NIntendo Apologizes For Exclusion Of Gays From Tomodachi Life

[MrMan999]

I absolutely loathe the "With Us or Against Us" Mentality that has developed in the Social Justice crowd. I ask this, has Nintendo actively donated money to anti LGBT causes? Has Nintendo ever made a "Storm is coming" style PSA about Gay Marriage? I mean I get where people are coming from, but to demonize Nintendo for not trying to stir the pot and just make games is the definition of the wrong move. And the exact opposite of what the MiiQuality campaign was going for. Would it have been nice to have same sex couples in Tomodachi life? Yes it would have been, but you guys have to remember the following, the game was already out for a year in Japan and was never even considered for localization until very recently. There is literally nothing that Nintendo is able to do at this point except save it for the sequel.

On a side note, you guys ever hear of the "You're not wrong you're just an asshole" fallacy? Its when a person is right but is so obnoxious, aggressive and malicious about it that the person takes the opposite side just to spite him or her.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

WoW Nintendo... now let me get this straight.

Players found some bug in the game that allowed them to sort of get away with what amounted to same sex...

You patched it out...

Then when the backash hit you claim.. there's nothing that you can do?


So yeah... I guess no-one at nintendo heard of Rollbacks..


Nintendo... I know what it's like to put your foot in your mouth...but now you're just showing off with that.

There was the minor issue of the bug making the game crash, corrupt save files, and potentially damage the 3DS playing the game. Not the game. The actual 3DS. But hey, if you think that's worth having gay relationships, tell Nintendo that.

 

[hazydawn]

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

Because... I don't know... the world actually is heteronormative?
Heterosexuality is the norm. 95% of the world population are heterosexuals. Heterosexuality is the way our species keeps on multiplying.

Whether you like it or not, heterosexuality is the norm. It's the normal way things are.

Also before you call me a homophobe, I'm gay. It's just that I don't live in a dream world where 5% is the same as 95%. We are slowly getting our rights, things are slowly getting better, but we will never be the norm. You need to learn to deal with it.

Please educate yourself about the term before you write stuff. It holds different things than a percentage comparison to express that heterosexuals are the majority.
Here's a little definiton I found online but that is still lacking:
"Denoting or relating to a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation"

Depending on what definition of the term "norm" and "normal" you use, yes heterosexuality is the norm. In the way that they are the majority. But that doesn't mean that other sexualities are in any way less normal.
In the case of this game I'd say that they could have included same sex relationships fairly easily and had a responsibility to do so.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm tired of people saying that. If it is then they weren't very good people to start with.

That's trash and you know it. Thanks for proving my point.

They're suddenly not for equal rights because they didn't like what one person said. I find that pretty despicable. Why am I supposed to cater to people I find despicable?

No. They don't want anything to do with you because your more concerned with calling them despicable and bad people from the get go because they aren't joining gay rights rallies with you. A person who is neutral is someone who supports neither side. But you can bet your ass they are going to join the other side to spite you if your the one pointing fingers in their face and calling them shitty people because you decided you weren't going to pick a side. It's no different than religious zealots trying to "convert" people to God and telling everyone around them that "your all going to hell".

If you don't care then it shows you don't think they should be treated equally.

No. If I think they don't deserve to be treated equally that would put me in the anti-gay rights camp. Which would mean I'm not neutral. However I am neutral. That means I am supporting nobody's cause. Not your cause or the anti-LGBT crowds cause. I am indifferent and will simply observe what happens.

Unless you have proof other than "inaction" that I hate LGBTQ people you better bring that evidence to the table or stop with that toxic mindset.

you think it's an issue for others to decide.

Yes. Others for those who are extremely into it. I for one will not partake in it because I am neutral on the subject. That is the very definition of neutral. Other people decide that crap. But you yourself have no opinion on it because you couldn't give two shits.

 

[Vegosiux]

Is this supposed to be a really bad joke? How about you read the part I posted that in reply to? This is not rocket science.

No, it was a question, and this isn't an answer to it.

I explained it. If you take issue with it, then address it.

You explained it? Oh you mean, here?

"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."

That's not an explanation, that's just using different words to say the same thing three times. You have not shown how one follows from the other.

Try again. This time, I propose you do it without relying on your unfounded assumptions about people's thought processes and motivations - something you know nothing about, because you can't know it. People are not a hive mind.

The best I can come up with? I said multiple things and you quoted one.

You're operating on a faulty premise. Until you fix it or explain it to me in a manner that shows it's actually not faulty (and remember, "I know it's not faulty because I wrote it myself", and guessing at people's motivations, doesn't count), there's not much I can discuss.

Is this post for discussion or about stroking your ego here?

It's for expressing exasperation.

Because if it's about discussion I'd expect you to, you know, actually quote more of what I said. Not just pick one sentence out and ask if it's the best I can come up with. Not only that, but the sentence is true. Nowhere did I say Nintendo was evil.

See above. You're operating on a faulty premise.

