2138 réponses à ce sujet

[DaySeeker]

pansexual ignores gender binaries, It is my understanding pansexuals are drawn more to androgeny.  Bisexuals can be attracted to men or women, pansexuals wonder why anyone would have to identify themselves as either in dress, action, or affect,  I can't tell though if it is fetish or sexual identity.

[coldflame]

What's a pansexual? somebody attracted to little Dragon Ball GT girls?

 

... Err, no. It's someone who experiences sexual and/or romantic attraction to anyone regardless of gender or identity. 

 

Talk about all you can eat buffet...

[RevilFox]

I'm sad Blackwall is straight and that almost everyone will romance you if you are an elven female.  Fetishes suck.

 

 

pansexual ignores gender binaries, It is my understanding pansexuals are drawn more to androgeny.  Bisexuals can be attracted to men or women, pansexuals wonder why anyone would have to identify themselves as either in dress, action, or affect,  I can't tell though if it is fetish or sexual identity.

 

I'm not entirely sure either situation has anything to do with fetishes. Well, I'm entirely sure the second one doesn't. I suppose you could make an argument for the first one, I'm just pretty sure I disagree.

[oceanicsurvivor]

What's a pansexual? somebody attracted to little Dragon Ball GT girls?

Pan's a little kid. Not a great 'joke'.

[DaySeeker]

I'm not entirely sure either situation has anything to do with fetishes. Well, I'm entirely sure the second one doesn't. I suppose you could make an argument for the first one, I'm just pretty sure I disagree.

 

Well, the first one is a joke, but it is true that female elves get more romance possibilities than anyone else.  If you can more clearly define pansexual, please do.  That it would to be created as a differentiated form of bisexual indicates fetish for me, as bisexual is an attraction to both genders, pansexual is also attracted to both genders but seems to prefer that they do not acknowledge or appropriate tropes for either gender.  This specificity denotes fetish for me unless it is just an indicator of openness, but I'm not sure that this would be precluded in the bisexual identification.   

[Pevesh]

pansexual ignores gender binaries, It is my understanding pansexuals are drawn more to androgeny.  Bisexuals can be attracted to men or women, pansexuals wonder why anyone would have to identify themselves as either in dress, action, or affect,  I can't tell though if it is fetish or sexual identity.

Both pansexual and bisexual people can be attracted to people of any gender. If you want to know why someone identifies as one or the other, you have to ask that individual as there is no other way of telling them apart really. Some people even identify as both bisexual and pansexual.

[Lady Nuggins]

Both pansexual and bisexual people can be attracted to people of any gender. If you want to know why someone identifies as one or the other, you have to ask that individual as there is no other way of telling them apart really. Some people even identify as both bisexual and pansexual.

 

Yes, this.  The choice to label oneself bi/pan is actually very personal and depends on a variety of factors.  Some people see pansexuality as a branch of bisexuality, some people see them as interchangeable, and some people see them as very distinct.  

 

Pansexual means attraction to all genders.  By definition, pansexuality rejects the idea of a gender binary, acknowledging that there are people who do not identify strictly as male or female (for example, they can be intersex or genderqueer).  However, since it's a somewhat newer term, some people are reluctant to use it for fear of being viewed as simply following a "trend," and pansexuality is still in the process of defining itself.

 

Bisexual means attraction to one's own gender and other genders.  Recently, bisexuals are trying to emphasize that "other genders" is not restricted by a gender binary either, and can be seen as inclusive.  Bisexuality has a longer political history, but also more baggage, so while some people prefer to avoid using that word to describe themselves, others use it in the spirit of reclaiming it.

[LarryDavid]

p65 *snip*

 

 

I'll try again but now with more words :P.

 

The representation argument is very simple : I exist and I have certain traits and values and I would like to see characters with similar traits or values in the game. I can't see how one can exist 'more' or something like that, that gives one more right to ask for representation. It also doesn't matter whether it is about a value or a trait, the argument stays exactly the same. Everyone is as justified to ask for representation and shouldn't feel hampered by someone else's request.

 

If social issues get attached to the justification of asking for representation you run into trouble. There are lots of factors that influence how important representation, in one way or another, is for someone. But how the representation argument is used, every reason you give for why it means very much to you, also becomes a reason why someone else shouldn't use the representation argument to ask something (s)he wants. And we all know how people react in such situations.

