There is no social justice warfare or political content in this game. There is a jab at a repulsive online movement (which they eliminated because of intimidation) a trans npc (shock!! there are trans people in the real world as well) and some people are pissed that Safana and Jaheira don't jive with their 2 decade old personal fantasies about the characters.
Whenever I hear the words "social justice warfare", either for or against, I assume the speaker is an annoying hipster dilettante who will soon go away and annoy somebody else.
I'd say it is political inasmuch as every artistic production is political : it is the product of an individual (or a group thereof) who fits inside a certain political system and have their own political beliefs. If anything, consciously refraining from including political content into a work of art is political in itself, because that choice itself will be driven by political beliefs. So my opinion is I guess that there are politics in everything manmade and that if we worry about it too much we just end up writing sentences that are something like made at 30% of the word political alone.
It has to feel natural. If it is forced, it can direct attention away from the game and onto political matters that have nothing to do with it (as we have seen).
If you want LGBT characters, find a way of implementing them that is accurate to real life. For example, you could have a male character complimenting another male, then we don't even need to wonder about their sexuality.
Being gay isn't necessarily an interesting part of someone, just like being straight isn't. I don't know why it needs to be a focus. Who cares what gender a fictional character is attracted to? Is it going to feature in a romance as part of the narrative? If not, it doesn't matter at all, because no one is even thinking about it.
@jjstraka34 That's your opinion. Don't dress it up as fact. There are better counter-arguments against that line of thinking, so if you're going to be militant when it comes to your views, you better have an intelligent rebuttal at the ready. SJWs don't fair well in substantive debates.
For example, you could have a male character complimenting another male, then we don't even need to wonder about their sexuality.
This is such a good point. If a man compliments a man, then they're both gay. Too few people know about this rule, and it's really helpful in removing all doubt about someone's sexuality.
Edit: I had to fix a typo, because otherwise this comment might seem dumb.
@joluv I'm detecting sarcasm, and a complete misrepresentation of the point I was making.
There is a big difference between saying "Nice jacket" and "You're hot. Let's get it on!"
If you're still wondering about someone's sexuality after the latter, you must be extremely ignorant. I think if you even have a moderate level of judgement, you're able to work out what is or isn't an attempt at flirting.
@joluv I'm detecting sarcasm, and a complete misrepresentation of the point I was making.
There is a big difference between saying "Nice jacket" and "You're hot. Let's get it on!"
If you're still wondering about someone's sexuality after the latter, you must be extremely ignorant. I think if you even have a moderate level of judgement, you're able to work out what is or isn't an attempt at flirting.
Hey friend. This is actually something that feminism or social justice is trying to fight against. The idea that a man can't say something nice about the appearance of another man without it meaning he's gay or acting gay. Or that if a gay man compliments a straight friend, its only because he wants to sleep with him. It might seem silly to us, as it should but a lot of people still struggle with even basic ideas like this.
@joluv I'm detecting sarcasm, and a complete misrepresentation of the point I was making.
There is a big difference between saying "Nice jacket" and "You're hot. Let's get it on!"
If you're still wondering about someone's sexuality after the latter, you must be extremely ignorant. I think if you even have a moderate level of judgement, you're able to work out what is or isn't an attempt at flirting.
Oh, maybe the word you were looking for was "proposition," not "compliment." Are you thinking that "You're hot. Let's get it on!" is an example of something that is accurate to real life, as a way someone might reveal their sexuality?
To only represent ourselves and close our doors on everyone else does a disservice to what our community originally stood for: a nerdy safe-haven from society and all its pressures. A place where you can be accepted for who you are, regardless of your status or wealth or nervous habits.
I don't really talk about this whole deal, and I won't, but word.
@jjstraka34 That's your opinion. Don't dress it up as fact. There are better counter-arguments against that line of thinking, so if you're going to be militant when it comes to your views, you better have an intelligent rebuttal at the ready. SJWs don't fair well in substantive debates.
Having a "substantantive debate" about this is about as important as having one about someone's toenail clippings....
@jjstraka34 If you're not interested in a substantive debate, then you automatically lose credibility because you have already shut off your brain to alternative ideas.
If you don't find it important to debate this stuff, why the hostility towards a whole group of people if it isn't important to you?
@jjstraka34 If you're not interested in a substantive debate, then you automatically lose credibility because you have already shut off your brain to alternative ideas.
If you don't find it important to debate this stuff, why the hostility towards a whole group of people if it isn't important to you?
What part of what we're debating is important?? The mentally-challenged Ranger with the space hamster making a GG joke?? A Cleric Npc who isn't the gender they started out as?? A thief and druid/fighter who apparently aren't in character?? There will never be a time in human history when this debate is "important". Jesus christ, this has been going on for a week now, and every layer to it is more absurd than the last....
