"Gaming in Color", a Kickstarter Documentary on LGBT+ Gaming

[Something Amyss]

But that's the problem

That wasn't his problem, however. You can argue perspective, but I find it funny how this only seems to be an issue when dealing with how a minority is treated and even then, only selectively.

 

[Something Amyss]

My sexuality has never ever been a problem while gaming or interacting with the gaming community and I find it extremely difficult to believe it has ever been a major problem for anyone.

Well, if it's never happened to YOU, of course it's not a real concern.

 

[Darken12]

Except the cookie in both scenarios cost something. The difference here seems more akin to the guy at the counter selling you one and the guy outside in the gorilla suit. Sure the one in the suit can't sell you it, but still, you wouldn't be wrong in assuming they'd know something.

Nope. In that scenario, the equivalent would be me saying "hey, I found a great cookie place down the street!". The gorilla would be affiliated with the business. I'm not.

No, it is more based on the idea that some education is worth more then other, and when based in an idea of money, the notion is one of "does this education justify the money and time required to make the documentary?" They do have the same right to exist, but, again, on a topic that is related to a project requesting money, people will question if it is worth it.

"Some education is worth more than other." Subjectively? Sure. But it's not my obligation (or the project creators') to bend over backwards to appeal to your personal tastes. Objectively? No such thing. No educational work (or type of education) is objectively worth more than any other.

Hold it! Right there. At no point did I say anyone here is a victim, nor treat them as such, so put the card down and get off the soap box. I haven't made any claim about people's personal bias or preconceived ideas beyond how they might result in asking questions in relation to any kick starter. So the entire paragraph here is worthless, except as a rather blatant attempt to throw yourself and your cause on the ground and cry foul. Seriously, that is pathetic.

You don't seem to understand what victim-blaming actually means. It doesn't mean that you're accusing anyone of being a victim or treating them as such. Victim-blaming is the action by which you absolve the blame of an action from the perpetrator and shift the blame to the victim of the action. Demanding extra justification for this documentary is prejudiced, as I explained in my previous post. What you are doing is telling me that the prejudice is not the fault of those who are prejudiced, but mine (or the project creators') for creating a venue for the prejudice to be expressed. That is victim-blaming.

Also, further insulting the person who's calling you out on your prejudice does you no favours.

Reread what I was saying if you must, but try to do so without your own perchance to cry bigotry. I can fully see someone saying "this is pointless" based on a number of issues, anywhere from concentrating on a minority opinion in a field where even majority opinion can and often is ignored (see DRM practices), to the idea that it will be bland, uninteresting endeavor since gay gamers are still just gamers in the end and thus they would not see their responses to most things any different then their own. Any project advertising itself will have people question it, because that is human nature. Get over the topic of it for a moment when looking at my post and instead look at it in a general view, as I have been trying to keep it. A project is asking for money advertised in a thread. This will get:
1. Discussion
2. Questions
3. People asking what the hell the point of it all is
This is pretty universal, regardless of topic, so blaming people doing so on bigotry or whatever else like that comes off as dismissive, hand waving and outright dishonest.

All those things are personal preferences. No project has the obligation to address them. If someone were to come to you and say "I'm making a documentary on a specific kind of beer microbrew!" and you said "Sorry, not my thing" and moved on, but then came here and said "this needs to justify its existence to me right now!", that would be prejudice. If you ask "What's the point of this?" to every single documentary that isn't directly related to your personal preferences, you just don't understand the point of documentaries at all. And I find it very hard to believe that smart, rational people would reach this day and age without understanding the purpose of documentaries.

No, other people might question the existence or purpose of that type of documentary, as they would not deem it worth the time and effort to look into it and just dismiss it with a "why the hell would anyone care" attitude. I know, because my dad does it all the time when I try to watch the history channel's "how it works" series. Or was that discovery channel..? anyways, the point here is that you will always get some people who don't see the point and saying such, or even outright asking for the thing to justify itself. This is not limited to topics on gender, sexual orientation, race or whatever else.
Thus dismissing people on that as being bigoted is openly assuming that your cause has to be treated differently or have a deferred respect then they might give documentaries on beer subtypes or whatever else. I'm sorry, but no, you don't get to expect that. Nor do you get to play victim when people treat you the same as people would treat any other documentary or kickstarter. It comes off as you wanting to be treated differently the the rest. Some people don't see the point of something you understand or enjoy, sucks, but hey, that is life. That is not discrimination, oppression or even a valid insight into their motivation for not understanding, and your attempts to present it as otherwise are underhanded if not only misguided.

