Videogame Characters "Lack Diversity," Study Finds

[Oolinthu]

I'm not opposed to making games that feature more ethnicities and such, but if games become flooded w/ Latino personalities, then what will happen to the white kids' identities? Will they have identity formation problems? And, if so, will these people give a shit?

[edit] My whole point is that the argument is absurd. "Culture is okay, as long as it's not 'American-white-non-Hispanic' culture... then it's too dominant and should be restrained." That's what it all seems to come down to.

No, it's your argument that's absurd, not to mention reactionary. Representation of people and culture isn't a zero-sum game, and no one said anything about restraining "American-white-non-Hispanic" culture, or decreasing the number of white characters in games. The argument he's making is that there should be more representation of other peoples and cultures in games - and I'm not surprised if this didn't occur to you, given the way you seem to think, but that doesn't imply less representation of whites. You could double, triple, quadruple the number of nonwhite characters in games, and still have white characters in every game.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I'm not opposed to making games that feature more ethnicities and such, but if games become flooded w/ Latino personalities, then what will happen to the white kids' identities? Will they have identity formation problems? And, if so, will these people give a shit?

[edit] My whole point is that the argument is absurd. "Culture is okay, as long as it's not 'American-white-non-Hispanic' culture... then it's too dominant and should be restrained." That's what it all seems to come down to.

No, it's your argument that's absurd, not to mention reactionary. Representation of people and culture isn't a zero-sum game, and no one said anything about restraining "American-white-non-Hispanic" culture, or decreasing the number of white characters in games. The argument he's making is that there should be more representation of other peoples and cultures in games - and I'm not surprised if this didn't occur to you, given the way you seem to think, but that doesn't imply less representation of whites. You could double, triple, quadruple the number of nonwhite characters in games, and still have white characters in every game.

Not exactly what I meant, but whatever gives you a mightier-than-thou feeling is fine by me.

[edit] I don't like getting into arguments on the forums, especially when a good number of people get way out of control w/ it. So I'll just say two things in my defense: you focused too much on the wrong parts of my post, and you don't know shit about what I'm like so don't go around presuming that you do. I don't know you, and you don't know me yet; so let's not go around assuming the worst about each other. If you can agree w/ that, then I really would like to get along. Thank you.

 

[DirkGently]

You misunderstand my example. My mother is the asian woman. My father is the white man. I can tell you definitively that the salesperson in question doesn't know him.

I don't think it's a conspiracy either. But I think that apathy is a form of discrimination that everyone should make themselves responsible for. Diverse representation doesn't have to match exactly the census numbers, that isn't the point. The point is that, there are real people (as opposed to stereotypes) who happen to be of other ethnic groups, and games should reflect that because leaving them out implies they aren't important enough to be included.

OH, I misunderstood your example, indeed. My apologies.

I don't think that at all. Apathy, is, in it's crudest terms, not giving a fuck. There is no malice or hate behind it. There can be a form of racist apathy, but I don't think it's the case here. It's people who seem to love political correctness, or who seem to fear being called a racist, who make such a deal out of this. Just because people are hispanic, or black, or martian does not mean that there should be an equal number of games with those kind of PC's. Likewise, the lack of it does not mean they're less important.

It's not about proportional numbers. To borrow a phrase from the Moviebob video that somebody linked to earlier in the thread, it's about challenging the notion that the tabula rasa character is a white male. That is the character they come up with when they are being apathetic; I'll return to that later.

. . . story writers don't write those kinds of characters; whether it's because they don't feel know enough about such a person to accurately write a charcter. . .

This is based on the belief that people of non-white ethnicities are inherently "different" from white people. They aren't.

or they themselves don't feel it's a big enough deal

Distinguish this from racist apathy for me, please?

or that the setting of the story would not support such a character as the PC.