 

I don't like the word 'cater' but as it is trendy to use it... I don't think Bioware should cater to anyone but if the want to do it they should cater to their player base or to the set of people they want to be their player base. Besides making money it should be a goal to make sure that as much players should have a great time or something similar. This means that, given resource constraints, they can decide to implement certain things because it means a lot for a significant amount of players. And this is what probably happened when making Cullen a LI. It isn't catering to the 'Cullen fanbase' it is catering to the player base.

 

This is however not the case with the LGB LIs. Whereas they don't differentiate between people based on their liking of Cullen, everything they say indicates that they do differentiate between people based on their sexual orientation (SO). You can't say that someone's SO doesn't matter while at the same time say that you have moral obligations to a subset of them. Or that you try to be 'inclusive'. If someone would say that they try to be inclusive wrt people with epilepsy I would immediately think : "**** you dick".

 

Discrimination, under-representation in media, ... as long as Bioware takes that into account I wouldn't cheer if I were you. It is secondary at best and it is counter-productive to use these as arguments. You can use them as a reason to why it is so important for you and the latter is something Bioware should take into account. Until then people who say that Bioware caters to the LGBT community are basically right.

 

When I used to go out I have seen my share of gay bars. The only reason I went there was when Bart really wanted to. It was of course correlated with things that happened because of his SO, but I fail to see why I should have taken that into account. Each group of friends has a certain dynamic and when deciding which pub to go you take a lot of factors into account, like where we have been recently, what you think of that club, ... but a major factor is always if someone really wants to go somewhere. Sometimes Bart wanted to go to one of his favourite gay clubs whereas someone else really wanted to go somewhere else. The most insulting thing I can think of is thinking, or worse acting, like "Bart is gay and has a harder life because of it so let's go to the gay club!". And I can't see why you would want that.

 

If black people would say "we don't care about representation, we don't need the option to play as a black character" and left handed people say "Bioware please would it be possible to implement left-handed people, like qunari throwing spears with their left hand instead of their right hand. ", I don't see a reason why the representation of black people should have a higher priority than the representation of left handed people.



On a general note I would also stop using the highly subjective words 'equality' and 'fair'. Or at least stop pretending that the definition you use in this context is more or less objective. If person A is three times more productive than person B and on top of that works three times longer, what does 'fair' compensation mean? What does it mean to treat them 'equally'? Some valid points of view are

(i) Person A is nine times more productive than person B and hence should earn nine times as much.

(ii) For each unit of time person B works, person A works 3 units and hence person A should earn three times more.

(iii) Person A and B both do 'a job' and hence should earn the same.

Most people will go for (i) or (ii) or something in between, but will definitely agree that in case of (iii) person B gets heavily overpaid. Definitions that make such abstractions that all numbers are ignored, like in (iii), are seldom popular.

 

Similarly you can come up with something like

(a) The hair color of the NPCs/LIs should be determined by the hair color of the majority of the players

( B) The distribution of the hair colors of the NPCs/LIs should proportionally reflect the distribution of the hair color of the player base.

(c ) The distribution of the hair color of the NPCs/LIs should be as uniform as possible.

Once again this are all valid points of view. Most people will say that ( B), maybe slightly skewed towards over-representing small minorities, corresponds to what they think is fair. Not much people will argue that about 20 percent should have red hair. Similarly, people who think that about half of all the earlobes should be attached to the head are a negligible minority. There are people with and without nasal bones so according to definition (c ) about half of the NPCs/LIs should have no nasal bones.

 

Moving to the sexual orientation (SO) of LIs :

(A) The SO of the LIs should be determined by the SO of the majority of the players

( B) The distribution of the SO of the LIs should proportionally reflect the distribution of the SO of the player base.

(C ) The distribution of the SO of the LIs should be as uniform as possible.

Your concept of fair is something that is close to (C ). So what's the fundamental difference between (c ) and (C )? There is none. You're probably thinking about social injustices but why should that matter? It would only mean that your concept of fair and equality is very fluid. Also I doubt that if people don't differentiate on the basis of SO any more, that you would move away from (C ). 'Fair' and 'equal' are used as if they are detached from emotions. The general vibe is : "I does not matter how anybody feels about it because it happens to be fair and hence should be implemented as such.". But the only way you can differentiate between (c ) and (C ) is based on emotions.

