@Diogenes42 I agree, apart from your mention of the "Tropes Vs. Women" series. IIRC, Anita Sarkeesian makes that series. Anita is one of the main people that ruins better writing in gaming because her whole existence is based on propaganda, with no interest in what a story has to offer.
Gaider's response to this whole debacle couldn't have been a more perfect response. I feel like that's the attitude developers must take as an obligation.
"I'm not sure anyone can *force* the team to make changes they don't wish to make.
Ultimately, all post-release changes that aren't purely bug-fixes are going to come about as a result of people asking for them -- whether it be in the form of complaints, polite suggestions, or frothing-at-the-mouth angry rants. Normally it's easier to catch flies with honey, but I think it would be kind of foolish for a developer to enter into a kind of brinkmanship with their own fans when it comes to things they could soberly look at and say, "yes, this probably should be changed".
Naturally the way this all came about is going to make people suspect our motives, and so be it. Ultimately all I can do is assure you that Trent and the SoD team made that sober assessment and will proceed from there."
Whether or not that's all just words, remains to be seen. However, it is good to see such a fair and rational response from the devs.
Once again I respectfully disagree re: Anita, but I understand how you could come to that conclusion. I've also got high hopes from Beamdog in the future, I hope they continue to improve and one day we can look back on all this as old(er) fellows and enjoy a sensible chuckle.
Adding a couple hot topic controversial lines to a game and a trans character does not a SJW game make. Could it been done without? Probably. Do I care enough to stop playing the game all together because of it? No.
As for SJW within gaming in general, most of these people are con artists just looking for a quick buck. And I mean, why not? I know quite a few people who are part of this "SJW movement in gaming" that are only in it to make money by pandering to the SJW community and any other useful idiot they can sell to. Do these people even care about the movement itself? Pffht, no, not even in the slightest. Manipulation is a great tool in which to obtain things, and what better way than to take advantage of latest hottest tending topics? The "SJW movement", in and out of gaming, is a cash cow, plain and simple. Might as well milk it till it dries up and move on to the next big thing.
I know quite a few people who are part of this "SJW movement in gaming" that are only in it to make money by pandering to the SJW community and any other useful idiot they can sell to. Do these people even care about the movement itself? Pffht, no, not even in the slightest.
You know "quite a few" professional progressive gaming activists who have confided in you about their insincerity? Somehow I'm skeptical. Where did you meet these people?
Adding a couple hot topic controversial lines to a game and a trans character does not a SJW game make. Could it been done without? Probably. Do I care enough to stop playing the game all together because of it? No.
As for SJW within gaming in general, most of these people are con artists just looking for a quick buck. And I mean, why not? I know quite a few people who are part of this "SJW movement in gaming" that are only in it to make money by pandering to the SJW community and any other useful idiot they can sell to. Do these people even care about the movement itself? Pffht, no, not even in the slightest. Manipulation is a great tool in which to obtain things, and what better way than to take advantage of latest hottest tending topics? The "SJW movement", in and out of gaming, is a cash cow, plain and simple. Might as well milk it till it dries up and move on to the next big thing.
Evidence to support your claim? You are making a lot of assumptions in that post and I see nothing to substantiate it.
As for being a cashcow, have you looked at GamerGate? It was a massive cashcow for many people within the movement. People like Davis Aurini, thunderf00t, Sargon, Mundane Matt, etc... Many GamerGater supporters profited from it.
Well both those who call themselves "social justice warrior" and "Gamer Gater" or what have you make themselves part of an internet mob.
Now the IQ of a mob, as we all know, is equal to the IQ of its most stupid member, divided by the number of mobsters.
What with internet reaching a hefty number of people, we can get truly immense mobs going on, which are essentially incredibly dumb packs of people. And most of those have money. Of course people are going to try and make a bit of cash from that.
@abentwookie I don't think you can say already established YouTubers were using GamerGate as a cash cow when they were already making money from YouTube in the first place as people covering trending news topics. They were hardly going to avoid the topic just because people would accuse them of capitalizing on it. It's their job to report on things and have an opinion, and that's what they did.
@abentwookie I don't think you can say already established YouTubers were using GamerGate as a cash cow when they were already making money from YouTube in the first place as people covering trending news topics. They were hardly going to avoid the topic just because people would accuse them of capitalizing on it. It's their job to report on things and have an opinion, and that's what they did.
Of course you can when they suddenly gain a larger number of subscribers over the controversy. If you gain 100,000 new subs from a certain group after siding with them on a subject, then you are profiting off the controversy. Its that simple. If a person makes one video to give their view on a topic, then I could give them a pass. However, when they suddenly put most of their YouTubing efforts into covering the topic endlessly, that is an entirely different matter. Then we have people like Aurini and Owen who weren't just making money from all of the new subscribers, they were actually taking donations from GamerGaters for a documentary project and then didn't deliver what was actually promised.
