Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Bloodlines 2 Links  (Read 20469 times)

Offline DarkProphet

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
  • Reputation: +261/-2
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #435 on: May 09, 2020, 07:49:01 PM »
Oh, good grief.


Who's saying that the pronoun choice will affect dialogue? If you've chosen she/her pronouns, then doubtless the NPCs will treat you as feminine, and vice versa.


(based on the perfectly realistic assumption that if you've chosen she/her pronouns for them, you will want your character to be treated as feminine)


Besides, there are plenty of ways to write great dialogue without being gender-specific - talk about shitting on Brian Mitsoda's craft, to imply otherwise.


I do think a certain subset of people will be very upset, though, to find out that you can make a fairly masculine-looking character with she/her pronouns that will be treated as feminine by NPCs...



This would require at LEAST three audio tracks for each character differentiating between the sexes. As I stated, that would be quite expensive, and would get them in hot water with the media if the dialogue pertaining to males and females is more substantial than that pertaining to "other." This isn't a text-based game where you can just swap in "he," "she," "zi," "they," etc. because the character would have to say it.


Where are you proposing they get the money to do that while simultaneously risking an upheaval from the media for not giving as much special dialogue to trans/nonbinary folks?

Offline Candy Narwhal

  • Neonate
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Reputation: +3/-1
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #436 on: May 09, 2020, 08:21:52 PM »
This nonsense about "the media" getting upset with Hardsuit Labs is a bad-faith argument, let's be clear about that first of all.

Nobody is going to be upset with Hardsuit Labs for being inclusive, because the bar for inclusivity is practically underground.

Other than the people who feel threatened by inclusivity, of course - but they're not going to complain for the same reason you're suggesting, are they now?

As for the amount of variable dialogue - the first game boasted a metric fuckton of it, on a much smaller budget than what they've got to work with for this sequel, so I doubt that's going to be an issue.

Consider this, as well:

In dialogue or any other type of correspondence, NPCs are only rarely going to refer to your character in the third person.

I actually can't think of a single instance in the first game where they did so, at all - even when they were talking amongst themselves, the protagonist was consistently referred to as "the fledgling" by NPCs.

They haven't confirmed anything either way, but I reckon we'll get to pick between he/she/they for pronouns, and they might redress the choice of sex (determining how NPCs perceive you) as the character simply being masculine or feminine in overall appearance.

I think the only practical difference it will make, is if the character gets to assert themselves in a gendered way (the female protagonist of the first game proclaiming that she's a "badass bitch" comes to mind), and maybe a couple of NPCs will have reactions to that.

Other than that, it's a minor vanity choice - one optional factor of roleplaying immersion among others. You don't have to engage with it, and I think it's unfair to presume that it will affect the quality of the game in any meaningful way, just because it's there.

(again, you would do well to remember that a majority of the dialogue in the original game was non-gendered, and written excellently despite that - and if this sequel didn't expressly let you choose your character's pronouns, yet still referred to the PC in non-gendered ways, do you really think we'd be talking about that?)

In a way, I think it's a shame they had to make a point out of this inclusivity, because it has invited scrutiny that could've been so easily avoided...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 08:38:57 PM by Candy Narwhal »

Offline DarkProphet

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
  • Reputation: +261/-2
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #437 on: May 09, 2020, 08:49:30 PM »
This nonsense about "the media" getting upset with Hardsuit Labs is a bad-faith argument, let's be clear about that first of all.

Nobody is going to be upset with Hardsuit Labs for being inclusive, because the bar for inclusivity is practically underground.


Other than the people who feel threatened by inclusivity, of course - but they're not going to complain for the same reason you're suggesting, are they now?


I've already provided evidence in my earlier post from just a few weeks back (the Borderlands 3 DLC article) of the media dunking on Gearbox because it made a gay wedding DLC that didn't take on the journalist's political agenda by mocking the writer whose work it pardodies/homages. So no, the inclusivity won't be the problem according to the media. It will be whatever random political agenda some journalist supports that he or she decides to say Bloodlines 2 should have championed but didn't.



Quote
As for the amount of variable dialogue - the first game boasted a metric fuckton of it, on a much smaller budget than what they've got to work with for this sequel, so I doubt that's going to be an issue.



While Bloodlines 1 may have had a smaller budget, Bloodlines 2 looks just as complex and they no doubt have a small team working on DLC which costs money as well. Otherwise, it would take a year or two to make the werewolf-related DLC. Hey, now perhaps the money they'll save from developing Nosferatu and Gangrel for launch can be used to help scare up some cash for more dialog, but I don't know. I feel for people who are going to be angry that those aren't in the game at launch, but I just don't like Gangrel in general, and hated playing Nosferatu in Bloodlines 1, so I'm not too upset about that delay. But I digress. Unless we know the costs (which we don't), we can't really say if they have enough money or not. It's safe to assume, though, that if they're spending as much as they're willing to spend and have the game (hopefully) turn out profitable, that they will try to spend that money as best they can to put out a good product.


With that in mind, if the company is allocating all of its expenditures to make the best game they can and they might say "Hmm, making male, female, and 'other' dialog variants is going to cost an arm and a leg. Let's just make all of them generic with no sex mentioned and spend the money saved elsewhere." That's completely reasonable. I wouldn't like it, but it's a reasonable conclusion. Having just male and female for some costs a fair bit more, but having to add one more more beyond that to deal with "they, zi, etc." has to add up or developers would just do that to score brownie points with games journalists.


Quote
Consider this, as well:

In dialogue or any other type of correspondence, NPCs are only rarely going to refer to your character in the third person.

I actually can't think of a single instance in the first game where they did so, at all - even when they were talking amongst themselves, the protagonist was consistently referred to as "the fledgling" by NPCs.

They haven't confirmed anything either way, but I reckon we'll get to pick between he/she/they for pronouns, and they might redress the choice of sex (determining how NPCs perceive you) as the character simply being masculine or feminine.



Yeah, most characters didn't talk about you to others in the third person, but when they talk to your character, some might say like "You look like a guy who..." and things like that, which would either require a bunch of different recordings when dealing with a bunch of different pronouns. While I agree with you that NPCs referring to you by the sex you look to be is a great option from a reasonable perspective, from a social justice perspective, that's heresy. You know...the whole "Did you just assume my gender?!!?!?  :angry: " trope. That's a massive trigger for a microcosm of people who are incredibly loud who have the media's ear.

