King's Diversity Space Tool: A Leap Forward for Inclusion in Gaming

[TheRevenantHero]

You sound butthurt for no reason. Did I hurt your feelings somehow? I just now loaded up mmo-champion for the first time in a while and saw this.

- - - Updated - - -



Not everyone shares your narrow and whiny view of things.

- - - Updated - - -



Glad you get all your views and ways to act from Wikipedia. It's an interesting choice, if a bit robotic.

Hilarious considering the majority of your bigoted responses.

[Goatfish]

I had a strong suspicion when you brought up "quotas" that your understanding of diversity in hiring practices would be as weak as your understanding about the tool this thread is about. We've already posted a few walls of text in what is essentially a dead thread so if you want my full response on why diversity hiring initiatives are both good and necessary I can send it via PM.

Feel free to PM me on this if you want, though I'm almost positive I already know your arguments for this view, and it falls under the same platitudes of "There is space for something so we should do something but we're not going to really enforce it nor explain how it's not explicitly playing to racist notions that obviously divide us." I can answer this simply in that I don't give a fuck about seeing equality in outcome. Affirmative Action has been a nightmare that arguably does more harm than good, and the same arguments apply just as strongly to diversity hiring.

This is pretty much the pinnacle of arguing from a position of entitlement. So basically, you don't care about personal representation (unsurprising given there are a plethora of good characters that overlap your demographics), as such you can't understand why someone else would want to see more representation, and therefor you believe that everything is totally fine as is and any push to have more diversity and representation is unnecessary and/or harmful. Is that more or less correct?

How exactly am I entitled? Because a bunch of people who share my skin color and sex but probably very few of my beliefs gets a star role? I don't really care who does the spot as long as it is done well and we aren't initiating quotas like California is trying to do, or the Oscars, or Disney, because those companies understand anything other than action is just platitudes, but the action is immoral by nature and runs directly counterintuitive to civil rights legislation. You seem to want some sort of equal representation to happen naturally but can't even answer what that representation should look like or when it should be implemented. I call your stance platitudes because it apparently doesn't involve anything tangible, it's just a desperate plea for other people to make content that you want to see.

"It's not about making some singular "woke amalgam" to shoehorn into everything" isn't a platitude. It's a response to your ridiculous idea that the goal is to somehow distill diversity into something that merely represents the opposite of the majority in every way and has "no soul". No one is arguing for this.

People are absolutely arguing for this, but not in the way I portray it. The whole supposed point of this tool is to make sure representation is up to whatever they want it to be based on whatever standards they decide to set. The whole point is that they might see "oops we have too many white straight males, better turn a couple of them trans or gay or black so activists get off our back about representation."

"Or that everyone must have totally equal representation" isn't a platitude, it's a direct response to your all too common straw man that involves jumping from "we could use more diversity" to "oh, so every single person needs a character that represents them?". No one is arguing that every combination of traits needs an ideal character representative.

What strawman? I'm just asking how far down the rabbit hole of representation you want to go. It was a legitimate set of questions that you apparently don't want to answer. Who all needs representation, and when do we get to complain about or decide that it's valid? Are we going to go storm Bollywood next and demand they put more white guys in starring roles since Bollywood is overwhelmingly Indian?

"It's simply about recognizing that there is most definitely space for meaningful diversity and representation" isn't a platitude. "Meaningful diversity" means seeing more variety in the demographics that get to be well written and/or central characters that drive the action rather than passive, secondary, stereotyped, and token characters. It's super simple. There are certainly times when it's important for a character to be white, or black, or male, or female, or straight, or from Brazil, or from London, or whatever. However, more often than not straight/male/white is just the default setting.

The point again here is again is just asking when you have the right to tell a creator that their character is the wrong race/gender/whatever. Whether you are doing it directly or by proxy by petitioning the company they work for instead. The sheer narcissism that it can't even be a background or side character, but that people want it to be the central character is astounding. To you it's simple, but your side on this topic never thinks of the implementation, or just doesn't care that they are coopting someone else's intellectual property to push an agenda.

You want something to work with? Let's take a character I referenced in my last post; James Bond (we're still tangentially on video games here since future James Bond games will be based on whatever actor is next cast in the role). There are a lot of traits that are central to the character but despite having been always portrayed by white actors his skin color isn't central to who he is. This is an example of "space for diversity" where casting can extend past the narrow constraints of previous renditions of the character. That doesn't mean "don't cast another white guy". It means look for someone who can embody the central outward traits of the character (British, slim, average height, good looking with cold eyes and a cruel mouth) regardless of skin color.