Yes, I agree, I will always get people who are prejudiced, and it's not my responsibility to validate their prejudice by indulging in their curiosity. If I answer their query on the point of this project, beyond the purpose that all documentaries have (education), I am validating their prejudiced assumption that this documentary, because it involves the LGBTQ+ community, needs extra justification above and beyond that of other documentaries. I vehemently refuse to do that. I will not, under any circumstance, do anything to wilfully imply that this documentary is essentially different from any other documentary in existence.

There is a grey area where people haven't made up their mind. Hence questions. But I will say that playing victim because people dare ask what the point of the kickstarter's documentary is in the larger scheme of things does nothing but shore up prejudices that it is nothing but mental masturbation session by a closed off group of people who merely want to whine about the situation rather then what it could potentially be, a unique outlook by an often overlooked group into an entertainment medium that many enjoy. Your hostile responses and prejudice that anyone against it are bigots do far, far more harm to the kickstarter then anything else.

Questions on the project itself are fine (though I fail to see how I could possibly answer them, since I don't have any special insight on it, and I would be pulling my answers from the project's own kickstarter page, which is readily available to the people asking the questions), but I refuse to acknowledge, validate or bend over backwards for questions that are, in their very nature, prejudiced.

As for the rest, I would consider myself exceedingly magnanimous, as I have been repeatedly ignoring far worse hostility (see the end of your paragraph) than you accuse me of.

Also, in case it bears repeating: this is not my project, I am not affiliated to it, and if I wanted to actually sell it to you, I would have obviously not engaged in any behaviour that would have made me (or the project) look bad. Because it is not, in fact, my intention to sell it to you, I am not obligated to put on a fake smile and ignore the prejudice and hostility in this thread. I am free to react to it as I will, within the forum rules.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I do understand, and you have a good point about how companies don't even put forth an effort half the time, and how some assholes get noisy about any effort made. I agree wholly there. I just don't find their lack of effort sexist or whatever else, especially given their mindset and motivations being greed and practicality based on past and past successes. Stupid, shallow and short-sighted, surly, but not against any group of people. They pick the obvious path to money, regardless common sense some times, and make a game that half the time could be paint by numbers target research marketing. As bad an idea as that is, and as crap that the big names in game development do it that way, sexist/racist/homophobic it is not. Hence why I often argue against such claims and instead try to promote general improvements in story telling, game design and NOT using the same playbook and market research. But those are riskier and more expensive I guess.

I agree with you. I believe developers usually don't have the intention to be sexist (or racist or whatever), but the result can still be. And as a player, I only see the result. So in cases - where the intent isn't obvious - it isn't fair to accuse the developers of being intentionally sexist, and perhaps not very helpful either, but you can still criticize the results.

But of course you're right that a lot of what has been criticized in this regard is in the areas of bad characterization and bad story telling, so if story telling in games was just better in general, that would already solve a lot of issues.

 

[Vegosiux]

But that's the problem

That wasn't his problem, however. You can argue perspective, but I find it funny how this only seems to be an issue when dealing with how a minority is treated and even then, only selectively.

Oh no no. It's not a problem that way. I said as much. It's a problem when dealing with how a minority is treated "compared to the majority". If you don't look at how the majority is treated, then you can't compare.

That's all I said. If you want comparative research, you will need to focus on at least two things to compare. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can't say "Lemons have more vitamin C than apples" if you didn't look at how much vitamin C there is in an apple.

 

[Darken12]

You can't say "Lemons have more vitamin C than apples" if you didn't look at how much vitamin C there is in an apple.

There is value, however, in finding out how much Vitamin C lemons have, without making a comparison. There is, in fact, a great deal of value in studying lemons and listing their characteristics and other facts about them, without necessarily comparing those characteristics or facts to other fruits.

