Support NeoGAF

[Inyourprime]

This, honestly, is the stuff that irks me.

Why not engage him/her in conversation? Challenge them on their beliefs? You can be someones friend, converse with someone, and discuss things with them while completely disagreeing with everything in their worldview. This is incredibly important if people are ever going to change.

Yes they should be ridiculed for their beliefs, but they should not be outcast from a progressive society. We should attempt to challenge their beliefs and change their minds. Outcasting anyone that voices a different idea than you is wrong.

Oh I wanted to, if I were off the clock. But at work, I am a contractor, while he is a full time employee with power, the office politics here are ridiculous.

I wouldn't have been able live with the fact that IF I did engage at that time and ask why he felt that way things could have/maybe have taken a turn for the worst. Then one things leads to another and so forth. I'm an emotional guy and I know how I can get sometimes, especially with sensitive topics like as this.

But to keep it short, it just wasn't the right place to talk. But I have thought about giving him a call just to have a conversation about it.

 

[aliengmr]

The movie literally ends with all the Asian characters dead but Tom Cruise their white savior who taught them tactics and willpower lives and even ends up "teaching" the EMPEROR OF JAPAN about how to be a proper Samurai and live like his dead friend.

I like the movie, but it's got White Savior problems up the wazoo.

Nathan Algren didn't teach the samurai anything. At most he provided intel on what they were facing, but he didn't teach them anything about combat. Algren was learning from them.

The role he played was that of a messenger, not savior. He literally didn't save anything. The Samurai died and Japan was influenced by the west. Take Algren out of the story and you end up with the same outcome.

 

[Geist-]

There's nothing worse in this industry than when games try to be "deep" and fail immensely at it.

Wasn't that just unused concept art that a marketer decided to use for promotions?

Great post OP.

 

[BronsonLee]

I just spit my juice out.

Fucking hell, I laughed at this.

Bingo is forever their game anyways unless we decide to take it from them by force

We talking First Blood Rambo or First Blood 2 Rambo?

The one where he vaporizes a dude with a 50 cal, so the last one

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Its okay if you didn't understand the movie, its a common occurrence.

 

[Giant Panda]

This is some next level mental gymnastics holy shit.

Explain how that is so. The fact that you didn't makes me question your reading comprehension. My point is fairly simple, so I'm kind of at a lose as to why people don't get it.

If your story has a historical setting, then it there is nothing wrong with the characters being of the race that fits that setting. I brought this up because the OP was essentially asking why there aren't blacks in stories set in Japan. The OP was deriding any use of the "Historical Accuracy" defense as to why a cast of characters isn't diverse. I was pointing out that makes no sense. A cast of mostly Japanese people for a story set in Japan wouldn't be diverse, but it is defensible because you're crazy if you think the historical accuracy argument isn't valid in that case.

I never said this was a current problem. I said that I disagreed with the OP's stance that it should become a problem.

Some posters are acting like I said you could claim historical accuracy to justify whites being all roles, when I specifically didn't say the opposite. I said that roles that often make much more sense going to minorities are given to whites which actually goes against any historical justification. But logically there are settings too where you could be justified in having mostly whites. It really depends on the setting and if that particular story cares about trying to be historically accurate. If the story doesn't care about being historically accurate, then at that point no is no defense to not having a diverse cast because who cares if you match the demographics of the setting's historical reference perfectly?

You and many others in this thread seem to think that because I disagreed with that small point, I somehow disagreed with everything or some shit. "That's you're either with me or you're against me" level thinking, which is just sad.

So please. Tell me where my mental gymnastics are occurring. Because you seem to be the one with the faulty reasoning here.

Your brain must be on some Simone Biles level shit

If you're going to be insulting, actually have something to fucking say instead of shitposting next time. Or maybe you get enjoyment from just being a jerk on the internet?

 

[TalonJH]

Next you're going to tell me that you could have a black and Latino cast play the founding fathers. Could you imagine if George Washington was black? No one would see it.

Spoiler

I love Hamilton so very much

I'm waiting for the day that someone complains about the casting in Hamilton to me so I can flip a chair.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Look at all the bodies that Lime caused

A Rambo-esque body count

All from the mere suggestion that someone would want at least one of the RDR2 characters to be diverse.

