630 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

It seems increasingly apparent that few people have any actual logical conception about what 'equality' means or demands at all.

I'll bite. What does equality mean and demand?

[raging_monkey]

I'll bite. What does equality mean and demand?

don't do it

[BabyPuncher]

I'll bite. What does equality mean and demand?

Well, it necessitates the obliteration of any concept of value of any quality available to humans.

Which, on top of being moronic and morally revolting, is impossible. Thankfully.

[God]

Hey hey, David's on about something that doesn't exist again (except in his mind)!

[AlanC9]

Same BSN, different day.

[raging_monkey]

Same BSN, different day.

some days there's cake

[BabyPuncher]

It is understood why equality necessitates obliteration of value, yes? And why that's a tremendously stupid and morally degenerative thing to attempt?

[BansheeOwnage]

It seems increasingly apparent that few people have any actual logical conception about what 'equality' means or demands at all.

You know how this sort of thing makes feel?

Contemptuous. Contemptuous of this whole 'struggle' and the people involved with it. That's the legacy you're leaving me, and no doubt many others.

Wouldn't want you to have any silly illusions that this is a 'positive, positive, positive' influence, now.

I would think that equality at the very least means not getting killed because of how you were born. I mean, people aren't supposed to be getting killed at all. And yes, that struggle is indeed real. Be thankful you don't have to go through it.

 

Hardly. Just simple reality. I'm doing people a favor. Helping them understand that this sort of thing is likely really not as simple as 'the more we do this, the more people embrace and love whatever minority blah blah blah'

Look, I know perfectly well that it takes more than simply putting characters in media to change society, but you'd be a fool if you said that wasn't a part of it.

[BabyPuncher]

I would think that equality at the very least means not getting killed because of how you were born. I mean, people aren't supposed to be getting killed at all.

It is perfectly possible to condemn people being killed without making a hypocrite of yourself, you know.

You're going to tell me you wouldn't look differently at a very attractive person and person with a horrible birth defeat of some sort? Wouldn't to be more likely to think about, dream about one type over the other? Both the way there are because of how they were born. No choice in the matter.

That's privledge. That's something that every thinking human does every day of his or her life.

[Steelcan]

It is perfectly possible to condemn people being killed without making a hypocrite of yourself, you know.

You're going to tell me you wouldn't look differently at a very attractive person and person with a horrible birth defeat of some sort? Wouldn't to be more likely to think about, dream about one type over the other? Both the way there are because of how they were born. No choice in the matter.

That's privledge. That's something that every thinking human does every day of his or her life.

but the real question is "are they heroic enough?"

[BansheeOwnage]

It is perfectly possible to condemn people being killed without making a hypocrite of yourself, you know.

You're going to tell me you wouldn't look differently at a very attractive person and person with a horrible birth defeat of some sort? Wouldn't to be more likely to think about, dream about one type over the other? Both the way there are because of how they were born. No choice in the matter.

That's privledge. That's something that every thinking human does every day of his or her life.

You're talking about personal preferences, in this case appearance. One of the most basic principles of equality is that that is irrelevant. If people think badly of someone because they don't like how they look, that's just sad, too.

[BabyPuncher]

You're talking about personal preferences, in this case appearance. One of the most basic principles of equality is that that is irrelevant. If people think badly of someone because they don't like how they look, that's just sad, too.

Irrelevant to what, exactly?

[Aren]

I wish they hadn't said about Hawke/****** left in the Fade until they revealed it. Or actually, made it so the Weisshaupt character was the one that was killed off instead of the Fade character. (Which they still might do) But the point is, the fates of these people should be left mysterious until the right moment.

 

Oh and as a Cersei lover, seeing the High Sparrow makes me cry angry tears... 

well i do not know the story of games of thrones, the books,so i do not know cersei's fate.

I'm still into the first meeting between her and the sparrow,he seem a good man,is he a good man ?

[Aren]

I'm really disappointed to hear about the Hawke/Fade part.  I kind of suspected it when it said "will likely die", but it's still disappointing to hear that this choice will ultimately be negated.  It's just faux choice in that case.  The illusion of choice, unless there are some serious consequences depending on who gets left behind.  I might be bitter because I was really pleased about the prospect of killing off Hawke, but I still think it's a bum deal.

