Big_Boss_Mantis said:
Damien Granz said:
So I guess if you're a gay kid or what not you're not allowed to have self identifiable role models because bigots find anything that's different than them 'controversial'?
Cause you could make the same (bad) argument against having female or non-white protagonists too.
Bigots making people feel bad about who they are should be the more controversial stance, not people merely existing and being gay.
You have a very compelling argument. And you are completely right.
But, before throwing around words like "bigot" or calling my argument "bad", try to see the big picture here.
I'm not necessarily saying you're a bigot, but the only people that actually find a gay (or non-white, non-male, etc.) protagonist, especially in a game where the protagonist is supposed to be 'yourself' as controversial are bigots, and that an argument that revolves around "He who throws around the largest unwarranted shit-fit gets their way" is somewhat inherently bad and self fulfilling.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
Nintendo is a company. It sells products. It is not an activist of any cause, nor a group of people trying to make the world a better place.
It is very convenient (and necessary for them, really) to do not take sides.
Except they've inherently taken sides by being "You can make yourself (unless you're gay/bi)". It's harmful to the people that are being discriminated against that people are trying to say that the 'neutral' stance is "Go fuck yourself". That might seem like the neutral stance if you're apathetic to the issue at hand because it doesn't effect you, but you're confusing 'neutral stance' to 'statistically more common outcome'.
Think about it if it was in reverse, if there was only gay marriage and a bug came out and allowed opposite sex partners. Would you consider it 'neutral' stance to make a patch to ban opposite sex relationships? No you'd feel it was somewhat spiteful and foolish. You wouldn't consider your erasure or exclusion to be neutrality. Now, I know that you might be thinking 'make your own game/community' etc, but imagine now if this was the case in
every community or sphere. Imagine if people didn't want you at their restaurants, bars, pools, schools, sports teams, in their movies, games, books etc... and it gets old very fast.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
Those "bigots (that) find anything that's different than them 'controversial'" are consumers. Are voters. They have representatives of their points of view on the government, on rating boards ...
I'm unsure that I like the insinuation that discrimination is OK as long as you have enough money, and it has a pretty weak legal backing as it is, and one that's weakening every day. Also it's a bad matter of principle to be like "Well, something is bad but it's hard to change it because bigots might complain". It seems like a self fulfilling prophecy where you get in a loop or echo chamber of unchallenged hate because those that might challenge it are afraid of hurting the feelings of those shouting the hate, making bigots feel more powerful and more willing to keep shouting louder, etc.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
Are they the majority? I think it depends on the culture of the country. The times are rapidly changing to ensure the protection of the civil rights to gay people in a huge part of the world.
Yeah, homophobes are in the minority and are becoming more so every day, but not because bystanders one day woke up and just had an epiphany or ex-bigots hearts grew 3 sizes one day. They did so because LGBT groups and straight allies have fought against the status quo, and straight allies and LGBT people started a dialogue with each other to find out that they're actually people and not some nebulous 'not my problem' other, one that bigots never wanted to happen.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
Still, Nintendo have to post a profit. It has to please shareholders, lest they simply go out of business.
You say this though as if LGBT people or allies or people apathetic to them have no money to spend too though, and that's a myth that needs to be dispelled as well. A lot of people bend at the knee for bigotry because they think "If I don't take money from horrible people, then I won't have money at all", but that's not the case. That's what I mean by it being bad to stay silent in the first place as it creates that bigotry echo chamber where myths like this prevail.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
And that is what I was saying. They cannot have Fox News using them as a target for bad journalism. They don't want fervorous Christian parents refusing to buy their children DS's.
Yes, because right wing journalists will never use video games or modern technology or fads like rock music and flapper girls as a scapegoat for all of society's ills anyways.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
They gain nothing (and lost dearly) if they get a boycott from the more conservative part of society.
And older people are usually the ones that most resist change. They are the ones buying games for their kids.
See, again that's the harm that myth and echo chamber has done to you, is make you think that without taking money from horrible people they won't have money. That's why bigots want people to stay silent on issues, so that people who would otherwise be friendly like you think that without them you lose dearly and gain nothing.
Also, the core demographic for buying games aren't 55+ people, the core demographic for buying games are 20-30 year olds who are (increasingly every day) less homophobic. So they don't stand to 'gain nothing'.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
That said, I don't find them homophobic. They just avoid the issue. (and even slipped in a transgender in their character roster)
Even if I was to give them that one token transgendered character (and I don't, considering the Birdo thing came from a joke in a mistranslated manual from a game slapped together as a repaint of another game and was never intended to be a 'core' character, and the current status of said character's transgenderism is basically mute silence), they might not necessarily be doing this out of homophobic but out of like a general laziness, but it doesn't really change the fact that it's harmful.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
Yes, sometimes not taking a stance is bad enough. I would be criticizing it if their core demographic were mostly teenagers or young adults (DC comics, for instance, took a good stand in a good moment). But, in Nintendo's case I find it justifiable.
I'm not sure where or why you believe that the core demographic for video games to be 55+ year olds. Especially a game about Miis.
Big_Boss_Mantis said:
The day will come when Nintendo, Disney, McDonalds, will all have an role model for that gay kid you mentioned. It is inevitable.
One day Samus won't take orders from a male figure and will have a girlfriend. Then Fox McCloud could get married to a male wolf.
We are just not there yet, and, unfortunately, a company can't deny this fact.
Well, first, I don't think anybody really cares so much to change established characters. I don't think really Samus 'needs' a relationship (gay or otherwise), etc. And also Fox and Falco are pretty much already a gay interracial married bickering couple as it is, the furry fandom's love for Krystal be damned. Katt was clearly Falco's beard. Jokes aside though, I do believe the day for inclusion will come too, but not as long as we assume that gay people or straight allies have nothing economic to contribute and stay silent as long as not staying silent will make bigots frown.
Because, as I said, it's bigots who want 'You're invisible and don't exist' to be the neutral stance. Especially in a game that's ostentatiously about 'yourself'. I could see an argument for a neutral stance for 'Mario' is that he's either straight or like, asexual, because asexual has been pretty much how he's always been portrayed except in like, maybe Mario 64 (he's kissed in other games by Peach but usually he just kinda sits there like a lump). But a neutral stance that the 'Damien' character is heterosexual isn't very neutral at all to me!