 

[Vegosiux]

You can't say "Lemons have more vitamin C than apples" if you didn't look at how much vitamin C there is in an apple.

There is value, however, in finding out how much Vitamin C lemons have, without making a comparison. There is, in fact, a great deal of value in studying lemons and listing their characteristics and other facts about them, without necessarily comparing those characteristics or facts to other fruits.

I've pretty much said I agree with that. It's just that you should set your goals in accordance to what you're going to be doing, that's all. If you want to go in-depth about lemons, be my guest, I'll be listening. So if these guys want to go in-depth into the LGBT gaming experience, they are free to do so, in fact they should do so, as was said, open new perspective.

But if they want to look comparatively LGBT vs. the rest, they have to look at the rest as well, otherwise there's no comparison. It's all about what kind of goal you set for yourself, you need to make sure you adapt your research to it.

 

[amara2021]

I think a lot of issues the LGBTQ community face in online gaming and in representation have more to do with the social climate as a whole, rather than anything specific to gaming. As much as I agree that things need to change for every underrepresented demographic in every aspect of life, I don't really see how making this documentary will really bring attention to any problems that aren't already being advocated for in other areas. I feel a documentary about the LGBTQ experience in say, the workforce, the army, or in education would be much more impactful, especially since gaming is such a subjective experience and much of it takes place in either a solitary environment or one where one's sexuality/race/gender,etc. may not be immediately apparent, thus not playing much of a factor. It would be like interviewing me about my experiences and hardships reading literature as a woman of color. Not entirely irrelevant, but still kind of pointless on its own without being a part of something with a larger scope.

 

[Batou667]

I'll admit that I don't entirely "get" what this kickstarter is about - either the perceived issues or the proposed solutions - but I'll happily watch the finished product. Might be interesting.

 

[Voulan]

I'm definitely interested to see the documentary when it's finished. I can only hope that this will lead to some more diverse games.

Although some responses in this thread are making me frustrated. The usual cries of people ruining games by making them too PC - is wanting a female main character in more games PC? Seriously? Is having some different games going to ruin the increasingly homogenised collection you have to choose from? We don't want everything changed, we want balance. And telling people to get over it is not an option. While games happily cater to your interests, I have but a few choices of games that I'll happily enjoy the same way. As Jim said in his last video, you can only replay Beyond Good And Evil so many times.

 

[Frozengale]

Like many others I find this whole endeavor to be rather silly. It just seems... so specific. I mean if you wanted to make a documentary discussing the cliques in the gaming culture and the problems of misrepresentation of some groups and over-representation of others and how it deals with gaming then sure. A broad documentary detailing many of the social problems in gaming would be interesting. Maybe have a 20-30 minute segment on LGBT gamers and such. But devoting several hours to this particular subset of a much larger problem seems... silly.

To me it's like if you wanted to make a documentary about JUST the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire incident when really you should be focusing on the birth and rise of Unions throughout History. They've made their thesis too specific and I feel like they don't understand the larger picture. For that reason I see no reason to give them such a ridiculous amount of money to create such a specific project.

One Gem I like is in the FAQ where the question of "Does this segregate the gaming community?" they respond with

Quite the opposite. When it comes to gaming, be they gay, straight, men, women, black, white, etc a player is a player. What we want to do is portray the struggles that people have gone through just to try and be treated the same as everyone else within the gaming sphere.

THEN MAKE THAT FREAKING DOCUMENTARY! You point out in your FAQ that being a gamer is a struggle for all people of all backgrounds but you focus in on such a specific group. No these people will not get my money. This project is not worth the time and money and I honestly believe it DOES segregate the community.

 

[Frozengale]

I'm definitely interested to see the documentary when it's finished. I can only hope that this will lead to some more diverse games.

Talking about how games should be more diverse does not make games more diverse. Supporting games that are diverse makes games more diverse. Making games that have diversity creates games that are more diverse. If just talking about the games we wanted actually made them then we would have Psychonauts 2 by now.