This isn't what I'm talking about, and I have a feeling you know this, but just want to frame me as some supremacist who just doesn't want to see black people in my media. For every black James Bond or Idris Elba as Roland from The Dark Tower, there are multiple L from Deathnote, or Jet from Cowboy Bebop, or the new Lord of the Rings. I hope you can understand there is a big difference between me not liking something, and me saying they shouldn't be allowed to make that choice. I've never made a statement such as "L should have been cast as a white/asian guy instead", rather I just say I don't like their choice of casting and it seems it was made off a diversity agenda rather than a love for the content and casting a believable actor.

You say you don't care about any of these things, yet apparently harbor a "longstanding borderline hatred" for how gay characters are typically represented. Now take those strong feelings and imagine how someone else who might also not have great, if any, representation might feel. Do you think women love the idea of having so many strong, action driven, male protagonists to choose from while so many female characters are relegated to the role of damsel in distress, wife/girlfriend killed to drive male protagonist's story, or pigeonholed into typical support/caregiver roles? Or people of color generally being relegated to secondary, highly stereotyped characters?

My borderline hatred for how gay characters are represented mostly has to do with the typical leftist argument against tokenism that you stated yourself. Despite being gay I have a lot of issues with how activist gays portray the community in general and spit upon those of us who lean centrist or god forbid... conservative. Not every movie needs to be the story you want with the characters you want. If you have such a great idea then write it up and start sending it to producers and screenwriters. I don't go around petitioning game devs and producers to change this though, I just refuse to watch/play if I don't like it, that simple. My frustration with the characters doesn't give me any right to say they need to change it because I understand that I am not the center of the universe. I find content that has what I want, and I suggest anyone else with these issues does the same because we live in an era of more content of every type than you could possibly watch in your lifetime.

People want good games AND they want more diversity. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. You can certainly have both, so why are you so strongly in favor of maintaining the already lopsided status quo? If none of it really matters to you then why are you even concerned with any of this?

Easy, the first is because the status quo is how it is because the people making the content want the content to be that way. I'm all for supporting people making the content they want to. I don't want to see creators bullied into adding or changing characters to fulfill someone's wet dream. The only reason I'm posting on this is because it's what this thread is about and some people have some dumb shit opinions on it that don't consider the implementation. A lot of utopian dreams and very little thinking about the consequences.

Do you even know what these words mean? Please, point out where I was prejudiced against a particular racial or ethnic group, or expressed a heightened sense of loyalty to my tribe (whatever tribe you think that might be).

You implied that you actually cared that white people were represented while also playing the white guilt card that we should make the effort to reduce white representation in media. You've also heavily implied that I think other ethnicities aren't capable of making good stories or characters, when I've said almost exactly the opposite. My biggest issue with the whole thing is people (which apparently includes you, but I can't fully tell because you're being cagey about it) actually think this representation matters, as if a black guy can't fully enjoy a story about Thomas Jefferson, or a white guy can't fully enjoy a story about Malcolm X. This is why I pointed out directly that some of my favorite games don't represent anything. I don't have these tribalist notions at all because I'm not thinking about the race or sex of the character unless it's directly conflicting with canon, and even then it's ok if it's done well. Is it really so hard to grasp that I don't want people changing this shit around on a whim just because they want to get off to a gay Captain America or an all female and diverse Ghostbusters? Is it really that hard to grasp that this race/ideology baiting as marketing is disgusting and probably harmful for many reasons you have stated yourself?

[Stormwolf64]

Probably because fragile little people like you continue to keep it alive?

Nahh, that is fragile people like you who will most likely cry in a corner because this or that tv show doesn't have a black disabled hemaphrodite.

[Soikona]

Being a boring character that in no way stands out from others around you, it's that character you only remember because someone worth remembering was talking to them. An extra who forgot they weren't supposed to be an extra.

Does what your sexual preference, skin colour and etc really make something more “interesting”? I don’t think it does. A strong character does, everything else is just minor details.

Write for what is good, not what is “inclusive”. If the writing is good, then they both exist. If you write for the sake of inclusion, then the chances of it being good are slim.

