b0r1s wrote:I’d be careful with terms like “the trans community spoiling it for everyone” and labelling everyone who is trans as “arseholes” clearly is reductive. It’s kind of like saying why don’t all Muslims sort outr the terrorism problem. It’s clear, like with any social movement, that there are those that will be more militant than the majority and will have the loudest voices. I’d guarantee most trans people, like everyone else, just wants to have a nice quiet life.
b0r1s wrote:I’ll cross quite my last post in the game thread.
b0r1s wrote:I’d be careful with terms like “the trans community spoiling it for everyone” and labelling everyone who is trans as “arseholes” clearly is reductive. It’s kind of like saying why don’t all Muslims sort outr the terrorism problem. It’s clear, like with any social movement, that there are those that will be more militant than the majority and will have the loudest voices. I’d guarantee most trans people, like everyone else, just wants to have a nice quiet life.
DrewMerson wrote:Paul the sparky wrote:Might as well delete it in here too, since you've grasped the shitty end of the stick
Given your response to JonB in that thread, you’re not really in a strong position for throwing stones or pointing fingers.
b0r1s wrote:I moved it over here before your post and I haven’t grabbed the shitty end of the stick.
The comment about community still stands. As does using language like them and they. It has always been the same with any minority that the term community, they or them is used when minorities of all kinds are as different as everyone else.
You’ve made it clear you didn’t mean all, and I’ve apologised for misunderstanding your post. My point still stands.
acemuzzy wrote:Hold on lads, maybe there's poo at both ends of the stick
So -yeah - what's your approach to this sort of stuff
acemuzzy wrote:My 2p...
Buying the thing does not mean you endorse the creator.
But I'm not sure that's the only relevant question.
My view on stuff like this is (ironically) non-binary. There's a whole spectrum of impact that any individual can have on any topic. And a major bell curve where most people can and do have very minor impact (around the middle of the curve), with fewer people to both extremes (contributing in both "negative" and "positive" directions, depending on ones opinion on axes etc - eg JK and her major platform).
And yes while theoretically everyone has the potential to be the next Greta and start a movement etc, that's decidedly rare and unrealistic at an individual level.
But I do think that if enough people make minor changes in behaviour, the overall curve can move bits to the left it the right, and that's all important route to systemic changes happening. Eg opinions towards gay relationships over time was gradually increasing tolerance and acceptance and then okness and then what the fuck was the problem with this before. It's all really fine margins, often over long timescales, but we do have the ability to individually contribute to this, by individual active, persuading others, supporting causes, boycotting products, etc. If enough people make marginal differences, changes happen. If that wasn't true, how do things become different over time?
tigersgogrrr wrote:More to come later, but I find the idea of 'funding' Rowling a weird one. She is so incredibly rich that she could easily fund whatever she wanted without this game. It makes no difference, surely, given how much she makes already. None whatsoever. It's like saying you fund Putin buying artillery by giving him a fiver every year. I'm not saying that it isn't a reasonable reason for refusing to purchase the game... But it the difference it makes on a financial level is basically 0.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!