{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Ramirenzo:
2/8/2018 8:14:45 AM
2
Actually that's pretty factual, it's long been known that the video game and tech industries are bastions of people harbouring far-left agendas. Unfortunately it's the case these days that those on the far-left believe their beliefs so morally correct that they're justified in using their positions in shutting down anyone with an opposing viewpoint. If Twitter, Facebook and Google will do that for people critical of an ideology they don't even overtly express on their platforms, you can be damn sure Bungie will feel themselves morally justified in shutting down free speech that attacks their product. Now I know someone is going to say "they own these forums therefore it's not a free speech issue" I'm talking about free speech in terms of your ability to speak openly anywhere, not free speech as in the 1st amendment which doesn't affect me anyway since I'm not American.
English
-
Sorry I don't have a long winded response but that shit goes both ways.
-
long reply is wrong, sorry if I'm super misinformed in some way too but: I disagree with the 'harbouring far-left agendas' when the 'gaming community' I call it will b*tch and moan as soon as the industry tries to be progressive in any sort of way, because suddenly they're (inserting buzzwords) leftist cucks trying to shove liberal ideas into their throats - which is unfortunately genuine rhetoric I see gaming circles jerk around. Equally as a kinda-example some gamers were upset at the idea that in Wolfenstein you were killing literal [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url]...like, my soul transcended to another plane when I saw that as a legitimate criticism. That and the far-right exploit the same censorship mechanics through ganging up and mass reporting/disliking (and create lies like our dearest friend Gamergate) Left-leaning and sometimes Liberal content. People simultaneously don't want 'politics in gaming' when politics inherently affect any media in both positive and negative ways, it's just frustrating that folks will abuse political concepts to invalidate things they don't like which I typically see from more privileged and or more ignorant people. [spoiler] *though on a more political basis* I mean the (far)Right ain't exactly a tolerant bunch, and whilst I lean leftwards I disagree with a mentality of 'opinion oppression' but in turn the act of allowing 'free speech' to give those particular (cough neo-[url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] cough) a platform to speak and share their...'opinions' and 'viewpoints' is in of itself allowing them to suppress the free-speech of others minorities/folks they'd seek to oppress (short term) and exterminate (long term). Centrist Liberal views are difficult to deal with in that so many people think legitimate (rational) debate will work with people who believe their garbo racist propaganda to be true.[/spoiler]
-
Edited by Ramirenzo: 2/8/2018 12:03:59 PMYou're completely misrepresenting the situation, gamers aren't against progressive topics in games. Nobody complained about Lara Croft being the lead character in tomb raider, nobody complained about homosexual romances in mass effect. What people care about is forced progressivism, developers pushing ideological narratives that aren't mainstream or sacrificing more important aspects such as gameplay or character design in favour of forcing diversity upon us. I don't care about the skin colour, gender or sexual orientation of your character in your new game. However if you turn around to me and say you want to redesign an existing character such as Lara Croft to be an overweight African American Transwoman, then we have a problem. Not because I hate African Americans or Trans people, but because you're taking an established character and changing them for reasons outside of the game. Namely to either virtue signal how diverse you are, or to persuade people into thinking identity politics is a good political argument. As for your opinions on the far-right, you seem to be describing the Alt-Right more than anything. I don't like the alt-right just as much as the far-left. Both of them base their ideologies around identity politics, both of them will shut down the free speech of others to benefit themselves, and both of them seek to interfere in apolitical media to push their own narrative. But the difference between you and me is I want these people to speak. I want every horrific utterance, every racist comment, every incorrect statistic to be shouted loudly and from the biggest stage they can find. Because unless we know what these people think, we can't prove them wrong and we can't ridicule them for being wrong. If we ban them and silence them, we drive them underground, we make them the oppressed and that's attractive when recruiting, nobody knows who they are and what they stand for because they were silenced, and it's widely taught that it's good to help the oppressed and so they recruit the misinformed and grow again, underground where nobody is keeping tabs on them and their ideas. And then we end up with Charlottesville where neo-[url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] long thought gone walk the streets, because nobody addressed their ideology, nobody conclusively proved them wrong in public, on stage.
-
I understand what you're saying in regards to 'changing an already established character' but at the same time it isn't virtue signalling to try and change the formula (unless a developer explicitly states otherwise). If someone wants to try a new take on it why not allow it (opening a can of worms with that statement)? If you can have a consistent and understandable narrative to reinvent the formula then why not try it out? I think from my own experiences and what I've seen, it's unfortunately stopped at the first stage because people assume dramatic change is bad/not constructive. Taking good old Lara Croft as an example - if they had an explicit sequel to the latest 2 games and then suddenly changed up her character design to a middle-aged asian martial arts master, I would object as the narrative has already established her as the what 20ish White British(?) lady who does the tomb-y stuff. If, for arguments sake, they had a narrative switch in which perhaps it's Lara's protege or s/t on those lines, like Lara had a kid/took someone under their wing and became the new titular character of a Croft series, and that new character was established with non-typical (or what we expect) Lara Croft traits, and then people were to complain about that, that's where I'm less supportive of 'dramatic change isn't good' (which I know that's not what you're saying but the vein of that sorta discussion is that sort of rhetoric). I think the feeling of ideologies being 'forced' is more of a lack of implementation in a more organic way, but at the same time I think that is due to a lack of understanding, experience in the subject matter, it's a tough topic to discuss because is it forced to show the diversity of real life and other philosophical thought provoking style questions lmao. The Tracer Coming Out scenario is a good example of people being unreasonable with a fictional character (also look at her, you telling me that she wasn't gonna be into girls? that's 100% certified lesbian) but back to the point - people acted as if it was Blizzard making a political statement or 'appease the left' - but being LGBT isn't political it's just part of an individual's identity...that and they had confirmed there were LGBT characters in the cast of Overwatch. But when all is said in done I can understand some of the frustration that comes from players that have certain expectations, but I focus more on the reactionary responses of people opposed to anything but the norm and just how it coalesces into such hate/disgust of a topic matter so quickly. (Again this is no doubt a bias I have due to personal experience, which we will all have). -- And yeah I did mean the Alt-Right but my brain forgot 'Alt' as I was typing before rushing to work lol. I again understand the idea 'give them a platform and run themselves into ridicule' but unfortunately the Alt-Right have a far more...appealing way of talking than the Left, who typically like to act as if it's an elitist club where you must have read 7 different political manifestos riddled with jargon and political gibberish before you can debate the flaws in right-wing ideas. So many people take little nibbles and ideas of the Right (like yeah why don't the Whites have their own 'homeland' etc) and then once the Alt-right have seduced enough people they just take it further and further until their end-goal are met. Hence why even denying them a platform in the end could be more productive, again they can't be truly rationally debated because their viewpoint is anything but (objectively) rational. I feel it's more important to debate towards Centrists/Liberals/people who haven't dipped their toes in either left/right wing fields. [spoiler](that or just literally do what that hero did and punch every one of them so they can feel unsafe, so they feel what they would inflict upon millions on irrational thought, but that's just the spiteful, angry and emotional side of me speaking in this regard)[/spoiler] Again sorry if I'm not very cohesive with my viewpoint/thoughts, it's really quite hard to explain and I hope I don't come off as preachy nor disrespectful of your own views.
