Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BFEL]

At the risk of putting the thread back in the "just picking apart everything other people said" camp, something GlyphGryph said irks me massively and I need to slap him.

Social progress is made by convincing those who oppose it that they will be ostracized if they remain committed to making things worse.

GG, ostracizing those who you perceive as "wrong" is how the whole repression of LGBT started. With a bunch of old guys going "Lets ostracize the gays because they are doing something we see as wrong"

Doing it in reverse doesn't help anything, and is the essence of "Fuck You Got Mine" that you criticized earlier.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled flamebait.

[Gatleos]

Going to guess that this applies to at least some degree.

That was a very interesting article, though it's a bit annoying how they keep referring to America like it's synonymous with "white". Caucasians are the majority in the United States, but nowhere near the level of homogeneity of somewhere like Japan.

It ties into a point I made in another thread like this, that people tend to assume that characters without a clearly specified sexuality are straight by default. Diversity is a good thing when you have a story where that kind of thing is important to the characters, but looking at a cast of characters with undefined sexuality and saying it's not diverse enough is just pulling facts from assumptions.

[Frumple]

If they, like CVS pharmacy recently did with their decision to stop offering cigarettes, choose to make a moral decision, they can.

Minor, and more of a "providing information" than "contributing to the discussion" thing, but CVS's decision to stop selling cigs had jack-all to do with morality and everything to do with public image -- they're wanting to expand their health services and really can't do that without biting a huge hypocrite bullet if they're still selling cigs. It helps that said expansion is slated and likely to make them several times more money than their tobacco product sales were.

So... not the best of examples. Their decision is pure cold-blooded number crunching. The only "right" or "wrong" they're considering with that decision is "more money" or "less money".

Incidentally, one of the (probably the) biggest reasons we are seeing a general increase in diversity among media? Market demographics are changing. Women having more buying power, previous minorities achieving (near) plurality in certain nations, globalization (and, by extension, new foreign markets) is growing, etc., so forth, so on. People are increasing hiring diversity -- which strongly influences content diversity -- because it gets them an edge on understanding a growing portion of the market. Just... don't confuse that for anything related to higher order functions -- right, wrong, moral, immoral, etc. That particular facet of the shift has nothing whatsoever to do with that stuff, and everything to do with profit maximization.

[Neonivek]

Well that Frumple and even the male audience we have now are the same audience who grew up on the children's programming where diversity was very important.

So even "White Males" like diverse casts.

[misko27]

At the risk of putting the thread back in the "just picking apart everything other people said" camp, something GlyphGryph said irks me massively and I need to slap him.

Social progress is made by convincing those who oppose it that they will be ostracized if they remain committed to making things worse.

GG, ostracizing those who you perceive as "wrong" is how the whole repression of LGBT started. With a bunch of old guys going "Lets ostracize the gays because they are doing something we see as wrong"

Doing it in reverse doesn't help anything, and is the essence of "Fuck You Got Mine" that you criticized earlier.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled flamebait.

I disagree. We have to ostracize someone. Or would you prefer we let everyone do whatever? How about, say, Westboro, do you feel societies ostracization of them is wrong? International condemnation of South Africa's Apartheid policy? Even though the ostracization of the latter was a factor in it's end? Not ostracizing implies a perfect world where everyone does the right thing. And when people believe (as they often do) that people disagreeing with their highly unpopular view is ostracization, what then? It calls into question what is allowed and what isn't! Is your personal idea of ostracization more correct then theirs? The argument, taken to it's conclusion, is madness.

This is in the other direction I think from glow-cat: People can be wrong. They have the right to present their arguments free of prejudice, but from then on, people can disagree, or anything else, all they want. I re-iterate: It is a person's right to be a bigot. It is everyone else's right to ignore them.

If they, like CVS pharmacy recently did with their decision to stop offering cigarettes, choose to make a moral decision, they can.

Minor, and more of a "providing information" than "contributing to the discussion" thing, but CVS's decision to stop selling cigs had jack-all to do with morality and everything to do with public image -- they're wanting to expand their health services and really can't do that without biting a huge hypocrite bullet if they're still selling cigs. It helps that said expansion is slated and likely to make them several times more money than their tobacco product sales were.

