result in farm animal comparisons - it's a normal course of what happens when anyone uses Moral vs Risque as their dichotomy, it's the same reason those who are Anti-LGBT make child and farm animal comments. That side is given POWER by others to declare their position "Moral" as the opposite to whatever they are naming as immoral. Just by being "Moral", they gain leverage to bring up babies and farm animals and make awful comparisons and accusations - but since they're "Moral", they can't be called out on that.

 

Moral and Immoral are BIG words. They are also very aggressive and evocative words, and provoke people who are thrust into the "immoral" category. I hoped since the game went Pro-LGBT (which is a good thing), a vital next step would be removing harmful references to morality/immorality by using it as the other side of a dichotomy.

There are a large number of descriptors to use for the other side of "Risque vs _________", it doesn't need to be Morality or any other supercharged buzzword like that.

I will close by thanking you - these conversations about these topics, no matter how well intended or offered, tend to deviate into very negative territory. It is important that when discussing any of these issues, we remember the real goal is to give ideas to make the game more fun, which for me, would be not seeing Moral vs Risque dichotomy. There are many better words than Moral to oppose Risque. Just like we wouldn't use "Moral" to describe "Does not accept LGBT+", we shouldn't use Moral to describe "does not accept Risque".

[Spoons]

You could just call it "Family Friendly". 

[MisterSocko]

8 hours ago, thadian said:

Just like we wouldn't use "Moral" to describe "Does not accept LGBT+", we shouldn't use Moral to describe "does not accept Risque".

Not every word needs scrutiny from the virtue signalling police. Not every word is "charged". Making the game more inclusive is great. Replacing words that can, and have, and still do, truly hurt people, is great. But there's a point when analyzing every word starts looking a bit... performative, you know? Hey look you guys, I'm so progressive I found new ways to feel offended! I just realized 'babyface' and 'heel' were highly supercharged buzzwords that promoted a horribly simplistic, I'm pretty sure homophobic because why not, and antiquated worldview, and that we should probably find more inclusive words like Alignment A and Alignment B which would make the game so much more fun and inclusive! (sorry, that was probably somebody else's next suggestion. Sorry that I beat them to it. I'm sure there are other words people can get pretend-upset by, I mean when you think about it, isn't "Wrestler" reductive and racist? Couldn't we add "luchador/luchadora", "catcheur/catcheuse", "sports entertainer" and "performance artist" to make it more inclusive? What about criticizing the simplistic nature of the word "Spanish" or the fact that to a bird, a cage is a torture device, so calling a match a "Cage Match" comes off as insensitive? Just spitballing here).

Who honestly reads something like "Morality Wrestling" and truly feels offended/excluded thinking "what? the company that made this game believes I'm an immoral person because I like titties? Not fun!"? It just seems disingenuous. I mean I'm pretty sure even at those shows they don't even take the time to tell the audience "sexy stuff is morally wrong, mmmkay?", they simply don't include sexy stuff on the shows because people bring kids to those shows and while it's good to teach kids about having a healthy attitude towards sexuality, maybe a bra and panties match or a burlesque routine won't achieve that anyway, so instead let's just have basic wrestling matches. They're not trying to exclude anyone by doing that. And since you mentioned "does not accept LGBT+", well, some promotions like that do have openly LGBTQ+ performers at those shows, because one of the moral values that they want to teach actually is inclusiveness! They still won't do risque stuff though, and I'm sure that even the openly LGBTQ+ performers involved are fine with it, as you can be a gay wrestler and still be fine with wrestling being about athleticism and showmanship (or showwomanship, or showpersonship), not about doing sexy stuff in the ring. It doesn't mean you are anti-risque content though! It means you keep it separate from your wrestling.

In real life, I'm sure some people running those We wrestle for the Lord companies are hypocrites, and I'm sure some are sincere, and either way it's 100% irrelevant when naming their product in a videogame. They're companies that present a product that won't have hardcore matches or eye candy matches to an audience of people who don't want to see that when they go to a wrestling show (or at least to the wrestling shows promoted by that specific company). They'll have basic storylines and simple characters and good will triumph over evil to send people home happy. It's not even necessarily religious, it can be educational, a wrestling show to teach kids some values. See, kids, good wrestlers are all about respect and sportsmanship, and it's bad to break the rules and betray your friends. So, yes, it's preachy, and it's fine to have no interest in a preachy product like that, and I personally would rather watch porn. But acting like anyone is genuinely going to think "the game calls it Morality Wrestling, it's so sad that my video game is judging me for enjoying risque content, and probably hates LGBTQ+ people while we're at it" is virtue signalling.