[Maria Caliban]

(c ) The distribution of the hair color of the NPCs/LIs should be as uniform as possible.

(C ) The distribution of the SO of the LIs should be as uniform as possible.

Your concept of fair is something that is close to (C ). So what's the fundamental difference between (c ) and (C )?

In school, no one ever spit on me or beat me up for being blonde. No one I've been in a relationship with has asked me to hide my blondeness around her parents or her friends. I have never been afraid to reveal the fact that I have blonde hair at work. No one has ever told me that I am going to hell because of the color of my hair. No one has ever said that blondes don't belong in games or that including blonde people is pandering to the tow-head lobby.

That's the difference. It's one people like you constantly attempt to minimize with your false equivalencies. It's almost as though valuing another person's experiences or seeing things within a social context is something you desperately don't want to do.

[LarryDavid]

In school, no one ever spit on me or beat me up for being blonde. No one I've been in a relationship with has asked me to hide my blondeness around her parents or her friends. I have never been afraid to reveal the fact that I have blonde hair at work. No one has ever told me that I am going to hell because of the color of my hair. No one has ever said that blondes don't belong in games or that including blonde people is pandering to the tow-head lobby.

That's the difference. It's one people like you constantly attempt to minimize with your false equivalencies. It's almost as though valuing another person's experiences or seeing things within a social context is something you desperately don't want to do.

 

If people stop spitting at other people for being not straight, if you don't have to hide your sexuality anymore for anybody, if you don't have to be afraid anymore for being how you are, ... , will you then say it is fair that there is only 1 non-straight LI? If it is the case then your concept of 'fair' and 'equal' is very fluid and you should take that into consideration when using those words. What is more probable however, is that you would still argue for something close to (C ). So why the need to drag in social issues when trying to say that (c ) differs from (C ), if fundamentally it won't change anything for you?

 

Basically, the real difference between (c ) and (C ) for you is totally based on emotions and you should wonder if that's a solid foundation to build your definitions for 'fair' and 'equality' upon. It only takes for someone else to feel different about this issues and you have no argument, no argument at all for why your 'fair' is more 'fair' than his/her 'fair'. The equivalence is not false, your notion of 'fair' is simply inconsistent.

 

I have minimized nothing, you simply have read what you wanted to read.

[Grieving Natashina]

Reading through the thread, and ignoring some of the more fascinating attempts to justify hate, I did want to clarify something for you guys.

 

When the poster earlier was talking about Super Mario Bros having an LGBT character, they weren't too far off the mark.  Super Mario Brothers 2 was known as Doki Doki Panic in Japan.  The creators of SMB thought that the direct sequel (now known as the Lost Levels) would be too hard for American audiences.  So, they took Doki Doki Panic and replaced the sprites with Mario characters.  Viola, SMB2 hit US shores.  Now in that game, you have a boss named Birdo.  Birdo looks like a pink dinosaur with long eyelashes, and with a bright bow.  As an attack, he spits eggs at you.  The pronoun I used wasn't an accident: In the original manual, Birdo was listed to be male that looked like a female, thought he was one and the eggs he spits are unfertiziled.    This was retconned in later installments of the Mario Brothers games, with Birdo becoming a female.

 

Note that is one of the many times I can list that a LGBT character was seen as a joke or a villain.  Or, in this case, both.  It also doesn't make what poster said any less ignorant.

 

For those that think it's too hard to explain to kids about homosexuality, here's a story for you.  Some of you might have seen me talk about this before, but I feel this is a decent time to bring it back up:

 

When I was 4, I was living in California.  This was in a coastal town about 50 miles north of Santa Barbara.  It was 1984, and my best friend was a black girl.  My folks, nor hers, thought anything of our friendship.  One day, we were walking down the street, holding hands, talking about girl stuff.  Out of nowhere, people started calling her a n-word, and me a "n-word lover."  While it was mostly kids that were doing this, adults were joining in too.  Believe it or not, in 1984, 25 miles away from Cal Poly Tech, racism was still alive and well. I went home crying and when I told my mom, she hit the roof.  A few phone calls to some of the other parents in the neighborhood and that stopped immediately.  

