Mooks
Mooks
About
- Username
- Mooks
- Joined
- Visits
- 22,563
- Last Active
Comments
-
Hi there,
first of all about the Easter European players: No you are not sent to an Eastern European server, as there actually is none. Those people are getting connected to their nearest server which is also yours, and I would guess it’s the one in Frankfurt, Germany (there is another server in London iirc, not sure if there is another in Western Europe)
There is currently a known issue that BHVR is trying to fix with an upcoming update where players experience rubberbanding during matches - though this doesn’t really explain your high ping and it’s not really teleporting or the other issues you are experiencing.. I would suggest creating a thread in the technical issues section of the forums or look if there is a (current) thread with the same issue and see if you can find a solution there:
Describe your technical issue -
@Gorgonia said:
Great post.
The only thing that worries me about David's matter is... would have he wanted to be outted like that? I don't know... I mean, I wouldn't... "Oh, and by the way, he is gay". It feel like we didn't need an announcement, I would have loved it had it been different.
Not really something that is really appropriate in this thread to ask as it’s not exactly on topic but eh i will try to answer:
David is a fictional character and the devs that made this announcement created him, so it doesn’t really matter if he wanted it.
the announcement was really mostly a follow up to their statement two years ago and it was them announcing the results of their collaboration with GaymerX. I do understand that it didn’t feel appropriate to announce this matter but there are reasonable arguments as to why they did it this way.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982264#Comment_2982264
Okay, last one from me.
- If you assert that the world is destructive for LGBT folks, then surely you must be able to imagine the converse? I said 'conquest', because you said 'world', and attempting to change the world externally - particularly the countries mentioned earlier in this thread - is not something that I can imagine being possible without conquest.
- Yes, I'm excluding the 'T', because it's not something that either of us can speak authoritatively on (and as this thread demonstrates, is incredibly contentious even amongst progressives). We'd basically both be speaking from our own subjective understandings of this issue, which would be completely pointless.
- Yeah...no. This is the point where you're asserting facts rather than opinions, which means that this is the point where I have to ask for specific examples (or better yet, sources). Let's stick to LGB folks - can you give me three examples of specific cases where people were discriminated against, in the modern west, because of these criteria - that wasn't later either overturned by a superior court or is pending litigation before a superior court?
- Title IX is pretty comprehensive about any sort of racial or gendered discrimination.
- Yes, there will always be people who break the law. All you can do is make things illegal - you can't make them more illegal, and thus this is the extent of what can (and probably should) be done from a governmental standpoint.
- Adoption rights...as far as I know, there is no absolute right for anyone to adopt - it's almost always at the discretion of whatever agency you are applying with, and economic/marriage status is a much bigger determiner than anything else. The adoption/fostering system is badly in need of an overhaul, but that is neither here nor there.
- That said, adoption is one that is currently being actively litigated, and in every case I've found, federal courts are siding with same sex parents. This is an issue that only the supreme courts of either state or country can really handle, because it's an issue with very little modern legal precedent for even traditional couples (adoption is ridiculously complicated and ridiculously broken for everyone, so claiming any sort of specific discrimination doesn't seem possible here).
Oh well. I guess there is no discrimination in modern western countries anymore as it is illegal and Mooks can’t name discriminated people directly (as they don’t really want to use their own name here for example).
i guess we just solved discrimination for the modern west! Well done everybody involved!
(just as a hint, the right for adoption for same-sex couples as well as marriage is actually something legalized in most of these so called modern western countries, especially when we are only counting the EU and USA, I am not even that well informed about this topic but my example if you asked for a specific country would have been Poland which you then would probably argue it doesn’t count as a modern western country)
but well, bye, I gotta go as well. Gonna conquest the world as it’s obviously the only way to make the world less destructive for lgbtq+ people.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982224#Comment_2982224
Mm. Let's take a look here, because there are some interesting points.
- Religious institutions are a very tricky one, let's avoid it - because...yeah, it's a can of worms and religion based discussions never end well.
- Ah. You use the word 'sentiment'. I think that's dangerous, because what you're essentially talking about is what people think as opposed to what they do - which in terms of a 'movement', would have to be systemic and would need some sort of concrete goal.