I understand that in some video games, it doesn't make sense to completely rework the story to accommodate an Islamic hero, for instance. But probably in about as many instances, the hero is white/male for no other reason than it didn't occur to anyone that the hero could be anything else. The developers are not guilty of being apathetic, they are the victims of a cultural prejudice that white/male is the tabula rasa. It takes conscious effort to pull yourself above that belief - I know this because I'm definitely racist against black people (not ideologically, but I know that even when I was a baby I cried my head off the instant I laid eyes on my black pediatrician, and the aversion has stayed with me years later in less visible ways), and I have to question my actions and inactions whenever I'm with my friends who are black.

The question remains whether it is our moral obligation to challenge that cultural prejudice. We're guilty of racism? We're victims of culture? Which is it? I think the answer is simply that we are guilty victims. The right thing to do is to challenge the prejudice even if it isn't your fault. If you decide to be apathetic, you remain guilty, but if being a victim makes you feel any better...

There can be a form of racist apathy, but I don't think it's the case here.

Then what kind of apathy are we looking at?

I won't mention that it's against the guidelines or whatever to split up a post into a bunch of quotes. But I did. Whatever.

Why does it really matter than the usual 'blank slate' for a character is a white male? It's simple enough, doesn't hurt anyone. Who should the blank slate be then? Why should it change? There's no magical person we can set ourselves to that won't bother somebody. Making a character hispanic for the sake of making him or her hispanic or so the character isn't is as racist as making him white so he's not hispanic.

Cultures are different. That's what I was taught in school, from whenever the hell that shit came into popular favor until I graduated. Something I found ironic, for it's intent to bring us all together by highlighting our differences. However, this is not necessarily my own belief, but, rather, what I'm placing unto the faceless game writers. Whether it's accurate or not (and let's face it; various cultures bring unto people different upbringings, which makes them different people. It's what makes humanity humanity.), it's entirely possible that a writer may not feel comfortable writing a certain character because they don't know enough about that character's background, whether it be things they've done or the area and culture they've come out of. Whether they're mexican, indian, american, british, german, russian, chinese, korean, hawaiin, or icelandic.

My point here is that they don't think that whether the PC is white, black, orange, yellow or blue is important to the story. They choose a white male because it's easiest for them to identify with, or, they feel like, or they hit a button for a new skin, and that's just what is popped out. Their concerned far more with making a fun, working game than offending some PC obsessed dick head, because of the main character's skin tone, name, and accent.

I don't think we're victims. I think people want to be victims. And I think people want something to get angry about. I don't think there is anything to change. Having a 'tabula rasa' character that is an elderly black woman would be just an issue as a young white male. Or young black man, or young chinese man.

It's the normal kind of apathy. They don't think the race is an important enough issue over the rest of the game. If you think race is more important, you've got your priorities wrong.

 

[esperandote]

Latino children play more videogames than white children.

I'll be damn if that's true

And they're really not able to play themselves.

who wants to play as a kid that goes to the school and gets nagged about cleaning his room?

 

[HobbesMkii]

There's an odd variety of arguments against the representation of diverisity being raised here. Some are very peculiar.

1) What About the White Kids if Our Characters Become Latino?

That's not what the study is saying. It's saying "Hey, um, there are more whites culturally represented in videogames than are actually represented in culture, and that has proven detrimental affects on non-whites." It's not saying "replace all white protagonists" it simply calling attention to the problem. America is still 60% white. Therefore, 60% of characters in American videogames that have characters in them would still be white. Hell, that could still cover all the main characters. Assuming otherwise is akin to believing that once black men got jobs in Hollywood, all the white actors lost their jobs. That didn't happen. I mean, they're videogame characters. It's not like the Latino characters are going to work for less than the white characters.

2) Detrimental to "Identity Formation?" That's BS! How can Videogames be Detrimental to that? They're Videogames!

Videogames are also mass media, meaning they permeate a large portion of society and help us take society's pulse. When they lie about the pulse, such as grossly under-representing a portion of society, then they have a detrimental effect. Identity Formation is what makes you you (I noticed the quotations around the term, as though it were just some BS jargon). In mentally healthy people, it allows them to feel good about themselves because they believe there's nothing that's inherently wrong with themselves. In mentally unhealthy people, you get something like The Bluest Eye which is a novel about a young black girl who grew up epitomizing whiteness as beauty (the author, Toni Morrison, explains that she herself felt this growing up black). The Marines of 1st Recon also found examples of this when they were in Iraq; Iraqi children epitomizing blonde Caucasians as the ideal person. The Marines' feelings was that was some fucked up shit. Apparently, the Internet disagrees.