You could almost say that got the marks in that thread pretty

Spoiler

triggered

.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

With regards to Battlefield 1 I don't understand why female playable characters is just not a toggle option in multiplayer. Denying their inclusion all together is uncessary- There is female character models in the single player so it's not a limitation. It would have been easy to make a checkbox that you could fit for historical accuracy that would turn all female character models into male ones if it is a problem. Then I could still play as a female without bothering anyone who roleplays or have their immersion ruined.
And this is a general problem- They removed helmetless stormtroopers from Battlefront for the same reason because of the same "accuracy". Just make it a toggle for fuck sake.

As a general rule I think games should strive for character creation in all games. I always feel I can do a better job at making a character I feel like playing as opposed to what they design for me. Or have it be customizeable.

 

[Dancing Queen]

Racism was over after the Civil War.

WE GAVE BLACK WORKERS FREEDOM. AM I RITE

 

[capitalCORN]

Racism was over after the Civil War.

WE GAVE BLACK WORKERS FREEDOM. AM I RITE

IMMIGRANT BLACK WORKERS

 

[redlegs87]

Racism was over after the Civil War.

WE GAVE BLACK WORKERS FREEDOM. AM I RITE

IMMIGRANT BLACK WORKERS

 

[BronsonLee]

And Alton Brown told me that they learned how to make tamales from other immigrant workers in the South, so everybody wins!

 

[Brianimaniac]

Every time someone says diet racism, I get thirsty.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Explain how that is so. The fact that you didn't makes me question your reading comprehension. My point is fairly simple, so I'm kind of at a lose as to why people don't get it.

If your story has a historical setting, then it there is nothing wrong with the characters being of the race that fits that setting. I brought this up because the OP was essentially asking why there aren't blacks in stories set in Japan. The OP was deriding any use of the "Historical Accuracy" defense as to why a cast of characters isn't diverse. I was pointing out that makes no sense. A cast of mostly Japanese people for a story set in Japan wouldn't be diverse, but it is defensible because you're crazy if you think the historical accuracy argument isn't valid in that case.

I never said this was a current problem. I said that I disagreed with the OP's stance that it should become a problem.

Some posters are acting like I said you could claim historical accuracy to justify whites being all roles, when I specifically didn't say the opposite. I said that roles that often make much more sense going to minorities are given to whites which actually goes against any historical justification. But logically there are settings too where you could be justified in having mostly whites. It really depends on the setting and if that particular story cares about trying to be historically accurate. If the story doesn't care about being historically accurate, then at that point no is no defense to not having a diverse cast because who cares if you match the demographics of the setting's historical reference perfectly?

You and many others in this thread seem to think that because I disagreed with that small point, I somehow disagreed with everything or some shit. "That's you're either with me or you're against me" level thinking, which is just sad.

So please. Tell me where my mental gymnastics are occurring. Because you seem to be the one with the faulty reasoning here.



If you're going to be insulting, actually have something to fucking say instead of shitposting next time. Or maybe you get enjoyment from just being a jerk on the internet?

The criticism was that minority roles IN GENERAL are shafted in movies. Not just minorities barely existing altogether if you were to watch media and consider it historically accurate. The argument comes up whenever the whitewashing is questioned, such as in the Red Dead thread.The mental gymnastics was you thinking that we're insinuating that black people should replace asian actors.

With regards to Battlefield 1 I don't understand why female playable characters is just not a toggle option in multiplayer. Denying their inclusion all together is uncessary- There is female character models in the single player so it's not a limitation. It would have been easy to make a checkbox that you could fit for historical accuracy that would turn all female character models into male ones if it is a problem. Then I could still play as a female without bothering anyone who roleplays or have their immersion ruined.
And this is a general problem- They removed helmetless stormtroopers from Battlefront for the same reason because of the same "accuracy". Just make it a toggle for fuck sake.

As a general rule I think games should strive for character creation in all games. I always feel I can do a better job at making a character I feel like playing as opposed to what they design for me. Or have it be customizeable.

