Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Cybylt said:
But those are an entirely different form of risk. A political risk, particularly one that is counter to the company's image at large, is a longer shot and far deadlier than any mechanical one can ever be.
So, why did they take that risk? You say they're "playing it safe" - but to exclude gay people in 2014 is a much bigger political risk than to include them.

Especially for Nintendo. Are they not aware of how many gay people are huge Nintendo fans, and even cisplay as Nintendo characters?

Cybylt said:
As the article says, in a cynical sense they traded off a big headache for a small one by doing this. The result of their response in this case is that a subsection of game journalism gets upset about it and they apologize. If they went the other way there's a chance it would have found its way to main stream news for the company attempting to undercut "Traditional Values" and corrupt the youths or some such bullshit.
It never would have found its way to mainstream news for including gay relationships. And very few people in the game-buying market care about what those news outlets think. The people who would react hysterically to this probably aren't buying video games in the first place.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
xaszatm said:
EDIT: And the reason why they threw it at Treehouse's lap? I don't really know, but I do think it might have to do with Nintendo attempting to fill in a gap for next month. Remember that they were in panic mode in January. Quick decisions were made, such as Iwata cutting his salary. This just happened to be one of the decisions that wasn't smart. So yeah, this wasn't a strategy, but stop screaming "incompetence."
How is that not incompetence? They go into panic mode, and hastily make rash decisions? Yeah - that seems exactly like incompetence to me.

At this point, it's kind of hard to find any evidence of Nintendo's competence at all.
Because as we all know, when you are in panic mode, you make calm, rational decisions. You want competence? Pick up ANY 3DS and Wii U game. Pick up a Mario game. Obeserve the Level Design, game mechanics. They are more than competent. But I'm sure you'll find some way to complain. I mean, you're still here instead of the other Jimquisition thread that gave a much better response to this mess.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
So, in other words, it's not the same?

Also, if it's so minor, then why did it take so long to release, and why are so many people on this thread making a big deal about how difficult it is to change games?
Yes it is the same game.

They never intended to release this game worldwide. Like I just said they just decided to make a translation port to see if the Western audience would like it and gave it to Treehouse a few months ago to translate and release in the US. That's it.

And a professional programmer a couple of pages back already explained why implementing things like minigames is easy for this particular game and implementing gay marriage is something that would require another set of development cycles to get it right. Seeing as how this game has ZERO controlled initiative from the player outside of initial voice customization, feeding, and minigames.
 

Cybylt

New member
Aug 13, 2009
284
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Cybylt said:
But those are an entirely different form of risk. A political risk, particularly one that is counter to the company's image at large, is a longer shot and far deadlier than any mechanical one can ever be.
So, why did they take that risk? You say they're "playing it safe" - but to exclude gay people in 2014 is a much bigger political risk than to include them.

Especially for Nintendo. Are they not aware of how many gay people are huge Nintendo fans, and even cosplay as Nintendo characters?

Cybylt said:
As the article says, in a cynical sense they traded off a big headache for a small one by doing this. The result of their response in this case is that a subsection of game journalism gets upset about it and they apologize. If they went the other way there's a chance it would have found its way to main stream news for the company attempting to undercut "Traditional Values" and corrupt the youths or some such bullshit.
It never would have found its way to mainstream news for including gay relationships. And very few people in the game-buying market care about what those news outlets think. The people who would react hysterically to this probably aren't buying video games in the first place.
You're ignoring the company image and their main buyers as of the Wii. While many people who take gaming as a hobby lean liberal and the company has gay fans, the vast majority of the middle-aged and retirees who made up the buyer base do not and are not.

And if you think it wouldn't get a conservative news site or station's panties in a twist then you obviously haven't been paying attention to their articles and coverage of games for the past three decades.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
4,587
714
118
Country
USA
Aardvaarkman said:
No, they absolutely do not. How do you extrapolate their opinion on gay people from "we were not trying to make social commentary"?
I didn't. That statement doesn't give an opinion on gay people.