Offline NateHevens

  • Annoying Noob
  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #438 on: May 09, 2020, 09:17:02 PM »
All right... I don't know what the hell's wrong with the quote function here, but this is meant to be a response to Dark Prophet...

Quote
Nate, as for what I mean, I actually would like to directly address one of the things you brought up: choosing pronouns. Yes, that actually is a bad thing, in my opinion. Why? Oh, not for any political, religious, or other reason one might expect, but because there are various situations in Bloodlines 1 where choosing to be male or female makes a big difference in dialog for players, making each playthrough more interesting. For example, if you talk to Mercurio about Jeanette as a male character, he lewdly proclaims "Jeanette's got a body built for bedrooms." However, if you're playing a female character, Mercurio is clearly uncomfortable talking about Jeanette in that way around you, and he begrudgingly tells you about it after a little dialog. If you let the player choose from a dozen or so pronouns, that scene can't happen like that.

Also, Jeanette herself greets the player and it is an energetic, aggressively teasing intro, with "You smell new, little boy," or "You smell new, little girl," and I'm sure that's a very memorable line for players of both sexes (including "like fabric softener dew on freshly mowed astroturf," that comes next =p). If everyone can be "zi" or whatever pronouns they choose, lines like "You smell new little boy/girl" won't exist in Bloodlines 2 since neither will apply. Just saying "You smell new, like fabric softener dew..." does not sufficiently encapsulate Jeanette's sucker-punch of an aggressive tease right off the bat by calling the player "little boy" or "little girl." It just establishes that she's weird instead, thus completely changing the scene. Could it have been written another way to pull it off well? Perhaps, but the more words that she's "forbidden" from saying, the less teasing things can be. They can't possibly afford to pay the voice actors/actresses to do the plethora of different pronouns of dialog lines that would be necessary to deal with this situation, so instead we are going to get replies that will be the same across all playthroughs as it pertains to your sex/gender. So in truth, by giving "more options," we get less outcomes.

If one were to say "But Mercurio is being sexist!" I would say "Yes, and having him be super politically correct in the early 2000s despite being about 50 years old while working for a criminal organization of immortals nightly would likely leave him not caring about political correctness and likely clinging to some of the older trappings of sex/gender roles and the like." In his formative years, the overwhelming majority of females were likely unsettled or insulted hearing such things from him, while the overwhelming majority of males were likely not outright upset by him saying things like that back in the day." It doesn't mean I approve of or disapprove of Mercurio. It means he's a well-made character and not a device made as a real-world political activism mouthpiece.

Fat Larry has some similarities, referring to a male player character as "playa" and treating him differently from a female player character, whom he calls "baby girl" since he's a flirty, quirky guy who likes the ladies a whole lot. In game mechanics, he's nothing more than a shop that gives you a brief, minor sidequest with no supernatural ties/lore, but Fat Larry's dialog differences between males and females make him one of those experiences that really sticks out between different playthroughs based on your sex/gender selection. That can't happen with Bloodlines 2 because of the pronoun selection since the non-male/non-female choices would require a ton of extra recorded lines.

Also, the pronoun selection is technically pointless except in quest logs and e-mails/texts. Why? As I just said, there's no way they can afford to cover a bunch of different pronouns in the dialog. Just look at Fallout 4 with Cogsworth and saying the player's name. He's the only character who does it. It was done to impress players, but it's purely a one-off gimmick that was too expensive to pay various other characters to do it as well, or we would've had that for the other characters, too. Heck, Bethesda had to have far more leeway on budgeting for Fallout 4 than Hardsuit Labs does for Bloodlines 2.

While I hope they had enough money to pay for male, female, and "other" (i.e. three total versions of sex/gender-relevant lines) from voice actors and actresses so that players choosing male and female can get some flavor from their choices, I'm not holding my breath that they'll have the money for it or risk the political "cancel culture" fallout of doing so.

Just imagine if male and female characters get vivid lines specific to each, while the pronoun choices other than "he" and "she" lose out on all of those lines. The "games journalists" will write hit pieces saying that the game does the LGBTQ+ community dirty and how that Hardsuit Labs and/or Paradox clearly aren't "allies" and that they're favoring "cis" folks, and thus are transphobic. This isn't a stretch. Political correctness stories come out all the time crapping on creators who try to be "inclusive" but didn't serve the journalist's political agenda sufficiently to his or her satisfaction.

I'm quoting all of this because my reply is to the whole thing.

I think you're underestimating the writing abilities of Brian Mitsoda. I also think you're unfairly trying to pigeon-hole 2 into the world of 1. I have said time and again that I do not want 2 to resemble 1 all that much. 1 is a product of its time, taking place in 2004. In fact, one could argue that it's slightly behind its time, because it takes place in 2004 yet resembles late-90s goth.

2 is supposed to take place much later in the early part of the 21st century... namely, closer to today. If the game is going to actually use the world it claims to use [that is, a twisted version of actual reality], it needs to resemble today... not 2004 or the late 90s.

1 was, in fact, very political. There's no way the story line about the Anarchs against the Camarilla wasn't political commentary on capitalism and government verses individual rights. Granted, you can choose what side to support, but the game wants you to see the Anarchs as the "good guys"... at least Nines and Damsel, if no one else... and Prince LaCroix, the power-hungry, authoritarian-wannabe Capitalist as the villain (even though you can absolutely join him). I would argue that 1 has a very left-wing bent to it, especially in its exploration of power, governments, and wealth. It's shallow, to be fair, but it has to be for players to choose where to side. But the consequences for your choices are obvious...

If you choose LaCroix, you die. If you choose the Kuei Jin, you die. If you choose the Camarilla, you remain a stooge while Max Strauss takes power. But if you choose the Anarchs... that's the closest the game has to a happy ending. You not only survive, but you get to walk away.

If you choose to play for yourself, but choose to open the casket in an attempt to amass power for yourself, you die. But if you choose to walk away, you live... again something resembling a "happy" ending.

The game wants you to sympathize with the Anarch view. That's pretty damn political.

