Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Avnger]

enjoying the riveting gameplay of watching cars randomly backflip into the sky

Random aside, but as a fan of Arma 3, I can tell you that it only gets even funnier when said "car" is actually a multi-ton main battle tank that "tripped" over a twig.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

CDPR is oppressed and I think that what they are undergoing is as serious if not worse than the plight of LGBT+ people because when you think of it they are facing the full strength of ah fuck that I just can't this thread is so dumb.

ah yes the plight in this case of not being able to see 50% of the characters in a video game openly be part of a group they are?

Okay, so why do you care?

Because it's hilariously fucking petty.

It would be like asking me critique of Twilight to be taken seriously with that critique being not enough female nudity lol

Like, that article is written by a trans woman expressing disappointment in a game that openly marketed itself on trans inclusivity and whose name is a reference to a genre that has a lot of trans fans. I get that maybe it's not for you and yout aren't interested in that because you were too busy enjoying the riveting gameplay of watching cars randomly backflip into the sky, but hey, people are allowed to care about things you don't. The normal response to encountering something you don't care about is to, you know, just move on.

And I can't eat gluten like many other people. Am I to get mad more games don't include me?

You'd be surprised how in a few bits of media characters of claimed to be gluten intolerant only for the show to then totally have them do stuff no-one with a gluten intolerance would do.

But no, you can't move on can you? Not when the honor of video games has been so besmirched by someone daring to express a personal sense of disappointment in a game specifically marketed towards them. Lesser people might question what gives you the right to speak with completely unearned authority on subjects you clearly know nothing about and, in fact, pretend not to care about, but what do those people know? All that matters is that someone pointed out that a game that hyped up its representation did a pretty bad job of representation, and that's the same as calling all gamers transphobic!

Nor can some-one at PC gamer who had to bring the article up again to try and get a few more shots in.

 

[Absent]

ah yes the plight in this case of not being able to see 50% of the characters in a video game openly be part of a group they are?

Yes yes that is the full extent of what trans people are facing. Unlike poor you, who have to deal with an article about your toy, AND with seeing a confusing pronoun sometimes.

I really hope Putin, Fico, Trump and De Santis will soon restore justice.

 

[MrCalavera]

Nobel Prize for COVID19 vaccine research. Since vaccines are "woke" now, especially for covid, and it'll make the worst people on the planet incredibly mad

 

[Thaluikhain]

Nobel Prize for COVID19 vaccine research. Since vaccines are "woke" now, especially for covid, and it'll make the worst people on the planet incredibly mad

Making them mad isn't really an achievement though, they've decided to live in a constant state of manufactured outrage.

 

[Ag3ma]

Nobel Prize for COVID19 vaccine research. Since vaccines are "woke" now, especially for covid, and it'll make the worst people on the planet incredibly mad

Well, that's sort of interesting. It's kind a big deal, but given we have perfectly good ways of administering vaccines via viral vectors that work just as well, at the same time less than might be supposed.

As a sort of comparison, it's like discovering a drug to treat a condition that uses a novel biochemical action, but that drug doesn't actually provide a clear clinical advantage over older, established drugs.

 

[Hades]

Events in Brussels can be seen as a funny or rather a tragic event in the woke world. Partially because its the Green faction within the European parliament selling out, but if we give the EU the benefit of the doubt and deem it woke(even if only because anti woke so fanatically hates the EU) then we see the EU operate at its worst.

A new Green commissioner must be chosen after the previous one stepped down. And by all appearances it seems the Dutch Politician Wopke Hoekstra will be getting the job. Why does this mean the Green factions sold out? Well because the candidate they decided to give a chance was previously an executive at Shell, has been named in the Panama papers, and as a leader of the Dutch Christian Democrats Hoekstra has always opposed climate policy. Most prominently he was against regulation to stop big agricultural corporations from poisoning the Dutch environment with mass nitrogen emission, even risking a crisis in the Dutch coalition to try and help out the Agricultural corporations.

As an anti Green politician and a former political leader from an imploding party Hoekstra has no business being promoted as the EU climate chief, but Brussels decided to give him the job due to some shady backroom deal Rutte and Von der Leyen made between each other. That's the exact sort of behavior that encourages Eurosceptism while at the same time doing a big poop on the EU's efforts to address climate change.

