The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

[DonFerrari]

HoloDust said:

potato_hamster said:

I mean... can you do the same with any "race" of people? Can I post 12 different black people and you tell me which African countries they come from? How about 12 people from the middle east? How about 12 people from East Asia?

It isn't about specific people having specific traits that indicates which country they're from. It's about  trends among groups. Compare 100 random Canadians to 100 random Americans and I bet you could figure out which people belonged to which country based on the collective groups and comparing them as groups.

If anyone's wondering these are prime ministers and presidents of various European countries, from all the way south (Cyprus) to north (Finland).

Point was to show that, although there are differences, one would be hard-pressed to pinpoint where are they exactly from without prior knowledge...but I'm getting really tired of all this nonsense, especially from people that are not from Europe, so I'll ignore all further post on the matter.

your ad hominem and argumentation fallacies are very pretty.

Pemalite said:

potato_hamster said:

You cannot not tell what country anyone is from just by their photo. Literally no one. You have no point.

You can tell what geographical region of the world someone or their ancestors originated from via just their photo.
Skin colour is a very good descriptor for that.

Of course things like colonialism and migration in the last few hundreds years has muddied that water significantly.

And there is actually a good, scientific reason for it.

Still there is someone that can't accept that the population from 1400 Bohemia would look different from a mixed population of today, and that 1400 Europe tribes would be reasonably differentiable from one another.

Tulipanzo said:

DonFerrari said:

1) the game isn't the creator, so saying the game is racist because the creator is, is a fallacy. He would have to prove the racism in the game, which he wasn't able.

2) The one with political agenda is the reviewer.

3) Aligning on Gamergate is a problem?

4) His historical narrative is very badly made, based on if cases of if cases, and with inaccuracy.

5) and very good personal attacks

So you are going to use an authority argument? And worse yet the reviewer didn't even name the historian he said is a specialist, so who can say it really is?

I like bullet-points, like a tacit admission you can't come up with one coherent argument.

1) The reviewer never claimed the game is racist. In fact, he directly states the game isn't racist.
    This leads me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about. 
2) He is stating facts, and directly reporting the clearly political motivation of the lead dev. I guess reporting truth is political now, but you should try to justify       why he shouldn't have 
3) I'm sorry you had to find out this way, you must be shocked
4-5) It seems harsh on Vavra, I wouldn't say the historical narrative is very badly made, just inaccurate at points. Which is fine, "historically accurate Middle           Ages" is a fictional setting after all.
     It's his inane responses to criticism that make this worth discussing.
6?) I'm going to say, maybe don't mention "many historians" if you have none, and know the one historians that the dev railed against. 
      This is base knowledge of the topic; makes you look bad when you don't even have that 

You know you are the one without coherence when you need to say it to others to hide yourself.

1) Read the review, he says the game isn't racist, but that it should include more diversity (but go there to attack the game maker)

2) He isn't stating facts, he is muddling the waters because the creator have a position in gamergate and used a shirt in an event. Still, The whole second part of the review show political agenda of the reviewer and not from the fame designer.

3) Yes I see no problem on someone taking a stand on not defending bad practices from the press

4-5) You are totally out, the point on the review talking about the accuracy is saying that he could keep accuracy (meaning he acknowledge it as precise) even if including black people based on a very iffy "what if" scenario made of incorrect assumptions.

6) The dev haven't railed against any historian. Reviewer said he consulted with ONE specialist (which he didn't named). And when you look at the mirror you'll know who looks bad.