I disagree with this, both from a literal “the point of art” standpoint, and the idea that our media doesn’t simultaneously reflect and strengthen our cultural assumptions.
Like, if you’re mad they took out most of the /flirt emotes, that’s fine, more power to you.
I mean, that seems like a pretty big assumption to make.
I can agree with that. I’m personally an egalitarian that tries to look at everything from a logical perspective to the best of my ability, which leads to me considering many worldviews and portraying them in my writings as a character or culture’s general outlook as best I can–where applicable, of course.
That being said, I do change the tone and light in which they are portrayed depending upon the character’s perspective that I am writing from. Heck, I often change my writing styles between various perspectives to attempt to portray the character’s personality through the prose itself. This is why I was saying that the worldview does not necessarily have to be in agreement with my own.
In regards to it representing someone’s worldview it depends on the writing itself.
I’ve written a small series of short stories from a fantasy serial killer’s perspective whom poses as a plague doctor and harvests body parts from his victims. He largely believes that what he is doing is perfectly alright–despite some occasional rumination–because he is trying to resurrect his dead mother. The end justifies the means for him and so his vile acts in the story are downplayed a bit since it is from his perspective and this is normal for him.
He’s undeniably cruel and insane from an outsider perspective.
Obviously I don’t agree with murdering people to steal their organs. 
Courage at Blizzard man? You kidding? They’re in the bastion of virtue signaling which is California, anyone who displays any sense of individual thought from the mob will be accordingly eliminated with no mercy. Getting fired in California also isn’t great, since they charge half your soul to live in a studio, and the other half for your common living expenses such as power and gas. Ain’t nobody standing up at Blizzard anytime soon.
Spoken like someone who didn’t read the entire post. What he is saying is that changing in game things they deem questionable, when most of them are really not, but might seem questionable to the woke crowd, is not real change. They are changing the game, not their real business, it has absolutely zero effect in the real world.
Real change would be ActiBlizz doing he honorable thing by accepting responsibility for their negligence and adequately compensating the victims of their negligence, not changing things in the game to make themselves appear to have changed when in reality, they haven’t.
I know honor is a foreign concept to most of the younger crowd nowadays, so if you’re unsure of what it is, google it. Then you might have at least some idea. SMH /spit
Semper Fi! 
Best argument put forward on this unrelenting silliness. And tbh, most of it really isn’t that big a deal. So far the only thing that has bugged me (& that’s hardly at all) is the fruit bowl and now the green skin stuff. But still, come on, everyone is having a bit of an over reaction by both parties.
Just a 
for analogy originality that makes sense! 
Fantasy, by definition, is: an idea about doing something that is far removed from normal reality.
This doesn’t mean that fantasy can’t sometimes be influenced by reality (that was never the argument or the point of the OP), but it also doesn’t mean that changing fictional, fantasy content changes reality. There are no assumptions here: changing Azeroth does not change Earth. Period.
I don’t care about–literally–any of the specific things that have been removed. What I do care about is the lack of judgement and rationale being demonstrated by the developers, who genuinely believe that Azeroth has to be a cultural representation of their ideal version of reality.
How do you not get what he’s talking about? It’s not hard to understand.
Changing things in game isn’t going to help the world. Draw and line and stop messing with the game.
Well given their current efforts to deny responsibility for their negligence in curbing the heinous behavior of some of their former devs . . .
I mean, allowing a crime, such as the one that took place on a train in Philly recently(google it), is just as bad as committing it yourself. So, allowing another crime that is just as bad would not be a far stretch, right?
Semper Fi!
That isn’t true: a work of art only makes sense if it connects to the consumer’s perception of reality- in fact, that is the only way it could possibly create meaning for some one. On some level the art has to be connected to reality.
Game of Thrones doesn’t start with “Jon Snow schmeckled the frectars”, it starts with three dudes being scared in the woods because it’s dark.
Also do you mean “fantasy” the genre, or do you mean fiction in general?
Again, that’s a pretty big assumption to make vis a vis Blizzard corporate culture. To make such a definitive statement you’d have to work there or be well informed on their goings ons.
And in the long run it does- since art is connected to our perception of reality it simultaneously creates and confirms them. In the short term, obviously not, but I don’t think anyone is arguing that. Seems like a straw man.
Stories have different rules than real life and thus don’t have to be perfect representations, but there’s a large area between that and “they’re completely disconnected, any purpose is pointless!”.
No, it does not. Real change is accepting the responsibility for their negligence, adequately compensating the victims of their negligence, and enacting checks and balances in the operation of their business to ensure that something like this will not happen again. If they don’t do all this, they’re making no real changes because changing things in a fantasy game does not change things in real life. /spit
Semper Fi!
I agree, Blizzard should do all those things.
I’m not talking about specifically Blizzard, I’m talking about how media influences society and culture writ large.
My class is completely underpowered, the balance is way off.
I will say, though, being white racials are OP
Kinda like the storytelling from BFA and SL have been.
Art imitates life, in my case I go to Azeroth to escape from the sexism and misogyny present in real life, and I’m glad they removed these aspects from the game so that I can feel like going to Azeroth is more of an escape from reality.
Ramsay Bolton is a good man. I, Theon, approve this message.
So if someone writes a story about a heartless jerk the author is a heartless jerk as well?
That is why I don’t agree with this. It is saying if you write something that is who you are. Just because something is in art or writing doesn’t automatically mean that it is a refection of the creator and their feelings.
If everything in my work was a reflection of me I wouldn’t be able to get one book done. I have to write about people other than myself.
Because back when Vanilla came out there wasn’t a crusade to include as many genders, races or sexual orientations as possible. That isn’t to say people didn’t believe in their rights or anything, it’s more that those things really just doesn’t change the overall story, and people were more inclined to worry about making the story good, so that they could have better ratings, better sales, and better profit, than they were about looking for anywhere where they could slip in a person of colour, or drop a same sex reference, or anything like that. It’s not that they believe in white power or anything (well some might, who knows, it’s bad to generalize in either direction), it’s more that they’re interested in making a better product to make more money, and at the time inclusivity was not even really a thing, much less something that could help them make money.
Now, just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying it’s a bad thing to include other races, genders and sexualities, it certainly isn’t. Inclusivity just requires a lot more care, so as to make inclusion feel natural, not at all forced, and definitely not stereotypical or tropey. It’s a very difficult task, especially when it comes to sexuality which is much more subtle and much more prone to feeling hamfisted and / or stereotyped when included into a story.
Personally I would rather a writer not touch the subject at all if they aren’t capable of making it feel natural to the story and not forced. But that’s not what the people of today want.
Anyway I went on a tangent. Back in those days whitewashed stories were more about not realizing they were whitewashed and looking to make money, not about any racist ideals or beliefs. Pure corporate greed is the evil you are looking for.
give me my fantasy Blizzard!
No?
Just that the author put that character in the story, the author made them a heartless jerk (duh), and they would represent what the author thinks a heartless jerk is.