The Miscellaneous PC & vidya Games Thread

[garbon]

Is this computer game a piece of Rowlings' art, though? And also: is Harry Potter an anti-trans piece of art? I have never read the book so I would not know.

I presumed Brain was moving past this one instance when talking about creators who have opinions involving the death of potential segments of their audience.

[garbon]

When your views cross into the domain of opposing the existence of a vast group of innocent people and working to charge the law to restrict their rights then the its just an opinion defence falls down.

I am 100% positive that JK Rowling does not oppose the existence of trans people.

She has her own views that I may agree or disagree with, but you are seriously strawmanning what her views are.

Here is what I think about JK Rowling: she is not a very self-aware person. She lies, but I don't even think it is intentional. Back when I paid attention to things Harry Potter she would bend over backwards pretending plot holes and other inconsistent things were entirely pre-planned and not issues. Later when diversity became more fashionable she was bending over backwards trying to pretend that her 1990s book series about white straight people was in fact very diverse. She just wouldn't let her work speak for itself, she always had this weird need to be seen as never wrong or virtuous or something. I don't know her personally of course, but I found her extremely bizarre in her public statements.

So sure she has said the right things about trans people and said some shitty things about them. Does she in fact have coherent thoughts about trans people? I don't know. I don't even think she knows. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if sometime down the road she insists that she was very pro-trans the whole time though. Tons of characters in Harry Potter were actually trans, honest! 

Granted that is all based on my memories of 2010s JK Rowling she might be different now, I don't pay much attention to her public statements anymore.

Yeah, I think I'd mostly agree with this though I think she's hardened her stances after evolving opposition to her stances.

Agreed it is a strange pivot from someone who made a lot of money on a well-received, though poorly written, series of books who at first tried to make up claims to burnish her credentials (Dumbledore was always gay though text says nothing) and then took a hard turn rightward over trans issues.

[Josquius]

The thing with Rowling isn't that she has shitty views. It's that she actively pushes them and donates money to hate groups.
The argument isn't that the game reflects her work thus playing it is enjoying something from that toxic brain, it's that buying it brings direct profits to her, and she has form in donating to groups that actively harm others.

This I see as quite a different thing to the usual question of whether you can enjoy work created by a shit head.
I still love the comedies of Graham Linehan, also a transphobe. Then there's Eric Gill, a man who is pretty core to the history of modern graphic design...and a child abuser.
It's not just divorcing work from the creator but also the business.

[The Brain]

There are many artists that I enjoy who have views that, if I were offended by other people's opinions, I would consider offensive. Including the opinion that people like me should be killed or put in camps, and worse opinions than that. I find it very easy to separate the artist and the art, but I understand that some people have "culture warrior" as a significant part of their identity and enjoy fighting the good fight.

I think this is a bit extreme, but you think people are culture warriors if they didn't want to give money to people who wish they would be killed? 

I think they are culture warriors if they give art poor reviews because of the artist's opinions, or tell others not to enjoy the art because of the artist's opinions.

With the assumption the art has nothing reflecting the artist's opinions?

If the opinions impact the art in a negative way then the art can likely be rated poorly on its own merits.

[Tamas]

Ok so by hate group I think we are meaning LGB Alliance? I was curious and googled them and found this evidence submitted by them to some government thing:

Executive Summary

1. LGB Alliance was formed in October 2019 in response to the refusal of Stonewall, once itself an LGB
rights campaigning organisation, to engage in any discussion on issues of sex and gender and how
they relate to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people. Specifically, there were serious concerns about
Stonewall's adoption of "queer theory" with its focus on the primacy of gender over sex. This theory
promotes the controversial notion that everyone has a "gender identity" – a concept about which
there is no scientific consensus – as separate from, and overriding, biological sex. It goes so far as to
refer to "same-gender" instead of "same-sex" attraction, which is unacceptable to us since it
redefines and negates LGB sexual orientation. Our submission rejects any inclusion of the term
"gender identity" in legislation as it is impossible to define.

2. LGB Alliance believes that "gender identity theory" reinforces outdated and regressive stereotypes.
We would like to see a world where any boy or girl, man or woman, can dress and be whoever they
would like to be as long as they respect the rights of others.

