Once again ResetEra Banned me.....for not caring about all people being all white in Squadron 42?

[Hawki]

Not when every authority figure in a detailed media just so happens to be white in a setting where 'race does not matter'. Quite clearly race does matter if you seemingly can't get a decent job without being white.

You really think that's their intention?

Also, you're putting to a single fleet in a multi-system empire. That's a drop in the bucket.

So have mine ... point being?

"Garbage" is a single word.

Your post. Not mine.

To people who've grown up in a world where inter-racial ships/romance isn't an issue, and for whom weren't alive in the Cold War.

That's quite a few people.[/quote]

...which is my point?

Being in your 30s isn't exactly a fantastic margin of the demographic.

Or younger.

Not to mention we're critiquing media now, and let's notpretend that unconscious biases have ended.

Yes, they haven't. But again, TOS would have less impact now then it did when it aired.

Where? It doesn't do relationships well full stop.

Disagree.

Does relationships reasonably well, and it never treats same sex relationships as anything out of the ordinary.

Where?

Tracer and Portero.

We're talking sci-fi.

Thought we were discussing media in general.

You said in the same post "we're discussing media."

Really? Homeworld?

Never played. Also, does Karen S'jet even espouse any religious dogma?

We were discussing protagonists/perspectives, not the presence of religion.

Bioshock Infinite?

Never played, and isn't Booker ireligious?

Deadspace?

Isaac is strongly implied to be irreligious - at the least, he's not a Unitologist, and while other religions do exist in the setting, they're minor compared to Unitology.

I suppose you can include Carrie and Franco, but never played their respective installments. Also, Unitology is a made up religion.

Halo?

Of all the human characters we've played, there's no evidence that any of them are religious. You could point to Thel, but again, made up religion.

In hindsight, maybe I should have specified "real-world religion" not religion in general.

Command & Conquer?

Okay, sure, if we're including Nod, but again, made up religion.

Messiah

Never played.

While not a videogame, original BSG is basically 'Mormons in Space'. So we got Mormon before Hindu religious themes in sci-fi.

And why do you think that is?

Maybe because BSG is an American piece of media, and Mormonism is an American religion?

There's a reason why Western and Eastern medias tend to draw inspirations from their own cultural frameworks.

You're missing the definition of 'stock villain'.

Stock character: "A stereotypical fictional character in a work of art such as a novel, play, or film, whom audiences recognize from frequent recurrences in a particular literary tradition."

'Russian' isn't a stock villain, it's a nationality.

Which 'Russian characters' meet. We all know how Russian characters act on screen, even when not as antagonists.

Yet how many games or shows have even bothered to tackle and outline something as basic as the Shia-Sunni conflict?

How many works of fiction, period?

Maybe the reason they don't in the West is because the Suni-Shia conflict has a completely different cultural context and history that isn't readily understood? Remember the saying, "write what you know?"

Do we expect Islamic literature to try and tackle Western history/cultural issues?

Hell, Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation in the world, and yet 'Islamic militant' has very racist dimensions on its own as it is portrayed. Not just religious...

And let me guess, drawing stereotypes from other religions isn't offensive.

Avatar stuff

I was talking about Avatar, the cartoon, not the movie.

Completely disagree with your take on the movie, but I really can't be arsed to debate it any further.

But that wasn't Verhoeven's argument. So .... bzzzt?

His argument being that fascism is probably a mad idea, that military rule is a bad idea, and that unthinking military jingoism is a bad idea?

Despite your claims, not of that is based on race, so, "bzt" back.

Verhoeven is making the argument that Heinlein's militrarism only creates the social and dialectical difference of in groups and out groups.

Humanity is in the "in group," the Arachnids are in the "out group" by that analogy.

Again, ethnicity is irrelevant.

At best whatever militarism is at core is propaganda when promoted (hence why the entire movie, not just its 'Would you like to know more?' bits feel like propaganda. That ultimately such a society is going to be riven and consumed by things like racial dimensions. In-groups and out-groups.

Except again, the "out group" isn't human.

In his example, using the rise of fascism in Europe and it channelling the worst aspects of inherently racist European societies.

First of all, racism isn't confined to Europe, either in conteporary life or history.

Second of all, fascism isn't confined to Europe.

Starship Troopers (the movie) has stuff to say on fascism. It has nothing to say on race.

 

[SweetShark]

I feel the ban is silly, but it's also important to care about diversity. The whole world is diverse, so it should be represented in the art we consume, which is, in my opinion, fair to suggest.

I didn't told them I don't care.
At first I told them that maybe all of the actors was White.That all.
Even with one post they had started attacking me like hungry wolfs.
Then I told them it is not big deal I guess. Not saying it with bad intentions.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Okay, but what themes or messages is Star Citizen conveying?

How about: "in the future, everyone important is white, and most important people are men"

That is the reality we are shown in the trailer. What we are shown conveys meaning, even if a character never comments on it diagetically. It is a reality that reflects the prejudice of the world we live in, and the world in which the trailer was made.

-Is race important in the setting?

Who cares? The setting is fictional.

-Is race important to the producers/writers/directors/whatever?

The evidence suggests so, even if just in the form of subconscious bias.

If every single important person in your piece of media is white/white passing, then that kind of indicates that race is important, because clearly it was important enough to shape your decisions.

Or, the Room is a terrible film that is unintentionally hilarious, and Wiseau tried to cover his arse?

That is very literally what I said. However, you've missed the point..

- Do the characters in the setting of the Room consider themselves to be funny?

- Did the creator of the Room consider the film to be funny?

If we had to judge films by your standards of what constitutes "productive" criticism, then what you just said is wrong. The Room is not "unintentionally hilarious" because nothing can be unintentional, only things which are intentional or textual are worthy of discussion. Fortunately, here in the real world, we don't have to accord media this ridiculous benefit of the doubt.

Squadron 42's casting may not have been racist in intention, but it is unintentionally racist in its implications. That kind of unintentional racism is not the worst thing in the world, but it exists and it is worth talking about, whatever you might think.

You ever heard of authoratorial intent?

Why is authorial intent relevant here?

Does Tommy's authorial intent mean that noone is allowed to criticise the Room or to point out that it is unintentionally funny?

Because RSI is an American company

Whites are the dominant ethnic group in the US, both in terms of population and economic status

Ergo, most actors would be white

So, putting aside the idea that an American company with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars is constrained to exclusively using American actors, then the decision to cast an entirely white or white-passing cast is still a decision. It is becoming quite rare, at this point, for an American Hollywood movie to have an exclusively white cast. I mean, let's just look at the top 10 domestic grossing US films of 2018 so far.

Black Panther
Avengers: Infinity War
Incredibles 2
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Deadpool 2
Mission Impossible: Fallout
Ant Man and the Wasp
Solo: A Star Wars Story
A Quiet Place
Crazy Rich Asians

Only one of those movies has an all white actors in its starring roles (and it's A Quiet Place, which has a tiny cast playing members of a single family). Hollywood is not a post-racial utopia, but Hollywood manages to cast non-white people in starring roles in movies all the time. Squadron 42 has a huge cast compared to most of these movies, and yet doesn't manage a single visibly non-white actor in a starring role (Sophie Wu and Rhona Mitra are both mixed race, which comes with its own set of racist baggage, but both have white parents and both are to some degree white passing).

That is not an accurate demographic reflection of the United States, even if that was relevant. It is certainly not indicative of the standard we have come to expect of American media in the 21st century. Non-white actors do not deserve to be overlooked or reduced to playing ethnic bit parts, as occurred in the past, simply on the pretext that America is a majority white country.

