To be fair, @Redknight did say in his magnum opus back there that he wouldn't condone any sort of destructive action. The tone of his posts doesn't seem to reflect that, but I genuinely/tentatively take him at his word. I would encourage him and others to put their words into action and denounce this review bombing over on reddit or wherever else the gamerbros like to...coagulate.
I have re-read your last sentence about five times now, because I find it so emotive, descriptive and wonderfully entertaining. Delightful imagery!
A: Do a quick search online for "Anti-feminist Mad Max controversy". While everybody may have loved it in Brazil, the same can not be said for North America, and the USA specifically. There were actually boycotts [or attempted boycotts, anyways] against the movie specifically over how women were portrayed in the film [to the perceived detriment of the males].
B: Sometimes force-feeding is not only an appropriate medical treatment, sometimes it is an appropriate "social" response as well. Now granted some people might object to the "treatment", but such is life. People object to all sorts of things - we don't get to all live in little personal bubbles that insulate us from the outside world.
C: Some issues are important enough, to the people advocating for them, that subtlety is not a viable option. Indeed, subtlety may well have been tried, perhaps for decades and been found wanting, as a means of effecting meaningful change. No point in being subtle if it doesn't work, right?
You are certainly entitled to not buy the game, and moreover, entitled to not buy it for any reason you come up with. No one needs to justify why they are not buying X product, nor even explain the decision, for that matter. Although people can, of course, choose to do both or either.
Just as different types of entertainment appeal to different people, so does different content appeal differently to different people. If someone doesn't enjoy content X, then it makes complete sense to not pay for that content. I, for example, wouldn't pay to play a FPS, nor would I pay to watch one or more Kardashians. Other people do - such is life. That they do means nothing to me.
So yeah, if you don't like what you have seen of the product don't purchase it. I doubt anyone here would argue with your having the freedom of choice to buy or not buy a particular game. Rah rah for the Free Market and all that...
Did you mean to be advocating for re-education camps? Since when do you have the right to "force-feed" people your ideas until they stop their "problematic" thinking? I don't think that's what you meant, judging from the general tone of your other posts and most of the rest of this one, but what on Earth is going on in that "B" paragraph?! Force-feeding people ideas against their will because they didn't like Mad Max? No! On so many levels!
A: Do a quick search online for "Anti-feminist Mad Max controversy". While everybody may have loved it in Brazil, the same can not be said for North America, and the USA specifically. There were actually boycotts [or attempted boycotts, anyways] against the movie specifically over how women were portrayed in the film [to the perceived detriment of the males].
B: Sometimes force-feeding is not only an appropriate medical treatment, sometimes it is an appropriate "social" response as well. Now granted some people might object to the "treatment", but such is life. People object to all sorts of things - we don't get to all live in little personal bubbles that insulate us from the outside world.
C: Some issues are important enough, to the people advocating for them, that subtlety is not a viable option. Indeed, subtlety may well have been tried, perhaps for decades and been found wanting, as a means of effecting meaningful change. No point in being subtle if it doesn't work, right?
You are certainly entitled to not buy the game, and moreover, entitled to not buy it for any reason you come up with. No one needs to justify why they are not buying X product, nor even explain the decision, for that matter. Although people can, of course, choose to do both or either.
Just as different types of entertainment appeal to different people, so does different content appeal differently to different people. If someone doesn't enjoy content X, then it makes complete sense to not pay for that content. I, for example, wouldn't pay to play a FPS, nor would I pay to watch one or more Kardashians. Other people do - such is life. That they do means nothing to me.
So yeah, if you don't like what you have seen of the product don't purchase it. I doubt anyone here would argue with your having the freedom of choice to buy or not buy a particular game. Rah rah for the Free Market and all that...
Did you mean to be advocating for re-education camps? Since when do you have the right to "force-feed" people your ideas until they stop their "problematic" thinking? I don't think that's what you meant, judging from the general tone of your other posts and most of the rest of this one, but what on Earth is going on in that "B" paragraph?! Force-feeding people ideas against their will because they didn't like Mad Max? No! On so many levels!
Don't take this as super-aggressive, because i'm actually smiling right now - but re-education camps? Such a jump, oh man XD
He's talking about putting social issues front and center in media in order to spur social change. Tossing a little inclusion into a movie here, adding a little social commentary into a game there - the stuff you guys call "force-feeding." He didn't mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PitssRMj5gA
Don't take this as super-aggressive, because i'm actually smiling right now - but re-education camps? Such a jump, oh man XD
I'm glad it made you smile, since I was employing hyperbole to demonstrate the bizarre nature of what he was saying.
He did reference actual force-feeding, and say that sometimes it needed to be done socially. That necessarily implies coercision. Otherwise it's just... feeding. And that metaphor is no fun at all.
Don't take this as super-aggressive, because i'm actually smiling right now - but re-education camps? Such a jump, oh man XD
I'm glad it made you smile, since I was employing hyperbole to demonstrate the bizarre nature of what he was saying.
He did reference actual force-feeding, and say that sometimes it needed to be done socially. That necessarily implies coercision. Otherwise it's just... feeding. And that metaphor is no fun at all.
I could be wrong, but I believe he's in the medical profession (hence his use of the analogy). Forgive me if I'm confusing him with another user.
Anyway, sorry for poking fun - I really did mean it lightheartedly. Have a good night.
B: Sometimes force-feeding is not only an appropriate medical treatment, sometimes it is an appropriate "social" response as well. Now granted some people might object to the "treatment", but such is life. People object to all sorts of things - we don't get to all live in little personal bubbles that insulate us from the outside world.