But that was also the politics of the time. These days, people are coming to the realization that identity politics (not the Liberal Weaponization of Identity, which is what those links you provided are showcasing... they are different things) are an incredibly important part of the political dialog these days. Like politics in general, identity politics informs our entire lives. In the US, for example, white supremacy and patriarchy are major talking points, even moreso now that we have proud, open Nazis marching in our streets chanting shit like "Jews Will Not Replace us". We also have cops, mostly white, murdering black people and getting away with it. Trans people, especially black trans women, are being murdered and these cases aren't even being investigated. Quite literally, the United States is facing an identity crisis akin to Germany post WWI and pre WWII. Add #MeToo to that, which was yet another attempt to move the societal pendulum from "fuck victims; they're all liars and deserve to be harassed, run out of town, and have their homes burned down for ruining the precious reputations of the men they accused (and then proved, in a court of law) of raping them" to "you know... maybe we should actually take these accusations seriously and investigate them before deciding whether or not the victim is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad liar".

(And for the record, I'm not suggesting that these discussions can't be taken way too far... proud SJW that I am, the whole "manspreading" conversation made me roll my eyes so much I was afraid they'd get stuck staring at my brain. Yes, it's fucking annoying when someone takes up more than one seat on crowded public transport, and it was easily shown that men tended to do it more than women did [and there are several reasons for that], but it simply wasn't the big deal that some places, like Huffington Post [a bastion not of Identity Politics, but of the Liberal Weaponization of Identity], tried to make it.)

Now, I keep separating Identity Politics from the Liberal Weaponization of Identity. To give an example of what I mean... Identity Politics is, as the name makes clear, the politics of identity. We all operate under it, and no one, not even you, are immune to it. Fair or not, our identities inform the way we interact with societies. In the US, for example, as someone who was born a Jew, I am utterly terrified of the rise in Nazism here. I can actually understand why black people in the US don't trust the police, given how often the police terrorize black people here. The pay gap is a proven fact for the US (I don't know about it in other countries). Women are demonstrably paid less for the exact same job even after you account for all other variables (in other words, if you take a woman and a man with identical qualifications for the job, working in the same company, doing the same job, for the exact same amount of time, she will be making less than him). And once you introduce identities like race and gender, that gets even worse (with black trans women experiencing the largest gap).

The Liberal Weaponization of Identity, on the other hand, is, basically, the effort by the wealthy elite to keep us, the workers, at each other's throats so we don't come together and realize that they, in fact, are our collective enemy. This looks a lot like, for example, Bill Maher scoffing at the idea that a woman can rape a man, or a boy, while getting angry over the reverse (it's good to get angry at rape, but to insist that women cannot rape men is disgusting and hypocritical). Another perfect example is that horrible Pepsi ad that shows people protesting nothing until that Kardashian (whoever it is) gives a cop a Pepsi and suddenly there's world peace; not only is it just a bad commercial, but it's a shitty message, as well. Yet another great example of this is the Gillette ad. In this case, the message is actually good, but the execution is hypocritical, because it's from Gillette, a massive corporation that doesn't actually give a shit about the message; it was all to generate controversy to increase their profits. And, sadly, it worked.

The Liberal Weaponization of Identity is inherently contradictory, and it's supposed to be. That's the entire point.

Feminism, social justice, etc, are not the Liberal Weaponization of Identity. They are Identity Politics.

Back to Bloodlines...

Identity Politics is our current political conversation. And not just the politics of race or gender, but of religion, and class, as well. I don't see why 2 2 shouldn't tackle that. And given the deft, well-written way they tackled the politics of power in 1, I fully trust the writers, like Brian Mitsoda, to give us Identity Politics, and not the Liberal Weaponization of Identity, in 2.

To bring this around to your worry about dialog choices... you are absolutely correct that the types of dialog we got on 1 would not work with pronoun choices. But would the lack of identical dialog in 2 be a bad thing? Do you actually want that same dialog in 2? Why? It would not only be out of place in the game, but it'd be out of place in the time the game is supposed to take place (2015 or later). I don't believe that said dialog is required for good writing. We don't need it, and I, for one, won't miss it. And if you do, you could always just play 1 again.

(Another giant quote...)

Quote
Now I'm delving into the "woke" aspect a bit, as to what I was referring to before. So, continuing from the above paragraph, let's look at an example. Have you heard about the Borderlands 3 Guns, Love, & Tentacles DLC? I'm sure Gearbox had nothing but good (and profitable) intent when they decided "Hey, let's make an H.P. Lovecraftian planet with silly, creepy quests, and the entire mission is to help two likable gay men in love get married. Welp, apparently this dead H.P. Lovecraft guy was a racist and a homophobe. A journalist from GameSpot then took it upon himself ( https://www.gamespot.com/articles/borderlands-3-guns-love-and-tentacles-dlc-hand-wav/1100-6475340/ ) to publicly defecate on Gearbox's "progressive" DLC by implying that Gearbox needed to somehow mock H.P. Lovecraft's racism and homophobia, and that since it didn't do that, Gearbox totally failed and the DLC is "problematic." He also gripes about the villain claiming the gay characters' love is lesser than the love between herself and her husband, but um...SHE IS THE VILLAIN. She's supposed to be evil and the object of the player's frustration. Also, she doesn't say it's because their gay or make any such insinuations.
This also happened when journalists got epic hard-ons about Far Cry 5, wanting it to be all about real-world political messages when that's not what Far Cry 1, 3, or 4 were really about (I hated 2 and didn't finish it). This asshole ( https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17176308/far-cry-5-review-xbox-ps4-pc ) is clearly butt-hurt that the game doesn't make the villains be racists to make social commentary about White Nationalists, when there's no evidence that the villains were ever supposed to be racists or White Nationalists. He admits the game makes political one-liners dissing Trump and such, but it is "a game for cowards" (his words) as it didn't go the distance and become a piece of political activism for the journalist's agenda. So the developers put a couple of pro-Left jokes in the game, and journalists call their game "a game for cowards."

Here's another prick ( https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/27/17165252/far-cry-5-story-characters ) who knocks on Far Cry 5 because it doesn't take up the cause for the political agenda he wants it to. There is a phrase that's been coined: "the Left eat their own." People do something "progressive," but it's just not progressive enough, according to some jackasses, and those jackasses then proceed to put out publications attempting to shame the developers for having the gall to do something in favor of the Left...but not take it far enough to stick it to the opposition.

