Forums - General Discussion - I'm tired of this overemphasis on diversity spilling into our entertainment.

bugrimmar said:

This is a rant. Sorry.

 

I love diversity. I love equality. I love representation.

I think it's great that the world is recognizing the need for women to receive equal treatment at work. I completely agree that homosexual couples should be able to get married. I am extremely against racism in all forms and I believe every person is equal. It doesn't matter where you're from or what religion you are.

BUT STOP INFECTING OUR ENTERTAINMENT WITH YOUR SELF ENTITLEMENT.

 

1. TALENT is what matters. Not your race or your sexual orientation. So if you aren't as talented as a male developer or director, you still should get the opportunity just because you're female? If you want to get a spot, IMPROVE. Let your work speak for itself and don't use your being female or Hispanic as a reason for your lack of success. It's garbage that less talented individuals are given work just for the sake of diversity. Diversity is good! But not if you're hiring someone just to prove your workplace is diverse and not because of talent!

2. STOP BENDING STORYLINES FOR THE SAKE OF INCLUSION. If your story calls for a homosexual character wherein his/her homosexuality has something to do with the story, then go for it. I would love to experience new storylines that explore these real world issues. But if you're just making a character a female just for the sake of showing inclusion and diversity and her feminine nature has nothing to do with the story, it's just stupid! Why make an all female Ghostbusters cast with a stupid ass male supporting character? Does their being female have anything to do with the story? Or did you just want to show people how "gender friendly" you are? The end result is the story becomes stupid! Did you cast black homosexual Achilles because it adds to the story? Does it? Or does it simply seek to rewrite an age old story unnecessarily just for your diversity dreams?

3. STOP USING STEREOTYPES. Not all Asians are math geniuses and not all African American characters are jacked up gangstas. Characters in games are just placed there as token pieces to fulfill a checklist. "Have we included the obligatory blonde skinny sex symbol? Check. What about the muscle bound black guy who swears every f@$#ing sentence? Check. What about the dumb Hispanic guy who talks like a meth addict? Check." It's like these people are just casting characters to fulfill obligations. Why do we have angelababy in Independence day? Not for her acting, but because she's a hot Asian chick who can appeal to viewers in China! Yeah! Cast her so we can show our movie has mass appeal!

 

 

All you have to do to fix your diversity problem is to NOT CHANGE EXISTING STORIES AND CHARACTERS just to fulfill your agenda. You have every right to make NEW STORIES AND NEW CHARACTERS. Just don't fucking change the ones we already like and we are already invested in. It's been mentioned in this thread so many times already. There's no problem with playing female or black characters. BUT DONT FORCE THEM INTO CHARACTERS THAT ARENT LIKE THAT. 

IF A CHARACTER WAS WRITTEN WHITE, THEN HES WHITE. IF HES STRAIGHT, HES STRAIGHT. IF HES A MAN, HES A MAN. LIKEWISE, IF A CHARACTER WAS WRITTEN AS FEMALE, ASIAN, BLACK, HISPANIC, OR WHATEVER, THEN STICK TO IT! DONT CHANGE IT!

Just like you don't want people to mess with black, Asian, and female characters, it shouldn't be done to any characters at all. When Scarlett Johansson was cast in ghost in the shell, it was called whitewashing. I agreed and I thought it was a bad decision. But it's also a bad decision to turn the human torch black! It's also a bad decision to turn the Ghostbusters cast totally female without even a nod to the originals!

 

End of rant.

Your rant breaks down to white+straight+male is the default, and you need a specific story-driven reason to deviate from that.

Call me crazy, but even as a white straight male, I have enough empathetic capability to be able to play as, say, a black lesbian female and not freak out about it.



Intel i7-8086k @ 5.1 GHz | Asus Maximus X Hero | 32GB Ballistix Sport LT 2400Mhz RAM | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti

Around the Network
TheDarkShape said:
bugrimmar said:

This is a rant. Sorry.

 

I love diversity. I love equality. I love representation.

I think it's great that the world is recognizing the need for women to receive equal treatment at work. I completely agree that homosexual couples should be able to get married. I am extremely against racism in all forms and I believe every person is equal. It doesn't matter where you're from or what religion you are.

BUT STOP INFECTING OUR ENTERTAINMENT WITH YOUR SELF ENTITLEMENT.