- I don't care about 'think', at all. I care partially about 'say'. What I care primarily about is 'do'.
- You can definitely call someone who takes a bigoted action a bigot (yes, that's circular, but only for the sake of brevity). You need to be careful when you call someone who says something a bigot, because this often comes down to language being an imprecise tool - charity is always essential. But...sentiment? Yeah, I'm hesitant, because this is where you start getting into 'coding' and the like, and it all gets very subjective.
- As for the rest, let's go one by one.
- The UK has a huge schism between two very loud and very radical groups...what I'd probably describe as the Dworkin/Bindel style radical second wave feminists (often lesbian separatists who, yes, tend to be...pretty out there and genuinely seem to hate anyone who isn't a cisgender lesbian) and a hyper-progressive, very esoteric subset of trans activists, with a lot of others being caught in the crossfire (let's not start in on a specific children's author...). I don't like either of these groups, due to both the viewpoints they espouse and the tactics they use, which include intimidation and outright violence. If you want to view...what you'd probably call TERFs (actual TERFs, not just a shorthand for 'disagrees with trans activists) an anti 'T' movement then - sure - but now we're getting into very odd territory, as we're using an LGB group as an example of an anti LGBT movement, when before it seems that the implication was a more conservative group.
- I love to dig into the world, which is why I spend...probably too much time talking with people online about this (if I didn't, why would I be doing what I'm doing right now?). But I am a rationalist, and I like to be right. Which means that I'll always test assertions and claims out, and poke at things that I don't fully understand.
- I think we talked about the conversion therapy thing in another thread. As with...far too many things, it's not what is being reported, at all.
- 'Gender critical' refers to, from my understanding, accepting that someone can transition in terms of gender but not in terms of sex. Unless you're meaning this another way - I don't see the problem with this perspective, the 'biological sex is a social construct' discourse is pretty fringe.
- The DSG bill isn't an attack on LGBTs at all. There is nothing targeted about saying that conversations about sexual identity don't belong in kindergarten, and even if you disagree with that assertion, it's a hell of a stretch to somehow paint this as homophobic.
- Trans sports is a contentious topic even within progressive circles, and I don't think that the vast, vast majority of the disagreement here is bigoted - it mostly comes down to concerns over fairness.
- Lee V Ashers is a very complicated test case, as it comes down to compelled speech versus freedom of expression, particularly religious freedoms. I don't see this as any evidence of bigotry. Saying that you can't discriminate is one thing, but saying that you are legally compelled to publicly *endorse* an ideology, particularly one that runs contrary to your religious beliefs - that I'm iffy on. EDIT: What bugs me about this case is that it was contrived - this was an activist who deliberately set out to trap these people by asking them to do something they knew they couldn't do, as this would violate the tenets of their faith. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out, considering that freedom of expression is a lot less concrete in the UK.
- R v Brown and R v Wilson...I disagree with the verdict here, but there is nothing in any way anti LGBT in these cases, as this applies to all extreme BDSM acts, and this was further codified in R v Emmett. Note, I'm not a scholar on UK law, but we - bizarrely enough - covered this stuff in my Criminology studies way, way back in my uni days.
- Again - out of your examples, the only one I'd agree with being 'anti LGBT' is the LGB alliance, and here we have an LGB group infighting with a 'T' advocacy group. As to the rest, we've got 2 bills that aren't, the sports issue which is massively contentious even within LGBT circles and three court cases which are, respectively, a religious freedoms/expression issue and a BDSM specific issue.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982229#Comment_2982229
Okay, let's dig down.
- What, in your opinion, would a world that isn't destructive to LBGT folks look like? Be as specific as you can, and remember that 'world' doesn't mean 'the west'. How would you go about achieving this? Conquest?
- I'd happily say that I think that this stuff was, as a whole, better a decade ago - because my goals are purely egalitarian. Equality based, not equity based.
- I don't think anyone rational would say that transgender people don't exist, or that they deserve to be hated. I don't think that this has ever been the dominant mindset, or as GBK would say, 'sentiment' in the modern west. It comes down to: exactly what does this existence entail, and what accommodations should be made, weighing both the interests of transgender folks and the interests of others.