Did you mean to be advocating for re-education camps? Since when do you have the right to "force-feed" people your ideas until they stop their "problematic" thinking? I don't think that's what you meant, judging from the general tone of your other posts and most of the rest of this one, but what on Earth is going on in that "B" paragraph?! Force-feeding people ideas against their will because they didn't like Mad Max? No! On so many levels!
You will note, I trust, that the comment re force-feeding is separate from and distinct from, the comment re: the fact that there indeed was a backlash against the Mad Max re-make?
If you wish to dispute my assertion that there was such a backlash, please do so.
As to advocating for re-education camps, I can hardly be expected to have been advocating for any sort of camp that I never brought up. I'm glad you perception checked yourself here though, so I can happily say that, No, I was not advocating for the creation of something I didn't bring up in my post.
Furthermore, I trust that you will, upon reflection, agree that I never said anything whatsoever about "problematic" thinking. Again, I can't be held accountable for concepts I didn't discuss in my post.
I could be wrong, but I believe he's in the medical profession (hence his use of the analogy). Forgive me if I'm confusing him with another user.
Yep, I am a retired psychiatric nurse. And yes, that's why the analogy sprang to mind. So no, no confusion on your part.
And yes, this topic of having stuff "rammed down people's throats", in the context of a fleeting encounter with a Trans person sort of screamed out to me to be referenced.
B: Sometimes force-feeding is not only an appropriate medical treatment, sometimes it is an appropriate "social" response as well. Now granted some people might object to the "treatment", but such is life. People object to all sorts of things - we don't get to all live in little personal bubbles that insulate us from the outside world.
Did you mean to be advocating for re-education camps? Since when do you have the right to "force-feed" people your ideas until they stop their "problematic" thinking? I don't think that's what you meant, judging from the general tone of your other posts and most of the rest of this one, but what on Earth is going on in that "B" paragraph?! Force-feeding people ideas against their will because they didn't like Mad Max? No! On so many levels!
You will note, I trust, that the comment re force-feeding is separate from and distinct from, the comment re: the fact that there indeed was a backlash against the Mad Max re-make?
If you wish to dispute my assertion that there was such a backlash, please do so.
As to advocating for re-education camps, I can hardly be expected to have been advocating for any sort of camp that I never brought up. I'm glad you perception checked yourself here though, so I can happily say that, No, I was not advocating for the creation of something I didn't bring up in my post.
Furthermore, I trust that you will, upon reflection, agree that I never said anything whatsoever about "problematic" thinking. Again, I can't be held accountable for concepts I didn't discuss in my post.
Just because you didn't mention re-education camps doesn't mean it's not the logical consequence of what you wrote, but I know it's not what you meant so I'll drop it and focus on what I think it was you were actually trying to say...
...which is that it's OK for a writer to use heavy-handed methods to convey a social message if people stubbornly refuse to listen.
For example, the message in Mad Max is that women are completely ineffectual. Yes, there was a backlash against that, and I wholeheartedly applaud it! On the face of things, the idea that "men destroyed the world" might seem derogatory to men, but it's not. It's saying that women have no influence whatsoever within their own societies, that they are powerless bystanders. Men get the blame for the fictional nuclear holocaust, but the necessary implication of that is that we're also to thank for all human achievement. That is so degrading to women! I, for one, believe in equality.
The great ideas in Siege of Dragonspear that absolutely need to be heard include "Women are better than men and should belittle them at every turn" as evinced by the interjections in the early game which are almost all about women intervening to say something negative about a man (8 out of 10 in the Baldur's Gate section of the game in the playthrough I watched, yes I counted because people told me to check if I was just experiencing "confirmation bias"); "Men are violent brutes who start fights in the street if they get bored", as evinced by the quest in which that happens; "Stealing from your host is a good and noble thing to do if you're a refugee taking shelter in their city" as per the mugger quest, and so on.
Why oh why are people so resistant to these ideas?!
None of them really seem so urgent to me as to compel this sort of heavy-handed action you're talking about, and I'm not sure of the nutritional benefits of having them shoved into my intellectual diet. Couldn't they have just made a faithful Baldur's Gate game, and then written a pamphlet or something?
Woke up, strolled by the forum, and over 250 new posts on this thread! I admit I havn't waded through them all, so if I've missed a post confirming the end of the world is nigh, its my tough luck!
But as an occasional gamer who didn't know what SJW stood for before this week, and who had only a fleeting awareness of Gamergate, I confess my interest in this 'discussion' is waning and will probably fizzle out shortly!
But before I lapse back into several more years of lurking and occasional posts about this wonderful series of games, I would like to take one final opportunity to say how much I appreciate Beamdog's efforts, how much I have enjoyed revisiting the games and having my love for them rekindled, and how much I appreciate continued efforts by Beamdog to support and add new content.
And because of all this, I will continue pe-ordering Beamdog Baldurs Gate/IE games.
Now..... back to my no-reload BGEE run before I move seemlessly into Siege of Dragonspear with that mud still fresh on my boots (I'm into Baldurs Gate itself now, and going strong!)
Just because you didn't mention re-education camps doesn't mean it's not the logical consequence of what you wrote, but I know it's not what you meant so I'll drop it and focus on what I think it was you were actually trying to say...
...which is that it's OK for a writer to use heavy-handed methods to convey a social message if people stubbornly refuse to listen.
