Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Aardvaarkman:

Except, they haven't. The game was released in Japan over a year ago. This is not the same game, otherwise, why didn't they release it to other countries then?

It is the same game. They just decided to port it over here. As for why they didn't do that earlier, that's because Nintendo considered it "Too Japanese" and didn't think the game would click with outside audiences. So they left it in Japan until sometime this year.

tstorm823:
When they say "we were not trying to make social commentary" they're saying "we didn't mean to suggest that gay people are nonexistant or unimportant.

That's an extremely social/political comment. So, yeah. It doesn't excuse them from their stupid statement.

And who are you, Nintendo's translator/telepath? Tell me again, if that is what Nintendo meant to say, then why didn't they say that, rather than these other words which they actually said?

Dragonbums:

It is the same game. They just decided to port it over here. As for why they didn't do that earlier, that's because Nintendo considered it "Too Japanese" and didn't think the game would click with outside audiences. So they left it in Japan until sometime this year.

OK, so, the game is being release to countries outside Japan completely unmodified? It's exactly the same code as the Japanese version?

Aardvaarkman:

Dragonbums:

It is the same game. They just decided to port it over here. As for why they didn't do that earlier, that's because Nintendo considered it "Too Japanese" and didn't think the game would click with outside audiences. So they left it in Japan until sometime this year.

OK, so, the game is being release to countries outside Japan completely unmodified? It's exactly the same code as the Japanese version?

Yes. Aside from a few translation adjustments and minor code enhancements like different mini games the game is basically the same.

Dragonbums:

Aardvaarkman:

Immorality does not require malice.

But does it not also require intent? Because I do not see that being an intent from Nintendo as well.

No, it does not require intent.

Dragonbums:

A view that started during the rise of colonialism and Social Darwinism. Perputrated by racists who thought they were superior to all. That line of thinking passed down so on and so forth. But the Founding Fathers and many others were acutely aware of the hypocrisy that they call themselves a free nation and yet their nation was built on slavery. The American side of it were just a whole lot more worse about it. Britain pretty much had that inkling from the start. Why else would they be the first ones to stop it right then and there? (yeah America had the cotton industry, but you can't tell me there weren't much easier alternatives than enslaving people...but hey, that bottom dollar I suppose)

Doesn't really matter what the Founding Fathers or the British Aristocracy thought - the idea of blacks as subhumans and slavery as perfectly acceptable has been enmeshed in the situation forever. Some people thinking it might have been wrong does not equate to everybody involved thinking that.

Also, why do you start with Britain? Slavery goes back much further than the existence of Britain. How do you think they built the pyramids?

Dragonbums:

That incident makes me chuckle. It was quite amusing to see Fox and Friends put him on a pedestal as a national hero only to quickly forget he ever existed after that ultimatum. (Although I think someone gave really good insight about how the government is just as greedy and corrupt about the whole pasture situation which makes me kind of understand where Bundy was coming from in relation to refusing to pay the government for his cows.)

Off-topic, but how is the government being greedy and corrupt here? Bundy avoided fines and legal action (decided by courts, not policy makers) for a decade. He's a simple thief. And all the government was trying to do was to protect property and endangered species.

Where was the corruption and greed? The government was asking for below commercial rates for grazing. The government has been extremely lenient in enforcement and has backed off when faced with resistance. Doesn't seem like some kind of overbearing abuse of power to me. Bundy is the only corrupt abuser here.

Dragonbums:

Aardvaarkman:

Dragonbums:

It is the same game. They just decided to port it over here. As for why they didn't do that earlier, that's because Nintendo considered it "Too Japanese" and didn't think the game would click with outside audiences. So they left it in Japan until sometime this year.

OK, so, the game is being release to countries outside Japan completely unmodified? It's exactly the same code as the Japanese version?

Yes. Aside from a few translation adjustments and minor code enhancements like different mini games the game is basically the same.

So, in other words, it's not the same?

Also, if it's so minor, then why did it take so long to release, and why are so many people on this thread making a big deal about how difficult it is to change games?

MarsAtlas:
Why include heterosexual romance marriage in the first place then?

As a "They did WHAT!?" gag presented in the form of trashy celebrity news or sitcom. And it isn't romance, again, it's a stream of jokes you have no input over, not a life sim.

