BG and Politics (split from the SoD statement thread)

JuliusBorisov

This discussion was created from comments split from: Beamdog's Official Statement (4-6-2016).

Baeloth_Jnr

Ayiekie said:

Baeloth_Jnr said:

"I don't like writing about straight/white/cis people all the time. It's not reflective of the real world, it sets up s/w/c as the "normal" baseline from which "other" characters must be added, and it's boring."

This says
"I don't like writing about straight/white/cis people all the time."
because
(1) It's not reflective of the real world;
(2) it's boring.

Yes, that is correct. Which is not at all the sockpuppet troll said it was.

(Also, writing settings that are entirely straight/white/cis people is, in fact, objectively not reflective of the real world, and subjectively boring.)

Not a statement I can agree with, however, the depth psychology of Beckett or Shakespeare (which is in fact a universal theme, although SJW seem to prefer to define people by what divides rather than what unites) is never boring imo.

Amah

*sigh* it was all fun and games until politics showed up...

Ayiekie

Baeloth_Jnr said:

Not a statement I can agree with, however, the depth psychology of Beckett or Shakespeare (which is in fact a universal theme, although SJW seem to prefer to define people by what divides rather than what unites) is never boring imo.

Riiiiiight, because there were no Jews or African Muslims in any of Shakespeare's plays.

Also because it is totally reasonable to hold 17th century writers to the same standards as modern writers.

Also, gotta live the irony (crisis) of your sneering that the group you place people who disagree with you into are the ones who prefer to define people "by what divides rather than what unites".

Diogenes42

Once again friends, everything is political. When you get positive reputation for freeing slaves in Baldur's Gate 2 you are seeing the politics of the writers in saying that slavery is not an agreeable system and that disrupting that system by any means necessary is morally correct. You just don't think of it as politics because the idea that slavery is inherently wrong is a part of our current political system and hopefully a deeply held belief of your own self.

Camus34

Just wanna say that Samuel Beckett was not a 17th century writer. Also, I prefer Joyce.

Baeloth_Jnr

Ayiekie said:

Baeloth_Jnr said:

Not a statement I can agree with, however, the depth psychology of Beckett or Shakespeare (which is in fact a universal theme, although SJW seem to prefer to define people by what divides rather than what unites) is never boring imo.

Riiiiiight, because there were no Jews or African Muslims in any of Shakespeare's plays.

Also because it is totally reasonable to hold 17th century writers to the same standards as modern writers.

Also, gotta live the irony (crisis) of your sneering that the group you place people who disagree with you into are the ones who prefer to define people "by what divides rather than what unites".

Shakespeare always tells both sides of the story, good or bad.
He does not insert himself into the text with a massive pointer saying 'this is bad' or make overt political statements.
He clearly thought his audience was intelligent enough to make their own inferences without a neon sign pointing them the path to goodness.
And the psychological depth he gives to any Jews or African Muslims is the same depth he gives to any other character of a similar standing.
Their racial identity is one part of the depth psychology, not definitive. They do not adopt the stance of victimhood (edit: so, for instance, Shylock's appeal for justice is grounded in his common humanity, not his standing as a persecuted minority).

As now: "It has become legitimate to state political claims only as members of ethnic/racial minorities or majorities, not in terms of class locations. As long as this situation is not challenged, these labels will continue to shape our perceptions, strengthening the racial/ethnic divisions among people and, therefore, strengthening racism itself."
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/heresies.html

BGLover

@Baeloth_Jnr

I disagree about Shakespeare not making overt political statements. Richard III was one long political statement.

And as for painting neon signs, just in case we are in any doubt who the villain of the play is, we have Richard III declaring that he is determined to prove a villain, and he later goes on to murder two inncocent children.

Baeloth_Jnr

BGLover said:

@Baeloth_Jnr

I disagree about Shakespeare not making overt political statements. Richard III was one long political statement.

And as for painting neon signs, just in case we are in any doubt who the villain of the play is, we have Richard III declaring that he is determined to prove a villain, and he later goes on to murder two innocent children.

