Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,490
3,093
118
Country
United Kingdom
Therumancer said:
... 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.
But... straight people are represented. Gay people are requesting the same thing (as an option). Equal treatment is not "special consideration".


Therumancer said:
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.
I've already pointed out that if by "normality" you meant "not of the common type", then that's a useless definition in this case; equally applicable to ginger hair or any number of other harmless characteristics. And, of course, that the majority are not "entitled" to representation either; they just receive it in abundance.

You also didn't address several of the issues I mentioned (including the misguided idea that the gay rights issue should have ended with decriminalisation).
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
I think its time to /thread on this. Just feel the entirety of the argument/debate has run its course, Sterling posted his retraction and deconstructing each others opinions is just becoming tedious and irrelevant. You all have your views and how valid they are is a matter of perspective, right and wrong. 13 pages over an oversight and the corresponding fallout seems to be grinding the original subject matter's discussion to an impasse of analysis of viewpoints of an extraneous subject digression.
I'm not saying move on, the discussion at the core is definitely well worth continuing, I just wonder if we've digressed past usefulness here is all.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Silvanus said:
Therumancer said:
... 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.
But... straight people are represented. Gay people are requesting the same thing (as an option). Equal treatment is not "special consideration".


Therumancer said:
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.
I've already pointed out that if by "normality" you meant "not of the common type", then that's a useless definition in this case; equally applicable to ginger hair or any number of other harmless characteristics. And, of course, that the majority are not "entitled" to representation either; they just receive it in abundance.

You also didn't address several of the issues I mentioned (including the misguided idea that the gay rights issue should have ended with decriminalisation).
Yes, it should have ended with decriminalization, as you can't force someone to accept something they don't want to. Active persecution without cause is wrong, but that doesn't mean people have to be forced to accept something. No more than say someone has the right to say "well I'm a fecesphille, that's normal for me, so I have the right to make you watch me make a cleaveland steamer". Other arguments are based on what amounts to interpretive technicalities, which is something we could argue until we're both blue in the face and get nowhere, as this is one of the biggest societal issues going on right now and certainly won't be resolved here. The political aspects of things in many cases revolve around one side or the other trying to promote their side/interpretation as being correct, or at least morally right.

In the wider arena of gay rights, I'd point out I've probably been following it a lot longer than you have due to some personal investment. Decades ago things were a lot more reasonable, the basic defense of gay rights was that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody's business but there own. A lot of the arguments you see now were held by nothing but a radical fringe within the movement. A big part of the arguments made were specifically that "nobody is going to force homosexuality on you, and force you watch two dudes or two girls make out" and that kind of thing was presented as paranoid posturing by the other side. Of course once the battle was won, it didn't stop there, political inertia continued, and now we're actually having an argument about the majority of people being forced to experience/watch something that disgusts them for the sake of a minority. This was my point, and it does admittedly get far afield of the point of this discussion which is why I didn't focus on it, other than to point out that it turns what were allies into enemies. Truthfully if it wasn't for pushing garbage like this so aggressively, simple social inertia probably would have lead to things being a lot more tolerant on their own. People do not like being told that they have to endure things they find unpleasant for the sake of a small group of people.

... and yes, it's special consideration, because your basically saying that you HAVE to put gays into your product and taking away creative freedom for your own benefit. Conversely this is the same as saying material directed at gays with all-gay cast, which does happen, needs to include X amount of heterosexual content. Or saying that a black TV show needs to include white people and can't have an all-black main cast.

At the end of the day my point is that creators have the right to do whatever they want with their own work, just as you have the right to decide if you want to spend money on it. No group is entitled to guaranteed representation or for creators to project a message on their behalf. Especially not fringe groups, no matter how much political pressure they bring to bear. Nobody is required to claim something is abnormal is normal to fit someone else's political agenda, which is why politics entered into this, as the issue revolves around the inherent "message" rather than simple inclusion. A small group of people making an argument that being protected equally under the law means that they are entitled to be represented in private creative works, and creators forced to include them one way or another.

Don't get me wrong, feel free to say you wish there was more gay content if that floats your boat. That's fine, and people have the right to their opinion, however nobody is entitled to mandatory inclusion, and as I pointed out if you make that argument about gays, then you have to say it applies to everyone, including groups much larger than they are, at which point doing anything becomes impossible. Not to mention it's also not representative of the society, like it or not, gays do not exist in equal numbers to straight, and most people who aren't gay find the behavior kind of repugnant (they aren't wired that way) and don't want to see it, even if they don't care about other people doing it on their
own time. As a result it's not surprising that most creators don't do anything with homosexuality even if they have the right to do so if they want to.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,490
3,093
118
Country
United Kingdom
Therumancer said:
Yes, it should have ended with decriminalization, as you can't force someone to accept something they don't want to. Active persecution without cause is wrong, but that doesn't mean people have to be forced to accept something. No more than say someone has the right to say "well I'm a fecesphille, that's normal for me, so I have the right to make you watch me make a cleaveland steamer".
Nobody is talking about forcing people to accept anything, or making anybody "watch". That that comes to your mind shows a pretty bizarre paranoia.