Key word "assume." Is there any actual evidence of this?

The entire cast is either white or white-passing.

I'm going to go out on a limb that the people sinking up to tens of thousands of dollars into this game do.

I know the Star Citizen community has a reputation for being a bunch of paranoid, cult-like kooks, but I'm pretty sure even they can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Most of them, anyway.

And your proof for this is?

The entire cast is either white or white-passing. Again, you seem to think there needs to be a deeper meaning or inflection here. I don't actually care what anyone who made these casting decisions thought they were doing. I don't care whether or not they harbour secret racist views (well, I guess I do, but it's not relevant to the criticism of the trailer). It doesn't matter if they're just huge fans of these specific people and thought they were really cool. The simple fact remains that they made a decision to cast the entire game with white or white passing actors, and they can be held to account for the consequences of that decision, whether they made it knowingly or not. Again, when you create a piece of media, you may not intend for it to say something, but it can end up saying those things anyway, just like the Room being funny when it wasn't supposed to be, and you are responsible for what you say.

No, that's not what I think. But what you seem to be under the impression of is that every piece of media contains inherent meaning and/or relevance to the present day.

Well, yes, because media is created in a particular place and time, which may not be the same as the place and time in which it is set.

You can learn very little about the 21st century by watching 1970s science fiction set in the 21st century. However, you can learn a lot about the 1970s.

 

[SweetShark]

Also it seems they reviewed my Post and decided to extent my Ban to 2 weeks [it was first 1 week at first....].
This is freaking ridiculous.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You really think that's their intention?

Also, you're putting to a single fleet in a multi-system empire. That's a drop in the bucket.

This is what we call 'unconscious bias'. Funnily enough when someonesays; "You ever notice all these guys in power are white?" The response to that isn't "WASN'T INTENTIONAL!"

Just like saying; "I'm not racist, but..."

If something requires you to think that, clearly there's reasons why;

A: Someone might think what you're about to say is racist.
B: You yourself are not sure what you're saying is racist.

Your post. Not mine.

'They've the right to do so. Doesn't make it less stupid.' Your post, not mine.

...which is my point?

How is it your point? You were literally saying anybody that didn't grow up during the Cold War as if a point in contention. There's a metric fuckton of people who were alive during the Cold War. The average age of Australians is like 34. Most Australians were still alive during the Cold War.

Or younger.

Of which is a minority of people at least where I live. Your point being? Most Australians are still older than me, I was alive during the Cold War.

Yes, they haven't. But again, TOS would have less impact now then it did when it aired.

And this is relevant because ....? How exactly does that make something like a whitifying of all positions of observable power more acceptable? Surely it makes it less acceptable?

Does relationships reasonably well, and it never treats same sex relationships as anything out of the ordinary.

A: No it doesn't.
B: And? How exactly is that indicative of LGBTQ themes?

Tracer and Portero.

And what LGBTQ themes do these handle well? Break it down for me.

Thought we were discussing media in general.

You said in the same post "we're discussing media."

Videogames are media.

Never played. Also, does Karen S'jet even espouse any religious dogma?

Homeworld games element stories out of the Old Testament as well as eschatology and the various factions are also references to dominant dynasties, tribes and empires (or localities) from which multiple Middle-Eastern cultures that would contribute to Judeo-Christian religiosity. Also a bit of Norse mythology thrown in

Kharak? The city of Karachi or the mountain range that shares its partial namesake. Kushan? The Kushan Empire... Discovering a ship buried beneath the sands, many Kharak clans discover a unique and singular ancestry and seek to find their homeworld via the mental projections of their leader (a prophet) that will lead them. Along the way battling their ancient aggressors and finally a blockade of Taiidans (Tai'shan Mountain range in ancient Chinese geography, that runs all the way to Bactria) to cross a sea of stars (desert sands and night skies) to their homeland in the West...

Clearly nothing in that...

Sajuuk? Seljuuk Turks.

Khar Toba? Reference to an ancient, possibly mythical 'City of the Sands' in Persian and Chinese pre-history.

Prefix of -sa for ruler? Reference to Persian royalty ('Shah').

Kun Laan? Reference to ancient Chinese writings of an imposing mountain range to Southwestern China, and repurposed in modern geography to the Kunlun mountain range north of Tibet.

It's not just Judeo-Christian, in essence it's pre-Judeo-Christian and Judeo-Christian mixed in ... but it's a pretty fascinating repurposing of humanity's ancient past and its mythology and religiosity mixed into a universe of worldbuilding.

And yeah ... those are what I'd call religious dimensions.

We were discussing protagonists/perspectives, not the presence of religion.

Homeworld is a reimagining of multiple aspects of the Old Testament and pre-Judeo-Christian cultures that would contribute to it in time.

Never played, and isn't Booker ireligious?

How exactly does that divorce the game from religious componentry on its own?

Isaac is strongly implied to be irreligious - at the least, he's not a Unitologist, and while other religions do exist in the setting, they're minor compared to Unitology.

Ditto above.

Is this your position for everything?

Of all the human characters we've played, there's no evidence that any of them are religious. You could point to Thel, but again, made up religion.

Irrelevant.

Okay, sure, if we're including Nod, but again, made up religion.

Sure, if you ixnay its religious themes.

And why do you think that is?

Maybe because BSG is an American piece of media, and Mormonism is an American religion?

Pretty much. But then again, Mormonism itself lacks the potentially of the number of writers, material, and musings, of a billion Hindus. And I for one would like to see a videogame on the scale of something like Homeworld with a greater bent to other religions.

In the same way Catholicism has contributed to the videogame scene, some Hindu love at least once or twice would be nice.

Stock character: "A stereotypical fictional character in a work of art such as a novel, play, or film, whom audiences recognize from frequent recurrences in a particular literary tradition."

Russian is not 'stock character'.

Which 'Russian characters' meet. We all know how Russian characters act on screen, even when not as antagonists.

Absolutely, but then again Western Europe has had a problem with Slavs as well.

Maybe the reason they don't in the West is because the Suni-Shia conflict has a completely different cultural context and history that isn't readily understood? Remember the saying, "write what you know?"

And yet how many games feature aspects of it in shooters? Part and parcel of this is the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but then again surely media should, you know, be less racist and actually start meaningfully dissecting our consumption of 'Islamic militant' into something a little more nuanced if only to combat te latent xenophobia it itself is helpin to breed?

You know .... the whole reason why it doesn't help to simply ignore when a movie of supposedly future human showing only white people in power might be a bad look for a piece of media that is 'totally not about race'.

Do we expect Islamic literature to try and tackle Western history/cultural issues?

How is that relevant to an appeal for better representation?

And let me guess, drawing stereotypes from other religions isn't offensive.

Relevance or application to the argument? Or are you saying my critique doesn't exist that there is actual xenophobia at work in these regards?

I was talking about Avatar, the cartoon, not the movie.

And you would do this in a discussion of science fiction because ...?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I feel the ban is silly, but it's also important to care about diversity. The whole world is diverse, so it should be represented in the art we consume, which is, in my opinion, fair to suggest.

I believe that is a racist attitude and a horrific thing to suggest. People's skin colour shouldn't matter and judging people by their skin colour is regressive and bigoted. The arts are under no obligations to represent notions of diversity to satisfy bigots with a social justice agenda. Artists should be free to create any art they choose without having to kowtow to political sensibilities. Please note, I want it clear that I'm discussing your point and not you personally.

