maybe, cause im sick of all this pointless decisiveness going on i was focusing on that topic. like i said, i have not seen you personally say it was a european thing, so it was not meant at you, so if you took it that way then sorry. however
it should silence it though, because it shows that they are wrong. however, as is the problem in all these debates, some sides are so entrenched in their stance that facts will never dissuade them.
im not putting words in your mouth. you linked a US thread on exactly the same topic. therefore that proves this is not just a EU issue. you also said it was an attack on you. it would only be an attack on you if you had in fact said it was only an eu problem, cause then i would be calling you out. but i already said you had not made such a claim.
and this is yet another point in the never ending argument on these topics. each side will always make assumptions on the other side.
i do wonder, with all the accusations being thrown around about peoples isms on this thread and others like it (no, not you!) how many people ACTUALLY are homophobes and other âistsâ? when you remove the trolls and people who are just tired of this in media atm.
Unsurprisingly, inclusion is about being included in whatâs already there.
Could you please include a link to the âactual mandateâ from Blizzard for these changes?
Letâs say Blizzard is including LGBT characters and storylines just to get LGBT people and their allies to buy their products. So what? What is sickening about that?
It can become sickening if the company doesnt really share the PoV it tries to represent but only does it for âze dollarzâ. However i will not say that this is the case. Imo the way it got implemented by them its a case of âYe its there. It doesnt matter however. Deal with it. You make a problem out of it by complaining, not usâ
I for instance will just spam through the quest, or the kyrian questline for the matter. And i assume it wont be much different for the majority of the playerbase.
Why? If you support increased representation of LGBT characters in media, any increased representation is a win. The motive does not really matter. I suspect a lot of people decrying this supposed corporate hypocrisy are just trying to find a way to say they donât want to be confronted by LGBT characters without saying they donât like LGBT people.
Because you would be abusing it to fill your own pockets while in the end you may even be against it but well, it would sate your greed. That its good at the sides would just be a sideffect, but one with a bad taste. The phrase âI did it. But at what cost?â would be a good example
Again: if the goal is to increase representation of LGBT characters in media, why does the motive matter? Your motive is greed: you include an LGBT character. Your motive is noble: you include an LGBT character. Whatâs the difference?
Greed: You dont support it personally (keep in mind that i said that the company doesnt share the PoV in my first statement towards you). You abuse it for personal gain.
Noble: You support it and personal gain is not your objective.
I am getting your point. I do not share it however.
I mean ye sure its helpful for the time being. Until its no longer profitable, then it goes away. And oh boy if being against it is profitable, now the tables will turn because one never truly supported it anyway and they just go with the flow of money.
I for instance would not want an adolf to advocate for my rights for example as im better off without someone like him do it as his support in the long run is absolutely meaningless.
yes, and inclusion is not a bad thing in and of itself. forced inclusion or replacement however. and im not talking about wow specifically.
is blizzard a movement? :\ i said movements.
the next guy answers that. these people are just being used as a tool for more profit. when its no longer âtrendyâ to do so, they will be thrown on the side. is that the type of inclusion you think is a good thing?
Inclusion is always going to feel âforcedâ any time a new element is introduced to an existing construct. The way some people would have it, inclusion is only possible if the intentions are âpureâ and it occurs ânaturallyâ within the construct that is currently lacking inclusion. That is an impossible standard, not meant to promote ârealâ inclusion, but to just oppose inclusion without saying youâre against it.
Any inclusion is better than no inclusion. Letâs just take the inclusion we can get, and cross the bridge of âLGBT characters are being removed because LGBT is no longer trendyâ when we get there.
I disagree with you - I have no problem with there being representation from every and any community - but all I want is it to be given meaning and like I said in a previous post:
why must it ALWAYS feel forced? we live among these people every day.
isnât that the point of inclusion though? to include them because theyâre wanted, not to just tick a box? and then isnât that the problem with companies using them just to tick boxes and promote their products?
but why create a problem down the line (which will be a problem) when it can be done right at the start?
There will always be people who will argue that inclusion is âforcedâ, because itâs new. That is an invalid argument. Inclusion by definition is the addition of something that did not exist before.
Is genuine inclusion better than inclusion for greed? Sure. But what test are you applying to determine whether Blizzard has âpureâ intentions? Apparently it is not convincing enough if they say they want to do it for the right reasons. You are doubting Blizzardâs intentions just because theyâre a company. By that logic, no company can âgenuinelyâ promote inclusion.
What does inclusion âdone rightâ look like to you? And how does it differ from what Blizzard is doing currently?
Iâve said a few times on this post that I am more than happy to see LGBT inclusion with the understanding that its added for a reason other than humouring the LGBT and Straight community.
If the characters are actually written in a way that its a natural progression for them to end in a romantic relationship then fair enough but to just throw two characters together in a way that to me just makes Blizzard say look look we got a gay character cheer for us!! seems like they are just treating the story as something flimsy instead of actually creating a great story with those aspects included.
Why does there need to be a reason other than humouring the LGBT and straight community? And what would that reason be?
Weâve already discussed this. You said youâre fine with the Flynn/Shaw storyline. When has Blizzard included a superficial LGBT character without context and said âcheer for us now!â?
I am saying that just throwing in LGBT characters for the sake of it in my mind is the same as just indulging a child.
However if they created a pair of characters with the sole intention of telling a tale that would make sense in the WoW space aswell as having LGBT aspects be it two males or two females etc etc thats the way to actually appreciate and show your understanding of inclusion.
You have to understand that just simply creating a character with their sole personality/story is that they are gay or lesbian is nothing more than just humouring a group of people.
If your more interested in getting the LGBT community humored as opposed to actually fully including them throughout the story then sure lets add a bunch of characters that their whole quest text just says what their sexual orientation is.
I will continue to make my point that Inclusion means INCLUSION not humoring.
Youâre saying sensible things. Iâm just a bit confused whether you disagree with any of what Blizzard has done so far, or if you are just concerned for some future scenario that has not happend yet.
to include them because theyâre wanted, not to just tick a box? and then isnât that the problem with companies using them just to tick boxes and promote their products?