Jimquisition: Tomopology Life

[Aardvaarkman]

Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism.....

Uh, what? We have all of those things in the world, so they definitely aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[ExtraDebit]

Can you see the irony in all this? You said it yourself "One person's dislikes shouldn't be the deciding factor in another person's enjoyments" the thing is: it could go both ways, what if nintendo includes homophobes in the game just for inclusivity sake? How will gays enjoy the game then?

What if Nintendo decided to include white supremacy as a concept in the game, just because there are people who want that. How would any non-white person enjoy the game then? The difference between including that, though, and including different sexualities is simply down to giving people the freedom to express themselves like they are. A person's sexuality, just like their skin colour or nationality, is a part of who they are. It doesn't represent their views, doesn't mirror their attitude, it's a part of them just like their gender and nationality would be.

And surely it's wrong to exclude someone for their skin colour, right? Especially when it's just to be inclusive to people who hate that skin colour?

Last time I checked, "phobia" isn't a view, attitude or choice. "Phobia" isn't hate, it is having an adverse effect in the presence of something or somewhere and is very well a part of us just like gender and nationality. People that afraid of heights didn't choose it, they were born that way.

Why is it ok to hate on someone that have a phobia but is wrong for someone to have a phobia? Note that phobia does not equate "anti", someone with cat phobia isn't someone that wants to kill all cats, they only want to stay away from them because they have an adverse effect around them, I should know since my aunt have cat phobia and she is completely paralyzed when next to the furballs but she doesn't want to hurt them, she can't, she's too afraid of them to be near them to do anything, it is the same with homophobia. Now supposed you're a cat lover, would you subject the person with cat phobia to be torture in a room fill with cats because you think cats are adorable and they are wrong?

Race, sexuality and phobias is something we're born with and have no control over, one does not have a choice of being born gay but showing public affection and parading in the public IS a choice and knowing that it makes some people uncomfortable while still choose to do it is just being spiteful, petty and immature.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

There, apology accepted. Oh and Social Justice definetly IS a zero sum game. Gay rights however, are a completely seperate matter. And remember this thing began a movement headed by a reasonable person, of course batshit SJW's joined the party and started going crazy.

The problem is, that people coming into these threads and screaming "SJW" don't seem to be making many distinctions between rational people and these supposedly "batshit crazy SJWs" - they will rant about these "SJW" if any of these topics are even brought up - regardless of any more nuanced or reasonable positions on the matter.

It seems that "SJW" is the latest bogeyman for some, in a "burn the witch" kind of irrationality that is just as irrational as the craziest that "SJW" has to offer. The fact that such people come up with stupid terms like "SJW" and "White Knight" show just how weak their arguments are, and how unable of carrying a rational debate they are, so they simply resort to name-calling and hysteria.

It's similar, for example, to how some people have been programmed to believe that any mention of Obamacare equals "death panels" and "socialism."

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

Let me quote some Cow & Chicken for that: "Only REAL man aren`t afraid to play with dolls!!!"

I tip my hat to Jim & Nintendo!

 

[Aardvaarkman]

... she doesn't want to hurt them, she can't, she's too afraid of them to be near them to do anything, it is the same with homophobia.

No, it's not the same. Homophobes want to remove rights from gay people - and in extreme cases, want to beat them up or kill them.

Race, sexuality and phobias is something we're born with and have no control over, one does not have a choice of being born gay but showing public affection and parading in the public IS a choice and knowing that it makes some people uncomfortable while still choose to do it is just being spiteful, petty and immature.

Does this apply to straight people as well? I see a hell of a lot more lewd public displays of affection from straight people than I do gays. And no, they are not "parading it" in front of you- they are merely expressing their affection to one another. It has nothing to do with you.

As for "making people uncomfortable" - then we could never do anything in public. Almost everything we do could offend or make somebody uncomfortable. If people have such problems with normal, non-disruptive public behavior, then it's probably a good idea if they don;t go out in public. It's not the public's job to shield them from things they don't like (as long as those things are legal, non-violent, etc.).

EDIT:

Also, I'd say that you aren't born with phobias. They are learned behavior - and they can be controlled and treated. they aren't like allergies, which are physical conditions. They are entirely treatable psychological phenomena.

 

[snowpuppy]

Oh of course Jim is trying to spin a narrative that the ONLY people mad at Nintendo's apology are the sexism brigade -_- yeah Jim, SJWs never get mad at public apologies by saying asinine shit like "oh it was insincere" before proceeding to increase the vitriol of their bile spewing.

Whenever Jim hazards to talk about this stuff he just exposes himself as more and more of an untrustworthy propaganda machine that is more interested in strengthening the narrative than report the truth. Disappointing.

