I didn't say there was a problem with exploring that in a videogame. What I said is that he overlooked the games glaring problems for the sake of an ideological message the game was trying to convey.
Gone Home is a perfectly disastrous example of what happens when you prioritize ideals over gameplay.
"Just the fact that she's a transgender person means that some people will just never be happy about her articles, about her working at GameSpot, or at her just being."
But how's that supposed to justify Petit's articles? It sounds like you're assigning an inherent value to them based only on gender. I don't see how that identifies value--and I certainly don't see how that identifies a general, gender-based disdain for whatever this person writes. I'm sure you could find a few people out of a thousand comments who speak negatively towards the author for reasons revolving around transgenderism. But you can't establish that without catching the bulk of those comments in the act of discrimination.
Your position seems to lack an empirical foundation aside from your own cynicism.
"I see her neither burning nor saving houses. I see someone saying "I believe the houses are aflame"."
Which begs the question: What would your example of "burning houses" be from a literary perspective?
I mean, the author has already claimed to know the official position of the developers on the issue of gender identity and same-sex preference based solely on intuition and zero research. That's hardly a mere observation on his part.
"In conclusion, I don't agree with you when you conclude that "it likely won't promote genuine, positive, and lasting change". We're discussing the issues, which is good."
We're having a discussion about the lack of discussion and how people generally see this article as being erroneous. I sincerely doubt that 's what you're arguing his aim was in the first place.
"Secondly, many of the objections point out that it's from a different culture -- somewhat understandable, but if it's a cultural difference to subjugate women a la the Taliban, do we like and accept that? "
No strawmans please.
The issue was never about identifying Japanese as persecutors of homosexuals, but rather as having an understanding of sexual identity that differs from popular Western subcultures. He's assuming that their understanding must conform with his. Condemnation by him over this apparently unforgivable nonconformity is at its heart an activist sentiment.
And as far as evidence goes: what evidence has he provided to substantiate his views aside from his own esoteric expectations of what embodies gender identity?
"However, I would not say homophobia or transgender prejudice should be tolerated from any society - in that, if another country was systematically producing racist expression, we wouldn't say, "that's just their culture.""
I didn't say that producing racist/sexist expressions was their culture. That's outrageous. I said that their understanding of sexual identity is different than this person's, and that it's more than a little ignorant--not to mention arrogant--to claim that their understanding on the issue is somehow less valid by virtue of this person's disappointment.
He disagrees with their conclusion on a character's sexual preference and, therefore, they are not only wrong but also outright rejecting the issue of homosexuality altogether? I wouldn't buy that for a dollar.
The kind of leaps this person had to take to arrive at such a lofty conclusion requires a severe lapse in judgement that can only be explained by cognitive dissonance.
Pariah_001's comments