NIntendo Apologizes For Exclusion Of Gays From Tomodachi Life

[RA92]

I think Nintendo just didn't want to make a stance on the whole gay thing. There's risk for a large company in saying that they're anti or pro same sex relationships.

But... by refusing to include gay relationships, even if they are not subscribing to anti-gay sentiments, they are certainly helping propagating/reinforcing them, intentionally or unintentionally.

Everything is politics. - Thomas Mann

No they're not. You're doing a lot more harm simply by having that kind of attitude. Read my previous posts if you want a more in depth description as to why.

How exactly am I doing... 'harm'? Am I calling for the boycott of Nintendo and all its products? You need to tone down on the ad hominem (you also previously said three other were 'reacting immaturely').

I read your argument, and I am not convinced. Actions act as statements. Their action was to say that they don't want to include gay relationship in their system, which implies it's something that's a deviation from their norm. Which it is, considering their conservative society. Are you going to argue that their stance has nothing to do with the political climate of Japan, where major political parties express little public support for gay rights issues?

I think one distinction you have failed to make in my argument is that Ninty isn't necessarily propagating anti-gay propaganda; but saying that they have managed to somehow remain apolitical is entirely disingenuous. Their actions are an extension of the political beliefs they want to appeal to.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Nintendo's stance: "I don't care if you have sexual relationships with men, women, or whatever. We made this game over a year ago and it will cost us more money than we'll make back with this specific game because of the issue that we do not know how well it will sell."

And people are calling Nintendo bigots and homosexual haters? Absolutely disgusting from those who are. There's at least[/] three stances in the homosexual debate; For, Neutral, and Against. Nintendo went Neutral, because they are a company, not a political activist machine. They even recognize the fact that people themselves are the political activists. But no, Nintendo is a gay hating evil corporation for not wanting to recode a game.

And the original guy who talked about this did not want such stupidity to be involve, just Nintendo to say "Yeah, we'll include it in future installments", which is what Nintendo just said. Now all the faux-activists for homosexuality will say they won, which will bring out the faux-activists that are against homosexuality call the pro-homosexuality all evil for attacking Nintendo's neutrality (Which is happening now). Good job, people. Creating a mountain out of a molehill.

To be 'neutral' is to say that it's fine to treat them differently. Neutrality when it comes to treating others equal is utter nonsense. It shows they do not think that they are on the same level to say that it's okay to treat them as different in ways that have nothing to do with their differences.

Let's go with the US Supreme Court system here. The US Supreme Court looks at a case (Let's say the final bid for homosexuality and pro-homosexuality are appealing anti-gay laws) with Pro-homo as the appellant, anti-homo as the respondent, and the third group (The Amicus Curiae). Nintendo would belong to the Amicus Curiae group, neither for nor against homosexuality, but with an interest in how the case turns out. So if we go with your argument, then no matter how the case goes, you believe that everyone in the Amicus Curiae are against homosexuality.

 

[hazydawn]

What I found really annoying in the thread for the last article about this were the people screaming that Nintendo and all people who don't bother with promoting a pro-homosexual attitude are all scum. Intolerance works both ways, and so long as people aren't harming people in their views of homosexuality, it's okay to be anti-gay.

It's okay to be anti-gay from a legal perspective but certainly not from an ethical one.
Companies in general have an ethical responsibility but companies in the interteinment and media sphere even more so because they shape culture in a substantial way.
Like many people repeat in this and other threads not inlcluding same sex relationships (could have been easily implemented at production) is already a political commentary and reinforces a heteronormative worldview.
Sorry but being intolerant of intolerance is not the same as being a bigot. (<-this one is not about Nintendo, just to clarify)
And including homosexual realtionships in this game is not the same as promoting it.
You were expecting hate? Good, because your opinion is retarded.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

To be 'neutral' is to say that it's fine to treat them differently. Neutrality when it comes to treating others equal is utter nonsense. It shows they do not think that they are on the same level to say that it's okay to treat them as different in ways that have nothing to do with their differences.

