International Women's Day

[WHAM]

What I personally think, I am 300% with any diversity as long as it's not there for the sake of diversity. A badly written character is a badly written character no matter what minority it represents.
I think also we need to move on from "why isn't Batman asian/black/trans/whatever" and actually instead of trying to change a character that applies to a demographic, actually write new characters that represent and are more relatable to people.

Amen to that. Taking existing characters and twisting them to fit something new can work (see some of the weird alternative universe Batman comics), but the readers will start to feel something is off when such changes are done to serve some ulterior motive or agenda. That's when you get pushback and fans abandoning a product. We need more interesting characters, stories and settings. As long as they are well made and interesting, small details like gender or race of a character become the spice that completes a character, giving them flavour and helping them stand out. But if that identity is all the character is (Look! I wrote a transgender Mexican communist superhero! Why don't people like my creation?) then it all falls apart.

"Be excellent to each other" is what I think we should all do.

Tell that to the name-calling bigots, eh? Not a shred of civility or manners in some people.

[Khris]

TFW the only fans you care about are disgusting young white males, and they are abandoning your product.

Also, look! The fascist is demanding civilty! That's a new one.

[Ali]

As I see it, either you allow criticism or you don't. You don't get to choose whether criticism is allowed based on whether you agree with it.

When I see someone saying complaining about a black Stormtrooper, I say to myself, "well, that's not how I feel about it" and move on with my life.

Criticism is fine. I was talking about abuse and bullying that's designed to discourage feminist or left-wing criticism. As well as being homophobic and transphobic, a number of people in the Facebook thread I mentioned called for the OP to be banned because she posted a video where a trans woman criticised Leisure Suit Larry. So I'm not overly panicked about the 'censorious left'.

We have to agree that there are limits on acceptable discourse if we want to have a worthwhile and respectful conversation. That's why forums have moderators, and why comment sections are hellish.

If our conventions allow the abuse of gay and trans people, but you can't criticise Al Lowe's jokes, then I think we're in trouble. If we tolerate the abuse of people for their sex, sexuality, etc. then some people are driven out of the conversation and we lose their input.

On the other hand, if our conventions say we must be polite in response to "Nazis had their good points," then we're doomed.

[Blondbraid]

WHAM: Did you read the link on Virginia Hall? She was a Brittish spy who fled across the Pyrenees on foot whilst hunted by the Gestapo and did it all with a prosthetic leg, and was so good at guerrilla warfare she got to train three battalions in how to do it. People with prosthetics did get sent behind enemy lines and into enemy territories in WW2, even if it wasn't common. The battlefield trailer takes a lot of liberties, but it's clearly not marketed as gritty and realistic. There is a tank decorated with a statue horse head, people doing crazy acrobatics and a guy with a sword on the battlefield, but somehow, it's the woman who got everyone up in arms over breaking immersion.

That moment when Jack is talking about other people's "goofy beliefs".

Jack: shut up

Everybody else: don't quote him. Don't engage with him or his "arguments". If you do, he "wins". Just don't.

Jack's proven himself as a hypocrite who thinks his right to make "suicide is gay" jokes in a thread specifically meant for safe discussion is more important than the right of those genuinely suffering to have a place to share their experiences without being mocked for it, thinks fining people for willfully misusing pronouns is a horrible violation of free speech but Hungary banning anyone from teaching and discussing gender studies isn't, and willfully misunderstands or ignores any arguments against him in order to accuse everyone who disagrees with him of wanting soviet dictatorships.

And I never claimed Eliot Roger, Alek Minassian and Breivik became criminals because of video games, I say it's because they were radicalized in the internet in their echo chambers where people "joked" that women and minorities weren't human for long enough that they started believing it for real, and they left behind manifestos explicitly explaining this. Even if the vast majority of people even in those forums just thought they were making edgy jokes or "just telling it how it is", some people did start believing it for real and use it as a justification for killing real people.

To anyone else reading this, here is a link to the suicide prevention thread Jack got locked down, and you can see for yourself whether Jack's description of the thread in his comment above is accurate.