 

However, a few weeks later, I was still feeling a little insecure despite the reassurances of both of my parents.  We were at a family friends house, where one of the kids was about the same age as my brother.   His parents were an interracial couple.  Finally, I went up to my mom and asked her if I had done something wrong.  She knelt down and pointed at her friends.  She asked me, "Sweetie, what do you see there?"  I said, "I see a couple in love."  She said, "Then that's all you need to know."

 

That stuck with me, and I apply it to all healthy relationships. 

 

Now, if a gay/lesbian couple is holding hands, and the little one asks why two girls/two boys are together, just tell them that love between two adults comes in all shapes and forms, and that's all that matters.

 

Finally, to some of the rest of the ignorance floating around: It's intriguing to see some come into the thread, tell us how sick/wrong/whiny we are, then tell us we're wasting our time, then coming back for more.  You know, I've heard that sites like IGN, battle.net and Xbox Live forums love to be as willfully ignorant and hateful as you please.  Nothing but the safe warm seas of straight male privilege as far as they can see, where you are safe from anything you don't like.  Go knock yourself out.  Me, I come here because I'm sick of all protagonists being mostly straight, the LGBT characters being villains or jokes, and the heroes usually looking like this:

 

 

Here, neither the posters nor the company give a flying leap what you think.  You can rant and rail all day about how it's just "catering" and that the majority should be addressed first.  BioWare doesn't care about what you think.  The folks behind their games don't care either, nor do the posters here.  Hell, I'd go as far to say that EA doesn't care what you think, considering that they've been very open about LGBT inclusion for their games in the past.   

 

If you want to keep peeing in the wind, then by all means keep going.  You're just going to come out of this smelly and looking like an idiot.

[SardaukarElite]

 

Basically, the real difference between (c ) and (C ) for you is totally based on emotions and you should wonder if that's a solid foundation to build your definitions for 'fair' and 'equality' upon. It only takes for someone else to feel different about this issues and you have no argument, no argument at all for why your 'fair' is more 'fair' than his/her 'fair'. The equivalence is not false, your notion of 'fair' is simply inconsistent.

 

I don't have a clue what you're getting at, but being spat on isn't really an emotion, it's more of an experience. I imagine it invokes some pretty strong emotions though, and dismissing them as irrelevant strikes me as obnoxious.

[LarryDavid]

I don't have a clue what you're getting at, but being spat on isn't really an emotion, it's more of an experience. I imagine it invokes some pretty strong emotions though, and dismissing them as irrelevant strikes me as obnoxious.

 

I know that English is not my native language so could you please quote where I have stated that how people feel about certain things are irrelevant or should be dismissed?

[Lady Nuggins]

If people stop spitting at other people for being not straight, if you don't have to hide your sexuality anymore for anybody, if you don't have to be afraid anymore for being how you are, ... , will you then say it is fair that there is only 1 non-straight LI? If it is the case then your concept of 'fair' and 'equal' is very fluid and you should take that into consideration when using those words. What is more probable however, is that you would still argue for something close to (C ). So why the need to drag in social issues when trying to say that (c ) differs from (C ), if fundamentally it won't change anything for you?

 

Basically, the real difference between (c ) and (C ) for you is totally based on emotions and you should wonder if that's a solid foundation to build your definitions for 'fair' and 'equality' upon. It only takes for someone else to feel different about this issues and you have no argument, no argument at all for why your 'fair' is more 'fair' than his/her 'fair'. The equivalence is not false, your notion of 'fair' is simply inconsistent.

 

I have minimized nothing, you simply have read what you wanted to read.

 

If being LGBT were completely, 100% as accepted in society as being straight was, then many other video games and movies and tv shows would be offering LGBT representation, and we would not need to have this conversation at all.

[Puppy Love]

Snip

It's false equivalence because you are comparing two things, while completely ignoring the context behind them.  You're ignoring the complete picture of two different things and the differences between them.  You're oversimplifying your comparisons. 

 

For example comparing liking peaches and wanting more characters that like peaches to being gay and wanting more characters that represent being gay.