I don't want to see Hardsuit Labs' writers put out something A) not woke enough that gets them shamed into oblivion to the point that it hurts their sales, or B) so woke that they "get woke, go broke" because the game ends up being such a piece of political propaganda/activism that it's no longer an attempt at a good game, but focuses the majority of its efforts on "owning the deplorables."

As I mentioned above... those links don't demonstrate Identity Politics, but the Liberal Weaponization of Identity. I actually abhor what the latter has done to concept of "woke". Woke started amongst black people, as a way to describe people (of any race) who actually figure out the whole racism thing. But Capitalism got ahold of that, and elites got ahold of that, and ruined it. And now it's excoriated because of that. Same thing happened to "SJW". Technically, Martin Luther King, Jr was an SJW (and oh boy do I have words on that, but this isn't the post... but I happen think the US did MLK's legacy super dirty). But when Capitalists and Elites get ahold of a concept, it becomes a joke.

And BTW, that's on purpose. The elite want that to happen. It's yet another way they can turn us workers against ourselves, to distract us from them and their greed, and the oppression of Capitalism (have I mentioned yet that I'm a Socialist who leans towards Anarcho-Syndicalism/Anarcho-Communism?). And Hollywood Liberals are useful pawns in that game. Most of the Hollywood liberals who parrot this shit genuinely mean it; they aren't lying. But they're being duped.

Punching Up is actually a very important concept in social justice. It means taking care of your target. Someone who's wealthy making fun of the poor is not "funny"; it's mean-spirited and cruel. But someone who's poor making fun of themselves is fine... it's self-deprecation. Again, it's been abused as a concept by those invested in the Liberal Weaponization of Identity, but that doesn't make it a bad concept by itself.

And yes, people invested in the Liberal Weaponization of Identity are going to nitpick the game... it's what they do. Instead of getting angry at them, you can ignore them. Or you could look past the bullshit to see some good points being made. Even when Liberals are weaponizing identity, they manage to accidentally stumble onto some good points worth considering.

Quote
Similarly, I wouldn't want a developer on the Right to try to shame and push away people on the Left who play their games. We're here to have fun someplace where real-world politics aren't a big deal. Imagine if you were playing a game and suddenly the characters start talking about abortion in a pro-life angle, and anyone with pro-choice arguments is portrayed as an idiot or a villain, and the player has to support pro-life decisions in the game and it's obvious that's the only right answer per the writing and all else is belittled. Same with pro-gun arguments. Nationalism arguments. Arguments in support of building "the wall." Pro-religion arguments. Arguments of the inferiority and superiority of the values inculcated by certain cultures in America. The list goes on.

Yeah... that'd be frustrating if it were written badly. For me personally, it'd be annoying if it were written well, but at least if it's written well, the game itself could still potentially be good. I might not enjoy it, but a lot of people would. But it's not about the context; it's about the writing. If the writing's good, then the political content isn't so bad.

You say this: "We're here to have fun someplace where real-world politics aren't a big deal."

That's just... not a thing. Real-world politics inform everything. Real-world politics is in everything. I mean this in all seriousness: there is no such thing as "apolitical". It doesn't exist. There's shallow, bad, terrible explorations of politics, there's deep, good, well-written explorations of politics, and then there's (almost always failed) attempts at avoiding politics, which almost always end up being shallow, bad, terrible explorations of politics.

And people tend to miss that. It's amazing how people will complain about how Picard "forces politics into Star Trek" when Gene Rodenberry created Star Trek to explicitly critique things like Capitalism, racism, sexism, etc. If Gene Rodenberry were around today, he'd be excoriated by a lot of people as an SJW. He was a proud supporter of Civil Rights, and not just of black people, but also members of the LGBTQIA community (he was openly supportive of trans people and their rights), immigrants, religious minorities, etc. And he wrote all of that into Star Trek... and did so openly. Star Trek has always been political, and explicitly left-wing and SJW in its politics. (That's actually why William Shatner's current anti-"SJW" stance is so odd today... the show he was the main character of was openly and proudly SJW, left-wing, etc.)

Same with Star Wars. George Lucas easily qualifies as an SJW, and the Original Trilogy had that shit all throughout it. The Prequel Trilogy did, as well, although, to be fair, that was nowhere near as well-written as the OT. And that's actually the real problem with the Sequel Trilogy. It's not remotely cohesive, and Rise of Skywalker was so obviously an attempt to course-correct from Last Jedi it was ridiculous. It wasn't the "politics" of the sequel trilogy that killed it; that was in line with Lucas's vision from the very beginning. It was the writing.


Quote
Of course, I think the ultimate conclusion is that people shouldn't bother listening to the hard-reaching, bitter ramblings of games journalists trying to find something to bitch about when a developer actually did something progressive and the journalist should "take his/her win and walk away." Nothing's generally ever good enough for them unless it goes so far that it seems as though it may repel the "deplorables," because these folks don't want everyone to get along. They don't want minds changed. They don't want reasonable discussions. They want in-your-face fuck-you-if-you-disagree-with-us presentations lacking any subtlety and for games to be real-world political activism first; and maybe fun if that's still possible.

And that is not Identity Politics. That is the Liberal Weaponization of Identity.

Quote
I play games to visit an alternate reality where vampire politics are the only politics that matter, where all human politics are largely an afterthought, and I can be faced with murder/life-saving decisions and temptations in a cool power fantasy of mystical beings interacting with others in a cool setting. Being preached at and very unsubtly told by a game's hack writers that I am a bad person because I disagree with their politics is not why I play games. Unless the player's real-world politics/beliefs are to kill people who try to mind their own business without not hurting other humans, then I see no reason to openly try to insult and villainize the player.

Why do you lack such faith in Brian Mitsoda's writing? He did such a good job with 1, why do you think he'd be terrible with 2?

Also... "I play games to visit an alternate reality where vampire politics are the only politics that matter, where all human politics are largely an afterthought, and I can be faced with murder/life-saving decisions and temptations in a cool power fantasy of mystical beings interacting with others in a cool setting."

