Checked YouTube? People posting killing transsexuals over and over? and reviews and forums yet? Evil Sjw's took a shot by changing the game and now transsexuals are copping the abuse. Whether it's social of physical it's abuse. I'm smart enough to stand by transsexuals and know the real enemy is sjw's.
Yes, the real enemy of trans people is not the people making videos about killing trans people over and over, not the people who demand that only trans characters who satisfy certain ever-elusive criteria are allowed to exist, not the people who actually threaten and abuse trans people or a writer who wrote one...
...but the ones who actually oppose all the above, and think that there should be nothing startling or novel about seeing a trans character in popular media. Yep, definitely the "real enemy".
Out of curiosity: If "SJWs" are "evil", in your mind, what exactly is someone who makes a youtube video killing transsexuals over and over? How should somebody stand by transsexuals in that case?
Those people fighting back, they are either pro gg or angry gamers. They have a bunch of sjw crap violating their game so they react and fight back against the agenda. Unfortunately transsexual people become the target as a sjw put in the transsexual as the violator.
You see that is what is not making any sense, if putting a transgender character in (which is in no way a violation of the established lore, nor out of place) a game constitutes to being 'sjw crap' than it is a tad dishonest if you at the same time also want to claim that you have nothing against transgender characters.
Either having a transgender character in the game is no problem, or you think it is, but if you think it is that is not the fault of people who are fine with the character being there, it is your own problem of being intolerant to transgender characters being in a game.
Ugh we have already talked about this, the transsexual is the target there are far more factors then adding her that has started this. Transsexuals are the only thing gamers can get their hands on to relieve frustration. Whether I believe it's right or not.
Before commenting scroll back and read what has already been covered.
Checked YouTube? People posting killing transsexuals over and over? and reviews and forums yet? Evil Sjw's took a shot by changing the game and now transsexuals are copping the abuse. Whether it's social of physical it's abuse. I'm smart enough to stand by transsexuals and know the real enemy is sjw's.
Yes, the real enemy of trans people is not the people making videos about killing trans people over and over, not the people who demand that only trans characters who satisfy certain ever-elusive criteria are allowed to exist, not the people who actually threaten and abuse trans people or a writer who wrote one...
...but the ones who actually oppose all the above, and think that there should be nothing startling or novel about seeing a trans character in popular media. Yep, definitely the "real enemy".
Out of curiosity: If "SJWs" are "evil", in your mind, what exactly is someone who makes a youtube video killing transsexuals over and over? How should somebody stand by transsexuals in that case?
Those people fighting back, they are either pro gg or angry gamers. They have a bunch of sjw crap violating their game so they react and fight back against the agenda. Unfortunately transsexual people become the target as a sjw put in the transsexual as the violator.
You see that is what is not making any sense, if putting a transgender character in (which is in no way a violation of the established lore, nor out of place) a game constitutes to being 'sjw crap' than it is a tad dishonest if you at the same time also want to claim that you have nothing against transgender characters.
Either having a transgender character in the game is no problem, or you think it is, but if you think it is that is not the fault of people who are fine with the character being there, it is your own problem of being intolerant to transgender characters being in a game.
See answer above, do some research. Transsexual character being included is the catalyst not cause. The "last straw" per Se.
As an old school player mostly interested in niche games, I've long been out of the loop on gaming politics. I'm also not used to people claiming to be what they are not to further their argument. I said earlier that a trans person may have a dumb opinion on issues related to being trans. In that sense, I'm not worried about people pretending to be trans. We can dismiss dumb arguments no matter who they come from.
It is a pretty common tactic that really started on Twitter and now its everywhere. Groups like 4chan and certain ones on Reddit really started the trend when they created a bunch of sock puppet (that is what they are usually called) accounts on twitter to create a hoax called #banfathersday which was designed to try to make feminists look bad. The whole hoax was outed and many accounts were banned over it. The sad thing is that some news organizations like FOX News actually fell for it and covered the hoax as a legit news story. As far as I know, they never even posted a retraction after the hoax was revealed. Anyway, this is a common thing now that is used to either make the other side look bad or attempt to give an argument credibility.
But in the end you're right. Arguments are either credible or not based on their own merits. It doesn't matter who is posting them. Sadly, I don't think the people doing this got the memo.
You're not understanding my point at all. I never said you have to go in and start calling people names and being as hostile as the bigots. First of all, we're talking about transgendered people being represented in a videogame, which is not the same as joining a group and inexplicably shouting "Hey, I'm transgendered!" for no reason. That isn't what I am saying at all. However in other situations, you shouldn't be afraid to let people know. Letting people know that you are transgendered is not a provocative act in itself, regardless of how they respond. Much like having a transgendered character in a game is also NOT a provocative act. Its an inclusive act designed to give people a character they can identify with...
"I didn't say silent. I'm talking about being unnecessarily antagonistic"
You do realize that anything you do or say that lets people know you are transgendered WILL antagonize certain people, right? So you either have to be open about who you are and risk making people mad (which you will) or never let anyone know you are transgendered and hide it the rest of your life. If they know you are transgendered some people will automatically dislike you.
Yes...I already said that some people will dislike you for things that are beyond your control, such as sex, skin color, sexual orientation, or gender anomaly.
However, whether their bigotry is real or implied, fighting about it, such as calling them or their companions names like bigots is being antagonistic. Even if it's right, you let the right evident itself. It's a lot like writing, you don't tell someone that a character is or isn't a thing, you show them. Telling the other 8 people in the room who aren't involved how much of a bigot the other two are is pointless, and you're only going to provoke the ones that are hostile even more (which fans the flames).
When has insulting someone because they were wrong, ever, in the history of ever, solved the problem? When has calling someone a racist, a mysogynist, a misandrist, a homophobe, a transphobe, or whatever ever made them react in a more pleasant and tolerable way?
Collect your citations. I'll wait.
However, the more people are exposed to transgendered people, the easier it will be to eventually become more accepted by most of the popular. Sure, there are some who will never accept you but most people's views will change. However, if all transgendered people decided to stay quiet about who they are then that can never happen because there won't be enough exposure.
I didn't say that you have to stay quiet, or hide, far from it. I said that you don't need to be antagonistic. I urged not hiding and standing your ground and demonstrating that you are not only a member of the community but a worthwhile member of the community, and through doing so, others will see that and those that oppose you on grounds of your circumstances rather than action and merit will be in clear view for all to see for what they are - and many can lose faith in their own prejudices because you give them nothing for their minds to react to.
and being forced to be provocative isn't something anyone should have placed on them either."
No one is forcing you to do anything. Having a transgendered character in the game has no effect on what you do as an invididual. Your problem with this character makes no sense for multiple reasons. The first being that it has no effect on how you choose to be open about it or not. Secondly, you don't represent all transgendered people even if you really are transgendered. I have no doubt there are many who do appreciate the inclusion of this character.
Read my original post. I was, admittedly, angry (because this crap happens all the time), but I was not upset with the inclusion of a tg character, I was upset with the reasons and the execution. Notice that in my original post, I never said to stop making transgender characters or including them. What I said was:
Please stop trying to help. You may wear a fireman's coat but your hoses are spraying gasoline.
I'm tired of being used to push an ideological agenda. This was explicitly admitted to, and the response to people concerned about it didn't help matters. As I said before, characters who are transgendered are A-OK, but please don't make the reason you're including them just to be a transgender character. Please don't bring this conflict into these venues.
Because it stirs problems for those who are involved, and makes them associate us with that thing that is interrupting our good time. There are people who have included non-gender-binary characters in lots of games, and other mediums, and they're not reacted to like this because they're often presented better or for other reasons.
You're also not looking at the big picture here, it has plenty of effect on how open someone is about it. When you associate transgendered people with SJWs, you're associating SJWs with transgendered people, which puts unwanted negative attention on us, or causes people to assume we're part of the self entitled whiner movements. Do it enough and people begin to assume things when we haven't caused this stereotype that makes us look like we've just gotta be in everyone's puddin' under threat of bigotry.
Likewise, I don't believe people should be silent, but I do believe in being diplomatic, and improving the general opinion of trans people rather than having a bunch of people trying to use us to beat other people over the god****ed head.
