Hogwarts Legacy Will Allow For Transgender Characters

[Dwarvenhobble]

Pascal compared a political group to a political group. Carano compared a political group to an ethnic group suffering a genocide. This is a false equivalence.

I didn't realise children were a politically active group.

 

[Silvanus]

No, not really. I don't deny that there's some right-wing opportunism involved, but the problem of censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, is recognised across the spectrum, and that includes those on the left. Last statistics I read was that about 67% of US students were self-censoring.

That arguably doesn't affect me too much, but what happens in the US tends to find its way to the rest of the world, for good or ill.

What does "self-censoring" mean here, though? Students are stopping themselves from saying offensive stuff?

I don't know about that.

For instance, veering from games for a moment, I disagree with the themes of Starship Troopers (the book), but still like the novel. On the other hand, I agree with the themes of His Dark Materials, but detest the trilogy. "Bad themes = bad work" isn't really grounds for criticism in of itself, not unless those themes are utterly repugnant.

One criticism doesn't make something a "bad work"; we criticise things we like all the time. And why not?

 

[Silvanus]

Yes but then she's more outright attacking and belittling staff she's expected to work with in her response more directly as they were the people being addressed as part of the response in a rather more public manner. At that stage that really is creating a hostile work environment and showing what would be hostile attitudes towards co-workers.

Ah, "hostile work environment", though of course you have zero evidence that a hostile work environment was actually created; you just believe it was because you particularly don't like what she said.

A pejorative can be false or used falsely. In the case I mentioned with a member of the house of lords being called a pedophile it was used because some people disliked him and so they subjectively believed it was applicable.

No, stop, that's complete nonsense. Calling somebody a paedophile is a factual claim about that person's behaviour. It is demonstrably covered by slander/libel legislation.

Plenty of tags and terms have and do get weaponised and used maliciously. There's a difference between saying "I believe they are [insert label]" and "They are [insert label]" one is no presenting it as a subjective statement of opinion but an objective statement of fact that they are that

If the term in question has no concrete definition, then it's implicit in the statement that it's a statement of opinion; it cannot be reasonably read any other way.

OK then what are the substantial difference in message between the two?

This has already been covered twice at least.

 

[BrawlMan]

One criticism doesn't make something a "bad work"; we criticise things we like all the time. And why not?

Damn straight!

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Ah, "hostile work environment", though of course you have zero evidence that a hostile work environment was actually created; you just believe it was because you particularly don't like what she said.

She actually said it.
She said it in response to the claims being made by what would be considered co-workers and their claims.
Sorry but as she was approached to give comment on things and that was her official public response as such that was being hostile in response to work related matter. This wasn't a personal social media account she happened to be speaking on and people stumbled upon it that was her actual response when asked for comment.

People know why they were mad and this whole "Oh I said this but I meant this and it's your fault your don't follow the same bullshit ideology I do where you're supposed to know" is getting tiresome even as some-one who does know the ideology because it's tiresome like the "Trigger the libs" bullshit but the other way round.

If you turn round and tell your boss he or she is an ignorant old fool who just doesn't get it as a response yeh you're going to get in a bit of trouble at the very least.

No, stop, that's complete nonsense. Calling somebody a paedophile is a factual claim about that person's behaviour. It is demonstrably covered by slander/libel legislation.

Which is what Alt-right has become more or less in some circles.

If you want to argue over the use well


both terms get used wrongly as I hope you now see.

If the term in question has no concrete definition, then it's implicit in the statement that it's a statement of opinion; it cannot be reasonably read any other way.

Except you still have to define it's usage and who you mean by it otherwise it just has to be accepted that it's being associated with anyone else whose ever been called it and agreeing with those people. Also OED has defined it so if they're using a non OED definition then they need to say otherwise is is actually being used as a pejorative against Troy.

This has already been covered twice at least.

No it really hasn't. You've claimed there was substantial difference but you can say how or point to the actual differences

 

[Silvanus]

She actually said it.
She said it in response to the claims being made by what would be considered co-workers and their claims.
Sorry but as she was approached to give comment on things and that was her official public response as such that was being hostile in response to work related matter. This wasn't a personal social media account she happened to be speaking on and people stumbled upon it that was her actual response when asked for comment.