Sometimes you learn more from the question being asked, than the answer received.
Believe it or not, I tried my best to make it unbiased.
Usage of the term "social justice warfare" makes the poll biased as not many people want to self associate with warfare (not to mention that I don't actually know what you mean when you use this term). The best way to make an unbiased poll is to avoid any loaded terms such as "SJW", "GG", or "political agenda" as they are likely to lead the person voting to the answer you yourself believe. Instead these terms should be expanded into what it is you mean by them, instead of leaving that interpretation up to the person taking the poll.
I thought "social justice warfare" to be legit, now that the writer in question self-identified as a social justice warrior.
As far as I know she never used the term "SJW" at any point, it is a label other people have given to her statement after the fact.
@cmk24: In a post from last year, she said she's "happy to be an SJW." I still don't think it's a polite or productive thing to call people, considering its origins (and continued use) as a dismissive insult.
@cmk24: In a post from last year, she said she's "happy to be an SJW." I still don't think it's a polite or productive thing to call people, considering its origins (and continued use) as a dismissive insult.
It's like "gay". People use it as as an insult, so it was accepted as the complement. It doesn't mean they deliberatly set out to identify with a specific group. Being in favour of social justice simply means not being evil.
Sometimes it's easier to be called something derogatory by also calling yourself that, taking charge over the the word/term by owning up to it. There are many such terms such as nerd, gay etc. I'm guessing, without knowing the facts, that calling yourself SJW might be for similar reasons. If someone who stands for opinions you despise calls you a "SJW", then I wouldn't actually mind calling myself that either.
As a male I never called myself a feminist until I started to see the hate female feminists got online from misogynic male mobs. Now, if someone calls me an "SJW" because I stand for equality, openness and inclusinvess, I would wear that epithet with pride.
edit: spelling.
edit2: Heh, ninja'd by @fardragon. I was writing for quite some time before posting so hadn't seen that post. Funny we used the same example.
I know quite a few people who are part of this "SJW movement in gaming" that are only in it to make money by pandering to the SJW community and any other useful idiot they can sell to. Do these people even care about the movement itself? Pffht, no, not even in the slightest.
You know "quite a few" professional progressive gaming activists who have confided in you about their insincerity? Somehow I'm skeptical. Where did you meet these people?
I have been around the online gaming community for a while, since the old MUDS of the 90's. It isn't that odd for someone to keep in touch with old friends. And it isn't even more odd for people who have love for gaming to work for the gaming industry. I may have spent way too much time online gaming in my old days if anything.
Evidence to support your claim? You are making a lot of assumptions in that post and I see nothing to substantiate it.
As for being a cashcow, have you looked at GamerGate? It was a massive cashcow for many people within the movement. People like Davis Aurini, thunderf00t, Sargon, Mundane Matt, etc... Many GamerGater supporters profited from it.
Are you asking me to throw my friends under the bus? No, that would not be happening. But I don't mind using other examples to support my claim:
Feminist Frequency's(edit: Founded by Anita Sarkeesian) revenue was $18,000 in 2013, and in 2014 it soared to $400,000 without any sort of advancement in the organizations structure. Perhaps just a coincidence?
And I fully agree that Gamergate is profiting off this as well. Both sides are making a profit. I never said that they were not.
Youtube is a massive cash cow, for both youtube itself and the people who make videos.
Perhaps I should reiterate my original statement: I am not against the LGBT community, however I am against people who exploit them for their own personal reasons. I am fully AGAINST SJW's and Gamergaters as a whole.
@cmk24: In a post from last year, she said she's "happy to be an SJW." I still don't think it's a polite or productive thing to call people, considering its origins (and continued use) as a dismissive insult.
It's like "gay". People use it as as an insult, so it was accepted as the complement.
"Gay" did not begin as an insult. The first example of the term being used to refer to homosexual people was in a story by Gertrude Stein about two women who were "very gay together" that implied the women were lesbians. Homosexual people adopted the name "gay" because it was a historically positive word--it wasn't appropriating an insult.
That can be debated, @wraith5641. True, the two most commonly debated views are that we are either born as a clean slate and then we change due to nature and nurture, or the opposite that we are born barbarians who are made morally 'good' by civilization and society.
There is a third one though, and that is that babies are actually born with innate ability to separate 'good' from 'evil' and preferring to both do and support 'good'. As with pretty much everything, it can be debated so I won't even bother linking to a study or report, but it's still quite interresting to read how very, very young children, babies really, do good without any 'nudging' or or incitement.
I understand the above still fails to prove good or evil exist objectively since what those babies did or didn't do was still judged by adults, but I also find it rather meaningless to debate whether helping someone is "good", "neutral" or "evil" since it's in my humble opinion, clearly a good act (if the purpose is not for you own benefit or similar).