Umm... how are you going to improve the opinions of trans peoples people if they don't know you are transgendered. That makes no sense.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion. It doesn't even seem to make sense in context with the text you responded to with it. Exactly what does "presenting yourself as is" and allowing people to accept you naturally, rather than dismissively calling people bigots and inciting unnecessary anger, have to do with hiding the fact you're trans?
I've dealt with a lot of intolerance before. I work in customer service, I deal with people all the time, I discuss people's problems, I debate with people, and I'm nonreligious in the bible belt, and what I've learned is it's a lot more effective to not provoke people unnecessarily because it shuts down discussion.
No discussing the issue is HOW you have a discussion in the first place. The character in the game was not presented in a provocative manner. Its just there. You say you don't believe people should be silent but you don't seem to want to bring the subject into the light for people to see either. This is a contradiction. You can either be quiet about it or speak about it. This is a situation where there are no other options.
Yes, but there is a time and a place, and there are good ways to do it. In my hypothetical example, you're there to play Street Fighter. Now's not the time to start a discussion about whether or not it's okay for your to be transgendered, now is the time to SHORYUKEN! Which, incidentally, establishes your presence in the community to the other neutrals.
And again, I didn't say be silent, I said be sturdy. You can be calm and non-insulting without being silent. When I said "if you're particularly diplomatic, you might even offer an apology", which immediately establishes your willingness to avoid escalation, establishes that you have some concern for the feelings of others, and typically establishes yourself as the more mature of the two parties -- all things that are likely to instantly improve your standing in the eyes of the other 7 neutrals (and in many cases, can lead to someone who was neutral interjecting on your behalf, which has a profound effect on the interaction).
But, the point is, you're goal is to establish that you SHORYUKEN too and that's what you're here to do. Not preach, not start an argument, not fight about anything, and doing so is the strongest thing you can do. Being sturdy in the face of opposition is respectable, and establishes that you're cool headed, not too thin skinned, and in turn actually makes it more likely that people will gain sudden bursts of respect for you and interject.
I won't lie...if this sounds overly tactical...well, it kind of is. It just happens that acting with maturity and resolve is likewise a very effective tactic in a social arena, and your objective is not to deceive or to use the neutral members in the social circle, it's Diplomacy. You are displaying your value to them and establishing yourself as worthwhile. There's a lot of subconscious social mumbo jumbo going on here but the point is, it works.
For Example We have a person (say a trans woman), and that person comes up and wants to interact with a group of individuals that they want to be included in (such as a group of gamers playing Street Fighter). This person wants to enjoy not only this game but also the community that you're playing with. Out of ten people in this group, 1 is pretty pro-trans, 7 are indifferent, and 2 are anti-trans (one because they're kinda 'phobic of what they see as strange, the other because some archaic book implies you're an abomination)... Let's play an RPG Route 1: Inject Yourself Provocatively We decide to join the group. Two of the group members aren't thrilled with your presence and make some uncouth comments, and you are sure to tell them what for, you and the pro-trans person tell them what bigoted assholes they are, causing a scene. You're in the right, but you're also the outsider, and you haven't established your value yet, and human minds are geared towards supporting their own, so furthering your presence as an outsider isn't helping matters. Tempers flare, and the seven neutrals are going to associate this horrible incident with you, because that's the way the human brain works. They're put into an uncomfortable situation, you're the newbie, and you're causing a stink. You're not getting invited back, and you're probably given them a sour impression which will extend to other transgendered people because the human brain likes patterns and it currently associates "transgendered person" with "disruptive asshole".
lol I don't know what kind of hypothetical people you're hanging out with but most people I associate with in gaming would more likely have an issue with the 2 guys being assholes to the trans person. Its odd that you think they would associate the conflict with the trans person rather than the people who were raging about the person being trans. I think you need to find better people to play games with if this happens.
I'm intentionally placing the transgendered person at a disadvantage in the hypothetical because things aren't always perfect. That said, the vast majority of people are not against transgendered people and you're very likely to defend you immediately, but we're talking about a poor case scenario where you establish yourself.
In fact, most of the people in my area that I've met are pretty open minded. I've had a coworker react with a lot of questions, asking me about things like my sexuality, asking me some things about possible treatments and what my view and intentions were for making a transition, etc. She was never antagonistic, and she later PMed me on facebook and told me she had appreciated our conversation, my entertaining her questions, and she had did some thinking and felt that we were really special and she was glad to have me as her friend.
But YES, GAMERS ARE ON THE LARGE AWESOME PEOPLE. Which is why it's very wrong and very damaging to constantly try to poke at them and their beloved games (such as trying to spin The Legend of Zelda as a problematic piece), or using Baldur's Gate as a soapbox to push your ideology in an awkward feeling fashion. Attacking the culture that produces these awesome people seems like a bad idea (which is a lot of what's happening right now and is putting many gamers on edge).
Route 2: Merge with the Group We decide to join the group. Two of the group members aren't thrilled with your presence and make some uncouth comments, but you tell your friend that it's okay. You might even make an apology, "I'm sorry I offend you, but we're just here to play Street Fighter," if you're particularly diplomatic. Then you just be an enjoyable person, and the 7 neutral players will recognize you as a benefit to their group because you're into what they're into, and surely, they will become more protective of you, and begin letting the other two know that even if you can stand their foolishness, they don't want to deal with that stuff, they just want to Shoryuken and that they're ruining the vibe.
Well no, according to what you have already said, they wouldn't even know you are transgendered in the first place because you seem to be afraid to tell people due to how they may reaction. So this situation wouldn't even happen in the first place. No one is telling you go around yelling at people, we're saying that there is nothing wrong with being open about it. There is a distinction that you aren't seeing for some reason.
I never said there was anything wrong with being open about it. Not once. Feel free to quote me if I did, because if I did, it was an error. I was assuming that it was obvious enough that someone would be bothered by your presence.
I learned a fair amount of this stuff having to deal with religious bigotry growing up on the bible belt and being a nerd who spent most of their time playing video games, Dungeons & Dragons, and Magic the Gathering, in an area where if you heard of any of these things it was probably likely that you thought I was a satanist, witch, would be murderer, etc. Also, I was mistaken for being gay a lot (I guess in a roundabout way sort of?) which had its own hangups. It was hard as a teenager to deal with these things but it did make me stronger in the end (I learned a lot about how to deal with people) and so I'm sharing some first hand advice honed over
But I strongly wonder where you're getting a lot of "what I was saying" since it's evident you weren't responding to what I said in a few places.
Oof. I may regret this, but I'm going to wade in a little bit. There's no way I'm ever going to read all of what you two have written, but here is my skim-informed understanding of your respective positions. Is this at all correct?
@Ashiel is deeply committed to respectability politics, believing that the best way to change people's prejudices is to patiently show them that you are worthy of their respect. She would prefer that people avoid direct confrontation regarding trans rights because of the negative reactions it could provoke.
@abentwookie believes that such behavior will get you nowhere and lets bigots off the hook, unfairly putting the burden of responsibility on the victims of prejudice. She thinks that confrontation is necessary for change.
In case I do have that right, I would like to tell you that those are both reasonable things to think. People have been debating the effectiveness and morals of respectability politics for a long time, and there are intelligent, useful things to be said on both sides. If you're going to keep arguing about it, then try to be cool and quit questioning each other's sincerity. You obviously both care about this. Remember that you're debating methods, not values.
Oof. I may regret this, but I'm going to wade in a little bit. There's no way I'm ever going to read all of what you two have written, but here is my skim-informed understanding of your respective positions. Is this at all correct?
@Ashiel is deeply committed to respectability politics, believing that the best way to change people's prejudices is to patiently show them that you are worthy of their respect. She would prefer that people avoid direct confrontation regarding trans rights because of the negative reactions it could provoke.
@abentwookie believes that such behavior will get you nowhere and lets bigots off the hook, unfairly putting the burden of responsibility on the victims of prejudice. She thinks that confrontation is necessary for change.