@Diogenes42 Egalitarianism covers that just fine, and does a FAR better job of it than modern feminism. Modern feminism is a train wreck, and I'll just leave it at that.
@joluv Saying someone is "hot" isn't a compliment?
Obviously I was roughly summing up a possible scenario. There are some subtle ways you can reveal someone's sexuality without explicitly stating it. From an anecdotal perspective, my brother is gay and apart from when he told my parents, he has never once walked up to someone and said "Hi! I'm gay! " It just isn't natural at all. I don't even know how that's debatable. Would anyone introduce themselves and start talking about how straight they are? How is that different?
I want to note that LGBT characters can be placed in games for all sorts of other reasons than social justice warfare.
@Loldrup May I ask what other reasons there can be for placing LGBT characters in games?
Telling an interesting story? It shouldn't be impossible to build an interesting story that somehow involves a transexual character. See the comments thread on this article for some good examples:
Social justice warfare is largely imagined – many games are simply reflective (intentionally or not) of social realities that some gamers are unwilling to accept. The inclusion of these social realities is not an act of "warfare" but a natural progression of representation that has been present throughout media for centuries.
Fixed
But this writer described herself as a social justice warrior. Yet still you think it is just something in my mind?
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.
@Diogenes42 Egalitarianism covers that just fine, and does a FAR better job of it than modern feminism. Modern feminism is a train wreck, and I'll just leave it at that.
First of all friend, that is a stunning generalisation. Secondly Feminism is a form of Egalitarianism but with a focus on gender equality. It's not some pro women, anti men hate force.
It is absurd, but it's not those of us in the middle that are making it that way. There are plenty of us that appreciate having a rational discussion about the game and how certain things can be implemented. However, the SJWs and the "anti-GGers" on one side, and the GamerGaters and uber-conservatives on the other are the ones that insist on ruining it for the rest of us.
If you don't consider yourself a part of the problem, then you probably shouldn't jump down the throat of Gamergate, since you are effectively waging an ideological war. If you feel like there has been too much said on this subject, I don't even know why you would even bother going down that road.
@Diogenes42 Because this is a Baldur's Gate forum, I don't want to get into that subject.
However, all I will say is that you have some pretty naive ideas about the modern feminist movement. Maybe you spend a lot of time on Tumblr? Maybe you're from an older generation and aren't in tune with what is currently happening in that movement? I don't know. What I can tell you is that it most certainly inherently isn't a form of egalitarianism. The idea of feminism as a political ideology doesn't match up to philosophical ideas of egalitarianism.
I understand that feminism was never meant to be an anti-male hate group, but for the most part, is has been hijacked and bastardized by the 3rd-wavers, and it has become a laughingstock worldwide.
@joluv Saying someone is "hot" isn't a compliment?
Obviously I was roughly summing up a possible scenario. There are some subtle ways you can reveal someone's sexuality without explicitly stating it. From an anecdotal perspective, my brother is gay and apart from when he told my parents, he has never once walked up to someone and said "Hi! I'm gay! " It just isn't natural at all. I don't even know how that's debatable. Would anyone introduce themselves and start talking about how straight they are? How is that different?
Yeah, I got it. I guess my point was that subtle but unambiguous signaling isn't always the easiest thing, which is an issue that LGBTQ people have been dealing with for a long time. I think it's harder with gender identity than with sexual orientation, and I think some folks here underestimate the amount of variation in how the issue is approached in real life.
@Diogenes42 Because this is a Baldur's Gate forum, I don't want to get into that subject.
However, all I will say is that you have some pretty naive ideas about the modern feminist movement. Maybe you spend a lot of time on Tumblr? Maybe you're from an older generation and aren't in tune with what is currently happening in that movement? I don't know. What I can tell you is that it most certainly inherently isn't a form of egalitarianism. The idea of feminism as a political ideology doesn't match up to philosophical ideas of egalitarianism.
I understand that feminism was never meant to be an anti-male hate group, but for the most part, is has been hijacked and bastardized by the 3rd-wavers, and it has become a laughingstock worldwide.
Some more thoughts for you friend. I thank you for reading them. You are right that they aren't the same of course.
While feminism and egalitarianism may sound fairly similar, the emphasis in action is different. Feminism’s call-to-action is incorporated in a movement which fights societal hierarchies. Egalitarianism is not an active movement with unity but rather a philosophy by which to live, without a direct pathway to tackling issues. The only expression one can take as an egalitarian is to treat everybody the same – it doesn’t actively work to dismantle oppressive structures such as the patriarchy.
