@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.
Some opinions are more valid. Someone who's lived the experience of misogyny is going to know more about it than someone for whom it is primarily academic. The same is true of racism, transphobia, homophobia, classism, ableism, etc. Studying oppression is not the same as being on the receiving end of it.
@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.
So are you saying that you want to be taken to be as much of an expert on sexism as women, on racism as people of color, etc? Or are you simply saying that you are entitled to your own opinion?
I ask because usually when I see this argument, it is the first. And frankly, that just doesn't fly in any realistic sense.
If you want an expert on mathematics, you speak to a mathematician. If you want an expert on science, you speak to a scientist. If you want an expert on history, you speak to a historian. What do these professions have in common? They are practiced by professionals who are trained and educated in their fields. Now if you want an expert on women, do you just pick any female, even over male Gender Studies professors? And if you want an expert on black history, do you just pick any black individual, even over a non-black African Studies professor? Well, if you do, I feel sorry for you. Education on a topic will always trump your identity, because identity doesn't make you an expert. It only give you personal experience, which may be useful, but may also lead to bias like I said before. Any one, from any walk of life, can pretty much become an expert on anything any other human can. No identity makes you inherently more qualified, certainly not over someone with more... actual qualifications.
Now if you want an expert on women, do you just pick any female, even over male Gender Studies professors? And if you want an expert on black history, do you just pick any black individual, even over a non-black African Studies professor?
Nope. But if I want an expert on what being a woman and/or being black is like in society, then I very much am going to trust the experience of them over a male or white counterpart, regardless of what education they might have.
For instance, there was a trans person who started a thread on Mizhena and disagreed with the character's inclusion. I disagree with them on the inclusion of the character, and I might be inclined to argue using historical examples of other minority representation in media and the effects attributed to same. But I would NOT argue with their description of how it made them feel, or that they felt that it made them a target of attack. I am not trans, and I am not them, and I do not have any standing to dispute that, no matter what facts and figures I might have about the related overall topic.
You can become an expert on sexism and racism. But you will never be an expert on how sexism and racism affects you (except in the ways sexism against males is prevalent in society), because it doesn't. Even if your significant other or your best friend was black/trans/Muslim/Jewish/gay/etc., that might give you some insight, but there is a world of difference between that and actually living it.
To use an analogy - you can be incredibly qualified to talk about let's say World War 2, and that knowledge isn't useless. But in terms of what LIVING WW2 was like (indeed, living any war if you're not a veteran yourself), any veteran will have you beat hollow. There are some things where first hand experience trumps any form of education.
Now if you want an expert on women, do you just pick any female, even over male Gender Studies professors? And if you want an expert on black history, do you just pick any black individual, even over a non-black African Studies professor?
Nope. But if I want an expert on what being a woman and/or being black is like in society, then I very much am going to trust the experience of them over a male or white counterpart, regardless of what education they might have.
For instance, there was a trans person who started a thread on Mizhena and disagreed with the character's inclusion. I disagree with them on the inclusion of the character, and I might be inclined to argue using historical examples of other minority representation in media and the effects attributed to same. But I would NOT argue with their description of how it made them feel, or that they felt that it made them a target of attack. I am not trans, and I am not them, and I do not have any standing to dispute that, no matter what facts and figures I might have about the related overall topic.
You can become an expert on sexism and racism. But you will never be an expert on how sexism and racism affects you (except in the ways sexism against males is prevalent in society), because it doesn't. Even if your significant other or your best friend was black/trans/Muslim/Jewish/gay/etc., that might give you some insight, but there is a world of difference between that and actually living it.
To use an analogy - you can be incredibly qualified to talk about let's say World War 2, and that knowledge isn't useless. But in terms of what LIVING WW2 was like (indeed, living any war if you're not a veteran yourself), any veteran will have you beat hollow. There are some things where first hand experience trumps any form of education.
This is really just a general condition of consciousness which has an essentially subjective character (Nagel, What is it Like to be a Bat). So it applies between all types of consciousness, not just between members of different racial classifications (which are social constructs reinforced by political ideologies), but also between the members of those classifications. Good writers, of course, have sufficient resources to overcome such limitations (e.g. Shakespeare and Ingmar Bergman, both men, are acknowledged as superb writers for women, despite the obvious limitations of their own experience).
