erin (she/her) @ erin @lemmy.blahaj.zone

TTRPG enthusiast and lifelong DM. Very gay 🏳️‍🌈.

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

185

Joined

2 yr. ago

I understand that you disagree with their points, but I'm more interested in where the strawman arguments are. I don't see any, and I'd like to understand if I'm missing a clear fallacy due to my own biases or not.

Can you point out and explain each strawman in detail? It sounds more like someone made good analogies that counter your point and you buzzword vomited in response.

I like the term "cultural voyeurism."

You're multiplying the amount of CO2 dramatically. That is the amount of CO2 for the entire plane, not calculated per passenger. Emissions are always calculated per passenger for different methods of transportation, otherwise you're multiplying the output by potentially hundreds.

Edit: I think I'm wrong. I'm getting different results saying those numbers are actually closer to the per passenger number. I'd have to do the math but it's definitely more than a burger by a long shot, just from a logical calorie conversion.

I feel like you've redefined tourist. You can visit another culture and still participate in it respectfully with an intent to learn and be part of the cultural exchange. That's still tourism. Why does tourism mean specifically commodifying another culture?

You could try a Lemmy app that gives you a more reddit-like experience. There are several. I use Sync, but only because it's what I'm familiar with from the reddit days. There are plenty of alternative (and often better) options. I can find communities from instances my instance federates with in the search bar, and I even have several different accounts in different instances (world, beehaw, hexbear, etc) to see content my instance doesn't federate with which I can switch to with a dropdown menu easily.

Edit: I assume it's been explained, but not every server/instance talks to each other instance, called federation. This is often for political, spam, or harassment reasons. It may be worth using alternative accounts or using Lemmy from another instance logged out if viewing content from those communities you don't federate with is important to you. The big instances federate with mostly everyone, but there are always exceptions.

I (a Jewish person) draw a distinction between antisemitism and Nazism. Nazis aren't just racist, they're fascist, with a specific set of beliefs. All I can verify is that Disney associated with racists in Hollywood willingly. I find it hard to believe that if Disney was a Nazi sympathizer, he would've produced so many anti-Nazi propaganda films. To give a good analogy, someone might be racist towards Palestinians and Arab people without being Zionist. That's a more specific belief that includes racism.

I totally get that, but there's a big difference between "this guy did a Nazi salute" or "this guy idolized Hitler" and "this guy worked with anti-semites." I don't think we should be using the word Nazi to mean "racist person," as Nazi is pretty specific. I certainly hope I don't come across as making any of the above arguments. Ford was a Nazi. Elon is a Nazi. I haven't seen evidence suggesting Disney is the same, and I think it would be irresponsible to turn Nazi into a generic pejorative for "bigot."

Was Disney a Nazi? I know he wasn't a good person, but I hadn't heard that. Is there any further reading you could link me? A cursory search didn't find much other than the fact that he seems totally cool working with anti-semites, which isn't really the same thing. If he was, I'd like to know, and if not, we should be more precise with our language so when we call out people like Elon it means something.

Fig 53: Risk of Rain's "Huntress" has eyes perfectly positioned to gauge the velocity of arrows she fires.

Look it up. It's not my job to educate you. Facing danger in real life is a real problem, having every conservative politician focusing on banning your healthcare and reducing your rights is a real problem. I have to believe you're an empathy lacking troll or a bigot, and likely both. Discrimination is a "real problem,' and even if pedophilia was the number one political issue in our country, extrajudicial violence isn't going to solve it. And I block bigots, because I'm not going to debate someone who acts in bad faith and says something like

there are people with real problems at the moment

Insane thing to say.

Right. My lived experience doesn't matter, nor the statistics. I'm not seeking attention, I, like the majority of people reading this, am alarmed. I'm seeing people I care about and the community around me hurt every day, and you think "gender rules my life." Not a person worth listening to. When was the last time you got harassed in public for something intrinsic to yourself? For my trans wife, it was today. If you seriously think that trans people aren't currently at the front of the culture war, you're deaf, ignorant, or lying. Watch literally any pundit speak, any newscast, or any political debate around the country. Then tell me trans people shouldn't be concerned about violent rhetoric aimed at people they're increasingly being lumped in with. Bigot or stupid, I won't debate you on the reality plain around me daily.