Calling yourself an egalitarian instead of a feminist might seem like a noble stance; you can avoid all of those nasty connotations associated with feminism while still fighting for equality. However, taking this kind of non-confrontational position can be at best hypocritical, and at worst, counterintuitive to the pursuit of equality. In order for egalitarianism to be accomplished, we must focus and overcome specific issues at a time – and for good reason.
@joluv I think it can be done well enough so that it appeases everyone. I do genuinely believe that. The reason I believe that is because there have been gay characters in books, TV shows, and movies that have captured our hearts.
I think the problem doesn't lie in lack of representation. The problem lies in a lack of world-class and passionate writers that are able to competently add in diverse characters.
As far as I have seen, many people from both sides of this issue have been less than courteous to one another. In my eyes, it does not reflect well on either one of them. This is what keeps me from taking a side in this debate. If anything, it is the viciousness of these two opposing forces that prevent them from gaining more supporters. As an old college professor of mine used to say, "You won't change anyone's opinion by calling them a dumbass!" Anyway, I will say no more on the subject. I have no interest in taking part in a debate as, um, let's say 'heated', as this.
@Diogenes42 I call myself an egalitarian BECAUSE of the fact I don't take a "one issue at a time" stance.
Feminism is too concerned with the issues of one demographic to call itself egalitarian, and a lot of those issues have been solved. Feminists waste a lot of time on "perceived" injustices, instead of tackling real ones that certain groups across the world have to face on a daily basis. It's a philosophy that can't possibly function effectively in a globalized society, since it is too self-centred to accommodate all 7 billion of us.
Egalitarianism is all-encompassing, and is a relatively new philosophy in terms of exposure that has only just crept into the mainstream because of the rise of Bernie Sanders. A communal attitude in terms of how we deal with the world's problems is the only way we are going to survive as a race going forward.
But anyways, that's a topic for a different day and a different forum.
@wraith5641 I continue to disagree but you are right, we are drifting off topic. Thank you for the discussion all the same my friend. Thank you for being civil and respectful with me.
To circle back to the original discussion, I've seen people say they fine with including trans characters but only if they are written well or in a believable way. The problem I see with this stance is that people don't say "oh a white dude wouldn't act this way" or say that they didn't see the character as a believable representation of white dudes.
Also as an aside the concept that a writer saying "I want to include more LBGQT people in this escapist fantasy world" is considered to be some kind of aggressive political act is completely bizarre to me.
@Diogenes42 For those of us that are interested in the rational part of the discussion on LGBT inclusion, we don't have a problem with diversity. Our issue is with poor writing.
Even if we just come off the subject of diversity, can you honestly say story writing in games in recent years has been where it should be? It certainly hasn't been in AAA titles. Not even close. Is it so hard to find writers that can craft a great story with memorable characters?
As usual, money is actually crippling the gaming industry, to the point where drama and controversy is the main selling point in boardroom discussions. That is unacceptable.
I'm all for better writing in videogames friend, in fact it is one of my fondest desires. I still feel like a large number of people have been hiding behind that as an excuse to be horrible. Saying, oh the writing is bad and for example I will single out this one character with no agenda whatsoever. I'm not saying that's what you did, just to be clear.
I think we definitely should encourage writers in games to try harder and not fall back onto lazy ideas. That's one of the goals of the "Tropes Vs. Women" series that I feel like gets ignored in some of the arguments about this whole craziness. Better writing and representation for women means better writing and representation of the world overall.
I think if we take the example of the lovely Mizhena, maybe you think she was written poorly and that's ok. But that's just a stepping stone you know? We have to start somewhere. Someday we hopefully will have a game about trans issues that is written in a heartwarming, funny and intriguing way. Maybe that writer came across Mizhena and was inspired to go on and write that new wonderful game? We can only hope.
Furthermore, I believe that Carthage should be destroyed.
Comments
So my opinion is I guess that there are politics in everything manmade and that if we worry about it too much we just end up writing sentences that are something like made at 30% of the word political alone.
If you want LGBT characters, find a way of implementing them that is accurate to real life. For example, you could have a male character complimenting another male, then we don't even need to wonder about their sexuality.
Being gay isn't necessarily an interesting part of someone, just like being straight isn't. I don't know why it needs to be a focus. Who cares what gender a fictional character is attracted to? Is it going to feature in a romance as part of the narrative? If not, it doesn't matter at all, because no one is even thinking about it.
Edit: I had to fix a typo, because otherwise this comment might seem dumb.
There is a big difference between saying "Nice jacket" and "You're hot. Let's get it on!"
