Stargazer
Stargazer
About
- Username
- Stargazer
- Joined
- Visits
- 55
- Last Active
Comments
-
It always astounds me when people fail to put logical patterns together.
If teaching D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) lead to more kids trying out drugs, why would it then not be your logical conclusion to think that teaching about Sex would then lead to more students having sex?
Young people are extremely curious in nature. The mind is extremely complex and children at the age of 5 obviously don't have the same understanding of love, liking, etc. Their mental capabilities don't support understanding the nuances of love. How do you explain what love is to a 5 yr old? "It's someone you really really like" then what does a kid think "I really really like my best friend" "Maybe I'm gay." Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. The problem is that children don't have the ability to express themselves in that manner on average. "BUT I WAS A KID AND I KNEW!!!!!!" You're not every kid. We don't make rules for special cases. We make rules for the majority for the average, boring, dumb person who messes things up for everyone. I know many many boys and girls who "really really liked" their best friend then they found someone of the opposite sex they liked even more.
It's true that parent's screw their kids up more often than not but it's not something you can fix. The belief that a parent knows best is logically a dumb argument. Why would a person with no training in a given subject know what's best for someone, they can't. The same argument is true for teachers. A teacher doesn't have sufficient training either, no one does that's the point. A teacher arguably sees that individual for a total less amount of time, than the parents do and therefore cannot know the kid better. The idea that we live in an idealized society where no one is infallible is crazy. We live in a greedy world, it will never be perfect, and our rules as a society have to account for the imperfections of people. How many teachers flat out hated you as a student? I know many of mine did, and for what reason I was never privy too. When I look back and ask myself do I really want that mean ole b teaching me about the intricacies of love? HELL NO. Conversely I had some amazing teachers who probably could have done a better job than my own parents. How do you find those teachers, how do you sift through them, how do you weed out the bad ones. This problem becomes more and more complex as we add in the variables. The more variables we add in the harder it is to actually make sure the problem is solved correctly.
Some kids will already likely be mentally messed up because of their parents. That is a given and a usually unchangeable metric. Because of this bill some kids could be mentally messed up because of their teachers. Are you okay with that possibility? How many kids messed up is too much? One? Two? etc. All of this needs to be taken into account.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926058#Comment_2926058
I don't know what you mean. Are you referring to the topic of changing/developing established canon?
Again I haven't seen any evidence that this type of change doesn't run parallel to the homophobic idea that being gay is a choice. Whether BHVR made a new character or updated an old as they did, homophobes' would complain. We accept that as a reality we ignore their argument.
In my opinion as an LGBT person, the act of looking at all the characters in the lineup and signaling out one as a best fit to be LGBT years after their creation and implementation is in my opinion parallel to that very abhorrent idea. There are no implicit characteristics of LGBT people outside of sexual orientation. They can be and are anyone that's the point.
I don't necessarily believe that was their intention I think most people are well intentioned, they have terrible execution. After a history wrought with this idea in the LGBT community still to this day even, it's extremely odd that this wasn't thought out more carefully. I couldn't care less if no one else makes that argument. It doesn't make me any less wrong; It doesn't make me more right either it's a non statement. Again, if others are fine with it, that's fine. This is my opinion, and it's not going to change.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926042#Comment_2926042
Because fictional characters are 100% constructs of human imagination, decision-making, etc.? Everything about the existance of a fictional character is the result of a decision made by one or more humans, whether those decisions be made when the character is first concived or down the line after the character has long been established. Fictional characters fundamentally cannot exist as anything other than the result of choices being made.
"whether those decisions be made when the character is first concived or down the line after the character has long been established."
An established and extremely highly debated and criticized topic among many fandoms notwithstanding DBD. It's not even close to something that's considered a widely and easily accepted practice.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2926010#Comment_2926010
You're the first person I've ever seen argue that choosing to make a fictional character LGBT is analogous to the idea that real human beings choose their orientation.
Ideas are intangible including the words real or fictional does nothing to discredit the comparison. Also the fact that one person has pointed this out and other's haven't is another meaningless statement.
Please explain to me how looking at all the characters finding out which character would be the best fit for them being gay(the community manager's own words on how the company picked them) is different to the abhorrent notion that being gay is a choice.
-
@Mandy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2925104#Comment_2925104
With new characters they tend to not have much Lore to begin with, that's what's been so great with the Tomes as we've been able to flesh out characters Lore a lot more.
If we'd put an entirely new DLC in, with an LGBTQIA+ character in, that would probably be more likely to be considered "tokenism" plus the whole paywall issue of a new DLC. And they wouldn't have much Lore at that point.
We announced and in fact celebrated that David is gay as we're happy to be able to show this representation in our game, we have a large LGBTQIA+ playerbase who are normally woefully under represented in all walks of life and this has been something we've worked on for a long time with the support of GaymerX.
I don't care who you collaborated with. BHVR could have hired every single LGBT person including me to work on this collaboration and still I would be against it.
"New characters don't have lore" That's completely untrue licensed characters don't have lore because BHVR legally can't make stuff up for them. Newer characters have pages of it.
The act of choosing a character to be LGBT, for any good or bad reason, is very parallel to the idea that being gay or LGBT is a choice. When you choose one character over another you're implying either that there are implicit characteristics that are gay/LGBT. Any of the characters could be LGBT even Felix with a wife and kids could be LGBT. Singling David out for whatever reason or whoever you collaborated with again is very parallel to the idea that's it's a choice either that was intended for the character from the onset or it wasn't. I've seen the community manager you collaborated with some group and looked at all the characters and realized David was the best fit. That's choosing someone to be gay. Again it's both odd and concerning how parallel to the idea that being gay is a choice this is.
If you didn't want a paywall for the first LGBT character you could have released them for free. Imagine the better publicity around that. Being inclusive and diverse is so important to us as a company that we will release the first LGBT character in DBD for free. Again I'm LGBT I enjoy representation, what I don't like is the idea, that being that way is a choice. I don't like choosing this character to suddenly reveal his queerness years and years after his introduction. "He could have been gay the whole time" True he could have that's my point that would have been more pioneering and interesting. This is pandering, I'm not for this at all.
-
Can confirm this does work on 2 separate attempts to recreate it.
1st Scenario, Que up as Meg got in lobby switched to already loaded up Claudette with cake, only showed 4 offerings when should have been 5, get to endscreen, no personal cake bonus (should have gotten 60k points on stack, or 17k on 140% didn't get either) and no perks.
2nd Scenario, Que up as Claudette, switched to already loaded up Meg with grave of glenvale offering, only showed one cake offering on burning screen, glenvale wasn't used, get to endscreen, no perks.
-
Had a match earlier today, said only one offering was brought in, mine a cake. End of game, I see somebody else brought in a cake, didn't even get the extra blood points from the cake I brought in. So not only was there a bug for the missing offering that should have been there, but also the cake didn't work at all.