Really, go read that article I linked.

Aardvaarkman:

So, in other words, it's not the same?

Also, if it's so minor, then why did it take so long to release, and why are so many people on this thread making a big deal about how difficult it is to change games?

Because the localization changes they made are costume changes (sumo suits into football uniforms, for example) at their most complicated.

What's being asked for would require an entire scripting change since the game runs itself.

This isn't a game where you have control or agency, this isn't a game made to be a self-expression piece (which is a really hard concept to grasp for most of the first world, particularly america) it's a series of gags and sitcom-esque sequences with voiced script. You'd need to change the ai, get people to write the new dialogues, voice the new dialogues and then find a way to implement all that into the existing build without breaking the game as well as pissing off as few people as possible, since this is a company and the bottom line is more important than any social issue, after all.

"Changing code isn't as easy as flipping a switch. People should probably be happy that Nintendo responded to its gaffe as generously as it did, while also keeping their hearts close and recognize that even a company that makes whacky fun-loving games is still a company. You should treat them as a company, not your pal, and the disappointment that you levy at them (which is genuine and reasonable) should be in that context."

MarsAtlas:

Why include heterosexual romance in the first place then? You have to proviide a rationale for why one exists, but not the other. I can easily say "its not a real world simulation, so there's no romantic situations in the game" by that litmus.

Because they thought miis having babies would be funny.

So why didn't they provide and explanation then? Because that "social commentary" comment was the explanation. Nintendo's actual apology gives a reason for not including it, as well as an actual apology.

That wasn't so difficult for them to admit, seeing as it came in just two days, so why couldn't they do that in the first place, when they only had Miiquality as a small movement with nobody really pressuring them? Because that wasn't their intention with the original statement.

Exactly the last sentence here. That wasn't their intention in the first place. They weren't trying to explain why they excluded gay relationships. All they were saying was that they didn't mean to cause any harm. They even phrased it that way, talking about what they meant and intended. They didn't even deny they'd done wrong, they just said they didn't mean to.

So, the way I see it, they made a statement saying they meant no harm, they weren't trying to make political statements on homosexuality, and they'll take the feedback into consideration. Then people got more upset, so they apologized, explained why they couldn't fixed it, and promised better in the future.

The way you see it, they made a statement saying they couldn't include gay marriage because of the social implications, then threw in a line about hearing the feedback for the hell of it. Then, when people got upset, they apologized and gave a second, totally different reason for not having gay relationships, making it so that one of their reasons has to be a lie. Then they promised to improve in the future and totally ignore the social commentary problem.

Which of these scenarios makes sense?

Thats what their actual apology says. I cannot see where you're deciphering this "apology" to non-heterosexual people in the "social commentary" statement they made except for the "relationship" sentence they had, and even that was rather offensive.

It wasn't an apology. It was a statement clarifying their intent. Saying "we didn't mean harm" isn't an apology. That is true.

Aardvaarkman:

Dragonbums:

Aardvaarkman:

OK, so, the game is being release to countries outside Japan completely unmodified? It's exactly the same code as the Japanese version?

Yes. Aside from a few translation adjustments and minor code enhancements like different mini games the game is basically the same.

So, in other words, it's not the same?

Also, if it's so minor, then why did it take so long to release, and why are so many people on this thread making a big deal about how difficult it is to change games?

Because it WASN'T in development until around 4 months ago, where it was almost literately thrown onto Treehouse's lap in addition to the other stuff they were working on. Stop assuming that this was always intended for a worldwide release, it wasn't. As to why people are making a big deal about it? Probably because they need another excuse to yell at this game? I don't know.

Aardvaarkman:

And who are you, Nintendo's translator/telepath? Tell me again, if that is what Nintendo meant to say, then why didn't they say that, rather than these other words which they actually said?

Because those other words mean the same thing unless you play the "how can I be offended by this" game.

"It's not real life, it's just whimsical nonsense" somehow got translated to "oh, so gay marriage can't be whimsical?" That is not at all implied unless you are trying to be offended.

Cybylt:

This isn't a game where you have control or agency, it's a series of gags and sitcom-esque sequences with voiced script.