That is entirely your subjective translation. It is in no way clear what that statement was meant to refer to. You're the one projecting things onto their statement. We can only take the statement as written. Which was clumsy and unclear.
Perhaps the reason you think it's clumsy and unclear is because you're trying to make a statement saying "we weren't trying to make social commentary" into "we deliberately avoided gay marriage because we were afraid of making that commentary." I can see how what they said is a clumsy way to say what JIM thinks it says. As it is, it's a pretty efficient way to say "we weren't simulating real life or providing deliberate commentary on society."
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Houseman said:
A strawman is an argument that is presented to be the argument of someone else, but is not really their argument, and upon attacking and defeating it, claiming that the person's argument is destroyed.
From Wikipedia:

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition
So yes, what you are trying to do is argue a straw man. You have set up a different proposition, a misrepresentation of what was originally being argued.

Houseman said:
It'd only be a strawman if you were to A) defeat my argument, which you're clearly unable to do, and B) then claim that Tumblr's argument has been defeated.
You don't seem to understand what a straw man is.

Your straw man was unsuccessful, because everyone recognized it for what it is. It does not need to be defeated, because it already failed.

Houseman said:
It would also need to be an actual misrepresentation of Tumblr's argument in the first place, which it has not been demonstrated to be,
You never actually cited anything from Tumblr, which only makes your arguments even more made of straw.

Houseman said:
But I suppose you're just arguing with me about this now because you're frustrated after failing to triumph over my previous argument.
I don't give a shit about "triumphing" and what you are doing barely qualifies as argument.

Houseman said:
Aardvaarkman said:
No, I never tried to refute your arguments.
Whatever you say.
Apparently I did, before you devolved into constantly referring to Tumblr. What I did not do, was attempt to refute your comments about what people on Tumblr argue.

Houseman said:
Then quote me saying that, if you can.
"The people on Tumblr would disagree that there are only two genders."

There you go.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Cybylt said:
And if you think it wouldn't get a conservative news site or station's panties in a twist then you obviously haven't been paying attention to their articles and coverage of games for the past three decades.
There have been many video games with gay options released within the last decade that did not even get mentioned by conservative news, let alone get their panties in a twist.

For a video game to do that these days, I think you'd have to make a Muslim-based game or one that consists of punching baby Jesus in the face. Merely allowing gay options in a game doesn't even incite a shrug these days.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Silvanus said:
Therumancer said:
Actually that's exactly what your getting at. This entire debate revolves around how if something like a life sim features heterosexual content as being normal, it must also present homosexual content as being normal. Something which has springboarded into articles claiming Nintendo's attitude amounts to "erasure" and so on. The bottom line is homosexuals are a tiny minority, and represent an abnormal, fringe behavior. Being gay is not normal, it represents a tiny portion of society. Thus there is no fair basis for saying it should be presented as normal and represented when relationships come up. If someone chooses to do so, that's fine, but it's not an entitlement, "erasure", or some kind of social attack to not include a fringe behavior.
Therumancer said:
My personal opinions aside, the bottom line is the battle over gay rights ended long ago. Being gay has been decriminalized.
You moved the goalposts; presenting something as normal is not the same thing as presenting it in the same proportion as you present everything else.

The rest of the post is a string of rehashed arguments from before, and various provocative slurs. If you think decriminalisation was the end of the gay-rights issue, that's truly delusional. People are still murdered because they are gay; people still lose their homes and families because they are gay; people are still brutally attacked and bullied because they are gay. It's quite sickening to suggest gay people have already won, when they face incredible violence and adversity.

You didn't address my point about how the exact same arguments as those you use now were trotted out about mixed-race relationships.



Oh, for...

If gay people were treated equally, then everybody would be happy to just live their lives. I am not making a political statement when I go out with somebody of the same sex. It becomes political when rights get denied.

Just like mixed-race relationships. The people who tried to deny them rights and treatment forced them to argue back, and try to attain equal treatment-- and then you have the audacity, and shortsightedness, and pure prejudice, to blame the victims for doing so?!