It's amazing that you don't realize how shallow a reading of Bloodlines 1 this is. "Human politics" was very openly placed throughout the game. It was unavoidable. Bloodlines 1 serves as a very deft, and very good, critique of power, authoritarianism, and Capitalism. It was a celebration of freedom (the Anarchs), but also a very deft critique of the very shallow kind of readings you're engaging in now, insisting on exploring shades of grey. It actually does a great job of exploring the identity politics of being a vampire in (the game's) reality, going to the point of exploring how one can be a "good vampire", and questioning if it's even possible. The metaphors inherent in the game are so obvious, I'm shocked you can ignore them like that.

Quote
Similarly, I wouldn't want a developer on the Right to try to shame and push away people on the Left who play their games. We're here to have fun someplace where real-world politics aren't a big deal. Imagine if you were playing a game and suddenly the characters start talking about abortion in a pro-life angle, and anyone with pro-choice arguments is portrayed as an idiot or a villain, and the player has to support pro-life decisions in the game and it's obvious that's the only right answer per the writing and all else is belittled. Same with pro-gun arguments. Nationalism arguments. Arguments in support of building "the wall." Pro-religion arguments. Arguments of the inferiority and superiority of the values inculcated by certain cultures in America. The list goes on.

But real-world politics are always a big deal. They were absolutely a big deal in 1, and they're a big deal in all of our media. That's literally the point of media... to explore real-world politics. It's completely unavoidable.

Let me skip the last bit and go straight to that trailer...

Quote
If you want to see what happens when a writer/creator goes too far to the "woke side," go to YouTube and search for "Bit trailer." It's a new trailer (just a few days old) for a vampire movie, and it goes out of its way to denigrate males. Could you imagine a trailer like this with all male vampires talking like this about females? Imagine the backlash from the Left. Also, the protagonist is a trans woman. Not really part of my argument, but I'm sure it scores all kinds of points for the writer/director/producer folks.

Okay so I watched it and... I'm sorry, but it feels like you're grasping at straws. The line you're referencing feels like it comes across as a joke. Obviously I've not seen the movie, and honestly, it doesn't look like a movie I'm that interested in seeing... maybe when it hits Netflix or whatever. So literally no one has any idea about the context of that line. It could be a joke... or she could even get "punished" for saying it at some point. You just don't know.

As for the main character being trans...

1) So what? Why is that even worth mentioning? Why does it matter? I mean, imagine if the main character was black. Would you say the same thing? If not, why not? What if the character was openly Jewish? Again... would you say the same thing? Now apply that to the situation here.

2) How do you even know? It's not stated in the trailer. Does the actress happen to be a trans woman (I honestly don't even know who that is)? If she is... again, so what? Again... why does it matter?

That line... you pointing out that the main character happens to be trans... is why I consistently get frustrated with complaints that something is "too woke". It's never because the media in question does a bad job with the subject matter (Supergirl took several seasons to stop being bad at it, and Batgirl hasn't done too well at it, either... both are good examples of the Liberal Weaponization of Identity, as opposed to genuine explorations of Identity Politics), but rather because a or the main character happens to not be a straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied man.

If the main character is said man... nobody panics; because it's all "part of the plan". But if one little old main character just happens to be played by, say, a trans actor... well then everyone loses their minds!

Imagine the concept of a black woman as 007. Not as James Bond! James Bond retires (because he's human... he has to get too old and tired and decide to retire eventually... or he dies), and a new character, who happens to be portrayed by a black woman, takes over the title as a new 007. The very thought sends certain people into an apoplectic fit, even though it'd work just fine with the right writers.

Or look at Doctor Who (which happens to be my all-time favorite show; although no, I haven't actually loved the Chibnall seasons very much... I love Jodie Whittaker, but the writing leaves much to be desired). This is a character who, technically, is immortal. This is so through this amazing process called regeneration; when near death the Doctor's body goes through said process, changing not just the look, but the cells, genetic material (whatever the Gallifreyan equivalent of DNA is), and even the mind and personality. I think it's been an oversight that the Doctor has always been portrayed by a white man, especially given the fact that there's nothing in the canon to suggest that regeneration is limited in this way, other than the consistent casting, which is never actually explained in the canon. So the fact that our main Doctor is currently played by Jodie Whittaker, and a new (well... technically... old) Doctor played by Jo Martin was introduced, makes perfect sense to me. If regeneration can restructure the personality and even the "DNA" of a Time Lord, why shouldn't that include the gender and skin color, at least sometimes?

I have never, and will never, understand the objection to that. I will never learn to understand that, and I will never be okay with it. Who gives a fuck about the racial, gender, and/or sexual identity of the actor/actress? That should literally be the one thing you don't care about in casting.

There is an exception, of course... when such casting serves an in-story purpose. And that could easily be the case for this Bit movie; we have no idea. But to bring that up at all, with what little information we do have, just... it's out of place and pointless. It serves no purpose.

ETA: Actually... I should address what some people think is a second exception... adapting a story for film or TV, and casting someone who is not the same gender and/or race as portrayed in said story.

I am actually torn on this one. Given the fact that we're talking about fictional characters, it's hard for me to care that much, but I can see some of the arguments from people who grew up with, say, a white Bruce Wayne, getting a film with a black Bruce Wayne. I'm wiling to forgive it, because that'd be a fascinating change and re-telling of the story if written well, IMO, but I can see why some might be put off by it. Of course, it'd also be easy to explain away, because as we all know, DC is a multi-verse, not a single universe, and exploring the identity politics of a black Bruce Wayne could easily be explained away as an Else-World's tale. So I don't really have a problem with it. I do get it in this case... I just don't care enough.

And that's with the fact that Batman is my all-time favorite comic book hero (alongside Wonder Woman).
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 09:49:23 PM by NateHevens »

Offline Candy Narwhal

  • Neonate
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Reputation: +3/-1
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #439 on: May 09, 2020, 09:24:33 PM »
(my quotes are not working either, sorry)

@DarkProphet:

How much of an impact did that GameSpot article have on Borderlands 3 - or the overall reception of Guns, Love and Tentacles - in the end?

If you cannot separate the art from the artist (while still acknowledging its more pernicious aspects, to quote a certain someone), you have no place in art criticism whatsoever, and nobody will take your opinion seriously.

I'm pretty sure that was the case with the writer of this article as well, wasn't it?