It's about an option being included, for chrissakes. Straight people aren't going to be forced to use it, just like they won't be forced to have gay marriages. What utterly ludicrous false equivalence.

The gay rights movement also tackles the violence and persecution gay people face, by the way; the instances of people thrown out of their homes, and the counselling people require when they get disowned. That's what you're ignoring and belittling when you say it should have "ended with decriminalisation". That's what you show a callous disregard for.

Therumancer said:
This was my point, and it does admittedly get far afield of the point of this discussion which is why I didn't focus on it, other than to point out that it turns what were allies into enemies. Truthfully if it wasn't for pushing garbage like this so aggressively, simple social inertia probably would have lead to things being a lot more tolerant on their own. People do not like being told that they have to endure things they find unpleasant for the sake of a small group of people.
Good lord. You claim gay people are acting "entitled", and then claim entitlement to not have to even see kinds of people you're prejudiced against. That's a level of entitlement far beyond those you've criticised.

Therumancer said:
... and yes, it's special consideration, because your basically saying that you HAVE to put gays into your product and taking away creative freedom for your own benefit. Conversely this is the same as saying material directed at gays with all-gay cast, which does happen, needs to include X amount of heterosexual content. Or saying that a black TV show needs to include white people and can't have an all-black main cast.
...Except nobody tries to force all media to have gay people. That would be another strawman. A game in which personalisation of your own love life is the core design, on the other hand? It has a clear place.

Therumancer said:
Don't get me wrong, feel free to say you wish there was more gay content if that floats your boat. That's fine, and people have the right to their opinion, however nobody is entitled to mandatory inclusion, and as I pointed out if you make that argument about gays, then you have to say it applies to everyone, including groups much larger than they are, at which point doing anything becomes impossible. Not to mention it's also not representative of the society, like it or not, gays do not exist in equal numbers to straight, and most people who aren't gay find the behavior kind of repugnant (they aren't wired that way) and don't want to see it, even if they don't care about other people doing it on their
own time. As a result it's not surprising that most creators don't do anything with homosexuality even if they have the right to do so if they want to.
For the umpteenth time, nobody ever claimed gay people exist in the same numbers as straight people, and nobody ever demanded they be shown in equal numbers in media. How many times must I say this?!

Baseless accusations, repeated ad nauseam.

Please, if you respond, break up the wall-o'-text, and respond point-by-point. And please, if you're going to respond the "equal numbers" thing, provide some actual evidence this time; don't just trot out the same tired old misrepresentation.
 

geier

New member
Oct 15, 2010
250
0
0
Finally, a great tie, good shirt and the tie is even right tied. See Jim, it is so easy.
 

Therumancer

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

Baseless accusations, repeated ad nauseam.

Please, if you respond, break up the wall-o'-text, and respond point-by-point. And please, if you're going to respond the "equal numbers" thing, provide some actual evidence this time; don't just trot out the same tired old misrepresentation.
I'd say we're pretty much done. I have addressed every point you have put down, maybe not the way you'd like, but it's been done. Like most such debates it all comes down to people screaming "baseless" and "nobody ever said that" and/or simply dismissing any point they do not like. You are basically trying to deny there is even an issue, and obviously this conversation must not even be happening, and this entire article/video and situation must not exist because well, nobody bothered to make the claims we're discussing, at least as far as your concerned. At the end of the day you will not convince me that anyone is entitled to representation in anything and that creators do not have the right to make what they want and include what they want, period. If you don't like it, don't buy their stuff, it doesn't matter how you dress it up politically, socially, or morally, nobody is entitled to representation in a fictional work.

As I tried to say before, we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Perhaps we'll agree on something later.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,490
3,093
118
Country
United Kingdom
Therumancer said:
I'd say we're pretty much done. I have addressed every point you have put down, maybe not the way you'd like, but it's been done. Like most such debates it all comes down to people screaming "baseless" and "nobody ever said that" and/or simply dismissing any point they do not like. You are basically trying to deny there is even an issue, and obviously this conversation must not even be happening, and this entire article/video and situation must not exist because well, nobody bothered to make the claims we're discussing, at least as far as your concerned. At the end of the day you will not convince me that anyone is entitled to representation in anything and that creators do not have the right to make what they want and include what they want, period. If you don't like it, don't buy their stuff, it doesn't matter how you dress it up politically, socially, or morally, nobody is entitled to representation in a fictional work.

As I tried to say before, we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Perhaps we'll agree on something later.
If I hadn't had a trying day, I might have returned fire. As it is, I'm also happy to leave it here.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
hazydawn said:
I admit I still have some research and thinking to do on the matter but If we agree on certain ideals like freedom, equality, justice, the increase of happiness and decrease of pain, etc. there's a number of possible realities for any situation or issue were some of them would be the moral pinnacle.
The problem is, these are the same principles the founding fathers looked at when they decided slavery was okay. They just came up with justifications for why it was okay to enslave one "race" over others.