Whether or not diversity is something you care about or not isn't the issue, but you have made your presence known in a discussion about diversity saying you don't care about the topic being discussed and that's pretty rude.

He didn't say he didn't care about the topic, he said he didn't care about the skin colour of the actors/characters. All that means is he disagreed with the original premise that Star Citizen needed more diversity and that's different from not caring about the topic.

 

[Hawki]

How about: "in the future, everyone important is white, and most important people are men"

And how is that a theme when:

a) All we've seen in Squadron 42 is a single fleet of a wider navy of an even wider empire?

b) Race, to our best knowledge, is irrelevant.

If you want to construe a work having a theme, it needs a bit of a foundation to stand on. Casting that as a theme is projection.

That is the reality we are shown in the trailer.

Again, inference. We've seen a selection of individuals in a single fleet.

What we are shown conveys meaning, even if a character never comments on it diagetically.

A character may not need to comment on it, but there needs to be SOMETHING.

It is a reality that reflects the prejudice of the world we live in, and the world in which the trailer was made.

Assuming that's true, where is the evidence that it's anything but subconcious bias?

And that's a big assumption.

Who cares? The setting is fictional.

Lots of people care. Worldbuilding is a very important factor in the appeal of speculative fiction.

The evidence suggests so, even if just in the form of subconscious bias.

So even by your own admission, all we're dealing with, if anything, is "subconscious bias," which is practically impossible to prove, and is possessed by everyone.

If every single important person in your piece of media is white/white passing, then that kind of indicates that race is important, because clearly it was important enough to shape your decisions.

You're assuming the decisions were "shaped."

That is very literally what I said. However, you've missed the point..

- Do the characters in the setting of the Room consider themselves to be funny?

- Did the creator of the Room consider the film to be funny?

If we had to judge films by your standards of what constitutes "productive" criticism, then what you just said is wrong. The Room is not "unintentionally hilarious" because nothing can be unintentional, only things which are intentional or textual are worthy of discussion. Fortunately, here in the real world, we don't have to accord media this ridiculous benefit of the doubt.

Nice try, but that's completely sidestepping the point.

The Room being unintentioanlly hilarious or not has to do with stuff like dialogue, acting ability, competence of directing, etc. In contrast, the 'situation' with Star Citizen is entirely to do with the casting, none of which has anything to do with the gameplay, or by all indications, the story or setting.

The issues with the Room are at the core of its foundation. The issues with Star Citizen (in this line of argument) are fringe at best.

Squadron 42's casting may not have been racist in intention, but it is unintentionally racist in its implications. That kind of unintentional racism is not the worst thing in the world, but it exists and it is worth talking about, whatever you might think.

I certainly agree that racism is worth talking about. I disagree that Star Citizen is that relevant to the discussion.

Why is authorial intent relevant here?

Because it can be the distinction between passive and active racism, among other things.

Does Tommy's authorial intent mean that noone is allowed to criticise the Room or to point out that it is unintentionally funny?

Of course not. But since every major character in the Room is white, does that make Tommy Wissau a racist as well?

Hence, the value of authoratorial intent. And I say this as someone who's also sympathetic to the idea of "Death of the Author."

So, putting aside the idea that an American company with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars is constrained to exclusively using American actors, then the decision to cast an entirely white or white-passing cast is still a decision.

Active decision, or accidental decision?

It's only a problem if the former. If the latter, we're left with nothing but inference.

let's just look at the top 10 domestic grossing US films of 2018 so far.

Black Panther
Avengers: Infinity War
Incredibles 2
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Deadpool 2
Mission Impossible: Fallout
Ant Man and the Wasp
Solo: A Star Wars Story
A Quiet Place
Crazy Rich Asians

You...do realize that with the exception of Solo, every one of those films either takes place in the real world or some approximation of it, right? Something that Star Citizen most certainly isn't.

That's not even mentioning that Black Panther and CRA are the only films on that list where ethnicity is directly relevant to the plot.

Only one of those movies has an all white actors in its starring roles (and it's A Quiet Place, which has a tiny cast playing members of a single family). Hollywood is not a post-racial utopia, but Hollywood manages to cast non-white people in starring roles in movies all the time.

Good for Hollywood, but again, of those movies, race is only relevant to 20% of that list.

Squadron 42 has a huge cast compared to most of these movies,

Source?

I rewatched the trailer (thanks for that BTW, it's still lackustre) and visited IMDB. The former doesn't give a sense of your claim (and it's often hard to tell who's a major character and who isn't), and the latter doesn't tell me much either because it doesn't give a sense of how major each character is.

and yet doesn't manage a single visibly non-white actor in a starring role (Sophie Wu and Rhona Mitra are both mixed race, which comes with its own set of racist baggage, but both have white parents and both are to some degree white passing).

Sorry, but right now, this comes off as racial profiling.

That is not an accurate demographic reflection of the United States, even if that was relevant.

Except Star Citizen isn't a demographic reflection of the US. And one fleet isn't indicative of the UEE (not that I'm aware of at least).

Again, if there was in-universe evidence of prejudice, then yes, that might raise an eyebrow, but other than that...

It is certainly not indicative of the standard we have come to expect of American media in the 21st century.

I'd like to think that the standards of American media were universal. That even across cultures, there's a common appreciation for what constitutes good writing, acting, and directing.

Identity politics isn't exclusively American, but it's far less condusive to the craft of film (or media in general).

Non-white actors do not deserve to be overlooked or reduced to playing ethnic bit parts, as occurred in the past, simply on the pretext that America is a majority white country.

I agree, but again, evidence.

Where is the evidence of active exclusion on RSI's part?

The entire cast is either white or white-passing.

Ex post facto.

I know the Star Citizen community has a reputation for being a bunch of paranoid, cult-like kooks, but I'm pretty sure even they can tell the difference between fiction and reality. Most of them, anyway.

Which is misconstruing the point. You don't need to believe a fictional universe is real to be invested in it.

The entire cast is either white or white-passing. Again, you seem to think there needs to be a deeper meaning or inflection here.

And you seem to think there is inherent meaning.

I don't actually care what anyone who made these casting decisions thought they were doing. I don't care whether or not they harbour secret racist views (well, I guess I do, but it's not relevant to the criticism of the trailer). It doesn't matter if they're just huge fans of these specific people and thought they were really cool. The simple fact remains that they made a decision to cast the entire game with white or white passing actors, and they can be held to account for the consequences of that decision, whether they made it knowingly or not.

The decision should only matter if it's an active one.

Again, when you create a piece of media, you may not intend for it to say something, but it can end up saying those things anyway, just like the Room being funny when it wasn't supposed to be, and you are responsible for what you say.

Those are two different scenarios. The Room being unintentionally hilarious is a statement of quality (or lack of it), not a statement of theme.

And y'know what? I actually agree that you may say something that you may not intended. But its relevance is proportional to the intent, unless one follows Death of the Author-type deconstruction.

Well, yes, because media is created in a particular place and time, which may not be the same as the place and time in which it is set.

Which doesn't say anything about inherent meaning. That's not the same thing as reflecting the time of production.

 

[Hawki]

This is what we call 'unconscious bias'. Funnily enough when someonesays; "You ever notice all these guys in power are white?" The response to that isn't "WASN'T INTENTIONAL!"

And the conversation should end there.

'They've the right to do so. Doesn't make it less stupid.' Your post, not mine.

Which is still longer than just "garbage."