 

1. TALENT is what matters. Not your race or your sexual orientation. So if you aren't as talented as a male developer or director, you still should get the opportunity just because you're female? If you want to get a spot, IMPROVE. Let your work speak for itself and don't use your being female or Hispanic as a reason for your lack of success. It's garbage that less talented individuals are given work just for the sake of diversity. Diversity is good! But not if you're hiring someone just to prove your workplace is diverse and not because of talent!

2. STOP BENDING STORYLINES FOR THE SAKE OF INCLUSION. If your story calls for a homosexual character wherein his/her homosexuality has something to do with the story, then go for it. I would love to experience new storylines that explore these real world issues. But if you're just making a character a female just for the sake of showing inclusion and diversity and her feminine nature has nothing to do with the story, it's just stupid! Why make an all female Ghostbusters cast with a stupid ass male supporting character? Does their being female have anything to do with the story? Or did you just want to show people how "gender friendly" you are? The end result is the story becomes stupid! Did you cast black homosexual Achilles because it adds to the story? Does it? Or does it simply seek to rewrite an age old story unnecessarily just for your diversity dreams?

3. STOP USING STEREOTYPES. Not all Asians are math geniuses and not all African American characters are jacked up gangstas. Characters in games are just placed there as token pieces to fulfill a checklist. "Have we included the obligatory blonde skinny sex symbol? Check. What about the muscle bound black guy who swears every f@$#ing sentence? Check. What about the dumb Hispanic guy who talks like a meth addict? Check." It's like these people are just casting characters to fulfill obligations. Why do we have angelababy in Independence day? Not for her acting, but because she's a hot Asian chick who can appeal to viewers in China! Yeah! Cast her so we can show our movie has mass appeal!

 

 

All you have to do to fix your diversity problem is to NOT CHANGE EXISTING STORIES AND CHARACTERS just to fulfill your agenda. You have every right to make NEW STORIES AND NEW CHARACTERS. Just don't fucking change the ones we already like and we are already invested in. It's been mentioned in this thread so many times already. There's no problem with playing female or black characters. BUT DONT FORCE THEM INTO CHARACTERS THAT ARENT LIKE THAT. 

IF A CHARACTER WAS WRITTEN WHITE, THEN HES WHITE. IF HES STRAIGHT, HES STRAIGHT. IF HES A MAN, HES A MAN. LIKEWISE, IF A CHARACTER WAS WRITTEN AS FEMALE, ASIAN, BLACK, HISPANIC, OR WHATEVER, THEN STICK TO IT! DONT CHANGE IT!

Just like you don't want people to mess with black, Asian, and female characters, it shouldn't be done to any characters at all. When Scarlett Johansson was cast in ghost in the shell, it was called whitewashing. I agreed and I thought it was a bad decision. But it's also a bad decision to turn the human torch black! It's also a bad decision to turn the Ghostbusters cast totally female without even a nod to the originals!

 

End of rant.

Your rant breaks down to white+straight+male is the default, and you need a specific story-driven reason to deviate from that.

Call me crazy, but even as a white straight male, I have enough empathetic capability to be able to play as, say, a black lesbian female and not freak out about it.

Your comment sums up to didn't understand OP snf topic.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

MrWayne said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep I do.

And no I don't care if the cast was made exclusively of black transgender women. If you read the thread again I complain about changes to characters droven to please angry mobs and  the like.

I watch plenty of shows that have almost only black people and even knowing that doesn't represent demography on USA I know the reason and it doesn't affect me liking the show.

So you don't have a problem with the women in BF:V because there isn't a sign of an angry mob anywhere near Dice's studio.

No.  I don't have a problem with that at all.

Besides, you create your own character in Battlefield V. Don't want to play as a female with a prosthetic arm, don't design your character that way.

Kaneman! said:
SpokenTruth said:

So you accept a suspension of disbelief so long as it enhances playability?

Well, perhaps having a more diverse cast of characters enhances playability for those represented by the diversity.

Oh come on, are you serious? Are you saying that if Lara Croft were a dude instead, it would enhance playability for all the men who've been playing Tomb Raider?

Don't they call that Uncharted?

Kidding aside, when Lara Croft becomes a game series no longer about Lara Croft and offers multiple character options...yes.  You're ignoring the context of our discussion and even specific words in the very text you bolded - a more diverse cast of characters.  You did recognize the pluralization of "characters"?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said: 
Kaneman! said:

Oh come on, are you serious? Are you saying that if Lara Croft were a dude instead, it would enhance playability for all the men who've been playing Tomb Raider?