 

[TheRaider]

What does LGBT stand for? I can kind of guess but I am not sure.

 

[Frozengale]

What does LGBT stand for? I can kind of guess but I am not sure.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual

 

[runic knight]

Nope. In that scenario, the equivalent would be me saying "hey, I found a great cookie place down the street!". The gorilla would be affiliated with the business. I'm not.

Fair enough. You tell me about a cookie place though, I'll still have questions, which was my point on that from the start.

"Some education is worth more than other." Subjectively? Sure. But it's not my obligation (or the project creators') to bend over backwards to appeal to your personal tastes. Objectively? No such thing. No educational work (or type of education) is objectively worth more than any other.

you are right, it is subjectively. And you are right, you don't have to try to appeal to other people's taste. But think for a moment, what are you really doing if all you are doing is making a project for people who already agree to it while spurning those undecided or who doubt it? Obviously, it loses any educational purpose when you are trying to teach someone who already knows the topic, and that in turn sort of undermines the point being education and instead betrays it as being little more then mental masturbation.

You don't seem to understand what victim-blaming actually means. It doesn't mean that you're accusing anyone of being a victim or treating them as such. Victim-blaming is the action by which you absolve the blame of an action from the perpetrator and shift the blame to the victim of the action. Demanding extra justification for this documentary is prejudiced, as I explained in my previous post. What you are doing is telling me that the prejudice is not the fault of those who are prejudiced, but mine (or the project creators') for creating a venue for the prejudice to be expressed. That is victim-blaming.

I posted my response in a way that separates it from the topic for a reason. It was based in general human nature to question things, and in the way people do question things as fully removed from the topic as I could, and I did so intentionally. This was to avoid any idea of placing "blame" on them, but rather explaining that A. as someone requesting money and B. as someone proposing an idea at all, people will doubt, ask question, and demand the point. No one is demanding extra justification compared to a documentary on sub beers or the opinion of male truckers in the knitting community or whatever. All would get some people going "the hell is the point?" Thus I am not saying the it is your fault, I am saying "you aren't being treated special to begin with" and that claiming you need to be treated different then anything else is assuming you have a right to preferential treatment, an idea that is rather against any notion of equality in the first place and only feeds the predisposition that some have about the project itself being for all intent and purpose, utterly worthless. I can make a documentary about shit I already know, but it is sort of pointless if it is being made only for people who already know it.

Also, further insulting the person who's calling you out on your prejudice does you no favours.

That you slander and misrepresent me and expect fully civility in return only shows special pleading to me, especially when your sole line of argument is "you disagree with what I support, you dare ask what the point is, thus bigot". I've explained, yet again, why I think you are wrong in saying I am blaming the victim and why it is not motivated by bias nor has been from the start.

All those things are personal preferences. No project has the obligation to address them. If someone were to come to you and say "I'm making a documentary on a specific kind of beer microbrew!" and you said "Sorry, not my thing" and moved on, but then came here and said "this needs to justify its existence to me right now!", that would be prejudice. If you ask "What's the point of this?" to every single documentary that isn't directly related to your personal preferences, you just don't understand the point of documentaries at all. And I find it very hard to believe that smart, rational people would reach this day and age without understanding the purpose of documentaries.

If you made the post in a god damn forums, people WOULD do just that. I can make one about ant colonies impact on highway systems and we'd get people going "The hell is the point of this?" I could make one about christian's experiences in the school system and people would go "the hell is the point of this?" You aren't special in getting questions about the validity or purpose. Stop pretending you are being discriminated for being treated the same as everyone else.
Also, it often isn't that they don't get the point of documentaries, it is they don't get the point of one done on a topic that is isolated and small in scope of view and thus deemed, to them, not worth the effort taken to make it. Again, before you stampede to the banner waving, this is not limited to your topic in the least, don't be disingenuous and keep claiming it is.

Yes, I agree, I will always get people who are prejudiced, and it's not my responsibility to validate their prejudice by indulging in their curiosity. If I answer their query on the point of this project, beyond the purpose that all documentaries have (education), I am validating their prejudiced assumption that this documentary, because it involves the LGBTQ+ community, needs extra justification above and beyond that of other documentaries. I vehemently refuse to do that. I will not, under any circumstance, do anything to wilfully imply that this documentary is essentially different from any other documentary in existence.

