Support NeoGAF

[Pagusas]

This thread has turned way to political, you guys need to cool it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

The bolded is literally not reality in the Western world. There's no reason any reasonable society in this world should rely solely on a system created by any government to solve our problems.

The courts aren't the mechanism for dealing with bad behaviour (I didn't say that). But they absolutely are and absolutely should be the mechanism for dealing with illegal behaviour.

If the courts aren't the primary mechanism, the system simply isn't fair. Anyone accused of illegal activity should have a right to be heard in a fair trial. That's a guiding principle in both American and European law.

You guys call it mob rule, I call it society pressure. To me, most people only consider it mob rule if they don't agree with what the public is saying.

Well, then I think you're conflating issues here. Societal pressure is indeed the first and primary mechanism for controlling poor (non-illegal) behaviour... and it should be.

But there is a difference between healthy societal pressure and coordinated harassment that is often the result of cancel culture.

I think we're talking about two very different types of behaviour when we talk about cancel culture. I'm not talking about people freely expressing their disdain online about some individual's behaviour. I'm talking about things like sending death threats to said person and their family members, together with coordinated attempts to get the person fired from their place of work and ensure they are universally shunned and isolated by society at large by gaslighting anyone in society who may choose not to immediately believe an allegation without evidence.

I cannot see how the latter could be considered merely "societal pressure". It's coordinated harassment to the highest degree.

Thanks for telling us your story and how you arrive at your point of view. I originate from America. A country that has constantly looked down at black people for 100s of years. We literally had to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps to get everything that we got! The American gov't for 100s of years purposely made it so we couldn't succeed in this world. We had to force our country to respect us and give us equal rights and freedom. My country is about 250 years old, but us blacks have only been free for about 58 of those years.

So excuse me if I and some others don't just sit back and wait for a courtroom to tell me if somebody is guilty or not. Or if a corporation is committing illegal acts or not. And to be fair to our converstation in this thread, people aren't being murdered in Western societies over culture wars.

As a fellow black person, I can more than understand your situation, but that doesn't change the fact that in the ideal of a civilised society, condemnation and punishment on the bases of a mere allegation of foul play without any evidence is a complete and utter farce and the complete opposite of where western civilisation needs to be moving.

In the case of your country, considering the pre-existing tendency towards racial discrimination against our ethnic group institutionally, I cannot see how moving to a society that convicts and condemns without any trial or hearing (fair or otherwise) won't be worse than the status quo.

In my country, some of our best national heroes were considered "bad actors" that caused mass hysteria. But that supposed "mass hysteria" has allowed me to be free, so you can miss me with that attitude (speaking from an American's prospective).

You're arguing from the wrong position entirely then. If you recognise how mass hysteria has been weaponized against blacks in America historically, you should see it as of far greater critical importance to ensure that society moves away from foregoing due process altogether.

I don't disagree with you that the court systems and criminal justice systems in the US have been faaaaaar less than ideal. But the answer surely isn't foregoing due process. It's reforming the existing institutions so that they work as they're supposed to.

I can't see why you would argue anything else.

 

[StormCell]

The bolded is literally not reality in the Western world. There's no reason any reasonable society in this world should rely solely on a system created by any government to solve our problems. You guys call it mob rule, I call it society pressure. To me, most people only consider it mob rule if they don't agree with what the public is saying.

Okay, now imagine an America that has become majority muslim with islamic beliefs driving cultural trends. Suddenly, things you say on Twitter get hashtagged and the moral outrage at your liberalism has you in the crosshairs. You think you are a protected class, but title ix is in the process of being burnt. What do now?

Everybody thinks their flavor of religion is the best way to rule society until they realize the same actions can be enacted against them once they're no longer a majority.

 

[mckmas8808]

But there is a difference between healthy societal pressure and coordinated harassment that is often the result of cancel culture.

I think we're talking about two very different types of behaviour when we talk about cancel culture. I'm not talking about people freely expressing their disdain online about some individual's behaviour. I'm talking about things like sending death threats to said person and their family members, together with coordinated attempts to get the person fired from their place of work and ensure they are universally shunned and isolated by society at large by gaslighting anyone in society who may choose not to immediately believe an allegation without evidence.

I cannot see how the latter could be considered merely "societal pressure". It's coordinated harassment to the highest degree.



As a fellow black person, I can more than understand your situation, but that doesn't change the fact that in the ideal of a civilised society, condemnation and punishment on the bases of a mere allegation of foul play without any evidence is a complete and utter farce and the complete opposite of where western civilisation needs to be moving.

In the case of your country, considering the pre-existing tendency towards racial discrimination against our ethnic group institutionally, I cannot see how moving to a society that convicts and condemns without any trial or hearing (fair or otherwise) won't be worse than the status quo.



You're arguing from the wrong position entirely then. If you recognise how mass hysteria has been weaponized against blacks in America historically, you should see it as of far greater critical importance to ensure that society moves away from foregoing due process altogether.

I don't disagree with you that the court systems and criminal justice systems in the US have been faaaaaar less than ideal. But the answer surely isn't foregoing due process. It's reforming the existing institutions so that they work as they're supposed to.

I can't see why you would argue anything else.