I addressed your points perfectly in accordance to the subject, and rehashed a lot of things I already said because those answers still applied. Your basically thrashing around trying to make some kind of point, but don't even seem to know what the discussion is about. If you think the goalposts moved you weren't paying attention to begin with.

Again, it's very simple. Gays are a tiny, abnormal, fringe of society. That's not an attack, it's simply a statement of fact. Monogamous heterosexuals define the norm, vastly outnumbering homosexuals, and other fringe groups. At least in the first world the fringe has equality in the sense that it will not be hunted down and destroyed simply for not fitting in, and people with fringe beliefs are allowed to be represented. There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to put a gay character or relationship into a work of fiction, just as there is no problem with doing so with any other fringe group. Fringe groups are however not ENTITLED to appear in every creative work simply because they happen to exist, or to the promotion of propaganda presenting them as part of the norm when they are not. There is no entitlement to have homosexuality presented whenever heterosexuality is, no more than someone is obligated to show a mixed-race marriage every time a mono-racial marriage is presented, or have a polygamous relationship shown for every monogamous relationship. This answers your point in the context of this discussion.

Now you would have a point of Nintendo came up and say "You know, we wanted to put homosexual relationships in this game but we're not going this because we believe the first world countries will have us arrested for it" and there was some reinforcement for this fear. The countries that might want to attempt such a thing (which represent the global majority sentiment) don't have the power to make it a viable threat. That's not the case though. Nintendo is pretty much saying "We decided we didn't want to put this content in our game" and then doing damage control due to political backlash. That should be the end of it, there is no discrimination involved, it is not an entitlement for homosexuality to be depicted anywhere, and that is exactly what your arguments amount to in the context of this discussion, your saying it is wrong and attack-worthy to not depict a very small group of people, and that equality means forced representation by creators. You are simply wrong about that.

To be brutally honest, the whole issue of numbers and abnormality needs to be brought up more often, even if someone wants to mince words more than I do about it. Simply pointing out the fact that homosexuals are a tiny percentage of the population and that refusing demands of disproportionate representation and entitlement does not amount to discrimination. Creators have the right to put homosexuality into their work, or not do so, just like with any other group, but they are not required to represent anyone. It's also not attack language to point out the simple fact that if someone ever did try and seriously make some kind of "affirmative action in media" argument, by the numbers gays would still get the shaft because there are simply so many other groups out there that outnumber them that they would get lost in the pile. Gays simply have a very loud voice right now, despite their tiny numbers, specifically because of politics.


Also, it's well known I'm not exactly pro-gay, or politically correct, but as a true centrist on the issue I'll point out that pushing too far invites backlash. There is a point at which you just need to let inertia take it's course once you get something moving. When you start attacking video game companies (like we've seen multiple times, besides here) for simply not including you (not doing anything offensive, or making an attack statement, just not mentioning you) you become increasingly ridiculous and start turning people against you who might otherwise be on your side. In cases like this (which have happened across the social spectrum) the guys making noise tend to think it's because the other side is scared that they are losing and want to silence them. In reality it's simply people pointing out that when you get obnoxious enough people are going to oppose whatever you represent no matter how reasonable it started out as. Next thing you know your going to find yourself still fighting over trivial things 10-20 years later when things should have long since been over. There is a point at which you need to just flat out say you won, ignore the taunts, and go home. With time, you'll see yourselves leaking into the media more and more, even if not Omni-present, because that's just what people will do, not because someone started making a huge political stink every 15 seconds. Truthfully this kind of petty garbage usually happens when people want to keep minority groups organized to try and manipulate in voting blocks... but that goes well beyond this discussion.

As I said before, I'm pretty much done here. We'll have to agree to disagree. Your not going to agree with anything I say as being valid and seem to think I'm "attacking", and I personally think your pretty much involved in an entirely different conversation that's trying to drag this into levels that go well beyond whether or not gays are entitled to representation in a bloody video game when the creators decided not to include them for whatever reason. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like it, don't buy it, just don't try and make some kind of major social issue out of it when it's not one.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
There's actually an explanation for that, I am from there. It was prop 8 right?

Well people got very confused on the wording at the ballot boxes.