So I am reading this thread, and I want to say something.
First I am not updating. Mainly because I want to see this "offending" comment and character first before I have an opinion.
I was going to and still am going to mod SOD to include some retorts and make some improvements based on what these forums say and my feelings about it.
For one thing I think the contraversy was created on purpose. While yes the anti SJW faction on the internet is starting to get more radicalized. (When fighting a radicalized group trying to set up a psuedoreligous government through revolution this does happen. In the west we have two radical groups that want to destroy society to rebuild it in thier own image.)
I think the content was added to create contraversy. If it was seriously added then I have to question beamdogs grasp on professional concepts like a game design document. Considering how shallow the dialog is and there are no retorts, no dialog that shows another side. Nothing truly important and easily removed. Contraversy sells games. If no one petitioned Hatred for example it probably would not have gotten the attention it did. The more contraversy a game has the more sales it usually gets. It is a shame this has become enough of a trend, it could be used as a marketing gimmick. Or perceived in such a way.
Some in this topic blames GG. Most of the GG arguments I have seen (I admit I don't use twitter because it is useless platform.) Has been about reasonable things. Like mechanics issues, character export/import to SOD. I am suprised the story mode option didn't get as much flak as I though it was going to. (Story mode gives every char 25 strength.) The actually it's about ethics in adventuring, while it was supposed to be a burn. I find it funny, as the people that say it are usually living jokes on social media, and clueless.
Most of the criticisms I have seen from trans friends (men and women) in groups that talk about this, have valid complaints. A few do not feel that character represents them, but is just a token virtue signaling NPC. I have some ideas to make that character a very well rounded companion, instead of a one liner NPC with little to no depth. Based on these discussions.
Most of the people NOT in the GGR group of people. (Actually getting into internal GG politics would be a derailment. But there is no big consensus within GG that trans equates to bad. Or that having trans people within games are bad. We do have those people, but as long as TERF exists, feminists has no real moral grounds to say we as a whole hate trans people because of a small idiotic group of ignorant people within the community. ) Most GG not on twitter, were more mad that characters like Jahiera was rewritten from someone that reminded us of our mothers. (In my case it was mine and my mother's favorite characters.) To someone that doesn't resemble original character as much as she should.
I dont understand why she was changed or in what way she was naggy. (I don't think she was.)
The Minsc thing, I don't really understand. As a lawful good character he wouldn't take either side. As neither side is fully lawful or good. He would take offense to both sides, and actions done on both sides. Lawful Good characters never think the ends justify the means. That's more chaotic good, it is a comment that fit immoen better.
I don't think beamdog did anything regarding this contraversy they didn't already plan to change anyway. I don't think they folded, I think what they did was appeal to both sides of the argument. I think it was done to drive sales, and not a serious statement. If it was serious then they implemented it poorly with a token depth less character and a one liner that would have been funnier coming from someone else. As well as pretty much rewriting a beloved character to not resemble the reasons why she was loved in the first place.
Not everything should be political, or make a political statement. The personal isn't the same as the political. Yes there has been some political statements in games. The MGS series is pretty much one big political statement. It was making a statement about the then beginning VR training the world's first world countries started. (Bohemia Interactive's Arma series is a civilian version of virtual battlespace training simulators. Which has been proven as good fiction, just not good reality as VR and video games does not prevent PTSD. Like Kojima predicted in MGS 2. ) In a game about a covert ops group, political statements are tolerated.
In a game where modern politics and issues do not apply at all. It is baffling. It is like someone who lived in the time of troubles being an atheist because God's don't exist. Despite them walking around Faerun. Or a Wookiee that lives on Endor. It doesn't make any sense.
If the game had some kind of quest line dealing with an adventurergate faction it would make more sense.
Like having a transcharacter not go I am trans at the outset. Then again the Trans people I know
A.) Don't want vaginas as it causes bigger health problems
B.) Doesn't say hey I am trans. I don't know anyone personally that makes that who they are. The people I know and talk to that actually have this issue and not politically trans. Most don't want to be known as trans, but what they are. Whether it be man or woman.
So that was immersion breaking in itself seeing that a minority of trans people actually identify as such and not the sex thier brains tell them they are. The majority introduce themselves as female or male.