The bolded is the problem I have with this conversation on GAF all the time. Every situation where there's a group of people that are expressing their disdain online about some individual's behavior is considered "Cancel Culture". This thread is pure proof of that. This one reviewer stated why "He" personally would not be reviewing or talking about the new Hogwarts game and people have turned it into "Cancel Culture". It's like people can't even publicly abstain from products these days, based off their personal positions on things anymore.


Plus in most cases (like with J.K. Rowling) nobody is actually convicting her of anything. They are condemning her views on Trans people, but that's fair. JK can have her opinion and people are allowed to disagree with it. Also, people are allowed to boycott any of the products that she puts out. And they are allowed to boycott anything that she gets paid from. That's free speech.

There's no "due process" when it comes to this J.K. Rowling situation. It's just two sides that fundamentally disagree on the issue of Trans issues. Now if people wanted J.K. to go to jail or get money stripped from her by the government, that'll be a whole different situation where I'd 100% disagree with.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

The bolded is the problem I have with this conversation on GAF all the time. Every situation where there's a group of people that are expressing their disdain online about some individual's behavior is considered "Cancel Culture". This thread is pure proof of that. This one reviewer stated why "He" personally would not be reviewing or talking about the new Hogwarts game and people have turned it into "Cancel Culture".

You're being incredibly disingenuous.

This is not what happened here.

Have you actually read the thread and the comments of this reviewer you seem to want to defend?

He absolutely did not JUST express his own disdain. He took it further to be sure to gaslight anyone else talking about or reviewing the game. He basically says you're a POS for having anything to do with this game... and what for?

Because J.K. made a biologically and factually true statement about the distinction between transgender women and biological women? Was it insensitive? Yes, sure. Did she deserve to be tarred and feathered and her entire livelihood taken away by boycotting of all her IP?... Absofuckinglutely not!!

Unless you can sit there and tell me you've never once in your life made an insensitive comment that offended someone else, be it unintentionally or intentionally, if you're boycotting J.K. Rowling over this you are a big fat fucking hypocrite. Nuff said. Literally, EVERYONE over the age of 2yo has been guilty of offending someone with an insensitive comment....everyone.

mckmas8808 , my man. You're dying on the wrong hill with this one.

Plus in most cases (like with J.K. Rowling) nobody is actually convicting her of anything. They are condemning her views on Trans people, but that's fair. JK can have her opinion and people are allowed to disagree with it. Also, people are allowed to boycott any of the products that she puts out. And they are allowed to boycott anything that she gets paid from. That's free speech.

You're still not grasping the distinction. Making a personal choice to decry someone's opinion and boycott their products is 100% ok and your individual right.

However, coercing others to do the same through gaslighting tactics and psychological manipulation is not ok, it's not your right and it's not free speech.

It much more closely resembles the same kinds of calls to action that are prohibited in law across Europe and even in the United States.

There's no "due process" when it comes to this J.K. Rowling situation.

I agree.

It's just two sides that fundamentally disagree on the issue of Trans issues.

Not really. It's just one side becoming inflamed while seeking to actively inflame others, based on nothing more than an assumption about J.K. Rowlings views on transpeople.

J.K. Rowling has mostly only made comments about the distinction between transwomen and biological women. It's just that a certain camp has chosen to see that as an attack on transpeople and has decided for J.K. Rowling what her unexpressed views on transpeople are.

It's completely fucking comical and absurd.

Now if people wanted J.K. to go to jail or get money stripped from her by the government, that'll be a whole different situation where I'd 100% disagree with.

This just ignores the very real physical, financial and reputational damage that the gaslighting tactics that the journo in the OP is using can have on an individual.

J.K. Rowling is not the only person to have been targeted by crazies like this on the basis of broadly benign comments.

 

[daffyduck]

...

mckmas8808 , my man. You're dying on the wrong hill with this one.

Don't bother. He's made it clear he's from REEEE.

 

[Hitchyhero]

Has GAF become a politics forum. I thought they removed politics. The most engaged post this past week has been this, the thread about women not being hot enough because of 'wokeness' and that other thread about the writer.

creating threads about random fringes of the left will only result in threads about those on the fringes on the right (which has already happened with moaners about tlou2). Can't we just ignore the moaners, and if you don't enjoy a game.... Don't play it.

 

[Kokoloko85]

I thought she sold the rights of Harry Potter?

Didnt people praise she has nothing to do with the new movies?

 

[mckmas8808]

You're being incredibly disingenuous.

This is not what happened here.

Have you actually read the thread and the comments of this reviewer you seem to want to defend?

He absolutely did not JUST express his own disdain. He took it further to be sure to gaslight anyone else talking about or reviewing the game. He basically says you're a POS for having anything to do with this game... and what for?

Because J.K. made a biologically and factually true statement about the distinction between transgender women and biological women? Was it insensitive? Yes, sure. Did she deserve to be tarred and feathered and her entire livelihood taken away by boycotting of all her IP?... Absofuckinglutely not!!

Unless you can sit there and tell me you've never once in your life made an insensitive comment that offended someone else, be it unintentionally or intentionally, if you're boycotting J.K. Rowling over this you are a big fat fucking hypocrite. Nuff said. Literally, EVERYONE over the age of 2yo has been guilty of offending someone with an insensitive comment....everyone.

mckmas8808 , my man. You're dying on the wrong hill with this one.

