Epyc Wynn said:
I'm gonna say these are all pretty piss poor responses.
They're only piss poor responses because you're focusing on the parts where people call your reasoning stupid and completely ignoring the parts where they tell you
why it's stupid.
Let's see... we got someone calling it not an argument in good faith without giving a reason even upon request.
That part I just mentioned, where you've been ignoring people tearing your arguments apart and then double down on providing criticisms that have no relation to game design is why your argument is not in good faith.
The user Gizen called issue 6 a bullshit complaint with no substance while calling all the other points whiny bitching and they thus conclude issue 6 being bullshit "shouldn't be a surprise;" well I guess a series of thought-out points on why a video game's design is flawed can be chalked up to whiny bitching like any other criticism in the world can if you don't agree with it.
Once again, focusing on people calling your arguments stupid and disregarding the reason why. My first post in this thread pre-dates any of the things you've quoted, and all subsequent posts were made as a result of you not actually responding to any points of debate that anybody made. Furthermore, you focus entirely on me calling out your arguments as being substanceless bullshit (which they are, they made be thought-out, but they're certainly not
well thought-out) and ignore the parts of my posts where I've gone into great detail (specifically regarding point 6 because it's the one that's so poorly thought-out as to be offensive) about why your arguments are flawed.
DaCosta insists I HAVE, to be claiming the American White Male is the default state of being... because... reasons; I suppose promoting putting thought into the diverse aspects of fictional characters for the character's sake rather than the sake of diversity in relation to other characters is actually a basis for real life racist misogyny...
Yes. Yes it does. You're saying that to make a character gay, or black, or female, or autistic, or whatever, that it has to be justified. The implication in such a statement is that a character who's straight, or white, or male, or 'normal' does not need to be justified. You can't deny the implication is there, because otherwise this is a statement you could make about virtually every single video game or even the vast majority of works of fiction ever made, and if that was the case it would be an issue so omnipresent and pervasive that it wouldn't even be worth calling out. Afterall, why is it worth calling it out in Overwatch as one of the major ways it promotes bad game design when every single game does it? As such the implication is clear, not every game does it, that somehow the majority of games, which feature generic white male protagonists, are justified by default.
That's prejudiced. It's racist, it's sexist, it's homophobic, it's bullshit, but most of all it's incredibly subtle.
Welcome to the real world of prejudice, which rarely ever takes the form of open shouting of racial slurs or blatant evil like slavery and nazis, but rather imposes much smaller, easier to overlook forms of inequality such as demanding stricter standards out of minorities right down to demanding they have a more meaningful purpose in our fiction.
Gizen comes back swinging, calling this a bullshit argument and me a bigot because, pfft, who needs arguments when you can just insult the the opponent's arguments and the opponent.
Two things. First off, I should not have called you a bigot. The correct word I was looking for at the time was prejudiced, but my brain blanked on it, and I was in a fight-y mood so I just went with the first word that came to mind, which was bigoted. So for that, I'm sorry... or rather, I would be sorry, but your responses since then have only brought that insult closer to the point of accuracy.
Second, AGAIN, you're focusing on the fact that people are mean to you while ignoring the
why, because I GAVE you arguments and you know it, but you're not acknowledging them because you still have no response to them.
Gethsamani, the user aptly labelled "Hardcore Feminazi" under their username, proceeds to defend Gizen's arguments as valid, (because apparently basic argument ethics don't matter) and then proceeds to reiterate how justifying diversity, in a fictional video game, requires assuming the Caucasian Male is "default."
There's no assumption here. It is the default. That's simply a statement of fact. To look at the majority of games and deny that the main character on average is a caucasion male is to deny reality.
Maybe using the words "subjective" and "political" and "diversity" triggered an animal instinct in some of you to abandon basic argumentation ethics and give short snide remarks as some of you might be used to doing in political contexts, rather than deliver neutral reasonable retorts.
A neutral retort is no retort. To be neutral is to have no opinion on the matter. Someone with no opinion isn't going to participate in an argument to begin with, because why would they? They're neutral on the matter,
they don't care. This notion of neutrality and non-biased as some sort of gold standard to aspire to only applies when you're goal is non-participation.
Maybe these words triggered a reaction that some of you just HAVE to convey the person who disagrees with you is a bigot and be rude to them and if they complain about that rudeness it means they are running from the arguments.
We're not being rude to you because we disagree, we're being rude because, as I've detailed above, you don't argue in good faith, which means a proper debate can not be had.
But there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING bigoted about wanting characters to have purpose behind their designs.
You're absolutely right. There is nothing bigoted about wanting characters to have purpose behind their designs. The bigotry comes into play when you don't personally like the purpose behind their designs and then proceed to make statements which have prejudicial implications as to why you don't like that purpose.
Where some of you got white male as somehow being a default state of being, I can only assume came from a quite sexist racist source of thought somewhere far outside the realm of anything I have said or implied.
You may be very careful with what you outright say, but you're nowhere near as cautious with what you imply as you like to think you are.
Issue 6 deals with a philosophical divide between wanting a roster of characters varied in relation to each other, and wanting a roster of varied qualities relative only to the character at hand for the sake of enhancing the character. In the former you have soulless placeholders promoting the collective group's overall sense of diversity. In the latter you have soulful character designs promoting how each character is unique in their own way without having to necessarily be diverse in relation to everyone else.
This statement is gibberish. It is
literal nonsense. "a roster of varied qualities relative only to the character at hand for the sake of enhancing the character" is a statement that genuinely means
nothing.
"A character with different attributes that make it better" would be a translation of what you just said. What does that even
mean? Anything. It could literally mean anything. What qualifies as an attribute that'll improve a character? Anything could, depending entirely on who we're talking about, what kind of character they want, and what role they want it to play. This is why I'm telling you your arguments are bullshit nonsense. You're using a lot of fancy, flowering language to hide the fact that you're not actually saying fuck all.
It is incredibly ignorant to call this line of thought on fictional character design bigoted and it is incredibly unethical to imply I am racist or sexist for promoting it.
You're right, it is ignorant to call this line of thought prejudiced
by itself, and that's mainly because that line of thought barely qualifies as thought to begin with. But it's not by itself, it's attached to the statement 'diversity for the sake of diversity is bad'. This is a declaration that you do not like the roster's current list of 'varied qualities', that being qualities of foreign cultures and alternative sexualities. It is also a statement that says that 'diversity for diversity's sake' actively harms the game, because if it did not actively harm the game, it would be neutral instead of bad. If it's actively harming the game, that in turn implies that the game would be improved by the simple act of removing diversity. When pressed to explain HOW it would improve the game to actively make the game less diverse, you did not explain. All you did was point to the least diverse member of the current roster, at which point you were pressed to explain your reasoning in greater detail and instead you made this big post whining about how all the people are being mean to you while,
ONCE AGAIN disregarding the ever important reason
why.
The point of argumentation is to talk out the logic of two viewpoints, not attack the credibility of the person disagreeing as if this is combat rather than a discussion.
You can do both and one does not negate the other. If somebody were to come up and enter a debate leading with the outrageous claim that the earth is flat, he would be judged an idiot and treated as a laughingstock. He could have avoided that by not making such an outrageous claim, but now it's too late and the onus is upon him to demonstrate he's not an idiot.
You've made outrageous claims, we've judged you for them while simultaneously rebutting them. You have repeatedly only responded to the judgments, but it is the rebuttals that demand a response if you intend to actually change the way people view you.