How is it your point? You were literally saying anybody that didn't grow up during the Cold War as if a point in contention. There's a metric fuckton of people who were alive during the Cold War. The average age of Australians is like 34. Most Averalians were still alive during the Cold War.

If the average Australian is 34, that means they were born in 1984. They'd barely be able to remember anything of the Cold War.

I was born in 89. Doesn't mean I remember the Gulf War.

And this is relevant because ....? How exactly does that make something like a whitifying of all positions of observable power more acceptable? Surely it makes it less acceptable?

Except there's no evidence of that. Again, you're taking a single fleet of a large navy of a multi-system empire.

A: No it doesn't.
B: And? How exactly is that indicative of LGBTQ themes?

So now we've gone from "LGBTQ representation" to "LGTBTQ themes?"

Shifting the goal posts much?

Tracer and Portero.

And what LGBTQ themes do these handle well? Break it down for me.

Videogames are media.

Except that's not what you said originally, you said "we're discussing sci-fi" to "we're discussing media."

All sci-fi is media. Not all media is sci-fi.

Homeworld is a reimagining of multiple aspects of the Old Testament and pre-Judeo-Christian cultures that would contribute to it in time.

Which again, isn't the same thing as religious perspective.

How exactly does that divorce the game from religious componentry on its own?

It doesn't, but you said religious perspective, not the presence of religion.

Again, shifting the goal posts.

Is this your position for everything?

I'm not the one who shifted the goal posts. You did.

And yet how many games feature aspects of it in shooters? Part and parcel of this is the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but then again surely media should, you know, be less racist and actually start meaningfully dissecting our consumption of 'Islamic militant' into something a little more nuanced if only to combat te latent xenophobia it itself is helpin to breed?

While I'd love to see more nuanced portrayals of Islam in media, that lack of nuance in games isn't confined to just Islamic extremists.

CnC is an example. The GLA are stock Islamic extremists. Same way the Soviets are stock Ruskies based on Cold War era mentality. You might be able to point out that Red Alert is more tongue in cheek than Generals, but Generals is lacking in its narrative all across the board.

You know .... the whole reason why it doesn't help to simply ignore when a movie of supposedly future human showing only white people in power might be a bad look for a piece of media that is 'totally not about race'.

Except where is the evidence that Star Citizen is about race?

How is that relevant to an appeal for better representation?

Because otherwise you're only calling for better representation from one part of the world, and excusing the rest of it.

For my money, I don't care who writes about what. The standards of good storytelling and worldbuilding are academic to whose fingers are on the keyboard or behind the camera.

And you would do this in a discussion of science fiction because ...?

So, we're back to talking about sci-fi from "media" now?

For the record, it was an off-hand comment that showed how asinine it was to be alienated by the ethnicity of those in a cast.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Reset era is cancer of gaming community. they dictate you what to post, what game you like and are very SJW and feminists.

I remember BFV reveal trailer if someone complain about authenticity of WW2. they end up being banned.

people there said we wish rockstar put female protagonist in RDR2 but no one can say we prefer male protagonist without end up being banned.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Star Citizen is a piece of media. When we criticise it, we are not criticising a real and functioning universe that actually exists, we are criticising a piece of media. One way of criticising media is to point out that it's internal logic is inconsistent. Plenty of careers on youtube have been born from that kind of tedious nitpicking and pointing out "plot holes". But that is not the only level on which criticism of a piece of media is possible. We can also criticise how a piece of media is produced, we can criticise the themes and message it conveys (both intentionally and unintentionally). Because ultimately, all media reflects something about the period in which it exists, or about the people which produced it and consumed it.

Some time ago, I read a piece about Game of Thrones that referred to this as Watsonian vs Doylist analysis. The idea being that Watsonian analyses fiction from within the framework of the fiction itself. Like Watson, it looks at all things present in the fiction and analyses from that, looking at the internal logic or consistency.
Doylist analysis takes the perspective of an author or critic (named after Arthur Conan Doyle, who apparently was really good at this stuff) to look at the fiction from the perspective of how it slots into the broader society and culture in which it was written.

Hence a Watsonian analysis might suggest that maybe all the people in Squadron 42 are from a planet of only white people. A Doylist analysis might take away that Squadron 42 has something of a representation problem. They are both valid pieces of analysis and doesn't conflict with each other in anyway, but neither can one be used to disprove the other as they exist on different levels of analysis, with different perspectives.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

And the conversation should end there.

That's stupid. Why exactly should the conversation end there? The whole point of finding unconscious biases is to address them. Save the social dimensions of this, it's how basic discoveries are made in other pursuits of the intellect such as those in the sciences.

Which is still longer than just "garbage."

[

The thing is I actually address the larger aspects of the discussion immediately beneath this. It wa shorthand for; "This argument is garbage, here's why."

If the average Australian is 34, that means they were born in 1984. They'd barely be able to remember anything of the Cold War.

I was born in 89. Doesn't mean I remember the Gulf War.

Pretty sure being alive means simply 'being alive'. And I don't remember how the last invasion of Iraq happened and I was almost twenty for that.

Except there's no evidence of that. Again, you're taking a single fleet of a large navy of a multi-system empire.

What difference does that make? Break it down for me. If segregation is a thing in the 30th Century then race is still a thing.

So now we've gone from "LGBTQ representation" to "LGTBTQ themes?"

Pretty much.

Shifting the goal posts much?

I don't know, I was pretty fucking clear on what representation means. So ... no? but now you know what I mean maybe you'll get back to the point?

All sci-fi is media. Not all media is sci-fi.

But we're talking sci-fi. The first post I quoted you about was about race in the 30th Century. I pointed out that all the authority figures are seemingly white in the 30th century.

Which again, isn't the same thing as religious perspective.

How is it not? It's retelling an eschatological story of the reunification of one of the tribes in the Holy Land. A reinterpretation of deuterocanonical, canonical, and mythological aspects of Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions. Its worldbuilding itself is shaped on Middle Eastern forces on the nature of the journey throughout the ages.

It's a clever science-fiction take on a spiritual source material of current day religions. That's part and parcel of what makes it an epic story of perseverance, hope and faith in a vision of one's people, broken but unbowed.

So you accept that the original BSG is basically Mormons in Space, but Homeworld's blend of ME, with a sprinkling of Indian and Chinese, religion and mythology is somehow not religiously sourced? So you're telling me that unless the protagonist is a Bible basher with literal translations of Biblical passages rather than something that uses allegory and symbolism to biblical stories is not religious themes?

Sounds like a complete failure to apply intellectual honesty to me.

After all, do you actually want to address the argument that the creators of the product themselves created this universe in such a fashion for a reason? That it was intentionally told this way? I sourced enough game aspects and their relationship to mythology and religion... how about the fucking basics of the game logo itself has Zoroastrian roots?

That is literally the first thing that would have greeted the player when they picked up the game box itself or when they first boot up the game, after all.

It doesn't, but you said religious perspective, not the presence of religion.

Again, shifting the goal posts.

No it's not.

This is what I said

Really? Homeworld? Bioshock Infinite? Dead Space? Halo? Command & Conquer? Doom? Deus Ex? Messiah? All of them big ticket items currently or in the past that directly lift Judeo-Christian themes partly or entirely. Give me more than a minute and I'll think of twenty more.

 

[Hawki]

That's stupid. Why exactly should the conversation end there?

Okay, I'll put it this way.

Bob: "Here's my game."

Bill: "Huh. Aren't all the major characters right?"

Bob: "Hmm...you're right. Wasn't my intention though."

This point in time, there's no reason to continue. I mean, it can, but it's up to Bob to take action, if at all.