With all due respect, that's not what happened here (unless he's said something else outside of that Twitter post and article). He said this.....

After much discussion, neither I nor the rest of the Fanbyte staff particularly want to engage with the game’s marketing. We realize that’s a decision people and teams should make individually — and also affects more than just the genuinely vile J.K. Rowling — but we’re at least staying out of the pre-release hype cycle for the game. I personally do not care what games you want to play or how you want to engage with them. I am not here to tell you not to buy anything or demand anything be banned. If that still makes you angry, well, I don’t really care about that, either.

That's what he wrote on his company's website. That last bolded literally says that. So, why are this point still be mad at him? It's his personal choice and the choice of his staff.

 

[mckmas8808]

Unless you can sit there and tell me you've never once in your life made an insensitive comment that offended someone else, be it unintentionally or intentionally, if you're boycotting J.K. Rowling over this you are a big fat fucking hypocrite. Nuff said. Literally, EVERYONE over the age of 2yo has been guilty of offending someone with an insensitive comment....everyone.

That's not how personal boycotts work. No one on Earth is perfect. We've all said and done things that have offended people. It doesn't mean I have to purchase everything a racist person has produced. I know of some people that have refused to listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify after learning of the racist stuff he's said in the past (not calling him a racist myself). That's fair for them to do. It's a concise matter for each individual. You don't have to be perfect in order to refuse to listen to a Joe Rogan podcast or refuse to watch Rachael Maddow's TV show.

 

[Calling 911 Melts Beams]

which bathroom is this game going to swim in for the olympic brown medal?

 

[StormCell]

The bolded is the problem I have with this conversation on GAF all the time. Every situation where there's a group of people that are expressing their disdain online about some individual's behavior is considered "Cancel Culture". This thread is pure proof of that. This one reviewer stated why "He" personally would not be reviewing or talking about the new Hogwarts game and people have turned it into "Cancel Culture". It's like people can't even publicly abstain from products these days, based off their personal positions on things anymore.


Plus in most cases (like with J.K. Rowling) nobody is actually convicting her of anything. They are condemning her views on Trans people, but that's fair. JK can have her opinion and people are allowed to disagree with it. Also, people are allowed to boycott any of the products that she puts out. And they are allowed to boycott anything that she gets paid from. That's free speech.

There's no "due process" when it comes to this J.K. Rowling situation. It's just two sides that fundamentally disagree on the issue of Trans issues. Now if people wanted J.K. to go to jail or get money stripped from her by the government, that'll be a whole different situation where I'd 100% disagree with.

So, what is your opinion of J.K. Rowling?

 

[StormCell]

The bolded is the problem I have with this conversation on GAF all the time. Every situation where there's a group of people that are expressing their disdain online about some individual's behavior is considered "Cancel Culture". This thread is pure proof of that. This one reviewer stated why "He" personally would not be reviewing or talking about the new Hogwarts game and people have turned it into "Cancel Culture". It's like people can't even publicly abstain from products these days, based off their personal positions on things anymore.

But that's not where this is likely to stop. It's not one guy or just one company posting to social media which way they intend to virtue signal. We have members of the media literally telling anyone else in the media if they cover this game to get fucked and they want nothing to do with them. In a sane world, Liam Robertson would get canned from his job for that tweet, but instead liberal activist trillion dollar venture funding company will continue to bankroll your bullshit propaganda.

 

[mckmas8808]

So, what is your opinion of J.K. Rowling?

From the thing that JK said, I personally believe that it's technically correct. But I think she and many others are missing the point on this. Trans people are asking to be treating as the gender that they are identifying as. They are doing that against a system\government\society that either doesn't think being Trans is possible (because some people think it's a mental illness) or think Trans people shouldn't be respected due to it being "wrong".

In that light it's disrespectful to say a Trans woman, isn't a woman. Likes yes, biologically that's correct. But people aren't going to walk around in everyday life saying "trans this" or "trans that". It's easier to just put a sign on a set of doors that say "Men" and "Women". What are you going to say, that a Transwomen can go into the "Women's" bathroom? No, of course not.

So in that light, that's why many Trans and CIS people are upset at J.K. Rowling. She speaks as if she's the authority of the Trans conversation, instead of wanting to play a part of a larger conversation. She writes as if she has to get the last word on the subject. It's very odd. I'd feel equally odd if a white person wanted to be the authority on race relations in America. Like why would a white person (of all people) even want to be an authority on that?

Just take a look at what J.K. says here about surgery and hormones therapy for people under 18 years old. This is nuts!

But that's not where this is likely to stop. It's not one guy or just one company posting to social media which way they intend to virtue signal. We have members of the media literally telling anyone else in the media if they cover this game to get fucked and they want nothing to do with them. In a sane world, Liam Robertson would get canned from his job for that tweet, but instead liberal activist trillion dollar venture funding company will continue to bankroll your bullshit propaganda.

You call it virtue signaling. And he calls it an explanation as to why he doesn't want to preview the game on the site. Just as you are now giving you opinion on this, should can he. You aren't better than him, nor is he better than you. He literally said on the site that if you want to cover the game, then that's fine. Like he LITERALLY said that.

 

[StormCell]

From the thing that JK said, I personally believe that it's technically correct. But I think she and many others are missing the point on this. Trans people are asking to be treating as the gender that they are identifying as. They are doing that against a system\government\society that either doesn't think being Trans is possible (because some people think it's a mental illness) or think Trans people shouldn't be respected due to it being "wrong".

