I know this might start war in the comments so please chill people, I don’t want to get 20 reports from this single post.

  • loutr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If you read the article you’ll see that the author takes issue not with the inclusion itself, but the hamfisted way in which it is included. Pandering can be fine, but when it’s just checking boxes in a cringy, lazy way it’s not, and worse it becomes fodder for the gamergate type to rage about.

    • interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 minutes ago

      Complaining about “the way it’s included” has been a trick to try to gatekeep minorities that dates back from to the origin of time.

      For those people always pretend it’s ok to include X except in “that particular context” or “in that particular way” and unsurprisingly enough it’s never the right context or the right way. Unless of course the context is out of their way.

      I’ve seen the same boring argument repeated for every single minorities over the last 50 years.

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I understand that, but my point is that there is no shortage of shoehorned comic relief characters, or awkwardly placed fanservice, etc. Critique the actual fault at play, bad writing, rather than letting the gamergate right-wing nutsos have the benefit of having the conversation on their terms. Make the headline “DA:tV falls short in the writing department, here are some examples” and include the flimsy way the character is written as the valid critique. Games are going to pander to us, that is what I was saying; when we place special emphasis on this particular type of pandering all we’re doing is letting the right define the conversations we’re having.