3) People Who Complain About This Are Making Race An Issue It Doesn't Have To Be. They Should Just Ignore Race, Like I Do. BTW, I'm White.

Here's why apathy doesn't work. BECAUSE YOU ALONE CAN'T CHECK OUT OF THE SYSTEM (unless you're black and can pass as white, in which case you can, but you shouldn't). Discrimination, whether it's against non-whites or for white, occurs regardless of how much you ignore it. You could ignore murder, but that wouldn't lead to less murder. But if you refuse to allow the system that engages in discrimination to do so, if everyone makes an effort to overcome it, we all check out. Furthermore, you probably engage in discrimination in unintentional ways. For instance, when I roll through a black neighborhood in my car, I lock my door. That wouldn't actually protect me, and it's totally illogical for me to do so, but it's something I do without thinking, not something I can really help, unless I DON'T IGNORE IT. Do you hold a door open for a non-white as regularly as you do for a white? Examine your behavior carefully, and you'll discover there's a million unintentional things you do that discriminate against one group unfairly.

 

[joystickjunki3]

There's an odd variety of arguments against the representation of diverisity being raised here. Some are very peculiar.

1) What About the White Kids if Our Characters Become Latino?

That's not what the study is saying. It's saying "Hey, um, there are more whites culturally represented in videogames than are actually represented in culture, and that has proven detrimental affects on non-whites." It's not saying "replace all white protagonists" it simply calling attention to the problem. America is still 60% white. Therefore, 60% of characters in American videogames that have characters in them would still be white. Hell, that could still cover all the main characters. Assuming otherwise is akin to believing that once black men got jobs in Hollywood, all the white actors lost their jobs. That didn't happen. I mean, they're videogame characters. It's not like the Latino characters are going to work for less than the white characters.

2) Detrimental to "Identity Formation?" That's BS! How can Videogames be Detrimental to that? They're Videogames!

Videogames are also mass media, meaning they permeate a large portion of society and help us take society's pulse. When they lie about the pulse, such as grossly under-representing a portion of society, then they have a detrimental effect. Identity Formation is what makes you you (I noticed the quotations around the term, as though it were just some BS jargon). In mentally healthy people, it allows them to feel good about themselves because they believe there's nothing that's inherently wrong with themselves. In mentally unhealthy people, you get something like The Bluest Eye which is a novel about a young black girl who grew up epitomizing whiteness as beauty (the author, Toni Morrison, explains that she herself felt this growing up black). The Marines of 1st Recon also found examples of this when they were in Iraq; Iraqi children epitomizing blonde Caucasians as the ideal person. The Marines' feelings was that was some fucked up shit. Apparently, the Internet disagrees.

3) People Who Complain About This Are Making Race An Issue It Doesn't Have To Be. They Should Just Ignore Race, Like I Do. BTW, I'm White.

Here's why apathy doesn't work. BECAUSE YOU ALONE CAN'T CHECK OUT OF THE SYSTEM (unless you're black and can pass as white, in which case you can, but you shouldn't). Discrimination, whether it's against non-whites or for white, occurs regardless of how much you ignore it. You could ignore murder, but that wouldn't lead to less murder. But if you refuse to allow the system that engages in discrimination to do so, if everyone makes an effort to overcome it, we all check out. Furthermore, you probably engage in discrimination in unintentional ways. For instance, when I roll through a black neighborhood in my car, I lock my door. That wouldn't actually protect me, and it's totally illogical for me to do so, but it's something I do without thinking, not something I can really help, unless I DON'T IGNORE IT. Do you hold a door open for a non-white as regularly as you do for a white? Examine your behavior carefully, and you'll discover there's a million unintentional things you do that discriminate against one group unfairly.