So, why is it marketed as being about "your life as a Mii" or whatever?

If that's the case, then shouldn't the outrage be over Nintendo's false advertising? I even watched their long promotional video in full, and still came away with the impression that it was more like The Sims.

Cybylt:
You'd need to change the ai, get people to write the new dialogues, voice the new dialogues and then find a way to implement all that into the existing build without breaking the game as well as pissing off as few people as possible, since this is a company and the bottom line is more important than any social issue, after all.

If the bottom line mattered, they'd do exactly that, and pull out all the stops to re-develop this for a Western audience. The costs of development would pale in comparison to the potential income. By simply making minimal changes to a Japanese game, they aren;t going to get nearly the amount of sales they would from a proper effort.

Cybylt:
"Changing code isn't as easy as flipping a switch. People should probably be happy that Nintendo responded to its gaffe as generously as it did, while also keeping their hearts close and recognize that even a company that makes whacky fun-loving games is still a company. You should treat them as a company, not your pal, and the disappointment that you levy at them (which is genuine and reasonable) should be in that context."

Did you write this? That paragraph is in quotation marks, so I'm not sure if it is from some other (unreferenced) source.

Anyway, being "happy" that Nintendo responded "generously"? What kind of nonsense is this? That paragraph sounds like it was written by a victim of Stockholm syndrome. Oh, and changing code, at its most fundamental level, is just flipping switches, seeing as computers work in binary.

tstorm823:

Aardvaarkman:

And who are you, Nintendo's translator/telepath? Tell me again, if that is what Nintendo meant to say, then why didn't they say that, rather than these other words which they actually said?

Because those other words mean the same thing unless you play the "how can I be offended by this" game.

No, they absolutely do not. How do you extrapolate their opinion on gay people from "we were not trying to make social commentary"?

That is entirely your subjective translation. It is in no way clear what that statement was meant to refer to. You're the one projecting things onto their statement. We can only take the statement as written. Which was clumsy and unclear.

xaszatm:

Because it WASN'T in development until around 4 months ago, where it was almost literately thrown onto Treehouse's lap in addition to the other stuff they were working on. Stop assuming that this was always intended for a worldwide release, it wasn't. As to why people are making a big deal about it? Probably because they need another excuse to yell at this game? I don't know.

So, it has been in development more recently than a year ago? I'm glad we cleared that up.

Why are people making a big deal? Did you not watch Jim's video? It may have something to do with the company making a really stupid and ill-advised statement about "social commentary." If Nintendo had not made such a stupid statement, it probably wouldn't be getting any coverage. But they did, and here we are.

And again, the game being "thrown onto Treehouse's lap" at the last minute does not scream "professional software development strategies," it really says "rushed incompetence."

Aardvaarkman:

xaszatm:

Because it WASN'T in development until around 4 months ago, where it was almost literately thrown onto Treehouse's lap in addition to the other stuff they were working on. Stop assuming that this was always intended for a worldwide release, it wasn't. As to why people are making a big deal about it? Probably because they need another excuse to yell at this game? I don't know.

So, it has been in development more recently than a year ago? I'm glad we cleared that up.

Why are people making a big deal? Did you not watch Jim's video? It may have something to do with the company making a really stupid and ill-advised statement about "social commentary." If Nintendo had not made such a stupid statement, it probably wouldn't be getting any coverage. But they did, and here we are.

And again, the game being "thrown onto Treehouse's lap" at the last minute does not scream "professional software development strategies," it really says "rushed incompetence."

I wasn't talking about the other complaints. I was specifically referring to the people complaining about how difficult it was to change the game. Don't ask a specific question then take the answer to mean a general response.

EDIT: And the reason why they threw it at Treehouse's lap? I don't really know, but I do think it might have to do with Nintendo attempting to fill in a gap for next month. Remember that they were in panic mode in January. Quick decisions were made, such as Iwata cutting his salary. This just happened to be one of the decisions that wasn't smart. So yeah, this wasn't a strategy, but stop screaming "incompetence."

Aardvaarkman:
[snip

I can't say for the advertising, but the gameplay I described is how it was explained to me from people who have actually played it.