That is a character using an interior monologue, not an author inserting himself in the text.
And even though Richard commits sundry evil acts he is /still/ presented as a sympathetic character.
So, in other words, its not a political statement in the sense of Shakespeare telling us 'this is bad', it is the history of Richard III, told through dramatic performance.

And the political message of this play, which can be inferred from the action, is just that self-serving rulers and political anarchy are bad.

BGLover

@Baeloth_Jnr

I suppose it comes down to your definition of what a political statement is.

By the end of the play we are left in absolutely no doubt about who and what Richard III is. The play is precisely an overt political statement, because right at the start of it we are being told that Richard admits he wants to usurp the crown. He wants to upset the natural order. He is determined to be a villain. He is plotting the murder of his brother. He actually murders his nephews. (Did he really say these things? Did he really declare he was determined to be a villain. Did he really plot to murder his brother? Did he really murder those two children? None of that is important. What is important is that the play says he did)

And the audience for this play? The Tudor regime, desperate to secure its own legitimacy, having usurped the throne themselves. So the man they seize the crown from is himself portrayed as a murdering usurper who had no right to Kingship, and they are the dynastic unifiers, and the rightful people to sit on the throne.

The political message of this play is more nuanced than just an attack on self serving rulers and poltical anarchy. It is propaganda designed to legitimise the Tudor claim to the crown by de-legitimising the person they took the crown from.

Baeloth_Jnr

mzachary said:

Baeloth_Jnr said:

Shakespeare always tells both sides of the story, good or bad.
He does not insert himself into the text with a massive pointer saying 'this is bad' or make overt political statements.
He clearly thought his audience was intelligent enough to make their own inferences without a neon sign pointing them the path to goodness.

That is interesting because the 'massive pointer', 'political statement' and 'neon sign' in this case was basically the following:

Charname: What an unusual name
Mizhena: That is because I am trans and I chose it myself

In other words the thing that people complain about as 'preachy' is simply a character not having a problem stating why she is as she is and being there. And you see that is why there are people like me who find it rather disingenuous that people are complaining that they have 'nothing against transpeople' while they argue about 'tokenism' and things being shoved 'down their throat' or 'neon signs'.

Because what they are arguing is that they have a problem with a transcharacter just being there and the setting having no problem about that... and that being wrong somehow...

Baeloth_Jnr said:

As now: "It has become legitimate to state political claims only as members of ethnic/racial minorities or majorities, not in terms of class locations. As long as this situation is not challenged, these labels will continue to shape our perceptions, strengthening the racial/ethnic divisions among people and, therefore, strengthening racism itself."
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/heresies.html

That sounds more like an excuse along the lines of: "Well I can't help being racist, cause them blacks insist on being black!"

Racism isn't caused by ones own claim of identity, racism is caused by not accepting that other people can be different and there not being anything wrong with that.

Actually I find the inclusion of an (admittedly token) trans character the least of the SJW issues.
The main issue to me is the blatant rewrite of existing characters to suit a political agenda.
As for final your comment, I suggest it would have been useful for you, before commenting, to read the link I provided, which includes the following:

"I became interested in these issues when I found out, some years ago, that I was included among the "minority faculty" in the university where I work. As I am a foreigner (I was born and grew up in Argentina and came to this country as an adult), I thought, naively, that the affirmative action office might have made a mistake. They informed me, orally as well as in writing, that I was a "Hispanic" and, therefore, they had the right to count me as a "minority." This was indeed a surreal and upsetting experience first because of the racism entailed in the denial of my identity and the imposition of a spurious "hispanicity" loaded with negative connotations, and also because of the administrative uses to which I was subject by becoming part of the statistics used to show compliance with the law. It was also absurd and even funny in a weird sort of way because, for anyone like myself, aware of the heterogeneity of the populations thrown together under the label, the idea is nonsensical, to say the least."
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/heresies.html

mzachary

Baeloth_Jnr said:

mzachary said:

Baeloth_Jnr said:

Shakespeare always tells both sides of the story, good or bad.
He does not insert himself into the text with a massive pointer saying 'this is bad' or make overt political statements.
He clearly thought his audience was intelligent enough to make their own inferences without a neon sign pointing them the path to goodness.