 

Ignoring context, which is what you are doing, they are equivalent, they are both people wanting characters that represent them and are an inherent part of both people.

 

However, the second you add the context of the two, that comparison falls apart.

 

Liking to eat peaches is not discriminated again, no one gives a crap whether you like or eat peaches, there is no negative context to eating peaches.  Not having characters eat peaches is no different then not having them eat crumb cake, or any other specified food.  It's just one of a billion ordinary foods that just isn't represented often.  It's not really important.  No one is truly hurt or suffering because characters that eat peaches aren't being represented.

 

Meanwhile, homosexuality is discriminated against, people do care whether you are gay or not, being gay is frowned upon, and unlike eating peaches, it is a vital part of who a person is.  You eat peaches now and then, if you're gay, you're gay everyday.  Liking peaches defines an occasional snack you enjoy.  Being gay defines who you can love romantically, it defines a large part of how you deal with and identify with others.  If you like eating peaches, there's probably other things you like eating as well.  If you're gay, you are attracted to the same sex period.  It's not one thing of a million others, and there's no other preferences you're attracted to.  It is a big deal, and a bit part of someone.

 

You're ignoring all this.  What you are doing is taking two different weights (say 500 lbs, and 5'bs) that share the same shape but are different in size and mass, and calling them equivalent because they share the same shape, and completely ignore how drastically the scale is actually tipped due to the differing size and mass.

[Grieving Natashina]

Eh, best to ignore him.  He's convinced that he's in the right, there really no point in talking to him.

 

On a happier note, this is a youtuber that I really love.  He's got a great series called, "Needs More Gay."  I think most of the regulars in the thread would like this.  By the way, this is a few years old:

 

[DaySeeker]

Gay options don't just exist because there are gay players (although that is a fantastic reason, because we do), but also as a role-playing options for other players.  Also, if game producers made only the games players "asked for" we'd have the same game over and over and little in the way of originality and innovation.  Gamers don't know what they want; they have not seen all the possibilities, and game designers do well to follow their own muse and expand, and show gamers new worlds and possibilities.  

 

These arguments against fairness sound more frightened than rational to me.  

[mikeymoonshine]

 

If social issues get attached to the justification of asking for representation you run into trouble. There are lots of factors that influence how important representation, in one way or another, is for someone. But how the representation argument is used, every reason you give for why it means very much to you, also becomes a reason why someone else shouldn't use the representation argument to ask something (s)he wants. And we all know how people react in such situations.

 

I don't agree with the idea that games should have to set some sort of social standard but I don't see why they can't if the people making them want it that way. If a game promotes the lgbt, feminism or whatever so what? I also don't see why it's wrong to ask for a game to promote whatever social views you have or to ask for something because of those views (not saying that is because of that for anyone in particular). The devs can always say no and as long as you are ok with them saying no I don't see the issue here. 

[Nefla]

Gay options don't just exist because there are gay players (although that is a fantastic reason, because we do), but also as a role-playing options for other players.  Also, if game producers made only the games players "asked for" we'd have the same game over and over and little in the way of originality and innovation.  Gamers don't know what they want; they have not seen all the possibilities, and game designers do well to follow their own muse and expand, and show gamers new worlds and possibilities.  

 

These arguments against fairness sound more frightened than rational to me.  

Very true in RPGs I like any opportunity to roleplay as many different characters as possible and expand my horizons by seeing things from a different perspective.

[Vapaa]

For those that think it's too hard to explain to kids about homosexuality,

 

In fact the only reason one need to explain homosexuality in the first place, is because heteronormativity has been hammered into the child's head with a pile driver.

 

Because for a kid with no prejudices, a gay loving couple is exactly the same as a straight loving couple.

[LarryDavid]

Reading through the thread, and ignoring some of the more fascinating attempts to justify hate,

 

...

 

You can rant and rail all day about how it's just "catering" and that the majority should be addressed first.

 

Only with your last post I realized that these accusations also apply to me. So I wonder where I have justified hate against people or where I have said that the majority should be addressed first.

[LarryDavid]

snip

 

 

I'll give it another shot.

 

Suppose I want to hire someone and there are 3 candidates

- Person A says that he is gay and that because of it, it is hard for him to get a job. He tells me that he gets discriminated in every aspect of his life and that I should take that into consideration.