Games with a more foreign flavor have been taking off recently, so the minimal changes won't scare away too many people and like it or not, Nintendo's still mostly seen as a company that makes games for kids (especially by conservative parents), they'd be taking far greater risk on top of putting in months of additional development time with extensive changes like this. It's simply not worth the investment at this point. Any additional purchases they take in from the inclusion will be drowned out by the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars spent putting in the options.

As a company it is in their best interest to always err on the side of caution which is why it wasn't included in the first place and why they said they didn't mean to take a stance.

I did not write that and I think you might be taking it the wrong way so here's the full thing. And it was unnecessary to be so hyperbolic in your response.

Well it's always weird, because people have such passionate connections to video games that I think they sometimes let themselves forget that businesses are businesses, and they're playing the numbers game like anyone else. Nintendo will put out whatever socially acceptable or unacceptable content gets them the most sales. They'll change when it feels like putting in gay marriage will be worth more money. It sucks that art gets run by a business, but video games are so large and so expensive that they're probably more vulnerable to this than anything else, even movies.

I can totally understand the reaction to Tomodachi Life, even more than Animal Crossing, because you are playing as literal a representation of you in Tomodachi Life as you can pretty much get in a video game. So it's probably a huge bummer when a game not only doesn't let you get married to someone of your preferred gender, but effectively pairs you off as a straight couple without asking you. It's probably a huge bummer to hear "you're going to get married to a woman" when you're a gay man playing a game that has a cartoon version of yourself in it. That's a little different than even Bioware games not having same-sex relationships. More on that here: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20140508/217351/Understanding_Nintendos_Tomodachi_Life_problem.php

Really they were never going to change this stuff, even if there weren't a bunch of cartridges already printed and sitting on a shelf. Changing code isn't as easy as flipping a switch. People should probably be happy that Nintendo responded to its gaffe as generously as it did, while also keeping their hearts close and recognize that even a company that makes whacky fun-loving games is still a company. You should treat them as a company, not your pal, and the disappointment that you levy at them (which is genuine and reasonable) should be in that context.

What they mean was that that in the context of Nintendo being a company, not your friend, that them admitting they did something wrong at all and considering to make change in the future is literally the most you can hope for right now. That isn't to say to be too grateful for it either because again, it's a company, they're not your friend.

I don't think Nintendo should've bothered porting Tomodachi if this is how people are going to act.I'm all for gay rights and equality but this entire fiasco has been downright stupid,it reeks of petulant tantrums and being self centered.

They did'nt have to port the game people,Nintendo could've easily kept it in Japan and none of you would have anything to rage against.

Loki_The_Good:
As in a message of personal acceptance of who they are of who one is is exactly the opposite of what homosexuals had to deal with making your comparison rather silly.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

That would be par for the course here though. The comparison between the two in the first place is what is flawed race, gender, sexuality are all biological traits right down to the genome.

Again, we didn't always know this.
If your point is "We have scientifically proven people physically cannot help it so that's how it's different than being an otherkin", then let's go back in time a century or two.

Back then, when we didn't have any scientific proof of ingrained homosexuality, would it be okay to exclude homosexuals from Tomodachi life because nobody had any scientific proof that they couldn't help it?

It's a false equivalency and a straw man to compare it people wanting to be goats. In the end it just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Do a little research next time.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I'd be interested to see what I wrote above.

Aardvaarkman:

Look, if you want to argue with the people on Tumblr, then why don't you go to Tumblr and do it?

I'm not arguing with the people on Tumblr. I'm presenting Tumblr's SJW viewpoint as a devil's advocate for YOU to argue against.

If you don't have a rebuttal to my arguments, that's fine. There's no shame in being wrong.

xaszatm:

EDIT: And the reason why they threw it at Treehouse's lap? I don't really know, but I do think it might have to do with Nintendo attempting to fill in a gap for next month. Remember that they were in panic mode in January. Quick decisions were made, such as Iwata cutting his salary. This just happened to be one of the decisions that wasn't smart. So yeah, this wasn't a strategy, but stop screaming "incompetence."

How is that not incompetence? They go into panic mode, and hastily make rash decisions? Yeah - that seems exactly like incompetence to me.

At this point, it's kind of hard to find any evidence of Nintendo's competence at all.