In case I do have that right, I would like to tell you that those are both reasonable things to think. People have been debating the effectiveness and morals of respectability politics for a long time, and there are intelligent, useful things to be said on both sides. If you're going to keep arguing about it, then try to be cool and quit questioning each other's sincerity. You obviously both care about this. Remember that you're debating methods, not values.
Oof. I may regret this, but I'm going to wade in a little bit. There's no way I'm ever going to read all of what you two have written, but here is my skim-informed understanding of your respective positions. Is this at all correct?
@Ashiel is deeply committed to respectability politics, believing that the best way to change people's prejudices is to patiently show them that you are worthy of their respect. She would prefer that people avoid direct confrontation regarding trans rights because of the negative reactions it could provoke.
@abentwookie believes that such behavior will get you nowhere and lets bigots off the hook, unfairly putting the burden of responsibility on the victims of prejudice. She thinks that confrontation is necessary for change.
In case I do have that right, I would like to tell you that those are both reasonable things to think. People have been debating the effectiveness and morals of respectability politics for a long time, and there are intelligent, useful things to be said on both sides. If you're going to keep arguing about it, then try to be cool and quit questioning each other's sincerity. You obviously both care about this. Remember that you're debating methods, not values.
That seems pretty fair. I also don't have any beef with abentwookie. All I did was share my feelings on the matter, because I have a dog in that fight (me and a few friends of mine), and I'd really appreciate it if people didn't try to use us to push any agendas, because it often seems to other people who aren't in the know that we, transgendered people, are pushing those agendas.
And some surely are. But some surely aren't. Some are happy to see transgendered characters at all, while some like the OP feel used, dislike token characters, and some would rather see more honest representation, rather than a gimmick (because when you're just trying to push diversity as Amber Scott admittedly was, it's a gimmick; it's literally like having a black character just so he can be "the black guy" rather than being a real character whose existence is validated beyond "the minority guy").
There are other trans people in the thread, and they have every right to voice their thoughts too, and some of those thoughts are contrary to my own, but I think we've been civil about it. We've even shared some stories and talked about stuff together. It's cool. We've shared some thoughts, maybe made some friends, and hopefully entertained a little (I still need to post more stuff about Victoria...), so everything can run smooth if we're cool about it.
There are a lot of people being dismissive in the thread too (I won't name any names), but I hope that it stops and we can actually talk without having people trying to tell each other how evil each other are. Yeah, SJWs (and yes, they do exist, and have done a lot of wrong) and GGers (and yes, it's a grassroots movement but there's a lot of wrong that they have done as well) have both done things to be remorseful for, but both sides are people who are trying to do what they think will lead to the best solution. But the important part is they're people. You definitely want to view people as people and not as Team Red vs Team Blue or some other dehumanizing viewpoint.
Years ago, there were a lot of people in our area that were very resistant to Mexican immigrants which seemed to be popping up in the state in droves, most of which were here illegally, and many of them seemed to have no regard for our laws and customs. My great grandmother was murdered by a drunk driver in a truck full of drunks who happened to be illegal immigrants, which assuredly wouldn't do any good for anyone's mood.
My father initially didn't have any opinion overall, though he seemed to lean more towards disapproval of their being around because of the apparent disruption that many of them were seeing. However, there was a man named Jose that started working with him. Jose went through the steps to be a legal immigrant, he respected the culture, was learning the language, and was a nice guy. My dad and he carpooled for a long time.
Jose made a friend out of my father, who had some leanings towards dissatisfaction with a certain group of people for qualities other than their race (because it wasn't that they were from Mexico, it was because a lot of them were making a bad impression on the locals). Not only did Jose gain a new friend, but Jose and his fellows (as more got jobs at my dad's workplace) now had a friend who spoke their virtues to others and helped others to be less anxious about our new members of the community. They're still good friends and they don't even work at the same job anymore. I sometimes see Jose and his buddies where I work, and we ask each other how our respective families are doing. I've a lot of respect for him.
The moral of the story is that Jose wouldn't have made any friends if he had went around calling people who were cautious of him racist bigots. It would have only made things worse, since now not only would he have been associated with a group who were disrupting the local culture, but he would have also been innately hostile. But what ended up happening is he became a positive influence, and now the culture benefited from being associated with him. He won the game.
Because intolerance relies on one very important factor. The concept of "the other". We're wired for a certain tribal mindset, to take care of our own foremost. We're also wired to try to organize things into patterns, which both allows use a lot of power, but also creates a lot of troubles for us as a whole. If you've never met someone from a particular subgroup before, and a member of that subgroup craps on your lawn, your brain is hardwired to associate the act of crapping on your lawn with that subgroup until you've experience enough of that subgroup not crapping on your lawn to make your brain realize "Oh, gotcha, that was an anomaly".
Which is why I try to view humanity, all of humanity, as the us. There is only one tribe, we the people.
And some surely are. But some surely aren't. Some are happy to see transgendered characters at all, while some like the OP feel used, dislike token characters, and some would rather see more honest representation, rather than a gimmick (because when you're just trying to push diversity as Amber Scott admittedly was, it's a gimmick; it's literally like having a black character just so he can be "the black guy" rather than being a real character whose existence is validated beyond "the minority guy").
Amber Scott "admittedly was" nothing of the sort. This is a tiresome falsehood that is easily debunked by looking at what she actually said and the context in which she said it.
Stop trying to make her into a bogeyman for something she never actually said.
And some surely are. But some surely aren't. Some are happy to see transgendered characters at all, while some like the OP feel used, dislike token characters, and some would rather see more honest representation, rather than a gimmick (because when you're just trying to push diversity as Amber Scott admittedly was, it's a gimmick; it's literally like having a black character just so he can be "the black guy" rather than being a real character whose existence is validated beyond "the minority guy").
Amber Scott "admittedly was" nothing of the sort. This is a tiresome falsehood that is easily debunked by looking at what she actually said and the context in which she said it.
Stop trying to make her into a bogeyman for something she never actually said.
So your saying that she didn't say she was an sjw? And that she will try to put it in anything she does, and that if people don't like it too bad? The beamdog devs have already come out and said "it was due to a full day of interviews that those comments were said" basically that she was tired.
It was said, u can try to pretend it wasn't, it still Makes u wrong In this case. Some People have thought she said that in post release interviews, but they are pre release Interviews.
Just to precise. I personally don't think Amber Scott is doing a bad thing. Saying her care for inclusivity is dishonnest or made with bad intention is really really a rude thing to say, we don't know her, we don't know her life, we don't know if she or if very close people to her aren't at the heart of the subject. Judging her intention and claiming it's dishonnest really piss me off.
She clearly say she care about diversity, and the same apply to me. Re-reading her interview I could have say the exact same things with the exact same words.
If you wanna judge Amber Scott writing please judge on the work, even if we don't come all on a perfect aggrement we all, or I have totally misunderstood some message, come to the fact that her work on the Mizhena character, due to the technical limitation, are good. Yes it not please everybody and it's not perfectly representative of all ours experience but it's not bad or false.
You can also read what she have wrote for some pathfinder campaign. We can talk about that. We can also talk on how her work have evolved from this time.
But stop judging her on the fact her intention was "just putting minority for the fact of putting minority". She never ever say that. She sayed she care about inclusivity, she want work on that, we don't know why and for the ****** sake have a little human consideration for that person please.
(delete content here cause it totally deviate from the subject and I don't think the few personne who it was adress will read)
So your saying that she didn't say she was an sjw? And that she will try to put it in anything she does, and that if people don't like it too bad?
That is indeed an inaccurate characterisation of what she said. Did you actually read it, or just the cherry-picked quotes beloved of the usual internet suspects?
On this subject @Ashiel I more or less agree with you. We need to have people who are kind and patient. But, because there a but, I think we can't JUST do that.
In my experience people doesn't change if they have no reason to do. If everybody point out and run on, people won't change yes. Because it's easier to just say the other are wrong or are "the enemi". But at the same time people won't change only by kindness, if we never point out the problems and the bad behaviours people haven't no reason to change. And even if we do it only in a polite and civil way people still won't have reason to change their behaviour if there's no bad consequences for them.
