Boycott Atlus

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Sifright

I'm not sure how to respond to this post really.

I mean it's pretty clear you're missing the entire point as to what privilege actually entails.

No, I think you're missing the point of what he was saying. If I'm not mistaken, Pip was saying that he has no dog in this fight, aside from wanting to support it out of the goodness of his heart. He is privileged enough to not have to care about it.

Despite that, he did* care, and wanted to ask about the specific issues and get more clarification. When someone does that, if you respond with, "You just don't agree because of white privilege", you're hurting your cause.

*I use the past tense, because his current posts indicate that he doesn't want to deal with this anymore, and is no longer interested in the cause. Because of the response to his questions and criticisms.

Speaking from experience, I was about to do the same thing when I was called terrible for bringing up points that I thought should be considered. I have no dog in the fight, I am only in it because I actually care. To be told, "YOU'RE A HORRIBLE WHITE PRIVILEGED PERSON ASSHOLE" just makes me want to say, "Fuck it, I'm NOT going to pass this along to my friend who'd be interested in it, there are other, better, causes that I could be helping." If you want people to get involved, who have no dog in the fight, don't try to chase them out for having a criticism or complaint.

[Sifright]

NPF really needs to update its rules regarding any kind of discussion because there is some major bullshit going on in this thread that is technically not against the rules but REALLY REALLY fucking should be.

[CABAL49]

Atlus has made games and supported games that have insulted Transgender. So Liz decided to boycott them in order to send a message to other video game companies that Transphobia is not ok. I don't see how this is hard to understand. Objectifying women and transphobia are a serious problem. Ignoring a problem that we can help fix because there are other problems is stupid. Thinking that Atlus will come around on their own is stupid. If they are ignorant of their offences, then they won't correct themselves unless something grabs their attention. A boycott of Atlus isn't going to be the end of Atlus, this is neither an extreme move, nor one that will cause any kind of long term harm. I mean, if this was a bout bombing their HQ I could understand the hesitation. But this is just money. If they are doing this out of hate, then they will quickly learn that this is not ok.


Maybe because I have read about everything Liz has written on the topic, that I am more willing to support it, or friends of mine who are Trans and therefore protective of, but the amount of resistance to this just doesn't make any damn sense. If you agree that objectifying women is wrong, that transphobia is wrong, and you don't want to be a murderer, this is the best thing to do.

Also, Pip, that is a very wrong idea of how evolution works.

[rpgdemon]

Are you referring to my post? I'm going to assume you are.

I'm serious, what happened was me pointing out a problem that I had with terminology, then being immediately pileganged for not having known it was something that had a history behind it's use, and called terrible and privileged and uncaring. If I didn't give a fuck and was, as you claim, just talking from some position of privilege, why would I even bother staying around and trying to inform people about things in this thread?

[stefan]

this entire thread is full of people looking for excuses to be smug shitcocks on both sides of the fence.

[Marelo]

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

I think that its just as likely to be the result of our biological evolution as a species and the gender roles we fell into back in primitive times when we were too busy hunting mammoths and discovering fire to care about being politically correct. Men evolved to hunt for food and provide for women, women evolved to be appealing to men (who would thus fight over them) ensuring that the paragons of men and women within those roles are the ones that passed on their genetic material.

Im not saying we should use evolution as an excuse for misogyny, but pretending we didn't evolve like that makes you just as ignorant as the people you accuse of pretending we're obligated remain in those roles.

Sorry for being a realist instead of pretending we live in happy rainbow land where world peace has been found and we aren't ignorant monkeys descendant of slightly more ignorant monkeys.

Are you serious?

You're not saying evolution is an excuse for misogyny, just that men and women had to organize in sexist systems to survive and propagate their genes. You're not saying that evolution makes humans continue to operate in sexist systems, just that men and women operate differently because of "hormones" and that's why there's sexism in advertising.

P and not P.

Realist my ass. You're not even being logical.

[Pip Boy]

Originally Posted by CABAL49

Also, Pip, that is a very wrong idea of how evolution works.

Both males and females develop into roles that best support reproduction. Because the strongest males were most likely to reproduce, those males got pick of which women would reproduce since males were more sexually predatory when we were primitives. As a result of this, women that were attractive to these stronger men were more likely to reproduce, because they would then be protected by the stronger and more able men, thus less likely to starve or be eaten by wolves. Your counterpoint?

Originally Posted by Marelo

You're not saying evolution is an excuse for misogyny, just that men and women had to organize in sexist systems to survive and propagate their genes. You're not saying that evolution makes humans continue to operate in sexist systems, just that men and women operate differently because of "hormones" and that's why there's sexism in advertising.

Theres another straw man. I am saying that back in ancient times we developed certain hormonal tendencies between men and women for a variety of reasons including, largely, evolution. A result of this origin in modern times is that we are still affected by these hormones, and men are thus driven by these hormones to be more susceptible to advertising as ours was a more sexually predatory role in early human development.

I am also saying that this is a primitive and unacceptable way to behave now in the same sense that breaking each other's heads open with rocks is also unacceptable. This is just less messy so society is more forgiving of it.

"Behaving this way is natural, but we should know better."

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by CABAL49

Maybe because I have read about everything Liz has written on the topic, that I am more willing to support it, or friends of mine who are Trans and therefore protective of, but the amount of resistance to this just doesn't make any damn sense. If you agree that objectifying women is wrong, that transphobia is wrong, and you don't want to be a murderer, this is the best thing to do.

The thing is, I think a lot of people (At least myself, maybe not anyone else?) came into this wanting to support it. I was completely in favor of it, assuming that I could have a few concerns addressed. I voiced them, and was shot down entirely, and then it was almost like I was at that point forced into a position of, "You are against our cause." Which still is not true.

It seems like both sides keep trying to force the other into a position that they can't defend, rather than actually address and cognitize what the other is saying.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

Both males and females develop into roles that best support reproduction. Because the strongest males were most likely to reproduce, those males got pick of which women would reproduce since males were more sexually predatory when we were primitives. As a result of this, women that were attractive to these stronger men were more likely to reproduce, because they would then be protected by the stronger and more able men, thus less likely to starve or be eaten by wolves. Your counterpoint?

Thats not how evolution works, the scenario you are pushing here merely adds a single selection pressure and not a very large one. there are many other problems with your scenario as well but it's not worth breaking down because it's not relevant to the dicussion at hand. Humans are capable of reasoning, ergo non of this is a credible excuse for ignoring what is going on.

[Pip Boy]

To say that human reasoning always trumps our base biological impulses is to refute the very premise that the "sex sells" marketing strategy relies upon. The fact that it works is proof that I'm right.