Don't they call that Uncharted?

Kidding aside, when Lara Croft becomes a game series no longer about Lara Croft and offers multiple character options...yes.  You're ignoring the context of our discussion and even specific words in the very text you bolded - a more diverse cast of characters.  You did recognize the pluralization of "characters"?

Why does it matter if there is a single character or a cast of plural characters? If what you say it's true, it wouldn't matter, since the player associates only with the character that he/she plays with.

I understand the gist of what you are saying though, that offering a choice is good - and most players will choose the option they most identify with - I agree with that. What I'm saying is, that it's not necessary to implement that, since it's not the most important thing to include. It's like me protesting against games who don't allow mustaches on characters and that my playability of the game is worsened through that - it's not.

If customization interferes with the integrity of the game, I'd argue that it doesn't need to be included. In the end it's the developer's decision, but evidently (according to the reactions to the trailer) DICE would have fared better without going to such extremes.



Aeolus451 said:
Smear-Gel said:

Pretty surprised this thread is still going on tbh. I mean the Battlefield trailer probably revived it. But there's like 50 different topics now so oh well.

This is true. Nature vs Nurture is a rather classic sociological debate and the answer is somewhere in the middle. But discounting the absolutely massive influence socialization has is pretty premature, to put it lightly.

It's not somewhere in the middle and I linked sources saying as much. Men and women are biologically driven to like and dislike certain things, to gravitate towards certain roles or tasks. It's how nature ensures we reproduce, raise and protect our kids, feed ourselves as a family unit, etc. Sure, people are individuals and can be the outlier but they still have the same impulses or instincts as anyone else.

Yes, that is the nature argument in the nature vs nurture debate.



 

Around the Network
bugrimmar said:

This is a rant. Sorry.

 

I love diversity. I love equality. I love representation.

I think it's great that the world is recognizing the need for women to receive equal treatment at work. I completely agree that homosexual couples should be able to get married. I am extremely against racism in all forms and I believe every person is equal. It doesn't matter where you're from or what religion you are.

BUT STOP INFECTING OUR ENTERTAINMENT WITH YOUR SELF ENTITLEMENT.

 

1. TALENT is what matters. Not your race or your sexual orientation. So if you aren't as talented as a male developer or director, you still should get the opportunity just because you're female? If you want to get a spot, IMPROVE. Let your work speak for itself and don't use your being female or Hispanic as a reason for your lack of success. It's garbage that less talented individuals are given work just for the sake of diversity. Diversity is good! But not if you're hiring someone just to prove your workplace is diverse and not because of talent!

2. STOP BENDING STORYLINES FOR THE SAKE OF INCLUSION. If your story calls for a homosexual character wherein his/her homosexuality has something to do with the story, then go for it. I would love to experience new storylines that explore these real world issues. But if you're just making a character a female just for the sake of showing inclusion and diversity and her feminine nature has nothing to do with the story, it's just stupid! Why make an all female Ghostbusters cast with a stupid ass male supporting character? Does their being female have anything to do with the story? Or did you just want to show people how "gender friendly" you are? The end result is the story becomes stupid! Did you cast black homosexual Achilles because it adds to the story? Does it? Or does it simply seek to rewrite an age old story unnecessarily just for your diversity dreams?

3. STOP USING STEREOTYPES. Not all Asians are math geniuses and not all African American characters are jacked up gangstas. Characters in games are just placed there as token pieces to fulfill a checklist. "Have we included the obligatory blonde skinny sex symbol? Check. What about the muscle bound black guy who swears every f@$#ing sentence? Check. What about the dumb Hispanic guy who talks like a meth addict? Check." It's like these people are just casting characters to fulfill obligations. Why do we have angelababy in Independence day? Not for her acting, but because she's a hot Asian chick who can appeal to viewers in China! Yeah! Cast her so we can show our movie has mass appeal!

 

 

All you have to do to fix your diversity problem is to NOT CHANGE EXISTING STORIES AND CHARACTERS just to fulfill your agenda. You have every right to make NEW STORIES AND NEW CHARACTERS. Just don't fucking change the ones we already like and we are already invested in. It's been mentioned in this thread so many times already. There's no problem with playing female or black characters. BUT DONT FORCE THEM INTO CHARACTERS THAT ARENT LIKE THAT. 