Flemeth has said something on the line "you will learn to fly into the abyss"

i expect tha Hawke will become a bizzare Spirit, or will have two beautiful wings

[KaiserShep]

You know how this sort of thing makes feel?

Contemptuous. Contemptuous of...

 

Hah. You could end this sentence with just about anything and it's all the same these days. 

[DuskWanderer]

There might be choice. Something different might happen for Hawke, Alistair, Stroud, or Loghain. Mind you, I don't know what they are, but that could actually be kinda cool. I'm not optimistic, but BioWARE has earned the right to try. 

 

In regards to the other stuff, I think Weekes shot himself in the foot with Krem. 

[BansheeOwnage]

Irrelevant to what, exactly?

Irrelevant to equality.

[In Exile]

Well, it necessitates the obliteration of any concept of value of any quality available to humans.

Which, on top of being moronic and morally revolting, is impossible. Thankfully.

This is a veritable nonsense stew of verbiage. Substantive equality has no connection to the notion of "sameness" you're trying to peddle. "Equality" is simply a shorthand term for the social policy choices we make to address victory and loss in the natural lottery that is birth.

[Drasanil]

This is a veritable nonsense stew of verbiage. Substantive equality has no connection to the notion of "sameness" you're trying to peddle. "Equality" is simply a shorthand term for the social policy choices we make to address victory and loss in the natural lottery that is birth.

 

That in itself is flawed. Physical beauty [a social advantage] or lack there of [a social disadvantage] is a lottery of birth, how do you propose "Equality" deal with such things, make everyone ugly, pretty or plainish?

 

Or how about something unintuitive, discriminating against the impaired? A disproportionately high number of dyslexics make up the leaders of fortune 500 companies, should there be affirmative action against dyslexics? What about just getting everyone to agree on what constitutes genuine equality in the first place? People have had a field day with that for a long time. 

 

The original and true notion of Equality has never been about balancing the scales, as such becomes inevitably futile, but rather about formal equality before the law. That doesn't mean you are arbitrarily owed anything, or that you should be given special exemption from having your feelings hurt because you're a member of what ever currently fashionable victim-group happens to win out in the lottery of political correctness*.  

 

*Witness many liberals refusing to condemn Islam (whilst having no such qualms with regards to Christianity) for oppressing women because muslims themselves are also a "victim" group.  

[KaiserShep]

This is a veritable nonsense stew of verbiage. Substantive equality has no connection to the notion of "sameness" you're trying to peddle. "Equality" is simply a shorthand term for the social policy choices we make to address victory and loss in the natural lottery that is birth.

 

You dare challenge his heroism? 

[BabyPuncher]

Irrelevant to equality.

Are you out of your mind? It's completely relevant. How could individuals thinking one thing or group or person is better than another not affect what is literally...exactly that. Groups and people being seen as better or worse than others.

A simple example. I find fat people unattractive. A personal preference. The majority of people in the western world have the same preference. And because of that aggregated preference, (at least in part, anyway) fat people as a group are unequal. They're considered as less.

Let me take a wild guess. You've somehow come up with the notion that groups face inequalities because 'society' feels that way...ignoring the fact that that's literally all society is. A collection of individuals with ideas and preferences.

[BabyPuncher]

This is a veritable nonsense stew of verbiage. Substantive equality has no connection to the notion of "sameness" you're trying to peddle. "Equality" is simply a shorthand term for the social policy choices we make to address victory and loss in the natural lottery that is birth.

A 'shorthand.'

So is this 'shorthand' accepting of the inevitable inequalities - that's 'inequalities' as in the actual defined word - that have and will arise when we place value on human qualities?

Accepting of the reality that people are going to be excluded, people are going to be marginalized, people are going to be barred from the places they want to be and the roles they want to play?

Largely perfectly innocent and decent people, who often just simply lucked out on the genetic lottery?

And of course, all the effects due to that. Suicides, violence, drugs, abuse, self harm, depression, people shooting up schools and workplaces, yada, yada, yada. The usual stuff.

Or are we back to wringing our hands, saying that's all unacceptable, and demanding 'equality' after all? Equality as in the real word this time around?