Likely, or are likely to mistakenly target a trans person who happens to be around while they're hunting the person they cat fished. The people who are okay with extrajudicial violence are mostly conservatives. What's to say the people willing to go to such lengths to hurt someone wouldn't take the opportunity when they see someone they believe is a groomer and pedophile simply for being trans? It's easy to expand the definition, and we've seen it happen in the past. It's happening right now in rhetoric. Violence against trans people is already statistically high.

If someone shows up with the intent to fuck a minor, absolutely, but I guarantee those aren't the only targets vigilantism catches.

Except sometimes "pedophile" actually means "trans person just living." The right claims all trans people are groomers.

It does sound more racist, because it is. Why not Yasuke? Just because he's black? Why any of the other AC protagonists? Why choose a Spartan, a highly unethical culture filled with slavery and abuse? Why choose a Welsh pirate instead of a Caribbean native? These are all pointless questions, because the answer is all the same. That's the story they wanted to tell. Maybe they wanted to highlight the historical outlier at an important time in history. We could speculate on any number of different reasons, but "DEI" doesn't make any damn sense, considering they knew how gamers would react beforehand and even went out of their way to make a statement about it.

They wanted to tell this story. If you want a different one, play a different game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing Yasuke as a protagonist. The series has consistently demonstrated that they don't really mind telling the stories of historical outliers, repeatedly. They shouldn't have to specifically avoid (because that is what your argument has shifted to) Yasuke for fears of "DEI." The "anti-woke" are ridiculous.

Eivor was a foreigner (and an invader) for everything outside the beginning of the game, so was Kassandra/Alexios (also invaders), they just had the same skin tone as the place they're foreign in. There's a big difference between "native characters with understated culture" and just "not foreign." Those are totally different arguments, and it seems like you're trying to make both. Again, why not have an interesting character from history be explored like this. Acting as if past characters are these nebulous "local" individuals when they're often the direct children or relatives of prominent, real, historical figures, if fictional ones, seems silly. This is totally in line with past stories they've told. I really don't see a valid reason a non-local character is "problematic" in an AC game. We've done it a bunch of times. We've played a Welsh guy in the Caribbean, a Viking in Britain, and a Spartan in Greece, just to name a few. I'm sure I'm forgetting other valid examples.

The "women are always screaming" stereotype is sexist. It's a direct extension of the pseudoscientific hysteria diagnosis that used to be commonly accepted. "A women," as you put it, might scream, and you might find that annoying. Women as a category have higher pitched voices on average, and the line between "reasonable yelling" and "hysterical screaming" is often just one of pitch, even when the cause for alarm or injury is the same.

Additionally, neither I nor any of the women in my life "scream" in response to injury. We yell in pain just like someone with a masculine voice, if a bit higher pitched. Some may, but it's not common and is usually reserved for situations of extreme alarm or fear, or occasionally excitement. Any time a woman does scream on video, you always see someone in the comments complaining about how annoying women screaming is. The same is never said about men screaming, unless they scream "like a girl."

9/10 times. How out of touch are you?

This complaint feels manufactured. No one complained about the romance-able historical figures in previous Japanese games, and a quick look at social media and Japanese news shows no outrage. Also, every other game features historically unknown natives? What? We have multiple characters that are children of royalty, at least two that are military warlords, and a Viking raider for fuck's sake. The only game I can think of that has a native of the region not connected to the powers that be is 3, where you play a Native American. You're often just playing essentially a secret police for the state of the country you're in. Why not have a black samurai, a notable historical figure, be the main character. That's super interesting. It's not like Japanese culture is being erased. Your outrage feels misplaced and racially motivated, and I doubt we'd be seeing so much manufactured discontent if it was a white samurai (and there were several).

How does this relate to the article, or the situation with the streamer? Sure, dunk on Ubisoft, but maybe not about a black historical figure being black.