That is interesting because the 'massive pointer', 'political statement' and 'neon sign' in this case was basically the following:

Charname: What an unusual name
Mizhena: That is because I am trans and I chose it myself

In other words the thing that people complain about as 'preachy' is simply a character not having a problem stating why she is as she is and being there. And you see that is why there are people like me who find it rather disingenuous that people are complaining that they have 'nothing against transpeople' while they argue about 'tokenism' and things being shoved 'down their throat' or 'neon signs'.

Because what they are arguing is that they have a problem with a transcharacter just being there and the setting having no problem about that... and that being wrong somehow...

Baeloth_Jnr said:

As now: "It has become legitimate to state political claims only as members of ethnic/racial minorities or majorities, not in terms of class locations. As long as this situation is not challenged, these labels will continue to shape our perceptions, strengthening the racial/ethnic divisions among people and, therefore, strengthening racism itself."
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/heresies.html

That sounds more like an excuse along the lines of: "Well I can't help being racist, cause them blacks insist on being black!"

Racism isn't caused by ones own claim of identity, racism is caused by not accepting that other people can be different and there not being anything wrong with that.

Actually I find the trans character the least of the problems.
The main issue to me is the blatant rewrite of existing characters to suit a political agenda.

Did they? It seems they simply added more depth to a character, whose 'character' before consisted of 'saying things constantly in a flirty sultry way'.

Baeloth_Jnr said:

As for final your comment, I suggest it would have been useful for you, before commenting, to read the link I provided, which includes the following:

"I became interested in these issues when I found out, some years ago, that I was included among the "minority faculty" in the university where I work. As I am a foreigner (I was born and grew up in Argentina and came to this country as an adult), I thought, naively, that the affirmative action office might have made a mistake. They informed me, orally as well as in writing, that I was a "Hispanic" and, therefore, they had the right to count me as a "minority." This was indeed a surreal and upsetting experience first because of the racism entailed in the denial of my identity and the imposition of a spurious "hispanicity" loaded with negative connotations, and also because of the administrative uses to which I was subject by becoming part of the statistics used to show compliance with the law. It was also absurd and even funny in a weird sort of way because, for anyone like myself, aware of the heterogeneity of the populations thrown together under the label, the idea is nonsensical, to say the least."
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/heresies.html

That is more a confirmation of what I am stating, not a rebuttal. That woman clearly finds her own racial identity important and has a problem with others not accepting that she is different from their norm and so it does nothing to dispell the fact that racism stems from people not accepting that other people are different and there being no problem with that. And not from people not being unapologetic about their racial identity.

Baeloth_Jnr

@mzachary "so it does nothing to dispell the fact that racism stems from people not accepting that other people are different and there being no problem with that. "

I see, so if in a certain country it is "blasphemous" to make child marriage illegal it is racist "not accepting that other people are different and there being no problem with that. "? (hint: there is a country in which a legislature attempted to pass just such a law and it was rebuffed for the reason stated)

As for your alleged 'confirmation' she is arguing against identity politics, not for racism. Her point being that identity politics (one of the SJW stock in trades) ingrains racism; it does not ameliorate it.
Note the people she had a problem were practicing identity politics and thought they were doing her a favor by casting her as a member of a minority they thought victimized.

redking

Here is what happened - Beamdog went out of its way to offend certain categories of people, easy targets that are also attacked in the media, schools and universities, by the government, and so on. Beamdog is piling on and expects gratitude from the customers that it has abused. Not going to happen.