 

[Silvanus]

Well, that's sort of interesting. It's kind a big deal, but given we have perfectly good ways of administering vaccines via viral vectors that work just as well, at the same time less than might be supposed.

As a sort of comparison, it's like discovering a drug to treat a condition that uses a novel biochemical action, but that drug doesn't actually provide a clear clinical advantage over older, established drugs.

Maybe they should market it at vaccine sceptics.

Keep the regular, perfectly functional 'classic' vaccines rolling out next time there's an epidemic/ pandemic, as usual. Then also market this alternative as "the alt-vaccine they don't want you to know about".

 

[Terminal Blue]

Because it's hilariously fucking petty.

I think it's petty to get mad about something that doesn't really affect you and that you don't really have any reason to care about. I don't think it's particularly petty to talk about whether a developer succeeded in doing something they openly claimed they were trying to do and which directly concerns a huge part of your life.

So, hypersexualization is apparent everywhere, and in our ads there are many examples of hypersexualized women, hypersexualized men, and hypersexualized people in between.

That's what Kasia Redesiuk, the art director for Cyberpunk 2077, said after people rightly pointed out that the 'Mix it Up' poster, used as a promotional image for the game was just a lazy, transphobic joke. We were told in no uncertain terms that this was a "conscious choice" which was meant to tell us something about the world. A world where gender variance has apparently become so normalized that it's become marketable. Only, it turns out that wasn't true, because the world we got has basically no gender variance in it at all.

It would be like asking me critique of Twilight to be taken seriously with that critique being not enough female nudity lol

Was Twilight marketed as having female nudity?

And I can't eat gluten like many other people. Am I to get mad more games don't include me?

That's up to you. I'm not here to police how you feel about media. Just because I don't really care all that much about representation of gluten intollerance doesn't mean you can't, and actually if you do think it's a problem I'm open to changing my mind on that.

Nor can some-one at PC gamer who had to bring the article up again to try and get a few more shots in.

A few more shots in against who? Who exactly is meant to be being shot?

Are you somehow operating on the position that critique can only be motivated by actual, genuine malice?

 

[BrawlMan]

it'll make the worst people on the planet incredibly mad

Sucks to be them. They get mad at the smallest and minor things, so they only continue to bring misery on themselves. Fuck'em.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

ah yes the plight in this case of not being able to see 50% of the characters in a video game openly be part of a group they are?

So at their absolute worst they'd like to have what you have. How fucking terrible.

 

[thebobmaster]

So at their absolute worst they'd like to have what you have. How fucking terrible.

But don't you get it? That would be like saying they are NORMAL. They aren't the minority to be ignored and shoved under one umbrella. If we have too many of THEM showing up in media, people might start thinking there's nothing wrong with being LGBT. Just like how if a man and a woman kiss, that's normal. Man and a man kiss, that's "shoving it down our throat". Woman and woman kiss, that's hot, but also shoving it down our throat.

 

[Eacaraxe]

All you have to do is stop pretending it's definitive or emblematic of DEI.

Except it is, and I'll get there in a second.

Yes-- but if we use the same line of logic you're using for DEI ("X bad thing has sometimes been done in the name of Y, so therefore Y is bad"), where does that take us...?

Bad stuff has been done in the name of almost everything. That's the point.

DEI has been around for quite the while. Present-day DEI has its origins in the '90s -- precisely when corporations and universities started coming under fire for discriminatory admissions, hiring, labor/student relations, stagnant wages, and exponentially-increasing tuition costs. This also happened to be around the time college diversity in student body and graduation rates, employer diversity in labor pools and pay, and corporate social responsibility (the precursor to ESG) were being tracked and indexed by third parties, and the subsequent performance metrics were readily available online for all to see.

In other words, universities and corporations started employing it when there was profit motive to do so -- and not to improve diversity and treatment of diverse student and worker groups. They did it for PR -- to nominally improve outward-facing diversity and social responsibility scoring, and to launder their reputations, without having to do the more costly groundwork for actually fixing anything. And, it fed an entire cottage industry of consultants and speakers (AKA, grifters) to supplement PR departments. Present-day DEI is a smokescreen, was designed to be a smokescreen, has never been anything but a smokescreen, and will never be anything but a smokescreen in the defense of late-stage capitalism.