[Dai Grepher]

Yes, I did. And yes, something more along the lines of species-ism exists in DA, and that can be explored, specifically because it can be an allegory to real life without hurting anyone. But homophobia, transphobia, etc. do not exist in DA, and it would make no sense for the PC to take real-world values into the game for the sake of itself.

 

The LGBT community consists of much more than 1% of the population, and you can be sure that more than just that community enjoys stories that have those elements in them.

 

But it is still prejudice based on how one is born. That could conceivably hurt someone's feelings who has been the target of racism. Yet, no one is up in arms about this feature being shown in the DA universe.

 

I don't know about phobias, more terms that have lost all meaning, but characters have raised objections to homosexuality and transgenderism in the DA universe before.

 

The point you keep missing here is that including dialogue options to promote, oppose, question, or show indifference to those issues is what the games need. You may not like the options to oppose those things, but their existence gives your choice of promoting those things in the game significance and defines your character how you want. This is opposed to the options being chosen for you. I don't want those options in for the sake of itself, I want them there so the players can define their custom characters.

 

As for any offense or hurt feelings, too bad. A while ago Gaider and Weeks posted about how Inquisition almost had a rape storyline in it. But they cut it for being too distracting from the main story, NOT because they thought it would cause offense or hurt feelings to the players. They concluded that a story should not be cut just because it might offend. I think that's correct, and I think it applies to these issues as well.
 

I was only referring to the T with the 1% comment.

[BabyPuncher]

Oh, by the way, this is hardly some far-fetched hypothetical process. We can see it happening frequently enough.

The concept of beauty hurts people. It marginalizes and excludes people who don't meet those ideals. So what do people attempt to do? Obliterate the concept of beauty. And so we see drivel such as "all bodies are beautiful" and whatnot. The goal is to turn 'beauty' into a pointless, empty word. To obliterate any meaning behind it.

The concept of gender hurts people. It excludes or marginalized people who don't or can't meet the ideals and norms. So what do people attempt to do? Obliterate the concept of gender. Turn masculinity and femininity into meaningless, empty words. Hence the people gleefully eager to point out that baby boys were once dressed in pink and so forth to 'prove' that anyone who believes masculinity or feminine mean anything is an archaic fool.

Hence the mainstream 'progressive' stance of "A woman is a person who identifies as a woman." It should be obvious to any idiot that this is a definition that literally carries no meaning - which is precisely the point. To make the concept of 'woman'' and therefore gender, as empty and meaningless as possible. To obliterate it.

Inevitably, of course, these attempts have been pathetic failures. And they'll continue to be, since they're utterly inundated with hypocrisy.

[Dai Grepher]

 There is a difference with Elves hating humans. Elves are marginalized in the DA world. I don't find that an issue because they are a minority group pissed off for being enslaved and treated like trash. This is the same for transgender. They are marginalized in the real world. They are more likely to be MURDERED for being who they are. So no I don't think it is okay to include transphobic dialogue so you can be a bigot in a fictional world. Further marginalizing them. Yeah in this case it is completely okay to tell a consumer base to freaking shoo and a lot of other not so nice things. I may hate the way bioware has treated the DA series, but respect the hell out of them for providing lgbtq representation without pandering to bigots.

 

The point is that racism exists in the game world, yet no one is calling for that to be removed.
 

You call it transphobic, but it has nothing to do with phobia. Merely disagreeing with The Iron Bull's perspective of gender is not a phobia, it is a different opinion.

 

People in the real world are not marginalized by gamers choosing dialogue lines in a video game.

 

Well I'm glad you feel that way. Now, what happens if Weeks quits BioWare and is replaced by Kirk Cameron?

 

Dragon Age 4: The Lord Jesus Christ arrives in Thedas to show people of all races, nationalities, sexualities, and philosophies the TRUE way. Your Hero, Champion, and Inquisitor will all come to accept Christ into their hearts. You aren't given the option to reject Christ, since that would be Christophobic. I mean, Christians are being murdered in the Middle East simply for who they are. You can't have anti-Christian dialogue choices in the game. That could hurt the feelings of Christians. So if you don't like this new storyline direction then you should go find a different video game series.

 

So, would you have any objections to this prospect, or would you embrace it just as strongly?