It was prop 8, yes or no.

This caused confusion because people didn't know what either of those two meant. Was yes for banning gay marriage, or was it yes for letting them get married?

One person got confused, asked others, they got confused too, then it all went downhill. I remember talking to voters the day after the vote and they were asking me if yes meant allowing gay marriage. It was a common thing. No one knew what they were voting for.

Even people who asked me on my stance on prop 8 got confused what yes and no meant so they asked me if I supported gay marriage instead. It got ridiculous.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't a serious thing with actual tangible consequences.
i see. Vague wording does indeed can cause problems here, but i was talking about more than prop 8 alone. Still, thank you for deeper explanation.

martyrdrebel27 said:
so, is Jim bisexual? ultimately, it doesn't matter, but i am curious. which is an odd duality... i'd never judge anyone's sexual preferences, but i'm always curious about it.
around one year ago Jim has said that he "likes to experiment" and does not really have preference either way. Unless his views have changed since hes kinda there. He is also married and has a boy that is not biologically his, but his wives. and yes im a stalker.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Houseman said:
Yes, I understood all of that before you ever claimed that my argument was a strawman.
So then, how do you not understand that your argument is a straw man?

Houseman said:
So do you mind telling us what the "original argument" is that I'm misrepresenting? Can you quote it? Link to it?
Seriously?

Watch Video

Houseman said:
I said "would disagree" not "do disagree", even though they do disagree [http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/gender-binary].

Would you care to try again?
No, you've demonstrated it quite nicely. You have repeatedly referred to arguments that Tumblr "would make" - thus proving my point of you being disingenuous and setting up straw men.

Your whole tactic was to derail with irrelevant arguments. The problem is that you failed in your straw man attempts, because nobody fell for them. For some strange reason, you think this means you've "won" the argument.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,470
3,085
118
Country
United Kingdom
Therumancer said:
I addressed your points perfectly in accordance to the subject, and rehashed a lot of things I already said because those answers still applied. Your basically thrashing around trying to make some kind of point, but don't even seem to know what the discussion is about. If you think the goalposts moved you weren't paying attention to begin with.

Again, it's very simple. Gays are a tiny, abnormal, fringe of society. That's not an attack, it's simply a statement of fact. Monogamous heterosexuals define the norm, vastly outnumbering homosexuals, and other fringe groups. At least in the first world the fringe has equality in the sense that it will not be hunted down and destroyed simply for not fitting in, and people with fringe beliefs are allowed to be represented. There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to put a gay character or relationship into a work of fiction, just as there is no problem with doing so with any other fringe group. Fringe groups are however not ENTITLED to appear in every creative work simply because they happen to exist, or to the promotion of propaganda presenting them as part of the norm when they are not. There is no entitlement to have homosexuality presented whenever heterosexuality is, no more than someone is obligated to show a mixed-race marriage every time a mono-racial marriage is presented, or have a polygamous relationship shown for every monogamous relationship. This answers your point in the context of this discussion.

Now you would have a point of Nintendo came up and say "You know, we wanted to put homosexual relationships in this game but we're not going this because we believe the first world countries will have us arrested for it" and there was some reinforcement for this fear. The countries that might want to attempt such a thing (which represent the global majority sentiment) don't have the power to make it a viable threat. That's not the case though. Nintendo is pretty much saying "We decided we didn't want to put this content in our game" and then doing damage control due to political backlash. That should be the end of it, there is no discrimination involved, it is not an entitlement for homosexuality to be depicted anywhere, and that is exactly what your arguments amount to in the context of this discussion, your saying it is wrong and attack-worthy to not depict a very small group of people, and that equality means forced representation by creators. You are simply wrong about that.

To be brutally honest, the whole issue of numbers and abnormality needs to be brought up more often, even if someone wants to mince words more than I do about it. Simply pointing out the fact that homosexuals are a tiny percentage of the population and that refusing demands of disproportionate representation and entitlement does not amount to discrimination. Creators have the right to put homosexuality into their work, or not do so, just like with any other group, but they are not required to represent anyone. It's also not attack language to point out the simple fact that if someone ever did try and seriously make some kind of "affirmative action in media" argument, by the numbers gays would still get the shaft because there are simply so many other groups out there that outnumber them that they would get lost in the pile. Gays simply have a very loud voice right now, despite their tiny numbers, specifically because of politics.


