- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 19,936
- Reaction score
- 28,161
- Points
- 103
The reviews are hilarious, but why do I sense a real, "busted like Cyberpunk" narrative will be avoided, because those that scream the loudest are too busy treating trans people like dirt?
Two of my friends have started playing it on the PC and they love it so farGame is great, what an intro. I'm enjoying it on PS5.
This is definitely…a take.
Or, maybe, just maybe, people don’t want to support a game made and supported by known transphobic and anti-Semitic bigots who incorporate said bigotry into said game.
It's not a can of worms. The creator has stated that her belief in her bigotry is vindicated by the amount she continues to make off the franchise. We also know exactly what she's been doing with that money. Namely supporting hate groups, funding attacks on pro-LGBTQIA+ laws, and opening bigoted shelters, in the name of pushing the idea that having trans women seek aid in a women's shelter, is somehow dangerous to cis women. There is a direct 1 to 1 pipeline here.His comments aren't opposed to boycotting the game though. He's specifically criticising those who have taken to social media to tell anyone who does buy the game that they are transphobic and supporting bigotry. That's a more complicated issue. Applying morals to consumer products quickly becomes a can of worms considering how many companies/individuals are utter trash.
Act Man's larger issue seemed to be that arguing about a Harry Potter game on twitter is not an effective way to support the trans community. He suggested donating to charities instead and did so himself.
What I think is fair to say, especially for those that claim allyship, is that buying this game shows a personal preference for one's own enjoyment over care for the current genocide against trans people.
If someone is truly bothered by being called transphobic for "buying a game" they should consider a) why it bothers them and b) why it has become something people have been saying.
I'm aware that toppling Rowling's Empire isn't going to happen. That's not the purpose of such a boycott, which I explained in my original post.Well that is the sad truth isn't it. Most people will be this way. It's a losing battle to pit a vulnerable minority up against Harry Potter. People en mass can be stupid, and selfish, and hate being told what to do. To link trans acceptance with rejecting a beloved childhood property is a terrible idea.
Please understand, the ethics of the situation are clear and I have no disagreements on that. It's just the strategy I'm looking at. Toppling Rowling's empire is not going to happen. That IP could survive a flop, and she'll be rich forever. This fight needs to be fought, but framing it here as a video game boycott has done more harm than good in my opinion.
I'm pretty sure no one here is following this closer then me and if someone's support of the trans community depends on their ability to play one game, that says what it says about them and goes back to what I said before. they should consider a) why it bothers them and b) why it has become something people have been saying. 5 seconds of listening to a trans advocate talk about why you shouldn't want to buy this game makes it very clear to me. That doesn't mean you have to support the boycott, but the bitterness you speak of does not suggest a potential ally. It suggest someone who doesn't care about trans people. Because if someone is an ally to trans folk, listens to them, and still buys the game, they'd be comfortable enough in that allyship to not attack the community. And yes, it has been bothering people. It's why so called allies are complaining.They're not bothered. It has been met with mockery and trivialized. Now the game's success will be seen as a victory to the worst people involved. I've seen a-holes proudly supporting the game out of spite, and the trans community slated as shrill, overbearing bullies. Potential allies have been alienated, anyone who wanted to play the game will find nowhere to discuss it except in the worst places, and fairly average gamer personalities like Act Man end up in the divide defending people's right to enjoy their video games. A shame all round.
Well that is the sad truth isn't it. Most people will be this way. It's a losing battle to pit a vulnerable minority up against Harry Potter. People en mass can be stupid, and selfish, and hate being told what to do. To link trans acceptance with rejecting a beloved childhood property is a terrible idea.
Please understand, the ethics of the situation are clear and I have no disagreements on that. It's just the strategy I'm looking at. Toppling Rowling's empire is not going to happen. That IP could survive a flop, and she'll be rich forever. This fight needs to be fought, but framing it here as a video game boycott has done more harm than good in my opinion.
They're not bothered. It has been met with mockery and trivialized. Now the game's success will be seen as a victory to the worst people involved. I've seen a-holes proudly supporting the game out of spite, and the trans community slated as shrill, overbearing bullies. Potential allies have been alienated, anyone who wanted to play the game will find nowhere to discuss it except in the worst places, and fairly average gamer personalities like Act Man end up in the divide defending people's right to enjoy their video games. A shame all round.
By the same token, opponents of the game and Rowling herself don't need to jump in or muck up someone's social media feed or Twitch stream like they're entitled to tell someone what they should and shouldn't play? If they aren't in favor of it, what good does yelling that to people who bought the game and are enjoying it do? Not like they're going to suddenly demand a refund because someone on Twitter that they've never met was angry at them.
I'm aware that toppling Rowling's Empire isn't going to happen. That's not the purpose of such a boycott, which I explained in my original post.
More harm to who? If the idea is trans people, that is not what I'm hearing.
It suggest someone who doesn't care about trans people.
Just because it was massively unpopular to sit-in a at a restaurant or get into a fight with a bigoted cop in front of a gay night club, does not change that they were all steps on the way to changing things.