I also don't see how apologizing for fucking up is something worth saluting. Jim as said himself "how about don't fuck up in the first place, doing what you should have done from the start later isn't worth applause." Not bashing Jim for apologizing and admitting his misinformation (so much as I am for the rest of the video that is entirely one sided and ignores an entire facets of the issues surrounding the apology from Nintendo to hyper focus on the minority of 'dudebros' weighing in and ignoring the vast majority of SJWs who are the ones actually making this worse but oh no don't mention that can't complicate the narrative) just pointing out the kinda sorta unintentional hypocrisy of folks in the comments here praising him for something when he's already spoken out against the exact thing you are doing here now with him in the past.

The issue you are experiencing is disagreement with Jim. The argument you make about people getting praised for their mistakes is flawed. Nintendo made a mistake, fixed it and owned up to it. EA deliberately made a 'mistake' and charged money to fix it expecting praise. There is no similarity between these two situations.

 

[weirdee]

Thumbs up, Jim. We need more people that are you on this website. Address poor behavior, encourage good behavior...this is called progress.

Also, about the coding stuff: I've noticed that people in the Facebook comments and some random bits here and there keep claiming they know enough about coding that there's a "gay/not gay" switch in the game somewhere, and I feel like this is patently ridiculous even without going into specifics.

 

[Steve2911]

He's apologizing for being.. vague?
I thought he'd apologize for misrepresenting the situation.

Being vague was the misrepresentation. He clarified, and it's not a misrepresentation any more.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Not that I'm against homosexual relationships in a life-sim, makes sense for that choice to be there, but I have to say that doing it properly does in fact take something away from those who would otherwise not use it. A game isn't reality, where making things legal and accepted is more a matter of dealing with the asshats holding up the process. It's something that time and money are spent making, and every feature added is almost certainly another feature if not discarded, then likely receiving less polish and/or depth. Depending on the feature, it may require changes and/or additional work in many other aspects even further exacerbating the opportunity cost of the feature. And that's without getting into the fact that if poorly implemented a feature may well damage ones enjoyment of other features in a game. That's just how features and options in general work when making anything really.

 

[ExtraDebit]

... she doesn't want to hurt them, she can't, she's too afraid of them to be near them to do anything, it is the same with homophobia.

No, it's not the same. Homophobes want to remove rights from gay people - and in extreme cases, want to beat them up or kill them.

Race, sexuality and phobias is something we're born with and have no control over, one does not have a choice of being born gay but showing public affection and parading in the public IS a choice and knowing that it makes some people uncomfortable while still choose to do it is just being spiteful, petty and immature.

Does this apply to straight people as well? I see a hell of a lot more lewd public displays of affection from straight people than I do gays. And no, they are not "parading it" in front of you- they are merely expressing their affection to one another. It has nothing to do with you.

As for "making people uncomfortable" - then we could never do anything in public. Almost everything we do could offend or make somebody uncomfortable. If people have such problems with normal, non-disruptive public behavior, then it's probably a good idea if they don;t go out in public. It's not the public's job to shield them from things they don't like (as long as those things are legal, non-violent, etc.).

EDIT:

Also, I'd say that you aren't born with phobias. They are learned behavior - and they can be controlled and treated. they aren't like allergies, which are physical conditions. They are entirely treatable psychological phenomena.

Some anti-gay movements said the same, that homosexuality is a learned behavior and a psychological aliment (saw it from religulous), however this isn't about me, its isn't about you, everybody will forgets everybody that had this conversation after a day, there is only the conversation. After that we will probably go on believing what we believed and never changed just as Jim accused us that we would, maybe some of us will have a changed in opinion and actually profit from these post.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

He's apologizing for being.. vague?
I thought he'd apologize for misrepresenting the situation.

The rest of it was respectable though - learning from the situation and developing yourself is the only way to go forward.

Basically trying to explain my motive for doing the video the way I did. In my mind, I was giving a vague overview and simply assuming everyone would know the fuller story so I didn't have to clarify it further. What I was actually doing was misrepresenting the situation to a point where, as we saw, people felt dishonesty was in play.

 

[Evonisia]

I don't really agree with apology = weakness. Seems like a petty excuse to kick somebody when they're already down.

Well this was swell of you, Jim, and it's always nice to get an extra episode.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

There is a time to stick to your guns and there is a time to admit when you're wrong and apologize. Nintendo's position was the latter.

