Jimquisition: Tomopology Life

[Folji]

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.

Haven't you ever had that feeling, the nagging in the back of your head telling you to stand by your claims even if it's just for the sheer principle of it? Even the history books are pretty riddled with incidents people have refused anyone trying to prove them wrong, much less been willing to admit to being wrong and apologising for it, all for the sake of not losing face.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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?

It completely permeates modern culture. Especially in politics, where being a "flip-flopper" is considered to be worse than being factually wrong and subscribing to completely crazy ideas. The news media almost always portrays changes of opinion as weak - and complex views that don't boil down to simple black-and-white matters are also portrayed as weak or affected.

But even in general discourse online - how often do you see someone in an online discussion (whether that is forums, Twitter, whatever) admit that they made a mistake and were wrong? It's very rare, people will stick to their position, no matter how thoroughly it has been disproven. And that's how people get followers, that's how people are "strong" - because there's always somebody willing to support that position - as long as they don't show any sign of weakening, or conceding a point to the other side.

Outside of online discourse, I see the same a lot in University classrooms - where somebody has concocted a "clever" position that they want to stick to the professor (usually for political reasons) - and they will never back down. Not the least because if they do admit they are wrong, that would nullify their complaint against the professor for discriminating against their point of view.

EDIT:

I'd even go so far to say that this phenomenon exists well beyond the political/discourse realms, and into the mundane aspects of every day life, like driving and shopping.

Somebody acted like a dick and dangerously cut you off while driving? Good luck getting an apology for that. You're more likely to get the finger for being in their way. Somebody's talking on their phone during a movie in the cinema? You're the asshole for being bothered by that. Asking politely if somebody could move their shopping cart so you can get to the milk? Fuck you!

I'd almost go as far to say that the motto for the current era should be the sarcastic non-apology "soooorrrr-eeeeeeee."

 

[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.

You assumed that everyone knew the story that clearly few people understood at all, and was already being misrepresented all over the web? Forgive me Jim, but I definitely got the impression that you didn't know the story yourself.

You're saying otherwise, so I trust that's true; I'm just letting you know how it looks.

I think there are old episodes of my Podtoid podcast where I talk about the glitch controversy back when it was happening in Japan, so yeah, I knew the basics. I won't claim I knew more THAN the basics, though, and that I couldn't have stood to have researched things way more thoroughly than I did.

 

[JimB]

Haven't you ever had that feeling, the nagging in the back of your head telling you to stand by your claims even if it's just for the sheer principle of it?

Yes, and it's the same nagging voice in the back of Cliven Bundy's head, telling him to get as many people as possible to drive over Native American ruins in ATVs to wreck shit up. He's not admirable for sticking up for his convictions; he's a ****.

But even in general discourse online - how often do you see someone in an online discussion (whether that is forums, Twitter, whatever) admit that they made a mistake and were wrong?

Almost never, but I also never hear anyone praise them for that kind of behavior, nor attack those who do admit error. In my experience, people are likely to applaud someone who shows the maturity to back down from a wrong belief.

 

[Folji]

Yes, and it's the same nagging voice in the back of Cliven Bundy's head, telling him to get as many people as possible to drive over Native American ruins in ATVs to wreck shit up. He's not admirable for sticking up for his convictions; he's a ****.

Nobody said was a good nagging to listen to! Maybe save for the people who do actually listen to it. Which is a lot of people actually. So those people would say it's a good thing to stick by one conviction no matter how weird it is. And like Aardvaark said, that kind of attitude really does permeate modern society. Arguably it runs deep through the whole history of mankind.

 

[JimB]

Yes, and it's the same nagging voice in the back of Cliven Bundy's head, telling him to get as many people as possible to drive over Native American ruins in ATVs to wreck shit up. He's not admirable for sticking up for his convictions; he's a ****.