You are so predisposed to being the victim here that anything not supporting you seems to be "prejudice!" Seriously "I wont answer questions because it means they are bigots to start with" the hell man? And BULLSHIT!. The second you started to assume people were questioning it solely out of prejudice and bigotry, and that people couldn't dare ask what the point was like any other documentary would be asked, you put the kickstarter on a damn pestle and said the forum had to treat it special. You were emotionally blackmailing people to treat it differently because otherwise "they are predisposed bigots".

Questions on the project itself are fine (though I fail to see how I could possibly answer them, since I don't have any special insight on it, and I would be pulling my answers from the project's own kickstarter page, which is readily available to the people asking the questions), but I refuse to acknowledge, validate or bend over backwards for questions that are, in their very nature, prejudiced.

As for the rest, I would consider myself exceedingly magnanimous, as I have been repeatedly ignoring far worse hostility (see the end of your paragraph) than you accuse me of.

You call people who ask what the point is bigots, emotionally blackmailing them to be quiet or deal with you assuming their motivations and both dismissing them and slinging mud at them in the same breath. You are right to say you probably don't have any great info, but you advertised the cookie shop, you probably know more then the average joe. And being you were the one who brought it up, perhaps you'd know what the point of it is deeper then the p0olitical press prelease statements that most people openly tune out for their uselessness. Nothing about "validating" here, unless you already have the world painted in black and white to start with.

Also, in case it bears repeating: this is not my project, I am not affiliated to it, and if I wanted to actually sell it to you, I would have obviously not engaged in any behaviour that would have made me (or the project) look bad. Because it is not, in fact, my intention to sell it to you, I am not obligated to put on a fake smile and ignore the prejudice and hostility in this thread. I am free to react to it as I will, within the forum rules.

I know it is not your project. Said that a few times. But by advertising it, I have to assume you support it, thus your actions having negative repercussions would probably be a bad thing, yes? And playing victim of all this "prejudice and hostility after I call everyone who doesn't get it a bigot"...yeah, no. Sorry, you don't get to. No after you said it isn't your project yet demand people treat it special. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You've been a dick here with how you treat everyone, you can't keep trying to paint yourself the victim by supporting a documentary that looks into a minority and blaming all question about the point on people being bigots. I don't care if some were dicks to you, congrats, you are now no better then them and with no real argument to rest on either. Sorry, but rationality does not work that way.

 

[Darken12]

Fair enough. You tell me about a cookie place though, I'll still have questions, which was my point on that from the start.

And how exactly do you expect me to produce the answers to those questions when I don't have any special insight into the project? My only source of information is the kickstarter page, which I linked in the OP. If the answer to a question is not on the kickstarter page, I have no way of answering it. And if it is on the kickstarter page, it would be a lot easier, faster and practical if you actually took the time to read the actual page instead.

you are right, it is subjectively. And you are right, you don't have to try to appeal to other people's taste. But think for a moment, what are you really doing if all you are doing is making a project for people who already agree to it while spurning those undecided or who doubt it? Obviously, it loses any educational purpose when you are trying to teach someone who already knows the topic, and that in turn sort of undermines the point being education and instead betrays it as being little more then mental masturbation.

You do realise that that kind of rationale can be applied to any type of documentary, right? If the topic is generic, it gets a "we all know that already!", and if it's too specific, it gets a "who cares about that?". Neither are valid points to discuss. They are people expressing their personal preferences as though they were impersonal criticisms.

That you slander and misrepresent me and expect fully civility in return only shows special pleading to me, especially when your sole line of argument is "you disagree with what I support, you dare ask what the point is, thus bigot". I've explained, yet again, why I think you are wrong in saying I am blaming the victim and why it is not motivated by bias nor has been from the start.