3. LGB Alliance fully supports the rights of transsexuals to equality under the law. Trans people have
attended and spoken at both the meetings we held before Covid-19 drove everyone to meet online,
and many fully support the work we are doing.

4. LGB Alliance opposes the idea that same-sex sexual orientation is "transphobic"; that sex can be
changed; that children may be born in the wrong body; and that none of these subjects may be
discussed without the severest of sanctions.

5. LGB Alliance is pleased to submit evidence on this important issue which, we believe, has been made
ever more complex by the repetition of factually incorrect statements on the subjects concerned.
These are often made by lobby groups that pose as independent experts – such as the World
Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) or Trans Media Watch for example.

6. In addition, statistics are quoted from flawed research, often around important issues such as suicide
and violence against trans people. LGB Alliance insists on factual accuracy and will only present
evidence that comes from serious and reliable sources. As suicide figures are so germane to the
arguments advanced by gender identity theorists, we recommend the recent document by
Transgender Trend, which is both factual and accurate. https://www.transgendertrend.com/thesuicide-myth/.

7. It is clear that the majority of young people being referred to Gender Identity Development Services
in London are "gender non-conforming". Recent research by two Consultant Psychiatrists, a Professor
of Primary Care Research and a Professor of Obstetrics and Women's Health, demonstrates this
clearly. "Same sex attraction was particularly common amongst natal females, with only 8.5%
describing themselves as primarily attracted to boys."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridgecore/content/view/76A3DC54F3BD91E8D631B93397698B1A/S205646942000073Xa.pdf/sex_gender_
and_gender_identity_a_reevaluation_of_the_evidence.pdf

8. LGB Alliance looks forward to supporting the Committee and the Government by shining a light on
the myths and disinformation which currently cloud this important subject.

All I am seeing is them challenging what are -excuse me for saying- views on society and identity, not scientific facts. No discrimination seem to spur from their views. Perhaps they are wrong, they most definitely should be debated, but as far as "hate groups" go they seem fairly low in severity.

[The Brain]

The thing with Rowling isn't that she has shitty views. It's that she actively pushes them and donates money to hate groups.

If they're not pushing the opinions then the whole thing becomes pretty much a complete non-issue.

[Josquius]

Hate groups tend to be sneaky around language these days.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender_ideology

They also have a habit of hiding behind science that they don't understand or is just plain poor quality. It's the age old tactics of the far right in trying to claim to be the one on the defence whilst actively pushing change for the worse.

A big problem I have with this sex /gender thing, an ironic borrowing from gender studies for these groups, is they want to use it to effectively institute apartheid against trans people and strip them of their rights - "we aren't bigots. We totally except transgender people. You can call yourself a woman if you want!... You just get absolutely none of the rights of actual women. That's purely for those who are of the female sex. It's just science" -

I've never came across a coherent response to intersex people and the increasing awareness of sex itself being more than a strict binary. Such questions are always brushed off as irrelevant or even in typical fasc style, attempting to flip things so the asker is the bigot.

But ja. The LGB alliance is a hate group. Of course they'd claim not to be when investigated.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance
Iirc there's some others she has been involved with too.

[garbon]

There are many artists that I enjoy who have views that, if I were offended by other people's opinions, I would consider offensive. Including the opinion that people like me should be killed or put in camps, and worse opinions than that. I find it very easy to separate the artist and the art, but I understand that some people have "culture warrior" as a significant part of their identity and enjoy fighting the good fight.

I think this is a bit extreme, but you think people are culture warriors if they didn't want to give money to people who wish they would be killed? 

I think they are culture warriors if they give art poor reviews because of the artist's opinions, or tell others not to enjoy the art because of the artist's opinions.

With the assumption the art has nothing reflecting the artist's opinions?

If the opinions impact the art in a negative way then the art can likely be rated poorly on its own merits.

But isn't that a matter of taste? Take say GTA V and it's controversial torture scene. Let's imagine that the head writer has called for gays to be put in reduction camps/murder and the player is called upon to act out torturing and murdering the sole gay character. Would one be a culture warrior to take issue with that?

[The Brain]

There are many artists that I enjoy who have views that, if I were offended by other people's opinions, I would consider offensive. Including the opinion that people like me should be killed or put in camps, and worse opinions than that. I find it very easy to separate the artist and the art, but I understand that some people have "culture warrior" as a significant part of their identity and enjoy fighting the good fight.