As I see it, either you allow criticism or you don't. You don't get to choose whether criticism is allowed based on whether you agree with it.

When I see someone saying complaining about a black Stormtrooper, I say to myself, "well, that's not how I feel about it" and move on with my life.

Like Ali said, no one want's to ban criticism, but bullying and harassment isn't criticism, and there is a double standard where explicit threats and slurs hurled against people criticizing pop culture is brushed off as just harmless jokes and something that should be tolerated while anyone speaking up against the abuse gets painted as an evil boogieman trying to censor everything.

Sorry if I have a hard time just bowing my head down and accepting it when one group of people says that I am less than human and makes jokes about how people like me should be abused and mistreated, and everyday in the news I see new stories of people like me getting killed or abused so it's not just jokes to me, and a group of "enlightened centrists" then comes along and says that I'm just as bad as the people sending death threats because I want there to be forums where I can speak out freely without fear of facing threats and harassment just because of a trait I was born with.

[WHAM]

WHAM: Did you read the link on Virginia Hall? She was a Brittish spy who fled across the Pyrenees on foot whilst hunted by the Gestapo and did it all with a prosthetic leg, and was so good at guerrilla warfare she got to train three battalions in how to do it. People with prosthetics did get sent behind enemy lines and into enemy territories in WW2, even if it wasn't common. The battlefield trailer takes a lot of liberties, but it's clearly not marketed as gritty and realistic. There is a tank decorated with a statue horse head, people doing crazy acrobatics and a guy with a sword on the battlefield, but somehow, it's the woman who got everyone up in arms over breaking immersion.

Nobody is questioning whether or not people did some great feats of endurance, skill and resilience during a time of war, prosthetics or not. Alas, when the head producer of BF5 went on twitter claiming that "women served as frontline troops and fighter pilots just as men did" while also professing that he felt the need to lie about such things to his daughter because "otherwise she'd feel left out from history", that raised some eyebrows. No wonder said head producer quit the company just before BF5 released. I'd imagine there was some pressure to be rid of him.

As for the trailer: that was my key issue with Battlefield 5 to begin with, though. They said "realistic and immersive" and the first trailer gave us the exact opposite. No wonder there was backlash. Add to this the same aforementioned producer claiming that he "wanted to make Battlefield more like Fortnite" because his daughter wanted to have flashy clothes in daddy's game, and... yeah. Wrong genre for that.

Also, look! The fascist is demanding civilty! That's a new one.

It's not nice to call Dualnames a fascist, Khris. Get your act together.
Truth be told, I am starting to think you are a bit confused as to what "fascist" means. Look it up sometime. It'll do you good to civilize yourself.

[Crimson Wizard]

The battlefield trailer takes a lot of liberties, but it's clearly not marketed as gritty and realistic. There is a tank decorated with a statue horse head, people doing crazy acrobatics and a guy with a sword on the battlefield, but somehow, it's the woman who got everyone up in arms over breaking immersion.

Lol, that were my thoughts immediately when I learnt about the whole issue. I posted similar comment on ags discord few months ago. Did not want to post this here earlier because thought it's trivial (well, still do).
(The WW2 shooters have long became something like a "ww2-punk" where all that's left from ww2 are general references to the epoch. An attraction where players run around shooting people like in any other tournament game. This random BF5 video I found begins with a soldier occasionally shooting rocket launcher (panzerschreck?) on the run, dropping it then getting another one from the backpack.)


Reading something like a twitter post linked above always leaves me in a mix of confusion and disbelief, thinking that my social experience is way too little to understand what is going on. I worked twice in a companies where there were women programmers. In one of them, we were porting some mobile games, at some point the relation of men and women was 1:1 (this could also be because the company was hiring students). In another there was one female programmer who was treated as a senior colleague.

Was it about game industry in general or in USA? Do they speak of company's attitude or players' attitude that discourage female developers? I knew there are lots of unhinged assholes in the web (partially why I tend to ignore social networks), but it's bizzare to hear people are actually leaving jobs because of that.