For example, the message in Mad Max is that women are completely ineffectual. Yes, there was a backlash against that, and I wholeheartedly applaud it! On the face of things, the idea that "men destroyed the world" might seem derogatory to men, but it's not. It's saying that women have no influence whatsoever within their own societies, that they are powerless bystanders. Men get the blame for the fictional nuclear holocaust, but the necessary implication of that is that we're also to thank for all human achievement. That is so degrading to women! I, for one, believe in equality.
The great ideas in Siege of Dragonspear that absolutely need to be heard include "Women are better than men and should belittle them at every turn" as evinced by the interjections in the early game which are almost all about women intervening to say something negative about a man (8 out of 10 in the Baldur's Gate section of the game in the playthrough I watched, yes I counted because people told me to check if I was just experiencing "confirmation bias"); "Men are violent brutes who start fights in the street if they get bored", as evinced by the quest in which that happens; "Stealing from your host is a good and noble thing to do if you're a refugee taking shelter in their city" as per the mugger quest, and so on.
Why oh why are people so resistant to these ideas?!
None of them really seem so urgent to me as to compel this sort of heavy-handed action you're talking about, and I'm not sure of the nutritional benefits of having them shoved into my intellectual diet. Couldn't they have just made a faithful Baldur's Gate game, and then written a pamphlet or something?
What the "logical consequence" of my statement may or not be is up to the reader to decide, should they be so inclined to go down such a path.
Yes, I believe that it is OK for a writer to use methods that they choose to employ. Whether or not they seem heavy-handed or not, to this or that individual, is out of the control of the writer.
Your take on how women were portrayed in Mad Max is one interpretation. Other people had other interpretations which they objected to. That there were objections to the movie, over the portrayal of women is a simple fact - the person I replied to claimed that "everyone loved the movie" which is simply not borne out by even a 60 second Internet search. I pointed this out to them.
BD could have made any sort of game that they wished, and apparently they did infact make the game that they wished to make. I won't dispute that it could have been different, but it isn't, so that's pretty much that, no? They didn't make a game that pleased everyone in their possible market... well these things happen. I find it hard to believe that they intended to pander to people who would object to this sort of content, anyway...
The benefits of having ideas "force fed to you" are somewhere within the spectrum of where it is good or bad to have "things shoved down your throat."
If someone is starving for nutrition, you provide it. If someone is starving for knowledge, you provide that too. The methods used to provide either sort of "nutrition" will, among other things, depend upon the resistance to receiving that "nutrition" by the person in question. If one can be trusted to eat [listen], then little effort is required on the part of the provider. If someone is resistant to eating [listening], then more aggressive methods may well be required. You have to utilize means appropriate to the particular situation.
Now the fact that some people can consider what BD did to being equivalent to having "stuff shoved down their throats" indicates quite clearly, to me anyway, the fact that A: BD was right to include the content that they did, and B: that such actions will be required of other content providers for various forms of creative expression for the foreseeable future. If that's perceived by someone as having something "stuffed down their throats", well so be it. People have all sorts of perceptions, they certainly don't have to be considered correct by anyone other than the holder, nor even be objectively true, to be held after all. People can hold quite remarkable beliefs on any number of topics...
Just because you didn't mention re-education camps doesn't mean it's not the logical consequence of what you wrote, but I know it's not what you meant so I'll drop it and focus on what I think it was you were actually trying to say...
...which is that it's OK for a writer to use heavy-handed methods to convey a social message if people stubbornly refuse to listen.
For example, the message in Mad Max is that women are completely ineffectual. Yes, there was a backlash against that, and I wholeheartedly applaud it! On the face of things, the idea that "men destroyed the world" might seem derogatory to men, but it's not. It's saying that women have no influence whatsoever within their own societies, that they are powerless bystanders. Men get the blame for the fictional nuclear holocaust, but the necessary implication of that is that we're also to thank for all human achievement. That is so degrading to women! I, for one, believe in equality.
The great ideas in Siege of Dragonspear that absolutely need to be heard include "Women are better than men and should belittle them at every turn" as evinced by the interjections in the early game which are almost all about women intervening to say something negative about a man (8 out of 10 in the Baldur's Gate section of the game in the playthrough I watched, yes I counted because people told me to check if I was just experiencing "confirmation bias"); "Men are violent brutes who start fights in the street if they get bored", as evinced by the quest in which that happens; "Stealing from your host is a good and noble thing to do if you're a refugee taking shelter in their city" as per the mugger quest, and so on.
Why oh why are people so resistant to these ideas?!
None of them really seem so urgent to me as to compel this sort of heavy-handed action you're talking about, and I'm not sure of the nutritional benefits of having them shoved into my intellectual diet. Couldn't they have just made a faithful Baldur's Gate game, and then written a pamphlet or something?
What the "logical consequence" of my statement may or not be is up to the reader to decide, should they be so inclined to go down such a path.
Yes, I believe that it is OK for a writer to use methods that they choose to employ. Whether or not they seem heavy-handed or not, to this or that individual, is out of the control of the writer.
Your take on how women were portrayed in Mad Max is one interpretation. Other people had other interpretations which they objected to. That there were objections to the movie, over the portrayal of women is a simple fact - the person I replied to claimed that "everyone loved the movie" which is simply not borne out by even a 60 second Internet search. I pointed this out to them.
BD could have made any sort of game that they wished, and apparently they did infact make the game that they wished to make. I won't dispute that it could have been different, but it isn't, so that's pretty much that, no? They didn't make a game that pleased everyone in their possible market... well these things happen. I find it hard to believe that they intended to pander to people who would object to this sort of content, anyway...