If you're still wondering about someone's sexuality after the latter, you must be extremely ignorant. I think if you even have a moderate level of judgement, you're able to work out what is or isn't an attempt at flirting.
If you don't find it important to debate this stuff, why the hostility towards a whole group of people if it isn't important to you?
@joluv Saying someone is "hot" isn't a compliment?
Obviously I was roughly summing up a possible scenario. There are some subtle ways you can reveal someone's sexuality without explicitly stating it. From an anecdotal perspective, my brother is gay and apart from when he told my parents, he has never once walked up to someone and said "Hi! I'm gay!
http://nichegamer.com/2016/04/04/tale-dragons-memes-dragonspears-writing-horrid/
It is absurd, but it's not those of us in the middle that are making it that way. There are plenty of us that appreciate having a rational discussion about the game and how certain things can be implemented. However, the SJWs and the "anti-GGers" on one side, and the GamerGaters and uber-conservatives on the other are the ones that insist on ruining it for the rest of us.
If you don't consider yourself a part of the problem, then you probably shouldn't jump down the throat of Gamergate, since you are effectively waging an ideological war. If you feel like there has been too much said on this subject, I don't even know why you would even bother going down that road.
However, all I will say is that you have some pretty naive ideas about the modern feminist movement. Maybe you spend a lot of time on Tumblr? Maybe you're from an older generation and aren't in tune with what is currently happening in that movement? I don't know. What I can tell you is that it most certainly inherently isn't a form of egalitarianism. The idea of feminism as a political ideology doesn't match up to philosophical ideas of egalitarianism.
I understand that feminism was never meant to be an anti-male hate group, but for the most part, is has been hijacked and bastardized by the 3rd-wavers, and it has become a laughingstock worldwide.
While feminism and egalitarianism may sound fairly similar, the emphasis in action is different. Feminism’s call-to-action is incorporated in a movement which fights societal hierarchies. Egalitarianism is not an active movement with unity but rather a philosophy by which to live, without a direct pathway to tackling issues. The only expression one can take as an egalitarian is to treat everybody the same – it doesn’t actively work to dismantle oppressive structures such as the patriarchy.
Calling yourself an egalitarian instead of a feminist might seem like a noble stance; you can avoid all of those nasty connotations associated with feminism while still fighting for equality. However, taking this kind of non-confrontational position can be at best hypocritical, and at worst, counterintuitive to the pursuit of equality. In order for egalitarianism to be accomplished, we must focus and overcome specific issues at a time – and for good reason.
I think the problem doesn't lie in lack of representation. The problem lies in a lack of world-class and passionate writers that are able to competently add in diverse characters.
Feminism is too concerned with the issues of one demographic to call itself egalitarian, and a lot of those issues have been solved. Feminists waste a lot of time on "perceived" injustices, instead of tackling real ones that certain groups across the world have to face on a daily basis. It's a philosophy that can't possibly function effectively in a globalized society, since it is too self-centred to accommodate all 7 billion of us.
Egalitarianism is all-encompassing, and is a relatively new philosophy in terms of exposure that has only just crept into the mainstream because of the rise of Bernie Sanders. A communal attitude in terms of how we deal with the world's problems is the only way we are going to survive as a race going forward.
But anyways, that's a topic for a different day and a different forum.
To circle back to the original discussion, I've seen people say they fine with including trans characters but only if they are written well or in a believable way. The problem I see with this stance is that people don't say "oh a white dude wouldn't act this way" or say that they didn't see the character as a believable representation of white dudes.
Also as an aside the concept that a writer saying "I want to include more LBGQT people in this escapist fantasy world" is considered to be some kind of aggressive political act is completely bizarre to me.
Even if we just come off the subject of diversity, can you honestly say story writing in games in recent years has been where it should be? It certainly hasn't been in AAA titles. Not even close. Is it so hard to find writers that can craft a great story with memorable characters?
As usual, money is actually crippling the gaming industry, to the point where drama and controversy is the main selling point in boardroom discussions. That is unacceptable.
I think we definitely should encourage writers in games to try harder and not fall back onto lazy ideas. That's one of the goals of the "Tropes Vs. Women" series that I feel like gets ignored in some of the arguments about this whole craziness. Better writing and representation for women means better writing and representation of the world overall.
I think if we take the example of the lovely Mizhena, maybe you think she was written poorly and that's ok. But that's just a stepping stone you know? We have to start somewhere. Someday we hopefully will have a game about trans issues that is written in a heartwarming, funny and intriguing way. Maybe that writer came across Mizhena and was inspired to go on and write that new wonderful game? We can only hope.
Furthermore, I believe that Carthage should be destroyed.