I think this is a bit extreme, but you think people are culture warriors if they didn't want to give money to people who wish they would be killed? 

I think they are culture warriors if they give art poor reviews because of the artist's opinions, or tell others not to enjoy the art because of the artist's opinions.

With the assumption the art has nothing reflecting the artist's opinions?

If the opinions impact the art in a negative way then the art can likely be rated poorly on its own merits.

But isn't that a matter of taste? Take say GTA V and it's controversial torture scene. Let's imagine that the head writer has called for gays to be put in reduction camps/murder and the player is called upon to act out torturing and murdering the sole gay character. Would one be a culture warrior to take issue with that?

Are there gray areas/judgment calls/instances where you don't know if opinion and art are connected? Sure.

[garbon]

I thought in my hypothetical it was clear they were linked not accidental.

[grumbler]

I doubt that buying HL directly benefits Rowling.  Usually the TV/Movie/Game developers pay a set licensing fee not based on sales (since the author has no control over the product and can't influence sales that way).  Buying the game may indirectly benefit Rowling in that good sales will encourage further games and thus further licensing agreements.

[The Brain]

I thought in my hypothetical it was clear they were linked not accidental.

Obviously what art a person likes, and what a person thinks makes art better or worse, is a matter of taste.

[crazy canuck]

When your views cross into the domain of opposing the existence of a vast group of innocent people and working to charge the law to restrict their rights then the its just an opinion defence falls down.

I am 100% positive that JK Rowling does not oppose the existence of trans people.

She has her own views that I may agree or disagree with, but you are seriously strawmanning what her views are.

Here is what I think about JK Rowling: she is not a very self-aware person. She lies, but I don't even think it is intentional. Back when I paid attention to things Harry Potter she would bend over backwards pretending plot holes and other inconsistent things were entirely pre-planned and not issues. Later when diversity became more fashionable she was bending over backwards trying to pretend that her 1990s book series about white straight people was in fact very diverse. She just wouldn't let her work speak for itself, she always had this weird need to be seen as never wrong or virtuous or something. I don't know her personally of course, but I found her extremely bizarre in her public statements.

So sure she has said the right things about trans people and said some shitty things about them. Does she in fact have coherent thoughts about trans people? I don't know. I don't even think she knows. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if sometime down the road she insists that she was very pro-trans the whole time though. Tons of characters in Harry Potter were actually trans, honest! 

Granted that is all based on my memories of 2010s JK Rowling she might be different now, I don't pay much attention to her public statements anymore.

Yeah, I think I'd mostly agree with this though I think she's hardened her stances after evolving opposition to her stances.

Agreed it is a strange pivot from someone who made a lot of money on a well-received, though poorly written, series of books who at first tried to make up claims to burnish her credentials (Dumbledore was always gay though text says nothing) and then took a hard turn rightward over trans issues.

The literary awards she received undermine your claim that the books are poorly written.

[Valmy]

I'm not saying everyone must boycott the game - it's a personal choice. It's just good to remember what the creator stands for, and weight in your mind whether you want to support them. It's not limited to Rowling, other games also have problematic people/companies associated with them - Ubisoft and their massive culture of sexual harassment, Activision Blizzard's oppression of their employees, etc.

Absolutely, but that is rather the point isn't it? Once we start going down also boycotting Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard, and others then eventually we don't have much left. I could easily list reasons I could legitimately see people also wanting to boycott Square Enix, EA, and Microsoft as well.

Fortunately I also tend to see the toxic qualities of those companies also making their products shitty, which is really the main reason I don't play them. I don't need to boycott Activision Blizzard because Bobby Kotick is a piece of human trash, the real reason not to play that company's games is because Bobby Kotick also ensures their games are trash as well.

[Sheilbh]

Also - as I say we're talking IP and a fairly distant chain - but, for example, the Saudi sovereign wealth fund is a big investor in Nintendo, Activision Blizzard, EA and others. I'd suggest that's probably as problematic as Rowling's opinions.

It's why I wonder about it because it's not super-obvious to me that the original creator of a work of art - or in this case the IP of that world - is more engaged than the owners of the companies exploiting it.