Neutral is not supporting or helping either side in a conflict or being an impartial or unbiased state or person (Or company) in this case.

That is what neutral means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neutral

Just putting that bit of inf out there.

Sure, it's supporting the side that says "It's okay to treat gay people differently". Dictionaries don't make up for perspective, you need perspective to see how definitions actually apply.

But if it's not supporting either side, how is it supporting one side, that may be your perspective, but not the neutral person who sees it differently. You're basically saying that if people aren't with you, they're against you, and that's why some people just stay neutral. Because they don't like being lumped in with either side of an issue that maybe just doesn't affect them. (I'm not talking about Nintendo, just the issue of neutrality in general.)

 

[hazydawn]

But if it's not supporting either side, how is it supporting one side, that may be your perspective, but not the neutral person who sees it differently. You're basically saying that if people aren't with you, they're against you, and that's why some people just stay neutral. Because they don't like being lumped in with either side of an issue that maybe just doesn't affect them. (I'm not talking about Nintendo, just the issue of neutrality in general.)

Because it is not neural. It deliberately excludes a group of people and reinforces a heteronormative worldview.

 

[Shuu]

This is good news. I know Nintendo didn't mean any harm, their thinking was a product of backwards thinking rather than the a source. It's sad to think that even Nintendo mistakes exclusiveness for safe and default.

Oh, but I'm fully expecting somebody to do the impossible and tweak a few values in the code to make same sex marriage viable within a week of the game's release.
They would probably have to make a dash of new content so that the men don't just fall pregnant when it comes time to have kids, but "can't be accomplished with post ship patch"? Just be honest Nintendo. "That's too much work for us to be bothered considering the we all thought the game was finished" I'd accept that! As long as you learn from this.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Nintendo's stance: "I don't care if you have sexual relationships with men, women, or whatever. We made this game over a year ago and it will cost us more money than we'll make back with this specific game because of the issue that we do not know how well it will sell."

And people are calling Nintendo bigots and homosexual haters? Absolutely disgusting from those who are. There's at least[/] three stances in the homosexual debate; For, Neutral, and Against. Nintendo went Neutral, because they are a company, not a political activist machine. They even recognize the fact that people themselves are the political activists. But no, Nintendo is a gay hating evil corporation for not wanting to recode a game.

And the original guy who talked about this did not want such stupidity to be involve, just Nintendo to say "Yeah, we'll include it in future installments", which is what Nintendo just said. Now all the faux-activists for homosexuality will say they won, which will bring out the faux-activists that are against homosexuality call the pro-homosexuality all evil for attacking Nintendo's neutrality (Which is happening now). Good job, people. Creating a mountain out of a molehill.

To be 'neutral' is to say that it's fine to treat them differently. Neutrality when it comes to treating others equal is utter nonsense. It shows they do not think that they are on the same level to say that it's okay to treat them as different in ways that have nothing to do with their differences.

Let's go with the US Supreme Court system here. The US Supreme Court looks at a case (Let's say the final bid for homosexuality and pro-homosexuality are appealing anti-gay laws) with Pro-homo as the appellant, anti-homo as the respondent, and the third group (The Amicus Curiae). Nintendo would belong to the Amicus Curiae group, neither for nor against homosexuality, but with an interest in how the case turns out. So if we go with your argument, then no matter how the case goes, you believe that everyone in the Amicus Curiae are against homosexuality.

Who is for or against some social issue is in no way decided by the procedures used by the Supreme Court or any court system for deciding who is the appellant and who is the respondent. Your logic makes no sense whatsoever. Who is the appellant, who is the respondent, and who is part of the Amicus Curiae is not decided by who supports either position in general, it has to do with the particular case.