The benefits of having ideas "force fed to you" are somewhere within the spectrum of where it is good or bad to have "things shoved down your throat."
If someone is starving for nutrition, you provide it. If someone is starving for knowledge, you provide that too. The methods used to provide either sort of "nutrition" will, among other things, depend upon the resistance to receiving that "nutrition" by the person in question. If one can be trusted to eat [listen], then little effort is required on the part of the provider. If someone is resistant to eating [listening], then more aggressive methods may well be required. You have to utilize means appropriate to the particular situation.
Now the fact that some people can consider what BD did to being equivalent to having "stuff shoved down their throats" indicates quite clearly, to me anyway, the fact that A: BD was right to include the content that they did, and B: that such actions will be required of other content providers for various forms of creative expression for the foreseeable future. If that's perceived by someone as having something "stuffed down their throats", well so be it. People have all sorts of perceptions, they certainly don't have to be considered correct by anyone other than the holder, nor even be objectively true, to be held after all. People can hold quite remarkable beliefs on any number of topics...
I feel bad now, because I neglected to mention one very important thing: which is that you were right. A writer is free to use heavy handed methods to make political points if they want. You were dead on the money with that one.
I was questioning the wisdom and appropriateness of Beamdog's decision as it pertains to Siege of Dragonspear, but you nailed it.
Now you're getting creepy again with this "aggressive methods" business. If someone doesn't want to listen to you then, generally speaking, you don't have a right to make them. They're not necessarily wrong, and you're not necessarily right.
Backing slowly away from that strangely dark section of the conversation... I hate this "shoved down our throats" business, too. It's often code for "existing within my line of sight". It's a phrase of which I am exceedingly wary.
The benefits of having ideas "force fed to you" are somewhere within the spectrum of where it is good or bad to have "things shoved down your throat."
If someone is starving for nutrition, you provide it. If someone is starving for knowledge, you provide that too. The methods used to provide either sort of "nutrition" will, among other things, depend upon the resistance to receiving that "nutrition" by the person in question. If one can be trusted to eat [listen], then little effort is required on the part of the provider. If someone is resistant to eating [listening], then more aggressive methods may well be required. You have to utilize means appropriate to the particular situation.
Now the fact that some people can consider what BD did to being equivalent to having "stuff shoved down their throats" indicates quite clearly, to me anyway, the fact that A: BD was right to include the content that they did, and B: that such actions will be required of other content providers for various forms of creative expression for the foreseeable future. If that's perceived by someone as having something "stuffed down their throats", well so be it. People have all sorts of perceptions, they certainly don't have to be considered correct by anyone other than the holder, nor even be objectively true, to be held after all. People can hold quite remarkable beliefs on any number of topics...
It's bad to have stuff force-fed to you; otherwise, the LGBT crowd would not exist, as anti-LGBT sentiment would have continued to be force-fed. There should be freedom of thought, and if you are force-feeding people because they "lack nutrition" for having a different moral system, you are entering gravely dangerous territory.
Who is to say you are right and I am wrong? You may make a strong argument, but to say that you have a moral obligation to make everyone agree with you for your definition of good is bastardized thinking.
We should enforce certain moral values, such as anti-murder and anti-theft. However, going much beyond that could kill humanity.
Amber Scott has this same dysfunctional line of thinking, and it is why I won't buy her agenda. Not one penny will be spent all thanks to her; hell, after reading Mizhena's dialogue, I realized there was little to be bothered by (though it is not in line with the spirit of Baldur's Gate and immersion-breaking); but after reading how Amber thoroughly alienates and attacks those with differing views means she herself is enforcing an abomination of exclusion to this franchise.
I am glad I heard about this before they stole my money, and I nearly regret buying BG/BG2EE. I was fine with the introduction of homosexual characters, and I would be fine with the introduction of transsexuals, but Amber is basically saying, "F*** you," to anyone with a different moral system.
So does this mean forcing anti-LGBT sentiment is allowed now? Or is it only your approved dogma that is permitted to be force-fed?
Just because you didn't mention re-education camps doesn't mean it's not the logical consequence of what you wrote, but I know it's not what you meant so I'll drop it and focus on what I think it was you were actually trying to say...
...which is that it's OK for a writer to use heavy-handed methods to convey a social message if people stubbornly refuse to listen.
For example, the message in Mad Max is that women are completely ineffectual. Yes, there was a backlash against that, and I wholeheartedly applaud it! On the face of things, the idea that "men destroyed the world" might seem derogatory to men, but it's not. It's saying that women have no influence whatsoever within their own societies, that they are powerless bystanders. Men get the blame for the fictional nuclear holocaust, but the necessary implication of that is that we're also to thank for all human achievement. That is so degrading to women! I, for one, believe in equality.
The great ideas in Siege of Dragonspear that absolutely need to be heard include "Women are better than men and should belittle them at every turn" as evinced by the interjections in the early game which are almost all about women intervening to say something negative about a man (8 out of 10 in the Baldur's Gate section of the game in the playthrough I watched, yes I counted because people told me to check if I was just experiencing "confirmation bias"); "Men are violent brutes who start fights in the street if they get bored", as evinced by the quest in which that happens; "Stealing from your host is a good and noble thing to do if you're a refugee taking shelter in their city" as per the mugger quest, and so on.
Why oh why are people so resistant to these ideas?!