I agree w/ most everything you said there, except the last part. And the only reason I disagree w/ that part is because it seems you have assumed that everybody is discriminatory in a negative manner no matter what. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

 

[DirkGently]

Oh, were is this so-called "study". Excerpts are not enough.

 

[Jamash]

Oh, were is this so-called "study". Excerpts are not enough.

I followed the source links to find the original study, mainly because I wanted to see which 150 games they used, to see whether any of them were historical games set before Europeans discover the Americas, and to see whether any of them are games set in another country (like Japan), or in another universe or fantasy world.

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/5/815

Unfortunately you have to pony up $20 if you want to access study, per day.

 

[Florion]

There's an odd variety of arguments against the representation of diverisity being raised here. Some are very peculiar.

1) What About the White Kids if Our Characters Become Latino?

That's not what the study is saying. It's saying "Hey, um, there are more whites culturally represented in videogames than are actually represented in culture, and that has proven detrimental affects on non-whites." It's not saying "replace all white protagonists" it simply calling attention to the problem. America is still 60% white. Therefore, 60% of characters in American videogames that have characters in them would still be white. Hell, that could still cover all the main characters. Assuming otherwise is akin to believing that once black men got jobs in Hollywood, all the white actors lost their jobs. That didn't happen. I mean, they're videogame characters. It's not like the Latino characters are going to work for less than the white characters.

2) Detrimental to "Identity Formation?" That's BS! How can Videogames be Detrimental to that? They're Videogames!

Videogames are also mass media, meaning they permeate a large portion of society and help us take society's pulse. When they lie about the pulse, such as grossly under-representing a portion of society, then they have a detrimental effect. Identity Formation is what makes you you (I noticed the quotations around the term, as though it were just some BS jargon). In mentally healthy people, it allows them to feel good about themselves because they believe there's nothing that's inherently wrong with themselves. In mentally unhealthy people, you get something like The Bluest Eye which is a novel about a young black girl who grew up epitomizing whiteness as beauty (the author, Toni Morrison, explains that she herself felt this growing up black). The Marines of 1st Recon also found examples of this when they were in Iraq; Iraqi children epitomizing blonde Caucasians as the ideal person. The Marines' feelings was that was some fucked up shit. Apparently, the Internet disagrees.

3) People Who Complain About This Are Making Race An Issue It Doesn't Have To Be. They Should Just Ignore Race, Like I Do. BTW, I'm White.

Here's why apathy doesn't work. BECAUSE YOU ALONE CAN'T CHECK OUT OF THE SYSTEM (unless you're black and can pass as white, in which case you can, but you shouldn't). Discrimination, whether it's against non-whites or for white, occurs regardless of how much you ignore it. You could ignore murder, but that wouldn't lead to less murder. But if you refuse to allow the system that engages in discrimination to do so, if everyone makes an effort to overcome it, we all check out. Furthermore, you probably engage in discrimination in unintentional ways. For instance, when I roll through a black neighborhood in my car, I lock my door. That wouldn't actually protect me, and it's totally illogical for me to do so, but it's something I do without thinking, not something I can really help, unless I DON'T IGNORE IT. Do you hold a door open for a non-white as regularly as you do for a white? Examine your behavior carefully, and you'll discover there's a million unintentional things you do that discriminate against one group unfairly.

I agree w/ most everything you said there, except the last part. And the only reason I disagree w/ that part is because it seems you have assumed that everybody is discriminatory in a negative manner no matter what. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

And what, you're assuming nobody is negatively discriminatory? To an extent, we rely on prejudice. I need to be able to assume that if I walk into a room that has a chalkboard, a big desk at the front and rows of smaller desks, I am in a classroom. But this opens the door to prejudice that is negative, and you have to be aware of it. Everybody has some prejudice that is negative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DirkGently]

Oh, were is this so-called "study". Excerpts are not enough.

I followed the source links to find the original study, mainly because I wanted to see which 150 games they used, to see whether any of them were historical games set before Europeans discover the Americas, and to see whether any of them are games set in another country (like Japan), or in another universe or fantasy world.