IF A CHARACTER WAS WRITTEN WHITE, THEN HES WHITE. IF HES STRAIGHT, HES STRAIGHT. IF HES A MAN, HES A MAN. LIKEWISE, IF A CHARACTER WAS WRITTEN AS FEMALE, ASIAN, BLACK, HISPANIC, OR WHATEVER, THEN STICK TO IT! DONT CHANGE IT!

Just like you don't want people to mess with black, Asian, and female characters, it shouldn't be done to any characters at all. When Scarlett Johansson was cast in ghost in the shell, it was called whitewashing. I agreed and I thought it was a bad decision. But it's also a bad decision to turn the human torch black! It's also a bad decision to turn the Ghostbusters cast totally female without even a nod to the originals!

 

End of rant.

Basically another outlier I see here is that Hollywood today is attacking in the form of stereotyping it always has been, but this time it's targeted at white males even though the level of stereotyping they do is still terrible for minorities. The problem I see is Hollywood is so lazy that instead of making unique and original characters who are minorities or gay, they just throw it in as a sort of side gag that adds nothing to the plot and doesn't even make them relatable to the intended audience demographic.

I get there's been a past in Hollywood regarding racism, but putting in stereotyped characters that add absolutely nothing to the film for the sake of muh diversitah is just as bad if not far worse than just leaving them out.



Aeolus451 said:

Hmm. Now you're just being dismissive. 

I'm really not.  

Just because monkeys are similar, doesn't mean those traits extend to humans.  Even if those traits do extend to humans, it doesn't mean that a.) there aren't other factors at play with humans, and b.) it doesn't mean that those traits extend to women adulthood.  There's a reason why when people test meds on monkeys, they still test them on humans.  Because there is a difference, and those differences are monumental.  

Aeolus451 said:

Humans and monkeys are similar enough that they test meds, medical procedures and do studies like the one I linked. 

Just because humans and monkeys have a great number of similarities doesn't mean they are behaviorally similar.  
Our two closest relatives, which are very close to each other are the bonobos and the chimpanzees.  Some people have considered them to be the same species, yet they have wildly different behavior.  

For example Bonobos are basically a matriarchy, whereas Chimpanzees are not.  

Bonobos tend to end disputes with sex, chimpanzees tend to be more violent.  

Aeolus451 said:

 Alot of lefties like to make claims that are contrary to available evidence/data without showing any data whatsoever like this topic. If it's societal then where's the evidence other than "your truth" or "her experience"?

It's less common than "righties".  

 

Here are some ways that culture affects women:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_hidden_brain/2011/03/psychout_sexism.html

"The psychologists asked female students studying biology, chemistry, and engineering to take a very tough math test. All the students were greeted by a senior math major who wore a T-shirt displaying Einstein's E=mc2 equation. For some volunteers, the math major was male. For others, the math major was female. This tiny tweak made a difference: Women attempted more questions on the tough math test when they were greeted by a female math major rather than a male math major. On psychological tests that measured their unconscious attitudes toward math, the female students showed a stronger self-identification with math when the math major who had greeted them was female. When they were greeted by the male math major, women had significantly higher negative attitudes toward math."

"They measured, for instance, how often each student responded to questions posed by professors to the classroom as a whole. At the start of the semester, 11 percent of the female students attempted to answer questions posed to the entire class when the professor was male, and 7 percent of the female students attempted to answer questions posed to the entire class when the professor was female. By the end of the semester, the number of female students who attempted to answer questions posed by a male professor had not changed significantly: Only 7 percent of the women tried to answer such questions. But when classes were taught by a woman, the percentage of female students who attempted to answer questions by the semester's end rose to 46."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19656335

Women who are told that men are better at math do worse at math than women who aren't told that.  

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programming-used-to-be-womens-work-718061/

Women used to dominate computer programming, until practices started pushing women out.  

https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/dont-european-girls-like-science-technology/

However, ground-breaking research by Microsoft has revealed that most girls’ positive views may change within just a few years. The technology company asked 11,500 women between the ages of 11 and 30 in 12 countries across Europe about their attitudes to STEM. The unique insight found that: Most girls become interested in STEM at the age of 11-and-a-half but this starts to wane by the age of 15. Girls cited a lack of female role models in STEM as a key reason they didn’t follow a career in the sector Young women are not getting enough practical, hands-on experience with STEM subjects Just 42% said they would consider a STEM-related career in the future 60% admitted they would feel more confident pursuing a career in STEM fields if they knew men and women were equally employed in those professions



To the original poster. You are not alone. If you look at Marvel Comics, they have gone from selling 750k a month in comics during the non SJW days and now they are lucky to sell 40k. SJW Star Wars is going down the same route. Again you are not alone! There are a LOT of people like you that don't even want to have a real conversation because they will be called a racist, sexist or homophobe. This thread shows how far the radical SJWs have come, but there is good news. People like you and myself are calling these people out.