TRUMP 2016!

mzachary

Baeloth_Jnr said:

@mzachary "so it does nothing to dispell the fact that racism stems from people not accepting that other people are different and there being no problem with that. "

I see, so if in a certain country it is "blasphemous" to make child marriage illegal it is racist "not accepting that other people are different and there being no problem with that. "? (hint: there is a country in which a legislature attempted to pass just such a law and it was rebuffed for the reason stated)

It seems you are confused, child marriage is not a racial feature. It is not even a integral feature of one's psyche like pedophilia itself would be. Child marriage is a twisted legal action and a choice that you force upon another that cannot reasonably give consent. That why it is wrong.

Your example is as if it would be racist to americans to have gun control laws.

Baeloth_Jnr said:

As for your alleged 'confirmation' she is arguing against identity politics, not for racism. Her point being that identity politics (one of the SJW stock in trades) ingrains racism; it does not ameliorate it.

And as I said that is more like an excuse for racism to be another person's fault instead of the racist's own (e.g. its not my fault im being racist, its them blacks fault for being unapologetically black!)

Don't you agree that it is an individual's own responsibility not to be racist?

Baeloth_Jnr said:

Note the people she had a problem were practicing identity politics and thought they were doing her a favor by casting her as a member of a minority they thought victimized.

No need for you to misrepresent what she stated, she stated that the university did so in her case, so that they were in compliance of the law. That is not because they wanted to do any 'favor' to her as 'a minority they thought victimized.'

That last part is just your own application

Silverstar

redking said:

Here is what happened - Beamdog went out of its way to offend certain categories of people, easy targets that are also attacked in the media, schools and universities, by the government, and so on. Beamdog is piling on and expects gratitude from the customers that it has abused.

Maybe my grasp of English is failing me here, but how exactly are they "piling on"? They're removing the insult. Adding it in the first place is obviously something they shouldn't have, but taking it away somehow adds to it? What?

Roseweave

People who aren't actually in social justice circles and that haven't read up on intersectionality shouldn't use the term "identity politics". You're not using it correctly, at all. The way anti-SJWs/the right use identity politics is to try and completely obfuscate essentially all real forms of discrimination and victim blame people who talk about their own oppression. There's nothing with talking about the fact that I'm trans or someone is hispanic. Those are markers that cause people to be treated a certain way, and we don't choose that. So it's important to claim these identities for our own and take back control of who we are.

mzachary

redking said:

Here is what happened - Beamdog went out of its way to offend certain categories of people, easy targets that are also attacked in the media, schools and universities, by the government, and so on.

This somehow reminds me of the SNL sketch where they have Tina Fey as Palin stating that: "The government is after our children! for no other reason than that they have committed some crime"

I do not know what your issue is, but as a white male I notice very little of being attacked 'in the media, schools and universities, by the government, and so on' but that is probably because I do not take part in massive mobs to shout down some mild feminist critics...

redking said:

Beamdog is piling on and expects gratitude from the customers that it has abused. Not going to happen.

TRUMP 2016!

'Abused' no less, my my

Abdel_Adrian

@Roseweave I think you're sort of right, in a way. Identity politics can be used to discriminate and oppress anyone, including those who aren't in social justice circles, just as it could be used to challenge discrimination and oppression. They divide as easily as they unite.
Claiming an identity is perfectly fine, healthy even. Saying you have no right to have an opinion on [insert politic here] because you are [insert identity here] is simply ignorant. I'm not implying that you were in favor of those kind of sentiments, but I know that's the kind of identity politics I'm sick of.

mzachary

Abdel_Adrian said:

Saying you have no right to have an opinion on [insert politic here] because you are [insert identity here] is simply ignorant. I'm not implying that you were in favor of those kind of sentiments, but I know that's the kind of identity politics I'm sick of.

Oh you have a right to an opinion, however the simple fact remains that as a white person I have no firsthand experience how institutionally racist society still can be to for example a black woman banker who gets arrested and institutionalized for the crime of driving a BMW. So on such a matter a white person's opinion that argues against such structural racism being there, would indeed reasonably 'count less' simply because he has a higher chance to lack such experiences himself and with the indications to the contrary simply being there.