None of them really seem so urgent to me as to compel this sort of heavy-handed action you're talking about, and I'm not sure of the nutritional benefits of having them shoved into my intellectual diet. Couldn't they have just made a faithful Baldur's Gate game, and then written a pamphlet or something?
What the "logical consequence" of my statement may or not be is up to the reader to decide, should they be so inclined to go down such a path.
Yes, I believe that it is OK for a writer to use methods that they choose to employ. Whether or not they seem heavy-handed or not, to this or that individual, is out of the control of the writer.
Your take on how women were portrayed in Mad Max is one interpretation. Other people had other interpretations which they objected to. That there were objections to the movie, over the portrayal of women is a simple fact - the person I replied to claimed that "everyone loved the movie" which is simply not borne out by even a 60 second Internet search. I pointed this out to them.
BD could have made any sort of game that they wished, and apparently they did infact make the game that they wished to make. I won't dispute that it could have been different, but it isn't, so that's pretty much that, no? They didn't make a game that pleased everyone in their possible market... well these things happen. I find it hard to believe that they intended to pander to people who would object to this sort of content, anyway...
The benefits of having ideas "force fed to you" are somewhere within the spectrum of where it is good or bad to have "things shoved down your throat."
If someone is starving for nutrition, you provide it. If someone is starving for knowledge, you provide that too. The methods used to provide either sort of "nutrition" will, among other things, depend upon the resistance to receiving that "nutrition" by the person in question. If one can be trusted to eat [listen], then little effort is required on the part of the provider. If someone is resistant to eating [listening], then more aggressive methods may well be required. You have to utilize means appropriate to the particular situation.
Now the fact that some people can consider what BD did to being equivalent to having "stuff shoved down their throats" indicates quite clearly, to me anyway, the fact that A: BD was right to include the content that they did, and B: that such actions will be required of other content providers for various forms of creative expression for the foreseeable future. If that's perceived by someone as having something "stuffed down their throats", well so be it. People have all sorts of perceptions, they certainly don't have to be considered correct by anyone other than the holder, nor even be objectively true, to be held after all. People can hold quite remarkable beliefs on any number of topics...
I feel bad now, because I neglected to mention one very important thing: which is that you were right. A writer is free to use heavy handed methods to make political points if they want. You were dead on the money with that one.
I was questioning the wisdom and appropriateness of Beamdog's decision as it pertains to Siege of Dragonspear, but you nailed it.
Now you're getting creepy again with this "aggressive methods" business. If someone doesn't want to listen to you then, generally speaking, you don't have a right to make them. They're not necessarily wrong, and you're not necessarily right.
Backing slowly away from that strangely dark section of the conversation... I hate this "shoved down our throats" business, too. It's often code for "existing within my line of sight". It's a phrase of which I am exceedingly wary.
Jeez I wish I knew how to quote correctly....
Education sometimes has to be aggressive, depending upon a whole range of resistances to, or impediments to, that education. For example, I see BD putting a Trans character in their game as somewhat aggressive, given the tenor of some of the objections to their having done so. It no doubt is perceived by some as quite aggressive social engineering that they shouldn't be having "shoved down their throats in a game that helped me get through high school and the loss of my first love" or some such thing.
Aggression is of course largely in the eye of the beholder [sneaky AD&D CRPG reference], what is aggressive teaching to one person is not at all aggressive to another.
So some people will, and quite clearly DO, feel that they have been the victims of "aggressive" SJW politics - well that's their perception and they are welcome to it. That perception certainly shouldn't interfere with or impede future efforts to increase at least some representation of minority groups in any form of art. And just as a personal observation, I don't think that it will. People who desire the status quo are always going to be disappointed over the long run, since life is never static...
This is a big issue right now, but at least it is an issue, i.e. being addressed and becoming more visible to more people. As time goes on, the idea that X NPC in a cassock may, or may not, have had male genitalia lurking under there will, I trust, be considered as unimportant for all, as it is already considered to be by some and even perhaps, by many.
Now, if using the wrong pronoun in a Clerical interaction led to one not being able to Raise Minsc from the dead, I could see people getting a little perturbed...
Frankly, I'm surprised the NPC didn't have their own special pronoun to describe zirself. It would have fit right in with the exact manner in which it stood right out.
Hello friends. I have a thought for you all. If you consider yourself to be apolitical or that you don't care about politics, consider the fact that this means you are obviously in a desirable or comfortable position in society. Otherwise you would be advocating for change, no? If you see others advocating for change then they simply want to be as comfortable as you or they want others to be. Nobody wants to push you out of your spot besides a very small amount of fringe cases. They all just want to join you in the comfortable spot. I hope you can all appreciate what I'm saying and I hope nobody thinks I'm trying to bring you down or negate your thoughts.
Frankly, I'm surprised the NPC didn't have their own special pronoun to describe zirself. It would have fit right in with the exact manner in which it stood right out.
Since the trans character's declaration of gender identity could have been taken almost verbatim from a 2016 Tumblr post, the hir/xir/zie nonsense certainly would have been a great fit.
Edit: This just in! Andrew Foley has gone on the record stating that goblins are people! I guess it turns out Amber was just a front from the true SJW on the writing team. Maybe the Red Knight was on to something...
Frankly, I'm surprised the NPC didn't have their own special pronoun to describe zirself. It would have fit right in with the exact manner in which it stood right out.
Since the trans character's declaration of gender identity could have been taken almost verbatim from a 2016 Tumblr post, the hir/xir/zie nonsense certainly would have been a great fit.