Especially so long as people defend it on some hope it will yield positive returns in areas in which it was never intended to yield positive returns, someday, somehow...because the stated intent is "good". Just never mind how process and outcome differ, nor that those stating intent are inherently untrustworthy and conflicted in interest by merit of their positions. And how dare you for questioning the trustworthiness and interest in the first place!

DEI this, DEI that. Where are women or BIPOC executives in positions without heavily-restricted policy influence or autonomy? Have universities started tackling the issue of legacy or pay-for-play admissions? How do we explain discrepancies in student debt burden between race and gender (imaginary wage gaps alone don't)? Speaking of wage gaps -- at least, those that actually exist as opposed to the ones widely spoken about -- why do they persist, or at least have not improved in the last thirty years?

Present-day DEI has not only done shockingly little to alleviate that since its inception in the '90s, but in most areas -- student debt, pay, labor/student relations after point of hire or admission -- it's backslid. It hasn't, because it was never intended to; what it has done, is delude the public into thinking corporations and universities are more equitable than they were thirty years ago. Outcome was never the intent, propaganda was.

 

[Silvanus]

Except it is, and I'll get there in a second.


DEI has been around for quite the while. Present-day DEI has its origins in the '90s -- precisely when corporations and universities started coming under fire for discriminatory admissions, hiring, labor/student relations, stagnant wages, and exponentially-increasing tuition costs. This also happened to be around the time college diversity in student body and graduation rates, employer diversity in labor pools and pay, and corporate social responsibility (the precursor to ESG) were being tracked and indexed by third parties, and the subsequent performance metrics were readily available online for all to see.

In other words, universities and corporations started employing it when there was profit motive to do so -- and not to improve diversity and treatment of diverse student and worker groups. They did it for PR -- to nominally improve outward-facing diversity and social responsibility scoring, and to launder their reputations, without having to do the more costly groundwork for actually fixing anything. And, it fed an entire cottage industry of consultants and speakers (AKA, grifters) to supplement PR departments. Present-day DEI is a smokescreen, was designed to be a smokescreen, has never been anything but a smokescreen, and will never be anything but a smokescreen in the defense of late-stage capitalism.

Especially so long as people defend it on some hope it will yield positive returns in areas in which it was never intended to yield positive returns, someday, somehow...because the stated intent is "good". Just never mind how process and outcome differ, nor that those stating intent are inherently untrustworthy and conflicted in interest by merit of their positions. And how dare you for questioning the trustworthiness and interest in the first place!

DEI this, DEI that. Where are women or BIPOC executives in positions without heavily-restricted policy influence or autonomy? Have universities started tackling the issue of legacy or pay-for-play admissions? How do we explain discrepancies in student debt burden between race and gender (imaginary wage gaps alone don't)? Speaking of wage gaps -- at least, those that actually exist as opposed to the ones widely spoken about -- why do they persist, or at least have not improved in the last thirty years?

Present-day DEI has not only done shockingly little to alleviate that since its inception in the '90s, but in most areas -- student debt, pay, labor/student relations after point of hire or admission -- it's backslid. It hasn't, because it was never intended to; what it has done, is delude the public into thinking corporations and universities are more equitable than they were thirty years ago. Outcome was never the intent, propaganda was.

So, to get this straight: you acknowledge that organisations haven't made nearly enough progress on diversity, equity or inclusion (which i agree with), and due to this you.... object to organisations having internal policies on diversity, equity and inclusion?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yes yes that is the full extent of what trans people are facing. Unlike poor you, who have to deal with an article about your toy, AND with seeing a confusing pronoun sometimes.

I really hope Putin, Fico, Trump and De Santis will soon restore justice.

"Oh look I'm so smart I can't actually counter your point but let me talk in this condescending manner while employing a mix of ad hominem and strawman tactics"

AM I DOING IT RIGHT????

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I think it's petty to get mad about something that doesn't really affect you and that you don't really have any reason to care about. I don't think it's particularly petty to talk about whether a developer succeeded in doing something they openly claimed they were trying to do and which directly concerns a huge part of your life.

You know what, it does affect me. It makes me lose a little more faith in humanity that the endless egocentric whining is seemingly growing every fucking day. The endless "why isn't this made just for me". I'm not a fan of plenty of media but you don't see me running round going "Soap Operas really need more martial arts fight scenes to appeal to me". You know what I do? not watch Soap.