Nobody said was a good nagging to listen to! Maybe save for the people who do actually listen to it. Which is a lot of people actually. So those people would say it's a good thing to stick by one conviction no matter how weird it is. And like Aardvaark said, that kind of attitude really does permeate modern society. Arguably it runs deep through the whole history of mankind.

Okay, I think I see where the error is. When Mr. Sterling said it's viewed as weakness, I thought he was talking about others, not oneself. Have I misunderstood?

 

[Folji]

Okay, I think I see where the error is. When Mr. Sterling said it's viewed as weakness, I thought he was talking about others, not oneself. Have I misunderstood?

It's all more of a general standpoint, the strong holds their ground and only the weak stands down, and by apologising for the whole situation Nintendo is apparently weak according to some. Strangely popular attitude! Especially when it takes more to understand one's own errors (and learn from them) than it does to just stay rooted to a misconception, you know?

 

[Erttheking]

Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

Did you just honestly compare people who have sex with the same gender to murderers? I hope I don't need to explain why this is a false equivalence.

OT: Well done Jim. Well done.

I wasn't commenting on the degree of the offense, but the idea that there is one.

And it really falls flat because the comparison is just so out there. It's like the people who argue that we can't allow gays to marry because if we do, what's going to stop the legalization of pedophilia.

And here's the thing, gay affection makes you uncomfortable? It does the same thing for me. But I keep my mouth shut about it because a little queezeness in my stomach is nothing compared to forcing gay people to be forced to conform to heteronormativity.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Nintendo Defense Force working over time, nothing can quell the rage of a fanboy/girl scorned. Lest the big N... keep doing what it always has despite what anybody ever said to them ever. That's perhaps their greatest strength and weakness though, they will never bend to anothers will or succumb to 'peer pressure'... even if it may do them some good.

*gets back to updating his flame shield.*

 

[Dragonbums]

Nintendo Defense Force working over time, nothing can quell the rage of a fanboy/girl scorned. Lest the big N... keep doing what it always has despite what anybody ever said to them ever. That's perhaps their greatest strength and weakness though, they will never bend to anothers will or succumb to 'peer pressure'... even if it may do them some good.

*gets back to updating his flame shield.*

Geez man, like...can you actually contribute to this thread instead of just assuming that everyone on one specific side of this argument are part of the phantom NDF force? I mean come on now.

 

[Eve Charm]

I'm surprised we're on page two of this thread and no haters have come in to trumpet about how the original mistake wasn't a mistake at all but malfeasance that allowed him to make this apology video, a second monetized video in one week to trick people into granting him more views and more ad revenue.

...You know, now that I've said it aloud, I actually kind of hope that is what happened. Milk the haters, Mr. Sterling! Milk 'em 'til their udders fall off!

Well like he said in the video around the 4:10 mark, lets not be so naive to believe jim's apology was much more then tactical kidding tho.

Alright well to throw some nails in the tire of inclusive maybe not being an complete win win in more of a saner respect. There were some pretty good discussions about recent Bethesda games not allowing for child npcs to be murdered. Also we could go with a more topical real life issue and talk about pro choice when it comes to your mii's or whatever getting pregnant in games.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Good on you, Jim.
I was really hoping you'd make a response. Glad you also chose to defend Nintendo on their decision to apologize too.

Next week........Should be interesting.... <_<

Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

Did you just honestly compare people who have sex with the same gender to murderers? I hope I don't need to explain why this is a false equivalence.

OT: Well done Jim. Well done.

Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

Did you just honestly compare people who have sex with the same gender to murderers? I hope I don't need to explain why this is a false equivalence.

Well at least it wasn't a shitfest like the one in the last thread where the now banned user insisted on claiming that homosexuality was a mental illness.

That was a hell of a mess I tell you. Took up an entire page worth of discussion.

What does the internet hate more?

Gay people being included in future games?
Or Anita?

0-0 Guess we find out soon....

Edit: Pfft. xD Actually, on reflection, that may have just been a joke.
Makes sense. There hasn't really been any news on her recently. Not any I've heard of at least.