Seriously i'm way more for a kind way of doing (I have an Undertale picture profile). But we need both this way of action. Because each one alone is hopeless (in my humble opinion).
That doesn't say each people must do the both, but the both as to be done. It's not easy. It even sometimes come to a clash, I don't have perfect solution. I don't even think there's one.
(And I'm waiting for the next of your writing. It's really cool to read. Really. Maybe it's better to open another subject than this one to share it ?)
So your saying that she didn't say she was an sjw? And that she will try to put it in anything she does, and that if people don't like it too bad?
That is indeed an inaccurate characterisation of what she said. Did you actually read it, or just the cherry-picked quotes beloved of the usual internet suspects?
The beamdog devs have already come out and said "it was due to a full day of interviews that those comments were said" basically that she was tired.
At no point have they apologised for, walked back, or acknowledged anything wrong in what she said.
As they shouldn't, since she said nothing wrong.
" I find the controversy ridiculous. Yes, we have a transgendered character. I know a number of transgendered people and they are genuine, wonderful humans. Yes, we also have a character who cracks a joke about ethics. The original Baldur’s Gate had a whole sequence about the Bob Newhart show. If this generates controversy it makes a sad statement about the world we live in. As for my post on the forums, I merely asked people who were enjoying the game to share their positive feedback. I know our fans can become engrossed in their enjoyment and I really don’t want potential fans to miss out on the series because of protest reviews by small minded individuals.
As for Amber’s interview, I also believe in strong female characters and I feel she did an excellent job bringing dimension and interest to Safana with her writing in Siege of Dragonspear. Her “Too bad” comment, I chalk up to a long day of interviews, having personally done such interviews.
Regards, -Trent"
you really need to read the entire things, not pick out pieces to suit your arguments.
On this subject @Ashiel I more or less agree with you. We need to have people who are kind and patient. But, because there a but, I think we can't JUST do that.
Why not? What is the alternative? And is the alternative born out of a reasoned though, or out of dissatisfaction with the current status quo? Think very carefully, because it's easy to let our emotions stir us into an us vs them mindset.
In my experience people doesn't change if they have no reason to do. If everybody point out and run on, people won't change yes.
Which is why I've said you don't cut out and run, you establish yourself as belonging.
Because it's easier to just say the other are wrong or are "the enemi". But at the same time people won't change only by kindness, if we never point out the problems and the bad behaviours people haven't no reason to change. And even if we do it only in a polite and civil way people still won't have reason to change their behaviour if there's no bad consequences for them.
Seriously i'm way more for a kind way of doing (I have an Undertale picture profile). But we need both this way of action. Because each one alone is hopeless (in my humble opinion).
As Booinyoureyes noted earlier in the thread:
There have been multiple pieces that I've read on the Washington Post and elsewhere that have put forth compelling arguments that the reason for the huge (and quick) shift in public opinion toward being favorable to gay marriage had nothing to do with activists, but came down to the fact that after homosexuals came out of the closet in larger numbers people simply grew more accustomed to being in the presence of gays and lesbians.
There is really not much of a substitute for personal experience. Once many more Americans had the experience of having a gay friend or relative, their attitudes toward gay marriage changed significantly. It is not a very complicated proposition, and there were similar results, in terms of race relations, when schools were desegregated. It, in fact, was one of the biggest reasons that desegregation was so imperative.
This actually reflects reality. I didn't even say that there are no bad consequences for those who are against you. Quite the opposite my friend. As your value to the community increases, it has an inverse effect on the value of anyone else who is against you solely because of things like your gender. Using the example of the culture shock and my father's friend Jose as an example once more, my father's opinion of people hostile towards Mexican migrants rapidly (and rightly) became a very negative one. However, it might not had Jose not established his social value.
In the hypothetical example, unless you're bringing the scene down with a number of severe personality deficits, you belong in the Street Fighter community just as much as those other guys, and you add value to that community by being another person who's there to SHORYUKEN the good SHORYUKEN and maybe HADOUKEN a few times as well. Your good qualities as a human being (and you should have some, because if you don't, it doesn't matter if your trans or not, you're in for a life of disappointment) add to your social value. However, as your value is established, those challenging your value for immoral reasons actively lose value in that community for doing so.
That doesn't say each people must do the both, but the both as to be done. It's not easy. It even sometimes come to a clash, I don't have perfect solution. I don't even think there's one.
Again, can you explain why there has to be aggression? Can you explain what we gain out of engaging in a war of name calling? People are getting progressively more and more sick of name calling and trying to shut down arguments (which is becoming progressively less and less effective as people are desensitized to it).
You do not want to make a community that you want to be a part of a war zone, because we all have to be there. When you establish yourself as a member of that community, those who attempt to turn it into a warzone against you will be met with the same backlash.
Go to the street fighter community and tell them Kayo "Police" Satoh doesn't belong there. Go ahead...I dare you to do so, preferably in person, so you can see just how effective that will be firsthand. Unrelated but she's playing against one of the most famous and top Street Fighter players in the world, and has done so before.
Kayo playing C-Viper at a different tournament. It's astounding to people in the comments, but it's another day in the SF community, and people are excited when they get to fight her, because they want to test their SHORYUKEN skillz against her SHORYUKEN skillz.
From what I've seen, Kayo also seems to be a legitimately pleasant person to interact with.
(And I'm waiting for the next of your writing. It's really cool to read. Really. Maybe it's better to open another subject than this one to share it ?)
Yeah, probably. I'm not sure if we should start a new thread or if I should just PM the rest or something (not sure how much interest it has for others and it's only loosely related to Baldur's Gate {by being D&D related}).
@Ashiel I don't really talk about agression in fact but just wanna point the fact even construct critics are often see as one, and totaly dismiss on this argument, no matter how the critic are polite or not (I totaly disagree to your seeing on Anita Sakesiaan for example, don't I think she say video game make people violent but just analyse violence in ours games and try to, for quoting her, "simultanualy enjoy the media and still being critical on it". Which for a lot of player look like a virulent agression, which is not, it's just have a critical eye on the media, we can disagree and discuss the analyse but at not moment it's an agression. Don't say you have sayed that but it's something I have very often see on a lot of internet place).
The problem is not "use or not use aggressive method" but "who judge if a method is aggressive or not". Currently in my country it's judge "violent aggresivity" to just talk or having journalistic coverage of the violence the police use against the people, even the pacifist one. In a more personal way the fact I use a pronom that suit me was sayed an "offensive attack" by people. It give to think.
But I really think we come to the moment I can't really go deeper on the subject cause of my limited english skill. That really not an evasion trick believe me. The subject is hard to adress even with a full control of the vocabulary and here i'm not even quite sure my words are really the one I wanna use. I can read you but I prefer stop talking here if you're ok. Saying we agree to disagree at this point (which start to go far from the thread's subject).
For your story there's a "fan creation" subforum no ? Even if it's not Baldur's Gate related I have see some subject related to the other Realms-lore-based games (NWN 1&2) so you can post here I think.
(In the case you wanna share it with more people. If you prefere avoid to much public share i'm totally ok by reading it in PM / if you are still ok with of course)
@Ashiel I don't really talk about agression in fact but just wanna point the fact even construct critics are often see as one, and totaly dismiss on this argument, no matter how the critic are polite or not (I totaly disagree to your seeing on Anita Sakesiaan for example, don't I think she say video game make people violent but just analyse violence in ours games and try to, for quoting her, "simultanualy enjoy the media and still being critical on it". Which for a lot of player look like a virulent agression, which is not, it's just have a critical eye on the media, we can disagree and discuss the analyse but at not moment it's an agression. Don't say you have sayed that but it's something I have very often see on a lot of internet place).
Anita Sarkeesian's argument hasn't been dismissed, it's been refuted. There's a significant difference. Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t have various compilations concerning Anita and modern SJWs, and one thing you'll note is that they don't dismiss her arguments, they challenge them. They don't simply call her a regressive misandrist or anything, they point out the logical problems, dishonesty, and charlatanism present in her activities. They're far from being alone (this one is very succinct and highlights a lot of the major issues people have with Anita). It's infinitely easier to find videos and material by those critical of Anita that doesn't dismiss her points, than it is to find anything that isn't dismissive from Anita and her supporters concerning anyone else.