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/5/815

Unfortunately you have to pony up $20 if you want to access study, per day.

Goddamn elitest academia jerks. be found on EBSCOHOST or something when the next semester starts up.

 

[RootbeerJello]

Well, see, game developers are now considered racist for not having a lot of characters of different races. When there are enemies of different race (Resident Evil 5), you get jumped on for killing african zombies in fucking Africa.. At this point I think all video game characters should just be painted green so people will stop bitching about race, but then developers will probably be accused of racism towards humans.

 

[joystickjunki3]

And what, you're assuming nobody is negatively discriminatory? To an extent, we rely on prejudice. I need to be able to assume that if I walk into a room that has a chalkboard, a big desk at the front and rows of smaller desks, I am in a classroom. But this opens the door to prejudice that is negative, and you have to be aware of it. Everybody has some prejudice that is negative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're absolutely right about that. But I didn't mean to elicit any condescending response. I phrased it incorrectly to begin w/, but the response was the right one. I am prejudiced against vanilla, I prefer chocolate. That's discrimination (not that you don't already know this), but I dislike, and honestly disagree w/, the notion that everybody must be prejudiced when it comes to race/ethnicity.

And no, I do not believe that nobody has any prejudice. I'm sorry for the confusion.

[edit] I was going to add something here, but then I realized it would come out as a stupid pun. So instead of "most things can't be judged as just black or white" I'll say "not everything can be clear-cut, and discrimination is certainly under that category."

 

[HobbesMkii]

Do you hold a door open for a non-white as regularly as you do for a white? Examine your behavior carefully, and you'll discover there's a million unintentional things you do that discriminate against one group unfairly.

I agree w/ most everything you said there, except the last part. And the only reason I disagree w/ that part is because it seems you have assumed that everybody is discriminatory in a negative manner no matter what. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Distilled to it's bare essentials, maybe. I think it's that we're all flawed, perhaps because society itself is. I mean, I think to some extent, that a white man using the advantage that being a white male is acting in a fairly negatively discriminatory manner. Can white men help most of it? No, not really. But they can go "No, sorry, this guy was ahead of me in line, help him first." So, I don't think anyone can really claim they are never ever discriminatory, even really small. I mean, does anyone really possess enough introspective power (and honesty) to examine every facet of their myriad of behaviors towards others and the thought processes surrounding each of those behaviors enough so that they could absolve themselves of any discrimination committed.

I agree that people can find discrimination immoral and state so, and teach their children that. But words are not deeds. My father raised me to view discrimination as a negative, just like I'm sure most people's parents did. But my father is not exempt from treating non-whites differently from whites. I've seen him do it through word and sometimes deed, though it happens so infrequently that I sometimes don't realize it until later on. My mother (again, she herself, not free from using white privilege to her advantage or to the disadvantage of non-whites), on the other hand, taught me not only to view discrimination as negative, but also to speak up. Because silence is not golden, it is lead. And this'll sound pretty zen, but when you fight for any cause, the first battleground you fight upon is yourself. I don't think you ever totally defeat yourself, but I think you can score a victory that allows you to start fighting on other grounds.

 

[joystickjunki3]

Do you hold a door open for a non-white as regularly as you do for a white? Examine your behavior carefully, and you'll discover there's a million unintentional things you do that discriminate against one group unfairly.

I agree w/ most everything you said there, except the last part. And the only reason I disagree w/ that part is because it seems you have assumed that everybody is discriminatory in a negative manner no matter what. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Distilled to it's bare essentials, maybe. I think it's that we're all flawed, perhaps because society itself is. I mean, I think to some extent, that a white man using the advantage that being a white male is acting in a fairly negatively discriminatory manner. Can white men help most of it? No, not really. But they can go "No, sorry, this guy was ahead of me in line, help him first." So, I don't think anyone can really claim they are never ever discriminatory, even really small. I mean, does anyone really possess enough introspective power (and honesty) to examine every facet of their myriad of behaviors towards others and the thought processes surrounding each of those behaviors enough so that they could absolve themselves of any discrimination committed.