All of this is my individual opinion. Not representative of any group. Not am I speaking for any group. (As I find speaking for people repugnant.) representive of my personal opinion only.
Most GG not on twitter, were more mad that characters like Jahiera was rewritten from someone that reminded us of our mothers. (In my case it was mine and my mother's favorite characters.) To someone that doesn't resemble original character as much as she should.
Bring it on - I can take it! Any single isolated writing element does not define 30+ hours of gameplay for me, and I happen to like SoD very much.
Also, what constitutes good or evil deeds in a game-world are per definition "judgemental" and most certainly heavily influenced by the real world ethics.
Finally, writing that would be entirely divorced from human reality would just be empty and technocratic in my opinion - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" - and I think actually quite impossible. We care about RPG game-worlds and characters because they invokes our human emotions.
Morrowind is probably one of the best gameworlds ever written, at least to me. It's fascination, lasting appeal and richness comes from what is a very highly evolved ingame politics, factional and racial relations and prejudges, religious belief etc.
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!
You would not survive a day as an actual oppressed group tbh
Being made fun of by certain corners of the media for being awful isn't the same as being subjected to constant mockery and dehumanisation because of how you were born(though I don't believe in the absolutism of the "born this way" narrative, it feels the most appropriate thing to put here).
Now if you want an expert on women, do you just pick any female, even over male Gender Studies professors? And if you want an expert on black history, do you just pick any black individual, even over a non-black African Studies professor?
Nope. But if I want an expert on what being a woman and/or being black is like in society, then I very much am going to trust the experience of them over a male or white counterpart, regardless of what education they might have.
For instance, there was a trans person who started a thread on Mizhena and disagreed with the character's inclusion. I disagree with them on the inclusion of the character, and I might be inclined to argue using historical examples of other minority representation in media and the effects attributed to same. But I would NOT argue with their description of how it made them feel, or that they felt that it made them a target of attack. I am not trans, and I am not them, and I do not have any standing to dispute that, no matter what facts and figures I might have about the related overall topic.
You can become an expert on sexism and racism. But you will never be an expert on how sexism and racism affects you (except in the ways sexism against males is prevalent in society), because it doesn't. Even if your significant other or your best friend was black/trans/Muslim/Jewish/gay/etc., that might give you some insight, but there is a world of difference between that and actually living it.
To use an analogy - you can be incredibly qualified to talk about let's say World War 2, and that knowledge isn't useless. But in terms of what LIVING WW2 was like (indeed, living any war if you're not a veteran yourself), any veteran will have you beat hollow. There are some things where first hand experience trumps any form of education.
I've seen MANY self-identified trans individuals speaking out, not against Mizhena's inclusion, but the way she was done. The same complaint I have. But of course, you saw all of these trans people speaking out against her poor writing as well since you looked through sooooo many reviews.
Edit: Just to make another point. Black people know best what it's like to be black, through experience, according to you, and yet according to the black people I've spoken with, white people are by definition oblivious to the experiences of their white privilege. Would not a white person know best about their personal experience? Talk about moving goal posts...
Edit: Just to make another point. Black people know best what it's like to be black, through experience, according to you, and yet according to the black people I've spoken with, white people are by definition oblivious to the experiences of their white privilege. Would not a white person know best about their personal experience? Talk about moving goal posts...
That's the part that never made sense to me in these arguments. If people of one race/gender etc can't have the full experience of what it's like to be another race/gender etc. then why do you consistently see people who seem to know exactly what it's like to be part of whatever group they are complaining about? How do they manage to gain such knowledge while the other group is somehow incapable of doing so in return?
I've seen MANY self-identified trans individuals speaking out, not against Mizhena's inclusion, but the way she was done. The same complaint I have. But of course, you saw all of these trans people speaking out against her poor writing as well since you looked through sooooo many reviews.
Nope, I didn't see "many", and neither did you. I saw "a couple". I did see a couple on this forum who don't have a problem with her, too. What point are you even trying to make here?
Edit: Just to make another point. Black people know best what it's like to be black, through experience, according to you, and yet according to the black people I've spoken with, white people are by definition oblivious to the experiences of their white privilege. Would not a white person know best about their personal experience? Talk about moving goal posts...
Umm, because privilege and prejudice are not the same thing? Do you even understand what privilege is, aside from a buzzword that GG and channers go on about?