I'm surprised Beamdog hasn;t removed the binary male/female sex choice that is (iirc) the first screen on character creation. Seeing that could offend someone of a non-binary sexual persuasion. Similarly, all reference to boy/girl or male/female should be excised. Likewise , Imoen begins BG 1 in... pink! How sexist is that. Minsc is Dynaheir's... protector. Blatant sexism. Don't let me get started on the micro-aggressions.
Congrats, everyone – we might not get future BG content because people are actively trying to tank this game. If you've actually PLAYED SoD, I would strongly encourage you leave a review of your own.
But that's actually good news.
I'd rather see the franchise stay dead than see how they rape the name of one of the greatest sagas.
The negative reviews are there because SoD is shit. If you want to blame someone for the reviews blame whoever wrote this cesspool of words.
Congrats, everyone – we might not get future BG content because people are actively trying to tank this game. If you've actually PLAYED SoD, I would strongly encourage you leave a review of your own.
But that's actually good news.
I'd rather see the franchise stay dead than see how they rape the name of one of the greatest sagas.
The negative reviews are there because SoD is shit. If you want to blame someone for the reviews blame whoever wrote this cesspool of words.
Hello friend. Please try to be respectful in your postings, thank you. Sorry to hear that you did not enjoy the game and I hope you can come to enjoy it in time.
The benefits of having ideas "force fed to you" are somewhere within the spectrum of where it is good or bad to have "things shoved down your throat."
If someone is starving for nutrition, you provide it. If someone is starving for knowledge, you provide that too. The methods used to provide either sort of "nutrition" will, among other things, depend upon the resistance to receiving that "nutrition" by the person in question. If one can be trusted to eat [listen], then little effort is required on the part of the provider. If someone is resistant to eating [listening], then more aggressive methods may well be required. You have to utilize means appropriate to the particular situation.
Now the fact that some people can consider what BD did to being equivalent to having "stuff shoved down their throats" indicates quite clearly, to me anyway, the fact that A: BD was right to include the content that they did, and B: that such actions will be required of other content providers for various forms of creative expression for the foreseeable future. If that's perceived by someone as having something "stuffed down their throats", well so be it. People have all sorts of perceptions, they certainly don't have to be considered correct by anyone other than the holder, nor even be objectively true, to be held after all. People can hold quite remarkable beliefs on any number of topics...
It's bad to have stuff force-fed to you; otherwise, the LGBT crowd would not exist, as anti-LGBT sentiment would have continued to be force-fed. There should be freedom of thought, and if you are force-feeding people because they "lack nutrition" for having a different moral system, you are entering gravely dangerous territory.
Who is to say you are right and I am wrong? You may make a strong argument, but to say that you have a moral obligation to make everyone agree with you for your definition of good is bastardized thinking.
We should enforce certain moral values, such as anti-murder and anti-theft. However, going much beyond that could kill humanity.
Amber Scott has this same dysfunctional line of thinking, and it is why I won't buy her agenda. Not one penny will be spent all thanks to her; hell, after reading Mizhena's dialogue, I realized there was little to be bothered by (though it is not in line with the spirit of Baldur's Gate and immersion-breaking); but after reading how Amber thoroughly alienates and attacks those with differing views means she herself is enforcing an abomination of exclusion to this franchise.
I am glad I heard about this before they stole my money, and I nearly regret buying BG/BG2EE. I was fine with the introduction of homosexual characters, and I would be fine with the introduction of transsexuals, but Amber is basically saying, "F*** you," to anyone with a different moral system.
So does this mean forcing anti-LGBT sentiment is allowed now? Or is it only your approved dogma that is permitted to be force-fed?
"It's bad to have something force fed to you; [...], except of course when it isn't bad for you.
There is, last time I checked, freedom of thought. The fact that there is more than just one side to this "controversy" makes that pretty plain to see, no?
Who is to say you are right and I am wrong? Who is to say that there is any "right" or "wrong" here at all?
Everyone has their own list of the morals that "should" be enforced, some have more extensive lists, and others less extensive lists. The concept of "enforcing" morals seems incoherent to me personally, but to each their own. Enforcing morals seems to require a pretty coercive regime sitting in rule over one's self, but whatever works for you. Just don't extend that coercive regime to those who don't want it and didn't ask for it. I certainly don't trust a government to decide, for me, what is and isn't moral. They can decide what is and isn't criminal, but leave morality out of it, thank you very much....
Amber Scott has a line of thinking - if it works for her then it obviously isn't dysfunctional, by definition.
You aren't going to purchase the game; well that's apparently the correct thing for you to do. I doubt anyone will try to argue you out of not spending money on something that you don't want.
You can attempt to force [intellectually, not physically] any sentiment and/or agenda you like - that's the core essence of freedom of speech and expression. Spread your beliefs as far and as wide as you can or wish to. Who would object to that? [with the caveat that such efforts must be in accord with any and all Hate Speech or other similar laws/ordinances in place in your locale. I wouldn't want to be accused of encouraging someone to break any laws that might apply to them.]
Who is to say you are right and I am wrong? You may make a strong argument, but to say that you have a moral obligation to make everyone agree with you for your definition of good is bastardized thinking.
No one. That's for people to decide on an individual level. Turns out you don't have to agree with everything your exposed to, in the same way that you don't have to avoid exposure to things you don't agree with.
It is important for people to be exposed to different ideas so that they are aware/conscious of them in order for them to make informed decisions of what they agree with. Otherwise you're just moving the filter of what to agree with a step back (out of the individual's hands) and putting it on the people deciding what ideas people will or won't be allowed to be exposed to.