Houseman:

I'm not arguing with the people on Tumblr. I'm presenting Tumblr's SJW viewpoint as a devil's advocate for YOU to argue against.

So, it's a straw man. Why is it our job to argue against those arguments, when they have nothing to do with what's being discussed here?

Even if it was about arguing against Tumblr's arguments, then shouldn't you at least link to the actual arguments they are making? You claim that Tumblr is arguing that this game should include toaster marriage, but you provide no link to this argument.

Houseman:
If you don't have a rebuttal to my arguments, that's fine. There's no shame in being wrong.

Wait, I thought they were Tumblr's arguments?

Cybylt:
Any additional purchases they take in from the inclusion will be drowned out by the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars spent putting in the options.

If it's costing them millions to make such changes, then they're doing it wrong.

Cybylt:
As a company it is in their best interest to always err on the side of caution which is why it wasn't included in the first place and why they said they didn't mean to take a stance.

That's just one way of doing it.

Many companies have made it big by taking risks. Playing safe is not always in the best interest of a company. Particularly in a business as dynamic as gaming and digital entertainment. Nintendo itself would never have been so big without taking risks.

Nintendo took a big risk in betting on video games over its more traditional products. Nintendo took a big risk on the Wii's motion controls, and it paid off in a big way. To say that erring on the side of caution is the proper approach in this industry does not seem to be supported by the evidence.

Aardvaarkman:

So, it's a straw man.

That's not what a straw man is.

Why is it our job to argue against those arguments, when they have nothing to do with what's being discussed here?

It's not your job to do anything. Nobody is paying you to try and refute the arguments that I present, are they? You tried to do that of your own free will.

If you think my arguments or posts are off topic, you are free to report them.

You claim that Tumblr is arguing that this game should include toaster marriage, but you provide no link to this argument.

I never claimed that.

Wait, I thought they were Tumblr's arguments?

You thought wrong. I never said that.

Aardvaarkman:

If it's costing them millions to make such changes, then they're doing it wrong.

So you know the correct way to do it, so that you know that how they're doing it is the wrong way?

Which game developer do you work for again?

Houseman:

Aardvaarkman:

So, it's a straw man.

That's not what a straw man is.

Actually, it is.

Houseman:

It's not your job to do anything. Nobody is paying you to try and refute the arguments that I present, are they? You tried to do that of your own free will.

No, I never tried to refute your arguments. I pointed out that you were posting some kind of re-interpretation of something some people supposedly said on Tumblr.

Your "arguments" such that they are, barely qualify as arguments, and are certainly not worth the effort of refuting. I'm saying that if you are so obsessed with what people are saying on Tumblr, then maybe you should take it up with them.

Houseman:
You thought wrong. I never said that.

You did, repeatedly. In almost all of your posts in this thread, you say that people on Tumblr are arguing that (insert object here) should be granted inclusion and equal rights alongside gays.

Aardvaarkman:

Nintendo took a big risk in betting on video games over its more traditional products. Nintendo took a big risk on the Wii's motion controls, and it paid off in a big way. To say that erring on the side of caution is the proper approach in this industry does not seem to be supported by the evidence.

But those are an entirely different form of risk. A political risk, particularly one that is counter to the company's image at large, is a longer shot and far deadlier than any mechanical one can ever be.

As the article says, in a cynical sense they traded off a big headache for a small one by doing this. The result of their response in this case is that a subsection of game journalism gets upset about it and they apologize. If they went the other way there's a chance it would have found its way to main stream news for the company attempting to undercut "Traditional Values" and corrupt the youths or some such bullshit.

Cybylt:

But those are an entirely different form of risk. A political risk, particularly one that is counter to the company's image at large, is a longer shot and far deadlier than any mechanical one can ever be.

So, why did they take that risk? You say they're "playing it safe" - but to exclude gay people in 2014 is a much bigger political risk than to include them.

Especially for Nintendo. Are they not aware of how many gay people are huge Nintendo fans, and even cisplay as Nintendo characters?

Cybylt:
As the article says, in a cynical sense they traded off a big headache for a small one by doing this. The result of their response in this case is that a subsection of game journalism gets upset about it and they apologize. If they went the other way there's a chance it would have found its way to main stream news for the company attempting to undercut "Traditional Values" and corrupt the youths or some such bullshit.