In that light it's disrespectful to say a Trans woman, isn't a woman. Likes yes, biologically that's correct. But people aren't going to walk around in everyday life saying "trans this" or "trans that". It's easier to just put a sign on a set of doors that say "Men" and "Women". What are you going to say, that a Transwomen can go into the "Women's" bathroom? No, of course not.

So in that light, that's why many Trans and CIS people are upset at J.K. Rowling. She speaks as if she's the authority of the Trans conversation, instead of wanting to play a part of a larger conversation. She writes as if she has to get the last word on the subject. It's very odd. I'd feel equally odd if a white person wanted to be the authority on race relations in America. Like why would a white person (of all people) even want to be an authority on that?

Just take a look at what J.K. says here about surgery and hormones therapy for people under 18 years old. This is nuts!






You call it virtue signaling. And he calls it an explanation as to why he doesn't want to preview the game on the site. Just as you are now giving you opinion on this, should can he. You aren't better than him, nor is he better than you. He literally said on the site that if you want to cover the game, then that's fine. Like he LITERALLY said that.

I enjoy reading your replies. You are calm and collected. I greatly appreciate that in others.

You speak of the trans conversation, but do you realize that Rowling is speaking of the feminist conversation? When trans rights began to overlap into feminists rights and even co-opt their discussions, it became Rowling's place to re-draw the lines. No one should be surprised or angered by her stance. She has spent her entire professional life fighting for women's rights, and she has just as much ground to protect women's right to safe spaces as any other protected class. Her observations are worth merit as well.

I don't at all enjoy seeing someone who is not my ally but is very well spoken and written being called "vile." She's raped zero kids and murdered zero people. We don't know what vile is anymore...

 

[mckmas8808]

I enjoy reading your replies. You are calm and collected. I greatly appreciate that in others.

You speak of the trans conversation, but do you realize that Rowling is speaking of the feminist conversation? When trans rights began to overlap into feminists rights and even co-opt their discussions, it became Rowling's place to re-draw the lines. No one should be surprised or angered by her stance. She has spent her entire professional life fighting for women's rights, and she has just as much ground to protect women's right to safe spaces as any other protected class. Her observations are worth merit as well.

I don't at all enjoy seeing someone who is not my ally but is very well spoken and written being called "vile." She's raped zero kids and murdered zero people. We don't know what vile is anymore...

I do agree we the notion that she isn't vile. But I do think she's said some vile things. To me there's a difference. These days people are quick to turn others into monsters or into the Boogeyman. It's terrible. It's cool to disagree with someone and do so with passion, but I don't think JK Rowling is the Devil or anything.

At least not with what is known publicly. For instance I have a HUGE issue with Jordan Peterson. Many on GAF swear by him, but I hate his guts 100%. But I don't think he's a monster. I've seen some of his videos and recognize he's very smart. He's just a guy I disagree with 90% of the time and has learned to utilize his brilliant skills of outrage marketing to perfection. His greatest ability is the ability to know how use outrage marketing like the best of them (i.e. Kanye West, Donald Trump, Kim Kardashian, etc).

 

[StormCell]

I do agree we the notion that she isn't vile. But I do think she's said some vile things. To me there's a difference. These days people are quick to turn others into monsters or into the Boogeyman. It's terrible. It's cool to disagree with someone and do so with passion, but I don't think JK Rowling is the Devil or anything.

At least not with what is known publicly. For instance I have a HUGE issue with Jordan Peterson. Many on GAF swear by him, but I hate his guts 100%. But I don't think he's a monster. I've seen some of his videos and recognize he's very smart. He's just a guy I disagree with 90% of the time and has learned to utilize his brilliant skills of outrage marketing to perfection. His greatest ability is the ability to know how use outrage marketing like the best of them (i.e. Kanye West, Donald Trump, Kim Kardashian, etc).

It's what one side is really good at doing, labeling anyone who isn't 100% in agreement with the group think. I could never fit in with those liberals for that reason. I'll stick with being libertarian, which means I think it's great that someone legally old enough to make the choice to transition can do so, and anyone younger should need to undergo years of extensive counseling to even approach it. I don't agree with these arguments I see cropping up in different states where trans people want to legally erase all evidence of their past life including amending birth documents. Does someone who is trans intend to romantically court another while never divulging these details to a potential spouse? That seems really problematic and not at all fair to other reasonable parties.

 

[mckmas8808]

It's what one side is really good at doing, labeling anyone who isn't 100% in agreement with the group think. I could never fit in with those liberals for that reason. I'll stick with being libertarian, which means I think it's great that someone legally old enough to make the choice to transition can do so, and anyone younger should need to undergo years of extensive counseling to even approach it. I don't agree with these arguments I see cropping up in different states where trans people want to legally erase all evidence of their past life including amending birth documents. Does someone who is trans intend to romantically court another while never divulging these details to a potential spouse? That seems really problematic and not at all fair to other reasonable parties.

Both sides do it equally. Trust me.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Only one currently has control of the systemic institutions, global corporate monetized virtue, and every other culture war shaping media consumption.

Then, still pretends they're "fighting the system."

