Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Ag3ma]

Okay, what does that mean? Elaborate a bit. You must know more, unless you're just being anal about "everyone" not meaning literally everybody.

I suspect the key to BG3 was that it was a really well executed, dedicated RPG experience. It "swept the board" in terms of the genre base, but I suspect had very little draw outside the RPG interest zone. That'll save a lot of hostile reviews, simply because those guys didn't even try it to find out that they disliked it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Looking back, I think the conversation got a bit confused because I quoted the wrong link. I meant to quote the link in Hawki's post to the article about a campus book launch, but I accidentally quoted the other link, to the Julie Bindel article about the conference. My mistake.

Now, as a broad principle, i don't think venues should be obligated to accept bookings from individuals or groups with hateful or discriminatory platforms, so the same arguments generally apply.

I think there shouldn't need to be a law for that but then it means you also support a certain baker's right to not bake a cake for a gay wedding and well it's not a road I want to go down in terms of letting private companies get more power. That's how you end up with a corporate congress.

In that case, why would those people who wanted their book launch on campus have any more of a right than... I don't know, me? Is it an infringement of my right to free speech that I haven't been invited?

Campuses are meant to be about exposing people to new idea. Don't like the launch, do go to it. Simple. There were plenty of events and stuff when I was at Uni I just chose not to go to.

 

[Silvanus]

I think there shouldn't need to be a law for that but then it means you also support a certain baker's right to not bake a cake for a gay wedding and well it's not a road I want to go down in terms of letting private companies get more power. That's how you end up with a corporate congress.

Not really the same. Anti-discrimination law should be pretty simple: you can't choose who to serve based on their characteristics, but you can choose who to serve based on their actions or platforms.

Campuses are meant to be about exposing people to new idea. Don't like the launch, do go to it. Simple. There were plenty of events and stuff when I was at Uni I just chose not to go to.

OK, but that doesn't address the question. How is this book launching person being denied their free speech any more than I am, just because the campus hasn't invited me to launch whatever I want?

 

[Ag3ma]

OK, but that doesn't address the question. How is this book launching person being denied their free speech any more than I am, just because the campus hasn't invited me to launch whatever I want?

Who really gives a monkeys? It's just a sideshow, a distraction.

We live in a country where the Home Secretary has announced it is (or should be) a crime to wave a Palestinian flag. We have bigger things to worry about than whether universities provide a platform for A, B or C.

 

[McElroy]

Perhaps I was too subtle. You implied BG3 pleased everyone.

It doesn't mean literally everyone. Anyway, yes, the Act 3 isn't good (or doesn't hold up in comparison to 1 and 2). But y'know, if Cyberpunk 2077 had released in the updated state it is now, the acclaim about the game-part would be universal. I'd say that indeed the way Larian communicated throughout the steps of betas and other Early Access stuff contributes greatly on it, and thus we have a good game with good flavor and with good community engagement. Everyone is rather pleased.

I suspect the key to BG3 was that it was a really well executed, dedicated RPG experience. It "swept the board" in terms of the genre base, but I suspect had very little draw outside the RPG interest zone. That'll save a lot of hostile reviews, simply because those guys didn't even try it to find out that they disliked it.

The highest rated game on Metacritic was a baseball sim for a very long time. I'd say that's a game that pleased everyone, even though it got some strange user reviews just for being "above" Half-Life 2. Gamespot used to have a End of the Year Award called "Best Game Nobody Played" and its opposite "Worst Game Everybody Played".

Nevertheless, this isn't funny or about woke stuff, so whatever.

EDIT since you edited this in after my reply.

Your argument there is full of shit. You don't look hard enough. The best part is, that no one has to even look that hard to find well written characters that aren't non-white and aren't race swaps.

It's undeniable that the AAA diversity push comes from a cynical marketing perspective. Your examples of fighting game caricatures getting proper lore in some sequels ten years later are silly. They aren't the same.

And also, they undoubtedly did a good job with Melanie Liburd as Saga Anderson, and they wouldn't have had the Finnish actress reprise anyways. It's the exec decision to make a second playable character a female poc, and the even the decision to make a sequel to Alan Wake in the first place. Sam Lake and co don't have full freedom to do whatever, they answer to Microsoft and their own shareholders.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Not really the same. Anti-discrimination law should be pretty simple: you can't choose who to serve based on their characteristics, but you can choose who to serve based on their actions or platforms.