This shit comes up on feeds and I just get fed up of it. At no point did Cyberpunk promise a super inclusive trans friendly experience. It's Cyberpunk, I don't think it promised any kind of ultimate happy world experience to anyone.

So, hypersexualization is apparent everywhere, and in our ads there are many examples of hypersexualized women, hypersexualized men, and hypersexualized people in between.

That's what Kasia Redesiuk, the art director for Cyberpunk 2077, said after people rightly pointed out that the 'Mix it Up' poster, used as a promotional image for the game was just a lazy, transphobic joke. We were told in no uncertain terms that this was a "conscious choice" which was meant to tell us something about the world. A world where gender variance has apparently become so normalized that it's become marketable. Only, it turns out that wasn't true, because the world we got has basically no gender variance in it at all.

Welcome to the idea of cyberpunk where corporations don't care and exploit anything and everything for shock value........... what's next complaining about how the game shows rich people as kind vapid spending money on stupid stuff that in many ways is just cosmetic?

Was Twilight marketed as having female nudity?

I remember hearing it had sex scenes

That's up to you. I'm not here to police how you feel about media. Just because I don't really care all that much about representation of gluten intollerance doesn't mean you can't, and actually if you do think it's a problem I'm open to changing my mind on that.

It's not. I just play a character who can eat bread without getting the shits. It's called fantasy roleplaying.

A few more shots in against who? Who exactly is meant to be being shot?

Are you somehow operating on the position that critique can only be motivated by actual, genuine malice?

CDPR seemingly. Also yes some of this does seem motivated by malice.

 

[Ag3ma]

In other words, universities and corporations started employing it when there was profit motive to do so -- and not to improve diversity and treatment of diverse student and worker groups. They did it for PR -- to nominally improve outward-facing diversity and social responsibility scoring, and to launder their reputations, without having to do the more costly groundwork for actually fixing anything. And, it fed an entire cottage industry of consultants and speakers (AKA, grifters) to supplement PR departments. Present-day DEI is a smokescreen, was designed to be a smokescreen, has never been anything but a smokescreen, and will never be anything but a smokescreen in the defense of late-stage capitalism.

Bluntly, most of the sort of work you are expecting to be done here is the job of the government, not universities and corporations.

But the government certainly does impose standards on organisations, which organisations have to respond to, along with a whole host of other considerations. And it's funny, because it's the time of year when I start to think very hard about decisions that get made in mine, and it occurs to me that a lot of "red tape" is not so much down to government regulation, it's to meet the demands of the insurance industry and reduce the risk of getting sued (the mere cost of being sued, never mind losing, being enough to dictate certain actions).

In this sense, I think it's a lot more complex than a lazy swipe at "late stage capitalism", and that such issues rather transcend profit motive and are easily imaginable under a welter of other systems. After all, it's not like non-capitalist nations have always been famed for their light-touch bureaucracy.

Never mind the fact that across many organisations and institutions increased attention to diversity and inclusion really has produced some positive outcomes. Maybe not the widespread societal change that would be more favourable - but as above, that needs to be tackled a lot more holistically by governments (that don't really want to).

 

[Absent]

"Oh look I'm so smart I can't actually counter your point but let me talk in this condescending manner while employing a mix of ad hominem and strawman tactics"

AM I DOING IT RIGHT????

In a sarcasm about the pettiness of this thread's complains, I mention the general plight of trans people (who get ostracized and murdered for who they are), and you reduce this general plight to your toy issue of gaming representation, because you're absolute trash.

So yes, expect condescension and derogatory comments. You poor victim of the world.

 

[Ag3ma]

"Oh look I'm so smart I can't actually counter your point but let me talk in this condescending manner while employing a mix of ad hominem and strawman tactics"

It's not that people can't counter your points, it's that they've learnt that a debate opponent who tends not to supply sensible arguments with substantive evidence is not worth arguing with.

It's like an adult explaining something to a child where the child just says "Why?" in response to any point an adult makes. Soon enough the adult realises it's a game where there's no point addressing the child's question. Not to imply you are child, but to illustrate a roughly comparable exercise in futility. That many users find your views often prejudicial and discriminatory does not encourage them to constructive responses either.

 

[Hawki]

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/10/05/coleman-hughess-final-word-on-ted/#