That's the part that never made sense to me in these arguments. If people of one race/gender etc can't have the full experience of what it's like to be another race/gender etc. then why do you consistently see people who seem to know exactly what it's like to be part of whatever group they are complaining about? How do they manage to gain such knowledge while the other group is somehow incapable of doing so in return?
Because "Being white, you don't understand what it means to be black in America" |= "Being white, you have an enormous of amount of invisible structural advantages that you most likely don't recognise".
Argue with the latter all you like (despite its self-evident truth), but they are not equivalent statements.
That's the part that never made sense to me in these arguments. If people of one race/gender etc can't have the full experience of what it's like to be another race/gender etc. then why do you consistently see people who seem to know exactly what it's like to be part of whatever group they are complaining about? How do they manage to gain such knowledge while the other group is somehow incapable of doing so in return?
Because "Being white, you don't understand what it means to be black in America" |= "Being white, you have an enormous of amount of invisible structural advantages that you most likely don't recognise".
Argue with the latter all you like (despite its self-evident truth), but they are not equivalent statements.
I don't agree, because if you are very poor and socially disadvantaged then your advantages will be limited, irrespective of what 'race' you belong to. On the other hand there are certain advantages for advancement that are more open to a poor minority race that are not open to 'whites'. Making broad statements based on what (socially constructed) race someone belongs to is not necessarily helpful imo.
I don't agree, because if you are very poor and socially disadvantaged then your advantages will be limited, irrespective of what 'race' you belong to.
Being poor and black and being poor and white are not the same. Being poor and female and poor and male are not the same. It is generally worse, at any level of society, to not be white/cis/male. That does not mean that all white/cis/males are cruising to their mansions in ferraris.
On the other hand there are certain advantages for advancement that are more open to a poor minority race that are not open to 'whites'.
What few advantages are specifically available for minorities/women are there to help counterbalance the vast number of institutional disadvantages for them. Statistics show clearly that those disadvantages still exist at pretty much every level of society, in any field you can name (education, getting a job, pay, getting a home, et cetera).
Making broad statements based on what (socially constructed) race someone belongs to is not necessarily helpful imo.
It is not only helpful, but NECESSARY, because the socially constructed race one belongs to shapes one's experience in the selfsame social order that constructs it.
I wouldn't say personal experience trumps education, to address a disagreement earlier in this thread.
I'm a Millenial. So are many of my friends. But if an 80-year-old conducts 50 interviews with Millenials around the country and reads dozens of articles from various sources about Millenials, that 80-year-old has a far, far superior grasp of what it's like to be a Millenial than I do, simply because I am in no way a representative example of the group.
You could say the 80-year-old has a different background with its own biases given that they grew up 60 years ago in an entirely different world, but the same applies to me. What it's like to be a Millenial is not an experience that either of us has felt... It's broader than the life I have lived.
My personal experience is vivid, but the 80-year-old's education is REPRESENTATIVE. Now, if it's just some random 80-year-old who only knows one Millenial they barely ever speak with, then yeah, they're probably not going to have an accurate idea of what life is like for us. But just because this person doesn't belong to my group doesn't mean I'm more qualified to discuss it than they are. It just means they START a couple feet behind on a 10-mile trail.
I know a lot of old people. And from what I can tell, they're more than smart enough to understand what life is like for Millenials. Same goes for folks talking about people of different colors, different religions, different countries, sexes, orientations, political groups, age groups, and so on.
Just because someone is X doesn't mean they're too ignorant to understand Y. They're smarter than you might think.
Edit: Just to make another point. Black people know best what it's like to be black, through experience, according to you, and yet according to the black people I've spoken with, white people are by definition oblivious to the experiences of their white privilege. Would not a white person know best about their personal experience? Talk about moving goal posts...
That's the part that never made sense to me in these arguments. If people of one race/gender etc can't have the full experience of what it's like to be another race/gender etc. then why do you consistently see people who seem to know exactly what it's like to be part of whatever group they are complaining about? How do they manage to gain such knowledge while the other group is somehow incapable of doing so in return?
