TBH after typing this i realise that widow is a brainwashed sleeper agent, so i guess talon are homophobes.
Jokes aside, i agree that people need to be more accepting, but forcing them isn’t the right way to go about that because it just gets the other side all riled up and it backfires.
Staying neural is really the best way to go about it if you ask me.
How exactly can you even do this? The way they’ve done it with soldier 76 is the most neutral way to reveal it.
So how exactly can they be more neutral?
Wont it be more neutral if they just didn’t reveal his parent and let the LGBT keep there S76 x Mccree x Reaper shipping and lets the normies keep there Ana or Mercy shippings.
So the most neutral way to present it is by not presenting it at all?
Wouldn’t this be a double standard, again, because all relationships but g4y ones can be presented?
You still have tracer and a ton of unknown once.
And not everyone needs a love interest for him to have a good lore.
Then how about we take a look at Soldier’s lore, specifically, the scene where Soldier is revealed to be g4y?
This part comes after Jack looked back at his past because Ana and Jack have to wait until they can pursue their plan. He thought about the time in Overwatch and then when he stepped off a military transport for leave:
Snippet of Jack's past
a dark-haired man, dressed in a casual, black button up shirt. Jack’s arm was
around his shoulder.
Vincent.
“Vincent… I haven’t thought about him in years,” Ana said.
“Still keeping a candle lit for him?”
Jack shook his head. “Nothing like that.”
“You’ve never looked in on him? You must have been
curious. All the surveillance power in the world. I bet Gabe
would have put a Blackwatch agent on him if you asked,”
Ana said.
Jack glared at her.
“Okay, touchy subject.”
Jack laughed. “He got married. They’re very happy. I’m
happy for him.”
Ana was unconvinced. In the early days, Jack talked about
him often, floating a dream that the war would end quickly,
and maybe he’d have a chance to return to a normal life.
But a normal life was never the reward for people like us.
“Vincent deserved a happier life than the one I could
give him.” Jack sighed. “We both knew that I could never
put anything above my duty. Everything I fought for was to
protect people like him… That’s the sacrifice I made.”
“Relationships don’t work out so well for us, do they?”
Ana said, unconsciously running her thumb over where her
wedding ring used to be.
“At least you and Gabe managed to have families.”
The pair lapsed back into silence
The interesting part is not that they added a love story but why they added a love story. The whole message of this snippet is that Jack wished to have a family. He wished that he had a normal life to be happy with someone he loves, but he couldn’t abandon his duty as a protector. He thought about his past lover because he would be the person he’d be happy to live together. It is an interesting twist because we know from the short by now that Soldier only has one goal: Justice. He thought more about the others than himself and seeing how he wishes to be selfish himself shows some humanity in him. Before, he was just a boring soldier who does his job. Now, he a human being who had to sacrifice his own happiness for the sake of others.
Now, watch what happens with the message when we delete the lovers part:
Snippet of Jack's past without a lover
In the early days, Jack talked about
him often, floating a dream that the war would end quickly,
and maybe he’d have a chance to return to a normal life.
But a normal life was never the reward for people like us.
“We both knew that I could never
put anything above my duty. Everything I fought for was to
protect people… That’s the sacrifice I made.”
“Relationships don’t work out so well for us, do they?”
Ana said, unconsciously running her thumb over where her
wedding ring used to be.
“At least you and Gabe managed to have families.”
The pair lapsed back into silence
The message is much weaker here. Yeah, he wished to have a normal life but it doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. It seems like he just had priorities but doesn’t regret it that much.
The lover is an important component because it shows that the abandonment of his lover hurt jack. He does have regrets and it can be only shown by presenting the reader that Soldier 76 is ready to abandon his personal life for the sake of others, by abandining his lover.
As a side note, the same message can be conveyed with a female lover but not with no lover at all.
So soldier needed a love interest to have a good lore here. Otherwise, that character twist in the end doesn’t have a big impact.
Sorry for taking so long to reply. It seems my last salt thread gave some delicate flowers a case of the vapors.
What you fail to understand is that both sides work together to create a false dichotomy. They need people to think… well, believe, that there are only two options. Most people know that third parties exist. But they also believe that voting for a third party will be fruitless. They may even be afraid not to vote for the “lesser evil”.
Politicians have also cultivated vast collections of vote slaves who will religiously refuse to acknowledge reality about their candidate and their opposition.
If Trump set in motion a plan to turn the Sahara Desert into lush farm land simultaneously solving world hunger, global warming, forcing peace in the middle east, and growing plants that can be used to create clean burning fuels, in the same week that a high definition video of Clinton selling black babies into slavery, CNN and the entire social justice movement would still have a financial requirement to make Hillary look good and Donald look bad.
And people who support Trump aren’t any better. Most of them believe no matter how bad Trump might be, the people who hate him are worse. And in many cases, they’re actually right.
The end result is people feel like they have to vote for one evil or the other.
Only a few of us are willing to take a stand against the politicians by voting third party. If enough of us did that -even if we don’t win- the parties will see that they’re loosing people.
would love that! considering i already use a year of the dragon pachimari all the time because of its trans pride colors and the Spark skins
Please leave “political correctness” out of the game. Let the game be game and whatever LGBT wants to do stay in wherevenr LGBT is most active at
1 Like
A lot of LGBT people play this game. And this game is played in parts of the world where LGBT people don’t have equal rights.
There’s also the fact that this post will be postponed for a few hours because these forums automatically censor the word gay.
No. Just no. No single group should get snowflake treatment in any game. LGBT or any other. Either EVERYONE gets logo for their movement or noone gets special treatment.
Social justice and everything that comes with it belongs in trash can. If LGBT people want monopolize some logos to use as their own, for their niche group, i dont mind, asking for special logo is way over board
Or same as “what other nations are to Americans”, right?
Oh, are Americans going to liberate them like they liberated Lybia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.? I see they’re trying to liberate Venezuela now … I bet people in Venezuela can’t wait to get liberated ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
LGBT rights are not the same thing as social justice. Social justice has appropriated civil rights as a way of trying to steal legitimacy.
And just because you personally think you can use SJWs as an excuse for your own personal bigotry, doesn’t mean I have to act like you have a point. You’re just an SJW from the other direction.
You are aware that we are in a “agree to disagree” situation, don’t you?
One side would allow all symbols to be added; The others would allow no symbol to be added. Both sides are completely valid arguments with no holes whatsoever so, in the end, a factual issue became a subjective battle of opinions.
If we were voting for “no symbols or all symbols”, the no symbols party would likely win because it seems like there are more people against the idea of inserting political issues in a game without in-game reasons than people who would support the idea.
The lack of in game reason is probably the best argument against I’ve heard. However, there’s something you’re not seeing. Each of the characters are played by real people. Those real people come from a wide variety of demographics and each of them has someone who hates them for it. Perhaps the game would be made better if bigoted people were made uncomfortable. Bigots are, after all, the cause of most of the world’s problems. I’m sure you know what happens when you subtract a negative.
All, right…
Why is “no political symbol should be added” a flawed argument? Where is the hole in this argument?
The hole is with the assumption that pride symbols are political. Civil rights is in fact anti-political.
Then let’s move the argument: “no anti-political symbol should be added”.
Where is the hole here?