Also, it's well known I'm not exactly pro-gay, or politically correct, but as a true centrist on the issue I'll point out that pushing too far invites backlash. There is a point at which you just need to let inertia take it's course once you get something moving. When you start attacking video game companies (like we've seen multiple times, besides here) for simply not including you (not doing anything offensive, or making an attack statement, just not mentioning you) you become increasingly ridiculous and start turning people against you who might otherwise be on your side. In cases like this (which have happened across the social spectrum) the guys making noise tend to think it's because the other side is scared that they are losing and want to silence them. In reality it's simply people pointing out that when you get obnoxious enough people are going to oppose whatever you represent no matter how reasonable it started out as. Next thing you know your going to find yourself still fighting over trivial things 10-20 years later when things should have long since been over. There is a point at which you need to just flat out say you won, ignore the taunts, and go home. With time, you'll see yourselves leaking into the media more and more, even if not Omni-present, because that's just what people will do, not because someone started making a huge political stink every 15 seconds. Truthfully this kind of petty garbage usually happens when people want to keep minority groups organized to try and manipulate in voting blocks... but that goes well beyond this discussion.

As I said before, I'm pretty much done here. We'll have to agree to disagree. Your not going to agree with anything I say as being valid and seem to think I'm "attacking", and I personally think your pretty much involved in an entirely different conversation that's trying to drag this into levels that go well beyond whether or not gays are entitled to representation in a bloody video game when the creators decided not to include them for whatever reason. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like it, don't buy it, just don't try and make some kind of major social issue out of it when it's not one.
If you're done here, so am I. Walls of text may look impressive if they're composed of coherent points; less so when they break down into repetitive strings of slurs, and the frankly inane argument that people in smaller numbers should be treated unequally.

As well as, of course, the failure to address my point (for the third time) that the arguments you've used are identical to those used against mixed-race relationships.

I do not want another wall-o'-text.

Therumancer said:
If you think the goalposts moved you weren't paying attention to begin with.
Right. First, you made the claim that gay activists demand to be shown in equal numbers as straight people. You made that claim twice. I called that bull. Can you provide any evidence of that-- any significant examples?

When I called it out, you did not provide any basis for the original claim, and moved onto other points. That's moving the goalposts. Can you support the accusation, or not?
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Scars Unseen said:
It is not their job to develop this game. That was their job. They finished it. Over a year ago.
Except, they didn't. The Japanese version of the game was released over a year ago. This is not the same game, otherwise, why didn't they release it to the other countries then?

Also, it's the job of game developers to continue to support and fix bugs in games. Once again, you're not exactly making the case that they are competent developers. Professionals would not just release a game and then completely ignore it after that. Especially in the case of a major world-wide re-release.

You really think it's acceptable for them just to release this to a much larger audience, and not make any effort in developing it for that audience, or fixing any problems that might come with that release?
Yes, they did. They aren't making a new game; they're exporting the one they have. Japan has been doing this for decades. And there is a huge difference between patching a bug, and adding a feature. The first is supporting a game. The second is developing it, which as I've already said, was completed a year ago.

As for the second, yes, I do. That's what Japan has been doing for decades, and one of my favorite genres of gaming, the JRPG, would not be the same if the Japanese had tried to cater to the west's tastes. In fact, trying to do so is one of the biggest recent failures we've seen on that front, as was pointed out in another recent Jimquisition.

Let Japan be Japan. If you don't like Japan's games, don't play them.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,470
3,085
118
Country
United Kingdom
Houseman said:
I was talking about the slippery slope of including certain groups but excluding certain other groups.
...Which is identical to the argument used against mixed-race relationships in the past.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Silvanus said:
[

Therumancer said:
If you think the goalposts moved you weren't paying attention to begin with.
Right. First, you made the claim that gay activists demand to be shown in equal numbers as straight people. You made that claim twice. I called that bull. Can you provide any evidence of that-- any significant examples?