You know, in general - for as much power as is ascribed to this "microcosm of people", I don't see them making a big difference in the world.

Let's bring it back to when Jill Valentine wore short shorts instead of a skirt, and the Gamergate-type people were giving themselves heart attacks over it...

I didn't see a single feminist/progressive with anything to say about it (other than in responses to the above-mentioned people), positive or negative.

So, are they really that loud? I feel like the only ones making so much noise are the conservative people, who six years later will still insist that "did you just assume my gender?" is a real phrase that trans/nonbinary people actually use...

For the record, they don't. It's never been a real point of contention within the wider community - perhaps in a subsect of like 20 people in a circle jerk on Tumblr back in 2014, but Jesus Christ, you can't tell me these people "have the media's ear."

That's just not true.

Offline NateHevens

  • Annoying Noob
  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #440 on: May 09, 2020, 09:42:19 PM »
(Holy shit I'm gonna be editing my essay for the next year... what's with the formatting glitches?)

Offline Highwayman667

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Reputation: +4/-1
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #441 on: May 09, 2020, 10:02:07 PM »
DarkProphet and NateHevens... you guys need to be more precise :rofl:

Offline NateHevens

  • Annoying Noob
  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #442 on: May 09, 2020, 10:14:15 PM »
@Highwayman667 Shhhhh... be quiet  :walloftext:   :58_124: :grin:

Offline DarkProphet

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
  • Reputation: +261/-2
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #443 on: May 09, 2020, 10:37:35 PM »
(my quotes are not working either, sorry)

@DarkProphet:

How much of an impact did that GameSpot article have on Borderlands 3 - or the overall reception of Guns, Love and Tentacles - in the end?



That's impossible to tell. I will say that Borderlands 3 has an overall review score of 84%, while the first DLC (The Handsome Jackpot) has a 95%, and Guns, Love & Tentacles has a 64%, which is the lowest score of the presently released game and its DLC. Skimming the reviews, none of them say "I thought this DLC sucked because I read an article written by a political hack." Then again, I wouldn't expect them to. My concern isn't how the article will influence people playing it, but how it will influence potential buyers. I would like Bloodlines 2 to sell well if it's a good game, and bad press may drive people away from it.


Quote
If you cannot separate the art from the artist (while still acknowledging its more pernicious aspects, to quote a certain someone), you have no place in art criticism whatsoever, and nobody will take your opinion seriously.



I agree that it should be that way, but you could say "Hitler was a horrible human being and I'm glad he's gone. I really like his paintings, though," and - if you were a relevant Internet personality or celebrity - the news article headlines would read "Candy Narwhal speaks up in favor of Hitler's work." Headlines are what a ton of people read. They don't have time to read articles or don't make time, and all they see are the headlines, and media professionals looking to manipulate others are well aware of this. Just reading the headline "Borderlands 3 Guns, Love, And Tentacles DLC Hand-Waves Major Issues With Lovecraft's Work" doesn't tell you that the journalist is a piece of shit charlatan of a professional writer. However, the average idiot consumer who doesn't bother to read the article and trusts headlines will think "Oh, the DLC sucks." The person is being foolish, sure, and it's his/her fault for not reading the article and buying into it, but people buy games based on "I heard it was good" or don't buy them based on "I heard it sucked," etc. Bad press hurts sales. Although I don't particularly value those kinds of stupid people all that highly, I value their money for getting games I like to sell well.



Quote
I'm pretty sure that was the case with the writer of this article as well, wasn't it?



Stupid people who don't put a lot of thought into their purchases may see the headline and pass. That's undesirable for Borderlands fans wanting more content. He got clicks for his employer from people going to read his sham of "journalistic integrity," so his employer is happy, I suppose, even if I don't respect them...though to be fair, I don't respect any of the big media outlets these days. I used to read IGN articles several times per day, but they devolved into this garbage on a regular basis over time.


Quote
You know, in general - for as much power as is ascribed to this "microcosm of people", I don't see them making a big difference in the world.



Well, I mean refusing to call a male who says he is a "she" now by "she" is a crime in Canada that you can be fined for. People are entitled to their own beliefs about themselves, but imposing them on others is unethical. Just as John Smith, a hypothetical leader of a religious cult, should not legally be able to require that people call him "Father Smith" if they don't share his cults beliefs, I shouldn't be required to call a trans woman "she" if I don't share the belief that the trans woman is a female. You do your thing. I do my thing. Unless I start physically assaulting people, stealing shit, etc., I want us to be able to live in peace and not get jailed or fined for having different beliefs. I wouldn't want "Father Smith" to be able to have the government fine a trans woman for refusing to call him "Father Smith," so I wouldn't want the opposite, either.


Quote
Let's bring it back to when Jill Valentine wore short shorts instead of a skirt, and the Gamergate-type people were giving themselves heart attacks over it...

I didn't see a single feminist/progressive with anything to say about it (other than in responses to the above-mentioned people), positive or negative.



To be fair, SJW news articles were pretty rare concerning video games back then, as I recall. The whole movement didn't really come to a head until 2014, judging by news articles when I Google phrases like "original SJW gaming article," etc. I'm sure there were a few individual statements here and there, but I'm unaware of a gaming website employing some asshole to write his political agenda in response to a video game until the past few years.



Quote
So, are they really that loud? I feel like the only ones making so much noise are the conservative people, who six years later will still insist that "did you just assume my gender?" is a real phrase that trans/nonbinary people actually use...

For the record, they don't. It's never been a real point of contention within the wider community - perhaps in a subsect of like 20 people in a circle jerk on Tumblr back in 2014, but Jesus Christ, you can't tell me these people "have the media's ear."

That's just not true.



It's anecdotal, but I have (had?) a friend who is a trans male. This friend appears to have basically called off our friendship altogether based on the trans vs Father Smith example I gave above. This happened earlier this week. This same friend told me a few years ago that she does not share any of my religious beliefs, and yet I was perfectly fine remaining friends with her. I avoided using sex/gender pronouns altogether because I wasn't about to betray my own beliefs, but did do her the courtesy of using her new male name. As soon as she saw that I was presumably not on board with being able to force people to refer to trans folks by their preferred pronouns (I'm in America, but some companies will consider "misgendering" as harassment and grounds to lead to termination), she ended our friendship of more than 10 years.