DICE and the gaming community using historical accuracy unironically to defend women not being a playable option in BF1's campaign is ridiculous, the campaign while beautiful is some of the worst possible representation of BF1 ever conceived in this medium. So many gary stus.

 

[Syder]

Is just me that doesn't think 'Diet Racism' is a thing? Racism is racism. Some racist people just develop good tactics to avoid being outed as such.

 

[TAJ]

Most of the diet racists I know have discovered Dinesh D'Souza recently. It's just infuriating to have these fuckwits call me a racist because I'm not a Republican.

 

[Opto]

Every time someone says diet racism, I get thirsty.

I get a little bit of synesthesia and imagine the taste of Dr. Pepper

 

[Brianimaniac]

I get a little bit of synesthesia and imagine the taste of Dr. Pepper

Oddly enough, it was Diet Dr. Pepper I was thinking of.

 

[TalonJH]

Still the funniest fucking post I've seen this year.

What was he talking about? I skipped that thread. People asking for a little diversity in RDR2 I assume?

 

[capitalCORN]

What was he talking about? I skipped that thread. People asking for a little diversity in RDR2 maybe?

Whatever it was, It was an opinion that he did not like other people's opinions.

 

[Kuldar]

I know it was Ubi Montreal but, REALLY?

Actualy it was Eidos Montreal.

 

[capitalCORN]

Actualy it was Eidos Montreal.

Ubi, Eidos. Montreal screws me up.

 

[Lightning_Roller]

I still can't believe this is in a damn history book. What the fuck....

 

[LionPride]

If you're going to be insulting, actually have something to fucking say instead of shitposting next time. Or maybe you get enjoyment from just being a jerk on the internet?

Stop doing mental gymnastics yo, using an example of minorities replacing Asians in a samurai movie was quite dumb. Mainly because of how unlikely such an event would be

 

[lightskintwin]

I'm waiting for the day that someone complains about the casting in Hamilton to me so I can flip a chair.

Too late.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...ces-fire-due-discrimination-article-1.2582555

A great rebuttal to the controversy

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/03/hamilton-casting/476247/

 

[TalonJH]

Wasn't that just unused concept art that a marketer decided to use for promotions?

Great post OP.

The "Aug Lives Matter" phrase is in the game. It's on things like posters.

 

[bobbychalkers]

I still can't believe this is in a damn history book. What the fuck....

I had a high school class that just straight up called it Triangular trade and hand waved the slavery aspect altogether.

 

[Brianimaniac]

Wasn't that just unused concept art that a marketer decided to use for promotions?

Great post OP.

That promo art actually says "augs lives matters".

So in addition to being stupid, it's also terrible English.

 

[commedieu]

I'll say the same thing I said in that thread:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=220546729

 

[kswiston]

Too late.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...ces-fire-due-discrimination-article-1.2582555

This doesn't even make sense.

 

[Lightning_Roller]

I had a high school class that just straight up called it Triangular trade and hand waved the slavery aspect altogether.

Please tell me you're joking. Please.

Spoiler

I know you're not joking. Damn, what the hell schools.

 

[TalonJH]

Explain how that is so. The fact that you didn't makes me question your reading comprehension. My point is fairly simple, so I'm kind of at a lose as to why people don't get it.

If your story has a historical setting, then it there is nothing wrong with the characters being of the race that fits that setting. I brought this up because the OP was essentially asking why there aren't blacks in stories set in Japan. The OP was deriding any use of the "Historical Accuracy" defense as to why a cast of characters isn't diverse. I was pointing out that makes no sense. A cast of mostly Japanese people for a story set in Japan wouldn't be diverse, but it is defensible because you're crazy if you think the historical accuracy argument isn't valid in that case.

I never said this was a current problem. I said that I disagreed with the OP's stance that it should become a problem.

Some posters are acting like I said you could claim historical accuracy to justify whites being all roles, when I specifically didn't say the opposite. I said that roles that often make much more sense going to minorities are given to whites which actually goes against any historical justification. But logically there are settings too where you could be justified in having mostly whites. It really depends on the setting and if that particular story cares about trying to be historically accurate. If the story doesn't care about being historically accurate, then at that point no is no defense to not having a diverse cast because who cares if you match the demographics of the setting's historical reference perfectly?

