Which, as has been pointed out a great many times, by many posters, for many reasons, is a completely invalid argument.
A refusal to accept them is blind prejudice, pure and simple.
No, I cannot agree with that.
You cannot say that what someone says "feels right" or doesn't feel right in a fantasy setting is a valid or invalid argument. It is an opinion, a purely subjective opinion.
Rubbish!
If it's your fantasy setting, then it's up to you to decide what feels right, but if you are playing in, or reading about, someone elses fantasy setting, then they get to decide what feels right. If I'm playing a game set in Middle Earth, I would expect characters to be surprised by a female warrior. If my adventure was set in Hogwarts, I would expect to encounter preduce for having "mud-blood", and if I was playing in the Forgotten Realms, I would expect to be hated for being drow.
Just like my friend who can't accept guns and cannons in his D&D-esque fantasy (despite the fact they did exist in the real time periods that fantasy is very loosely based upon) does not have some sort of radical anti-cannon agenda, you cannot simply presume that a personal sense of verisimilitude comes from any source other than what subjectively feels right.
Which is fine, because it is HIS setting. If he wants gunpowder to not work it's up to him.
We've had a lot of people here who have made their transphobic opinions plain. But @Yulaw9460 isn't one of them. Attacking him with the assumption he has them isn't being excellent to him, and it also isn't fair. His posting history in the thread shows he has no real beef with Mizhena, doesn't have an issue with tg characters in other game settings, and even noted that he appreciated the absurdity of feeling she wasn't "realistic" in a setting that includes dragons and such.
He clearly comes from a transphobic culture to find anything unusual about what Mizhena says. I didn't notice anything remotely noteworthy about it. That's not me showing off how liberal I am, it's just that I was raised in a different culture, with a different set of predudices.
I was raised in a different culture, with a different set of predudices.
So what makes one set of prejudices more acceptable than another?
I would assume, how much harm they cause. That said, I don't think Fardragon was saying that their culture's prejudices were any better. Just different.
So what makes one set of prejudices more acceptable than another?
Nothing. One apparatus can't be judged from the perspective of the other one - I mean, it can, be it is pointless - because of obvious reasons. You could come up with some kind of meta-apparatus, but it solves nothing, as it still different set of assertions.
Here is the real deal friends. Everyone should always try to be cool and treat others with respect. It's more important to have a calm and friendly forum culture than to drop savage burns on on another about how you are the most enlightened.
It's a pointless effort anyway since I'm clearly the smartest, none of the rest of you ever thought to live in a barrel.
Beamdog forums post SoD: Where a 2D pixelated depiction of a transgender split a community in half and generates countless debates about gender identity with 50 shades of hate, misogyny and misandry, where tolerant liberals are more intolerant than reactionaries, and where dealing with prejudice means terminate with extreme prejudice. Dee words: "Be excellent to each other" are lost in here like tears in rain.
If anything in a computer game motivates you to devolve to personal attacks and flame each other, you owe it to yourselves to take a step back and reassess your personal situation, because somewhere some perspective has been lost.
@Foggy - are you referring to someone in particular? Also - no wonder reactionists are tolerant: after all, God is on their side, right? With that kind of "ally" (as Kaiser was kind enough to call him) there is no need to be angry.
I finally got around to voting and chose "I don't really care", the wisest option available. I reserve the emotional energy required to care about things for topics which are actually important and social justice in video games isn't important.
Keep it civil, everyone. If you think someone's breaking a rule, use the Flag feature to report their post; don't start antagonizing them in the thread.
On topic, I agree with what some people pointed out about the poll options being a bit too editorial to give a real picture of what people actually think. That being said, it did make me think a bit more deeply about the different viewpoints, and we had a number of discussions about this very same topic back in college, when we were studying Bertolt Brecht.
On one side of the debate you have Brecht, who believed that artists had an obligation to use their art to create social change, to draw attention to the inadequacies of society. He was talking about working-class concerns more than racial or gender inequality, but he did believe his art was a means to "wake people up", so to speak. You may or may not notice this stance when you read or see his plays unless you know it's there, but Brecht's works have a decidedly presentational slant to them; characters will break the fourth wall to address a social issue in the middle of a scene, which is intended to make the audience think about what they're seeing.