 

[Optimus Lime]

This thread and every stupid, lame-brained hot take contained within it is a sobering reminder of how amazing video game journalism was 20-30 years ago.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You guys are giving too much credit to this guy. I skimmed his linked in and he hops jobs every year and worked at best buy as a sales rep 5 years ago.

 

[StormCell]

This thread and every stupid, lame-brained hot take contained within it is a sobering reminder of how amazing video game journalism was 20-30 years ago.

I know, it was great wasn't it? Our great concerns back then were how how much fun the upcoming game was going to actually be and how long it was going to last. There was the occasional concern about camera controls or whether it would take advantage of network connectivity.

Nowadays, it feels like anything but...

 

[Optimus Lime]

I know, it was great wasn't it? Our great concerns back then were how how much fun the upcoming game was going to actually be and how long it was going to last. There was the occasional concern about camera controls or whether it would take advantage of network connectivity.

Nowadays, it feels like anything but...

Absolutely. It's just mindblowing to me that not only does this dumb thread exist, but that people engaging with the idiotic OP as though their lives depended on it.

I was doing the gaming media trawl this morning while I was eating breakfast, and I swear, I could barely move without being hit in the face by some zoomer screaming about how JK Rowling is a hateful monster, or how 'toxic' it is to think/say/do Thing X, and I just felt so depressed. There's something about video game culture that seems to draw these freaks out like flies around shit.

Video games are video games, and that's all they are. Discussing them SHOULD be fun, and lighthearted, and should help you to form friendships with other people. I get that social media has made every fuckhead with a smartphone feel like they are a unique and special rock star with Very Important Opinions to share with the planet, but for fuck's sake, give it a rest.

 

[Thirty7ven]

From the thing that JK said, I personally believe that it's technically correct. But I think she and many others are missing the point on this. Trans people are asking to be treating as the gender that they are identifying as. They are doing that against a system\government\society that either doesn't think being Trans is possible (because some people think it's a mental illness) or think Trans people shouldn't be respected due to it being "wrong".

Trans women aren't women, they are trans women. Just like trans men aren't men, they are trans men. What should be happening is that we should be accepting of a new kind of person. It's completely insane to say they are women, or men, and then have them compete in sports because legally they are women. But they aren't.

 

[Calling 911 Melts Beams]

i now identify as trans-terf

i used to think all women were dumb doo doo heads but now i agree with them on this one issue

 

[Kamina]

Bloggers pretending to be journalists again?

 

[Optimus Lime]

Bloggers pretending to be journalists again?

At this point, that's all of them. You would have to be mentally ill to describe a hack like Jason Schrier as a 'journalist'.

 

[Midnight Bliss]

Is there an option to play as the creator of harry potter in this game?

 

[StormCell]

Trans women aren't women, they are trans women. Just like trans men aren't men, they are trans men. What should be happening is that we should be accepting of a new kind of person. It's completely insane to say they are women, or men, and then have them compete in sports because legally they are women. But they aren't.

This is what I agree with. When we are ready as a species to move past all the body shaming and/or the need to try to conform, why not just accept things on the face of what they are? I would not go out and get mechanical augments that enable me to run 70 mph and then expect to sprint against men who are 100% natural. I would 100% embrace that I would be a trans-human. You could just call my ass Mega Man.

What's not okay with me is a community or even society trying to dictate or even shame individuals into accepting a proposition that on its face is factually untrue. You cannot go from male to female via transition and expect me to believe you are a female. In order for you to expect this of me, you must also expect that if I am romantically interested in females then I must entertain romantic possibilities for that [trans] female.

What will be said of men who never date any trans females? Will those guys be trans-phobic?

 

[FunkMiller]

Trans women aren't women, they are trans women. Just like trans men aren't men, they are trans men. What should be happening is that we should be accepting of a new kind of person. It's completely insane to say they are women, or men, and then have them compete in sports because legally they are women. But they aren't.

Sadly, this is expensive and takes effort.

I don’t know about the trans debate in 2022, but the ‘how fucking self centred and lazy have we become’ debate is much more important.

 

[mckmas8808]

Trans women aren't women, they are trans women. Just like trans men aren't men, they are trans men. What should be happening is that we should be accepting of a new kind of person. It's completely insane to say they are women, or men, and then have them compete in sports because legally they are women. But they aren't.

I agree with you, but I'm saying in an everyday context a trans woman would just be called a woman. And a trans man, a man. For instance........

- Situation A: "Where's the lady's bathroom sir?" (This trans woman wouldn't ask where's the "trans lady's" bathroom)

- Situation B: A Trans man is feeling out a form to get an account to a website. This person would select "Male" in the gender box, as there's no "trans male" option bubble.


That's what I'm getting at.

At this point, that's all of them. You would have to be mentally ill to describe a hack like Jason Schrier as a 'journalist'.

But.............he's literally a journalist.

This is what I agree with. When we are ready as a species to move past all the body shaming and/or the need to try to conform, why not just accept things on the face of what they are? I would not go out and get mechanical augments that enable me to run 70 mph and then expect to sprint against men who are 100% natural. I would 100% embrace that I would be a trans-human. You could just call my ass Mega Man.

