Strawmanning and misrepresentaion(painting that user to look bad)......likely to win the argument you two were having.

Projection
=======================

Tuvok was one of my favorite characters, actually.

I also liked the gay character in Enchanted Arms(xbox game) as well.

Yet, apparently people like me dislike ALL such depictions in media. *rolleyes*

I think you actually make some worthwhile points there, except maybe for exaggerating the example, but I think there actually are games that go in very un-PC directions that provoke the other side of the spectrum, too, even in the mainstream, and they were partially criticised for it (although I don't think by the same people who demand "no politics in our games" when it comes to themes of sexual identity or human diversity).

So if we compare those cases, does that mean that the protests against allegedly racist/sexist games are equally valid as the protests against allegedly virtue signaling / left agenda pushing games then? Or that both are just silly outrage culture? If someone thinks it's fair to criticize or even accuse games for their allegedly liberal/left-wing agenda, are the same people okay with someone criticizing or even accusing games for allegedly being racist/sexist?

And to those who have a problem with "politics in games" (be it in general or those who challenge their own beliefs, on both sides), are you in favor of censorship? Would you be happy if TLOU2 was "fixed" by removing the parts that you deem controversial, just as, say, the allegedly problematic color was removed from Chuchel? Did you protest against Hatred just as much as you protest against TLOU2? Or did you deem those protest overblown and silly, did you think the devs had no agenda whatsoever, that it's apolitical, and that everyone disliking it could just go play something else?

And if anyone fears that certain agendas about diversity or sexual identity being pushed in games might have an effect on the easily influenced, like gamerager put it, does the same apply to games centered on the idea of violence as a solution, depicting guns as sexy to the "easily influenced"? Do they need a warning sign that pacifists might disagree with the ideas contained within? Should D&D games get a warning label for extremely religious gamers who might be offended by the pagan pantheon and hellspawns found within? Etc. Where to start, where to stop?

Dunno how you intended this bit, but it sounds like you're saying that all or most outrage is pointless and not worthwhile to do.

(If you could clarify this point and confirm or deny my suppositions it'd be appreciated)

I think it shouldn't be censored, but that they should be honest and tell people(maybe via markings on the box or something else like a statement) what they added and why.

I disagree that they had no agenda, though....be it financial or to push a message, it(to me) is obvious they didn't just add it in to flavor the story....else we could say ALL or most such stuff added to media is done for the same reasons, at the same period in time, and it's all one big coincidence.

I do agree people should play something else if they want to and dislike this game(for some reason), though.

We already do put warnings on the box for violence and such in games, and some countries put other disclaimer for such already(afaik).

Also in many such games it is obvious those things(hell spawn, shooting, etc) are in the game and why they're there(for entertainment mostly)...not usually so for messaging of any type added into such games.

How can you tell?

I wasn't even referring to anything like that. I was talking about you deciding on a whim that introducing a minority character into the story was suddenly 'pandering to an ideology and agenda!'. Is one black guy, too many? Or introducing a gay guy too? Maybe at the same time? (the horror of it). Maybe one guy doesn't make it pandering, but two???!!?? Wow.

Who makes up the rules? Or are they, as I suspect, completely arbitrary and based on bias and prejudice?

Wow, now you got really out of your way to deliberately mis-understanding and mis-interperting of what I was saying just to turn me into a perceived bad person and elevate yourself onto a moral podest. Which, by itself is actually an agressive and cowardly act, and nothing to be elevated about.

Clearly as a woman, I should have mentioned an example without race but just the replacement of male protagonists with females (yes, I didn't like the new Ghostsbusters because it was just not funny!). Now, how to you want to label me?

If you really didn't get that I was talking about the individual differences in intelligence, health and looks within and across ALL races (as I was clearly talking about differences which occur worldwide....but hey, you only want to understand that which serves your agenda, right?) then I feel amost sorry for your level of text comprehension.

And if you really didn't get the point that having white (or male) characters replaced with POC or female character just to push a political agenda with absolute no effect on the story or even a detrimental effect on story or gameplay, and that the MCU example was just an example of a political pandering (because this was asked for in a post) then you are clearly so caught in thinking that there is no point in further discussing with you.

Common sense, connecting the dots, other factors.

Flipped back to you: How can you tell what you believe is true? Because some site or person says it's so?

It isn't deciding on a whim...you likely know this, yet you seem to keep misrepresenting what I mean....why is that?

Straw man near the end there....fallacy(as you pointed out often in the past).
-------------------------

Also sidenote: you seem to act all enlightened and progressive and intelligent and better than some on such topics, but you seem to just parrot certain side's talking points over and over seemingly without thinking(just agreeing with them full stop) & also strawmanning the opposition(again seemingly without much thought).

If you want to be truly wise, you need to step outside your beliefs for a bit(on this subject) and contemplate the possible merits of the opposition before tossing them aside as so much refuse.

At least I am not, as in "TLOU2 shouldn't be made, it destroys our children!", anymore than that zombie game set in Africa where you shoot all the time at black zombies (because, after all, the game is set in Africa) shouldn't have been made. I don't recall if it was one of the Dead Island games or which one.

Anyone can decide if they want to play some game or watch some movie with a preachy political agenda, but to me it would just make more sense to make games less political, so that they would be suitable for more people. But each publisher makes his own decisions. I mentioned that it will be interesting to see if these ideological arguments seem to affect the sales of either Cyberpunk 2077 or TLOU2.

And no I am not against presenting some political or ideological views in a game or movie (like if it was a game about escaping from a concentration camp, it would be ok to me to depict the German guards as evil and you could even smash their heads in, in order to survive), but there seems to be a fine line between "presenting alternate views" and when the game or movie becomes preachy and is using a hammer to hit into your head "This is how you should think about this particular subject, dammit!". The difference between propaganda and "presenting other views".

Naturally stupidity disgusts me like how some presented it as a big problem The Witcher 3 has no black characters, or what kind of anger a transgender person in a Cyberpunk 2077 ad has caused (in the LGBTGHJKLMN community). Oh, or how some became provoked that there are black Haitians in the CP2077 game that can be deemed bad people, while some real Haitians were excited seeing how accurately the Haitians and their culture was presented in the game presentations.

From what I saw / read about the leaks reaction, what most peoples are really pissed about is not the sexuality of character X or Y but more about the way some beloved characters are treated in the sequel.

followed by
Pick one.

What exactly is a strawman here??

Fair enough. I didn't really follow the discussion in order to avoid spoilers, I just went by what I perceived some posts in this thread to imply.

I think I can agree to this, and it is more or less what I meant by bad writing being the issue, not the themes.

It was meant as a question, to be considered along with the one that came before it, and I guess also meant to question potential double standards on both sides. But you're right, the words I used make it somewhat of a loaded question. Personally, I'd say, yes, while I am very much in favor of critical thinking and constructive criticism, as well as pointing out wrongs and ills, I don't find outrage culture very worthwhile, as, like the word implies, it's mostly fuelled by negative emotions, not reason, it's a bad base for discussion and it doesn't seem healthy to me.

been trying to post this a while now - testing

Did you not argue that having a black guy act a Norse god made the movie not true to itself and thus diminished your enjoyment of the movie? Should I start quoting you piece by piece, are you denying what you said?

Again, are you the person who gets to decide whether they are pushing a political agenda, shoving it down your throat and whatever else hyperbole you want inserted here? Based on adding diversity? Or based on issues of merit or otherwise in acting for example?

How do you know? Which robust criteria to determine this are you using?

You are a smart cookie, I think, so you should be able to see how your painting of those you disagree with to be as bad looking as possible is obvious strawmanning(and also misrepresentation).

Also as the saying goes: Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People

The way you focus on people more than their ideas(and paint them a certain way in some of your posts) shows how you've already(imo) lost this discussion and are just trying to prop yourself up at this point.

You want to see how it's done? Look at aufisch's posts on the topic...most are much better written and reasoned than yours, and they focus more on the ideas at hand and not as much about those expressing them.

========================

Fair enough. I also agree too much outrage is a bad thing....that said, I think people should still get "passionate" about some things some times, if they feel the cause is just/right and the methods they use are sound(to express their thoughts).

That's not even close to being a strawman. That's you not liking what I said. That's not a logical fallacy.

I'm not gonna cry 'fallacy fallacy here', not that kind of guy, I do think pointing out logical fallacies has its merits in discussions. But if you're gonna point them out, at least do so appropriately and know an inkling about them.

" I say it's not a fallacy, so it isn't a fallacy....brilliant!"

That's what you've done essentially.

And yes, it was a strawman, and you've done a few in this thread so far**.

(**=I asked a fellow user with better intellect than myself to verify a few of them earlier, btw...so it's not just my say so on this)

(And also at the very least put words in people's mouths or painted them one way seemingly to try to win a discussion)

If that was a strawman according to you and your smartiepants friend, then the least you can do is explain how it was a strawman.

Because it wasn't.

"Who makes up the rules? Or are they, as I suspect, completely arbitrary and based on bias and prejudice? "

In order for it to qualify in the first place, it should be based on a statement of yours or your position on something that you discussed prior. This is a statement regarding my own opinion/belief about a relevant topic being discussed, in the form of a leading question.

It's about as strawmanny as this

person A: I think X about this.

person B: I'm not gonna even discuss about X - I will however further the discussion talking about new topic Y, and asking you question Z about it.