Ok so which group should be stopped from holding meetings in the UK now in [current year[
Those supporting Israel or those supporting Palestine?

OK, but that doesn't address the question. How is this book launching person being denied their free speech any more than I am, just because the campus hasn't invited me to launch whatever I want?

Well firstly as far as I know you've not written a book that potentially has academic worth to it.
Universities have a mandate to try and present a number of different views to students and expose them to different ways of thinking.
I'm pretty sure we had some controversial speaker while I was at uni, my approach was, well I don't want to hear him yelling about how the west was evil so I just didn't bother going to it. I went to Quiz night at a local pub instead.

 

[Silvanus]

Ok so which group should be stopped from holding meetings in the UK now in [current year[
Those supporting Israel or those supporting Palestine?

? Neither, obviously.

Well firstly as far as I know you've not written a book that potentially has academic worth to it.
Universities have a mandate to try and present a number of different views to students and expose them to different ways of thinking.

OK. But let's see: I know at least a couple of people who've published books. Is their free speech infringed by the fact they haven't received an invite? Just saying-- hundreds of thousands of books are published every year, and it's not part of a uni's mandate to operate book launches. They do so in limited, specific circumstances.

 

[Ag3ma]

Universities have a mandate to try and present a number of different views to students and expose them to different ways of thinking.

No, they don't. That is the imaginary view of universities.

Universities are paid by students and/or the government to educate students. And that's about it. (Well, they do get paid to a couple of other things, like research.) Of course, good education should involve some degree (if you'll forgive the pun) of being faced with different views, but not in the way the peanut gallery-level debate plays out in society and media.

"Academic freedom" is a thing, but it's the right of academics to inquire, research and opine, and even then, with a remit of within the area that they work in. I have a right, as a neuroscientist, to teach a controversial theory of neuroscience in classroom. As a neuroscientist, if I want to use my class to discuss Israel-Palestine, they can kick my arse to the kerb. Universities are certainly under no obligation whatsoever to let any old person off the street to expound their personal views on any topic, whether in class or as an extra-curricular event. Or I should say, were under no obligation: because since the government started interfering so much, they sort of are seemingly forcing universities to do so.

Of course, an interesting issue here is payment. If there's a controversial talk hosted by a university, the university needs to hire security, pay insurance, etc.. Who's paying for that? Are universities just expected to foot the bill, the government deeming that student fees should go towards protecting talks those very same fee-payers (i.e. customers) largely resent? How fucked up is that?

And back to this idea of a sideshow. Many Western governments over the last few decades have been busy incredibly aggressively constraining the rights of their people to speak, protest, demonstrate, and express their views in all manner of ways. The current attack on universities is about governments attempting to cover their behinds with showy and vacuous appeals to "freedom" even as they've been steadily eroding it in public life elsewhere.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

? Neither, obviously.

So you chose both Anti-semitism & racism? Brave choice there. (Note I'm not saying you are either just using this as an example of what either side is calling supporters of the other and how those claims could be used to say the other is hateful so shouldn't be allowed to have meetings etc).

OK. But let's see: I know at least a couple of people who've published books. Is their free speech infringed by the fact they haven't received an invite? Just saying-- hundreds of thousands of books are published every year, and it's not part of a uni's mandate to operate book launches. They do so in limited, specific circumstances.

Generally you apply to the uni to do so or have to get approached by the students union or a group among them to speak. Generally you don't get random invites as such.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, they don't. That is the imaginary view of universities.

Universities are paid by students and/or the government to educate students. And that's about it. (Well, they do get paid to a couple of other things, like research.) Of course, good education should involve some degree (if you'll forgive the pun) of being faced with different views, but not in the way the peanut gallery-level debate plays out in society and media.

And what of medical students who refuse to learn of evolution (you wouldn't believe this is a real issue but it actually was for a while)

"Academic freedom" is a thing, but it's the right of academics to inquire, research and opine, and even then, with a remit of within the area that they work in. I have a right, as a neuroscientist, to teach a controversial theory of neuroscience in classroom. As a neuroscientist, if I want to use my class to discuss Israel-Palestine, they can kick my arse to the kerb. Universities are certainly under no obligation whatsoever to let any old person off the street to expound their personal views on any topic, whether in class or as an extra-curricular event. Or I should say, were under no obligation: because since the government started interfering so much, they sort of are seemingly forcing universities to do so.