To give an example, if my son and I walk into a store, the employees might keep a close eye on him, maybe follow him around. In their minds, a young black man is more likely to be in the store to shoplift. They won't do the same to me, because I'm an old white man and not perceived as a threat. So in my son's case there's a noticeable change in behavior based on his skin color. In my case there nothing for me to notice. As white people in a white dominated world, we don't see the absence of racism in our lives because we have nothing to compare it to. I've never really liked the term "white privilege" because it conjures up visions of Eddy Murphy's "White Like Me" sketch. Racism isn't about "you're white so you get this" it's "you're black, so you don't get this." Being judged by your skin color is an active thing that is very noticeable, not being judged by your skin color is passive and not really noticeable at all.
Edit: Just to make another point. Black people know best what it's like to be black, through experience, according to you, and yet according to the black people I've spoken with, white people are by definition oblivious to the experiences of their white privilege. Would not a white person know best about their personal experience? Talk about moving goal posts...
That's the part that never made sense to me in these arguments. If people of one race/gender etc can't have the full experience of what it's like to be another race/gender etc. then why do you consistently see people who seem to know exactly what it's like to be part of whatever group they are complaining about? How do they manage to gain such knowledge while the other group is somehow incapable of doing so in return?
To give an example, if my son and I walk into a store, the employees might keep a close eye on him, maybe follow him around. In their minds, a young black man is more likely to be in the store to shoplift. They won't do the same to me, because I'm an old white man and not perceived as a threat. So in my son's case there's a noticeable change in behavior based on his skin color. In my case there nothing for me to notice. As white people in a white dominated world, we don't see the absence of racism in our lives because we have nothing to compare it to. I've never really liked the term "white privilege" because it conjures up visions of Eddy Murphy's "White Like Me" sketch. Racism isn't about "you're white so you get this" it's "you're black, so you don't get this." Being judged by your skin color is an active thing that is very noticeable, not being judged by your skin color is passive and not really noticeable at all.
I absolutely agree with you. Everyone will always have some experience that you don't have, and I have said experience certainly has value - even if it can lead to bias and subjectivity. But you have a different experience from your son and yet you are aware of these things you mention, you aren't oblivious to the different treatment and you feel that your opinion on the matter is valid enough to speak up, and I agree. Experience may lend something personal to an argument that education can't, but my main point is that it doesn't necessarily make you an expert, certainly not academically. Your son has the personal experience and can explain how that feels, but you admit that you lack the same experience and yet you can still perceive racism in the world around you. And as a little joke... judgement, for whatever reason, is rarely a one way road and is NEVER exclusive to certain peoples or groups. Yes I have certain experiences and other people have different experiences, but everything is relative. Change your location and it looks like this:
@Roseweave Did....did you really just link a tumblr to prove your point? White, black, yellow, red - these are skin colors, and not even great descriptors of them. American, Canadian, Mexican, Italian, French - these are nationalities African-American, Oriental, Hispanic, and yes, Caucasian are ethnicities.
I can use Wikipedia too, I am well aware that Caucasians come from the Caucasus region. But hey, you obviously think that if I make one correct point but exclude a few others, I'm somehow less correct, so let's see EVERY definition Caucasian that could apply:
"Anything from the Caucasus region Peoples of the Caucasus, humans from the Caucasus region Languages of the Caucasus, languages spoken in the Caucasus region Caucasian race, one of three racial classifications of human beings used in racial typology Dené–Caucasian languages Caucasian is sometimes used to refer to: White people in general White American, specifically in American English Non-Hispanic whites, sometimes in American English"
But wait, I thought Caucasians were white people of European origin, not the Caucasus region!? Well....guess where that region is, the border of Europe and Asia.
The tumblr is a collection of pictures and articles about Caucasian culture, no more, no less. The fact that you have that reaction as soon as you see a tumblr URL is pretty telling.
The point is the distinctions of "Caucasian" and "Aryan" are wrong and appropriate other existing cultural identifiers. Which in turn demonstrates there's no absolute unifying identity of western, white, european peoples.
Here. Now we are in the correct thread. Please post here.
Comments
What do these professions have in common? They are practiced by professionals who are trained and educated in their fields.
Now if you want an expert on women, do you just pick any female, even over male Gender Studies professors? And if you want an expert on black history, do you just pick any black individual, even over a non-black African Studies professor?