People know why they were mad and this whole "Oh I said this but I meant this and it's your fault your don't follow the same bullshit ideology I do where you're supposed to know" is getting tiresome even as some-one who does know the ideology because it's tiresome like the "Trigger the libs" bullshit but the other way round.

If you turn round and tell your boss he or she is an ignorant old fool who just doesn't get it as a response yeh you're going to get in a bit of trouble at the very least.

D'you have a citation for that? I can't find that in any of the responses from GCS spokespeople etc. And, as I said before, GCS even explicitly said the posts didn't relate to her work for them.

Which is what Alt-right has become more or less in some circles.

How, exactly, can one possibly make a factual claim that someone fits a descriptor, when the descriptor has no fixed or demonstrable definition?

Except you still have to define it's usage and who you mean by it otherwise it just has to be accepted that it's being associated with anyone else whose ever been called it and agreeing with those people. Also OED has defined it so if they're using a non OED definition then they need to say otherwise is is actually being used as a pejorative against Troy.

You have to define it in the same way that other subjective descriptors have definitions. But those definitions are not demonstrable or fixed.

Say, I refer to somebody as a "traditionalist". How do I prove it one way or the other? How does the target disprove it? There is no single fixed definition. Does that mean we're to abandon political descriptors altogether? Or only when using them pejoratively?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And furthermore every "injustice" that someone feels often just has to be taken at the offended's word.

"That thing was racist?"

"How was that racist?"

"You cant possibly understand whitey"

In what world can people and society function or inprove if that is the attitude. Where one side is instantly vilified and there is no getting out of it. The offender is "canceled" without recourse or any even logic.

There is no possible defense you can have because one offense means you are evil forever.

Yeah, it's like that if people spend years or decades trying to explain a thing to people who don't get it, eventually they just stop bothering. Target matters.

If you're being asked "but why's <x> bad?" by the same politicians that tried to keep racially segregated bathrooms, tried to ban gays and lesbians from public life, are still going after marriage equality and adoption, etc, etc, etc, it's very easy to be think those people aren't asking questions in good faith.

To put it another way: I want to ban video games for being bad for children. Nobody under 19 is allowed to buy or play games. Now: we can have a reasonable discussion about this, and as long as you compromise and let me ban *some* games chosen by me, on a whim, every year forever, then we can keep discussing the topic of banning games forever as long as you admit video games are bad for children. But if any gamer stops being unfailingly polite at any time, we're going to ban every game for anybody under 19 and blame you for stopping reasonable discussion. Sounds like a position to take seriously for 4 decades, right?

There are certain ways of being that I cannot understand, regardless of explanation, due to my make up. At some point, I just have to take it on faith that the person telling me something knows their own thoughts and feelings.

I pointed this out in The Last of Us 2 where the bartender called Ellie and Dina a bad word. But he was drunk and the next day he knew he had fucked up and asked Ellie be brought to the bar to apologize. People make mistakes and normal people accept apologies. But not Ellie and not the woke, Ellie refuses his apologies and gives away his "bigot" sandwiches which even Jessie wasnt sure why she was still upset.

Think that might've been foreshadowing a character flaw that drives the story?

Even worse is when you offer out a gesture to try and bridge the gap between factions, and these are factions dont get twisted, those factions will snap back at you because it is never good enough. Like Hogwarts....remember? That game this thread was about.

As long as Hogwarts is J.K. Rowling's IP, there are people that aren't going to buy it. Literally nobody in this supposed faction is mad at the developers, they just aren't giving dollars to J.K. Rowling. Or is "don't like it, don't buy it" Cancel Culture now?

 

[CriticalGaming]

Think that might've been foreshadowing a character flaw that drives the story?

If it does, it isn't conveyed very well. And also I couldn't tell you what it would be trying to foreshadow because nothing about that game has any consistency.