It never would have found its way to mainstream news for including gay relationships. And very few people in the game-buying market care about what those news outlets think. The people who would react hysterically to this probably aren't buying video games in the first place.

Aardvaarkman:

Actually, it is.

A strawman is an argument that is presented to be the argument of someone else, but is not really their argument, and upon attacking and defeating it, claiming that the person's argument is destroyed.

It'd only be a strawman if you were to A) defeat my argument, which you're clearly unable to do, and B) then claim that Tumblr's argument has been defeated.

It would also need to be an actual misrepresentation of Tumblr's argument in the first place, which it has not been demonstrated to be,

But I suppose you're just arguing with me about this now because you're frustrated after failing to triumph over my previous argument.

No, I never tried to refute your arguments.

Whatever you say.

You did, repeatedly.

Then quote me saying that, if you can.

Aardvaarkman:

xaszatm:

EDIT: And the reason why they threw it at Treehouse's lap? I don't really know, but I do think it might have to do with Nintendo attempting to fill in a gap for next month. Remember that they were in panic mode in January. Quick decisions were made, such as Iwata cutting his salary. This just happened to be one of the decisions that wasn't smart. So yeah, this wasn't a strategy, but stop screaming "incompetence."

How is that not incompetence? They go into panic mode, and hastily make rash decisions? Yeah - that seems exactly like incompetence to me.

At this point, it's kind of hard to find any evidence of Nintendo's competence at all.

Because as we all know, when you are in panic mode, you make calm, rational decisions. You want competence? Pick up ANY 3DS and Wii U game. Pick up a Mario game. Obeserve the Level Design, game mechanics. They are more than competent. But I'm sure you'll find some way to complain. I mean, you're still here instead of the other Jimquisition thread that gave a much better response to this mess.

Aardvaarkman:

So, in other words, it's not the same?

Also, if it's so minor, then why did it take so long to release, and why are so many people on this thread making a big deal about how difficult it is to change games?

Yes it is the same game.

They never intended to release this game worldwide. Like I just said they just decided to make a translation port to see if the Western audience would like it and gave it to Treehouse a few months ago to translate and release in the US. That's it.

And a professional programmer a couple of pages back already explained why implementing things like minigames is easy for this particular game and implementing gay marriage is something that would require another set of development cycles to get it right. Seeing as how this game has ZERO controlled initiative from the player outside of initial voice customization, feeding, and minigames.

Aardvaarkman:

Cybylt:

But those are an entirely different form of risk. A political risk, particularly one that is counter to the company's image at large, is a longer shot and far deadlier than any mechanical one can ever be.

So, why did they take that risk? You say they're "playing it safe" - but to exclude gay people in 2014 is a much bigger political risk than to include them.

Especially for Nintendo. Are they not aware of how many gay people are huge Nintendo fans, and even cosplay as Nintendo characters?

Cybylt:
As the article says, in a cynical sense they traded off a big headache for a small one by doing this. The result of their response in this case is that a subsection of game journalism gets upset about it and they apologize. If they went the other way there's a chance it would have found its way to main stream news for the company attempting to undercut "Traditional Values" and corrupt the youths or some such bullshit.

It never would have found its way to mainstream news for including gay relationships. And very few people in the game-buying market care about what those news outlets think. The people who would react hysterically to this probably aren't buying video games in the first place.

You're ignoring the company image and their main buyers as of the Wii. While many people who take gaming as a hobby lean liberal and the company has gay fans, the vast majority of the middle-aged and retirees who made up the buyer base do not and are not.

And if you think it wouldn't get a conservative news site or station's panties in a twist then you obviously haven't been paying attention to their articles and coverage of games for the past three decades.

Aardvaarkman:

No, they absolutely do not. How do you extrapolate their opinion on gay people from "we were not trying to make social commentary"?

I didn't. That statement doesn't give an opinion on gay people.

That is entirely your subjective translation. It is in no way clear what that statement was meant to refer to. You're the one projecting things onto their statement. We can only take the statement as written. Which was clumsy and unclear.

