the-pi-guy said:
Tober said:
I am not making assumptions. I do not know why you think that. You have not given me an example, what you think is an assumption.
That's why I say to just use the simplified Racial divide of Black/White/Asian/Etc is actually not supporting true diversity. It misses the target.
I don't know what you mean by Strawman. I do not know this word. What is wrong of me indicating that the cultural anchor point (my Aboriginal example) is more important to representation than skin color?
|
You're making this big assumption that there is some basic checklist of black/white/asian etc, that needs to be checked off.Â
Tober: What was my assumption in my first post? You answer my question by referring to my second post. I am curious what assumption I had in the first one.
I'm sure on the level of media companies, a lot of them have something just like that. But that isn't the goal that people are pushing towards.
Tober: Then why are they? It misses the mark making it essentially useless. What is that goal, you are referring to?
Tober said:
I don't know what you mean by Strawman. I do not know this word. What is wrong of me indicating that the cultural anchor point (my Aboriginal example) is more important to representation than skin color?
|
What is wrong with it, and what is a strawman requires the same answer:
No one is saying that skin color is more important than ethnicity.Â
Tober: Above you said something like on the level of media, companies have checklists. It appears those checklist aim to use skin color as a wide web to catch as many people as possible. In a way these companies view skin color more important in their strategy, because they think it's more efficient. Not saying it is, but apparently they do
You're making an argument against something that doesn't particularly exist.
Tober said:
I do not know where you are from. Are you American? This point of view might or might not be valid in the USA. I am not American, so I cannot tell. If you are I do not blame you for the simplified racial representation of Black/White/Asian/etc and think this is how it goes everywhere. It has been over 15 years I visited the US and I remember on my landing card I needed not just share my Nationality but also there where boxes where I would checkbox my race. Those where those simplified Black/White/Asian/Etc checkboxes. I thought that was weird and have literally not seen that for any other country I visited. So if your government tells you this is how it is, I don't blame you to think that these are the major checkboxes to when it comes to representation.
Looking through the prism of the US though, does not make it universal. The world is a big place. I visited more than 50 countries on 4 continents. And no the differentiation/representation is not the simplified US race version with White/Black being the dominant discussion. It is about Nationality, ethnicity, cultural anchor points and depending where you are in the world those in different order.
So let me give you an example, where the simplified view is well meaning, but not effective.
A Korean, Japanese and han-Chinese can recognize which is which a mile off. Most westerners cannot, they can only see an east-Asian appearance. So if you make a character with a generic east-Asian appearance, the creator might believe they put representative diversity in the game for East-Asian gamers. But the truth is that no Korean, Japanese or han-chinese will find any representation in the game. They will find representation in the game, if you actually put a Korean, Japanese or han-Chinese looking character in the game.
|
I feel like you completely misread my post. Because pretty much everything you're saying in here, agrees with my post.
Tober: I mostly agree with myself 
Especially the last part that generalizing on only superficial character traits actually hurts representation more then it helps. In other words, do it right or don't do it at all. That's essentially the gist of it.
|