[Scavenger]

Truth be told, I am starting to think you are a bit confused as to what "fascist" means. Look it up sometime. It'll do you good to civilize yourself.

I dunno man, should we really be more civilized by the standards of a dude that thinks the Nazis did good things (they didn't, they were evil and completely incompetent), that people are just jumping on the bandwagon of "those poor Jews" and not being rightfully mortified by a systematic genocide of over six million people, and that we should murder any criminals in cold blood. And when given an opportunity to disown these statements, doubled down on them.

I dunno man, is that civility?

[Khris]

The fascist doesn't like being called a fascist! That's a new one.

[eri0o]

Holy fuck you people like to write.

1-ignore all media writing on Sarkeesian and just watch her videos, they have lots of important insights and she speaks clear English, She is a good speaker.

2-Again, ignore media, if you want a fun movie, watch Captain Marvel, it's also has graphically amazing moments. And lots of nostalgia.

I lost track of all the arguments, but yeah, those two things caught my attention. Also, people attaching historical realities to Battlefield are delusional, next thing they will ask realistic physics and complain their characters don't die for lack of hygiene.

[WHAM]

I dunno man, should we really be more civilized by the standards of a dude that thinks the Nazis did good things (they didn't, they were evil and completely incompetent), that people are just jumping on the bandwagon of "those poor Jews" and not being rightfully mortified by a systematic genocide of over six million people, and that we should murder any criminals in cold blood. And when given an opportunity to disown these statements, doubled down on them.

I hate to derail the thread further, but since I keep being attacked, I feel the need to defend myself.

"dude that thinks the Nazis did good things"
> While I do not think it lessens any of the bad things the Nazi regime did, I believe their actions promoted certain avenues of industry and science that have had positive impact on human society. See for example: advances in rocketry allowing space exploration, with both US and USSR rocket programs being based on German wartime advances and run by captured german scientists.

"the bandwagon of "those poor Jews"
> I've never questioned the existence of the holocaust. Hell, I've been to Poland and seen Auschwitz myself, I know full well what the realities were and what the impact of the systematic destruction of the Jews in Europe has been. My only issue with the subject is that people who were not part of the issue are using that particular point in history to milk it for personal gain, while forgetting many other equally meaningful manmade disasters that killed as many or more people. I wish only to promote historical accuracy and balanced perspective, rather than mythmaking.

"murder any criminals in cold blood"
> I've never said this. I have said, however, that I support the death penalty or any other useful end-solution to the worst of criminals in situations where the burden of proof is overwhelming. I do not see any issue with a 100% veritably proven serial child-rapist being cut open to harvest organs to save more valuable lvies or to educate medical students. Such extreme individuals have no worth in society and do not deserve human rights.
In cases where the amount of proof is lesser or the crime is lesser, current levels of punishment are mostly agreeable to me (although Finland has a particularly lax system of laws when it comes to many crimes, such as a child molester walking free after just 2-3 years in prison, which I find is inadequate punishment).


Once again, I remain mystified which one of these statements makes me a fascist.

The fascist doesn't like being called a fascist! That's a new one.

It is, isn't it? I'm pretty sure actual fascists and neo-nazis wear such titles with pride.
I await an apology, that is all I have left to say on this matter, and should anyone wish to further slander me, feel free to do so via Discord, email or PM so as not to further divert this thread.

[Khris]

The fascist doubles down on his fascist rhetoric while still insisting it's not fascist. That's a new one.

[Ali]

Here is WHAM saying we should shoot protesters when protests turn violent:

When a peaceful protest turns violent, the truly peaceful protesters, if they have a brain cell between them, will leave the area when the police arrive.
Thus all thats left on the streets are the hoodlums and anarchists. I say "if they don't follow orders, shoot a few, see if they learn a lesson".

I quoted you saying you "realize [the Nazis] did good things" and lamenting that "the event we have labelled "the Holocaust" is seen in a purely negative light", and you said you stood by those remarks. When Khris calls you a fascist, you wheedlingly imply he's "uncivilised".