Dantos4

Roseweave said:

Dantos4 said:

Roseweave said:

One of the issues I have with the "Different take" on the characters is that it's mostly from what I can tell men, telling a woman that the female characters were fine, and "strong" and "sex positive" and that really irks me. You're allowed to have preferences but you need to stop holding up stuff that was written in a video game before some forum members here were probably even born as sacred and beyond criticism.

No offence, but people can do what they like. You're allowed to have preferences. End of. Nobody "needs" to stop telling anybody to do anything.

Being a specific gender does not qualify or disqualify anybody from having a legitimate opinion of a video game character.

Nobody said anything was beyond criticism - I said Amber's interpretations of Jaheira specifically were very, very different to my own. I consider her interpretation incorrect and wrong. I have every right to refuse to buy the game on the grounds that I dislike the changes. I don't "need" to stop anything and find the suggestion rather offensive.

Thank you very much.

Edit: In fact, why does this even "irk" you? Why does men having an opinion on a female character being strong "irk" you?

When that opinion revolves entirely around how their trans-ness is presented, then no, your opinion is not as equally valid. This is not an area of expertise for you and looking at your other posts you have a clear agenda against the idea of representation.

The problem is you're so used to being babbied on this and being treated as if you have something valid and intelligent to say. It messes with your self image when someone tells you "actually no".

Let's attack a straw man then, eh?

Apparently my entire opinion revolves around how trans-ness is represented WHEN I HAVE CLEARLY WROTE MANY TIMES I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT TRANS-NESS.

I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT CHANGING CHARACTERS SUCH AS JAHEIRA.

Dear. God. Such victimhood.

Abdel_Adrian

@Dantos4 I'd watch your language, buddy; they bring down the Ban Hammer swift and true. But I couldn't agree with you more and even made a similar point to the same individual. Everyone has opinions, everyone is entitled to them. When one says an opinion is more valid due to the color/race/sex/gender/orientation/nationality/religion etc. etc. of the opinion-holder and not something actually valid, like education on the subject, is plain ignorant.

Dantos4

Roseweave said:

Dantos4 said:

ITT:

SJWs:
"I support Beamdog and transsexual people. There's nothing wrong with transsexuality."

99% of people:
"Buggy game. Poorly written. v2.0 isn't ideal. No problems with transsexuality"

SJWs:
"I support Beamdog and transsexual people. There's nothing wrong with transsexuality."

Why even bother.

/thread

Literally 13% of people in the poll wanted the character completely removed so how can you say 99% of people?

Also given the pattern of reviews it's obvious that the review bombs were coordinated and don't represent a true consensus. Can't believe we're even having this argument.

You can walk away from this with zero consequence to your life. Being trans, it's not so easy, since I need ot know the latest thing that people are going to use to hit me over the head with.

"No problems with transsexuality" is a lie too so please get lost with that. Just because you say you don't have a problem with something doesn't mean your views aren't completely awful.

Just because people want something removed doesn't mean they're transphobic. Dear Lord. More victimhood.

Ever think maybe they thought the writing was utter shit and the way the character was presented was absolutely rubbish? No?

Of course not. Everything you read, you read through a lens of transphobia because you have a massive chip on your shoulder over it.

Want to know a secret?

I don't care what your gender is. I don't care what your sexuality is. I don't care if they include a character who's a furry, bestiality-loving, incestuous, pansexual, polyamorous hermaphrodite. The vast majority of people in the world just don't care.

Let's stop pretending that the majority of people are on some form of transgender witch-hunt like every article on the internet regarding BG is saying. Most of us don't give a fuck.

I care when they change existing characters who I have grown to love. I care when people who leave negative reviews for a buggy release are being called "small minded" I care when a mod starts causing drama by inviting Jezebel to start a war with 4chan over Twitter, regarding the game.

The vast majority of people couldn't give two hoots as to whether a character is black, gay, straight, white, pink, blue, elvish, orcish, drow, asexual or whatever.

If I don't like Dorn (which I don't, I thought he was a terrible addition to BG:EE) & want him removed from the game, it doesn't make me racist against orcs. It means I dislike Dorn.