The problem is not "use or not use aggressive method" but "who judge if a method is aggressive or not". Currently in my country it's judge "violent aggresivity" to just talk or having journalistic coverage of the violence the police use against the people, even the pacifist one. In a more personal way the fact I use a pronom that suit me was sayed an "offensive attack" by people. It give to think.
Cultural difference can have an important effect. However, most of us are speaking about the culture in places like Canada, the United States, Britain, etc. For the most part, our cultures are pretty fairly cosmopolitan. We're often open to new ideas (because of our support of free speech), but there are places around the world that are significantly more hostile and significantly more insular.
For example, trying to be a homosexual in an Islamic country is probably something that's going to get you outright arrested and executed (and if you're a woman, raped first if you're a virgin). Some places are still in desperate need of reform from within, and sadly, it will need to come from within. That means people within those cultures changing their minds in much the same way that I've watched a lot of religious people in our area go from anti-homosexuality to pro-homosexuality (or at least, pro acceptance of homosexuals as equal members of the community).
So since it's a matter of whether or not something is aggressive or antagonistic, let's look at their definitions.
antagonistic [an-tag-uh-nis-tik]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com adjective 1. acting in opposition; opposing, especially mutually. 2. hostile; unfriendly.
aggressive [uh-gres-iv] adjective 1. characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing: aggressive acts against a neighboring country. 2. making an all-out effort to win or succeed; competitive: an aggressive basketball player. 3. vigorously energetic, especially in the use of initiative and forcefulness: an aggressive salesperson. 4. boldly assertive and forward; pushy: an aggressive driver. 5. emphasizing maximum growth and capital gains over quality, security, and income: an aggressive mutual fund.
Now, before anyone complains about hostility being "provoked", notice that when I was speaking earlier, I wasn't talking about being concerned for the guys provoking the hostility but for the other 8 people in the room. You don't want to come into someone's community and be seen as overly pushy, or associate yourself as a troublemaker, whether true or not. Further, by not being antagonistic whenever possible, you establish yourself to the other 8 people as friendly and worthy of their time.
I don't want transgendered people to be drug along with a movement that is, quite frankly, exceedingly unfriendly towards the gaming community at large.
And now I go back to the Anita thing, but only slightly (because it concerns the community)... This game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, and pretty much everything else has an equal right to exist. Some of these games are cute, charming, violent, sexy, comical, provocative, senseless, timeless, etc. Coming into a community and telling people who are among some of the most accepting and wonderful members of society that they and their hobby is bad is foolishly antagonistic and aggressive and trying to force a change on their beloved culture rather than adding to their beloved culture, is innately hostile and very stupid.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT that I strongly believe that this issue with Baldur's Gate could have been avoided. It's a bit of a perfect storm. You've got a game franchise that people love (and if you don't **** it up, will probably continue to pay for until the apocalypse) but the new official edition was...
1. Riddled with bugs. 2. Messing with established characters. 3. Obviously pushing an agenda.
Perfect storm.
Though I cannot speak for Mephisto87, I strongly believe that if they had left the GamerGate thing out of the game entirely, and when questioned about the transgendered character, Amber had been less focused on an agenda of inclusion and basically telling anyone who were concerned "tough luck" (paraphrasing mine), and instead was more like "Well, it's a little nod to some of my friends in the gaming community who love this game too", Mephisto87 probably wouldn't have cared about the transgendered character much at all. Nor would there have been this huge backlash.
But the GG thing only feeds into the negative reaction to Mizhena, and the writer's reaction only fueled to alienate Mizhena in the eyes of a large portion of the fanbase, because now she's not a character, she's a symbol. Get it? It's what I've been describing, literally playing out before our very eyes.
But I really think we come to the moment I can't really go deeper on the subject cause of my limited english skill. That really not an evasion trick believe me. The subject is hard to adress even with a full control of the vocabulary and here i'm not even quite sure my words are really the one I wanna use. I can read you but I prefer stop talking here if you're ok. Saying we agree to disagree at this point (which start to go far from the thread's subject).
That's fair. I'll drop it. I just wanted to address the remaining points you raised, but I'm okay with putting it aside (maybe for another time). If you don't mind my asking, may I ask where you hail from and/or your native language?
For your story there's a "fan creation" subforum no ? Even if it's not Baldur's Gate related I have see some subject related to the other Realms-lore-based games (NWN 1&2) so you can post here I think.
(In the case you wanna share it with more people. If you prefere avoid to much public share i'm totally ok by reading it in PM / if you are still ok with of course)
I'd be willing. Though it'll have to wait until after work.
Still thinking there's no agenda in the writting but a lot of people want to find one because it's sound like a reason to react (and there definitivly an agenda in making a basic care for inclusivity look like an agenda imho).
But I say I wanna stop around this question.
Good luck for your job's day. o/ !
I'm a french speaker. It's more or less common knowledge we're bad at language.
I guess I probably shouldn't have said "critical thinking" when I actually meant "common sense."
Unfortunately there's nothing common about common sense.
Aphorisms aside, saying "Someone made a mediocre game with (minority) in it! This is all (minority)'s fault!" is a childish, knee-jerk, spiteful response, and I don't know why Mephiston wants to give people a pass on that while holding the "evil" SJWs fully accountable.
I'm sure entering the fray won't end too well, but... whatever.
I'm curious @Glam_Vrock as one who does respect your mod work and thoughts on modding.
What do you think about Chloe? She's not trans, but she is a lesbian so that falls in the LGBT. that wouldn't change the fact that she's an obnoxious self-absorbed Mary Sue who doesn't ever shut up (and no, before someone accuses me of thinking Lesbians need to be quiet, I don't appreciate word twists.)
That said, here's the thing about Chloe: she'd still be just as unbearable if she were not a lesbian. In this case, she'll remind you constantly.
Because she is though, is it the fault of lesbians?
I might actually be missing your point, but as a fellow mod enthusiast, I wonder why the poor writing of mods like Chloe and Saerileth get no quarter, but the shoddy writing of Mizrehna's backstory is ok.
Standard 3 dialogue tree Ask her about her name She tells you.
You don't go "Hi I need some healing" and she goes "Sure, but first you need to hear about my trans-ness Instead you ask a question, she gives an honest answer.
For an npc that seems alright to me.
Also why compare her to joinable NPCs? Why not compare her to other non-joinable NPCs with flavor text? That seems more fair to me.
Well, the thing is, in a fantasy setting with names like Fiirkrag, Mulahey and Illesera, is Mizrehna such an out of place name? Is it enough to warrant questioning?
I'm sure entering the fray won't end too well, but... whatever.
I'm curious @Glam_Vrock as one who does respect your mod work and thoughts on modding.
What do you think about Chloe? She's not trans, but she is a lesbian so that falls in the LGBT. that wouldn't change the fact that she's an obnoxious self-absorbed Mary Sue who doesn't ever shut up (and no, before someone accuses me of thinking Lesbians need to be quiet, I don't appreciate word twists.)
That said, here's the thing about Chloe: she'd still be just as unbearable if she were not a lesbian. In this case, she'll remind you constantly.
Because she is though, is it the fault of lesbians?
I might actually be missing your point, but as a fellow mod enthusiast, I wonder why the poor writing of mods like Chloe and Saerileth get no quarter, but the shoddy writing of Mizrehna's backstory is ok.
Oh lord, Chloe... Yeah, there's a pretty good reason that the Chloe NPC is reviled by so many, but the mod that lets you advance romances regardless of race or gender is loved by so many.
I guess I probably shouldn't have said "critical thinking" when I actually meant "common sense."
Unfortunately there's nothing common about common sense.
Aphorisms aside, saying "Someone made a mediocre game with (minority) in it! This is all (minority)'s fault!" is a childish, knee-jerk, spiteful response, and I don't know why Mephiston wants to give people a pass on that while holding the "evil" SJWs fully accountable.
Well, Mephiston87 hasn't really done that. As to whether or not it's the SJWs' fault, well...