On the other side of the debate you have playwrights like Ibsen, who strove to build a world on stage, to trick the audience into falling deep into the illusion that the events happening in front of them are really happening. Ibsen might use his works to address social issues (A Doll's House is definitely about a woman's right to live her own life outside the shadow of her husband), but he does so within the world of his play, and he doesn't comment on the events mid-scene or take interruptions to speak directly to the audience.
In the theatre world, Brecht's approach is called Presentational Theatre; Ibsen's is called Representational Theatre.
And to be clear, both of them are brilliant. But there are plenty of artists who prefer Brecht's direct address, and plenty of artists who prefer Ibsen's immersive storytelling, just as there are plenty of theatre-goers who prefer one or the other, for various reasons. There isn't a Shakespeare play that doesn't take at least one moment to address the audience directly, but most people don't think of Shakespeare as being Presentational.
So when we talk about things like "social justice warfare" in a video game, what we're really talking about is Presentational Theatre. Obviously not everyone's going to like that style--and if you disagree with the artist's position, obviously there's going to be some level of aversion to it as well.
At the same time, when we talk about "It's fine as long as it's not being shoved down my throat", what we're really talking about is Representational Theatre. And for some people, that style doesn't do enough to enact direct change--and for others, if you disagree with the artist's position, you may find yourself feeling an aversion to it despite the fact that it's not front-and-center.
If you don't want any agenda in the art you consume, though, what you're technically saying is that you don't want the art you consume to have texture or feeling or atmosphere; art without context may be fun to look at, but it lacks substance. All art comes from somewhere, even if its creator has no political agenda to pursue.
I would frame the discussion in terms of Representational vs. Presentational. I think we can all agree that "good writing" is better than "bad writing".
Insert obligatory "Why's it gotta be white" comment here.
'Cause white is technically a mix of all wavelengths of color. Or so my physics teacher told me.
So by picking white I've actually included ALL colors. Ain't THAT some subtle shit?
Ah, but that is only within the context of light.
Within the context of color palettes, as you are using when you paint, it is actually black that is a combination of all colors, and white is the absence of color.
Actually, that truly is deeper than just a blank rectangle. It causes the viewer to see only what they want to see--mentally interactive art, because the artist has already brought their half of the completed work so now you, the viewer, must bring the other half.
You all are missing the point. The REAL problem is that the drawing is rectangular, when art is already dominated by oppressive hegemonic rectangulocentrism. #TrapezoidsMatter
Insert obligatory "Why's it gotta be white" comment here.
'Cause white is technically a mix of all wavelengths of color. Or so my physics teacher told me.
So by picking white I've actually included ALL colors. Ain't THAT some subtle shit?
Ah, but that is only within the context of light.
Within the context of color palettes, as you are using when you paint, it is actually black that is a combination of all colors, and white is the absence of color.
True enough, when speaking about paint with pigments in it. But since the colors on my monitor are not a product of pigments, but rather wavelengths from a lightsource, well...
Hmm, so if I view it on my monitor it's an expression of inclusiveness of all. If I print it out, it becomes a representation of abject racism and bigotry. That's deep. I'd tell you to put it in a museum, but they would probably want to use a printed copy.
Insert obligatory "Why's it gotta be white" comment here.
'Cause white is technically a mix of all wavelengths of color. Or so my physics teacher told me.
So by picking white I've actually included ALL colors. Ain't THAT some subtle shit?
Ah, but that is only within the context of light.
Within the context of color palettes, as you are using when you paint, it is actually black that is a combination of all colors, and white is the absence of color.
True enough, when speaking about paint with pigments in it. But since the colors on my monitor are not a product of pigments, but rather wavelengths from a lightsource, well...
Hmm, so if I view it on my monitor it's an expression of inclusiveness of all. If I print it out, it becomes a representation of abject racism and bigotry. That's deep. I'd tell you to put it in a museum, but they would probably want to use a printed copy.
^ The reason why agenda-free art doesn't exist. Even if the artist him or herself doesn't wish to inject a certain perspective into his or her work, the audience will do it for them. Such is the nature of art: there is what the artist intended, and what the audience perceives. Both are halves of the same whole, and so long as human thought continues, one cannot exist without the other.