I'm going to break it down for you: you think it's not prejudiced, and therefore my actions are antagonistic, malicious and slanderous. I think it is prejudiced. I fully understand what you're telling me, and I would agree with you if I wasn't convinced that the underlying reason people are crying "pointless!" is due to prejudice. But I am. I am completely convinced that the people who are asking for the point of this would not ask it if the project was about any of the examples you cited in this post (such as knitting and the like). Sure, I might be getting a percentage of people who are genuinely unaware of what documentaries are for, but I consider them to be a tiny minority.

I'm not crying prejudice as a diversion tactic to shut down the opposition or to shame anyone. I am genuinely convinced of what I'm saying.

 

[runic knight]

I do understand, and you have a good point about how companies don't even put forth an effort half the time, and how some assholes get noisy about any effort made. I agree wholly there. I just don't find their lack of effort sexist or whatever else, especially given their mindset and motivations being greed and practicality based on past and past successes. Stupid, shallow and short-sighted, surly, but not against any group of people. They pick the obvious path to money, regardless common sense some times, and make a game that half the time could be paint by numbers target research marketing. As bad an idea as that is, and as crap that the big names in game development do it that way, sexist/racist/homophobic it is not. Hence why I often argue against such claims and instead try to promote general improvements in story telling, game design and NOT using the same playbook and market research. But those are riskier and more expensive I guess.

I agree with you. I believe developers usually don't have the intention to be sexist (or racist or whatever), but the result can still be. And as a player, I only see the result. So in cases - where the intent isn't obvious - it isn't fair to accuse the developers of being intentionally sexist, and perhaps not very helpful either, but you can still criticize the results.

But of course you're right that a lot of what has been criticized in this regard is in the areas of bad characterization and bad story telling, so if story telling in games was just better in general, that would already solve a lot of issues.

Oh I agree, they can be criticized, certainly, but it has to be fitting criticism. That is really my main beef with people labeling everything they see as sexist in the first place, as I find it rather an unfair criticism, well, most of the time. Furthermore, it suggests a motive, no matter how it is presented. Whenever something is deemed "sexist", it is so closely related in association with bigotry, that it is taken by those who hear it as an implication of intent being sexist. And as you say, that is not very helpful for any cause.
That tends to be why I try to dig deeper then people's gut reactions to understand the causes for the same shit that people hate in the first place. Poor business practices and ideas seem to come up a lot there.

 

[runic knight]

And how exactly do you expect me to produce the answers to those questions when I don't have any special insight into the project? My only source of information is the kickstarter page, which I linked in the OP. If the answer to a question is not on the kickstarter page, I have no way of answering it. And if it is on the kickstarter page, it would be a lot easier, faster and practical if you actually took the time to read the actual page instead.

I am not arguing you somehow legitimately DO have more information, merely that you would be assumed, however erroneously, to have more. Just perspective people have, as the messenger often might have.

You do realise that that kind of rationale can be applied to any type of documentary, right? If the topic is generic, it gets a "we all know that already!", and if it's too specific, it gets a "who cares about that?". Neither are valid points to discuss. They are people expressing their personal preferences as though they were impersonal criticisms.

You mean people are short sighted, dismissive and selfish in their perspectives on any sort of topic that doesn't immediately align with their interests? Yes, I was aware, as I have been trying to say that for a few replies now to explain why people might ask what the point is in the first place. Also why I proposed my own perspective from the start about it offering a perspective of gamer that is often overlooked in a re-emptive rebuttal to anyone asking me about the point of it.

I'm going to break it down for you: you think it's not prejudiced, and therefore my actions are antagonistic, malicious and slanderous. I think it is prejudiced. I fully understand what you're telling me, and I would agree with you if I wasn't convinced that the underlying reason people are crying "pointless!" is due to prejudice. But I am. I am completely convinced that the people who are asking for the point of this would not ask it if the project was about any of the examples you cited in this post (such as knitting and the like). Sure, I might be getting a percentage of people who are genuinely unaware of what documentaries are for, but I consider them to be a tiny minority.

I'm not crying prejudice as a diversion tactic to shut down the opposition or to shame anyone. I am genuinely convinced of what I'm saying.