And you could probably sue them for political discrimination for kicking you to the curb. c

Political beliefs at work protected by the Equality Act - Stephens Scown

Political beliefs at work protected by the Equality Act A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case, GMB v Henderson, has confirmed that the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) affords protection from discrimination - Visit Stephens Scown to read more.

www.stephens-scown.co.uk

Of course, an interesting issue here is payment. If there's a controversial talk hosted by a university, the university needs to hire security, pay insurance, etc.. Who's paying for that? Are universities just expected to foot the bill, the government deeming that student fees should go towards protecting talks those very same fee-payers (i.e. customers) largely resent? How fucked up is that?

Often if it's for a society they are expected to pay out of their budget shares etc or raise funds etc if needed for such things.

 

[BrawlMan]

It doesn't mean literally everyone. Anyway, yes, the Act 3 isn't good (or doesn't hold up in comparison to 1 and 2).

You should have cleared that up in the first place. Your previous statement said otherwise.

But y'know, if Cyberpunk 2077 had released in the updated state it is now, the acclaim about the game-part would be universal.

But it didn't happen, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. The greedy execs at the top fucked up, and caused all that crunch for nothing.

I'd say that indeed the way Larian communicated throughout the steps of betas and other Early Access stuff contributes greatly on it, and thus we have a good game with good flavor and with good community engagement.

I more or less said the same thing, so I don't what there is to argue about.

Everyone is rather pleased.

Once again: not everyone. You are contradicting yourself there. If you're going to throw a hernia about this, then I don't care.

It's undeniable that the AAA diversity push comes from a cynical marketing perspective. Your examples of fighting game caricatures getting proper lore in some sequels ten years later are silly. They aren't the same.

You do not pay attention. I am more than aware of the AAA "diversity push", but it's not as big as an issue as you like to make it out to be, and I was talking about the AA and Indies. They tend to do diversity right far more often than most of the AAA, because in addition to usually good games, gamers are getting all types of games from different perspectives and walks of life. Not just the standard or default status quo.

Your examples of fighting game caricatures getting proper lore in some sequels ten years later are silly. They aren't the same.

Learn to read and comprehend. I never said they were all full equivalently the same. You assume too much. My point is Capcom are one of the AAA to get it right, try and succeeded, and don't do it for the most shallow, lazy, and dumb know-nothing-know-it-all reasons.

And also, they undoubtedly did a good job with Melanie Liburd as Saga Anderson, and they wouldn't have had the Finnish actress reprise anyways.

Exactly. It's called ability over appearance. No one sensible is complaining about it, and I'm all for it.

It's the exec decision to make a second playable character a female poc, and the even the decision to make a sequel to Alan Wake in the first place. Sam Lake and co don't have full freedom to do whatever, they answer to Microsoft and their own shareholders.

Not anymore. Remedy is no longer with Microsoft and doesn't answer to their shareholders. Remedy answers to themselves and whatever they got. Alan Wake II is published by Epic Games this time, but Remedy still got the final say so on the majority of the project, and Epic doesn't care because they're getting too high on anything Fortnite.

Remedy has four games in development, with major launches coming between 2023 and 2025 | Game World Observer

Remedy has shared a financial report for 2021, calling it a strong year and promising that the best times for the company are yet to come. The Finnish studio has four major games in development, which should drive its long-term growth.

gameworldobserver.com

Remedy to self-publish and self-finance some future games

Remedy has aspirations to self-publish and self-finance its own games, but not every future title will be self-published.

www.tweaktown.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

And back to this idea of a sideshow. Many Western governments over the last few decades have been busy incredibly aggressively constraining the rights of their people to speak, protest, demonstrate, and express their views in all manner of ways. The current attack on universities is about governments attempting to cover their behinds with showy and vacuous appeals to "freedom" even as they've been steadily eroding it in public life elsewhere.

Here you'd have a point.............. if people weren't being utter twats these days and were trying to use the right to protest to be twats.

Which leads nicely into woke world where climate activists just stop oil have decided the best way to fight climate change is to go after video game tournaments now.

https://fxtwitter.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1713572821111374156?s=20

It's like how stinky rebellion had people gluing themselves to trains during rush hour and electric buses to fight climate change by making everyone who didn't want to be late for work have to take individual more polluting taxis rather than public transport.................

 

[Silvanus]

So you chose both Anti-semitism & racism? Brave choice there. (Note I'm not saying you are either just using this as an example of what either side is calling supporters of the other and how those claims could be used to say the other is hateful so shouldn't be allowed to have meetings etc).

