Story Mode Controversy --REDUX

[theFlu]

From you PoV ofcourse.

Can't help but keep poking?

Kinda funny; I get what he says, but the statement actually requires a lot of interpretation - it's not a complete idea.
First part is "stereotypes have always been used" ... well, duh, they wouldn't be stereotypes otherwise, that requires repetition by definition.
The pivot from that is "thinking otherwise", which grammatically seems to point to people who don't believe that stereotypes .. exist?
Thus the third part about "lefties" becomes disconnected, so we have to guess what to replace the "thinking otherwise" with. Since we're primed to look for "left wing ideas" by the latter section, we substitute something like "people who believe that racial stereotypes are harmful" instead - but that was never said. And we'll argue or agree with whatever tone we place on that bit.

Specificity matters, or some such

 

[Kyoji]

Sounds like we need to come back full circle as it seems as though a majority of the posts in this thread (and thus constitutes a super majority of all players naturally) do not find issue with the depiction of the Duke and even more would be fine with some very minor tweaks to remove some of the perceived negative connotations associated with Native American Casino owners leaving only a minor few who would still be potentially unhappy.

Thus,

/thread...fin.

 

[Rotor]

/thread...fin.

I will just compliment the moderating team in this thread.

I mean I would have locked it a long time ago just for the whine and cheese effect.

 

[Roland]

My opinion:

The story is fine as is. The stereotypes are akin to creative license for the sake of storytelling that always occur for all subjects. Doctors, teachers, police officers, casino owners, lawyers, Italians, Native Americans, Greeks, and more— all are represented by popularly held stereotypes and inaccuracies for the sake of telling a story. For those who are deeply in the know it can be jarring and a complete turn-off because the inaccuracies are so glaring for them.

At the same time, the setting is post apocalyptic which means the Duke could be race-swapped for any other race and it would be just as plausible. After an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it event it doesn’t matter if the casino was formerly in tribal hands or how ethically it was managed. All that matters is who came later and took control of it as their HQ and that could be anyone so it wouldn’t bother me if they changed the Duke to a different race. It really shouldn’t have any impact on the story because this truly isn’t a “cowboys and Indians” story at all.

So I agree that the stereotype exists in the story but I disagree that anything needs to be changed—but if it does because someone up high is worried then no big deal.

A boardgame I like (Great Western Trail) swapped out all the Indians for bandit outlaws in their second edition. Game plays mechanically the same so it doesn’t matter to me— just the art on some components was changed.

 

[Dead Smarty]

... stereotypes as they appear in the story can be discussed without labeling people by perceived motives or agendas you think they may have. Whether someone is liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, Marxist, or whatever doesn’t matter. Speak to the argument itself instead of trying to discredit it as talking points for some political platform’s agenda.

Your "disclaimer" does not mention mental labels like "narcist", is that coincidence or on purpose? For I'm about to put that label on someone stretching the rules as far as possible so he can call it censorship if he gets muted.

This topic is a balancing act for the person brave enough to start it and discus it as well as for the moderators. Pitty some people feel the need to twist every word to make their point.

 

[Double G]

And to avoid that, I should whip up public opinion against them, which would damage their reputation? That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm writing on these forums because this should ideally be handled internally.

Finding out Native American's opinions doesn't have to be done publicly.

Also, how is posting something on a public forum considered "handled internally"? You can't play the whole "well not that many people come to the forums" gimmick. Enough people come here. Content creators come here. Posting something here is a pretty sloppy way to be clandestine.

Things are not adding up.

 

[khzmusik]

Well, that got real ugly real fast.

I probably shouldn't even reply to this, but I feel I should defend myself, to clear the air at least.

That's not a motivation, that's your rational decision thought process.

Forum members are not my therapist. I'm not going to do a deep dive into my psyche, or cry about how mommy never loved me, or whatever.

I explained my intentions, my reasonings, and how I came to have them. If that's not good enough, then people will have to live with the mystery.

Besides, it's very clear that the reason many people want me to say anything is so they can misrepresent it as some kind of "gotcha" moment. To wit:

We all understand the "stereotype", we just disagree that a stereotype used in a videogame (or any art form) is offensive.

First of all, nice use of the word "we," as if you are speaking for anyone other than yourself.

Second of all, "offensive" is your word, not mine. I don't believe I ever said I was offended, and I'm not calling for other people to be offended either.

You can dislike something, or feel it's not a good idea - even for moral/ethical reasons - without being offended by it.

Nowadays, in situations like this, the accusation of being "offended" is used as a way to dodge any criticism of the accuser's view, and a reason to be dismissive of the accused. It conjures up images of being overly emotional, hypersensitive, and hysterical. No rational person, it implies, could believe such a thing. They are only saying what they're saying because their feelings are hurt. They are the problem.

It is an ad hominem attack, nothing more.

For example:

Finally! There we go! ... If that's your ideal world then you're surely part of the "woke mob" who thrives into being offended by everything, even when they're not the direct recipients of the offense. So, your REAL motivation, is to spread your "woke" ideology in the forum and into this game.

And here we have our first misrepresentation in order to have a "gotcha" moment.

No, not everyone who dislikes racism, or thinks it's a bad idea for it to be the media that they like, is part of the "woke mob." Or offended. Or motivated by political ideology. It doesn't even mean they're progressive, or left-leaning, or whatever.

I explicitly said I have no interest in being an activist. Your "gotcha" is to insist I was lying, and/or that you know my mind better than I do. I'm not, and you don't.

Wait. So everyone who's dismissive of your own world view is a racist, right?

Wrong. And here we have another misrepresentation in order to have a "gotcha" moment.

I unequivocally stated what I thought the reason was: "It is probably a result of the political 'culture wars' that have become especially virulent over the past decade or so."

Nowhere did I mention any kind of racial motivation. I did not imply, and do not think, that engaging in "culture wars" politics means you are a racist.

Moreover, I wasn't even talking about "everyone who's dismissive." I was explicitly describing "a very vocal minority among the contrarians." Not even most of the contrarians.

Finally, now the unmasking is complete.

Probably. But not of the person you think.