I'm not talking about who decides. I'm talking about how Nintendo's neutrality would be placed. Nintendo is neither for nor against homosexuality, but as their "apology" states, they are interested in how it plays out because of the fact that homosexuality is such a hot topic for the world. So because they are interested in such a case, they would want to be in on the court proceedings to see who the court case goes. Because that's how neutrality is. They are not the appellant for homosexuality, nor are they the respondent against homosexuality. You are saying Nintendo hates homosexuals, ergo Nintendo automatically is against homosexuality. When Nintendo has specifically stated that the only reason there's no homosexuality currently is because of financial costs, not ethical decisions. And those financial costs would mean no Tomagachi Life for the rest of the world. And by saying Nintendo is automatically anti-homosexuality, all those who support Nintendo are anti-homosexuality. Even those, like me, who believe homosexuals should get married. So am I anti-homosexuality even though I understand the reason for not rewriting years of coding?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

But if it's not supporting either side, how is it supporting one side, that may be your perspective, but not the neutral person who sees it differently. You're basically saying that if people aren't with you, they're against you, and that's why some people just stay neutral. Because they don't like being lumped in with either side of an issue that maybe just doesn't affect them. (I'm not talking about Nintendo, just the issue of neutrality in general.)

Because it is not neural. It deliberately excludes a group of people and reinforces a heteronormative worldview.

But they're not actively seeking it, they're neutral, so how can it be deliberate?

And I think they're being silly. Why do I care? They aren't deciding things rationally, they aren't deciding it on its own merits. I find that particularly despicable when it comes to issues of people being treated unfairly. It puts ones own ego above them.

But you are saying that if they're neutral, they're against someone, because you seem to think it means they support a side. Perhaps some feel they have no right to voice an opinion on something that they aren't invested in one way or the other. Not being pro something does not mean you're anti something either in my opinion. What if they treat people as equals, but take no political stance on the matter?

I'm not trying to argue/debate, I'm just trying to understand this view you have.

EDIT: Had to remove quotes as I couldn't fix them properly, sorry.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

And I think they're being silly. Why do I care? They aren't deciding things rationally, they aren't deciding it on its own merits. I find that particularly despicable when it comes to issues of people being treated unfairly. It puts ones own ego above them.

But you are saying that if they're neutral, they're against someone, because you seem to think it means they support a side. Perhaps some feel they have no right to voice an opinion on something that they aren't invested in one way or the other. Not being pro something does not mean you're anti something either in my opinion. What if they treat people as equals, but take no political stance on the matter?

I'm not trying to argue/debate, I'm just trying to understand this view you have.

EDIT: Had to remove quotes as I couldn't fix them properly, sorry.

Oh my god, would you seriously not cut out parts of my post that outright contradict what you say?

I told you that I did not say that if they're neutral they're against someone. You claimed it before, I directly told you that it is not what I said.

I am talking about *this* specific issue. I gave you a chance to show a third position on it. If you're going to ignore important parts of my posts we're done. You know, like " You either treat people the same or you do not. Feel free to tell me the alternative, or just admit I'm right."

I didn't remove them due to anything other then it not quoting correctly and looking like a mess, I apologize. I'm not trying to do anything hostile like that.

I did put a question at the end there that you haven't answered "What if they treat people as equals, but take no political stance on the matter?" I'm curious what your answer is on that.

"I told you that I did not say that if they're neutral they're against someone. You claimed it before, I directly told you that it is not what I said."

Okay, then why is it that if someone is neutral, they are, in your own words from an earlier post in response to me supporting the anti gay side.

"Sure, it's supporting the side that says "It's okay to treat gay people differently."

It's not the exact words "If you're not with us, you're against us." but it has the same meaning to me, because suddenly they're on the side against you on this issue.

 

[RA92]

Point out where I said that. Pull that crap again and I may as well give up, I'm not here to talk to people who aren't the least bit interested in honest discourse.

It's quite... curious, how people seem to conflate our arguments about their actions being a political one with 'Ninty is a gay-hating bigot!'