What's not okay with me is a community or even society trying to dictate or even shame individuals into accepting a proposition that on its face is factually untrue. You cannot go from male to female via transition and expect me to believe you are a female. In order for you to expect this of me, you must also expect that if I am romantically interested in females then I must entertain romantic possibilities for that [trans] female.

What will be said of men who never date any trans females? Will those guys be trans-phobic?

No you wouldn't be trans-phobic for not wanting to date a trans woman. You'd have a preference of CIS gender women. That's 100% fine! And if anybody has a problem with you on that, they can shut up. But science shows that gender and sexual preference is fluid. It's not an on\off switch like most believe.

At some point that way of thinking will be cave man thinking lol.

 

[mckmas8808]

Only one currently has control of the systemic institutions, global corporate monetized virtue, and every other culture war shaping media consumption.

Then, still pretends they're "fighting the system."

Nah bruh. Both sides have control. To think otherwise means you are falling for "their" tricks. "They" got you fooled man. The pendulum swings back and forth constantly, but I promise you it's not just one side that has all the power. Not at all!

 

[DeepEnigma]

Nah bruh. Both sides have control. To think otherwise means you are falling for "their" tricks. "They" got you fooled man. The pendulum swings back and forth constantly, but I promise you it's not just one side that has all the power. Not at all!

Keyword: “currently”

 

[StormCell]

I agree with you, but I'm saying in an everyday context a trans woman would just be called a woman. And a trans man, a man. For instance........

- Situation A: "Where's the lady's bathroom sir?" (This trans woman wouldn't ask where's the "trans lady's" bathroom)

- Situation B: A Trans man is feeling out a form to get an account to a website. This person would select "Male" in the gender box, as there's no "trans male" option bubble.


That's what I'm getting at.


But.............he's literally a journalist.




No you wouldn't be trans-phobic for not wanting to date a trans woman. You'd have a preference of CIS gender women. That's 100% fine! And if anybody has a problem with you on that, they can shut up. But science shows that gender and sexual preference is fluid. It's not an on\off switch like most believe.

At some point that way of thinking will be cave man thinking lol.

I suppose you probably got banned from Era or you mostly just do a good job of keeping to yourself over there on these topics. Am I right?

 

[Gavon West]

When I read into what all this fuss about JK Rowling was, I couldn’t stop laughing.

What is all he fuss about JK Rawlings? I'm out of the loop, I guess.. I've never watched any of the films either.

 

[FunkMiller]

But science shows that gender and sexual preference is fluid. It's not an on\off switch like most believe.

I honestly think if the trans lobby had said the following:

”Yes, we know we are not biological women, and therefore there are legal distinctions that we have to compromise on… but we want to live as women, and would appreciate it if others respected that, and met us half way on this”

…then a lot of the heat would have been taken out of this argument. They’d be completely on the moral high ground at that stage. Instead they choose to dig in, engage in heavy misogyny and refuse any level of rational discourse.

 

[anthraticus]

Gaming 'journalists' is a misnomer.

 

[Tams]

Then I'd suggest to that cake maker to just make the wedding cake for that couple and keep it moving. What is that cake maker going to do next, not make a "wedding" cake for an inter-racial couple too?



You can be disgusted all you want, but this is the problem with social media and conversations on the internet these days. People can't handle simple conversations without going on the attack. Also, I'd like to let you know that Trans people are really suffering too! We can care for more than one issue at the same time. I know it's Ukraine's time in the "spot light", but it isn't like every other issue that the world had before has gone away.



To be fair, not all trans people think alike. Not all trans women feel like the bolded. It's best to stay away from making them a one sized fits all mindset of people.

Sorry, but sometimes two issues are not comparable.

Stop being so crass.

 

[Honey Bunny]

From the thing that JK said, I personally believe that it's technically correct. But I think she and many others are missing the point on this. Trans people are asking to be treating as the gender that they are identifying as. They are doing that against a system\government\society that either doesn't think being Trans is possible (because some people think it's a mental illness) or think Trans people shouldn't be respected due to it being "wrong".

In that light it's disrespectful to say a Trans woman, isn't a woman. Likes yes, biologically that's correct. But people aren't going to walk around in everyday life saying "trans this" or "trans that". It's easier to just put a sign on a set of doors that say "Men" and "Women". What are you going to say, that a Transwomen can go into the "Women's" bathroom? No, of course not.

So in that light, that's why many Trans and CIS people are upset at J.K. Rowling. She speaks as if she's the authority of the Trans conversation, instead of wanting to play a part of a larger conversation. She writes as if she has to get the last word on the subject. It's very odd. I'd feel equally odd if a white person wanted to be the authority on race relations in America. Like why would a white person (of all people) even want to be an authority on that?

Just take a look at what J.K. says here about surgery and hormones therapy for people under 18 years old. This is nuts!






You call it virtue signaling. And he calls it an explanation as to why he doesn't want to preview the game on the site. Just as you are now giving you opinion on this, should can he. You aren't better than him, nor is he better than you. He literally said on the site that if you want to cover the game, then that's fine. Like he LITERALLY said that.

From what I've seen they hate JK Rowling for being a woman who insists biological sex is real *and* consequential enough that there is a true distinction between women and trans people saying they are women, and as such spaces for only women need to be protected.

The reason that sports is the tip of the spear on this issue is that it's the most visible way that women and trans people differ on average but it's definitely not the only way.