You see the good side in fascist regimes, while also advocating murderous authoritarianism.

You're a fascist.

And I'm shocked you haven't been banned from this forum.

[Crimson Wizard]

Here is WHAM saying we should shoot protesters when protests turn violent:

I'd like to ask what is the alternative that civilized societies suggest? Like when the protesters (or "protesters") start breaking property and injure policemen?

[WHAM]

I'm pretty sure this thread is headed for a lock anyway, so what the hell...

Again, I stand by my word and think that "protesters" who harm people and property, lighting fires and injuring police officers, should be suppressed to allow an actual discourse and demonstration to take place.

You're a fascist.

And I'm shocked you haven't been banned from this forum.

I am equally shocked your uncouth and slanderous arse has not been banned from this forum.
Alas, for the time being, we shall simply have to agree to disagree on matters of principle and politics.

At least I can walk away from this farce with my dignity, while you can simmer in your hateful rhethoric and buzzwords like the bitter little things you appear to be.

Have a pleasant day, everyone.

[Snarky]

Concerning Captain Marvel, the people flooded it, because Brie Larsson has said some inflamatory things over the past few weeks, and people were trying to get back to her by downvoting the movie, cause people are dumb sometimes, and can't separate an actor/actress from a movie.

I'm not sure what you heard, so just to be clear, this is what Brie Larson was reported saying:

"About a year ago, I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male. So, I spoke to Dr. Stacy Smith at the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, who put together a study to confirm that. Moving forward, I decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive. After speaking with you, the film critic Valerie Complex and a few other women of color, it sounded like across the board they weren't getting the same opportunities as others. When I talked to the facilities that weren't providing it, they all had different excuses."

"Am I saying I hate white dudes? No, I'm not … [but if] you make the movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie and review your movie. [Audiences] are not allowed enough chances to read public discourse on these films by the people that the films were made for. I do not need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn't work for him about ‘[A] Wrinkle in Time.' It wasn't made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, to biracial women, to teen women of color, to teens that are biracial."

I haven't seen the film, but I've seen the Room and Brie was fantastic in it!!

Agreed!

What I personally think, I am 300% with any diversity as long as it's not there for the sake of diversity. A badly written character is a badly written character no matter what minority it represents.

The flip side of that is that a well written character is a well written character no matter if their demographic identity was chosen for the sake of diversity. And diversity also opens up room for other, interesting stories.

Making Spider-Man black got us Into the Spider-Verse. Making Starbuck a woman added some great texture to the Battlestar Galactica reboot. Turning Willow gay provided character development, storylines and dramatic scope for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Creating a fantasy world inspired by Chinese culture instead of medieval Europe gave us Avatar: The Last Airbender. All these decisions were made partly out of a desire for better representation â€" not just for ideological reasons, but because it broadens the appeal to a wider audience, and as a creative decision because it feels more true to the world.

I think also we need to move on from "why isn't Batman asian/black/trans/whatever" and actually instead of trying to change a character that applies to a demographic, actually write new characters that represent and are more relatable to people.

I think writing characters "that represent and are more relatable to people" is exactly what media companies and creative types are trying to do. And given that American and European pop-culture has been so heavily dominated by white, straight and (in some genres and types of roles) male characters, one of the ways of doing that is to ensure better representation of other demographics. (And if the argument is that these demographic characteristics shouldn't matter to the people seeking demographic representation, then… what does it matter? If it really doesn't matter, then why freak out because some character is not white, or not male, or not straight? Why are people whining about the heroes of the new Star Wars movies being a woman and a black guy?)

To my mind, geekdom ought to appreciate the value of representation, since so much of the appeal of superheroes, science fiction and fantasy has been as a way for the awkward outsider kid/ teen to feel a connection to these aspirational role models: high school loser Peter Parker who secretly has superpowers, Ender Wiggins who gets bullied for being smarter than everybody else and ends up saving the world. Harry Potter who escapes from his abusive family to learn that he's a wizard and the Chosen One… When some piece of media, some character feels like it's making a connection with you in a way that you don't usually experience, that's really powerful. We should be happy that other outsider groups get to experience that.