 

[Syntax Man]

There are still bits missing from the narrative. As Jim himself said the majority of the first world, let alone the rest of the world, still isn't all that accepting of homosexuality. Japan is part of the majority on that one. It could definitely be taken as a political statement there, same goes for many other places. Is that good? No, but it does help explain the "we didn't want to make any political statements with tomodachi life" bit from earlier. Furthermore, some people's (myself included on this one) arguments against the Miiquality campaign was that Nintendo has always been skittish about localizing quirky Japanese titles, and a shitshow like this one may cause them to rethink doing this again. I know that some people will say "oh you're not giving Ninty enough credit" or "oh he's a bigot because muh feelings" but this is Nintendo we're talking about, I wouldn't call Xenoblade a quirky Japanese title, and yet it took concerted effort to get that game released overseas

 

[Folji]

Last time I checked, "phobia" isn't a view, attitude or choice. "Phobia" isn't hate, it is having an adverse effect in the presence of something or somewhere and is very well a part of us just like gender and nationality. People that afraid of heights didn't choose it, they were born that way.

Why is it ok to hate on someone that have a phobia but is wrong for someone to have a phobia? Note that phobia does not equate "anti", someone with cat phobia isn't someone that wants to kill all cats, they only want to stay away from them because they have an adverse effect around them, I should know since my aunt have cat phobia and she is completely paralyzed when next to the furballs but she doesn't want to hurt them, she can't, she's too afraid of them to be near them to do anything, it is the same with homophobia. Now supposed you're a cat lover, would you subject the person with cat phobia to be torture in a room fill with cats because you think cats are adorable and they are wrong?

Race, sexuality and phobias is something we're born with and have no control over, one does not have a choice of being born gay but showing public affection and parading in the public IS a choice and knowing that it makes some people uncomfortable while still choose to do it is just being spiteful, petty and immature.

It's also spiteful, petty and immature to wish something away just because someone can't handle it, and that's the biggest issue at hand if you ask me. It's fair enough that a person who has a phobia for cats shouldn't be forced to be locked up in the same room as a bunch of cats, but does that mean the entire neighbourhood should be deemed a cat-free environment? Again, one person's dislike of something should not be the stepping stone for someone else's freedom to pursue it. If one person can't stand homosexuality, their "fear" of it shouldn't become equivalent to "no gays allowed". People should be free to pursue and enjoy the things that come natural to them without having that spoiled just because someone else doesn't like the thought of it. It's selfish.

Not to mention that just because the gay option is there, that doesn't mean it has to be pursued. But that honestly speaks for itself. And while the same thing can't be said for a lot of phobias, homophobia is one of those situation where the "-phobia" part has just lost any meaning it might have once had. When you're talking homophobia, you're rarely talking fear. You're talking hatred. It really has become synonymous with an anti-standpoint to homosexuality, which really is a shame because it is altogether just a big blob of an excuse for selfishly bashing someone for something that really should concern no-one but themselves.

And if someone is genuinely homophobic in the sense that the sight of two guys or two girls kissing debilitates them... then, really, I just pity that person.

 

[weirdee]

I am neither condoning or condemning difference in people nor am I promoting or supporting hatred, I'm just trying to interpret people's hatred that derived from differences, whether is gay/gay supporter's hate on homophobes or homophobes hate of gays.

Can you see the irony in all this? You said it yourself "One person's dislikes shouldn't be the deciding factor in another person's enjoyments" the thing is: it could go both ways, what if nintendo includes homophobes in the game just for inclusivity sake? How will gays enjoy the game then?

First part: there's a difference between calling somebody subhuman/treating somebody as subhuman because you think that you are the superior specimen of mankind due to genetics, and being angry for being called subhuman. Reducing this to an "unresolved difference of opinion" is some sort of defense mechanism to actively avoid addressing large inequalities in society, and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to directly undermine that situation, or if I don't have to start invoking Godwin's law.

Secondly, the presence of gay people anywhere doesn't actually actively impose on anybody's business, aside from actually challenging their belief that gay people exist, or are as human as they are, which if we were to attempt to hide, would be doing a disservice to, y'know, reality. Nintendo would also have a strong incentive to not include homophobes because they go through great lengths to prevent trolling in their online games, so there's that.

As for you being uncomfortable with seeing gay affection: how do you think gay people feel about straight affection, in many movies, books, games? If they were uncomfortable with it, would we have to exclude ALL relationships? You can't just write half of that check and try to dodge the question.

 

[JimB]

I don't really agree with apology = weakness.

Oh yeah, I meant to comment on that but got distracted with smartassery.

Is all that "apology is weakness" and "changing your mind is weakness" stuff really true? I mean, are there people you can point at who actually believe that? Because I don't know, maybe it's just a generational thing, but I was raised to believe that sticking to your guns in the face of evidence to the contrary and refusing to apologize for your mistakes are not signs of weakness, they're signs that you're a prepubescent child who needs to go to bed without dinner to think about himself.