As long as Hogwarts is J.K. Rowling's IP, there are people that aren't going to buy it. Literally nobody in this supposed faction is mad at the developers, they just aren't giving dollars to J.K. Rowling. Or is "don't like it, don't buy it" Cancel Culture now?

Yeah that's fair enough but if that was the case, why still complain that the transgender offering isn't good enough? They weren't going to buy it anyway, so doesn't really matter what the game has in it anymore does it? "Thanks but no thanks" then?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

D'you have a citation for that? I can't find that in any of the responses from GCS spokespeople etc. And, as I said before, GCS even explicitly said the posts didn't relate to her work for them.

Websites covering the story mostly

How, exactly, can one possibly make a factual claim that someone fits a descriptor, when the descriptor has no fixed or demonstrable definition?

OED has a fixed descriptor though for it.

It's the same as people using CHUD as a pejorative because the meaning they try to claim is very different to it's actual meaning.

You have to define it in the same way that other subjective descriptors have definitions. But those definitions are not demonstrable or fixed.

No definition is truly ever fixed forever. Words take on new meaning all the time but at present there are definitions listed for said terms.

Say, I refer to somebody as a "traditionalist". How do I prove it one way or the other? How does the target disprove it? There is no single fixed definition. Does that mean we're to abandon political descriptors altogether? Or only when using them pejoratively?

You tend to look up a dictionary definition and challenge it. Because those are generally the accepted upon definitions and if you're not using one it's generally good form to state the definition you are using, unless you're doing it just out of malice to smear some-one.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yeah, it's like that if people spend years or decades trying to explain a thing to people who don't get it, eventually they just stop bothering. Target matters.

If you're being asked "but why's <x> bad?" by the same politicians that tried to keep racially segregated bathrooms, tried to ban gays and lesbians from public life, are still going after marriage equality and adoption, etc, etc, etc, it's very easy to be think those people aren't asking questions in good faith.

To put it another way: I want to ban video games for being bad for children. Nobody under 19 is allowed to buy or play games. Now: we can have a reasonable discussion about this, and as long as you compromise and let me ban *some* games chosen by me, on a whim, every year forever, then we can keep discussing the topic of banning games forever as long as you admit video games are bad for children. But if any gamer stops being unfailingly polite at any time, we're going to ban every game for anybody under 19 and blame you for stopping reasonable discussion. Sounds like a position to take seriously for 4 decades, right?

There are certain ways of being that I cannot understand, regardless of explanation, due to my make up. At some point, I just have to take it on faith that the person telling me something knows their own thoughts and feelings.
Think that might've been foreshadowing a character flaw that drives the story?

As long as Hogwarts is J.K. Rowling's IP, there are people that aren't going to buy it. Literally nobody in this supposed faction is mad at the developers, they just aren't giving dollars to J.K. Rowling. Or is "don't like it, don't buy it" Cancel Culture now?

Good faith has to be assumed if you wish good faith in ones own actions to be assumed too. If you play the game of paranoid accusations it will be played back. Should it matter if people have different reason for doing something when a good legitimate reason to do it exists?

As an example fro a while back the two side of the push for separation of church and state being Atheists and Christians both pushing for it together.

Don't like it Don't buy it isn't cancel culture........... unless you want to believe the #FireGinaCarano people in which case saying you're cancel your Disney Plus is Cancel Culture for some ill defined reason cause cancel is in the name and you'll hurt Disney's feelings or something.

Part of the push against Hogwarts legacy is to try and damage it's PR and present it as something abhorrent you shouldn't touch at all or worse make it so daring to touch it gets people deemed bad people or harming others by doing so.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yeah that's fair enough but if that was the case, why still complain that the transgender offering isn't good enough? They weren't going to buy it anyway, so doesn't really matter what the game has in it anymore does it? "Thanks but no thanks" then?

I dunno man, why talk about anything?

 

[Hawki]

I don't remember that game ever claiming it was going to tell real stories though. Which EA / Dice did with Battlefield V

Maybe not literally true stories, but the idea of MoH being authentic was a selling point back in the day.