Well, if you do, I feel sorry for you. Education on a topic will always trump your identity, because identity doesn't make you an expert. It only give you personal experience, which may be useful, but may also lead to bias like I said before. Any one, from any walk of life, can pretty much become an expert on anything any other human can. No identity makes you inherently more qualified, certainly not over someone with more... actual qualifications.
For instance, there was a trans person who started a thread on Mizhena and disagreed with the character's inclusion. I disagree with them on the inclusion of the character, and I might be inclined to argue using historical examples of other minority representation in media and the effects attributed to same. But I would NOT argue with their description of how it made them feel, or that they felt that it made them a target of attack. I am not trans, and I am not them, and I do not have any standing to dispute that, no matter what facts and figures I might have about the related overall topic.
You can become an expert on sexism and racism. But you will never be an expert on how sexism and racism affects you (except in the ways sexism against males is prevalent in society), because it doesn't. Even if your significant other or your best friend was black/trans/Muslim/Jewish/gay/etc., that might give you some insight, but there is a world of difference between that and actually living it.
To use an analogy - you can be incredibly qualified to talk about let's say World War 2, and that knowledge isn't useless. But in terms of what LIVING WW2 was like (indeed, living any war if you're not a veteran yourself), any veteran will have you beat hollow. There are some things where first hand experience trumps any form of education.
So it applies between all types of consciousness, not just between members of different racial classifications (which are social constructs reinforced by political ideologies), but also between the members of those classifications.
Good writers, of course, have sufficient resources to overcome such limitations (e.g. Shakespeare and Ingmar Bergman, both men, are acknowledged as superb writers for women, despite the obvious limitations of their own experience).
First I am not updating. Mainly because I want to see this "offending" comment and character first before I have an opinion.
I was going to and still am going to mod SOD to include some retorts and make some improvements based on what these forums say and my feelings about it.
For one thing I think the contraversy was created on purpose. While yes the anti SJW faction on the internet is starting to get more radicalized. (When fighting a radicalized group trying to set up a psuedoreligous government through revolution this does happen. In the west we have two radical groups that want to destroy society to rebuild it in thier own image.)
I think the content was added to create contraversy. If it was seriously added then I have to question beamdogs grasp on professional concepts like a game design document. Considering how shallow the dialog is and there are no retorts, no dialog that shows another side. Nothing truly important and easily removed. Contraversy sells games. If no one petitioned Hatred for example it probably would not have gotten the attention it did. The more contraversy a game has the more sales it usually gets. It is a shame this has become enough of a trend, it could be used as a marketing gimmick. Or perceived in such a way.
Some in this topic blames GG. Most of the GG arguments I have seen (I admit I don't use twitter because it is useless platform.) Has been about reasonable things. Like mechanics issues, character export/import to SOD. I am suprised the story mode option didn't get as much flak as I though it was going to. (Story mode gives every char 25 strength.) The actually it's about ethics in adventuring, while it was supposed to be a burn. I find it funny, as the people that say it are usually living jokes on social media, and clueless.
Most of the criticisms I have seen from trans friends (men and women) in groups that talk about this, have valid complaints. A few do not feel that character represents them, but is just a token virtue signaling NPC. I have some ideas to make that character a very well rounded companion, instead of a one liner NPC with little to no depth. Based on these discussions.
Most of the people NOT in the GGR group of people. (Actually getting into internal GG politics would be a derailment. But there is no big consensus within GG that trans equates to bad. Or that having trans people within games are bad. We do have those people, but as long as TERF exists, feminists has no real moral grounds to say we as a whole hate trans people because of a small idiotic group of ignorant people within the community. ) Most GG not on twitter, were more mad that characters like Jahiera was rewritten from someone that reminded us of our mothers. (In my case it was mine and my mother's favorite characters.) To someone that doesn't resemble original character as much as she should.
I dont understand why she was changed or in what way she was naggy. (I don't think she was.)
The Minsc thing, I don't really understand. As a lawful good character he wouldn't take either side. As neither side is fully lawful or good. He would take offense to both sides, and actions done on both sides. Lawful Good characters never think the ends justify the means. That's more chaotic good, it is a comment that fit immoen better.
I don't think beamdog did anything regarding this contraversy they didn't already plan to change anyway. I don't think they folded, I think what they did was appeal to both sides of the argument. I think it was done to drive sales, and not a serious statement. If it was serious then they implemented it poorly with a token depth less character and a one liner that would have been funnier coming from someone else. As well as pretty much rewriting a beloved character to not resemble the reasons why she was loved in the first place.
