FierceDeity's forum posts

#3 Edited by FierceDeity (364 posts) -

@ashkev said:

Diversity for diversity's sake is bullshit. Hire the right people for the job, not because of their skin color or sex.

...[W]e should hire based on merit, and not gender.

Friend, I'll be honest: Every time I hear this phrase uttered anew, my brain explodes. The unfortunate — and unintended, I know! — insinuation being made here is that "merit" and "gender" (or "race," or "sexual orientation" or whatever) are somehow mutually exclusive. Yikes! Instead of letting people own their personal achievements, we perhaps suspect them of being hired according to some mysterious "quota." Yikes again!

No one is saying "hire a woman instead of a competent, qualified person." Yikes, yikes, yikes!

- Jenn Frank, The Rolodex

Except that IS what your saying my implying that Dan was only hired for being a white male. And guess what? "Letting people own their personal achievements" would be a lot easier if it wasn't for people advocating 'positive' discrimination in academia and industry.

#4 Posted by FierceDeity (364 posts) -

@smcn said:

@jellybones said:

@plan6 said:

@jellybones said:

No, GiantBomb was reasonably critiqued and then a bunch of entitled children started making death threats and hurling insults.

Well they were critiqued and then the people doing the critiquing took it to the next level with the "fuck you" comment. Then ass hats in the community went full shitlord and went down the whole rape, death threat thing.

Both sides were wrong, but the shitlords took it way way way to far.

That response came after the harassment started, actually.

And that "Fuck you" was specifically related to the billionth time someone implied that Dan was the most qualified. Which was the point of my earlier replies in this thread detailing Maddy's qualifications, which in turn was met with a concerted effort to move the goalposts.

Anyone who thinks Samantha was out of line doesn't realize the context.

Way to be intellectually dishonest. That "Fuck you" was in response to the simply hypothetical: If you knew with 100% certainty that Dan was the most qualified canidate, would you still be upset? Unable to form a coherent response to that simple question, she resorted to name calling. That tweet did not imply Dan was the most qualified, it asked what if he was.

#7 Posted by FierceDeity (364 posts) -

This dude in the comments on that IGN piece got it right, in my opinion. Also, I used to listen to some IGN podcasts until Moriarty’s attitude soured me on them completely. He does not strike me as someone who thinks these things through.Staephendedalus12 hours ago

Jesus Christ. For the last time, the controversy isn't about the fact that racism is in the game. It's about HOW the developer employs racism in a sensationalist manner as a cliche or plot device. It's taking a very serious topic and cheapening it. And you all want gaming to be taken seriously? Grow the eff up. That includes you, Colin. This is why gaming is still seen as 'the immature douche' medium. In fact, whenever I'm on any forum and the topic of gaming not maturing is brought up, I'll have a reason why. I'll just link them to a random comment section on IGN. Or an article like this, in which Colin deflects, derails, and makes light of a serious issue to reassure all the 15 year olds on here that they don't need to grow up.

Right, because telling someone to "Grow the eff up" for having a different view is a clear sign of maturity. Talk about a lack of self-awareness.

#8 Posted by FierceDeity (364 posts) -

@lysergica33 said:

Am I the only one who doesn't see racism on this Far Cry cover? Just because the guy who's head the villain's hand is on is somewhat brown, it's suddenly racist? Perhaps this villain just fucking hates everyone and doesn't care about race. He could well be championing equality by hating everyone equally.

You know what IS fucking racist though? Calling something racist on these kinds of grounds. Equality is not just equal rights for all socially, but the idea that we are all one and the same beneath our skin. Doesn't matter if he's a fuckin' brown guy being oppressed by the villain, it matters that it's a HUMAN BEING being oppressed by the villain. That's where the drama comes from, not the colour of his skin.

This comes dangerously close to the extremely common argument of "You're the REAL racist for pointing out that racism exists."

You're right, race SHOULDN'T matter. But it does. A quick look at history and sociology shows that not only does race matter quite a bit, but also that racism is deeply ingrained in our society and our media. Most people who perpetuate bigotry honestly don't realise they're doing it since they can't see past their biases (due to them being human, and bias being an unconscious system.) Most people think that they're treating everybody equally, even when they're not. It's why the common "let's pretend race doesn't exist and just treat each other as equals" approach is ineffective at shifting the status quo towards something that actually resembles racial equality.

While you talk about the villain's potential motivations in the picture, the reality is that he can't have any motivations, because he's not real. The only people with motivations here are the people who put it together. More pertinent questions would be: What was the artist's motivation? Since this is the very first thing that Ubisoft showed regarding the content of the game, what where they trying to convey with the imagery, and why? What immediate emotional reaction are they trying to draw from the audience, and how is that achieved? Does the artist actually succeed, and are there any implications or subtext that might to be unintentional?

I'm not even arguing the picture is racist. I'm just arguing that if other people see racism where you don't, at least be a little more self aware than to dismiss it outright, and never, ever, assume that you might be too smart and too much of a good person to be biased, racially or otherwise. I spent pretty much all of my teenage years thinking I was too intelligent to be a bigot, and it's frustrating to see other people potentially fall into the same traps.

In conclusion, I think Far Cry 4 will be a really fun sandbox shooter and I hope I get to hunt a Yeti with a flamethrower.

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario: A woman gets hired to work in some office building. Her new, male boss acts like a patronizing asshole to her. Is the male boss a sexist?

If we're acting on a rational, objective basis here, instead of 'feelings', we have to say no, not necessarily. Since we don't know how he treats or views his male employees based on the information given. He may, in fact, be a patronizing asshole to everyone. Well, likewise we don't have the full picture of this villain either.

#9 Edited by FierceDeity (364 posts) -

@joshwent: I'm kind of in the same situation. Whenever I think of Zenimax, I think of that and the "Scrolls" thing. And then I remember what studios they own, and I feel really bad for the developers of those games. They need to tell their legal team to calm the F down.

This story feels strangely like the whole "DOTA" thing between Blizzard and Valve. "Heck yeah DOTA is a pretty good user-made map in Warcraft 3. Wait, are those DOTA 2 numbers for real ?! HEY DOTA IS TOTALLY OUR IT'S IN W3 IT'S OUR GIVE US THE MONEY GIVE IT GIVE IT GIVE IT !"

And I'm slowly warming up to the idea of Facebook owning Occulus. They seem to be saying the right words, and saying them the right way. This response is an example.

You seriously think Blizzard was in the wrong with the whole Dota thing? I don't know about legally, but Valve was the fucking scummy one.

#10 Edited by FierceDeity (364 posts) -

@haruko said:

Ah yes final destination mode where everyone who uses it is automatically flagged as an asshole. Seriously why is the community for these games so damn toxic.

Why are you so opposed to giving people more options? Don't like that mode, don't play it.