Frankly, I'm surprised the NPC didn't have their own special pronoun to describe zirself. It would have fit right in with the exact manner in which it stood right out.
Since the trans character's declaration of gender identity could have been taken almost verbatim from a 2016 Tumblr post, the hir/xir/zie nonsense certainly would have been a great fit.
I'm surprised Beamdog hasn;t removed the binary male/female sex choice that is (iirc) the first screen on character creation. Seeing that could offend someone of a non-binary sexual persuasion.
I would suggest that Beamdog remove the clearly oppressive and gender-binary-reinforcing sex selection during character creation and replace it with a "gender spectrum slider" and also add an "nongendered" check box. Also, it must be possible to select the whole spectrum slider, so that individuals that identify as "genderfluid" do not feel left out.
Has it gone enough, @Dee? Lock this trash bin. What had to be said is long said, there's little point in discussing transgender issues in a RPG game forum.
there's little point in discussing transgender issues in a RPG game forum.
There's also little point in discussing transgender issues in a fantasy RPG.
I respectfully disagree friend, it seems like the perfect place. So many mysterious and wonderful things occur in the Realms after all.
OK, but also make sure to include a Dwarf who lectures me on the plight of the Palestinians and a student at Radryn's Mage Academy who shares information on campus rape culture.
Comments
He's talking about putting social issues front and center in media in order to spur social change. Tossing a little inclusion into a movie here, adding a little social commentary into a game there - the stuff you guys call "force-feeding." He didn't mean this:
EDIT: Found a better clip
He did reference actual force-feeding, and say that sometimes it needed to be done socially. That necessarily implies coercision. Otherwise it's just... feeding. And that metaphor is no fun at all.
He did reference actual force-feeding, and say that sometimes it needed to be done socially. That necessarily implies coercision. Otherwise it's just... feeding. And that metaphor is no fun at all.
I could be wrong, but I believe he's in the medical profession (hence his use of the analogy). Forgive me if I'm confusing him with another user.
Anyway, sorry for poking fun - I really did mean it lightheartedly. Have a good night.
If you wish to dispute my assertion that there was such a backlash, please do so.
As to advocating for re-education camps, I can hardly be expected to have been advocating for any sort of camp that I never brought up. I'm glad you perception checked yourself here though, so I can happily say that, No, I was not advocating for the creation of something I didn't bring up in my post.
Furthermore, I trust that you will, upon reflection, agree that I never said anything whatsoever about "problematic" thinking. Again, I can't be held accountable for concepts I didn't discuss in my post.
And yes, this topic of having stuff "rammed down people's throats", in the context of a fleeting encounter with a Trans person sort of screamed out to me to be referenced.
...which is that it's OK for a writer to use heavy-handed methods to convey a social message if people stubbornly refuse to listen.
For example, the message in Mad Max is that women are completely ineffectual. Yes, there was a backlash against that, and I wholeheartedly applaud it! On the face of things, the idea that "men destroyed the world" might seem derogatory to men, but it's not. It's saying that women have no influence whatsoever within their own societies, that they are powerless bystanders. Men get the blame for the fictional nuclear holocaust, but the necessary implication of that is that we're also to thank for all human achievement. That is so degrading to women! I, for one, believe in equality.
The great ideas in Siege of Dragonspear that absolutely need to be heard include "Women are better than men and should belittle them at every turn" as evinced by the interjections in the early game which are almost all about women intervening to say something negative about a man (8 out of 10 in the Baldur's Gate section of the game in the playthrough I watched, yes I counted because people told me to check if I was just experiencing "confirmation bias"); "Men are violent brutes who start fights in the street if they get bored", as evinced by the quest in which that happens; "Stealing from your host is a good and noble thing to do if you're a refugee taking shelter in their city" as per the mugger quest, and so on.
Why oh why are people so resistant to these ideas?!
None of them really seem so urgent to me as to compel this sort of heavy-handed action you're talking about, and I'm not sure of the nutritional benefits of having them shoved into my intellectual diet. Couldn't they have just made a faithful Baldur's Gate game, and then written a pamphlet or something?
But as an occasional gamer who didn't know what SJW stood for before this week, and who had only a fleeting awareness of Gamergate, I confess my interest in this 'discussion' is waning and will probably fizzle out shortly!
But before I lapse back into several more years of lurking and occasional posts about this wonderful series of games, I would like to take one final opportunity to say how much I appreciate Beamdog's efforts, how much I have enjoyed revisiting the games and having my love for them rekindled, and how much I appreciate continued efforts by Beamdog to support and add new content.
And because of all this, I will continue pe-ordering Beamdog Baldurs Gate/IE games.
Now..... back to my no-reload BGEE run before I move seemlessly into Siege of Dragonspear with that mud still fresh on my boots (I'm into Baldurs Gate itself now, and going strong!)
...which is that it's OK for a writer to use heavy-handed methods to convey a social message if people stubbornly refuse to listen.
For example, the message in Mad Max is that women are completely ineffectual. Yes, there was a backlash against that, and I wholeheartedly applaud it! On the face of things, the idea that "men destroyed the world" might seem derogatory to men, but it's not. It's saying that women have no influence whatsoever within their own societies, that they are powerless bystanders. Men get the blame for the fictional nuclear holocaust, but the necessary implication of that is that we're also to thank for all human achievement. That is so degrading to women! I, for one, believe in equality.