 

[chozo_hybrid]

And I think they're being silly. Why do I care? They aren't deciding things rationally, they aren't deciding it on its own merits. I find that particularly despicable when it comes to issues of people being treated unfairly. It puts ones own ego above them.

But you are saying that if they're neutral, they're against someone, because you seem to think it means they support a side. Perhaps some feel they have no right to voice an opinion on something that they aren't invested in one way or the other. Not being pro something does not mean you're anti something either in my opinion. What if they treat people as equals, but take no political stance on the matter?

I'm not trying to argue/debate, I'm just trying to understand this view you have.

EDIT: Had to remove quotes as I couldn't fix them properly, sorry.

Oh my god, would you seriously not cut out parts of my post that outright contradict what you say?

I told you that I did not say that if they're neutral they're against someone. You claimed it before, I directly told you that it is not what I said.

I am talking about *this* specific issue. I gave you a chance to show a third position on it. If you're going to ignore important parts of my posts we're done. You know, like " You either treat people the same or you do not. Feel free to tell me the alternative, or just admit I'm right."

I didn't remove them due to anything other then it not quoting correctly and looking like a mess, I apologize. I'm not trying to do anything hostile like that.

I did put a question at the end there that you haven't answered "What if they treat people as equals, but take no political stance on the matter?" I'm curious what your answer is on that.

Then it seems in practice they're fine with gay rights.

"I told you that I did not say that if they're neutral they're against someone. You claimed it before, I directly told you that it is not what I said."

Okay, then why is it that if someone is neutral, they are, in your own words from an earlier post in response to me supporting the anti gay side.

"Sure, it's supporting the side that says "It's okay to treat gay people differently."

It's not the exact words "If you're not with us, you're against us." but it has the same meaning to me, because suddenly they're on the side against you on this issue.

And this is clarified with other things I said. You were speaking very generally about the neutral thing. In this specific case there is not any particular room between. And none really in how you act. At best the position you said above, not taking any political stance while treating people equally, is about as neutral as you can get.

Cool, that actually answers my question, I understand your stance on this whole thing now too.

I was more talking about the nature of neutrality in general, sorry if I caused any annoyance. I do my best to try be civil and such when I discuss things.

But they're not actively seeking it, they're neutral, so how can it be deliberate?

They made a conscious choice to exclude homosexuality, and yesterday when they responded to the Miiquality movement, they didn't give an actual answer at all because they know making a committment that is either explicitly pro or anti gay will potentially hurt them financially, so they gave a hand wave "we're taking feedback" comment which roughly translates to "no".

That, hand in hand with their statements about the game, basically implicate themselves by saying "hey, we never saw gay people as being included in the game, and even though you've requested it, never will".

But you are saying that if they're neutral, they're against someone, because you seem to think it means they support a side.

When presented with the Miiquality thing, they were confronted into a situation where they had to give a "yes" answer, or a "no" answer. No wiggle room. They basically gave a very obfuscated "no" answer towards inclusion, which projects the idea "no, you don't belong in this". They were trying to squirm their way out of it, but there's only so long that you can avoid a yes/no question. They refused, and are still basically refusing, to give a straight answer, because they're in a Catch-22. Say yes? Piss off anti-gay people. Say no? Piss off gay people. They're trying to have it both ways, as they have been for years, and this was an instance where they really couldn't avoid it, and in the future, it'll only become more difficult for them to refuse a position.

What if they treat people as equals, but take no political stance on the matter?

If you treated gay people as equals, you'd let them get married. The gay movement isn't about giving gay people extra rights and protections, its about giving them equal rights and protections that are owed to them.

For the record, I was more talking about the stance of being neutral when it comes to opinions on issues like this, not as Nintendo. But thanks for shedding light on it and more or less answering my questions at the same time. Also, I am all for equal rights, I have helped efforts in my country to legalize gay marriage (which we now can!), so I wasn't asking from my perspective, but that of someone neutral as well.