That's debatable. As I noted before, if it had just been the transgendered character, even if she was a bit on the weak side, it likely wouldn't have garnered her as much criticism. However, as I noted in my more recent post on the matter, by including cracks against Gamer Gate (making it political) and changing existing characters to give them what you call "better personalities" because in your own view the game was "sexist" and had to be changed:
"If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism. In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, “No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.” In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad."
Well, you made it political, you declared an agenda, you insulted the game we all knew and loved, and the characters we all knew and loved (Jaheira was one of my favorite characters, and I'd dare say she was right with Imoen and Minsc in terms of fans), and you intentionally or not got the transgendered character swept up into it. Because now, it looks like just another piece of your agenda puzzle, and the fact many people feel that her story feels forced makes it seem all the more so.
And reasons it feels pretty forced is because most transgendered people aren't really represented by the character in terms of their situations, and because Baldur's Gate has already established that you can have your head chopped off for gifting a duke's girlfriend with a sex-change belt (even though having it removed is a simple process), and Nalia notes that homosexuality would be a scandal.
So like I've been saying, this sort of thing drags us through the mud too. I cannot blame those who think Mizhena is just a symbol. We become guilty in the eyes of the public by association.
That said, here's the thing about Chloe: she'd still be just as unbearable if she were not a lesbian. In this case, she'll remind you constantly.
Because she is though, is it the fault of lesbians?
I might actually be missing your point, but as a fellow mod enthusiast, I wonder why the poor writing of mods like Chloe and Saerileth get no quarter, but the shoddy writing of Mizrehna's backstory is ok.
I think you are missing my point, because "It's not the fault of lesbians" is exactly my point. If you think Chloe sucks, that's fine. If you hold all lesbians responsible for her, that's daft.
As for why Chloe and Saerileth get it worse than Mizhena:
1. Mizhena is a minor character. Chloe is a full NPC mod. Whatever you think of Mizhena, she only constitutes a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall product. Chloe is the overall product. 2. Take a look at this:
I just barged into this woman's house, I haven't said one word to her, she has no idea who I am, and she immediately starts telling me about her missing husband. Why?
This kind of thing is everywhere in Baldur's Gate. Is it good writing? No, but it's par for the course.
He has repeatedly used the word "evil" to describe the people who put Mizhena there. Not misguided. Evil. However, those who use Mizhena as an excuse to lash out at trans people? "Oh, I get that. It's not cool, but I get it. They're just taking it out on the easiest target, man. Whatever."
So like I've been saying, this sort of thing drags us through the mud too. I cannot blame those who think Mizhena is just a symbol. We become guilty in the eyes of the public by association.
And this is where I take exception. Whether Mizhena is forced or not, it does not excuse blaming those who had nothing to do with it.
Comments
Before commenting scroll back and read what has already been covered.
But in the end you're right. Arguments are either credible or not based on their own merits. It doesn't matter who is posting them. Sadly, I don't think the people doing this got the memo.
However, whether their bigotry is real or implied, fighting about it, such as calling them or their companions names like bigots is being antagonistic. Even if it's right, you let the right evident itself. It's a lot like writing, you don't tell someone that a character is or isn't a thing, you show them. Telling the other 8 people in the room who aren't involved how much of a bigot the other two are is pointless, and you're only going to provoke the ones that are hostile even more (which fans the flames).
When has insulting someone because they were wrong, ever, in the history of ever, solved the problem? When has calling someone a racist, a mysogynist, a misandrist, a homophobe, a transphobe, or whatever ever made them react in a more pleasant and tolerable way?
Collect your citations. I'll wait. I didn't say that you have to stay quiet, or hide, far from it. I said that you don't need to be antagonistic. I urged not hiding and standing your ground and demonstrating that you are not only a member of the community but a worthwhile member of the community, and through doing so, others will see that and those that oppose you on grounds of your circumstances rather than action and merit will be in clear view for all to see for what they are - and many can lose faith in their own prejudices because you give them nothing for their minds to react to. Read my original post. I was, admittedly, angry (because this crap happens all the time), but I was not upset with the inclusion of a tg character, I was upset with the reasons and the execution. Notice that in my original post, I never said to stop making transgender characters or including them. What I said was: I'm tired of being used to push an ideological agenda. This was explicitly admitted to, and the response to people concerned about it didn't help matters. As I said before, characters who are transgendered are A-OK, but please don't make the reason you're including them just to be a transgender character. Please don't bring this conflict into these venues.
Because it stirs problems for those who are involved, and makes them associate us with that thing that is interrupting our good time. There are people who have included non-gender-binary characters in lots of games, and other mediums, and they're not reacted to like this because they're often presented better or for other reasons.
You're also not looking at the big picture here, it has plenty of effect on how open someone is about it. When you associate transgendered people with SJWs, you're associating SJWs with transgendered people, which puts unwanted negative attention on us, or causes people to assume we're part of the self entitled whiner movements. Do it enough and people begin to assume things when we haven't caused this stereotype that makes us look like we've just gotta be in everyone's puddin' under threat of bigotry. Not sure how you came to this conclusion. It doesn't even seem to make sense in context with the text you responded to with it. Exactly what does "presenting yourself as is" and allowing people to accept you naturally, rather than dismissively calling people bigots and inciting unnecessary anger, have to do with hiding the fact you're trans?
Yes, but there is a time and a place, and there are good ways to do it. In my hypothetical example, you're there to play Street Fighter. Now's not the time to start a discussion about whether or not it's okay for your to be transgendered, now is the time to SHORYUKEN! Which, incidentally, establishes your presence in the community to the other neutrals.
And again, I didn't say be silent, I said be sturdy. You can be calm and non-insulting without being silent. When I said "if you're particularly diplomatic, you might even offer an apology", which immediately establishes your willingness to avoid escalation, establishes that you have some concern for the feelings of others, and typically establishes yourself as the more mature of the two parties -- all things that are likely to instantly improve your standing in the eyes of the other 7 neutrals (and in many cases, can lead to someone who was neutral interjecting on your behalf, which has a profound effect on the interaction).
But, the point is, you're goal is to establish that you SHORYUKEN too and that's what you're here to do. Not preach, not start an argument, not fight about anything, and doing so is the strongest thing you can do. Being sturdy in the face of opposition is respectable, and establishes that you're cool headed, not too thin skinned, and in turn actually makes it more likely that people will gain sudden bursts of respect for you and interject.
I won't lie...if this sounds overly tactical...well, it kind of is. It just happens that acting with maturity and resolve is likewise a very effective tactic in a social arena, and your objective is not to deceive or to use the neutral members in the social circle, it's Diplomacy. You are displaying your value to them and establishing yourself as worthwhile. There's a lot of subconscious social mumbo jumbo going on here but the point is, it works.
I'm intentionally placing the transgendered person at a disadvantage in the hypothetical because things aren't always perfect. That said, the vast majority of people are not against transgendered people and you're very likely to defend you immediately, but we're talking about a poor case scenario where you establish yourself.
In fact, most of the people in my area that I've met are pretty open minded. I've had a coworker react with a lot of questions, asking me about things like my sexuality, asking me some things about possible treatments and what my view and intentions were for making a transition, etc. She was never antagonistic, and she later PMed me on facebook and told me she had appreciated our conversation, my entertaining her questions, and she had did some thinking and felt that we were really special and she was glad to have me as her friend.
But YES, GAMERS ARE ON THE LARGE AWESOME PEOPLE. Which is why it's very wrong and very damaging to constantly try to poke at them and their beloved games (such as trying to spin The Legend of Zelda as a problematic piece), or using Baldur's Gate as a soapbox to push your ideology in an awkward feeling fashion. Attacking the culture that produces these awesome people seems like a bad idea (which is a lot of what's happening right now and is putting many gamers on edge). I never said there was anything wrong with being open about it. Not once. Feel free to quote me if I did, because if I did, it was an error. I was assuming that it was obvious enough that someone would be bothered by your presence.