So... not the best of examples. Their decision is pure cold-blooded number crunching. The only "right" or "wrong" they're considering with that decision is "more money" or "less money".

Incidentally, one of the (probably the) biggest reasons we are seeing a general increase in diversity among media? Market demographics are changing. Women having more buying power, previous minorities achieving (near) plurality in certain nations, globalization (and, by extension, new foreign markets) is growing, etc., so forth, so on. People are increasing hiring diversity -- which strongly influences content diversity -- because it gets them an edge on understanding a growing portion of the market. Just... don't confuse that for anything related to higher order functions -- right, wrong, moral, immoral, etc. That particular facet of the shift has nothing whatsoever to do with that stuff, and everything to do with profit maximization.

...It's a related concept. While moral judgments are all well and good, sometimes persuasion by people who do have conscience is best. I'd prefer bigots know enough to keep their stuff to themselves then go around bothering everyone (I'd like most if they reformed, but I am no idealist). I think that in the future the fact that no one shows these view will lead to it becoming less popular culturally, although there are many reservations to this. It helps.

I mean if we want to get really philosophical, I hope people do put pressure on Video Game companies, and use arguments entirely anathema to mine here, and change things. Morally I think they are in the right and hope they succeed. But ethics do not favor them (or oppose them!). My frame of mind for what is ethical and acceptable, and what I think is right and best, are far apart.

[palsch]

That was a very interesting article, though it's a bit annoying how they keep referring to America like it's synonymous with "white". Caucasians are the majority in the United States, but nowhere near the level of homogeneity of somewhere like Japan.

Yeah, I'm fairly certain I've seen better versions, or at least versions with substantial commentary and more examples floating around, but can't find them now.

It ties into a point I made in another thread like this, that people tend to assume that characters without a clearly specified sexuality are straight by default. Diversity is a good thing when you have a story where that kind of thing is important to the characters, but looking at a cast of characters with undefined sexuality and saying it's not diverse enough is just pulling facts from assumptions.

But because of the assumption of unspecified = default = straight means that such casts are not seen as diverse.

It's notable in books, where a character's description might be brief and only mentioned when they are first met, and so people might even overlook race or some other significant features. The most famous example would be the Hunger Games were this shit happened. It's hard to find other significant examples, but you occasionally see discussions of other books where someone points out a character's race and other people just flat out hadn't noticed (my favourite example from memory; a book set in sub-Saharan African and Chinese areas with nearly every character having a name traditional to one of those regions, and a fan posted a fantasy cast of all white actors).

Also interesting to see fan reactions when people write fanfic or post art of characters without a definite race (such as humanised versions of non-human cartoon characters) or sexuality. The backlash can be pretty brutal for challenging the default in public.

[GlyphGryph]

At the risk of putting the thread back in the "just picking apart everything other people said" camp, something GlyphGryph said irks me massively and I need to slap him.

...

GG, ostracizing those who you perceive as "wrong" is how the whole repression of LGBT started. With a bunch of old guys going "Lets ostracize the gays because they are doing something we see as wrong"

Doing it in reverse doesn't help anything, and is the essence of "Fuck You Got Mine" that you criticized earlier.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled flamebait.

No, sorry, not buying it. It is a tool and a weapon, and like Science or democracy or a policeman, it can be used for good or evil. There is nothing, nothing FYGM about it, that argument is just absurd.

Let me tell you a story. This is a story about a tree.

http://lardcave.net/text/the_racist_tree.html

The Racist Tree

By Alexander Blechman

Once upon a time, there was a racist tree. Seriously, you are going to hate this tree. High on a hill overlooking the town, the racist tree grew where the grass was half clover. Children would visit during the sunlit hours and ask for apples, and the racist tree would shake its branches and drop the delicious red fruit that gleamed without being polished. The children ate many of the racist tree's apples and played games beneath the shade of its racist branches. One day the children brought Sam, a boy who had just moved to town, to play around the racist tree.

"Let Sam have an apple," asked a little girl.