That you are convinced doesn't really change it from a poor stance nor strengthen the argument though. It is still a flawed perspective. Hell, even on a surface examination, you are assuming that the majority of those who don't get it are biased or prejudiced against it, with no other evidence but your own previous assumption. It is a confirmation bias. This is also elevating the documentary above others in how it should be treated because questioning the purpose of this one means you have to be a bigot.
I recall a Brony documentary not that long ago, and I remember people asking "what the point" is about that too. It is a sort of self congratulatory examination of a sub-group within a larger nerd culture, so what is the point? Some people just don't get it, not because of a bias against ponies, in this case, but rather, short sightedness or dismissive to something that doesn't immediately appeal to themselves. While the same people might not ask the question every time (different spheres of interest and all that), some people would always ask it just because. Being dismissive is not bigotry or prejudice, and while I certainly agree some probably do so because they are, I think you through the baby out with the bath water in assuming it is always the case.

 

[Ickorus]

perhaps it's because my gaming experinces are largely solitary experinces these days, I'd find it hard to believe a member of the Rainbow Armada having a more radically different experince playing Hotline Miami than my own.

I'm going to be honest, 'Rainbow Armada' is an infinitely better name than the ever expanding series of letters being used at the moment.

 

[Darken12]

I am not arguing you somehow legitimately DO have more information, merely that you would be assumed, however erroneously, to have more. Just perspective people have, as the messenger often might have.

A perspective that, as you have correctly pointed out, is erroneous.

You mean people are short sighted, dismissive and selfish in their perspectives on any sort of topic that doesn't immediately align with their interests? Yes, I was aware, as I have been trying to say that for a few replies now to explain why people might ask what the point is in the first place. Also why I proposed my own perspective from the start about it offering a perspective of gamer that is often overlooked in a re-emptive rebuttal to anyone asking me about the point of it.

You seem to believe that because something is understood, it is excusable. I know full well why people do that. That does not mean I have to tolerate behaviour I refuse to tolerate.

What you're not getting is that offering the rebuttal you're proposing validates prejudice. The correct answer to "what's the point of this?" is "education", which is the same answer you would give to anyone who'd question the point of any educational work. Giving an extra answer (such as your proposed rebuttal) validates the idea that the documentary needs a reason other than education to exist. I don't care how common that attitude is. It's not something I have to tolerate in my own thread. If the answer "education" does not satisfy them, too bad.

That you are convinced doesn't really change it from a poor stance nor strengthen the argument though. It is still a flawed perspective. Hell, even on a surface examination, you are assuming that the majority of those who don't get it are biased or prejudiced against it, with no other evidence but your own previous assumption. It is a confirmation bias. This is also elevating the documentary above others in how it should be treated because questioning the purpose of this one means you have to be a bigot.

How is it elevating the documentary above others? I literally said that the question should be given the same answer regardless of what kind of documentary it is. I would also recommend the same attitude for any documentary facing the same question. I am not elevating the documentary above others, I am refusing to let others treat it as something that needs special justification to exist. It's a documentary just like any other.

And as for the prejudice bit: please don't take offence at this, and I genuinely don't know a nicer way to say this, but I would trust my own expertise (instinct, experiences, observation and rational deduction) on what is or isn't prejudice, before anyone else's.

I recall a Brony documentary not that long ago, and I remember people asking "what the point" is about that too. It is a sort of self congratulatory examination of a sub-group within a larger nerd culture, so what is the point? Some people just don't get it, not because of a bias against ponies, in this case, but rather, short sightedness or dismissive to something that doesn't immediately appeal to themselves. While the same people might not ask the question every time (different spheres of interest and all that), some people would always ask it just because. Being dismissive is not bigotry or prejudice, and while I certainly agree some probably do so because they are, I think you through the baby out with the bath water in assuming it is always the case.

If people asked the same in the brony documentary, the same answer should have been given to them: "education". There's absolutely no reason to cave in to a person's wilful malice (and it is malice; don't believe for a second that the people asking the point of the documentary are doing it out of ignorance. I would bet that the great majority of them are doing it as an indirect way to express their derision for the subject matter). Don't like the documentary? Don't watch it. Don't give it your money. But there is no reason to acknowledge that kind of malice or treat it seriously. It is to be dismissed, not humoured.