I agree that people can find discrimination immoral and state so, and teach their children that. But words are not deeds. My father raised me to view discrimination as a negative, just like I'm sure most people's parents did. But my father is not exempt from treating non-whites differently from whites. I've seen him do it through word and sometimes deed, though it happens so infrequently that I sometimes don't realize it until later on. My mother (again, she herself, not free from using white privilege to her advantage or to the disadvantage of non-whites), on the other hand, taught me not only to view discrimination as negative, but also to speak up. Because silence is not golden, it is lead. And this'll sound pretty zen, but when you fight for any cause, the first battleground you fight upon is yourself. I don't think you ever totally defeat yourself, but I think you can score a victory that allows you to start fighting on other grounds.

Okay, I understand much better now. Thank you for the clarification.

I honestly think that the hardest part in this sort of process is knowing when exactly to speak up. I'm quite positive that you understand what I mean, but I'll elaborate just in case for onlookers: if you talk too much about racism, the word loses meaning. It's a "boy who cried wolf" kinda thing.

 

[Florion]

And what, you're assuming nobody is negatively discriminatory? To an extent, we rely on prejudice. I need to be able to assume that if I walk into a room that has a chalkboard, a big desk at the front and rows of smaller desks, I am in a classroom. But this opens the door to prejudice that is negative, and you have to be aware of it. Everybody has some prejudice that is negative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're absolutely right about that. But I didn't mean to elicit any condescending response. I phrased it incorrectly to begin w/, but the response was the right one. I am prejudiced against vanilla, I prefer chocolate. That's discrimination (not that you don't already know this), but I dislike, and honestly disagree w/, the notion that everybody must be prejudiced when it comes to race/ethnicity.

And no, I do not believe that nobody has any prejudice. I'm sorry for the confusion.

I like you. Sorry for being rude/condescending.

But to continue on, who do you think isn't racially prejudiced? Does being unprejudiced free you to be apathetic about racial issues? My personal belief is that we're all culpable simply for allowing it, but I can agree to disagree on that particular point.

edit: Ah! Ninja'd.

 

[Jamash]

Oh, were is this so-called "study". Excerpts are not enough.

I followed the source links to find the original study, mainly because I wanted to see which 150 games they used, to see whether any of them were historical games set before Europeans discover the Americas, and to see whether any of them are games set in another country (like Japan), or in another universe or fantasy world.

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/5/815

Unfortunately you have to pony up $20 if you want to access study, per day.

Goddamn elitest academia jerks. be found on EBSCOHOST or something when the next semester starts up.

That was almost exactly my reaction too. I'm not even sure whether it's a proper study, or just a way for them to make some easy beer money.

1. Leak excerpts of a 'study' to the media, which insinuates that something extremely popular is racist.
2. Charge people $20 a day to access this 'study', even just to check its references.
3. ?
4. Profit.

 

[HobbesMkii]

I honestly think that the hardest part in this sort of process is knowing when exactly to speak up. I'm quite positive that you understand what I mean, but I'll elaborate just in case for onlookers: if you talk too much about racism, the word loses meaning. It's a "boy who cried wolf" kinda thing.

That's a solid point (and a great metaphor, which I'm gonna overuse in a second). It does seem like the modern society (especially American society) is fatigued by the issue of race. Frankly, I rarely think there's a case where "wolf" is ever cried falsely. The trouble we have is not every issue requires a great big discussion, but because the only term we have to describe it is "wolf" it gathers that. "Driving while Black" is a good example. This is a pretty common event, the stopping of a black motorist on a phony "probable cause" (like broken taillight or 2 miles over the speed limit). But, the time and effort it takes to correct that problem, which is something that is very persistent among cops, would be difficult. But we cannot call "wolf" every time a cop pulls over a black man. We can call it when they beat up Rodney King, or arrest Prof. Gates. What we need is something to cry that's smaller that "wolf," "fox" or "bobcat" or something. Something to let people know that they don't have to get overly worked up about it, it's not an issue that requires full on commenting by every group in society.