Even if the artist him or herself doesn't wish to inject a certain perspective into his or her work, the audience will do it for them. Such is the nature of art: there is what the artist intended, and what the audience perceives. Both are halves of the same whole, and so long as human thought continues, one cannot exist without the other.
I don't see how you can talk about "social justice warfare" without talking about Dickens.
Not only was social justice his main reason for writing (once he had enough money), he was also massively successful in changing the prevailing attitudes in society.
Comments
If it's your fantasy setting, then it's up to you to decide what feels right, but if you are playing in, or reading about, someone elses fantasy setting, then they get to decide what feels right. If I'm playing a game set in Middle Earth, I would expect characters to be surprised by a female warrior. If my adventure was set in Hogwarts, I would expect to encounter preduce for having "mud-blood", and if I was playing in the Forgotten Realms, I would expect to be hated for being drow. Which is fine, because it is HIS setting. If he wants gunpowder to not work it's up to him. He clearly comes from a transphobic culture to find anything unusual about what Mizhena says. I didn't notice anything remotely noteworthy about it. That's not me showing off how liberal I am, it's just that I was raised in a different culture, with a different set of predudices.
It's a pointless effort anyway since I'm clearly the smartest, none of the rest of you ever thought to live in a barrel.
If anything in a computer game motivates you to devolve to personal attacks and flame each other, you owe it to yourselves to take a step back and reassess your personal situation, because somewhere some perspective has been lost.
socialjustice in video games isn't important.One should always be examining oneself.
On topic, I agree with what some people pointed out about the poll options being a bit too editorial to give a real picture of what people actually think. That being said, it did make me think a bit more deeply about the different viewpoints, and we had a number of discussions about this very same topic back in college, when we were studying Bertolt Brecht.
On one side of the debate you have Brecht, who believed that artists had an obligation to use their art to create social change, to draw attention to the inadequacies of society. He was talking about working-class concerns more than racial or gender inequality, but he did believe his art was a means to "wake people up", so to speak. You may or may not notice this stance when you read or see his plays unless you know it's there, but Brecht's works have a decidedly presentational slant to them; characters will break the fourth wall to address a social issue in the middle of a scene, which is intended to make the audience think about what they're seeing.
On the other side of the debate you have playwrights like Ibsen, who strove to build a world on stage, to trick the audience into falling deep into the illusion that the events happening in front of them are really happening. Ibsen might use his works to address social issues (A Doll's House is definitely about a woman's right to live her own life outside the shadow of her husband), but he does so within the world of his play, and he doesn't comment on the events mid-scene or take interruptions to speak directly to the audience.
In the theatre world, Brecht's approach is called Presentational Theatre; Ibsen's is called Representational Theatre.
And to be clear, both of them are brilliant. But there are plenty of artists who prefer Brecht's direct address, and plenty of artists who prefer Ibsen's immersive storytelling, just as there are plenty of theatre-goers who prefer one or the other, for various reasons. There isn't a Shakespeare play that doesn't take at least one moment to address the audience directly, but most people don't think of Shakespeare as being Presentational.
So when we talk about things like "social justice warfare" in a video game, what we're really talking about is Presentational Theatre. Obviously not everyone's going to like that style--and if you disagree with the artist's position, obviously there's going to be some level of aversion to it as well.
At the same time, when we talk about "It's fine as long as it's not being shoved down my throat", what we're really talking about is Representational Theatre. And for some people, that style doesn't do enough to enact direct change--and for others, if you disagree with the artist's position, you may find yourself feeling an aversion to it despite the fact that it's not front-and-center.
If you don't want any agenda in the art you consume, though, what you're technically saying is that you don't want the art you consume to have texture or feeling or atmosphere; art without context may be fun to look at, but it lacks substance. All art comes from somewhere, even if its creator has no political agenda to pursue.
I would frame the discussion in terms of Representational vs. Presentational. I think we can all agree that "good writing" is better than "bad writing".
Within the context of color palettes, as you are using when you paint, it is actually black that is a combination of all colors, and white is the absence of color.
#TrapezoidsMatter
Not only was social justice his main reason for writing (once he had enough money), he was also massively successful in changing the prevailing attitudes in society.
If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.