Perhaps the reason you think it's clumsy and unclear is because you're trying to make a statement saying "we weren't trying to make social commentary" into "we deliberately avoided gay marriage because we were afraid of making that commentary." I can see how what they said is a clumsy way to say what JIM thinks it says. As it is, it's a pretty efficient way to say "we weren't simulating real life or providing deliberate commentary on society."

Houseman:
A strawman is an argument that is presented to be the argument of someone else, but is not really their argument, and upon attacking and defeating it, claiming that the person's argument is destroyed.

From Wikipedia:

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition

So yes, what you are trying to do is argue a straw man. You have set up a different proposition, a misrepresentation of what was originally being argued.

Houseman:
It'd only be a strawman if you were to A) defeat my argument, which you're clearly unable to do, and B) then claim that Tumblr's argument has been defeated.

You don't seem to understand what a straw man is.

Your straw man was unsuccessful, because everyone recognized it for what it is. It does not need to be defeated, because it already failed.

Houseman:
It would also need to be an actual misrepresentation of Tumblr's argument in the first place, which it has not been demonstrated to be,

You never actually cited anything from Tumblr, which only makes your arguments even more made of straw.

Houseman:
But I suppose you're just arguing with me about this now because you're frustrated after failing to triumph over my previous argument.

I don't give a shit about "triumphing" and what you are doing barely qualifies as argument.

Houseman:

Aardvaarkman:

No, I never tried to refute your arguments.

Whatever you say.

Apparently I did, before you devolved into constantly referring to Tumblr. What I did not do, was attempt to refute your comments about what people on Tumblr argue.

Houseman:

Then quote me saying that, if you can.

"The people on Tumblr would disagree that there are only two genders."

There you go.

Aardvaarkman:

From Wikipedia:

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition

Yes, I understood all of that before you ever claimed that my argument was a strawman.

So yes, what you are trying to do is argue a straw man. You have set up a different proposition, a misrepresentation of what was originally being argued.

So do you mind telling us what the "original argument" is that I'm misrepresenting? Can you quote it? Link to it?

If you can't, I guess there's no good reason why anybody should think that my argument is a strawman, then.

"The people on Tumblr would disagree that there are only two genders."

There you go.

I said "would disagree" not "do disagree", even though they do disagree.

Saying that someone "would" do something is not the same as saying "These are Tumblr's arguments", as you accuse me of saying.

Would you care to try again?

Cybylt:

And if you think it wouldn't get a conservative news site or station's panties in a twist then you obviously haven't been paying attention to their articles and coverage of games for the past three decades.

There have been many video games with gay options released within the last decade that did not even get mentioned by conservative news, let alone get their panties in a twist.

For a video game to do that these days, I think you'd have to make a Muslim-based game or one that consists of punching baby Jesus in the face. Merely allowing gay options in a game doesn't even incite a shrug these days.

Silvanus:

Therumancer:

Actually that's exactly what your getting at. This entire debate revolves around how if something like a life sim features heterosexual content as being normal, it must also present homosexual content as being normal. Something which has springboarded into articles claiming Nintendo's attitude amounts to "erasure" and so on. The bottom line is homosexuals are a tiny minority, and represent an abnormal, fringe behavior. Being gay is not normal, it represents a tiny portion of society. Thus there is no fair basis for saying it should be presented as normal and represented when relationships come up. If someone chooses to do so, that's fine, but it's not an entitlement, "erasure", or some kind of social attack to not include a fringe behavior.

Therumancer:
My personal opinions aside, the bottom line is the battle over gay rights ended long ago. Being gay has been decriminalized.

You moved the goalposts; presenting something as normal is not the same thing as presenting it in the same proportion as you present everything else.

The rest of the post is a string of rehashed arguments from before, and various provocative slurs. If you think decriminalisation was the end of the gay-rights issue, that's truly delusional. People are still murdered because they are gay; people still lose their homes and families because they are gay; people are still brutally attacked and bullied because they are gay. It's quite sickening to suggest gay people have already won, when they face incredible violence and adversity.

You didn't address my point about how the exact same arguments as those you use now were trotted out about mixed-race relationships.

Oh, for...

If gay people were treated equally, then everybody would be happy to just live their lives. I am not making a political statement when I go out with somebody of the same sex. It becomes political when rights get denied.