You and many others in this thread seem to think that because I disagreed with that small point, I somehow disagreed with everything or some shit. "That's you're either with me or you're against me" level thinking, which is just sad.

So please. Tell me where my mental gymnastics are occurring. Because you seem to be the one with the faulty reasoning here.



If you're going to be insulting, actually have something to fucking say instead of shitposting next time. Or maybe you get enjoyment from just being a jerk on the internet?

I think what the original post was saying as that people complain about when minorities are placed in setting and argue that the reason they shouldn't be there is because of historical accuracy. While a white actor can be written into any setting and people will accept it.

Example: You can't have an African travel north and become a knight, but its okay with white boy being raised in a Native American tribe and then save the day

 

[capitalCORN]

I had a high school class that just straight up called it Triangular trade and hand waved the slavery aspect altogether.

White people are fully willing to take the responsibility, as long as you don't implicate them.

 

[Alienfan]

Interesting to see how you're wrong about that as white liberals are the easiest to fall into the diet racist tray.

Proof? There are obviously a substantial number, but "easiest" is quite the statement to make without figures. I'd be interested in seeing numbers

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Been really enjoying your threads SENPAI. A good informative read as usual.

 

[Chichikov]

Is just me that doesn't think 'Diet Racism' is a thing? Racism is racism. Some racist people just develop good tactics to avoid being outed as such.

The bolded is the point of that term.
I don't think it's meant to absolve racism, quite the opposite actually, it is meant to call attention to the fact that even though a lot of us associate racism with burning crosses and KKK sheets, there is a ton of racism that managed to put a much more benign looking face on itself.

 

[Skinpop]

I really hate it when someone chalks up any discussion to "outrage culture," as if 1. everyone or even anyone is outraged and 2. every positive social movement in the history of the world wasn't sparked by someone being upset with the current situation and the people on the wrong side of history working against them.

both sides are to blame for this. if people aren't interested in understanding the other viewpoint then how can you possibly expect to have a meaningful discussion. it's just as bad to dismiss someone over white male privilege as it is to cry "outrage culture" whenever an issue is presented. people need to learn that being emotional is not a good thing in a discussion, it undermines their arguments and makes the whole process miserable for anyone who actually wants to make progress. just learn some self control..

 

[The Last Wizard]

I keep telling y'all, a lot of the racism is hidden cause they know what happens when they show it. But people slip up, don't give a fuck and have alts and that's when you see it.

 

[Alienfan]

I think what the original post was saying as that people complain about when minorities are placed in setting and argue that the reason they shouldn't be there is because of historical accuracy. While a white actor can be written into any setting and people will accept it.

Example: You can't have an African travel north and become a knight, but its okay with white boy being raised in a Native American tribe and then save the day

I disagree, white washing is heavily criticised, as it should, whenever it happens. Mulan, Ghost in the shell, Matt Damon etc. Historical accuracy can be a valid criticism, for instance not wanting pop culture to downplay the cruelties minorities faced in a particular setting, or overselling how much of an important role a country played in winning a war etc (Battlefield 1)

 

[brinstar]

I mean you can always call out racists on this forum. Most of the time that's the end of it, at least here in off topic. No idea how gaming operates.

Social issue threads on gaming side are a sight to behold. They are always filled with a tidal wave of posters basically throwing their accounts away trying to stop a conversation from happening.

 

[Brianimaniac]

I disagree, white washing is heavily criticised, as it should, whenever it happens. Mulan, Ghost in the shell, Matt Damon ect.

It's criticized, but it isn't stopping. Studios keep doing it.

 

[Opto]

Oddly enough, it was Diet Dr. Pepper I was thinking of.

weeeeeird. I guess that's one of the flavors

 

[Chichikov]

both sides are to blame for this. if people aren't interested in understanding the other viewpoint then how can you possibly expect to have a meaningful discussion. it's just as bad to dismiss someone over white male privilege as it is to cry "outrage culture" whenever an issue is presented. people need to learn that being emotional is not a good thing in a discussion, it undermines their arguments and makes the whole process miserable for anyone who actually wants to make progress. just learn some self control..