In the same way that if these 13% of people want Mizhena removed, it doesn't automatically mean they're transphobic.

And please, if we're going to start throwing around ad hominems about people being babied; you've got a low of growing up to do if you think anybody in the big, wide world out there actually cares about your gender, sex, opinion, love life, job, wealth or any other detail.

The world just doesn't care. Please take the chip off your shoulder and the transphobia-goggles off.

jjstraka34

The length of this thread is a fantastic example of why you don't give in to a fringe internet horde over trivial nonsense. Because they'll be able to continue finding trivial nonsense to complain about in perpetuity.

Dantos4 said:

Roseweave said:

Dantos4 said:

ITT:

SJWs:
"I support Beamdog and transsexual people. There's nothing wrong with transsexuality."

99% of people:
"Buggy game. Poorly written. v2.0 isn't ideal. No problems with transsexuality"

SJWs:
"I support Beamdog and transsexual people. There's nothing wrong with transsexuality."

Why even bother.

/thread

Literally 13% of people in the poll wanted the character completely removed so how can you say 99% of people?

Also given the pattern of reviews it's obvious that the review bombs were coordinated and don't represent a true consensus. Can't believe we're even having this argument.

You can walk away from this with zero consequence to your life. Being trans, it's not so easy, since I need ot know the latest thing that people are going to use to hit me over the head with.

"No problems with transsexuality" is a lie too so please get lost with that. Just because you say you don't have a problem with something doesn't mean your views aren't completely awful.

Just because people want something removed doesn't mean they're transphobic. Dear Lord. More victimhood.

Ever think maybe they thought the writing was utter shit and the way the character was presented was absolutely rubbish? No?

Of course not. Everything you read, you read through a lens of transphobia because you have a massive chip on your shoulder over it.

Want to know a secret?

I don't care what your gender is. I don't care what your sexuality is. I don't care if they include a character who's a furry, bestiality-loving, incestuous, pansexual, polyamorous hermaphrodite. The vast majority of people in the world just don't care.

Let's stop pretending that the majority of people are on some form of transgender witch-hunt like every article on the internet regarding BG is saying. Most of us don't give a fuck.

I care when they change existing characters who I have grown to love. I care when people who leave negative reviews for a buggy release are being called "small minded" I care when a mod starts causing drama by inviting Jezebel to start a war with 4chan over Twitter, regarding the game.

The vast majority of people couldn't give two hoots as to whether a character is black, gay, straight, white, pink, blue, elvish, orcish, drow, asexual or whatever.

If I don't like Dorn (which I don't, I thought he was a terrible addition to BG:EE) & want him removed from the game, it doesn't make me racist against orcs. It means I dislike Dorn.

In the same way that if these 13% of people want Mizhena removed, it doesn't automatically mean they're transphobic.

And please, if we're going to start throwing around ad hominems about people being babied; you've got a low of growing up to do if you think anybody in the big, wide world out there actually cares about your gender, sex, opinion, love life, job, wealth or any other detail.

The world just doesn't care. Please take the chip off your shoulder and the transphobia-goggles off.

Lecturing people with real-life issues about victimhood while you continue to whine and cry about video game characters from your childhood being ruined wins the prize for most absurd comment of the day....

BGLover

Abdel_Adrian said:

Saying you have no right to have an opinion on [insert politic here] because you are [insert identity here] is simply ignorant.

I completely agree.

How can you stop anyone have opinions?

I suppose things get a little more complicated if we ask whether someone's opinion is acceptable, worthwhile, valuable, etc to us.

I think we all have different criteria for measuring the validity and value of opinions voiced by other people. And some people might contend that first hand knowledge and experience of the subject at the root of said opinion is an important element in that measuring process.

Take Baldurs Gate. Would I give much credence to someone voicing their opinion on how good the game is, if they have never played it? No I would not. Would I take much time to carefully consider their opinion if they declared BG was the worst game ever made, and gave it a score of 0 out of 10. No I would not. Would I pay attention to their opinion of the game if they littered their critique with abusive and insulting language. No I wouldn't. But that doesn't stop the person having that opinion. It just means I don't value it as much as I might value the opinion of someone who has loved the game for almost two decades.

