I’m unsure what you mean by this. Should there be a 50/50 split to be fair in your view?
It’s not really all that confusing. Trans activists have always recommended that people avoid Rowling stuff, as she uses her platform to advocate hate and violence against them. You may dismiss the power of words, but she does real harm. A well known public figure with her platform has a lot of power.
What the furor is right now is people having a temper tantrum about not getting their “trans ally badges” they think that they are entitled to.
Someone said what it took for them to trust someone, and those who don’t meet that person’s criteria feel offended and alienated for it, meaning that they were right to not trust such fair weather virtue signallers.
They don’t get that this is actually their lives, and if you are asking someone to trust you with their life, you don’t get to get all butthurt over them telling you that, due to the priorities that you have chosen, they can’t take that chance.
So, yeah, your word of “jihad” is a bit extreme, but it is a campaign to get people like her to shut up and give out participation trophies, or else their feels will be hurt so much that they will have no choice but to change sides and no longer support trans rights.
And they have the right to do that, I just wish they’d be honest and admit to some level of agency, rather than claiming that they have no choice, that this person’s words cause them to start hating trans people.
Rowling goes on twit sprees, spewing vile hatred, but that’s okay, because wizards. A transgender person expresses her concerns about how much she can trust someone who supports Rowling, and ohmygodhowdareyou!!!
Apart from that one post above who is claiming this?
Anyone who claims to feel alienated because someone stated that they don’t trust people who consume Rowling’s products, including the recently release game, to have their back as a trans ally.
I assume even in that post, those “badges” are figurative, not literal.
So, no one except that one person.
Oh, I thought you said that you were worried about people feeling alienated over this.
Have you changed your mind over this concern of yours, then?
Or, were you just talking about that one person?
Where did I mention “badges?”
I didn’t even imply it.
Do you think that there are literally “trans ally badges” that are given out at awards banquets or something? Really???
It means recognition, thanks, gratitude, adulation. All the things that the fair weather ally craves, and claims to be a martyr when they don’t receive.
If that’s not important to them, then why do they care whether some PC game journalist trusts them?
Why did you mention it then? You used those words. Not me. You made the comparison. Not me. You are saying what some crave. Not me. You are suggesting martyrs. Not me.
I am not sure why you are so combative with me about this but I ask you to stop attributing things to me I have not said or implied.
Obligatory “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” quote.
<< deleted by poster >>
I can’t say that I’ve seen this. I’ve seen a number of people upset about the game or people playing the game, and I’ve seen a lot of articles simply about the game and little enjoying the game. I haven’t seen any “furor” about people playing the game mad that they’re not considered allies (versus the bajillion articles about people protesting it). It’s a big world so I’m sure someone has bitched about it but… furor? Nah.
It’s like I’ve seen, in this thread and elsewhere, the claim that players are trying to ‘soothe their guilt’ or something. There seems to be some attempt to pretend that players are feeling far worse about playing than they are. Maybe people are telling themselves “I couldn’t stop them from playing but at least now they feel bad”. In reality, everyone I know playing it is just having a fun time and the controversy is just something at the periphery, at best.
well for actual gamers the actual reviews say the game sucks just like all the earlier ones so it shouldn’t be hard to avoid …
It has an 85% reviewer score on Metacritic (even with some obvious critic review bombing like Wired giving it a 1/10 despite obviously not having played it) and, more impressively, a 93% positive rating on Steam with over 83,000 ratings. Not everyone will like it but it’s undeniably a success.
I personally feel like it has a lot of flaws on paper but, in game, manages to be better than the sum of its parts.
Putting this here to add to the conversation. Kinda all over the place on this subject. It may be of interest:
I tend to avoid the art of people whose stated beliefs or actions are abhorrent to me, not because it’s the right thing to do or in an attempt to deny them income, but because the cognitive dissonance is too great for me to continue enjoying the art. At the same time, I’m well aware that people are complex and fallible creatures and we’re all products of our cultures, so my threshold is fairly high.
But if I see, say, Louis CK do a comedy routine that I might once have enjoyed, I can’t forget that this is a man who used his position to coerce unwilling women into watching him masturbate, and that kills any humor for me. Similarly, if I read Updike or Mailer, for instance, even as I acknowledge the skill of their prose, I’m uncomfortably aware they despised women and that attitude permeates all their work. It makes me feel like I’m voluntarily consuming poison, and that’s not very entertaining.
heres the first person i thought of during this whole thing :
I mean I could tell just by reading charlie … he could be a mean bastard and various accounts have pretty much confirmed it
I loved “James and the Giant Peach.”
It was one of the books that made me love reading.
Do I have to despise it now?
…no you don’t. Good grief, just do whatever it is you want to do already.
Have you even read this thread and what it is on about?