So yeah, there are people who get super mega ultra triggered by misgendering.

Offline NateHevens

  • Annoying Noob
  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #444 on: May 09, 2020, 11:03:08 PM »
@DarkProphet

Quote
It's anecdotal, but I have (had?) a friend who is a trans male. This friend appears to have basically called off our friendship altogether based on the trans vs Father Smith example I gave above. This happened earlier this week. This same friend told me a few years ago that she does not share any of my religious beliefs, and yet I was perfectly fine remaining friends with her. I avoided using sex/gender pronouns altogether because I wasn't about to betray my own beliefs, but did do her the courtesy of using her new male name. As soon as she saw that I was presumably not on board with being able to force people to refer to trans folks by their preferred pronouns (I'm in America, but some companies will consider "misgendering" as harassment and grounds to lead to termination), she ended our friendship of more than 10 years.

And yet here you are misgendering him right here in this comment. The proper pronouns for men (cis or trans) are male pronouns. A trans man is a man. Therefore his proper pronouns are male. Whether you want to admit it or not, it is transphobic, and just grossly disrespectful in general, to continue to misgender him.

I'm sorry, but I can understand why he's cut off the friendship... you clearly don't have enough respect for him to use his preferred pronouns. Why should he be friends with someone who obviously does not respect him in any way, shape, or form?

Also...

Quote
Well, I mean refusing to call a male who says he is a "she" now by "she" is a crime in Canada that you can be fined for.

This is not true, and has never been true. Jordan Peterson was lying. Here's the actual text of the actual bill. And here's a perfect summary breakdown from the CBC... and this one I'll quote bits from:

Quote
Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places. First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others.Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups.Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.

And the thoughts of actual political experts:

Quote
Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?

In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”

The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.

Protecting at-risk minorities (and trans people certainly fit that qualification) from discrimination is quite literally the job of any government worth its salt.

The act literally does not mention pronouns. Anywhere. Seriously... search for the word "pronoun" in the text of the bill... you won't find it.

So no... you can't get fined for misgendering someone in Canada. That's just not a thing the bill does.

Offline DarkProphet

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
  • Reputation: +261/-2
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #445 on: May 09, 2020, 11:45:41 PM »
@DarkProphet
And yet here you are misgendering him right here in this comment. The proper pronouns for men (cis or trans) are male pronouns. A trans man is a man. Therefore his proper pronouns are male. Whether you want to admit it or not, it is transphobic, and just grossly disrespectful in general, to continue to misgender him.



We'll have to agree to disagree. I call males "he," and females "she." Males are biologically determined by XY chromosomes, and females are biologically determined by XX chromosomes. If someone is born a hermaphrodite, that is an anomaly and so rare as to not make sense as setting the standard for what a male or a female is. Allegations of "male brains" and "female brains" do not change the fact that the person born with a penis and XY chromosomes in every cell of his body except for his sperm cells is a male, and the person born with a vagina and XX chromosomes in every cell of her body is female.



Quote
I'm sorry, but I can understand why he's cut off the friendship... you clearly don't have enough respect for him to use his preferred pronouns. Why should he be friends with someone who obviously does not respect him in any way, shape, or form?



Because I'm fine with being friends with her despite her claiming that my religion and everything in it is false? Because I don't shun her for that? And yet here you are, taking the side of the intolerant person. I never asked her to convert to my religion. I never told her that she has to believe any of it or say anything to support my beliefs, because I am not an asshole who wants to force others to obey me.


As for what a transphobe is, you clearly don't understand. From Wikipedia, "Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed toward people who do not conform to society's gender expectation." I was not afraid of her, so no fear. I wanted to be her friend, so no aversion. Again, wanted to be her friend, so no hatred. I never committed any acts of violence, so no violence. I'm not angry at her for the trans stuff. I'm not uncomfortable about it and never said she made me uncomfortable. I just don't believe she's a guy. Just as she doesn't believe in my religion. However, you feel that she should be able to force her beliefs on me, and - I would assume - feel that I should NOT be able to force my beliefs on her. Can you not see your deliberate hypocrisy?



Moreover, when you say I don't respect "him" in "any way shape or form" way to go. Do you normally value a person solely on his or her gender identity? The implication you are making that the only way a person can have respect is via whether the person is called "he" or "she" is positively disgusting.



Quote
Also...
This is not true, and has never been true. Jordan Peterson was lying. Here's the actual text of the actual bill. And here's a perfect summary breakdown from the CBC... and this one I'll quote bits from:

Quote
Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places. First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others.Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups.Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.

And the thoughts of actual political experts:

Quote
Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?

In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”

The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.

Protecting at-risk minorities (and trans people certainly fit that qualification) from discrimination is quite literally the job of any government worth its salt.

The act literally does not mention pronouns. Anywhere. Seriously... search for the word "pronoun" in the text of the bill... you won't find it.

So no... you can't get fined for misgendering someone in Canada. That's just not a thing the bill does.



A judge can disagree with a legal expert and make whatever decision he or she sees fit without a precedent case on file to guide his/her decision. So a judge need only say that it is his or her opinion that deliberately using the wrong pronoun while other people could hear it was hate speech designed to incite public hatred. "Inciting hatred" is some loose verbiage that would allow for it. You may disagree, but without a precedent case saying that you can't deem using wrong pronouns in public as hate speech, a judge has the power to do so. Although it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't, and I don't approve of crappy laws, even if they're not enforced.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 11:51:08 PM by DarkProphet »

Offline NateHevens

  • Annoying Noob
  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #446 on: May 10, 2020, 12:06:37 AM »
Dude. XX and XY has literally been debunked. You need to catch up on your biology. Chromosomes are way more complicated than that and very simply do not conform to gender boxes. The more we study biology, the more "male and female" is proven to be, at best, an over-simplication. An gender dysphoria is a real, medically-diagnosable issue, and the medically accepted treatment for it is, in fact, transitioning.


And I can prove it. I'm friends with someone who is a trans woman. She was identified as male at birth. She suffered from really severe dysphoria, to the point of being suicidal. Her parents had her tested, and they actually did a blood test. I saw the result.