I mean, I agree with this notion of "good" being the minimisation of suffering and the maximisation of liberty (I'd be more specific in my definitions but I don't think we need to go all theological), but this has been the basis of many a movement that pulled a "no homers" on its compatriots. Now, not everyone thought that, and even the founding fathers decided blacks and women were worth less in part due to compromise, but 18th century America was a place that deeply valued freedom and liberty, and then said "but only for us good, decent, white folk."

There are many reasons they likely rationalised it, but they still rationalised it. And this, I would say, isn't much different then that it is now. In essence, we can argue what's right, but the reality of it is that we will always end up with what's popular. But even if we remove that, there is always a way to rationalise mistreatment of others.

Houseman said:
Exactly, so as Tumblr says, "check your privilege".

The "privilege" here being that science knows what you are.
I admit I haven't been following this thread too closely, but are you taking the piss?

I'm going to go on a slight tangent here, but one of the more baffling things about this statement is that the otherkin "community" has thus far been completely unwilling to prove themselves to "science," which I guess I'll use as a term of convenience. Homosexuals and transsexuals and left-handers have all been submitted. These other groups instead protest the concept of being tested, and honestly, that makes me a little suspicious of any such claim.

But you said "exactly," and you didn't mean it as it's used. "exactly" would indicate agreement, which would indicate there's no basis for your claims.

There you go.
That doesn't address what I said, either. You said that this was true 100 years ago, indicating it'd be different now or at some point in the future. It won't. That was bundled with my premise.

Studies about what? "conversion therapy camps"? I would think that everybody would know about their existence by now.
Surely you know I'm aware of them for homosexuals, as my next sentence started talking about them. You even quote this next part. One could therefore reasonably infer that I was referring specifically to otherkin or people who think they're toasters. If you're assuming people are aware of that on a wide scale, then you're very likely wrong. I doubt the majority even know what an otherkin, furry, or toastie is.

Some people tried to "cure" homosexuality, and I'm pretty sure it can verifiably be said to have been a dismal failure.

But my point isn't whether they succeeded or failed, it was that they tried, and that they treated it as if it were something to be cured.
I think you meant that it was inconvenient to your point. The scientific method operates on attempting to falsify hypotheses. It's only through testing our ideas that we verify them. One way or another, homosexuality is something that would fall to such tests. You can phrase it as an attempt to "cure" or not, but we were always going down this path.

Loki saying "These people need counseling" is the exact same thing as saying that homsexuals "need counseling", with the implication that it's a disease that can be cured.
Well, no. It's not the exact thing. We know homosexuality cannot be cured. Can you cite me even one study[footnote]Note that one study does not a conclusion make, but it would be a start[/quote] that would indicate the same for "these people?"

What you've offered up is the notion that we can't disprove that they aren't like homosexuals, and that's not where the burden lies.

King Whurdler said:
I have a severe distaste for the phrase 'civilized nation,' but a lot of those places that make up the majority are behind the times to say the LEAST.
Howabout "industrial nation?" It carries with it many of the same (relevant) meanings without actually indicating that another nation is somehow inferior.

It's also worth pointing out that argumentum ad populum when it comes to video games probably shouldn't find a factor in countries that don't have a large number of game players, as game companies aren't actually marketing to them. The primary markets are far more gay-friendly. So even if the world was 90% homophobic overall, it wouldn't matter.

Dragonbums said:
Of course I'm not okay with it. Any more than knowing that children and women are still burned in this day and age for witchery.

However I'm not going to stomp in there all colonial moral high ground style and proclaim that what they are doing is wrong because we Westerners have stopped doing it.
How is that any different? It reads as "I'm sorry you're being tortured or violated, but I wouldn't want to interfere with your sovereign rights."

Can you actually demonstrate any of this "lasting change?"
 

She-Pudding

Grand Poo-Bah of Tittles
Apr 29, 2014
21
0
0
Here's the thing. Going forward, can you really expect to be a successful international company if you do not take note of and respect other cultures? This game in particular, as I see it, was not marketed as a comical parody on *Japanese* life. It was just a comical parody. And while Nintendo is very, very Japanese, it tries to present itself as simple, fun and lighthearted to all. But not all lighthearted things in the US are lighthearted in Russia. Being neutral is hard. If anything can be learned here, it's that any international company that would try to avoid bad PR must be aware of the markets they sell to, year to year. Perhaps they should have a person or team dedicated to keeping track of where the hot social buttons in each country are, and how/if they can avoid them in a cost-efficient way. Or perhaps such existing teams need a wake-up call. Maybe Nintendo could make a simple note on the packaging informing the consumer that a game is ported to, but not made for, US (etc.) audiences. Perhaps include a link to a page that warns the user of all that can include. Or, tiresomly, perhaps we will have to keep yelling and hope we are understood. We *do* do that for free, after all. And rather well, if a bit too enthusiasticly.