Just like mixed-race relationships. The people who tried to deny them rights and treatment forced them to argue back, and try to attain equal treatment-- and then you have the audacity, and shortsightedness, and pure prejudice, to blame the victims for doing so?!

I addressed your points perfectly in accordance to the subject, and rehashed a lot of things I already said because those answers still applied. Your basically thrashing around trying to make some kind of point, but don't even seem to know what the discussion is about. If you think the goalposts moved you weren't paying attention to begin with.

Again, it's very simple. Gays are a tiny, abnormal, fringe of society. That's not an attack, it's simply a statement of fact. Monogamous heterosexuals define the norm, vastly outnumbering homosexuals, and other fringe groups. At least in the first world the fringe has equality in the sense that it will not be hunted down and destroyed simply for not fitting in, and people with fringe beliefs are allowed to be represented. There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to put a gay character or relationship into a work of fiction, just as there is no problem with doing so with any other fringe group. Fringe groups are however not ENTITLED to appear in every creative work simply because they happen to exist, or to the promotion of propaganda presenting them as part of the norm when they are not. There is no entitlement to have homosexuality presented whenever heterosexuality is, no more than someone is obligated to show a mixed-race marriage every time a mono-racial marriage is presented, or have a polygamous relationship shown for every monogamous relationship. This answers your point in the context of this discussion.

Now you would have a point of Nintendo came up and say "You know, we wanted to put homosexual relationships in this game but we're not going this because we believe the first world countries will have us arrested for it" and there was some reinforcement for this fear. The countries that might want to attempt such a thing (which represent the global majority sentiment) don't have the power to make it a viable threat. That's not the case though. Nintendo is pretty much saying "We decided we didn't want to put this content in our game" and then doing damage control due to political backlash. That should be the end of it, there is no discrimination involved, it is not an entitlement for homosexuality to be depicted anywhere, and that is exactly what your arguments amount to in the context of this discussion, your saying it is wrong and attack-worthy to not depict a very small group of people, and that equality means forced representation by creators. You are simply wrong about that.

To be brutally honest, the whole issue of numbers and abnormality needs to be brought up more often, even if someone wants to mince words more than I do about it. Simply pointing out the fact that homosexuals are a tiny percentage of the population and that refusing demands of disproportionate representation and entitlement does not amount to discrimination. Creators have the right to put homosexuality into their work, or not do so, just like with any other group, but they are not required to represent anyone. It's also not attack language to point out the simple fact that if someone ever did try and seriously make some kind of "affirmative action in media" argument, by the numbers gays would still get the shaft because there are simply so many other groups out there that outnumber them that they would get lost in the pile. Gays simply have a very loud voice right now, despite their tiny numbers, specifically because of politics.

Also, it's well known I'm not exactly pro-gay, or politically correct, but as a true centrist on the issue I'll point out that pushing too far invites backlash. There is a point at which you just need to let inertia take it's course once you get something moving. When you start attacking video game companies (like we've seen multiple times, besides here) for simply not including you (not doing anything offensive, or making an attack statement, just not mentioning you) you become increasingly ridiculous and start turning people against you who might otherwise be on your side. In cases like this (which have happened across the social spectrum) the guys making noise tend to think it's because the other side is scared that they are losing and want to silence them. In reality it's simply people pointing out that when you get obnoxious enough people are going to oppose whatever you represent no matter how reasonable it started out as. Next thing you know your going to find yourself still fighting over trivial things 10-20 years later when things should have long since been over. There is a point at which you need to just flat out say you won, ignore the taunts, and go home. With time, you'll see yourselves leaking into the media more and more, even if not Omni-present, because that's just what people will do, not because someone started making a huge political stink every 15 seconds. Truthfully this kind of petty garbage usually happens when people want to keep minority groups organized to try and manipulate in voting blocks... but that goes well beyond this discussion.

As I said before, I'm pretty much done here. We'll have to agree to disagree. Your not going to agree with anything I say as being valid and seem to think I'm "attacking", and I personally think your pretty much involved in an entirely different conversation that's trying to drag this into levels that go well beyond whether or not gays are entitled to representation in a bloody video game when the creators decided not to include them for whatever reason. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like it, don't buy it, just don't try and make some kind of major social issue out of it when it's not one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here