In a civilised society, we should be able to distinguish between actual discrimination and fabricated accusations. The gov is under no obligation to just accept any old accusation. Neither is the gov obligated to allow absolutely everything to go ahead.

Generally you apply to the uni to do so or have to get approached by the students union or a group among them to speak. Generally you don't get random invites as such.

So let's see. If my random friend with their random book applied, or a student asked them, and they were turned down, would that then be an infringement on their speech?

The point I'm getting at is that a campus book launch is a highly specific platform, to which nobody is automatically entitled. Campus wants you? You get a booking. Campus doesn't want you? You don't. In neither circumstance is your free speech infringed, because even if you don't get to launch your book on that Campus, you still have the same rights and access as 99% of the rest of society.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Said by the man willing to suck Trump's dick, downplay his and his pathetic cronies illegal actions (especially those terrorist at the Capitol), and make excuses for racists, homophones, anti-LBGTQ, and sexists all across the board. The one who acts more like snow flake than those he accuses on the Left or are progressive. Said by the man who constantly goal posts when proven wrong and full of shit time and time again. You have the most shittiest takes next to tstorm.

How Hunter doing? Still helping prop up his old pops and help perk him up with some cocaine? Or those mysterious foreign investor donations to Clinton's foundation that mysteriously suddenly dried up when she wasn't in a position of power?

Oh and for some-one who claims to be so progressive I'm rather surprised at the homophobic insult you just chose to use.

Also are these the racists, homophobes, sexists and Anti-LGBTQ the people you labelled such and keep calling that or one with actual evidence for once?
Yeh, don't bother answering it we both know it's accusations and listen and believe still from you. I mean you probably still think Heard was the victim and Depp the abuser.

As for Snowflake, you took the shot, you're now getting mad I'm taking them back, you felt the need to comment again about me.

I may not be the devil as you claim but I'm not fucking Jesus either so I'm not turning the other cheek to you obvious blatant bullshit.

Still funny how you accuse me of shifting the goalposts when you keep kicking the ball into the fucking stands and then yelling goal then getting mad when I point out where the fucking posts actually are.

As for quality of takes, well clearly you have both of us beat as the master of absolute steaming fucking turd of takes

A majority of your points don't count for shit,

Your personal incredulity issues are not my problem. Nor a valid argument

I have you on ignore, and I don't live on this topic 24/7 nor post much on it.

Yet I still keep seeing the running commentary on what I believe. So you actively have to open my posts to see them and still you're getting pissy and having to throw round ad hominem.

This is what the 6th or 7th time I've caught you pulling this shit this year. You don't seem to get how this ignoring a person is actually meant to work.

Because most of this thread is a farce made by someone (CriticalGaming) who bitched about some other nobody journalist complain about an all white developer in a country that is predominantly white. Wasn't even called "the Woke" thread, and all that proves that he had nothing to stand or better do. Then he "forgot" about making the thread.

None of this is fucking relevant well done you

Glad you admitted you have a problem. Trying work on that and being a decent human being, and maybe you'll get some where. Or possibly never. I don't care; that's a you problem

Well it's clear some-one has to because you're not even working on it.

You're the one crying about it more than me, yet you don't have a problem with racial and social injustices. You don't stand for shit, other than being a contrarian and willing to be a slave to those that abuse their power to hurt others. So long as it isn't you.

Ah yes because clearly the solution to all social problems is corporate by the numbers diversity checklists rather than actually different media for different demographics. But hey maybe you don't think I stand for anything because it's very easy to see Brawlman only stands for Brawlman.

Pretty sure C.S. Lewis said something about a Robber Barren that's relevant to your point here.

You don't read or pay attention much, do ya? So much from a so called "genius".

From the person who thought he was making a great point by repeating shit I said multiple pages back?
And you say I don't read?

And you never realize shit and pretend to know the issue. Sucks to be you. You have fun crying, acting miserable, and complaining like usual. I'll be somewhere else having fun.

Pot, Kettle Black.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

In a civilised society, we should be able to distinguish between actual discrimination and fabricated accusations. The gov is under no obligation to just accept any old accusation. Neither is the gov obligated to allow absolutely everything to go ahead.

I may hate Corbyn but even I can see he wasn't being antisemitic as such.
But he was still kicked from the Labour party for it.

The government isn't under any obligation you're right.
The issue is when arguing for private institutions to be allowed to make those decisions.

