I know plenty of trans people and their coming of age stories. Most don’t behave the way Taash does in the game. They’re a political mouthpiece, not a representative of trans people. If anything, you’re the one alleging all trans people have this narrative, in this specific voice, with this specific rhetoric. Your comment honestly seems performative.
No, it’s not just that one conversation, there are comments littered throughout.
Against my better judgment, since you seem to be trying to set me up for your judgment, I’ll cite the recent Dragon Age RPG—The veilguard. There’s a trans character in that who is insufferably preachy.
If you eat to tell me that character is completely fine and anyone who complains is just being bigoted, just know I think you’re the one who’s nuts.
The inclusion of marginalized groups of people has never been the problem in games. It’s the preachy, political language that often comes with it. Mass Effect 3 featured a gay character, but there was no accompanying political language following him around. He was just a character who happened to be gay, and no one gave a shit.
Some of the early science fiction novels had real impact by providing plausible guiding lights for actual scientists about which directions to go in their pursuit of technological advancements. It’s been said that the first step in innovation is imagination, not actual scientific progress.
[Justin Timberlake has joined the chat.]
These people are literally American Nazis.
Your title fails to mention the most interesting part: she’s a female psychopath that was caught and convicted of major financial fraud. I would have led with that.
No, you define it.
Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement? Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it? I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line? As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?
I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.
view more:
next ›