100%. We need more personal liability for the evils of big business, not less

I didn’t assume so, but I do appreciate you saying so regardless. Cheers ✌️

Yeah what I’ve realized over time is that while no ethical consumption (or work) exists under capitalism, specifically unethical consumption and work definitely does.

Nobody is truly 100% free of the cycle of abuse, but certain people are specifically perpetrators of it. I couldn’t take being one.

Hey man, I’m allowed to make a Beatles reference if I coo coo ca-choose to.

Also All-man Brothers? That doesn’t sound very inclusive; get back to me when you allow women brothers too.

Edit: what an enormously strange and entirely innocuous comment to downvote. I wonder whose feathers I’ve ruffled and how.

This was me. I went into banking because I wanted to make money and naively thought it was a harmless service industry. Cue years later and I just can’t handle going to work and feeling like a bad person everyday who is pushing evil in the world, so I call it quits.

Haven’t made anywhere near as much money in the decade plus since then, but I also don’t wake up feeling like I’m harming my community every day, so I haven’t regretted my decision for even a minute.

That’s fair and I see your point, even basically agree with it. That said, I still wonder sort of what standards we’re holding for “good” characters and how realistic that is. And I want to make a brief caveat that I don’t know you and can’t speak to your personal opinions so I will be making some generalizations about the topic in general; I apologize if it feels like I am unfairly lumping you in with anyone and promise that is not my intention. It is clear to me you aren’t a right wing chud screaming about DEI but rather you’re a very decent person looking for fleshed-out representation that isn’t shallow or driven by stereotypes.

Okay, caveats out of the way now, here’s the thing: I have a gay friend who is very proud of their community and themselves for being who they are despite any social pressures. This friend frequently goes out wearing full-blown rainbow attire, speaks with the affectation of their community, and they will absolutely inform you of their orientation upon their first meeting. Of course my friend has vastly more depth than just their community affiliation, but that affiliation is definitely going to be the largest and most prominent quality you associate with them, especially if you never move beyond acquaintanceship to friendship.

If my friend was in a video game, they would absolutely be described as flat or tokenism. But they are a real person. Even if you’re thinking to yourself right now “well frankly it sounds like your friend is lacking in depth in real life,” (I’d disagree, but go with the argument none the less, please), the fact is they still exist. There are people who define themselves by their identifiers first. So I don’t think the mere inclusion of these “flat” representations are inherently problematic.

I don’t think a flat character of an under-represented demographic is harmful in the way that a bad or stereotypical representation is. I think there is still benefit in the normalization of lesser-represented groups in media, even if those representations aren’t the deepest or most compelling characters. A gay shopkeeper who is flamboyant and one-note still helps normalize the idea of gay people in normal aspects of life.

But of course we can’t settle for these characters as the whole piece of representation. We have to still demand deep and complex under-represented characters, especially in lead or primary roles. I just personally don’t think the flatter characters are inherently problematic or detrimental to those goal. If anything, I think they’re almost kind of tangential or non-sequitur to the topic. The point isn’t to complain about flat under-represented characters and discourage their inclusion, the point is to demand good and complex under-represented characters regardless of the inclusion of these flat other representations.

I’m very sorry for the novel I wrote, my brain is crazy today and I couldn’t make it more concise in this moment.

Also I have no yet watched Kaos so I can’t comment on the representation in that show, but it does sound compelling from what you describe.

Also also, in case it’s not clear, I don’t think we’re arguing; I think we probably agree with each other about 90% of the way here.

I see your point and don’t disagree exactly… but…
I will say it is odd that I hear this kind of criticism of flat gay/female/minority/etc characters but for some reason never hear complaints about the equally-flatly written comic relief characters, or best friend characters, or sage characters, etc. Video games and other stories frequently contain flat characters that are used more as props for the protagonist or other characters to react and respond to, yet complaints about these characters seem to only pop up when said characters happen to represent an under-represented demographic.

It took my awhile to get it until somebody put it this way. The objects aren’t exactly “moving” apart from each other, rather space in between them is expanding. So instead of thinking of it like a bunch of objects in a line being pulled away from each other, instead imagine it like a bunch of vector based objects random placed on an infinite canvas - now rather than moving the objects at all, try to imagine instead reducing the scale of all of the objects equally. Now of course this isn’t perfect, as really what is happening is kind of the opposite, as the objects remain the same but the space between increases, but the relationship is the same here. So nothing is exactly “moving” in relative space, but everything is still expanding. Thus this expansion can happen infinitely without anything breaking the speed of light.

Different phrase, different conditions. “Bust a nut” can reasonably me misconstrued; nobody of adult age is actually out there misconstruing “rawdogging.”

Name one war which was ever fought on a single battlefield.

Yes, we should be pushing for both regulatory changes and changes on platforms like Steam, but we should also being doing our part.

If there is anything I’ve learned over time it is that nobody is coming to save you. Ever. If you are holding out for someone to swoop in and make things better, you will be waiting forever. Either we do it ourselves, or it doesn’t get done.

and demand refunds on any game that adds it after purchase.

This, which is in my original fucking message, applies here. If you think the effort is futile, fine, whatever, don’t try. But my statement was made with full understanding of the timeline, and I stand by it. Feel free to read the rest of the comments in the thread for further discussion of the timeline, or feel free to fuck off, I guess; I’m not in the mood to indulge a pedant clearly just looking for an argument.

Yes, because they understand the meaning and are making a play off of it. I genuinely do not believe anyone over the age of 12 who uses the term “rawdog” isn’t completely and fully aware of the meaning when they use it.

Where did I even remotely imply otherwise?

There are plenty of anti-cheat measure that doesn’t require invasive access to your system or performance hits. The objection is not to fighting cheating, it is with the specific overreaching methodology chosen to do so.

Also I personally rarely play multiplayer so it’s even more frustrating to have bullshit installed on my system for a feature that doesn’t even apply to me.

Also like, food and water you acquire is food and water you don’t have to purchase or otherwise gain, meaning you can use the resources you would have used on food on military operations instead.

Sadly, a lot of their customers will be pissed about this but will be first in line buying other Rockstar games.

Then they aren’t pissed enough. But yes, talking the talk is completely meaningless if you don’t also walk the walk, I agree.

Companies like Rockstar certainly would meet any requests for refunds outside of very recently purchased with “Go kick rocks.”

If you let them, sure. The reason we use phrases like “fight for a refund” is because these things are hard and they take effort. Like yes it sucks to have to do that and yes I understand our time is valuable, but as I see it there is value in both having your voice heard and punitively costing an offending company manhours in having to deal with you - even if you ultimately do not win the fight.

Again, the point isn’t about winning or getting your money back, it’s about not being passive and just accepting the things that happen to you as if you do not have autonomy.

Yep. The difference is one side is rubbing their hands excitedly while saying it.

No thanks. Games that choose to sign with the anti-consumer storefront don’t deserve my attention as the consumer.

and demand refunds on any game that adds it after purchase.

The way I see it, adding it, even this late, is changing the terms of the agreement and thus justification for a refund. Steam will often see it that way too if you word it as such. And if not, hell, you can still badger the publisher for a refund incessantly so at least it still costs them the equivalent in man hours even if you don’t get the refund. The point is not to be passive, even if we don’t get to win every single battle.

Don’t buy games with invasive user-side anti-cheats that hamper performance, and demand refunds on any game that adds it after purchase.

I don’t understand why this is so hard for people. If everyone gave a shit, we could end this. But instead, people would rather just complain while still forking over the money to these companies.

There are so many good indie games without this kind of bullshit. We have better choices.