I learned a fair amount of this stuff having to deal with religious bigotry growing up on the bible belt and being a nerd who spent most of their time playing video games, Dungeons & Dragons, and Magic the Gathering, in an area where if you heard of any of these things it was probably likely that you thought I was a satanist, witch, would be murderer, etc. Also, I was mistaken for being gay a lot (I guess in a roundabout way sort of?) which had its own hangups. It was hard as a teenager to deal with these things but it did make me stronger in the end (I learned a lot about how to deal with people) and so I'm sharing some first hand advice honed over
But I strongly wonder where you're getting a lot of "what I was saying" since it's evident you weren't responding to what I said in a few places.
@Ashiel is deeply committed to respectability politics, believing that the best way to change people's prejudices is to patiently show them that you are worthy of their respect. She would prefer that people avoid direct confrontation regarding trans rights because of the negative reactions it could provoke.
@abentwookie believes that such behavior will get you nowhere and lets bigots off the hook, unfairly putting the burden of responsibility on the victims of prejudice. She thinks that confrontation is necessary for change.
In case I do have that right, I would like to tell you that those are both reasonable things to think. People have been debating the effectiveness and morals of respectability politics for a long time, and there are intelligent, useful things to be said on both sides. If you're going to keep arguing about it, then try to be cool and quit questioning each other's sincerity. You obviously both care about this. Remember that you're debating methods, not values.
And some surely are. But some surely aren't. Some are happy to see transgendered characters at all, while some like the OP feel used, dislike token characters, and some would rather see more honest representation, rather than a gimmick (because when you're just trying to push diversity as Amber Scott admittedly was, it's a gimmick; it's literally like having a black character just so he can be "the black guy" rather than being a real character whose existence is validated beyond "the minority guy").
There are other trans people in the thread, and they have every right to voice their thoughts too, and some of those thoughts are contrary to my own, but I think we've been civil about it. We've even shared some stories and talked about stuff together. It's cool. We've shared some thoughts, maybe made some friends, and hopefully entertained a little (I still need to post more stuff about Victoria...), so everything can run smooth if we're cool about it.
There are a lot of people being dismissive in the thread too (I won't name any names), but I hope that it stops and we can actually talk without having people trying to tell each other how evil each other are. Yeah, SJWs (and yes, they do exist, and have done a lot of wrong) and GGers (and yes, it's a grassroots movement but there's a lot of wrong that they have done as well) have both done things to be remorseful for, but both sides are people who are trying to do what they think will lead to the best solution. But the important part is they're people. You definitely want to view people as people and not as Team Red vs Team Blue or some other dehumanizing viewpoint.
Years ago, there were a lot of people in our area that were very resistant to Mexican immigrants which seemed to be popping up in the state in droves, most of which were here illegally, and many of them seemed to have no regard for our laws and customs. My great grandmother was murdered by a drunk driver in a truck full of drunks who happened to be illegal immigrants, which assuredly wouldn't do any good for anyone's mood.
My father initially didn't have any opinion overall, though he seemed to lean more towards disapproval of their being around because of the apparent disruption that many of them were seeing. However, there was a man named Jose that started working with him. Jose went through the steps to be a legal immigrant, he respected the culture, was learning the language, and was a nice guy. My dad and he carpooled for a long time.
Jose made a friend out of my father, who had some leanings towards dissatisfaction with a certain group of people for qualities other than their race (because it wasn't that they were from Mexico, it was because a lot of them were making a bad impression on the locals). Not only did Jose gain a new friend, but Jose and his fellows (as more got jobs at my dad's workplace) now had a friend who spoke their virtues to others and helped others to be less anxious about our new members of the community. They're still good friends and they don't even work at the same job anymore. I sometimes see Jose and his buddies where I work, and we ask each other how our respective families are doing. I've a lot of respect for him.
The moral of the story is that Jose wouldn't have made any friends if he had went around calling people who were cautious of him racist bigots. It would have only made things worse, since now not only would he have been associated with a group who were disrupting the local culture, but he would have also been innately hostile. But what ended up happening is he became a positive influence, and now the culture benefited from being associated with him. He won the game.
Because intolerance relies on one very important factor.
The concept of "the other". We're wired for a certain tribal mindset, to take care of our own foremost. We're also wired to try to organize things into patterns, which both allows use a lot of power, but also creates a lot of troubles for us as a whole. If you've never met someone from a particular subgroup before, and a member of that subgroup craps on your lawn, your brain is hardwired to associate the act of crapping on your lawn with that subgroup until you've experience enough of that subgroup not crapping on your lawn to make your brain realize "Oh, gotcha, that was an anomaly".
Which is why I try to view humanity, all of humanity, as the us. There is only one tribe, we the people.
Stop trying to make her into a bogeyman for something she never actually said.
It was said, u can try to pretend it wasn't, it still Makes u wrong In this case. Some People have thought she said that in post release interviews, but they are pre release Interviews.
She clearly say she care about diversity, and the same apply to me. Re-reading her interview I could have say the exact same things with the exact same words.
If you wanna judge Amber Scott writing please judge on the work, even if we don't come all on a perfect aggrement we all, or I have totally misunderstood some message, come to the fact that her work on the Mizhena character, due to the technical limitation, are good. Yes it not please everybody and it's not perfectly representative of all ours experience but it's not bad or false.
You can also read what she have wrote for some pathfinder campaign. We can talk about that. We can also talk on how her work have evolved from this time.
But stop judging her on the fact her intention was "just putting minority for the fact of putting minority". She never ever say that. She sayed she care about inclusivity, she want work on that, we don't know why and for the ****** sake have a little human consideration for that person please.
(delete content here cause it totally deviate from the subject and I don't think the few personne who it was adress will read)
As they shouldn't, since she said nothing wrong.
In my experience people doesn't change if they have no reason to do. If everybody point out and run on, people won't change yes. Because it's easier to just say the other are wrong or are "the enemi". But at the same time people won't change only by kindness, if we never point out the problems and the bad behaviours people haven't no reason to change. And even if we do it only in a polite and civil way people still won't have reason to change their behaviour if there's no bad consequences for them.
Seriously i'm way more for a kind way of doing (I have an Undertale picture profile). But we need both this way of action. Because each one alone is hopeless (in my humble opinion).
That doesn't say each people must do the both, but the both as to be done. It's not easy. It even sometimes come to a clash, I don't have perfect solution. I don't even think there's one.
(And I'm waiting for the next of your writing. It's really cool to read. Really. Maybe it's better to open another subject than this one to share it ?)
As for my post on the forums, I merely asked people who were enjoying the game to share their positive feedback. I know our fans can become engrossed in their enjoyment and I really don’t want potential fans to miss out on the series because of protest reviews by small minded individuals.
As for Amber’s interview, I also believe in strong female characters and I feel she did an excellent job bringing dimension and interest to Safana with her writing in Siege of Dragonspear. Her “Too bad” comment, I chalk up to a long day of interviews, having personally done such interviews.
Regards,
-Trent"
you really need to read the entire things, not pick out pieces to suit your arguments.
Because for better or worse, it's about how much you bring to the table.
In the hypothetical example, unless you're bringing the scene down with a number of severe personality deficits, you belong in the Street Fighter community just as much as those other guys, and you add value to that community by being another person who's there to SHORYUKEN the good SHORYUKEN and maybe HADOUKEN a few times as well. Your good qualities as a human being (and you should have some, because if you don't, it doesn't matter if your trans or not, you're in for a life of disappointment) add to your social value. However, as your value is established, those challenging your value for immoral reasons actively lose value in that community for doing so.
Again, can you explain why there has to be aggression? Can you explain what we gain out of engaging in a war of name calling? People are getting progressively more and more sick of name calling and trying to shut down arguments (which is becoming progressively less and less effective as people are desensitized to it).
You do not want to make a community that you want to be a part of a war zone, because we all have to be there. When you establish yourself as a member of that community, those who attempt to turn it into a warzone against you will be met with the same backlash.
Go to the street fighter community and tell them Kayo "Police" Satoh doesn't belong there. Go ahead...I dare you to do so, preferably in person, so you can see just how effective that will be firsthand. Unrelated but she's playing against one of the most famous and top Street Fighter players in the world, and has done so before.
Kayo playing C-Viper at a different tournament. It's astounding to people in the comments, but it's another day in the SF community, and people are excited when they get to fight her, because they want to test their SHORYUKEN skillz against her SHORYUKEN skillz.