- Person B tells me that an extra reason for wanting the job is our amazing logo. He says that because of it he will be extra motivated and proud to represent our company.

- Person C says that he is gay and that because of it, it is hard for him to get a job. He tells me that he gets discriminated in every aspect of his life and that because of that he will be a very motivated and loyal employee if he gets the job.

 

I don't care about someone's sexual orientation (SO) so why should I care about anything person A has said. I don't own him anything and I can't see why I should compensate for how other people treat him. This is not the same as minimizing issues related to SO and it is not the same as being indifferent to issues related to SO. Sometimes injustice is simply irrelevant for the situation at hand. The fascination of person B for our logo is totally understandable because it is really awesome. It is a fractal so if we want to enlarge it we simply add another iteration and the shape stays the same. Him recognizing this and being motivated by it, is something that is worth taking into consideration. Just like person B, person C has a certain reason for being motivated and that also is something that is worth taking into consideration.

 

In this case, discrimination based on SO is not an argument at all, motivation is. And motivation derived from this kind of discrimination is something I would consider more than motivation that is derived from the insatiable love for our logo. This is a fundamental difference and that is why in such discussions social issues are something secondary. They can only be used as a reason for why it is important to you, not as an argument on its own.

 

The equivalence of asking for the representation of something would be a candidate saying why he is motivated for the job. No candidate should care about the motivation of other candidates. They should feel free to say what they want, irrespectively of other candidates having better reasons. You attach the reason for wanting some kind of representation to asking for representation, which is absurd. Also, if you hamper people in simply asking what they want, don't expect them to consider what you want.

 

Hiring person A is 'catering' to the LGBT community whereas hiring person C is not. You can only justify hiring person A by using words like 'inclusion', polluting the representation argument and defining 'fair' and 'equal' in such a way that they coincidentally correspond to what you want.

[WildOrchid]

In fact the only reason one need to explain homosexuality in the first place, is because heteronormativity has been hammered into the child's head with a pile driver.

 

Because for a kid with no prejudices, a gay loving couple is exactly the same as a straight loving couple.

 

And it's so funny when parents are all like "kids are kids, they don't need to know about sex and love and sexualities!!11. Why would you force the kid to learn about this!!11" while at the same time they've been bombarded by heterosexuality everywhere and parents are so blind by the sheer amount of heteronormativity, they don't realize it..

 

The hypocrisy is strong, let me tell you.

 

 

The last one I bolded is so true you don't even know. Kids who don't grow up with pile of shits for parents are more acceptable in life.

[tirnoney]

 

I don't care about someone's sexual orientation (SO)

 

That's great.  If the rest of the world was like you this thread probably wouldn't exist.  Games would have heterosexual and LGBTQ characters roughly reflecting society as a whole and no one would comment much on it.  But it isn't like that.  Inequality is rampant and it has been for centuries.  Just because you see yourself as fair minded, doesn't mean the world suddenly becomes fair.  So you have to ask yourself, what am I going to do about it?  If a particular section of society is unfairly discriminated against in a widespread manner you have the choice to ignore it or maybe have a small part in doing something to redress centuries of imbalance.  No one is asking you to give up your job to an oppressed minority who is less qualified than you.  But maybe if once in a while a handful of games out of the thousands that have been published over the last two decades has a higher percentage of LGBTQ or ethnic minority characters than _you_ see in real life you could maybe try being magnanimous about it.  It's still a drop in the ocean that means so much to those of us starving for representation of ANY kind.

 

I have never had to deal with discrimination because of my race.  If Bioware released a DA or ME game that had more black or asian than white characters and someone started a thread praising them for it I wouldn't wander in and complain that it wasn't representative or fair.  The reason I wouldn't do that is because I'd be happy about it.  I'd be happy because finally a games company had taken the initiative to redress the balance.  The only way anyone could describe it as unfair would be if they can't see past their own privilege.  The people who define fairness without taking into account the past and the context are usually those who needed someone to point out to them that the world was unfair in the first place.

[Puppy Love]

I'll give it another shot.