Also, please quote where I even used the word 'enemy'. Is putting words in my mouth the best you can do?

You want to play the "exact words" game? Alright then, noted.

I'd suggest that's what you're about.

I'm not above it, that's for sure. I'm not the one who started it though.

You jumped on a single sentence of mine and didn't even bother to read what it was in reply to apparently since you have to ask what words I'm accusing him of putting in my mouth.

Because if I read and understood what you wrote, I would have necessarily agreed with and supported you, or...?

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.

No it's not. This is the kind of crap that's getting less and less people into joining your cause.

I'm tired of people saying that. If it is then they weren't very good people to start with. They're suddenly not for equal rights because they didn't like what one person said. I find that pretty despicable. Why am I supposed to cater to people I find despicable?

To be neutral is to not care from either side. You aren't for homosexuality, you aren't against homosexuality. You just don't give a fuck because you have other things to worry about. Or are you going to tell people in Bangladesh that they are against homosexuality because not a single fucking one of them once in their life ever decided to voice their support for the group?

If you don't care then it shows you don't think they should be treated equally. You don't think they are the same, you think it's an issue for others to decide.

Ironically, as far as I know, the person you're replying to here is a rather staunch and vocal supporter of LGBT rights (the people's, not the movement's) when it comes to the Escapist forums.

 

[xaszatm]

Snip

You know what. You've by this point have become so spastic that I honestly am confused to what it was to begin with. So, since I've (idiotically) decided to but in here, please tell me if I have your point right. What you are saying is that people who are neutral in the LGBQT rights issue are really against LGBQT rights. Do I have that correct? If I don't, feel free to ignore the rest of this post and tell me what your point is as the rest won't make sense.

To put it politely, I disagree that people are neutral in the LGBQT rights case against said rights. Neutral can mean many things, but usually will mean that the people just don't care. Now, not caring can be problematic, but you must understand that said person will not care if homosexuality is allowed or banned. This means that in either scenario, that person will do nothing. This person won't join Anti-Gay rallies but neither will they join Pro-Gay rallies. They simply do not care. Now, unless you can give me a good example on how being neutral supports being anti-gay, neutrality being against your cause seems very confrontational.

 

[Vegosiux]

If you're too lazy to read the post then you don't seem to care about a real answer.

We're off to a great start here I see.

But here, just once, I'll humor you.

I am moved by your magnanimity and benevolence. Almost enough to forget that first sentence. Almost.

After this you can actually read posts if you want to know what they're about.

I never doubted my ability to do so.

Nowhere did I say that they hate homosexuals. He claimed that was part of my argument. Oh and this crap that was what my sentence was directly replying to: "And by saying Nintendo is automatically anti-homosexuality, all those who support Nintendo are anti-homosexuality. "

So would you mind explaining how you supposedly read it and missed these? Hm?

You keep asserting that active opposition is the same thing as having a neutral stance. Since active opposition means anti-homosexuality, and having a neutral stance is the same as active opposition, then it must logically follow that having a neutral stance is the same as being anti-homosexuality.

I said more than just that. Furthermore, in no way was there an unfounded assumption. You really can't be neither for nor against treating someone the same. Either you do or don't. Feel free to tell how there's a middle ground in that with a direct answer.

You keep saying that. Just repeating it over and over won't make it true. I can totally be neither for or against treating someone the same if I have no knowledge of said someone. I'll also note that you don't treat everyone the same either, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this line of conversation is in the first place.

That wasn't a premise so what are you even talking about? You quoted me saying the other guy put words in my mouth then ask if that's the best I can come up with. Don't try and pretend it was something else now.

Of course it was the premise. It's what your entire argument is based on. That unless someone is on "your side", then they're on the "other side", with no other option given.

Explain how: "By putting words in my mouth you show that you don't care for an actual discussion." is supposed to be a faulty premise. That was the one thing you quoted when I was replying to you.

I'll for a moment forget that that sentence basically means "You said something I didn't like so I'm going to call you names and count on people giving you angry stares until you reconsider", that's not what I was talking about at all. I was talking about the entire "With us or against us" nonsense you seem to have going.

I like how you make demands but when others ask questions you don't answer them. More like I'm about done with you and your ego if this is how it is. You demand answers, but give none while putting words in my mouth? Yeah, no.

That was quick. Show me where I used the phrase "I demand".

Isn't it great how you are all in a huff about me supposedly talking about other people's motivations... but here you are doing just that about me?

Oh my, another one. Where did I talk about you? I just said it's not me, I could have been talking about anyone other than myself.

Or you'd know what my actual claim was without having to ask

Oh wow that makes him right! I forgot that ad hominem is not a logical fallacy in reverse.

It just makes the entire situation inherently funny because of the irony of it.

 

[xaszatm]

Because I'm not dividing it between those who want equal rights and those who want gay people to have less rights.

I'm dividing it between those who believe gay people are equal and those who do not.

If you're fine with someone not being treated equally, then you certainly can't be said to believe they are equal.

