this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
215 points (91.5% liked)
Games
16785 readers
850 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both cases are effectively identical, so framing one as "censoring" and the other as "adding" strikes me as grossly disingenuous. They are either both adding or both "censoring."
And this gets to the crux of my point...it they are both effectively identical, labelling one as the action only bigots would do and the other perfectly fine, seemingly almost completely regardless of intent in either case, requires serious levels of mental gymnastics, like framing identical things as completely opposite.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that the mod maker is openly bigoted and that's more than enough to justify the removal of this mod. But the idea that someone would want the characters to reflect them in the game doesn't make one a bigot, which is major reason why I support the push to make game characters more inclusive, so more people do get that.
But labelling some people bigots and others not for the same action, based solely on their sexual orientation, seems like going backwards to me. It should obviously be done on intent.
'Don't get me wrong, this guy's an outright Nazi, but what if people were just calling names for a bunch of reasons I'm about to pull from my ass?'
I have negative respect for that 'juuust becaaaaaause' horseshit. It's bad faith and it's insulting. Absolutely fucking no-one is being labeled "based solely on their sexual orientation," and you goddamn well know it. No shit role-playing your real-life choices "doesn't make one a bigot," but fortunately, that's a fantasy, sourced from the vicinity of your pelvis.
You lot always fixate on the mechanism. Like purchase and theft are interchangeable because either way you walk off with a thing you found. As if saying "removing gay stuff is censorship" must be judged in a veil of perfect ignorance, devoid of all history, context, implication, or inference. As if you're not fully aware there is no shortage of heterosexuality in media, and an order of magnitude less gay. As if you can't figure out how having slightly less of that overwhelming supermajority is different from seeing that minority erased.
How on earth did you spin my post to say this? And then turn around and accuse me of arguing in bad faith. Wow. Lol
Lie better.
They're not. Context matters. If i say you can't back up on a highway, that doesn't mean you can't back up into a parking spot. Straight people have never been an oppressed minority, there's nothing hateful about fantasizing about your favorite white character being black like you or something. There is a hateful history behind wishing all black characters were removed from a game.
If the intent has hate, it's hateful. If there is no intent to be hateful, it's not hateful. Hate require intent. You can't be hateful if you don't hate anyone, and you can be hateful regardless of whether or not you're part of a traditionally oppressed group.
What you are arguing is that some actions, based on historical context, are more acceptable than others. Something that I tend to agree with, to a limited extent.
But if two people are doing the same exact thing for the same exact reason, and you are labelling on a bigot and the other perfectly acceptable based on their sexuality, its more likely youre the bigot. Although, really, I think youre just confused about an extremely touchy and complicated subject that doesn't have easy answers.
Sure, if we're talking about small children innocently changing characters to be more like them, that's a totally fair argument. But the context here is a publicly homophobic modder working for weeks to create a full mod to erase gay characters.
I'm talking about intent, and people have pointed out that the intent of the creator was hateful, so the creator is a bigot. But the top level comment that I responded to was a pretty blanket statement that any changing of a character (gay to straight or black to white) was bigoted "plain and simple."
I'm disagreeing with that premise, not that the modder is a bigot.