Guess we'll see in a week, but my interpretation on that ending is likely inaccurate.

 

[Cybylt]

Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

Ugh. Bad analogy bro. Murderers should bother you. They hurt and kill people. They're a threat to society and everyone in it. As such they are typically excluded. Gay people being gay hurts no one. The state of being gay is not a threat to anyone's safety, as such, excluding them is unfair and wrong. You are wrong for thinking your irrational prejudice matters more than the happiness of others.

Also, one last thing: you weren't born not liking gay people. Likely you were socialized at a young age to think less of the idea. Maybe if you thought a little more about why this is, why your skin crawls at the very acknowledgement of a person's homosexual identity, you might be able to overcome your irrationality and maybe even learn a little about yourself as a person.

I think it's more that it results in both the relationships and the character being a bit shallow and dumb since sexual identity is a fair chunk of identity and the DA2 approach was basically "Fuck it, we don't even care anymore." Isabella and Anders I can definitely take as bi-sexual but Merril and Fenris feel off in their romances as a whole and present this issue of the characters just being Hawke-sexual rather than having any genuine identity on that front. At least that was the point of contention for me and a few friends, I can't speak for everybody.

Then again pretty much all of Bioware's, hell, just about all video game romances and characters are shallow and dumb and maybe I'm just projecting other issues I have with the game on a point that typically doesn't bother me.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I do have a bit of a theory on why got put off by the apology, and it's in your video: Mass Effect 3.

To elaborate: you saw how people got treated over that. We got treated like children, insulted, dismissed as entitled whiners, and told en masse our opinions weren't as important as the vision of the artist and the will of the company. We ge3t this on other issues as well, DRM, DLC, always on connectivity, backward compatibility, it just seems that no matter how we sometimes get treated, or how eloquently we try and plead our case, there are people out there that tell us to be happy with what we get or vote with our wallets.

Then the new groups show up and seem to not be given the same scorn. Simply not buy Tomodachi life and support the Sims, or something else like everyone else was told to do for the game they were complaining about? Screw that, we're a group that should get our way by being as angry on twitter as possible. When that group gets its way, it really feels like there's a double standard involved. That being for "inclusivity" gets you, your arguments, and your tactics a free pass while being for better consumer practices, or just consideration on behalf of game companies gets you the shaft.

We don't lose anything, but we don't seem to gain when one group of people can make companies dance like trained chimps for diversity, while our own complaints come from people with too much privilege to listen to.

 

[atavax]

I still think its a shame that Nintendo got pounced on how they did.

It seems like the controversy was more over the removal of a game breaking bug, then it was the lack of gay relationships. That half assed internet nerds jumped on them because one of the things the game breaking bug did was allow for something resembling gay marriages. That they got upset over same sex marriages being removed. Not that they didn't exist before. But the removal was necessary, and it seems like most didn't realize that. And journalists not mentioning the necessity of removing the bug seems to have fueled the fire.

 

[HalfTangible]

The idea that the 'social warrior' is never out to exclude others is ludicrous.

Now, I acknowledge that this isn't the case for the majority of people who cry out for inclusivity: most just want as many demographics represented as possible, and I respect that. Also, this opinion is built mostly from news sits, as well as interactions on blogs and on youtube (i don't get out much) so take it as you will. But there's increasingly an idea in our culture that being fair to a culture means excluding whatever is currently considered the dominant force.

It's a bit of an extension of the black/white, right/left culture you bring up here. If you want to be on the side of gay rights, you absolutely must oppose even mentioning the bible. If you're against the Democratic party, you must be /for/ the Republican party(**). If you're pro-life, you must want all women to be, and I quote, 'chained in the kitchen to serve as your personal incubator'.(*) Hell, I only call myself conservative because other people kept /telling me/ I was when I brought up my opinions on social and economic issues (say, 'we should let the markets do as they please' or 'yes, I trust businesses more than I trust Washington D.C.').