 

[Valonquar]

Let's turn a children's story about kids wanting to learn use magic into an long standing argument over mental illness. FAAAAAANNNNTASSSYYY.

 

[mckmas8808]

I suppose you probably got banned from Era or you mostly just do a good job of keeping to yourself over there on these topics. Am I right?

I was at ERA for like 2 weeks before I quit them. It's too crazy over there. They are lunatics! They don't believe in the democratization of thought and speech. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Sorry, but sometimes two issues are not comparable.

Stop being so crass.

That's the thing. I'm NOT comparing the two issues at all. I'm comparing the indirect effect that happens to people when things happen to a wide base of people. It's best not to have the new-aged Twitter mindset to always be on the attack.

From what I've seen they hate JK Rowling for being a woman who insists biological sex is real *and* consequential enough that there is a true distinction between women and trans people saying they are women, and as such spaces for only women need to be protected.

The reason that sports is the tip of the spear on this issue is that it's the most visible way that women and trans people differ on average but it's definitely not the only way.

Really great point! This is the nuance on this subject that ERA just can't understand how to have. The part in the bolded is a point that I hadn't thought of enough, but you are 100% on point. And it's the most important part.

 

[Boss Mog]

Trans people are asking to be treating as the gender that they are identifying as.

Why should their feelings supersede somebody else's though? Why should their rights infringe on the rights of others? This is what they are demanding and I certainly don't think that's acceptable from just a democracy point of view, without even getting into details. In the end though it's not about feelings or rights, it's about actual science and the fact that feelings can never change the chromosomes you were born with. Listen, if a trans person is cool, I don't have any problem using the pronouns they want out of simple human courtesy, but I won't think for a second that they aren't the gender that they were born as and that that's how they should be legally recognized for things like sports, bathrooms, or prisons.

This obsession with transgenderism is fairly new, before people were just gay or cross-dressers and that was pretty much accepted in the West. Who you loved or what you chose to wear really had no direct impact on others and so even though a lot of people didn't understand it, they mostly accepted it. With transgenderism though you're demanding that other people accept a scientific lie as truth and if they don't then they should be punished. The reason for this shift is political in nature. The people being defined as transgender today are just being used; the goal is to get you to accept something you know isn't true. This is much like the episode of TNG where Picard is held prisoner and his captor shows him a set of lights and tells him that if he wants to stop being tortured and live a comfortable life all he needs to do is say that there are 5 lights when in reality there are only 4 lights. The objective is to break Picard because if he can get Picard to accept a lie as the truth then his captor can get Picard to go along with anything. Voltaire once said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

The last thing I'll point out is the fact that most people who go along with this trans agenda are lying because if you asked any normal looking straight guy who says he supports trans rights if he would ever have sex or marry a transgender woman, 99% of the time the answer will be no. Why no? Simple, because deep down they think that person is really a man; they may try to suppress it but their gut instinct won't let them accept otherwise. Sames goes for parents who might say one thing but when it comes down to it, they might not want to let their eight year-old daughter share a restroom with a 6-foot 250-pound person with a beard claiming to be a woman. Why do these people go along with it then? Because going against it is a much harder path since the arbiters of "truth" have decided to seek out and punish those who resist. To quote Orwell's 1984: "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

 

[BbMajor7th]

The bolded is the problem I have with this conversation on GAF all the time. Every situation where there's a group of people that are expressing their disdain online about some individual's behavior is considered "Cancel Culture". This thread is pure proof of that. This one reviewer stated why "He" personally would not be reviewing or talking about the new Hogwarts game and people have turned it into "Cancel Culture". It's like people can't even publicly abstain from products these days, based off their personal positions on things anymore.


Plus in most cases (like with J.K. Rowling) nobody is actually convicting her of anything. They are condemning her views on Trans people, but that's fair. JK can have her opinion and people are allowed to disagree with it. Also, people are allowed to boycott any of the products that she puts out. And they are allowed to boycott anything that she gets paid from. That's free speech.

There's no "due process" when it comes to this J.K. Rowling situation. It's just two sides that fundamentally disagree on the issue of Trans issues. Now if people wanted J.K. to go to jail or get money stripped from her by the government, that'll be a whole different situation where I'd 100% disagree with.

There is a broader question about protected freedoms. I think we're sometimes inclined to think that anything the government doesn't restrict is a 'freedom', but I think that's a perhaps a red herring. If, for example, you lived in a country where the government had no policy in place which restricted the freedoms of homosexuals, but in which homosexuals were routinely bullied, harassed and discriminated against with impunity, I don't think you could justifiably argue that homosexuals living in that country enjoyed 'freedom' - the government (as many governments already have done in this case) would need to enact legislations which protects that freedom.

It's messy for sure, but you do see a lot of free speech arguments that say 'freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence' - it doesn't seem to occur to them that most criminal activities can be considered in the same way: you are free to steal, murder, embezzle, etc, but you're not free from the consequences, should you be caught.

 

[mckmas8808]

There is a broader question about protected freedoms. I think we're sometimes inclined to think that anything the government doesn't restrict is a 'freedom', but I think that's a perhaps a red herring. If, for example, you lived in a country where the government had no policy in place which restricted the freedoms of homosexuals, but in which homosexuals were routinely bullied, harassed and discriminated against with impunity, I don't think you could justifiably argue that homosexuals living in that country enjoyed 'freedom' - the government (as many governments already have done in this case) would need to enact legislations which protects that freedom.

