Mar1217 said:
Cuz if you read the "+" definition, you'll see it only including sexuality from human-to-human perspective. The rest has nothing to do with it or is at least something completly different from the definition. |
He's actually not wrong though. Even if it's pretty ludicrous.
danasider said: In a few decades, nobody is going to say "wow, we have a gay character in a game" in the same way that nobody says, "wow, a black guy is a professional athlete!" But until that time comes, people on both sides are going to make a deal about it, and I think that's an appropriate response. |
You aren't wrong. Sadly.
It would be great if people stopped nitpicking at small descriptors.
Sexuality is but a minor characteristic of an individual, not the entire individual itself.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--