Now if I replace the last line with something like "of course they're white, ain't gonna after PoCs in my game!", then Bob is a racist piece of shit that Bill can tear into as far as I'm concerned, but if this is a gaff, then it's a non-issue. It's Bob's game. Bob can do what he wants with it. The market can decide whether the cast is make or break.

Pretty sure being alive means simply 'being alive'.

Alive, yes, but pretty academic.

People who watched Star Trek in the 60s would see it differently from those introduced in the 90s and beyond. That's not to say you can't appreciate the context of TOS, but it can be enjoyed without knowledge of it.

What difference does that make? Break it down for me. If segregation is a thing in the 30th Century then race is still a thing.

Difference being that in an empire of billions, if not trillions, of a navy that is the largest branch of the UEE's armed forces, that it's far too small a sample size to draw any conclusions. That, and we know the UEE allows freedom of religion, and RSI is unlikely to be pushing a racial agenda.

I don't know, I was pretty fucking clear on what representation means. So ... no? but now you know what I mean maybe you'll get back to the point?

There's a difference between representation and themes.

But then, no, I don't know any game that deals with LGBT themes.

How is it not?

The original frame was in reference to Hinduism, and the perspective of protagonists. As in, the protagonist of a story is seeing things through the filter of their faith. I took that as having a Hindu protagonist.

Taking religious inspiration for worldbuilding is different from what I understood to be your original point.

So you accept that the original BSG is basically Mormons in Space, but Homeworld's blend of ME, with a sprinkling of Indian and Chinese, religion and mythology is somehow not religiously sourced?

See the above point.

If we want to discuss games that feature religion, that's an extremely long list. If we want to list games where the protagonist is religious, to the extent that it shapes their character, that list gets a lot shorter.

So you're telling me that unless the protagonist is a Bible basher with literal translations of Biblical passages rather than something that uses allegory and symbolism to Biblical stories is not religious themes?

Again, difference between religious themes and religious perspective.

Sounds like a complete failure to apply intellectual honesty to me.

No, failure of communication. You jumped from real-world religion to make-believe religion.

This is what I said

What you said originally was "Indians alone make up 1 in 7 people one the planet and conspicuously I can't think of a single time I've seen something like a Hindu perspective in a sci-fi setting."

I took that as actual Hinduism, and as such, reference to actual religions in a sci-fi setting in games.

But on the subject, the reason why there isn't much Hindu-esque themes is that while Hinduism is one of the world's largest religions in terms of numbers (about 800 million), most of it is concentrated in India. The big game producers are mostly in the US and Japan, neither of which have a sizable Hindu population (least in proportion to the host population).

 

[Terminal Blue]

And how is that a theme when:

a) All we've seen in Squadron 42 is a single fleet of a wider navy of an even wider empire?

b) Race, to our best knowledge, is irrelevant.

So a theme is usually a recurring symbol or idea within a piece of media which helps to convey meaning. This isn't really a theme, but it is a (probably unintentional) message or piece of information. I used theme earlier as an example of the ways in which narrative meaning can be conveyed through non-diegetic means (i.e. outside of the story itself), something which you seem to have difficulty acknowledging, hence why we're still coming back to this bizarre thing where you are defending the decisions of people in the present day by reference to the fact that you assume race is "irrelevant" in the fictional setting they have created.

Again, that setting is fictional. It does not exist outside of what is conveyed to us through the medium. The fact that this is a single fleet doesn't matter because this is the fleet around which the story revolves, and thus it is the only fleet. Now, if it turns out there is a piece of dialogue where someone sits down and explains that people are assigned to fleets based on race, and there are other fleets made up of predominantly mono-racial groups, then I'll reappraise my criticisms..

..and then I'll replace them with other criticisms, because that's fucking weird, and why on earth would you decide to include that as a diegetic feature of your setting just so you didn't have to cast non-white people in your game?

A character may not need to comment on it, but there needs to be SOMETHING.

Yes, there needs to be something. The fact that every significant character is white or white passing is something. Why do you have such trouble understanding this?

Assuming that's true, where is the evidence that it's anything but subconcious bias?

It almost certainly is subconscious bias.

Subconscious bias is a problem. It's a thing we can talk about, and a thing we should talk about, because talking about it is how we overcome our subconscious biases and become better at treating people fairly and equally.

Lots of people care. Worldbuilding is a very important factor in the appeal of speculative fiction.

Again, this doesn't mean you can defend media from criticism by reference to its internal logic or worldbuilding. The internal logic is not real. The world does not exist. Media exists as a product which is created and consumed, that product is what is being criticised, the worldbuilding is irrelevant.

When I say noone cares, what I mean is in the very specific sense that noone is going to be ashamed of their words and deeds when you provide an in-universe explanation as to why something is okay, or why it makes sense. That was never the problem, and to try to degrade criticism to that level is intellectually dishonest and destructive to the ability to think critically about media at all.

You're assuming the decisions were "shaped."

They were. That's why they happened. If noone made decisions, nothing would happen.

The Room being unintentioanlly hilarious or not has to do with stuff like dialogue, acting ability, competence of directing, etc. In contrast, the 'situation' with Star Citizen is entirely to do with the casting, none of which has anything to do with the gameplay, or by all indications, the story or setting.

It absolutely does.

Like, hiring big name actors is extremely expensive. People like Mark Hamill and Gillian Anderson are multi-millionaires, Hamill is believed to have brought in over $10 million for each of his recent star-wars appearances. Most AAA games are lucky to get a single recognisable actor to do a handful of voice lines, and CIG is hiring them to do mocap.

People would not spend millions hiring these actors if casting was not important to the finished product, and yes, some of those reasons are marketing related (big name actors can attract a lot of attention, which can bring people in) but it is also about the specific quality of them and their work, including their physical likeness in this case. Heck, because of how the crowdfunding worked, the story of Squadron 42 was likely written after much of the cast had already been filled, meaning the entire story was written for characters which already had these actors attached to them.

Casting is an intentional part of how a piece of media is made. It is an intentional part of the art of creating media, and it can be held to the same standards as any other part of that art.

Of course not. But since every major character in the Room is white, does that make Tommy Wissau a racist as well?

You could certainly make that argument.

Although, the casting of the room was actually quite complicated. Lisa was originally played by a Latina actress, but she left the production at the last minute and was replaced by her understudy, who is the Lisa we see in the film. The speaking cast of the room is also relatively small.

Plus, if Tommy Wisseau is a racist, then sure, it's not a great reflection on him as an individual person but even then the stakes are relatively low. Squadron 42 is a massive producing costing many millions of dollars, and which will (if it ever releases) have significant cultural impact. That's why discussing the implicit racism of its casting is ultimately going to be more important.

You...do realize that with the exception of Solo, every one of those films either takes place in the real world or some approximation of it, right? Something that Star Citizen most certainly isn't.

Why does that matter?

Again, is the fact that all of the significant characters in Squadron 42's story are white "irrelevant" or is does it reflect an actual feature of the setting? Because, up until now, you've argued that it's an unintentional thing which has nothing to do with the story or setting. But now you're saying that because it takes place in a different setting, we can't hold it to the same standards for representative casting as films set in the present day.

I'm going to let slip a little secret though. These casting decisions are not really about "worldbuilding" or creating a consistent universe. Well, they are a little, but primarily they are business decisions. The fact that they can be read as worldbuilding decisions (and that the implications of doing so are unfortunate) is not intentional, but it doesn't have to be. It still happened, and it still matters.