- You used that word, which is why I chased it.
- Define 'plenty of people'. Because discrimination is illegal, so if it's happening - you can sue the pants off whoever is doing it. The only contentious issue is the 'T', as we've discussed, and we're several steps away from even being able to accurately define what this sort of discrimination would look like - because we still can't really define what the 'T' actually means.
- Yes, they do. But I'll give you a chance to elaborate here - can you name me a single legal right that LGB folks don't have that straight folks do have, that isn't currently being litigated or doesn't come down to semantics?
- What does my opinion on how a non-destructive world for LGBT folks looks like have to do with any of this? And conquest? Really?
- It wasn’t better. I believe you when you say you think it was better, but you have made it very clear you are not really including trans people in this at all. And still even for LGB people it wasn’t better overall. See the next point:
- ‚Discrimination is illegal‘ doesn’t really mean that it’s not happening or that you can successfully sue for it. Discrimination takes place everywhere against LGBTQ+ people all the time. It also takes place against women, different ethnicities, religions etc. I really envy you if you think it doesn’t happen or isn’t a problem. But I do believe that you actually think it is because you somehow live in sich a perfect bubble.
- right of adoption of children and/or marriage for LGB people, it’s really not in all modern western countries allowed, is it? At least it wasn’t in many countries until very recently (and you were talking about how it was better a decade ago)
-
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982196#Comment_2982196
Okay, then let's avoid the Cyberpunk thing - I was really just trying to give you a chance to prove your assertion, because it was a much bigger event than the others we were talking about.
Regarding the rest:
- I'm still not sure what specifically you mean by 'exclusive and destructive'. Can you specify?
- Yes, the 'T' is the current fracture line - because it's a topic that even the LGBT community can't seem to agree on even the basics of, or even what the terms being used actually mean. Is gender dysphoria a disorder, or is that bigoted? If it's not a disorder, then how do we quantify it? Is identifying enough, or does there need to be some sort of hormonal or medical intervention to qualify? What accommodations should be made societally? There needs to be some sort of agreed upon ideological foundation before we can even start talking about representation and other granular societal changes, let alone what constitutes being bigoted against it.
- People are people. Human beings are evolutionarily hardwired to categorize based on the behavior and actions of others within that category. When people are extensively exposed to what you described as 'toxic elements', be it them demanding that things they like be changed or cancelled, harassing people or saying/doing bizarre things and see no or minimal pushback, then - yes - that is going to create a barrier to acceptance. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying that this is how the human animal functions. It's not always fair - but it is what it is, and you aren't going to change that.
- Regarding the movement - that was your assertion, not mine. And yes, for a 'movement' to exist, there has to be some sort of named group, otherwise you may as well be hunting witches. As I said, yes - there will always be isolated incidents of bigotry, but a few swallows do not a summer make. You'd either need to find something objectively bigoted and systemic (which wouldn't be a movement, but it would certainly be worth discussing), or you'd have to find a specific group.
- I think that we are probably going to be using a very different definition of 'phobic' in this regard - as, talking systemically, the LGB have equal rights under the law in the modern western world, and - aside from a few granular, often nomenclature related issues still being litigated - have had them for a while. The 'T' is a lot more difficult, because it's quite new to the mainstream and even progressive groups aren't quite sure how to approach it definitionally, let alone define what constitutes being 'transphobic'. Not that this stops that word being thrown around or being used to shut down discussions or paint people as bigots - hell, I've seen people called transphobic (and literally 'immoral') because they weren't pansexual, or didn't want a partner with specific genitalia.
All it basically says is that very young learners (kindergarten age) do not need sex ed, and thus education about sexual identities of any sort has no place in a classroom full of 5 and 6 year olds. That seems...pretty common-sensical to me.
i have read it and it’s way more direct than you are making it out here and going above kindergarten age.
they are writing about sexual orientation but we all know that heterosexuality is still not really being treated the same here. This is against LGBTQ+ and not against sex ed.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982196#Comment_2982196
Okay, then let's avoid the Cyberpunk thing - I was really just trying to give you a chance to prove your assertion, because it was a much bigger event than the others we were talking about.