God forbid CIS people experience a fraction of the anger for a decision that they did not necessarily have to that trans people experience just for existing. Because god forbid the people whose lives are literally on the line step a little bit over the comfort line of CIS people. Heard it all over the summer of 2020. And MLK has the perfect quote about those "allies" who can be discomforted out of support.
It's the public discourse that matters. A decade ago, this wouldn't of been imaginable. Now even IGN has to try and talk around it. Forbes is talking about. That matters.What use is a boycott if you can't affect the bottom line? A boycott that has no noticeable effect to the target's revenue will do nothing to change anything, only strengthen the resistance to it.
What has gotten more attention for trans rights, then this discussion? Not the literal laws running through state legislature right now. The Dems won't even speak on them in any real manner, which it's all the right will talk about.Yes, trans people and the cause. Progress in this area requires you to reach the masses and to make them care. It is difficult, and being morally right is often not enough in the court of public opinion. Picking your fights is important. Centering something as fundamental as human rights on a video game has trivialized the issue and made it easy to 'lose' in the eyes of many.
I can't post the video do to language, but I would suggest The Council of Geeks video title, "Hollow "Ally-ship" (Stephen Fry, Hogwarts Legacy, and Rising Transphobia).These are generally the potential allies though. If you care already, you're probably an ally already. The goal is to make people care, right? Making people care is hard, when they can be stupid, fickle, stubborn, whatever. But it needs to be done for the sake of progress. This particular matter has been all too easy to dismiss as another case of twitter hysteria.
Pathetic in what way? If anything, it's a simpler request. That's what gets me about this. If it doesn't matter, then why is the argument this is a bad look for trans people and their allies? Why do they need to let it go?This is my issue though. When you think of the sacrifices, the protests and so on; the moral stands people have taken, and the consequences they have faced... refusing to buy a Harry Potter video game is rather pathetic in comparison.
I think it has exposed dividing lines that already existed, that a lot of people weren't willing to admit but trans folk and their allies already knew about.It is what it is. I'm only saying what I'm saying because I care about trans people and want a better life for them. I don't care for protecting cis feelings, only for furthering the goal of acceptance and equality for everyone, as effectively as possible. I'm disappointed by the way this situation has panned out because I think it drew dividing lines that weren't helpful for trans support.
I'll leave it be here though. No sense arguing this to death, I forsee this going around in circles, and I agree on the important part on this issue.
The impression I get from Schreier, unless I'm misinterpreting, is that the character was thrown in as a shield/feel good pat on the back by the studio after Rowling's descent into transphobia icon, after multiple members of the team were rattled and others looked elsewhere for work. Judging from that, it feels deeply unsurprising that their token gesture isn't well-handled.Actually laughing at the name Sirona Ryan. I don't know enough about the actual developers of this game to have an opinion as to whether that's just an unfortunate accident but... y'all maybe wanted to be extra careful with this particular subject matter as you try desperately to avoid the unavoidable controversy?
Also makes me think about how cool a trans character in the HP universe would have been to my almost universally former Potter fan trans friends before, you know, everything. So depressing.
Actually laughing at the name Sirona Ryan. I don't know enough about the actual developers of this game to have an opinion as to whether that's just an unfortunate accident but... y'all maybe wanted to be extra careful with this particular subject matter as you try desperately to avoid the unavoidable controversy?
Also makes me think about how cool a trans character in the HP universe would have been to my almost universally former Potter fan trans friends before, you know, everything. So depressing.
It's an extremely harrowing to see trans folk so in love with the world, be faced with the reality that it has become a tool to bludgeon them with.Actually laughing at the name Sirona Ryan. I don't know enough about the actual developers of this game to have an opinion as to whether that's just an unfortunate accident but... y'all maybe wanted to be extra careful with this particular subject matter as you try desperately to avoid the unavoidable controversy?
Also makes me think about how cool a trans character in the HP universe would have been to my almost universally former Potter fan trans friends before, you know, everything. So depressing.
I didn't realize we were using measuring sticks to compare how people are victimized one way or another. What people experience outside of the game has no bearing on those who purchase and choose to stream the game. Nor should it. No one ought to go laying what they go through on a regular basis at the feet of someone who has and never had anything to do with that.
If people's feelings are hurt over something as minor as someone streaming a game that, as the developers have pointed out many times, Rowling had next to no involvement in the first place, then sounds like just fishing to play a victim card.
How do you suggest people learn to have empathy for others, if folk are not allowed to express their pain and sorrow to them?By the same token, opponents of the game and Rowling herself don't need to jump in or muck up someone's social media feed or Twitch stream like they're entitled to tell someone what they should and shouldn't play? If they aren't in favor of it, what good does yelling that to people who bought the game and are enjoying it do? Not like they're going to suddenly demand a refund because someone on Twitter that they've never met was angry at them.
I didn't realize we were using measuring sticks to compare how people are victimized one way or another. What people experience outside of the game has no bearing on those who purchase and choose to stream the game. Nor should it. No one ought to go laying what they go through on a regular basis at the feet of someone who has and never had anything to do with that.
If people's feelings are hurt over something as minor as someone streaming a game that, as the developers have pointed out many times, Rowling had next to no involvement in the first place, then sounds like just fishing to play a victim card.