But as importantly, just because I value the opinion of the BG Lover, it doesn't mean I am closed to other people's opinions of the game going forward.

Dantos4

Abdel_Adrian said:

@Dantos4 I'd watch your language, buddy; they bring down the Ban Hammer swift and true. But I couldn't agree with you more and even made a similar point to the same individual. Everyone has opinions, everyone is entitled to them. When one says an opinion is more valid due to the color/race/sex/gender/orientation/nationality/religion etc. etc. of the opinion-holder and not something actually valid, like education on the subject, is plain ignorant.

Thanks mate! Appreciate it. It's so bloody frustrating. Totally agree.

People are entitled to opinions, but not to enforce their opinions on others (E.g. that some of us "need" to stop talking about women / mansplaining).

I think it's probably time to quit Beamdog all together for me.

I tried to play BG:EE earlier but the 2.0 patch has screwed everything up for me. Characters look terrible, the game crashes intermittently...

And then we have this massive victim complex from both the staff and some fans. I'm sure has been a minority of people who have been abusive - which is fair enough to address that.

But I see absolutely nobody addressing all the other issues. And anybody who complains about things such as Jaheira being changed (so much so that her voice actress is mysteriously absent...) gets accused of being transphobic.

We're wrestling with pigs in the mud here mate. The pigs like it.

Abdel_Adrian

mzachary said:

Abdel_Adrian said:

Saying you have no right to have an opinion on [insert politic here] because you are [insert identity here] is simply ignorant. I'm not implying that you were in favor of those kind of sentiments, but I know that's the kind of identity politics I'm sick of.

Oh you have a right to an opinion, however the simple fact remains that as a white person I have no firsthand experience how institutionally racist society still can be to for example a black woman banker who gets arrested and institutionalized for the crime of driving a BMW. So on such a matter a white person's opinion that argues against such structural racism being there, would indeed reasonably 'count less' simply because he has a higher chance to lack such experiences himself and with the indications to the contrary simply being there.

Funny thing is, I actually do have quite a bit of education on institutional racism and have even written on the matter, taking the stance that it does exist. Experience is important, sure, but that also leads to bias and subjectivity. What makes a good opinion is that it is based on facts. I do not need to be black to know institutional racism exists because I am intelligent, educated, and understand the statistics of the matter. An opinion that it doesn't exist, coming from a white or black person, would sound equally silly to me. For either of them to say I can't know what I'm talking about because of my skin color is wrong.

BGLover

Dantos4 said:

But I see absolutely nobody addressing all the other issues. And anybody who complains about things such as Jaheira being changed (so much so that her voice actress is mysteriously absent...) gets accused of being transphobic.

We're wrestling with pigs in the mud here mate. The pigs like it.

There is a thread about why Jaheira is silent, and it isn't a mystery and doesn't have anything to do with Jaheira being 'changed'.

And calling people pigs? Even if you are demonstrating a knowledge of the great Irishman, insults are surely never a way of convincing people of the merit of your opinion. It's just insulting.

Abdel_Adrian

BGLover said:

Abdel_Adrian said:

But I see absolutely nobody addressing all the other issues. And anybody who complains about things such as Jaheira being changed (so much so that her voice actress is mysteriously absent...) gets accused of being transphobic.

We're wrestling with pigs in the mud here mate. The pigs like it.

There is a thread about why Jaheira is silent, and it isn't a mystery and doesn't have anything to do with Jaheira being 'changed'.

And calling people pigs? Even if you are demonstrating a knowledge of the great Irishman, insults are surely never a way of convincing people of the merit of your opinion. It's just insulting.

You quoted someone else and attributed it to me, please fix.

Edit: Fixed, thank you.

BGLover

@Abdel_Adrian

Sorry about that, not sure what happened with the quote thingy! Think I have corrected it now.

BelleSorciere

Edit: answered in a later post.