It's messy for sure, but you do see a lot of free speech arguments that say 'freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence' - it doesn't seem to occur to them that most criminal activities can be considered in the same way: you are free to steal, murder, embezzle, etc, but you're not free from the consequences, should you be caught.

I like your post, but what are you saying with the bolded? I got lost. What's your point as it pertains to the thread?

 

[tygertrip]

At least the clown admits that all these gaming "journalists" are is just marketers.

Good catch!

 

[BbMajor7th]

I like your post, but what are you saying with the bolded? I got lost. What's your point as it pertains to the thread?

It pertained to your distinction about government involvement being a specific line: Now if people wanted J.K. to go to jail or get money stripped from her by the government, that'll be a whole different situation where I'd 100% disagree with.

In a more generalised sense, cancel culture is oft defended on the basis that freedom of speech, though upheld as a universal right in an of itself, doesn't protect an individual from the consequences of using their free speech. I'm pointing out that this definition doesn't accord 'speech' a great deal more freedom than - say - theft. You are free to commit both but neither is without possible consequence. What's more, if the government were to move to penalise certain forms of previously protected speech in law, the likelihood is that - as a result of due process - the punishment would be more proportional. A tasteless racist joke made on Twitter might land you - say - a $100 fine and you'd have the right to appeal, etc. But if you find your joke suddenly trending on Twitter you might fight yourself out of a job and that could be significantly more damaging than the fine.

As a further note, I do think there are a lot of people that want the government to actively criminalise a great deal of what currently constitutes protected speech. I don't agree with that, but I don't think it's quite the Orwellian nightmare we think it is. If I had to choose between a fine, a spell of a community service or being pushed out of a career I love, I'd choose the first two gladly. Moreover, these kinds of institutions are publicly regulated - if your employer decides you're too much of a PR headache they can invoke their old social media policy and show you the door without much fuss.

 

[StormCell]

From what I've seen they hate JK Rowling for being a woman who insists biological sex is real *and* consequential enough that there is a true distinction between women and trans people saying they are women, and as such spaces for only women need to be protected.

The reason that sports is the tip of the spear on this issue is that it's the most visible way that women and trans people differ on average but it's definitely not the only way.

Wow, I really feel like this is the heart of the conflict. What they would say in regards to spaces only for women and any other thing that differentiates women from trans women is that it would effectively out trans women or trans people. That is bound to be their biggest argument for trans women using the women's restroom and any other women-only spaces.

Really great point! This is the nuance on this subject that ERA just can't understand how to have. The part in the bolded is a point that I hadn't thought of enough, but you are 100% on point. And it's the most important part.

I really feel like most of this conflict comes down to erasing any artifacts of trans people's dead selves and never putting them in a situation that could out them. This would imply that trans athletic divisions, trans restrooms, and really trans-anything is no bueno for protecting trans people. That is, as far as the argument is about protecting trans people from abuse that would occur by being outed.

 

[mckmas8808]

It pertained to your distinction about government involvement being a specific line: Now if people wanted J.K. to go to jail or get money stripped from her by the government, that'll be a whole different situation where I'd 100% disagree with.

In a more generalised sense, cancel culture is oft defended on the basis that freedom of speech, though upheld as a universal right in an of itself, doesn't protect an individual from the consequences of using their free speech. I'm pointing out that this definition doesn't accord 'speech' a great deal more freedom than - say - theft. You are free to commit both but neither is without possible consequence. What's more, if the government were to move to penalise certain forms of previously protected speech in law, the likelihood is that - as a result of due process - the punishment would be more proportional. A tasteless racist joke made on Twitter might land you - say - a $100 fine and you'd have the right to appeal, etc. But if you find your joke suddenly trending on Twitter you might fight yourself out of a job and that could be significantly more damaging than the fine.

Gotcha! And that's a good understanding of what true cancel culture tries to do. In theory cancel culture to me is a good thing (as long as everyone plays by the rules and doesn't go overboard).

Wow, I really feel like this is the heart of the conflict. What they would say in regards to spaces only for women and any other thing that differentiates women from trans women is that it would effectively out trans women or trans people. That is bound to be their biggest argument for trans women using the women's restroom and any other women-only spaces.

I really feel like most of this conflict comes down to erasing any artifacts of trans people's dead selves and never putting them in a situation that could out them. This would imply that trans athletic divisions, trans restrooms, and really trans-anything is no bueno for protecting trans people. That is, as far as the argument is about protecting trans people from abuse that would occur by being outed.

And to some degree those Trans people would be right. It's not like we will be creating a 3rd set of bathrooms across the world for Trans people only. And we shouldn't. Then we'd be living in the land of "separate but equal". And that didn't go to well in America in the 1940s - 1960s.

So yeah the bolded is truly the only place we can go where it makes the most sense. Getting there is the hardest part. I think we maybe 3 or 4 generations away from those days. And most of us will be dead by then lol.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Cancel culture is never a "good thing"...

But like all "in theory, it's a good thing" i.e communism and the like, it's never practiced like one sells it... or ever will be.

Snake oil, and all that jazz. Human nature.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

He probably just marketed the game more with that tweet than he would have otherwise with a review.