I don't think that white males have a problem to get their point of view across in the national discussion.
Now sure, we should always strive to improve the quality of discourse in society, and if you have a specific case where you think someone went over the line I think it's fine to point it out, but in general, I'm not sure I'm buying that the problem here is that minorities don't understand the point of view of white males.

 

[Razorskin]

I know it was Ubi Montreal but, REALLY?

That was Eidos Montreal

 

[Hashmal_Bringer_of_Order]

This shit is also in Norway

Nah bro, in Norway these discussions are isolated to the "chattering classes" own monkey sphere, and don't permeate society or general cultural discourse as a whole.

 

[capitalCORN]

both sides are to blame for this. if people aren't interested in understanding the other viewpoint then how can you possibly expect to have a meaningful discussion. it's just as bad to dismiss someone over white male privilege as it is to cry "outrage culture" whenever an issue is presented. people need to learn that being emotional is not a good thing in a discussion, it undermines their arguments and makes the whole process miserable for anyone who actually wants to make progress. just learn some self control..

People do explain themselves, and usually its a short simple answer. The problem is when someone's lived experience suddenly becomes an 'inconvenience' to another, a lot of people will not take it willingly. And there's the endless procession of people who simply don't understand why they should compromise for other people's sake. Few are really in it for an answer, It's just a matter of clubbing you over the head repeatedly, until they hope you validate them.

 

[Demy]

Hot damn, OP. Fire post you got there. You've gained a fan.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I think what the original post was saying as that people complain about when minorities are placed in setting and argue that the reason they shouldn't be there is because of historical accuracy. While a white actor can be written into any setting and people will accept it. You can't have an African travel north and become a knight, but its okay with white boy being raised in a Native American tribe and then save the day

They're both, as a general matter, the same level of stretching. We know people ended up all over the world in far-flung places, but until very recently in history the vast majority of people weren't running around like Marco Polo (hell, my MIL never saw a black person until she was in her 20s and had moved to Miami.)

People are entirely within their right to argue against the "well we slot a white guy in here so people can identify with him" angle, but you can't be against that and also be arguing that the World War I battlefield needs to be filled with women combatants when that's not at all how it was, any more than an American Civil War game should be filled with women because in the actual historical record five women pretended to be men to fight. It might be a really good idea for a game, book, etc., to incorporate that stuff (if you're interested in the bit about women taking active roles in the Civil War, I heartily recommend this book, btw) and it's within an artist's right to do so, but I don't see how you can fault someone for not focusing on that either. If it's not an angle you're interested in, you don't buy it.

 

[LordKasual]

With regards to Battlefield 1 I don't understand why female playable characters is just not a toggle option in multiplayer. Denying their inclusion all together is uncessary- There is female character models in the single player so it's not a limitation. It would have been easy to make a checkbox that you could fit for historical accuracy that would turn all female character models into male ones if it is a problem. Then I could still play as a female without bothering anyone who roleplays or have their immersion ruined.
And this is a general problem- They removed helmetless stormtroopers from Battlefront for the same reason because of the same "accuracy". Just make it a toggle for fuck sake.

As a general rule I think games should strive for character creation in all games. I always feel I can do a better job at making a character I feel like playing as opposed to what they design for me. Or have it be customizeable.

I have mixed feelings here. First off, I do not think all games should include a customization option just because. That's an unrealistic standard that kind of shits on the developer's ability to make what they want. And seeing as I can encounter a character creator with almost every race on earth included and still feel like i was left out...it won't make the underlying problem any better.

The checkerbox thing is an easy solution to the inclusion problem, but in this specific case (a game based on a historical event), it's completely unfair to attack the developers for basically following a rubric that was written by real life events.

Stormtroopers all being clones, or WWI soldiers all being male are all things that could be subverted for the sake of inclusiveness, but that's really entirely up to whether or not the developer wants to be progressive at the expense of integrity of the game's continuity/logic/plot/whatever.


I personally think the people who attack Battlefield 1 for not having any female combatants are wasting their ammo on the wrong front.