However, there seems to be a growing group who think that the best way to be inclusive is to do everything in your power to expunge anything that might offend anyone. The idea seems to be that some things are so offensive, so abhorrent that we shouldn't even acknowledge they exist. It feels less like putting Elizabeth and Booker together on the front of Bioshock Infinite, and more like relegating Elizabeth to the back: hiding something that's very much present in an attempt to make others feel better. Essentially the exact reverse of what 'be inclusive' is supposed to mean.

Unfortunately, this attitude breeds hostility on both sides of any given issue, probably even more than simply putting the offending thing in would have. The reason that many people treat inclusivity as a zero-sum game is because so often being inclusive is framed not as a question of allowing someone else to stand in the spotlight with you, but a question of who to shove out of that spotlight. This nativity scene in someone's yard needs to go because it's offending some atheists from a city over whose lives this couldn't possibly affect. This man is wearing muslim garb, he needs to be thrown out even though he's not doing anything! This woman's opinions on the market might annoy me, let's publicly shame her and get her pulled out of that conference! This person doesn't like Anita's videos, therefore they're exactly the same as the people who threatened to rape her, etc etc. To let something else shine, you have to knock something else back into the dirt. It's absurd, I'll grant, but this is unfortunately what so many self-proclaimed social warriors keep on doing.

Again, I must stress, this is not the case for most people who want things to be more inclusive and (as far as I can tell) is definitely not the case for this particular incident. It's an option in a game, it only affects you if you want it to. The attitude's just present enough and loud enough to breed a toxic and hostile enviornment whenever social issues that should be a no-brainer crop up. (also a lot of people on any side of a social issue are idiots, but we knew that already)

--

(*) The especially ludicrous thing was that (iirc) I'd already said I was asexual and celibate >.>
(**) The Democrats have all the sincerity of the Ebon Dragon (for people not familiar with Exalted, basically none) and the Republicans couldn't sell a loaf of bread to a starving man. And they're both more corrupt than a guy named Corruptus McEvilguy who sells poisoned snow to eskimos saying it's candy for their children.

 

[zinho73]

I think Jim Sterling is the most honest, sincere person in the internets.

I would give him a kiss in the mouth but I'm cleraly not gay enough to do this yet. I'm working on it, but my wife is really an unsurmountable obstacle towards my gayness.

To contribute with the homophobia discussion:
Homophobia is much more related with misinformation, preconceptions, prejudice, social discourse and cultural upbring than with some kind of genetic heritage that we are born with.

All phobias are much more related to traumas and unresolved issues in infancy than with some kind of genetig heritage that we are born with.

Almost all irrational fears have actually a reason (or reasons) behind it, but it appears to be irrational because the person suffering from it is often unable to pinpoint that reason.

In psychology not all things are defined, but I would say that if we should just have to deal with people that were born homophobic, homphobia would never ever become an issue. The social and cultural aspects behind it are WAY more strong and prevalent.

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

 

[fractal_butterfly]

Uh, subtle blasphemy there, Jim. But I bet, god loves you nontheless, you magnificent bastard

OT: I think, that the exclusion of same sex content in this game should rather be seen as thoughtlessness. As it was pointed out several times, same sex relationships is something which is not quite in the public mind in Japan. Therefore they maybe just did not thought about it. They just patched a bug. But I can understand the outrage of those who feel that something was taken from them.
It is quite hard to implement such a same sex feature in a game, you have to double vast amounts of content, if you want to do it right. I could even understand, if this was a pure market decision. Maybe they didn't see much demand in their intended markets for such content? What percentage of the players actually complained about this? Maybe implementing such a feature would not have been lucrative.
I know, I know, the Sims did it. But as far as I recollect, in the Sims it was just the same set of animation, but with same sex partners. More like a "yeah, you can also do this". Or is this enough for homosexuals? Maybe I am complicating it in my head too much.