Instead, it appears that many of us (the grown-up, mostly white, mostly male, mostly straight geeks) have gotten so entitled that even pointing out that “hey, so much of this stuff is primarily made for this particular demographic group; we should make some more stuff that's primarily for these other people as well”, or “this stuff actually was made for these other people, so maybe let's hear what they think of it” are taken as inflammatory statements that justify boycotts, hate campaigns and outright harassment.

I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[Ali]

Here is WHAM saying we should shoot protesters when protests turn violent:

I'd like to ask what is the alternative that civilized societies suggest? Like when the protesters (or "protesters") start breaking property and injure policemen?

There are all sorts of non-lethal ways of dealing with violent protests. Like... Britain isn't the best country, but protests here don't usually end with the police firing live ammunition into crowds. Smashing windows and setting fires is bad. Murdering protesters is what tyrants do.

I would like it to be noted, that me (and maybe Khris) being really aggressive towards WHAM has encouraged him to consider withdrawing from the discussion. This illustrates how people withdraw when they are attacked. It's why we shouldn't attack people for things they have no control over like their sex, gender, race and so on.

I think Snarky and Blondbraid make some great points above. Regarding the "diversity is OK, it's the pandering I hate!" argument - what about all the terribly-written pop culture franchises that pander to straight, white male fantasies? What about all the crappy Stallone and Schwarzenegger films? Why have I literally never heard someone accuse them of pandering?

[Snarky]

<Mod hat for a second>:

Saying the Nazis also did good things (because “some think our attitude should be one of gratitude; like the widows and cripples of old London Town, who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun” â€" yay rockets!), or that there are other historical atrocities that don't get the attention of the Holocaust, are facile statements next to the enormity of the crime, but fall well short of being bannable. More positive defenses of genocidal ideologies would however qualify.

And it seems to me that when Ali calls WHAM a fascist, that is a sincere belief based on WHAM's stated views, not just a term of abuse. People may judge for themselves how well it fits, but it is not an obviously unreasonable characterization (OTOH, I wouldn't say the quotes given prove it, either). Also not bannable, therefore, though this does not mean it's a free-for-all for all sorts of accusations.

It can be difficult to balance disallowing personal abuse and allowing people to express strong disapproval of views they find abhorrent, and we won't always get it right. So all participants are better off playing it safe: don't say (borderline) shitty things.

"Be excellent to each other" is what I think we should all do.

That would certainly make moderating a lot easier.

[Ali]

If it helps, I'm happy to replace "fascist" with the more precise "sexist right-wing authoritarian with fascist leanings".

[janleht]

Ali & Kris

Nicely done.
You hijacked the thread about women rights, for your personal hatred & egoism.
You must feel like a real humanitarian heroes now.
When you identify as a feminist & LGBT rights activist and start throwing dirt towards other members, you're not smearing other members...
You are smearing feminists & LGBT rights activists.
People like you is the reason, why so many view negatively these movements and want nothing to do with them.

[Ali]

I didn't mean to dominate in this thread, but I think a sensible conversation is difficult when people start seriously defending GamerGate. I haven't identified myself as a "feminist & LGBT rights activist". I'm not an activist, I just hold the (apparently radical) opinion that sexist hate campaigns and the actual Holocaust don't have an upside.

Holding one person responsible for what others do is wrong. If you want an excuse to view feminists & LGBT rights activists negatively, you don't need me to give you one.

EDIT: I can't believe it's necessary to say this, and I can't be bothered to reply to Jack's comments below but - of course I don't support, deny or diminish mass killings by the USSR. Nothing I've said would suggest I do. I just haven't mentioned them because it's not relevant. Whereas WHAM's views are relevant to my observation that the misogyny and double-standards faced by female developers are related to regressive right-wing online extremism.