Next we have to see how the results of SOLO come in... As a former Star Wars fan, it will be bittersweet to see the results. On one hand they have to suffer like Marvel to change, but on the other hand they will take a franchise that was once great down.



the-pi-guy said:
Aeolus451 said:

Hmm. Now you're just being dismissive. 

I'm really not.  

Just because monkeys are similar, doesn't mean those traits extend to humans.  Even if those traits do extend to humans, it doesn't mean that a.) there aren't other factors at play with humans, and b.) it doesn't mean that those traits extend to women adulthood.  There's a reason why when people test meds on monkeys, they still test them on humans.  Because there is a difference, and those differences are monumental.  

Aeolus451 said:

Humans and monkeys are similar enough that they test meds, medical procedures and do studies like the one I linked. 

Just because humans and monkeys have a great number of similarities doesn't mean they are behaviorally similar.  
Our two closest relatives, which are very close to each other are the bonobos and the chimpanzees.  Some people have considered them to be the same species, yet they have wildly different behavior.  

For example Bonobos are basically a matriarchy, whereas Chimpanzees are not.  

Bonobos tend to end disputes with sex, chimpanzees tend to be more violent.  

Aeolus451 said:

 Alot of lefties like to make claims that are contrary to available evidence/data without showing any data whatsoever like this topic. If it's societal then where's the evidence other than "your truth" or "her experience"?

It's less common than "righties".  

 

Here are some ways that culture affects women:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_hidden_brain/2011/03/psychout_sexism.html

"The psychologists asked female students studying biology, chemistry, and engineering to take a very tough math test. All the students were greeted by a senior math major who wore a T-shirt displaying Einstein's E=mc2 equation. For some volunteers, the math major was male. For others, the math major was female. This tiny tweak made a difference: Women attempted more questions on the tough math test when they were greeted by a female math major rather than a male math major. On psychological tests that measured their unconscious attitudes toward math, the female students showed a stronger self-identification with math when the math major who had greeted them was female. When they were greeted by the male math major, women had significantly higher negative attitudes toward math."

"They measured, for instance, how often each student responded to questions posed by professors to the classroom as a whole. At the start of the semester, 11 percent of the female students attempted to answer questions posed to the entire class when the professor was male, and 7 percent of the female students attempted to answer questions posed to the entire class when the professor was female. By the end of the semester, the number of female students who attempted to answer questions posed by a male professor had not changed significantly: Only 7 percent of the women tried to answer such questions. But when classes were taught by a woman, the percentage of female students who attempted to answer questions by the semester's end rose to 46."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19656335

Women who are told that men are better at math do worse at math than women who aren't told that.  

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programming-used-to-be-womens-work-718061/

Women used to dominate computer programming, until practices started pushing women out.  

https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/dont-european-girls-like-science-technology/

However, ground-breaking research by Microsoft has revealed that most girls’ positive views may change within just a few years. The technology company asked 11,500 women between the ages of 11 and 30 in 12 countries across Europe about their attitudes to STEM. The unique insight found that: Most girls become interested in STEM at the age of 11-and-a-half but this starts to wane by the age of 15. Girls cited a lack of female role models in STEM as a key reason they didn’t follow a career in the sector Young women are not getting enough practical, hands-on experience with STEM subjects Just 42% said they would consider a STEM-related career in the future 60% admitted they would feel more confident pursuing a career in STEM fields if they knew men and women were equally employed in those professions

Most of that is basically polls done on how women "feel" about stem and an article/blog by a feminist quoting another feminist from "gender news" (which turns out to be a dead link). 

This is what I was talking about. 



Aeolus451 said:

Most of that is basically polls done on how women "feel" about stem 

Because real science is giving monkeys toys and extrapolating how they play with it to adult humans.  Right, forgot about that.  

There is also only 1 poll.  There are 2 studies which don't ask about how women feel.

And that 1 historical article.