I understand the above still fails to prove good or evil exist objectively since what those babies did or didn't do was still judged by adults, but I also find it rather meaningless to debate whether helping someone is "good", "neutral" or "evil" since it's in my humble opinion, clearly a good act (if the purpose is not for you own benefit or similar).
Of course there is no objective evil (at least not in the broader sense of the term), but that doesn't mean we can do whatever we want, after all "Good and Evil are relative but being a dick cannot be allowed"
This is a D&D related forum. "Finds justice objectionable" is pretty much the definition of Chaotic Evil.
Except that, from what I understand from the public debates about "social justice", the term basically means whatever the hell the person at the time wants it to mean. It also appears that reasonable, well meaning people disagree on what social justice entails. I mean, the term "justice" is generally viewed as representing "moral rightness" and people don't even agree on that. Add in a qualifying word like "social" and the picture is even more muddied. This is why it confuses me why someone like you would even compare it to a fantasy world that barely reflects reality in which good and evil are well-define absolutes to further a point.
Comments
Gaider's response to this whole debacle couldn't have been a more perfect response. I feel like that's the attitude developers must take as an obligation.
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/51229/how-to-ruin-baldurs-gate/p1
"I'm not sure anyone can *force* the team to make changes they don't wish to make.
Ultimately, all post-release changes that aren't purely bug-fixes are going to come about as a result of people asking for them -- whether it be in the form of complaints, polite suggestions, or frothing-at-the-mouth angry rants. Normally it's easier to catch flies with honey, but I think it would be kind of foolish for a developer to enter into a kind of brinkmanship with their own fans when it comes to things they could soberly look at and say, "yes, this probably should be changed".
Naturally the way this all came about is going to make people suspect our motives, and so be it. Ultimately all I can do is assure you that Trent and the SoD team made that sober assessment and will proceed from there."
Whether or not that's all just words, remains to be seen. However, it is good to see such a fair and rational response from the devs.
As for SJW within gaming in general, most of these people are con artists just looking for a quick buck. And I mean, why not? I know quite a few people who are part of this "SJW movement in gaming" that are only in it to make money by pandering to the SJW community and any other useful idiot they can sell to. Do these people even care about the movement itself? Pffht, no, not even in the slightest. Manipulation is a great tool in which to obtain things, and what better way than to take advantage of latest hottest tending topics? The "SJW movement", in and out of gaming, is a cash cow, plain and simple. Might as well milk it till it dries up and move on to the next big thing.
As for being a cashcow, have you looked at GamerGate? It was a massive cashcow for many people within the movement. People like Davis Aurini, thunderf00t, Sargon, Mundane Matt, etc... Many GamerGater supporters profited from it.
Now the IQ of a mob, as we all know, is equal to the IQ of its most stupid member, divided by the number of mobsters.
What with internet reaching a hefty number of people, we can get truly immense mobs going on, which are essentially incredibly dumb packs of people. And most of those have money. Of course people are going to try and make a bit of cash from that.
As a male I never called myself a feminist until I started to see the hate female feminists got online from misogynic male mobs. Now, if someone calls me an "SJW" because I stand for equality, openness and inclusinvess, I would wear that epithet with pride.
edit: spelling.
edit2: Heh, ninja'd by @fardragon. I was writing for quite some time before posting so hadn't seen that post. Funny we used the same example.
But I don't mind using other examples to support my claim:
Feminist Frequency's(edit: Founded by Anita Sarkeesian) revenue was $18,000 in 2013, and in 2014 it soared to $400,000 without any sort of advancement in the organizations structure. Perhaps just a coincidence?
And I fully agree that Gamergate is profiting off this as well. Both sides are making a profit. I never said that they were not.
Also, youtube is a VERY viable way to exploit people for revenue.(edit: the original sentence sounded a bit weird heh) Are you aware of how much people on youtube make? Here is a link that someone answered on Quora to give you a slight hint:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-YouTubers-make-when-each-of-their-videos-get-50k-100k-500k-1m-and-1-5m-views
Youtube is a massive cash cow, for both youtube itself and the people who make videos.
Perhaps I should reiterate my original statement: I am not against the LGBT community, however I am against people who exploit them for their own personal reasons. I am fully AGAINST SJW's and Gamergaters as a whole.
You might be thinking of the word "queer."
There is a third one though, and that is that babies are actually born with innate ability to separate 'good' from 'evil' and preferring to both do and support 'good'. As with pretty much everything, it can be debated so I won't even bother linking to a study or report, but it's still quite interresting to read how very, very young children, babies really, do good without any 'nudging' or or incitement.
I understand the above still fails to prove good or evil exist objectively since what those babies did or didn't do was still judged by adults, but I also find it rather meaningless to debate whether helping someone is "good", "neutral" or "evil" since it's in my humble opinion, clearly a good act (if the purpose is not for you own benefit or similar).
...I'll show myself out.