 

8 hours ago, Spoons said:

You could just call it "Family Friendly". 

There's something about taxes with the "Morality Wrestling" product. If it's religious or educational, the company saves money on taxes (not sure if that would actually be the case everywhere in the world but that's how it works in the game). Some family friendly companies still pay taxes as they don't have a religious/educational aspect.

 

Edited September 1 by MisterSocko

[Spoons]

7 minutes ago, MisterSocko said:

There's something about taxes with the "Morality Wrestling" product. If it's religious or educational, the company saves money on taxes (not sure if that would actually be the case everywhere in the world but that's how it works in the game). Some family friendly companies still pay taxes as they don't have a religious/educational aspect.

I was more talking about the attribute thing than the product one in that instance. For the products, instead of "Morality Wrestling" we could use "Educational Wrestling" or "Sports Edutainment" or something similar to that.

[MisterSocko]

4 minutes ago, Spoons said:

I was more talking about the attribute thing than the product one in that instance. For the products, instead of "Morality Wrestling" we could use "Educational Wrestling" or "Sports Edutainment" or something similar to that.

"Morality Wrestling" is also for religious products and if you call it "educational" one might legitimately object that religious indoctrination isn't education.

The attribute "Highly Moral" also mentions "no underhanded behavior". Obviously the attribute is not meant for just one person but to me it's the "Molly Holly Attribute", as Molly Holly is someone who was known for refusing eye candy matches, and that you can't really imagine being a scumbag behind the scenes, so an attribute that associates "no sexy business" with "no shady business" makes sense.

[thadian]

It is gross to imply that it's performative to want to use better language dichotomies than Risque/Moral. It's oppressive to accuse people being performative about real concerns. Your entire argument here could have been applied to the LGBT+ stuff as well, and it could all still not be part of the game - "it would be performative to have it".

It's not like I am asking for Polyamory - workers being allowed to have multiple romantic partners/spouses, which is the majority of dating trends on OKCupid right now, and these people claim Monogamy is actually the immoral system. If I asked for it, I would certainly not want Polyamory/Moral to be the dichotomy. Polyamory is VERY common, and if it were part of the game, it would be harmful to use "Moral" and "Immoral" as descriptors for either choice/lifestyle.

It is not performative to want respectful language to be used. Just because something is risque does not mean it's immoral, many risque things have made positive moral and ethical social commentary, and many elements of counter culture make moral/ethical social commentary. Normally, they look at areas where those claiming to be "moral" are actually the immoral ones, and how their own path has morality unseen by people.

Defaulting one side of any dichotomy as "Moral" labels the other side "Immoral" - this isn't performative, this is mechanics of how labeling works.

If you want a "nicer" word than Prude or Priggish, "Modest" and "Modesty" would imply a resistance to that which is Risque. Risque/Modest, Highly Risque/Highly Modest sounds nice.

Morality can be rightfully used to describe characters who would refuse to do something underhanded, skeevy or shady. Whether someone likes Risque stuff or not has no bearing on whether they are likely to be underhanded and dishonest.

I do not like the idea that anyone who would do any "sexy business" or dress scantily,  is all of a sudden immoral, and among the ranks of shady business.

I don't mind a Moral/Immoral terminology for something which is more concrete such as "moral workers won't steal, start fights, spread rumors, participate in gossip, and will avoid scandals while immoral workers will have scandals around these things". That is fine, because it uses the term accurately.

 

So - Modest/Risque can be used to capture the sexy/vulgar stuff without accusing someone of being immoral for being into it.

While Moral/Immoral could be used to describe a grouping of attributes/personality/business things that generally involve harming people, taking advantage of people, screwing others over, etc.

 

Edited September 1 by thadian

[Adam Ryland]

Closing this as the tone is getting increasingly nasty and is rapidly becoming more about people airing their political views than what's best for the game.