[cgriswald]

If your statement does not apply to your post, then the lines are blurry enough that your demand that people "take responsibility for it" seems far too prescriptive. Even claiming one "absolutely can't ignore it" (emphasis added) seem unsupportable.

[andrewflnr]

Do you want to point out a specific error in my use of English that's bad enough to make me a hypocrite, or are you just being pedantic for the hell of it? Bright-line rules about what you must or mustn't do are an unreasonable expectation in the domain of creating complex artistic artifacts. But if you know that what you create has an effect on people, and you don't care whether that effect is good or bad, well, I don't see what other possible basis you could have for morality or ethics.

This is barely debatable when it comes to chemical pollution, or building technology that enables predatory businesses, or even mental and ideological concerns like carelessly spreading falsehood because it benefits your political allies. Fiction is not so different, and in some ways just as powerful, just as dangerous. Why is it even a question whether this should be taken seriously?

[cgriswald]

First, I'm going to address your tone, because you are coming across as unnecessarily hostile and rude, not just to me, but also to the first poster you responded to.

My criticism in my follow up post is because you're offering a bright line rule but being very murky about when that rule applies.

You were offered my example, which was not pedantic but silly in order to make a point. You also rejected the Renaissance fair example which seems a pretty decent analog to the pigs because it is both a creative endeavor and meant to be authentic. Why precisely you rejected that idea isn't clear; my best guess is that you rejected it because the method of creation doesn't matter to you. I think, though, that there is some argument to be made either way on whether an item can be authentic if created without using authentic methods.

> But if you know that what you create has an effect on people, and you don't care whether that effect is good or bad, well, I don't see what other possible basis you could have for morality or ethics.

We are talking about misrepresenting medieval pigs, so if you want people to buy this appeal, you better explain what effect you think this will have on people's lives. (And you should then also explain why thinking an English mistake is correct won't have an equal or stronger effect on people's lives).

> This is barely debatable when it comes to chemical pollution, or building technology that enables predatory businesses, or even mental and ideological concerns like carelessly spreading falsehood because it benefits your political allies.

These are intentional acts that are completely different than ignorantly or apathetically meeting an existing expectation of how pigs look as a small piece of a larger work.

> Fiction is not so different, and in some ways just as powerful, just as dangerous. Why is it even a question whether this should be taken seriously?

This isn't the same claim. Maybe this is what you originally meant, but what you said is that people have an obligation to educate rather than lean into existing expectations when endeavoring creatively; and you said it in the context of the pigs.

[account42]

There are over 300 comments in this thread alone. There are only so many big budget medieval video games. The impact of a single comment on the english education of a random reader is simply not comparable to that of a game getting the pigs wrong.