So let's see. If my random friend with their random book applied, or a student asked them, and they were turned down, would that then be an infringement on their speech?

Generally if there's interest from a society etc then I'd say being turned down after that could be seen as it. But a random book? Well does it have worth to academia? It's that simple.

The point I'm getting at is that a campus book launch is a highly specific platform, to which nobody is automatically entitled. Campus wants you? You get a booking. Campus doesn't want you? You don't. In neither circumstance is your free speech infringed, because even if you don't get to launch your book on that Campus, you still have the same rights and access as 99% of the rest of society.

That would come down to the book and the reasons for the decline.

 

[BrawlMan]

Someone is salty and crying right now.

Neat.

 

[Silvanus]

The government isn't under any obligation you're right.
The issue is when arguing for private institutions to be allowed to make those decisions.

Institutions being allowed to make decisions about what to do with their own venues? You believe they shouldn't be allowed to?

Generally if there's interest from a society etc then I'd say being turned down after that could be seen as it. But a random book? Well does it have worth to academia? It's that simple.

That's not simple at all. From my perspective, something from Julie Bindel is less likely to have any value to academia or anything else than a random book written by a nobody. She writes shit-slinging bollocks.

That would come down to the book and the reasons for the decline.

This approach would essentially transform universities into something they were never designed to be: event management companies for the publishing industry.

 

[Ag3ma]

And what of medical students who refuse to learn of evolution (you wouldn't believe this is a real issue but it actually was for a while)

Why is any responsible medical course wasting its and its students' time teaching them evolution?

There is also one thing I can assure you about medical students: they're smart enough to answer what they need to, even if they don't believe in it.

And you could probably sue them for political discrimination for kicking you to the curb.

Well, no. You don't seem to quite understand how this works. I cannot be disciplined for my political beliefs, per se. I can be disciplined for doing inappropriate actions based on my political beliefs, like going on some ill-considered, political diatribe in a science lecture.

Often if it's for a society they are expected to pay out of their budget shares etc or raise funds etc if needed for such things.

You mean student societies? I don't think they generally have that kind of money. And where they do, what you're essentially saying is that rich students and the societies that they back get to invite controversial speakers, and poor students don't. How fair and free does that sound to you?

Here you'd have a point.............. if people weren't being utter twats these days and were trying to use the right to protest to be twats.

And who decides who's being a twat? The government? You?

Even a perfectly peaceful demonstration has the possibility to shut every business in the area down. Demonstrations and protests are almost by their nature intended to cause inconvenience, much like labour strikes. After all, otherwise no-one would notice. The argument "Doing X is inconvenient to me / us / 'the public' therefore we're banning it" is the age-old excuse the government and police extremely wide-ranging powers so people with power can wall themselves off from criticism. The right to be politically active in a way that doesn't impinge on anyone else is a nothing more than a right to be powerless.

Some authoritarians are smart, and they've come up with all sorts of lines to squash views they don't like. One of the most potent is posturing as the real "liberals" - this generally means tilting at trivial or sophistical windmills whilst turning a blind eye to or supporting much more significant restrictions on freedom that benefit them. You can see these fucks in their global millions all over the far right.

I am, in fact, very tired and bored of crypto-authoritarians seeking to lecture people on liberalism.

 

[Trunkage]

Then there's still no reason not the create the work for a specific audience.

Because, and here's the real kicker, there's nothing stopping other demographics from engaging with said media should they wish to.

Trying to make the perfect Pasta sauce is a fools errand.


As a reminder the first about 2 - 4 seasons of Supernatural were aimed at "Dudebros" . Brothers, horror movie killing, gore, rock music, muscle cars and generally Dean sleeping with some hot girl every few weeks. That's not who their audience ended up being.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with dudebros. It was a marketing crew pretending that they knew what dudebros like. And they failed

 

[Trunkage]

This is absolute sophistry.

Not every dudebro, Christian, or Muslim is going to be against LGBT people, that's true. Not 100% of any group are going to be for/against any one thing. But if you're one of these three things, you're far more likely to be against LGBT people than not. You don't see non-religious people saying "same sex is a sin." Dudebros are far more likely to protest "the gay agenda" than soyboys (for lack of a better equivalent). You can quibble however you want, these people are more likely to be anti-LGBT than other groups.

Dudebros and Christians are told they should hate LBGT. That is true. Should we leave them in an echo chamber? Or maybe we should encourage something better?