OK, that's a very binary way of thinking, but fine. Shall I assume then you realize that people who don't attend Pro-Homosexual rallies aren't necessarily believers in anti-gay rights and vice-versa? After all, you can believe in something and not act upon it. If this is indeed the case, then I must ask how the Tomadachi Life controversy relates to this? Are you saying that Nintendo's current response means that they don't believe homosexuals are equal? Or are you saying that this fiasco proves that Nintendo is anti-LGBQT? How is this relating towards the Tomadchi Life thing and Nintendo?

 

[Dragonbums]

No, it isn't.

Then give me examples of someone who doesn't care about gay rights or the banning of gay rights actively harming the gay rights movement and actively supporting the anti gay rights movement.

I'm waiting.

Now here's the real rubbish. Where did I call for anyone to join in gay rights rallies?

You said that if your not active in the LGBTQ community than you are against the gay rights movement. That includes neutral people who don't partake on any side. By that logic if there was a gay right rally near me, and I decide not to go because I don't care for it then that makes me part of the anti gay movement.

Repeating yourself doesn't in fact address what I said.

Yes it does. Because you stated that those who are neutral are against gay rights. Which is total shit because neutral by definition means you are neither for or against anything.

So people will be against equal rights because of a personal slight. Like I said, they are bad people to start.

They will be against your views because you made it your mission statement to call them shitty names and claim shit about them when you know nothing of them. Just like you are doing right now.

That makes you the shitty person because you lost a potential ally and your hurting the very movement your promoting.

No, it is quite difference. I explained how there is no middle ground. You either treat people equally, or you do not. There's no middle to that.

You didn't explain anything. You just once again tried to assert your binary, toxic, black and white opinion. If you are indifferent you are indifferent. You aren't going to treat gay people negatively because you don't give a shit. Likewise you aren't going to treat them like special snowflakes because you don't give a shit.

You are either fine with people not being treated equally or you are not fine with it. There's no middle ground to that. You can say "But I'm neutral!" Empty words though. You easily show you're fine with people not being treated equally by speaking up for those who don't treat them equally.

Continue to assert that is the case. I love seeing how you continue to justify this opinion by just restating your binary opinion and trying to pass it off as fact.

Meanwhile a bunch of people who I know are for gay rights have done nothing but rebuttal you time and time again.

Oh, it's demands we're making now? Okay, you show me how there's something between treating people equally and not treating them equally or you concede you're wrong here.

Doesn't work like that. You are the one asserting here that those of the neutral party are actually in the anti-gay rights camp. Since this is your premise and your claim it is up to you to prove to me that me, and others who are neutral on the issue are in fact against homosexuality by not doing anything.

Which goes to show, you don't believe gays should be treated equally.

Keep saying this. You still haven't proven how this makes it so.

Whether it turns out one way or the other you don't care. Which means you don't believe them to be equal.

You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. If there is gay rights everywhere and I don't care then that means I have nothing against them. For to me to actually be upset about gay rights would mean that I do care- which would then put me in the anti gay rights camp.


You know your argument is weak when I can literally reverse it and it would still sound full of shit.

"I am against homosexuality and the LGBTQ movement. If you are neutral on the issue then that means you are for homosexuality and LGBTQ+ rights"

Do you not see how ludicrous that sounds? This is your argument. The one that you've tried to defend not only in this thread but in numerous other threads relating to this issue as well.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well I know it could potentially be hard, but I'm trying to imagine how many things could really be related to it. I'm trying to figure what more they could have done aside from making some check based on gender. Perhaps some gender specific dialogue?

Well, we don't know what went into it, so it's hard to say. Though it'd be funny if it turned out they had to add extra programming in the first place to lock relationships.

The worst that the Lumiose City glitch did was delete your save file.

And still, it deleted game saves or locked players out of said saves. I mean, they still had to do all that stuff you then mention.

Or would you rather they do a really half ass job on it?

"Hello false dichotomy my old friend, I've come to talk with you again...."

There's absolutely no reason they couldn't have used their whole ass and still acheieved the desired result.

Then your ignoring the fact that this game came out in early 2013 and was only meant for a Japanese audience until recently.

No, I honestly don't care. "Well, it was meant for the Japanese" in no way addresses anything I've said. It's an excuse, a rationalisation.

Now people are demanding that they pull the original dev team off whatever they are doing elsewhere to patch a one year old game for an audience whom they have no fucking clue will even buy enough copies of this game to even remotely justify the cost of implementing same sex couples.

I'm sorry I'm not exactly heartbroken that they're being asked to work on a job for which they were paid.

And it doesn't seem like your going to put your money where your mouth is and actually buy the game yourself anyway.

You know, I understand the individual words, but that makes no sense. Again, nothing I've said would make me buying the game "putting my money where my mouth is." Do you have me confused for someone else? Do you not know what the phrase means? Are you making up arguments out of whole cloth? Please, elaborate some. And be specific.