This person, with a male body and male genitalia, literally had female chromosomes (XX) and the hormone production was entirely messed up. Her depression, dysphoria, and hormone-based physical issues were all cured when she transitioned. Literally, she was chromosomally female, yet was born with a penis and a typically male body.


She is proof that XX and XY is just... wrong. It's just wrong. It's over-simplified to the point of being straight up wrong.


Hermaphroditism, BTW, is now thought to be way more common than previously thought, because of the fact that chromosomes do not, contrary to popular belief, actually relate to the outward gender representation of a body as once thought.


Your ex-friend is a man, and you are straight up an asshole for continuing to misgender him. He may be an asshole about your religion, but that asshole is still a man, and you are an asshole for refusing to acknowledge that.


Saying it's incredibly transphobic for you to continue misgendering him isn't hypocritical... it's true. That is a huge part of what transphobia is. You very obviously do not respect your ex-friend, and he's seen that and decided to cut you out of his life because of that.


Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not your ex-friend is an asshole over the way he talks about your religion. You can both be assholes.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 12:08:44 AM by NateHevens »

Offline DarkProphet

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
  • Reputation: +261/-2
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #447 on: May 10, 2020, 12:53:58 AM »
Dude. XX and XY has literally been debunked. You need to catch up on your biology. Chromosomes are way more complicated than that and very simply do not conform to gender boxes. The more we study biology, the more "male and female" is proven to be, at best, an over-simplication. An gender dysphoria is a real, medically-diagnosable issue, and the medically accepted treatment for it is, in fact, transitioning.


And I can prove it. I'm friends with someone who is a trans woman. She was identified as male at birth. She suffered from really severe dysphoria, to the point of being suicidal. Her parents had her tested, and they actually did a blood test. I saw the result.


This person, with a male body and male genitalia, literally had female chromosomes (XX) and the hormone production was entirely messed up. Her depression, dysphoria, and hormone-based physical issues were all cured when she transitioned. Literally, she was chromosomally female, yet was born with a penis and a typically male body.


She is proof that XX and XY is just... wrong. It's just wrong. It's over-simplified to the point of being straight up wrong.


Hermaphroditism, BTW, is now thought to be way more common than previously thought, because of the fact that chromosomes do not, contrary to popular belief, actually relate to the outward gender representation of a body as once thought.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome It sounds like your friend is a mutant. I know that's an insult in comics, sci-fi, etc., but that terminology seems to be the correct medical nomenclature case based on your explanation. XX and XY has never been debunked. Mutants are a thing, but I doubt you're insinuating that all trans people are mutants.


As for gender dysphoria, it is the politically correct term for gender identity disorder, listed in the DSM IV. It was removed from the DSM V as the vocal minority gained societal/media traction. While I cannot say if your friend was trans or not, the suicidal aspect sounds about right since people suffering from the condition have an approximately 40% attempted suicide rate. That's higher than any other group in the world, as far as I am aware; at least in America. I have heard some Asiatic cultures have different suicide ideologies, so it may differ over there. As for transitioning, there is no significant drop in attempted suicide rates after transitioning. As such, although transitioning is the "accepted medical treatment," it is not helping trans people. Instead of placating people showing signs of suicidal behavior, I wish that psychologists would actually try to find some way to help these folks instead.


Quote
Your ex-friend is a man, and you are straight up an asshole for continuing to misgender him. He may be an asshole about your religion, but that asshole is still a man, and you are an asshole for refusing to acknowledge that.



And I think you're an asshole for calling me an asshole for disagreeing with someone about non-violent beliefs. Oh well.


Quote
Saying it's incredibly transphobic for you to continue misgendering him isn't hypocritical... it's true. That is a huge part of what transphobia is. You very obviously do not respect your ex-friend, and he's seen that and decided to cut you out of his life because of that.



I already gave you the definition of what a "transphobe" is and detailed how I meet none of the criteria. A person disagreeing with another person's beliefs doesn't make the person a "-phobe." I was willing to agree to disagree about our respective beliefs and be friends, but she was not.


Refusing to let someone command you to call her "him" does not mean I don't respect her. It means I disagree with her. Just as her refusing to accept my religious beliefs as true is not a lack of respect. She is free to disagree with me, except I was willing to accept her as my friend despite her rejection of my beliefs, and she was not willing to accept me as her friend despite my rejection of her beliefs.


Quote
Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not your ex-friend is an asshole over the way he talks about your religion. You can both be assholes.



Oh, I assure you we're assholes in our own ways, but I don't think she's an asshole for her beliefs about my beliefs, nor do I think I'm an asshole my beliefs about her beliefs.


If I shouldn't demand she accept my beliefs, why should she demand I accept her beliefs? That is no friendship. That would be her acting as a tyrant...but I was still willing to have her as a friend despite her demands. She just wasn't willing to have me as her friend unless I bent the knee and obeyed her in affirming her beliefs while she rejected mine. I have detailed how imbalanced this relationship was, with me willing to accept her as my friend despite each of us rejecting the other's beliefs.
And yet you think she had the moral high ground in cutting me out of her life.
Are you brainwashed to just automatically support trans folks no matter what, or are you a chronic contrarian?  :huh:

Offline NateHevens

  • Annoying Noob
  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #448 on: May 10, 2020, 12:56:44 AM »
It's not his fucking "beliefs". It's his fucking identity. It's his fucking life. His whole fucking way of being. He didn't fucking choose it; it's who he fucking is.


I completely understand why he cut you out. He didn't need you in his life.

Offline DarkProphet

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
  • Reputation: +261/-2
Re: Bloodlines 2 Links
« Reply #449 on: May 10, 2020, 01:23:01 AM »

It's not his fucking "beliefs". It's his fucking identity. It's his fucking life. His whole fucking way of being. He didn't fucking choose it; it's who he fucking is.


Except I don't accept your beliefs or her beliefs, nor do I ask that you or she accept mine. And yet you and she become disdainful toward me for not kowtowing to her beliefs.


Quote
I completely understand why he cut you out. He didn't need you in his life.



And I completely understand your support for ideological tribalism of an "us vs. them" mentality, cutting out anyone who won't agree with you and do what you say. That's a sad way to live in an echo chamber of like-minded individuals, and hearing anyone saying something that clashes with the norms is immediately branded a terrible person. Nice.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal