Yeah, responding to my points regarding other people's comments in this thread. Your statement about gatekeeping was clearly directed at the posts from other people that we're talking about. My only post about the game itself was mildly critical and took a "wait and see" approach giving DontNod the benefit of the doubt.
For the past several posts you've just been acting as a lawyer for other posters and speaking for them. You keep explaining to me what I've posted. I know what I posted.
In my initial post you responded to, I referred to their posts as complaining and specifically said it was equivalent to SJWs complaining about white male protagonists and sexy female characters just because they exist all. In other words, it's trivial. You're the one who brought up these other tactics associated with SJWs, despite the fact that I never accused the posters I quoted of doing those things. No one mentioned advocating for censorship here except you, I've never accused the posters I quoted of advocating for censorship.
My opinion has always been, if you want more inclusion then the most ideal solution is to make your own games, make your own IPs, tell your own stories. This is what DONTNOD are actually doing. Now I see some posters complaining about original games being SJW pandering, when it's not even made with them in mind to begin with. It's complaining about the fact that it exists at all.
You keep on harping on the fact that the I used the term gatekeeping as if it's some super load term. Gatekeeper in the colloquial sense doesn't have real authority enact their will. They don't have the ability to censor anything or act a publisher. And obviously they're not literally guarding a physical gate and barring entry. They judge whether or not something is worthy or legitimate based solely on their biases.
seems like a bad faith attempt at obfuscation. Especially because two seconds later...
Those are
your words, not mine. You implied that it's "elevating beyond" like its so much more severe.
After I pointed out that the posts in this thread aren't equal in any significant way (not morally judging, not advocating censorship, not calling fans bigots -- as in, the things that make SJWs different from anyone else with an opinion)
You're the one who decide to include these distinctions for some reason. That was never the my basis of my comparison.
I said they're complaining, which they are imo. This is the argument I've been making. If a long standing series is being changed to appease or pander, fair enough, I could see the argument against it. If a person then goes on to complain about a game being "SJW bullshit" even when it's an original IP, made for an audience that isn't that person. What would be permissible then? If a person is going to take issue with both the former and the later, then realistically what else can a developer who wants to create those types of game really do? The only other alternative in that scenario is not wanting the developer to create anything at all. That's essentially what I keep referring to as gatekeeping.
The latter is just a vapid point. You could just as easily ask people "why bother?" expressing themselves on any number of topics. Especially on a gaming forum.
You're simplifying my points to be a moot as possible. I'm criticizing them saying they're complaining about the game just for having apparent SJW themes.
They aren't criticizing any aspect of the game on its own merits. Not the visuals, not the gameplay (because there is no gameplay being demonstrated), Not the storytelling.
I'm not talking about a number of other topics. I've being very specific in my criticism, while you're the one trying to be as nebulous as possible.
lmao, again you're admitting you mentioned gate-keeping in relation to other people's posts. Everything we've spoken on has been about your claims regarding other people's posts. So, when you said:
I never denied that I mentioned gatekeeping in relation to others, so I'm not even sure what the gotcha moment is here. I brought up the term gatekeeping in response to your points to expand my argument.
That was totally in bad faith. You're trying to misrepresent the conversation on purpose.
How is this bad faith arguing? That is literally what happened. If anything you're the one trying to misrepresent my argument.
www.lgbtqnation.com