And to be fair, a large amount of research was done, but MoH still takes plenty of liberties.

Problem being it's far harder to fight a change that's been made than to prevent the initial change. There was very much (and will again be) a push to make 007 a woman by people who wish to "claim" the property as theirs or "Take it away from those awful people" they don't like or whatever. For them it's not about the franchise it's about the name and status of it and being a show of power.

I agree that it's harder to fight a change than to push against the change being made (see Doctor Who for example), but no-one is seriously asking to make 007 female right now. If it comes up again, yes, by all means rail against it, but right now, as far as 'culture wars' go, it's pretty low on the list.

comparatively minor but still worth mentioning and worth at least trying to care about.

Yes, I agree, but I'll reiterate what I said earlier. We could solve climate change today, and plastic waste would still be a problem. And vice versa.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I dunno man, why talk about anything?

I agree. Let's cancel talking!

 

[Hawki]

What does "self-censoring" mean here, though? Students are stopping themselves from saying offensive stuff?

The Miseducation of America's Elites - Common Sense with Bari Weiss (substack.com)

One criticism doesn't make something a "bad work"; we criticise things we like all the time. And why not?

I agree, but that's not the point I was responding to. To quote your original post:

"Storytelling & plot are valid grounds for criticism, and the political stances a game takes are a part of that. It's perfectly valid to criticise the plot of a game if it makes a crass/ shitty political argument"

The problem I have to consider is what counts as a "crass/shitty political argument" in the first place. I certainly have my ideas, but there's the question of how much that 'taints' the work. Again, to use those prior arguments - in Starship Troopers, Heinlein presents a vision for society that I completely disagree with. But on the other, the argument itself is presented succinctly, and the novel has extremely solid worldbuilding. Similarly, HDM. I agree with Pullman's thesis, that religion is a baleful influence on the human condition, but the argument is presented with no subtlety at all, and Lyra's such an unlikable twat, that I can't stand it.

Or, Battlefield 3 and Assault Horizon. Both are remarkably similar in their approach to warfare in terms of theme and worldbuilding, but BF3 is just simply terribly told. You could make it as apolitical as possible, and it would still be terrible. Assault Horizon, even if it hemogenizes Africa, even if it's got the tired trope of "those damn Russians," it's still solidly told.

I can list numerous examples across numerous mediums. We all can. Question is, how much is the quality of a work dependent on its theme?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

The biggest problem with all of this is that people use these labels to split people into groups.

Right versus Left. Lbgtq versus straight. Color versus white. Vagina versus dicks.

And furthermore every "injustice" that someone feels often just has to be taken at the offended's word.

"That thing was racist?"

"How was that racist?"

"You cant possibly understand whitey"

In what world can people and society function or inprove if that is the attitude. Where one side is instantly vilified and there is no getting out of it. The offender is "canceled" without recourse or any even logic.

There is no possible defense you can have because one offense means you are evil forever.

I pointed this out in The Last of Us 2 where the bartender called Ellie and Dina a bad word. But he was drunk and the next day he knew he had fucked up and asked Ellie be brought to the bar to apologize. People make mistakes and normal people accept apologies. But not Ellie and not the woke, Ellie refuses his apologies and gives away his "bigot" sandwiches which even Jessie wasnt sure why she was still upset.

Ellie always had an attitude problem when you think of it. Even in the first game when they were smuggling her out. Some of it’s justified given her messed up history and status, what she’s been through, especially involving a borderline psychopath masquerading as her stand-in father figure. It’s fairly typical for regular old spoiled brat teens IRL to act far worse than her actually.

Anyways the irony of the term “bigotry” is it applies to anyone that is intolerant of another person’s beliefs. It isn’t imbued with any perceived moral high ground, which would mean that anyone with a “my way or the highway” mindset could fall under its definition.

 

[Baffle]

I agree. Let's cancel talking!

Would probably be a net gain in many cases.

 

[Baffle]

This is a work that Ebay still allows people to sell.
Yes, you're right, it's under Ebay's purview to not sell certain works, but in what world is Seuss deemed a greater threat to impressionable minds than Hitler?