I rewatched the trailer (thanks for that BTW, it's still lackustre) and visited IMDB. The former doesn't give a sense of your claim (and it's often hard to tell who's a major character and who isn't), and the latter doesn't tell me much either because it doesn't give a sense of how major each character is.

So, when you are officially featuring 15-26 of your cast on your promotional material, that is an indication of the number of starring roles. It's a lot. It's up there with Avengers: Infinity War, which is an exceptionally giant movie because it's a crossover of multiple franchises.

Except Star Citizen isn't a demographic reflection of the US. And one fleet isn't indicative of the UEE (not that I'm aware of at least).

You switch a lot between talking about fiction and talking about reality.

The decision should only matter if it's an active one.

No. It shouldn't.

You can hold people responsible for things they do unintentionally. It may reflect your perception of them (put it this way, if I thought Chris Roberts was a member of the klan, I'd be treating this whole thing very differently) but you don't have to automatically leap to their defence or hold them entirely irresponsible.

I grew up in a very white area, and moved to a much more ethnically mixed area. I know very well that learning to recognise that you are sometimes unintentionally racist or racially biased is hard. I don't think whoever cast this game deserves to be crucified, but they do deserve to be held to account for their decisions.

Those are two different scenarios. The Room being unintentionally hilarious is a statement of quality (or lack of it), not a statement of theme.

Plenty of "bad" films aren't funny. Often, bad films can be very, very boring.

The humour in the room is due to information being unintentionally conveyed to the audience that registers as funny or absurd. Having people play football in an alley while wearing tuxedos isn't an inherent mark of poor quality, but it is incongruous and silly. Tommy's cry of "you're tearing me apart Lisa!" is funny not just because it's badly acted (saying the line in monotone would be bad acting too) but because the bad acting conveys the wrong emotional tone to the audience. It's meant to be tragic, but it comes across as melodramatic.

Which doesn't say anything about inherent meaning. That's not the same thing as reflecting the time of production.

The whole reason a film or any piece of media is made is to make money and entertain people. That financial motive and desire to entertain is core to the meaning of media itself, it's the reason media is the way it is, and it's absolutely rooted in the time of production.

If nothing else, a piece of media is telling you what its creators thought its audience would enjoy or spend money on. It's rooted in a perception of its audience, and in that sense it always reflects the time in which it was created, because it is ultimately the act of one or more creators communicating with an audience. By consuming media, you are listening in on a one-sided conversation, and that conversation isn't taking place in the 30th century, it's taking place now.

 

[Hawki]

So a theme is usually a recurring symbol or idea within a piece of media which helps to convey meaning. This isn't really a theme, but it is a (probably unintentional) message or piece of information.

Since, by your own acknowledgement it's unintentional, it should hardly be an issue.

I used theme earlier as an example of the ways in which narrative meaning can be conveyed through non-diegetic means (i.e. outside of the story itself), something which you seem to have difficulty acknowledging, hence why we're still coming back to this bizarre thing where you are defending the decisions of people in the present day by reference to the fact that you assume race is "irrelevant" in the fictional setting they have created.

First of all, if one is conveying narrative outside the story, there's been a failure of the story (or at least if the story needs it as a crutch - expanded universes don't mean the core of the universe has 'failed.'

Second of all, I'm "assuming" race is irrelevant in the setting because there's no evidence that there is, bar your own projections. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If you want to claim that race is relevant in the UEE, I need either in-universe evidence or designer statements.

Again, that setting is fictional. It does not exist outside of what is conveyed to us through the medium. The fact that this is a single fleet doesn't matter because this is the fleet around which the story revolves, and thus it is the only fleet.

Except it is not the only fleet. The fleet is labelled as the Second Fleet. Now, you can try and argue that there's no First Fleet, or that it's somehow the only fleet remaining in the UEEN, but again, evidence is required.

Now, if it turns out there is a piece of dialogue where someone sits down and explains that people are assigned to fleets based on race, and there are other fleets made up of predominantly mono-racial groups, then I'll reappraise my criticisms..

..and then I'll replace them with other criticisms, because that's fucking weird, and why on earth would you decide to include that as a diegetic feature of your setting just so you didn't have to cast non-white people in your game?

You're overthinking this way too much.

Again, is there evidence that the UEE has any policy of racial segregation?

Is there any policy of RSI having racial profiling?

If the answer to both of these questions is "no," that should render the issue a minor one, if at all.

Yes, there needs to be something. The fact that every significant character is white or white passing is something.

Except the only one making it "something" is you and others.

Does the series present it as "something?"

Has there been designer statements presenting it as "something?"

Has the expanded universe presented it as "something?"

Again, if the answer is no, then, well, what I said above.

Why do you have such trouble understanding this?

Why do you?

It almost certainly is subconscious bias.

Subconscious bias is a problem. It's a thing we can talk about, and a thing we should talk about, because talking about it is how we overcome our subconscious biases and become better at treating people fairly and equally.

Then go ahead and talk about it on a forum that's more condusive to it.

Subconcious bias is a problem of the modern day, not of the setting of Star Citizen. It being produced in the modern day is irrelevant to that. Maybe decades from now people will look back on it and make their own conclusions, but that's their prerogative.

Again, this doesn't mean you can defend media from criticism by reference to its internal logic or worldbuilding.

Wrong.

The worldbuilding of fictional worlds can, and should be judged by its internal logic. Fictional worlds are under no obligation to follow the rules of our own world.

The internal logic is not real.

For our world? No.

For the fictional world? It is real. A fictional world needs to have at least some rules, otherwise it falls apart.

The world does not exist.

No shit. And?

Media exists as a product which is created and consumed, that product is what is being criticised, the worldbuilding is irrelevant.

Depends what's being criticized.

If I'm critiquing a story set in the fictional world, the worldbuilding is relevant to at least some extent. Plot functions within the world. Characters exist within the world. Themes stem from elements of the world.

When I say noone cares, what I mean is in the very specific sense that noone is going to be ashamed of their words and deeds when you provide an in-universe explanation as to why something is okay, or why it makes sense.

Yes, and?

That was never the problem, and to try to degrade criticism to that level is intellectually dishonest and destructive to the ability to think critically about media at all.

You're the one who's degrading critique, not me.

You're the one who's boiling Star Citizen down to race, not me.

You're the one who's willing to ignore any other element of art if it offends you, not me.

They were. That's why they happened. If noone made decisions, nothing would happen.

Decisions being made aren't the same thing as decisions being "shaped," least not in the context you're suggesting.

It absolutely does.

Oh really?

Go on, explain how the ethnicities of humans in the setting affects the gameplay. Give me evidence of how race is treated by the UEE.

Like, hiring big name actors is extremely expensive. People like Mark Hamill and Gillian Anderson are multi-millionaires, Hamill is believed to have brought in over $10 million for each of his recent star-wars appearances. Most AAA games are lucky to get a single recognisable actor to do a handful of voice lines, and CIG is hiring them to do mocap.

People would not spend millions hiring these actors if casting was not important to the finished product, and yes, some of those reasons are marketing related (big name actors can attract a lot of attention, which can bring people in) but it is also about the specific quality of them and their work, including their physical likeness in this case. Heck, because of how the crowdfunding worked, the story of Squadron 42 was likely written after much of the cast had already been filled, meaning the entire story was written for characters which already had these actors attached to them.

Casting is an intentional part of how a piece of media is made. It is an intentional part of the art of creating media, and it can be held to the same standards as any other part of that art.

All true, but I don't see how that proves much other than RSI going after big name actors. Which is their prerogative.