[Stormwolf64]

This post said far more about you than it did anyone else. As I said, fragile lol

You replied in the first place you moron. If you weren't fragile you wouldn't even care about my initial post

[Jinpachi]

There are no radical and diverse politics at play, it's a tool that measures fake characters. The tool at it's worst is still nowhere as sinister as the actions of radical politicians and religious figures. If your taking the tool seriously then you need to turn that obsession towards your area's politics instead.

measures fake characters using criteria used to measure real people. there are radical and diverse politics at play, otherwise there wouldn't have been a token transgender on the dragonflight reveal video.

[shadowmatrix]

measures fake characters using criteria used to measure real people. there are radical and diverse politics at play, otherwise there wouldn't have been a token transgender on the dragonflight reveal video.

Who is this token transgender of which you speak?

[Stormwolf64]

I merely answered your question. If you were a little more intelligent, you'd understand that all you did with your post was bump it right up to the top lol Your posts continue to show your fragility.

Have you seen your posts? vicious as fuck and you call me fragile. Absolutely pathetic and just as expected from a woke cuck

[RobertMugabe]

2 weeks later and it still feels like a bad joke. How could they develop something this shamelessly racist and straight up evil?

[Stormwolf64]

I mean, I typed and posted them, so yeah, probably.


Vicious? Bless your heart. You think being vicious (where was I specifically "vicious"?) means someone is fragile? That's a good one.


Is this fragile projection? You poor thing. Trying to insult me and getting nothing but laughs.

Imagine being this removed from reality.

[RadasNoir]

Glad you get all your views and ways to act from Wikipedia. It's an interesting choice, if a bit robotic.

Better than getting all my views and ways to act from 4-chan and right-wing, clickbait Youtube videos. "Do your own research!", right?

[Stormwolf64]

Imagine still not realising that all you're doing is keeping this thread at the very top of page one lol

You're doing 50% of it XD

[Jinpachi]

Who is this token transgender of which you speak?

watch the video. if you have to ask then you'll never know

[Drudi]

Ah, you're just a straight-up homophobe. Well, that will make it even easier to just dismiss any "arguments" you have, then.

No, that would be an incorrect definition. “Phobia” is a condition when you are afraid of something, when something frightens you. This is clearly not the case.

Are you afraid of dung piles? Of rotten fish? Of liquid vomit? Do these things frighten you? Or you’re just disgusted, naturally?

So yes, I’m definitely not afraid of homosexual people. Disgusted, yes - but that’s it.

By the way, you or some other person might be disgusted by MY sexual habits. Or not. Most likely not - because you’d never know them. I have no intention to make them public.

And people who DO have intention to do so, they disgust me. Because of this, not because what they do in the bed.

[Biomega]

No, that would be an incorrect definition. “Phobia” is a condition when you are afraid of something, when something frightens you. This is clearly not the case.

That's the etymological root of the word. Its usage doesn't work like that. It can and does go beyond actual, literal "fear" in many established words - while arachnophobia is indeed a psychological phobia (i.e. a fear, in this case of spiders), there's also things like e.g. hydrophobic compounds in which the fear is metaphorical only (they're materials that repel water).

Just like no one would say that hydrophobic leaves (on some certain plants) are OMG LITERALLY AFRAID OF WATER (instead they merely repel water), concepts like homophobia, transphobia etc. also use the "fear" part metaphorically to denote repulsion, aversion, etc. and NOT a psychological fear.

[Dr Assbandit]

No, that would be an incorrect definition. “Phobia” is a condition when you are afraid of something, when something frightens you. This is clearly not the case.

Are you afraid of dung piles? Of rotten fish? Of liquid vomit? Do these things frighten you? Or you’re just disgusted, naturally?

So yes, I’m definitely not afraid of homosexual people. Disgusted, yes - but that’s it.

By the way, you or some other person might be disgusted by MY sexual habits. Or not. Most likely not - because you’d never know them. I have no intention to make them public.

And people who DO have intention to do so, they disgust me. Because of this, not because what they do in the bed.

Sure thing, whatever you say homophobe .

[deenman]

No, that would be an incorrect definition. “Phobia” is a condition when you are afraid of something, when something frightens you. This is clearly not the case.

Are you afraid of dung piles? Of rotten fish? Of liquid vomit? Do these things frighten you? Or you’re just disgusted, naturally?