Not everything should be political, or make a political statement. The personal isn't the same as the political. Yes there has been some political statements in games. The MGS series is pretty much one big political statement. It was making a statement about the then beginning VR training the world's first world countries started. (Bohemia Interactive's Arma series is a civilian version of virtual battlespace training simulators. Which has been proven as good fiction, just not good reality as VR and video games does not prevent PTSD. Like Kojima predicted in MGS 2. ) In a game about a covert ops group, political statements are tolerated.
In a game where modern politics and issues do not apply at all. It is baffling. It is like someone who lived in the time of troubles being an atheist because God's don't exist. Despite them walking around Faerun. Or a Wookiee that lives on Endor. It doesn't make any sense.
If the game had some kind of quest line dealing with an adventurergate faction it would make more sense.
Like having a transcharacter not go I am trans at the outset. Then again the Trans people I know
A.) Don't want vaginas as it causes bigger health problems
B.) Doesn't say hey I am trans. I don't know anyone personally that makes that who they are. The people I know and talk to that actually have this issue and not politically trans. Most don't want to be known as trans, but what they are. Whether it be man or woman.
So that was immersion breaking in itself seeing that a minority of trans people actually identify as such and not the sex thier brains tell them they are. The majority introduce themselves as female or male.
All of this is my individual opinion. Not representative of any group. Not am I speaking for any group. (As I find speaking for people repugnant.) representive of my personal opinion only.
Also, what constitutes good or evil deeds in a game-world are per definition "judgemental" and most certainly heavily influenced by the real world ethics.
Finally, writing that would be entirely divorced from human reality would just be empty and technocratic in my opinion - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" - and I think actually quite impossible. We care about RPG game-worlds and characters because they invokes our human emotions.
Morrowind is probably one of the best gameworlds ever written, at least to me. It's fascination, lasting appeal and richness comes from what is a very highly evolved ingame politics, factional and racial relations and prejudges, religious belief etc.
Being made fun of by certain corners of the media for being awful isn't the same as being subjected to constant mockery and dehumanisation because of how you were born(though I don't believe in the absolutism of the "born this way" narrative, it feels the most appropriate thing to put here).
But of course, you saw all of these trans people speaking out against her poor writing as well since you looked through sooooo many reviews.
Edit: Just to make another point. Black people know best what it's like to be black, through experience, according to you, and yet according to the black people I've spoken with, white people are by definition oblivious to the experiences of their white privilege. Would not a white person know best about their personal experience? Talk about moving goal posts...
Argue with the latter all you like (despite its self-evident truth), but they are not equivalent statements.
On the other hand there are certain advantages for advancement that are more open to a poor minority race that are not open to 'whites'.
Making broad statements based on what (socially constructed) race someone belongs to is not necessarily helpful imo.
I'm a Millenial. So are many of my friends. But if an 80-year-old conducts 50 interviews with Millenials around the country and reads dozens of articles from various sources about Millenials, that 80-year-old has a far, far superior grasp of what it's like to be a Millenial than I do, simply because I am in no way a representative example of the group.
You could say the 80-year-old has a different background with its own biases given that they grew up 60 years ago in an entirely different world, but the same applies to me. What it's like to be a Millenial is not an experience that either of us has felt... It's broader than the life I have lived.
My personal experience is vivid, but the 80-year-old's education is REPRESENTATIVE. Now, if it's just some random 80-year-old who only knows one Millenial they barely ever speak with, then yeah, they're probably not going to have an accurate idea of what life is like for us. But just because this person doesn't belong to my group doesn't mean I'm more qualified to discuss it than they are. It just means they START a couple feet behind on a 10-mile trail.
I know a lot of old people. And from what I can tell, they're more than smart enough to understand what life is like for Millenials. Same goes for folks talking about people of different colors, different religions, different countries, sexes, orientations, political groups, age groups, and so on.
Just because someone is X doesn't mean they're too ignorant to understand Y. They're smarter than you might think.
And as a little joke... judgement, for whatever reason, is rarely a one way road and is NEVER exclusive to certain peoples or groups. Yes I have certain experiences and other people have different experiences, but everything is relative. Change your location and it looks like this: