I do not understand why people still defend Dan. Him being an idiot and people saying so doesn't mean you can't like him.
well speaking personally- i'm not defending anything he says- he has a reputation for being flippant (and truth be told that's part of the reason he works at GB- jeff hired him as much for his personality as his work, both of which were WELL established before he was a bomber).
i just get bummed out by the pile-on of "OMG HE'S SO DUMB." not because i don't think he can take it (or that he's somehow absolved of responsibility, which to be clear HE'S NOT)- it's just useless negativity.
besides- calling him stupid is objectively inaccurate. he couldn't pull off half the devilish pranks he used to do pre-GB without being somewhat sharp. he just has a hilarious combo of a) lack of brain to mouth filter and b) some sizable gaps in common knowledge. but he more than makes that up in enviable quantities of curiosity and a legitimate desire to better himself. and the man is utterly unafraid to admit he doesn't know a thing- which suggests a healthy sense of humility.
huge mass effect fan- but this trailer really doesn't move the needle for me. too much stock footage and dev stuff relative to what appears to be gameplay- all without the proper context.
cautiously optimistic, but i think this one needs go back into the oven for a good stretch.
greg has always come off as a seemingly honest and stand-up guy, and this episode confirms it. thanks for shooting straight @gameovergreggy, and thanks to @danryckert and @dannyodwyer for your own honesty and insights. sincerely great stuff!
So it's in bad taste to make any and all references to another culture in media? If we go back to the original complaint, that Pharah's native American themed skin is cultural appropriation and offensive due to its inaccuracy of design, then there's no fixing that. People who can't divorce native American imagery from the genocidal history will literally never be happy with representation of any kind by someone who isn't themselves a native American.
well i think you have that right- for some, it would be impossible to see a portrayal of native americans by non-native americans as anything other than reprehensible. and while extreme, i don't find it (in the true definition of the word) unreasonable. who am i to say how they should feel? it's their history and their culture- and a lot of truly awful stuff has been endured.
that said, i think it's important to remember it's a question of degrees and severity. this skin seems more unintentionally callous than overtly derogatory. you're right, you can't 'fix' it for all, but i think if the design was accurate, and wasn't relegated to a nationality that likely doesn't have any connection to the images- it would be much, much less of an issue.
I understand the context well enough but America stands alone in thinking that cultures have some kind of inherent copyright on themselves. I can understand wanting to change the Redskins (it strikes me as kinda racist) but to say that nobody else can even make reference to your culture without "stealing" it is bizarre.
I think it would help if I could just imagine a scenario where, if it was reversed, I would be offended. As a British person, if I went to Germany and found a tea house called "The Blitz" with a union jack wearing Bulldog in the window I'd just laugh about it.
I'm not sure I'll ever understand...
for what it's worth i think it's less about an 'inherent copyright' and more about good taste. obviously native imagery is part of the fabric of america- the question is does it make sense to evoke that painful history on the product you're selling- because for portion of the population there is no divorcing that history from the images. and those that stand to have the largest problem with it are the ones that created the imagery in the first place.
also- i appreciate your hypothetical, but i'm not sure how closely it tracks this situation. for one briton and german are nationalities, not ethnic groups. second we're talking about indigenous people having their very identity exploited, not just a political rivalry. i don't claim to understand the nuances, but i'd imagine it'd be more akin to the UK having a soccer team named after something evoking this, like the 'The Fighting Papists' or something.
Listening to the Beastcast just now as a British person and the whole cultural appropriation discussion was just bizarre to me. It's a game filled with caricatures and stereotypes, some more tongue-in-cheek than others, but apparently the line in the sand is one inoffensive Native American inspired skin? Because it's not 100% historically accurate?
the piece that might not seem obvious to a non-american is that the use of native symbols in commercial enterprise is an on-going debate in north america. this isn't a matter of interpretation- we still have sports teams named the indians, the chiefs, and the redskins. try to imagine for just one moment what the conversation would be like if we replaced these brands with any other ethnic group or nickname.
it may not personally bother you or i, but it really isn't hard to imagine why it might not sit right with someone given the history.
@mellotronrules: Lore wise, it's hard to say whether the skin is lazy or not (it probably is); how much of Pharrah's backstory has been revealed by Blizzard?
The point on real world cultural appropriation: I don't buy it. Culture *is* cultural appropriation. Everything around us is the product of people adapting and incorporating parts of different cultures into their own.
well, i'd say you have to evaluate the situation based on the evidence in front of you- yes, it's true that might blizzard might come forward and say "pharrah is ethnically indigenous north american but carries an egyptian passport." but given the information that has been released, and the visual elements that comprise her character- i'm not really willing to give blizzard the benefit of the doubt that her family is secretly from the pacific northwest of canada.
and yes- of course a certain degree of cultural appropriation is present in all of pop culture. that's part of existing in a multicultural environment, and music is a prime example (african americans are responsible for the birth of just about every single modern genre). but i think you'd agree that there's a significant difference between say a white dude opening a burrito business and this. it's a question of extremity, the context of the relationship, and the actual symbols being co-opted.
mellotronrules's comments