But are you literally going to continue to use it? 
Yes.
Criticizing the way someone presents an argument is just a way to deflect from the issue at hand. Yes, language matters, but the use of the word “literally” is so insignificant in their posts that it truly doesn’t make a significant impact on what’s being said.
In other words, it literally doesn’t matter here.
1 Like
I don’t have a like atm so here 
1 Like
Went ahead to like it for you
1 Like
I couldn’t possibly be more on your side. That wasn’t what was being said by me at all.
What was being said was: The content is good but your presentation is very tacky.
1 Like
XX and XY, cant change it bro sorry.
Not sure I am lol
1 Like
Representation matters, but it’s how how you go about adding that representation that is equally as important, if not more so.
If the goal is to achieve normalization, then you absolutely need community harmony and for this “issue” to not be an issue at all. You aren’t going to achieve that by being outright hostile to anyone who even has a speck of criticism on the matter.
I know this is a hard pill to swallow for the left, but the only real way to normalize something is introducing it to people slowly. Hence why my use of “force” is in a context of where it’s being applied without consideration to, yes I’ll say it, cis people.
Look at AnduinxWrathion proposed shipping. It’s frankly gross. Not only is there no in-game precedent set for it in terms of any real chemistry between the two characters, Anduin himself has expressed interest in females. Even the writer handling Anduin, Golden, herself expresses no desire for the pairing.
Yet the desire for it remains.
1 Like
Got it. Apologies for the misunderstanding! Still important for others to see though, I think. 
There is also XXX, XXY, and XYY. We’re not trying to change our chromosomes. Sorry bro.
1 Like
You lost all validity when you turned it into demonizing the “left.”
2 Likes
Thank you your support means a lot to me.
1 Like
Misogyny is certainly the weapon people will use against GamerGate. I think this term is overused and not entirely accurate. I would say Quinn was the victim of harassment. That harassment had a reason to exist that was not misogyny, and that none of it was justifiable for that reason or any other, of course.
Being familiar with the chans, it makes more sense that it came from outside the gaming community, instead a hate mob co-opting the issue because they always need something to hate - not that they actually hated something, but just because because they love being bullies. Sure, there’s overlap, but it was never a ‘group of gamers.’ This would later become the culture of everyone’s favorite channer board which I won’t discuss more of.
I say this all because of this, which I don’t agree with. I think the problem, and it’s a legitimate problem, is that representation comes from asking soulless corporations to add things to the game which often end up lazy, poorly implemented, or silly. It’s just bad representation. I know I don’t want it. Every time I see a game advertise some kind of inclusion I reflexively cringe as I know it was a decision not made genuinely but made by a marketing team as an attempt to sell copies to a group that should be more media literate than that.
Not doing anything at all is simply better than doing it wrong and I can’t trust a video game company to do it right. They still have trouble treating their own employees ethically, let alone customers. Looks at crunch.
The ones that were unsuccessful?
1 Like
Nah? I think the bandaid approach is the best way. You’d have to source something like that to make any grand statements like what is the proper way to normalize something to a community.
Liken it to supervised injection sites. IIRC some canadian cities just tossed them in without asking much consideration from citizens and they are pretty well regarded.
Others brought the matter up, and people push back thinking there will be public injection sites next to schools and blah blah blah.
How was that demonizing?
1 Like
Implying that only people on a certain side of a political spectrum would be adherent to something because of said political affiliations makes them out to be people who aren’t capable of understanding. When it has nothing to do with the left or the right, it has to do with inclusion.
The problem I have with people saying this is sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. While I do not agree that companies will 100% jump on something that can be marketed, but I hesitate to think it has been/is always going to be the corporate cog doing it. I legitimately believe that it can spawn out of good intent of the designer. I think you do yourself a disservice by not considering individual instances rather than clinging to the assumption that it always has to come from greed.
I am pretty jaded myself… but that’s a bit far even for me.
2 Likes
Oh, okay. That makes more sense. I didn’t really see it as demonizing though. That would be like calling someone a bad person for not understanding an idea and I didn’t think that’s how he came across at all.
This is far too heady a topic for this forum but I never got not wanting companies to just inject them for money?
There’s nothing lost here. At worst someone is feeling included, why does it matter if a business is doing it for money or for moral reasons?
The end result is some little kid can see a character that looks like them.
Why does it matter if its just to appease a checkbox? Who cares if they make money for it, I now get to make a character with an afro.
1 Like