 

Suppose I want to hire someone and there are 3 candidates

- Person A says that he is gay and that because of it, it is hard for him to get a job. He tells me that he gets discriminated in every aspect of his life and that I should take that into consideration.

- Person B tells me that an extra reason for wanting the job is our amazing logo. He says that because of it he will be extra motivated and proud to represent our company.

- Person C says that he is gay and that because of it, it is hard for him to get a job. He tells me that he gets discriminated in every aspect of his life and that because of that he will be a very motivated and loyal employee if he gets the job.

 

I don't care about someone's sexual orientation (SO) so why should I care about anything person A has said. I don't own him anything and I can't see why I should compensate for how other people treat him. This is not the same as minimizing issues related to SO and it is not the same as being indifferent to issues related to SO. Sometimes injustice is simply irrelevant for the situation at hand. The fascination of person B for our logo is totally understandable because it is really awesome. It is a fractal so if we want to enlarge it we simply add another iteration and the shape stays the same. Him recognizing this and being motivated by it, is something that is worth taking into consideration. Just like person B, person C has a certain reason for being motivated and that also is something that is worth taking into consideration.

 

In this case, discrimination based on SO is not an argument at all, motivation is. And motivation derived from this kind of discrimination is something I would consider more than motivation that is derived from the insatiable love for our logo. This is a fundamental difference and that is why in such discussions social issues are something secondary. They can only be used as a reason for why it is important to you, not as an argument on its own.

 

The equivalence of asking for the representation of something would be a candidate saying why he is motivated for the job. No candidate should care about the motivation of other candidates. They should feel free to say what they want, irrespectively of other candidates having better reasons. You attach the reason for wanting some kind of representation to asking for representation, which is absurd. Also, if you hamper people in simply asking what they want, don't expect them to consider what you want.

 

Hiring person A is 'catering' to the LGBT community whereas hiring person C is not. You can only justify hiring person A by using words like 'inclusion', polluting the representation argument and defining 'fair' and 'equal' in such a way that they coincidentally correspond to what you want.

Once again, false equivalence.

 

Determining who is a good candidate for a job, and who is as deserving of fun and enjoyment that represents them is two completely different things.  One most definitely has skills, enthusiasm, as a requirement, the other the only requirement is being a human being deserving of the same rights as any other, but sadly is not getting it.

 

Obviously if say hiring a fireman, you don't hire the 110 pound never exercised in her life lesbian over the 210 pound straight male athlete.  You are over simplifying.  When comparing two things, you take both of those two things into consideration.

 

If say a transgender girl applies for the job, as does a straight guy, and both have equal qualifications, and both desire the job strongly.  With laws what they are, and discrimination in this respect pretty much acceptable anywhere to not hire, and fire people for simply being transgender, it would behoove you to hire the transgender girl.  Why?  Because it makes you the exception to the rule, unlike the straight white guy, she will be rejected in said situation most every time because her existence makes the person hiring them uncomfortable and the law doesn't protect them, so they can.  If you don't hire the straight white guy, he probably will have very little trouble finding a different job in comparison.  If you don't hire her, she is quite likely screwed, because no one else likely will either.

 

So if two people of equal skill show up to get hired, but one has a much larger handicap in getting hired, due to discriminatory reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job, the right thing to do is hire the person who deserves the job just as much as the other person, but unlike them, is more likely to suffer for being denied it.  It is the option with the least harm that is more beneficial overall.

 

See the thing is taking the whole picture, and deciding from there.

 

You're creating skewed pictures, where with the whole picture you are right, and using them as reasons to ignore when the whole picture has you wrong.  It's false equivalence. 

 

Representation in the entertainment industry, specifically a game, were you create the hero and are supposed to be able to identify with them, and enjoy the world in your characters shoes, is in no way comparable to a job where qualifications matter.  Because everyone is qualified equally in deserving the ability to make their hero and be able to identify with them.  Every player is as deserving of getting the same enjoyment, of getting their equivalent of "the girl" as the next one.  The game is designed so that each hero can do that and has options in doing so.  It's goal it to not leave anyone out unfairly.  Straight males have not lost options in this game, it's the same as the usual number.  Gays have been brought to the same number of options as the straight male.  So my questions is, do you think it's unfair that both gay males and straight males get the same number of options, and thus same chance to enjoy the same game?