So yes, I’m definitely not afraid of homosexual people. Disgusted, yes - but that’s it.

By the way, you or some other person might be disgusted by MY sexual habits. Or not. Most likely not - because you’d never know them. I have no intention to make them public.

And people who DO have intention to do so, they disgust me. Because of this, not because what they do in the bed.

its fine to feel disgust at something,you cant help it,i feel like vomiting when i look at or smell any food with spinach in it,but i dont go around hating and opressing or calling people who enjoy it names,or discrimate against them

also your phobia thing is wrong,words have different usage depending on the situation,homophobia/transphobia/etc is clearly defined as dislike of or prejudice,not fear

[RadasNoir]

No, that would be an incorrect definition. “Phobia” is a condition when you are afraid of something, when something frightens you. This is clearly not the case.

Are you afraid of dung piles? Of rotten fish? Of liquid vomit? Do these things frighten you? Or you’re just disgusted, naturally?

So yes, I’m definitely not afraid of homosexual people. Disgusted, yes - but that’s it.

I have a sister that has emetophobia, or the fear of vomiting. She doesn't like when people talk about vomiting even jokingly, she has to mute scenes on TV or in movies where characters are vomiting, she tends to leave the room whenever anyone so much as mentions they're mildly nauseous, etc. All actions born of fear, rather than just disgust. Most people can just deal with their disgust in the moment, it's fear that causes them to go out of their way to avoid something.

So yes, I sense much fear in you.

By the way, you or some other person might be disgusted by MY sexual habits. Or not. Most likely not - because you’d never know them. I have no intention to make them public.

And people who DO have intention to do so, they disgust me. Because of this, not because what they do in the bed.

Oh, come off it. We've already established that you're a hypocrite and full of shit.

If you saw a man and woman peck each other on the cheek and say they love each other in public, you wouldn't even bat an eyelash. If you saw two men or two women do the same, you'd apparently lose your goddamn mind.

Despite what you and the other hand-wringers might think, Blizzard isn't going to show HARDCORE GAY SEX on screen anytime soon. Hell, they're probably not ever going to even show two gay characters actually kissing in game, either. You know how I know? Because they haven't had any of their straight couples do any of that either. The most we're ever going to have is two characters in love talking about how they love and care for each other. That's it.

And if seeing two men or two women being mildly affectionate towards each other causes your mind to immediately jump to HARDCORE GAY SEX, I feel that says more about you than you might be willing to admit. Perhaps that's what you're actually afraid of....

[Drudi]

“Blizzard isn't going to show HARDCORE GAY SEX on screen anytime soon”

Good to know, although I don’t want to see any kind of sex in a 12+ game.

“If you saw a man and woman peck each other on the cheek and say they love each other in public, you wouldn't even bat an eyelash.”

Yep, because it’s normal for a man and a woman to be in love with each other and show affection.

“If you saw two men or two women do the same, you'd apparently lose your goddamn mind.”

No, although I’d be disgusted. Because it’s NOT normal. I do not want my kids watching at this, I don’t want anyone’s kids watching at this.

Not normal in MY opinion, for sure - your opinion might be different.
Also not normal by majority’s opinion, more importantly.

There ARE legal and ethical norms in the society, and norms are defined by the majority. It’s a fact wherever you like it or not - not a biased view. The norms might be different, sure (some even allow bearded “women” to a political musical shows as they do in EU). But there are norms.

[Biomega]

“If you saw a man and woman peck each other on the cheek and say they love each other in public, you wouldn't even bat an eyelash.”

Yep, because it’s normal for a man and a woman to be in love with each other and show affection.

“If you saw two men or two women do the same, you'd apparently lose your goddamn mind.”

No, although I’d be disgusted. Because it’s NOT normal.

Normality is a shifting definition. Societies evolve, and their sexual mores change with them.

It's not been that long that a woman showing her ankles in public was scandalous in the Western world. Now there's places where women can go topless in public and somehow society has not collapsed.

You at least acknowledge that it's "just your opinion", but perhaps that can just be in the statement from the get-go next time: you can just say "it offends me" instead of claiming some kind of superior morality by asserting something is supposedly "not normal'. Honesty is a virtue, too, you know.

You're free to take offense at whatever you please. What that offense elicits as a response is part of the everyday social negotiations that make up any society.