You could certainly make that argument.

I could, but it would be foolish. Far as I'm aware, there's nothing in The Room that deals with race or racism.

Plus, if Tommy Wisseau is a racist, then sure, it's not a great reflection on him as an individual person but even then the stakes are relatively low. Squadron 42 is a massive producing costing many millions of dollars, and which will (if it ever releases) have significant cultural impact. That's why discussing the implicit racism of its casting is ultimately going to be more important.

I doubt Star Citizen is going to have much cultural impact. Even if it's released, it'll only be playable on high end PCs.

Why does that matter?

It matters, because if race is irrelevant in the Star Wars setting, it should be irrelevant in our appraisal of the setting.

Again, is the fact that all of the significant characters in Squadron 42's story are white "irrelevant" or is does it reflect an actual feature of the setting?

Irrelevant, because there's no evidence of it being a feature of the setting.

Because, up until now, you've argued that it's an unintentional thing which has nothing to do with the story or setting. But now you're saying that because it takes place in a different setting, we can't hold it to the same standards for representative casting as films set in the present day.

Those arguments aren't incongruent. Again:

-Is there evidence that race is relavant in the setting?

-Is there evidence that the decision for an all white cast was made actively?

There's no evidence for either of this bar projection.

I'm going to let slip a little secret though. These casting decisions are not really about "worldbuilding" or creating a consistent universe. Well, they are a little,

How?

Again, where is the evidence that race is relavant in the setting?

but primarily they are business decisions. The fact that they can be read as worldbuilding decisions

They can be, but come on, you seriously think it's an in-universe representation of humanity in the 30th century?

(and that the implications of doing so are unfortunate) is not intentional, but it doesn't have to be. It still happened, and it still matters.

You know what matters a lot more? Intent.

So, when you are officially featuring 15-26 of your cast on your promotional material, that is an indication of the number of starring roles. It's a lot. It's up there with Avengers: Infinity War, which is an exceptionally giant movie because it's a crossover of multiple franchises.

Except every character in Infinity War is a, well, character. Squadron 42 is far more nebulous as to what's a major role and what isn't. Similarly, race is a non-issue in Infinity War (well, unless you include the Wakanda sequence I guess).

No. It shouldn't.

Yes, it should.

You can hold people responsible for things they do unintentionally.

I can, but intent matters. There's a reason why there's a difference between manslaughter and murder after all.

I don't think whoever cast this game deserves to be crucified, but they do deserve to be held to account for their decisions.

You'll forgive me for not getting morally outraged at the ethnic makeup of a cast of a fictional game in a fictional world.

The whole reason a film or any piece of media is made is to make money and entertain people. That financial motive and desire to entertain is core to the meaning of media itself, it's the reason media is the way it is, and it's absolutely rooted in the time of production.

That doesn't exclude the possibility of media engaging in the elements of storytelling.

Not that I'm expecting Star Citizen to have any deep engaging themes, but I'm not expecting it to be an in-depth critique of 21st century racism by analogy either. In part because it never sold itself as that.

If nothing else, a piece of media is telling you what its creators thought its audience would enjoy or spend money on. It's rooted in a perception of its audience, and in that sense it always reflects the time in which it was created, because it is ultimately the act of one or more creators communicating with an audience. By consuming media, you are listening in on a one-sided conversation, and that conversation isn't taking place in the 30th century, it's taking place now.

Except Star Citizen isn't having that conversation. That "conversation" is irrelevant to its setting, characters, or story.

Star Citizen is, at the end of the day, military sci-fi/space opera set nearly a 1000 years from now. It should be evaluated on the terms of its own story and universe.

 

[CaitSeith]

I read the thread and, wow, what a trip!

Spoiler: SweetShark posts compilation

Sorry, but I don't see where is the problem.
It just happens the actors they had to be white I guess.

Now that I think about it, is it 100% sure all the actors who use the voices on these models to be white?
I am not talking about the well-known actors of course.
Or are they all well-known actors?

Also the Devs can anything they like.
Their game, their rules.

No offence to the others of course.

I put effort doing others things, so sorry for making you angry.

What if in this sci-fi world only the white people have supremacy? it is a possibility.
Unlikely, but you never know.

Also don't get so serious about it. it is just a game. I never think so much for a game which you travel with a spaceship in space and kill lizard like aliens.
That I am trying to say is, relax. It is just a game, again. I don't want to start something. I just want to talk calmly.

Yeah, why not? Is it so difficult that maybe the Devs wants to create a Sci-Fi World which the white people are the only allowed to space travel?
The movie Gattaca done something similar I think?

I don't care about these issues in the movies/comics/videogames/books/music/etc. It is fiction.
I just want to enjoy without thinking about it so hard.

I just want to fly a Spaceship a Kill Aliens.

I won't enjoy it if the game is a bad. Not because the Devs wanted all the character to be white.

Finally I am more interested to discuss the scenario that maybe I am right and the game have a world like Gattaca or Starship Troopers.

So I am not allowed to have imagination?
I would love to see a game which everyone is black. I won't mind.
Others would of course.

Then it seems you need to ignore me.
Just because I can accept everything, is the problem it seems.
Sorry for troubling you.

Yeah, I understand.
But people also need to understand that just because a game show a ugly angle of humanity, doesn't mean it doesn't have it purpose.

For example there is a comic series which the Protagonist are Nazis and you follow their victories while represent them as "heroes"

Is it ok to see Nazis as heroes in real life? Of course not!!! It is not ok!
However does it have it purpose to create an interesting comic which shows what could happened if Hitler didn't kill himself at the last moment and created an army of Super Soldier? Of course yes. That is the selling point of the comic.

I am more interested to discuss the possibility of white supremancy in Star Citizen.
However I saw a video and I saw some balck people, so I guess I am wrong.

It is NOT Ok seeing Nazis as Heroes in Real Life.
But as a Comic which explore this idea, it is interesting and different.

Nah, I was wrong because i saw a video and it had diversity in their people inside their ships [even if they weren't the main characters].

Of course i don't agree in the game about White supremancy. Why should I? It make no sense.
I just saying it is interesting to see the game exploring this fact. That all.
But as i said i was wrong and it isn't the case. i think.

Yeah, that why I said in the beggining that maybe it just happened that the Devs wanted to have these specific actors.

*No more posts after this. I assume that's when the ban hammer hit.

With that discussion going all over the place, no wonder they thought you were a (insert five-letters word that starts with "t" here) or something. Maybe you should had suggested that, with a smart exploration of white supremacy in a fictional setting, people could find better ways to fight it off in real life (though I sincerely doubt Star Citizen could achieve that feat).

 

[Terminal Blue]

Since, by your own acknowledgement it's unintentional, it should hardly be an issue.

Why not?

Like, if I was a non-white person looking at whether to buy into this game, do you think I should be forced to ignore the fact that someone seems to have made a specific decision to ensure that there are no people who look like me in it merely because that decision is unintentional? They've still sent a clear message to the audience that this is a game about (and therefore for) for white people.

This is why Hollywood has learned to avoid all-white casts, incidentally. It's not because the "SJWs" got to them, it's because they figured out that a film with only white people in it can come across as exclusionary to audiences who might otherwise enjoy it. If you literally can't stand to have non-white people exist within your narrative, then that can convey the impression that you don't want non-white people to buy into your product.

First of all, if one is conveying narrative outside the story, there's been a failure of the story (or at least if the story needs it as a crutch - expanded universes don't mean the core of the universe has 'failed.'