The great ideas in Siege of Dragonspear that absolutely need to be heard include "Women are better than men and should belittle them at every turn" as evinced by the interjections in the early game which are almost all about women intervening to say something negative about a man (8 out of 10 in the Baldur's Gate section of the game in the playthrough I watched, yes I counted because people told me to check if I was just experiencing "confirmation bias"); "Men are violent brutes who start fights in the street if they get bored", as evinced by the quest in which that happens; "Stealing from your host is a good and noble thing to do if you're a refugee taking shelter in their city" as per the mugger quest, and so on.
Why oh why are people so resistant to these ideas?!
None of them really seem so urgent to me as to compel this sort of heavy-handed action you're talking about, and I'm not sure of the nutritional benefits of having them shoved into my intellectual diet. Couldn't they have just made a faithful Baldur's Gate game, and then written a pamphlet or something?
What the "logical consequence" of my statement may or not be is up to the reader to decide, should they be so inclined to go down such a path.
Yes, I believe that it is OK for a writer to use methods that they choose to employ. Whether or not they seem heavy-handed or not, to this or that individual, is out of the control of the writer.
Your take on how women were portrayed in Mad Max is one interpretation. Other people had other interpretations which they objected to. That there were objections to the movie, over the portrayal of women is a simple fact - the person I replied to claimed that "everyone loved the movie" which is simply not borne out by even a 60 second Internet search. I pointed this out to them.
BD could have made any sort of game that they wished, and apparently they did infact make the game that they wished to make. I won't dispute that it could have been different, but it isn't, so that's pretty much that, no? They didn't make a game that pleased everyone in their possible market... well these things happen. I find it hard to believe that they intended to pander to people who would object to this sort of content, anyway...
The benefits of having ideas "force fed to you" are somewhere within the spectrum of where it is good or bad to have "things shoved down your throat."
If someone is starving for nutrition, you provide it. If someone is starving for knowledge, you provide that too. The methods used to provide either sort of "nutrition" will, among other things, depend upon the resistance to receiving that "nutrition" by the person in question. If one can be trusted to eat [listen], then little effort is required on the part of the provider. If someone is resistant to eating [listening], then more aggressive methods may well be required. You have to utilize means appropriate to the particular situation.
Now the fact that some people can consider what BD did to being equivalent to having "stuff shoved down their throats" indicates quite clearly, to me anyway, the fact that A: BD was right to include the content that they did, and B: that such actions will be required of other content providers for various forms of creative expression for the foreseeable future. If that's perceived by someone as having something "stuffed down their throats", well so be it. People have all sorts of perceptions, they certainly don't have to be considered correct by anyone other than the holder, nor even be objectively true, to be held after all. People can hold quite remarkable beliefs on any number of topics...
I was questioning the wisdom and appropriateness of Beamdog's decision as it pertains to Siege of Dragonspear, but you nailed it.
Now you're getting creepy again with this "aggressive methods" business. If someone doesn't want to listen to you then, generally speaking, you don't have a right to make them. They're not necessarily wrong, and you're not necessarily right.
Backing slowly away from that strangely dark section of the conversation... I hate this "shoved down our throats" business, too. It's often code for "existing within my line of sight". It's a phrase of which I am exceedingly wary.
Education sometimes has to be aggressive, depending upon a whole range of resistances to, or impediments to, that education. For example, I see BD putting a Trans character in their game as somewhat aggressive, given the tenor of some of the objections to their having done so. It no doubt is perceived by some as quite aggressive social engineering that they shouldn't be having "shoved down their throats in a game that helped me get through high school and the loss of my first love" or some such thing.
Aggression is of course largely in the eye of the beholder [sneaky AD&D CRPG reference], what is aggressive teaching to one person is not at all aggressive to another.
So some people will, and quite clearly DO, feel that they have been the victims of "aggressive" SJW politics - well that's their perception and they are welcome to it. That perception certainly shouldn't interfere with or impede future efforts to increase at least some representation of minority groups in any form of art. And just as a personal observation, I don't think that it will. People who desire the status quo are always going to be disappointed over the long run, since life is never static...
This is a big issue right now, but at least it is an issue, i.e. being addressed and becoming more visible to more people. As time goes on, the idea that X NPC in a cassock may, or may not, have had male genitalia lurking under there will, I trust, be considered as unimportant for all, as it is already considered to be by some and even perhaps, by many.
Now, if using the wrong pronoun in a Clerical interaction led to one not being able to Raise Minsc from the dead, I could see people getting a little perturbed...
Edit: This just in! Andrew Foley has gone on the record stating that goblins are people! I guess it turns out Amber was just a front from the true SJW on the writing team. Maybe the Red Knight was on to something...
Similarly, all reference to boy/girl or male/female should be excised.
Likewise , Imoen begins BG 1 in... pink! How sexist is that.
Minsc is Dynaheir's... protector. Blatant sexism.
Don't let me get started on the micro-aggressions.
I'd rather see the franchise stay dead than see how they rape the name of one of the greatest sagas.
The negative reviews are there because SoD is shit. If you want to blame someone for the reviews blame whoever wrote this cesspool of words.
It is important for people to be exposed to different ideas so that they are aware/conscious of them in order for them to make informed decisions of what they agree with. Otherwise you're just moving the filter of what to agree with a step back (out of the individual's hands) and putting it on the people deciding what ideas people will or won't be allowed to be exposed to.
Edit: grammar
Oh, wait, maybe I shouldn't give them ideas...