From what I've seen, Kayo also seems to be a legitimately pleasant person to interact with. Yeah, probably. I'm not sure if we should start a new thread or if I should just PM the rest or something (not sure how much interest it has for others and it's only loosely related to Baldur's Gate {by being D&D related}).
EDIT: More Kayo for anyone who cares.
The problem is not "use or not use aggressive method" but "who judge if a method is aggressive or not". Currently in my country it's judge "violent aggresivity" to just talk or having journalistic coverage of the violence the police use against the people, even the pacifist one. In a more personal way the fact I use a pronom that suit me was sayed an "offensive attack" by people. It give to think.
But I really think we come to the moment I can't really go deeper on the subject cause of my limited english skill. That really not an evasion trick believe me. The subject is hard to adress even with a full control of the vocabulary and here i'm not even quite sure my words are really the one I wanna use. I can read you but I prefer stop talking here if you're ok. Saying we agree to disagree at this point (which start to go far from the thread's subject).
For your story there's a "fan creation" subforum no ? Even if it's not Baldur's Gate related I have see some subject related to the other Realms-lore-based games (NWN 1&2) so you can post here I think.
(In the case you wanna share it with more people. If you prefere avoid to much public share i'm totally ok by reading it in PM / if you are still ok with of course)
Sargon of Akkad and Thunderf00t have various compilations concerning Anita and modern SJWs, and one thing you'll note is that they don't dismiss her arguments, they challenge them. They don't simply call her a regressive misandrist or anything, they point out the logical problems, dishonesty, and charlatanism present in her activities. They're far from being alone (this one is very succinct and highlights a lot of the major issues people have with Anita). It's infinitely easier to find videos and material by those critical of Anita that doesn't dismiss her points, than it is to find anything that isn't dismissive from Anita and her supporters concerning anyone else.
Really, I could do this all day long, and long into the night.
So...yeah. >_>
I'll be coming back to this a bit below... Cultural difference can have an important effect. However, most of us are speaking about the culture in places like Canada, the United States, Britain, etc. For the most part, our cultures are pretty fairly cosmopolitan. We're often open to new ideas (because of our support of free speech), but there are places around the world that are significantly more hostile and significantly more insular.
For example, trying to be a homosexual in an Islamic country is probably something that's going to get you outright arrested and executed (and if you're a woman, raped first if you're a virgin). Some places are still in desperate need of reform from within, and sadly, it will need to come from within. That means people within those cultures changing their minds in much the same way that I've watched a lot of religious people in our area go from anti-homosexuality to pro-homosexuality (or at least, pro acceptance of homosexuals as equal members of the community).
So since it's a matter of whether or not something is aggressive or antagonistic, let's look at their definitions.
Now, before anyone complains about hostility being "provoked", notice that when I was speaking earlier, I wasn't talking about being concerned for the guys provoking the hostility but for the other 8 people in the room. You don't want to come into someone's community and be seen as overly pushy, or associate yourself as a troublemaker, whether true or not. Further, by not being antagonistic whenever possible, you establish yourself to the other 8 people as friendly and worthy of their time.
I don't want transgendered people to be drug along with a movement that is, quite frankly, exceedingly unfriendly towards the gaming community at large.
And now I go back to the Anita thing, but only slightly (because it concerns the community)...
This game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, this game, and pretty much everything else has an equal right to exist. Some of these games are cute, charming, violent, sexy, comical, provocative, senseless, timeless, etc. Coming into a community and telling people who are among some of the most accepting and wonderful members of society that they and their hobby is bad is foolishly antagonistic and aggressive and trying to force a change on their beloved culture rather than adding to their beloved culture, is innately hostile and very stupid.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT that I strongly believe that this issue with Baldur's Gate could have been avoided. It's a bit of a perfect storm. You've got a game franchise that people love (and if you don't **** it up, will probably continue to pay for until the apocalypse) but the new official edition was...
1. Riddled with bugs.
2. Messing with established characters.
3. Obviously pushing an agenda.
Perfect storm.
Though I cannot speak for Mephisto87, I strongly believe that if they had left the GamerGate thing out of the game entirely, and when questioned about the transgendered character, Amber had been less focused on an agenda of inclusion and basically telling anyone who were concerned "tough luck" (paraphrasing mine), and instead was more like "Well, it's a little nod to some of my friends in the gaming community who love this game too", Mephisto87 probably wouldn't have cared about the transgendered character much at all. Nor would there have been this huge backlash.
But the GG thing only feeds into the negative reaction to Mizhena, and the writer's reaction only fueled to alienate Mizhena in the eyes of a large portion of the fanbase, because now she's not a character, she's a symbol. Get it? It's what I've been describing, literally playing out before our very eyes. That's fair. I'll drop it. I just wanted to address the remaining points you raised, but I'm okay with putting it aside (maybe for another time). If you don't mind my asking, may I ask where you hail from and/or your native language? I'd be willing. Though it'll have to wait until after work.
But I say I wanna stop around this question.
Good luck for your job's day. o/ !
I'm a french speaker. It's more or less common knowledge we're bad at language.
I'm curious @Glam_Vrock as one who does respect your mod work and thoughts on modding.
What do you think about Chloe? She's not trans, but she is a lesbian so that falls in the LGBT. that wouldn't change the fact that she's an obnoxious self-absorbed Mary Sue who doesn't ever shut up (and no, before someone accuses me of thinking Lesbians need to be quiet, I don't appreciate word twists.)
That said, here's the thing about Chloe: she'd still be just as unbearable if she were not a lesbian. In this case, she'll remind you constantly.
Because she is though, is it the fault of lesbians?
I might actually be missing your point, but as a fellow mod enthusiast, I wonder why the poor writing of mods like Chloe and Saerileth get no quarter, but the shoddy writing of Mizrehna's backstory is ok.
Standard 3 dialogue tree
Ask her about her name
She tells you.
You don't go "Hi I need some healing" and she goes "Sure, but first you need to hear about my trans-ness Instead you ask a question, she gives an honest answer.
For an npc that seems alright to me.
Also why compare her to joinable NPCs? Why not compare her to other non-joinable NPCs with flavor text? That seems more fair to me.
Yeah, there's a pretty good reason that the Chloe NPC is reviled by so many, but the mod that lets you advance romances regardless of race or gender is loved by so many.
That's debatable. As I noted before, if it had just been the transgendered character, even if she was a bit on the weak side, it likely wouldn't have garnered her as much criticism. However, as I noted in my more recent post on the matter, by including cracks against Gamer Gate (making it political) and changing existing characters to give them what you call "better personalities" because in your own view the game was "sexist" and had to be changed: Well, you made it political, you declared an agenda, you insulted the game we all knew and loved, and the characters we all knew and loved (Jaheira was one of my favorite characters, and I'd dare say she was right with Imoen and Minsc in terms of fans), and you intentionally or not got the transgendered character swept up into it. Because now, it looks like just another piece of your agenda puzzle, and the fact many people feel that her story feels forced makes it seem all the more so.
And reasons it feels pretty forced is because most transgendered people aren't really represented by the character in terms of their situations, and because Baldur's Gate has already established that you can have your head chopped off for gifting a duke's girlfriend with a sex-change belt (even though having it removed is a simple process), and Nalia notes that homosexuality would be a scandal.
So like I've been saying, this sort of thing drags us through the mud too. I cannot blame those who think Mizhena is just a symbol. We become guilty in the eyes of the public by association.
As for why Chloe and Saerileth get it worse than Mizhena:
1. Mizhena is a minor character. Chloe is a full NPC mod. Whatever you think of Mizhena, she only constitutes a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall product. Chloe is the overall product.
2. Take a look at this:
I just barged into this woman's house, I haven't said one word to her, she has no idea who I am, and she immediately starts telling me about her missing husband. Why?
This kind of thing is everywhere in Baldur's Gate. Is it good writing? No, but it's par for the course.
My best shoot: it's totaly understandable that the Watchowsky have made film about computers ... they're trans-sister (transistor)
I sayed it was my "best" joke. I don't sayed it was a good one)