When I called it out, you did not provide any basis for the original claim, and moved onto other points. That's moving the goalposts. Can you support the accusation, or not?
This entire discussion is about exactly that. As I said, your involved in an entirely different conversation than me, or pretty much anyone else involved in discussing this subject. This entire issue is specifically about the gay demand to be represented in a video game, as a right, and that to not include them is some kind of attack. This is also not the first time this issue has come up.

You yourself keep making the argument that equality = representation, it's what you keep saying. Indeed you keep making my point for me by making attack arguments, claiming I'm using slurs, and am being offensive, for simply pointing out the truth and saying that gays are abnormal (normality in this case being heterosexual, which is the vast majority of people, gays are different from that and thus abnormal, that's not an attack, just a statement of fact, gays themselves acknowledge themselves as a separate group and even represent and organize that way). You right here in this response are saying that it's discriminatory to not consider minority populations entitled to representation in creative works, as that is what this conversation is about.

I keep saying the same thing because it doesn't matter what other groups you say this applies to, the bottom line is that NO fringe group, it doesn't matter who it is, is entitled to anything, never mind representation in creative work. Gay, mixed race, polygamist, it doesn't matter who it is. If you bothered to actually READ those "walls of text" you'd know I already said that the same argument DOES apply to mixed race couples. Every time a mono-ethnic relationship is depicted one does not need to show a mixed race couple to represent a counterpoint. Indeed those involved in mixed race marriages and partnerships aren't pushing for that kind of media representation, but gays are.

As I said, we're pretty much done with this. You don't even seem to know what this conversation is about, and frankly if you think gays are entitled to such representation, you've said your piece, I've said I disagree, plenty of people agree with both of us in an absolute sense, so there is no real point to saying anything more about it. Frankly half the problem with this issue is fanaticism on the part of the gay movement. On some levels I think you honestly believe slurs are involved here, and that's a bad sign for healthy representation. To be blunt when the gay rights movement got started it understood full well it was a small niche group, and was all about being decriminalized and the right to exist. It won that, and now it seems it's all about denial of it's own existence as something outside of normal, mainstream, society. One cannot claim both the status of a minority in need of special consideration, and deny one's very existence as an minority/abnormality within the society it's campaigning in, that's contradictory, and impossible to take seriously. There is no further point to debating this, but really you might want to collect your thoughts and focus a bit better if similar things recurs, because part of what causes you to miss the point of the discussion is that in absolute terms you really have no idea what your fighting for, your just blindly lashing out, and projecting offense onto everything looking for something to use as a weapon when really, you don't need one over something like this. It's hardly the end of the world, or some kind of affront, to not be depicted in a video game, especially when other creators (like Bioware) have chosen to put gays into video games on their own without needing any kind of political pressure. This is not about saying gays shouldn't be represented, merely that they, and all other groups with similar status, are not *entitled* to such representation. If you don't like something, don't buy the product, but don't attack creators for not catering to you.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,470
3,085
118
Country
United Kingdom
Therumancer said:
This entire discussion is about exactly that. As I said, your involved in an entirely different conversation than me, or pretty much anyone else involved in discussing this subject. This entire issue is specifically about the gay demand to be represented in a video game, as a right, and that to not include them is some kind of attack. This is also not the first time this issue has come up.

You yourself keep making the argument that equality = representation, it's what you keep saying. Indeed you keep making my point for me by making attack arguments, claiming I'm using slurs, and am being offensive, for simply pointing out the truth and saying that gays are abnormal (normality in this case being heterosexual, which is the vast majority of people, gays are different from that and thus abnormal, that's not an attack, just a statement of fact, gays themselves acknowledge themselves as a separate group and even represent and organize that way). You right here in this response are saying that it's discriminatory to not consider minority populations entitled to representation in creative works, as that is what this conversation is about.
If by "abnormal" you simply mean "not of the common type", then yes, homosexuality is "abnormal"-- as is ginger hair. The term has implications of "lesser" when it's thrown around as a justification for unequal treatment, you understand.