I think there's an argument that one is of greater historical significance (for the avoidance of doubt, I'm referring to Mein Kampf). But I absolutely wouldn't object to eBay refusing to sell it (must admit I've never read it (and can't think that I ever will)). But should we look at the audiences of those two books? In most circles (though I wouldn't put it beyond some), Mein Kampf probably doesn't get read to send children off to sleep last thing at night.

And dogs do lay eggs.

[tl;dr: I honestly couldn't care less whether the books were banned, de-listed or set on fire, I'm just enjoying all the tears of people I frankly enjoy seeing cry. Oooooh, but I won't like it when they come for my copy of Woodworker's Digest 1987, then I'll really regret not standing up for racist illustrations. Ooooooh.]

 

[Casual Shinji]

I pointed this out in The Last of Us 2 where the bartender called Ellie and Dina a bad word. But he was drunk and the next day he knew he had fucked up and asked Ellie be brought to the bar to apologize. People make mistakes and normal people accept apologies. But not Ellie and not the woke, Ellie refuses his apologies and gives away his "bigot" sandwiches which even Jessie wasnt sure why she was still upset.

She actually does accept the apology. She does so begrudgingly, and only for Maria's sake, but she accepts the peace offering (the sandwhiches). And yeah, she gives them away to Jesse, but she accepted them from the guy as a way of saying 'okay sure, we're fine, I guess', just as you would shake someone's hand who you still don't like but you're doing it to keep the peace. And the gesture obviously didn't come from him, because he's as sour faced throughout the whole ordeal as Ellie is. This was obviously set up by Maria since living in a community where everyone needs to get along in order to survive you can't have squabbles threaten it falling apart, so it needs to be dealt with immediately. That's why Maria and Tommy were also there on the night to quickly try and defuse the situation.

And yeah the 'bigot sandwich' line is cringe, and you'd think Ellie wouldn't dismiss free food even if it came from a homophobe, considering the world they live in, but that guy actually was being a giant piece of shit, and being drunk is no excuse for that at all. So in retrospect Ellie was totally in the right grinding her teeth through that apolagy.

 

[CriticalGaming]

And yeah the 'bigot sandwich' line is cringe, and you'd think Ellie wouldn't dismiss free food even if it came from a homophobe, considering the world they live in, but that guy actually was being a giant piece of shit, and being drunk is no excuse for that at all. So in retrospect Ellie was totally

The fact you still call him a piece of shit is part of the problem i mentioned. He did a wrong thing one time and so he is a piece of shit for life. Maria might have set up that apology, but there was nothing in his words or body language that suggested he wasnt legit sorry.

Someone can have nasty thoughts about people without automatically being a racist of a phobe. Sometimes you just get mad enough that you just say the most harmful thing you can in the moment. Anger doesnt mean bigotry.

But again it has to do with the writing and they needed him to be an asshole in that moment. So it is hard to tell anymore about that guy.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I think there's an argument that one is of greater historical significance (for the avoidance of doubt, I'm referring to Mein Kampf). But I absolutely wouldn't object to eBay refusing to sell it (must admit I've never read it (and can't think that I ever will)). But should we look at the audiences of those two books? In most circles (though I wouldn't put it beyond some), Mein Kampf probably doesn't get read to send children off to sleep last thing at night.

And dogs do lay eggs.

[tl;dr: I honestly couldn't care less whether the books were banned, de-listed or set on fire, I'm just enjoying all the tears of people I frankly enjoy seeing cry. Oooooh, but I won't like it when they come for my copy of Woodworker's Digest 1987, then I'll really regret not standing up for racist illustrations. Ooooooh.]

What gets me on the Mein Kampf stuff is not Ebay selling it (again I see the historical argument of studying it etc) it's the antique versions being sold or the suppose Nazi memorabilia versions / collectors versions being sold.

Like sure some of the people paying $300+ for a copy might just be interested in wartime artefacts but I have to think the bigger market for it is actual Neo-Nazis wanting an authentic WWII collectors version or something.