How do you measure the "failure" of a story?

A story can fail to communicate the information the author intended, or it can fail to be entertaining, or it can fail to make money.. but it can't just "fail" on a magical, transcendental level.

Also, how can you "convey narrative outside of the story". Narrative and story are the same thing. Anything that is conveying narrative is part of the story. That can include thins like colour, shot-composition, non-diegetic music or authorial tone which aren't part of the self-contained universe in which the narrative takes place. It can also include metanarrative information (which is especially important in genre media, like science fiction) like pop culture references, or tropes. Squadron 42 probably won't spend half an hour explaining to you why spaceships can travel faster than light even though this is probably impossible. It's a genre convention in science fiction, but you wouldn't know that unless you were exposed to other science fiction.

Second of all, I'm "assuming" race is irrelevant in the setting because there's no evidence that there is, bar your own projections. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

Right, but we're both making claims. The question, if you want to phrase this in terms of burden of proof, is which question requires the fewest contingencies. If you believe that race is irrelevant in this setting, if that's something you want to assume, then why does the casting and appearance of the characters not reflect this colour-blind attitude to race in the future? Why has this space fleet magically ended up full of white people?

Star Trek set out to present a vision of the world in which race was irrelevant, and low and behold that was reflected in the casting by having a black woman and an Asian man appear on the bridge. At the time, there was a semi-official policy of discrimination and censorship which dictated what non-white actors could be seen doing on television, so Gene Roddenberry had to fight for that, and he did because he knew it was important, because he knew that if he was going to sell this idea of a post-racial future then he had to show that, not just rely on the audience to assume it. It wasn't a default assumption then, and it isn't today.

Except it is not the only fleet. The fleet is labelled as the Second Fleet. Now, you can try and argue that there's no First Fleet, or that it's somehow the only fleet remaining in the UEEN, but again, evidence is required.

The UEEN doesn't exist. None of its fleets exist. To exist in any form, they need to be shown to us through the story.

Again, is there evidence that the UEE has any policy of racial segregation?

Is there any policy of RSI having racial profiling?

Again, the fact that all important characters in this story are white.

If the intention was that the UEE isn't racial segregated and is a colourblind meritocracy, then whoever cast this game has fucked up because they haven't shown that, in fact they've shown the complete opposite. The fact that noone at RSI noticed this is kind of indicative, given how easy it was for Gene Roddenberry to see this in the 1960s.

Subconcious bias is a problem of the modern day, not of the setting of Star Citizen.

Are you ready for this, because I'm getting tired of having to point it out.

The. Setting. Of. Star. Citizen. Is. Not. Real.

The worldbuilding of fictional worlds can, and should be judged by its internal logic. Fictional worlds are under no obligation to follow the rules of our own world.

This isn't a criticism of the "worldbuilding" though, it's a criticism of the piece of media itself, its production, casting and presentation to us as a piece of media. Gethsemani made an effort to explain it earlier, and I'd suggest reading her post as it might help you to understand the difference.

Because if you're going to keep treating a fictional universe as if it's real and real people in the real world can be defended using its internal logic, then this discussion is pointless.

If I'm critiquing a story set in the fictional world, the worldbuilding is relevant to at least some extent. Plot functions within the world. Characters exist within the world. Themes stem from elements of the world.

Casting, however, does not take place within a fictional world. It takes place within the real world.

Go on, explain how the ethnicities of humans in the setting affects the gameplay. Give me evidence of how race is treated by the UEE.

Oh my god..

Every important character featured in the trailer is white. That is something that actually appears in the trailer, and is featured in the marketing. From the very beginning of this discussion, I have pointed out that there are two possible explanations for this:

1) It is an intentional "in universe" feature of the setting that white people are disproportionately represented within important roles within this particular fleet.
2) It is an unintentional result of casting choices and marketing decisions made outside of the setting.

Now, you can see in the trailer that there all the important or featured characters are white. That's obvious, isn't it? You also seem to expect people to "assume" that race doesn't matter in this setting. Therefore, I assume that you believe this is the result of option two, and I agree with you. That should have been where the discussion on the universe and its internal logic ended, because it doesn't matter. We have dismissed the idea that this is a deliberate feature of the universe being depicted.

But, there are two problems with this.

1) There is a conflict or dissonance between the idea that race doesn't matter in this universe and the fact that this has resulted in the important people all being white. It would actually make more sense if we were to follow option 1, and believe that there is some form of in-universe racial discrimination which prevents non-white people from achieving positions of importance. Thus trailer has actually conveyed the opposite impression to the one I believe was intended, which is a failure.

2) The fact that casting choices and marketing decisions have unintentionally resulted in an overwhelmingly white cast indicates that whatever priorities have motivated those decisions are suffering from some kind of (likely unconscious) racial bias. This may be due to whoever cast the movie only liking or being a fan of white actors, or it may be due to an insidious assumption (possibly even true) that the game's target audience will be more "hyped" for white actors. Neither of these things is above criticism because both indicate the presence of racism either within the game's creators or its fanbase. This is important not just because it's ideologically distasteful or offensive, but because it leads to a material deprivation of non-white actors who have effectively missed out on roles because they weren't white enough to appeal to the game's fans or casting directors.

I doubt Star Citizen is going to have much cultural impact.

It's already cost something close to $200 million. Trust me, it's already had a cultural impact, that's why we're talking about it.

It matters, because if race is irrelevant in the Star Wars setting, it should be irrelevant in our appraisal of the setting.

Star Wars isn't just a "setting". It's a franchise worth nearly a billion dollars. We can appraise it as such, and when we do race is definately important.

They can be, but come on, you seriously think it's an in-universe representation of humanity in the 30th century?

There's no evidence that it isn't

Except Star Citizen isn't having that conversation. That "conversation" is irrelevant to its setting, characters, or story.

Star Citizen is not being created for the benefit of its characters, setting or story. They won't get to play it, because they don't exist.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I really hate this argument going around in this thread that the Cold War logic from the American government is what we should apply to everything in our daily lives.

"We see that these people are friends with X so they MIGHT be a communist! We need to break the laws of the government and monitor their private lives!"

"But they haven't actually done anything. You need actual evidence first"

"No! They might not be communists but they could BECOME communists, we need to do this!"

I don't care what side you're on, what you're arguing for, the ends do not justify the means because the means can undercut the ends.

This reminds me of what happened a couple of years ago with the Puppeteer game where someone complained about the main character being X as if it was required that they be Y, it's a bad argument.

If you want to argue that this is racism then you need MORE. Are the creators of the game racist? Have they shown any such leaning before this? What do they themselves say about the main character cast? You can say "It might, they could, what if" all you want but you all that gives you is a reason to look into it more, you can not make any conclusions based on just this alone.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Its weird that people are all for artistic interring and separation, yet also demand art, in this case the story of Squad42, be changed to meet their new social requirements. Mark Hamill is a white dude, so in casting him you got a white dude.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

You're equating two separate things: intent and execution. When the execution makes the result indistinguishable from one with a racist intent, little matters the real intent; as it causes the same effect. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

You're also equating criticism with violation of civil rights. Cheap!

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I honestly believe that people who notice this crap are the real racists. It doesn't even register on the radar for me. I didn't even for a second ponder the diversity of Squadron 42. It could have been all a squad made up entirely of racial and ethnic minorities and I wouldn't have noticed or cared. It's a fuckin' video game. You know who notices and who cares? Racists.
Also, you have to be really fucked up in the head to constantly be on a lookout for things to be outraged about.