You still haven't addressed the fact that you initially claimed that gay people were demanding representation in equal numbers, and when I requested examples or evidence, you just started talking about other stuff.


Therumancer said:
I keep saying the same thing because it doesn't matter what other groups you say this applies to, the bottom line is that NO fringe group, it doesn't matter who it is, is entitled to anything, never mind representation in creative work. Gay, mixed race, polygamist, it doesn't matter who it is. If you bothered to actually READ those "walls of text" you'd know I already said that the same argument DOES apply to mixed race couples. Every time a mono-ethnic relationship is depicted one does not need to show a mixed race couple to represent a counterpoint. Indeed those involved in mixed race marriages and partnerships aren't pushing for that kind of media representation, but gays are.
Another generalisation with "but gays are", as if they are homogeneous.

Nobody is "entitled" to representation. Straight people are no more "entitled" to representation than minorities. Would you have the same reaction if straight relationships were disallowed in a well-publicised game?

Essentially, I'm saying that it's veeeery easy (and complacent) to criticise "entitlement" when you're in the group that is catered to by every medium. Very easy.


Therumancer said:
On some levels I think you honestly believe slurs are involved here, and that's a bad sign for healthy representation. To be blunt when the gay rights movement got started it understood full well it was a small niche group, and was all about being decriminalized and the right to exist. It won that, and now it seems it's all about denial of it's own existence as something outside of normal, mainstream, society. One cannot claim both the status of a minority in need of special consideration, and deny one's very existence as an minority/abnormality within the society it's campaigning in, that's contradictory, and impossible to take seriously.
Again reiteration of the notion that the gay rights issue should have ended when homosexuality was decriminalised. As I said before, anyone who believes this needs to realise the violence and discrimination gay people face.

That aside, it should be clear that people can be minorities and also exist within "mainstream" society. Requesting recognition does not somehow mean you have to live outside mainstream society-- that seems like a bizarre idea. Nobody is denying that they are a minority; they're asking to be treated equally alongside the majority.

Gay people are not requesting "special consideration". They are requesting equal treatment.

EDITed to tone the post down, make it less combative. I need to remember to do that more often.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Silvanus said:
[

Again reiteration of the notion that the gay rights issue should have ended when homosexuality was decriminalised. As I said before, anyone who believes this needs to realise the violence and discrimination gay people face.

That aside, it should be clear that people can be minorities and also exist within "mainstream" society. Requesting recognition does not somehow mean you have to live outside mainstream society-- that seems like a bizarre idea. Nobody is denying that they are a minority; they're asking to be treated equally alongside the majority.

Gay people are not requesting "special consideration". They are requesting equal treatment.

EDITed to tone the post down, make it less combative. I need to remember to do that more often.
Again, there is no need to "prove" anything this entire incident says it all when it comes to demanding equal representation. Your example is this debate. Your just being obtuse, and I'm not going to "answer" you again.

... and yes, gay people are demanding "special treatment" when they are saying they are entitled to representation in the creative media, and that it's wrong not to include them. That is the very definition of "special consideration". Again that is what this entire discussion is about. The subject is Nintendo being "called out" and put on the defensive for not having gays represented in their product. If Nintendo had included them it would have been fine, but it is by no means an affront not to include them, or any other group, that's the right of a creator. You can choose to not partake of the product, but have no "moral high ground" or valid political point based around your exclusion if nobody is attacking you.

Also I don't much care if people want to project negativity onto "abmormality", that's a complex on their part, I generally don't play the political correctness game and try and fine half a dozen non-offensive words to make a simple statement. As much as gays might want to be considered normal, they are not, that is simple reality. Whether they can or will be considered more socially acceptable by the mainstream and appear more frequently in media and such is another question entirely, but trying to make political attacks on creators for daring to not represent you is not the way to do it. Indeed it's that sense of entitlement that makes enemies, and that's what this is, a political crusade to force people to do what the gay rights movement wants out of a sense of entitlement.