 

[joystickjunki3]

And what, you're assuming nobody is negatively discriminatory? To an extent, we rely on prejudice. I need to be able to assume that if I walk into a room that has a chalkboard, a big desk at the front and rows of smaller desks, I am in a classroom. But this opens the door to prejudice that is negative, and you have to be aware of it. Everybody has some prejudice that is negative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're absolutely right about that. But I didn't mean to elicit any condescending response. I phrased it incorrectly to begin w/, but the response was the right one. I am prejudiced against vanilla, I prefer chocolate. That's discrimination (not that you don't already know this), but I dislike, and honestly disagree w/, the notion that everybody must be prejudiced when it comes to race/ethnicity.

And no, I do not believe that nobody has any prejudice. I'm sorry for the confusion.

I like you. Sorry for being rude/condescending.

But to continue on, who do you think isn't racially prejudiced? Does being unprejudiced free you to be apathetic about racial issues? My personal belief is that we're all culpable simply for allowing it, but I can agree to disagree on that particular point.

No no, it's fine. I understand completely why you might react the way you did. Prejudice is a sensitive subject and not being able to hear the inflection or implied meaning in someone's words makes things difficult if someone slips up the phrasing. So no biggie.

OT: You're certainly not wrong; if we stand by and let it happen, then we are, in some capacity, responsible. I tend to live by a "not my problem" philosophy, but I'm a bit hypocritical in that I like to help others as well. As I told HobbesMkii, I think the hardest part is knowing when to speak up about discrimination, whether it be negative or positive. If the issue is brought up enough and for seemingly discriminatory reasons in the first place, then the issues lose all meaning.

As an example, at my college, during the 2008 US presidential campaigns, some people hung an edifice of Sarah Palin. Some time later, another group of individuals decided that both parties should be equally represented, so they hung an edifice of Obama.

I can understand why someone might look at it at first as a racial lynching of sorts, but I feel that people should exercise restraint before jumping on the racism bandwagon.

I didn't know the Obama-hangers personally, but from what I have heard from their friends, they didn't consider race as an issue. For them, it was a political matter, but that didn't stop more than 2/3 of the community from crashing down on them.

So it's not that I believe we shouldn't speak up, and it's certainly not that I believe we all have no prejudice, but it's not just one extreme or the other.

[edit] Also, I like you too. It's been nice discussing this w/ you w/o getting overheated. We should do this again sometime.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I honestly think that the hardest part in this sort of process is knowing when exactly to speak up. I'm quite positive that you understand what I mean, but I'll elaborate just in case for onlookers: if you talk too much about racism, the word loses meaning. It's a "boy who cried wolf" kinda thing.

That's a solid point (and a great metaphor, which I'm gonna overuse in a second). It does seem like the modern society (especially American society) is fatigued by the issue of race. Frankly, I rarely think there's a case where "wolf" is ever cried falsely. The trouble we have is not every issue requires a great big discussion, but because the only term we have to describe it is "wolf" it gathers that. "Driving while Black" is a good example. This is a pretty common event, the stopping of a black motorist on a phony "probable cause" (like broken taillight or 2 miles over the speed limit). But, the time and effort it takes to correct that problem, which is something that is very persistent among cops, would be difficult. But we cannot call "wolf" every time a cop pulls over a black man. We can call it when they beat up Rodney King, or arrest Prof. Gates. What we need is something to cry that's smaller that "wolf," "fox" or "bobcat" or something. Something to let people know that they don't have to get overly worked up about it, it's not an issue that requires full on commenting by every group in society.

An excellent point. Unless you meant something different than what I read, then I agree completely.

[edit] Also, it's been great discussing this w/ you. I'm one of those cheesy people who firmly believes that I don't know everything and can learn at least something from everything else around me. And you've helped me on the latter a good amount.

 

[Pietato]

Hang on. Top 150 games where the main character is visible?

I think you move well out of AAA FPS games with the top 150. That's got to bring in tons, and there are tons, of JRPGs. In which there are rarely minorities.

There was a Hawaiian guy once.