Right... do you believe that your hypothetical title is equally as incendiary as the original article. Allow me to remind you that the title was "How RimWorld’s Code Defines Strict Gender Roles". So let's dial back on the hyperbole. Try "How Scripten's Posts Defend RPS' Article on Gender Roles in Rimworld". Or is "gender roles" too political a term for journalism? I really can't see the equivalence here.
In my experience, yes, "gender roles" is a really political term. I see it very occasionally in sociology stuff, sometimes in SJW bullshit, and nigh-ubiquitously in anti-SJW bullshit. When was the last time you saw it in casual conversation, let alone the title to a normal work? It just doesn't come up that often outside tribal bickering.
The "Strict" also helps, of course. It's similarly technically accurate, but similarly sounds more like it fits with the theme than that the author found it legitimately useful to clarify that the male/female class distinction was strict as opposed to soft.
Also, you pivoted very skillfully here. Keep in mind that my post was equating "How RimWorld’s Code Defines Strict Gender Roles" with "The game literally programs men and women into different roles". Do you deny the premise or... what, exactly?
Your original claim was that the article was "hardly combative." My response was that it was entirely combative, save as far as it was spineless. Your response was the post in question, which in that context sounded like you were trying to justify the entire article on the grounds that the title had some technical justification- hence my counterexample, which was similarly technically justified but likewise clearly in bad faith.
I accept the premise that "How RimWorld's Code Defines Strict Gender Roles" has some technical relation to "The game literally programs men and women into different roles," but reject that it's a reasonable, good-faith title intended to convey a summary of the article's contents.
To be clear, the assertion was that all women are bisexual or gay. Are you disagreeing with that? If so, well... you're wrong. I mean, there's not much more to it.
Therein lies the problem: This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I meant, and thought I provided ample examples and rhetoric to convey, that the article was repeatedly implying there was something deeply wrong with all of this, without having the stones to explain precisely what or why. The article clearly takes issue with something about all women being bisexual and/or men being eight times as likely to hit on someone as women, but keeps to its sniveling implications rather than addressing any of that directly.
It would be disingenuous of me to alter your posts. I'm responding to them. Maybe you're taking this a bit more seriously than I. If I've caused you distress, I apologize. That's not the point of what I'm saying. I'm just stating what things look like from this side of the fence. You seem to be angry about the article and wanting it to disappear. I'm interested in the topic and glad it exists. *Shrug*
My issue is that you seem to be missing the point and jumping directly to what feels like a disingenuously lazy point. As you mentioned above, the fact that all women in RimWorld are bisexual is, well, a fact. If for some reason you think I'm arguing against clearly stated fact in an article I'm referencing, to me that should probably be the point you blink a few times and try to figure out what's going on, rather than just shrug and carry on with a conversation you know doesn't make any sense, but it doesn't make any sense in a way that you're winning so hey.
I am indeed angry about the article, and feel any merits it might have had are eclipsed entirely by the divisive, spineless hatemongering it's chosen to pursue instead.
What do you like about it?
Author
Topic: RimWorld - basically the sci-fi Dwarf Fortress (Read 867546 times)