"I don't think so. He's black," said the tree. This shocked the children and they spoke to the tree angrily, but it would not shake its branches to give Sam an apple, and it called him a nigger.

"I can't believe the racist tree is such a racist," said one child. The children momentarily reflected that perhaps this kind of behavior was how the racist tree got its name.

It was decided that if the tree was going to deny apples to Sam then nobody would take its apples. The children stopped visiting the racist tree.

The racist tree grew quite lonely. After many solitary weeks it saw a child flying a kite across the clover field.

"Can I offer you some apples?" asked the tree eagerly.

"Fuck off, you goddamn Nazi," said the child.

The racist tree was upset, because while it was very racist, it did not personally subscribe to Hitler's fascist ideology. The racist tree decided that it would have to give apples to black children, not because it was tolerant, but because otherwise it would face ostracism from white children.

And so, social progress was made.

Ostracism is not a pretty tool. But without it, I promise you, the LGBT movement would be a hell of a lot worse off. You see the great thing about it is that you can use it to convince people not only the behave in a way that isn't absolutely terrible to everyone, but also to help you convince their friends to do the same. Without the constant reinforcement created by an environment this tool helps to fight, opinions can actually change.

[Arcvasti]

-snip-I

That is an interesting parable. **Stores rascist tree story in marsupial pouch for future use**

As far as the topic goes, including minorities in a game is often a good thing. That is, if its done right. If you're putting them in the game JUST so that you can claim you have them as some sort of advertising, then its not much better then not acknowledging them at all.

Also, please stop arguing with each other so virulently. Debate is good and all, but this might be getting a tad out of hand.

[Bauglir]

Okay, my problem with that parable is that it isn't actually how it tends to work. It's all fine up until the racist tree rationally appraises its situation while being upset - I'd expect it to insist that the children are being unfair and make the argument about how it isn't a Nazi instead of about how it is a racist tree. I actually tend to find that ostracism is ineffective at resolving the problem, and just tends to reinforce persecution complexes and let things fester.

[Sergarr]

Also, ostracized people tend to seek attention. Combine that with guns and you'll get mass shootings. Cuz they are the best way to get a lot of attention quick

[alexandertnt]

No, sorry, not buying it. It is a tool and a weapon, and like Science or democracy or a policeman, it can be used for good or evil. There is nothing, nothing FYGM about it, that argument is just absurd.

This.

It seems related to the popular strawman that LGBT and other rights groups want tolerance of everybody and everything, regardless of anything, which is false.

LBGT groups don't want the people that go on TV and tell people that they are dangerous to be tolerated. Women-rights groups don't want rapists to be tolerated. etc.

[Neonivek]

Well that is another thing too.

for example "Don't tolerate rapists" also has its own terrible logical conclusion... and that is that ostricisation is a great way to make them reoffend. (Mind you I am a firm believer in Rehabilitation of criminals... So if you were someone who believed that hard crimes should end in their death... I guess what I said doesn't mean much)

You HAVE to tolerate people... Not what they do.

Because really the only difference between them and you is that you have backup. Right or Wrong doesn't factor into it because once upon a time YOU were wrong.

[Flarp]

Okay, so, this thread exploded out of control far beyond my ability to recapitulate it in my current Benadryl'd state.

But, in the meantime:

for example "Don't tolerate rapists" also has its own terrible logical conclusion

What would that be?

[Sergarr]

Okay, so, this thread exploded out of control far beyond my ability to recapitulate it in my current Benadryl'd state.

But, in the meantime:

for example "Don't tolerate rapists" also has its own terrible logical conclusion

What would that be?

for example "Don't tolerate rapists" also has its own terrible logical conclusion... and that is that ostricisation is a great way to make them reoffend.

[Glowcat]

You say that like rapists who don't get reported or charged aren't already proven to be repeat offenders.

EDIT: And then I stumble onto this story of how a judge gives serial rapist ex-husband house detention and demands ex-wife forgive him...

I mean, yeah we need to recognize that sex offenders are still people, but in this culture you don't have a lot of wiggle room when it really needs to be made clear that this sort of crud isn't acceptable.