Regarding the rest:
- I'm still not sure what specifically you mean by 'exclusive and destructive'. Can you specify?
- Yes, the 'T' is the current fracture line - because it's a topic that even the LGBT community can't seem to agree on even the basics of, or even what the terms being used actually mean. Is gender dysphoria a disorder, or is that bigoted? If it's not a disorder, then how do we quantify it? Is identifying enough, or does there need to be some sort of hormonal or medical intervention to qualify? What accommodations should be made societally? There needs to be some sort of agreed upon ideological foundation before we can even start talking about representation and other granular societal changes, let alone what constitutes being bigoted against it.
- People are people. Human beings are evolutionarily hardwired to categorize based on the behavior and actions of others within that category. When people are extensively exposed to what you described as 'toxic elements', be it them demanding that things they like be changed or cancelled, harassing people or saying/doing bizarre things and see no or minimal pushback, then - yes - that is going to create a barrier to acceptance. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying that this is how the human animal functions. It's not always fair - but it is what it is, and you aren't going to change that.
- Regarding the movement - that was your assertion, not mine. And yes, for a 'movement' to exist, there has to be some sort of named group, otherwise you may as well be hunting witches. As I said, yes - there will always be isolated incidents of bigotry, but a few swallows do not a summer make. You'd either need to find something objectively bigoted and systemic (which wouldn't be a movement, but it would certainly be worth discussing), or you'd have to find a specific group.
- I think that we are probably going to be using a very different definition of 'phobic' in this regard - as, talking systemically, the LGB have equal rights under the law in the modern western world, and - aside from a few granular, often nomenclature related issues still being litigated - have had them for a while. The 'T' is a lot more difficult, because it's quite new to the mainstream and even progressive groups aren't quite sure how to approach it definitionally, let alone define what constitutes being 'transphobic'. Not that this stops that word being thrown around or being used to shut down discussions or paint people as bigots - hell, I've seen people called transphobic (and literally 'immoral') because they weren't pansexual, or didn't want a partner with specific genitalia.
- i mean that the world we are living in the way it is can be very destructive towards LGBTQ+ people, everywhere in the world, obviously it’s been getting better in the west but that doesn’t mean it’s in any way good or doesn’t need to get better. And acting like it’s been better a decade ago is just ignoring the actual issues.
- Regarding the ‚T’: Maybe first of all we should accept that there are transgender people and they don’t deserve to be hated/discriminated for their existence.
- As for movement, maybe you are focusing on the word itself way too much; there are plenty of people outright hating/discriminating LGBTQ+ people in the modern west. Can you agree on that or is that already something you would say isn’t true?
- LGB people don’t have equal rights everywhere in the modern west. That’s just not true. And it’s not just a few issues in the way…
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982187#Comment_2982187
Give me a sec, let me look into this one.
Then maybe take the ‚parental rights in education‘ bill from Florida which in varied form is also making its way into many other states.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982177#Comment_2982177
Then...what exactly is exclusive and destructive?
I'm not sure what else you could have meant besides 'egalitarianism'. Still not clear on this one. 'Old school?'. Well, yes, I'm pretty old and come from a different generation, but I'm not sure how that's exclusive or destructive either.
And yes, I do think that we were doing better as a society in terms of this stuff even a decade ago than we are now. I'd have to dig up the study, but - for the first time in a lot of generations - college students are less accepting of different identities than they were in the past, and the #1 reason given was the activism surrounding these identities, particularly online activism, which I think also comes down to how dominant the idea of intersectionality has become and how poorly this works out outside of a purely academic setting.
But...okay - let's test that assertion. Look at probably the biggest and most widely known example I gave earlier, the Cyberpunk ad. Quite unambiguously toxic, from several very progressive and very large media groups. Who, specifically, was talking out against this from within the LGBT community?
Regarding the 'movement' thing, again - let's get more specific, via some sort of concrete, preferably secular example. Because I'm honestly not sure what you mean.
And yes, I do think that we were doing better as a society in terms of this stuff even a decade ago than we are now.
this take is exclusive and destructive for many people in the LGBTQ+ community - especially those not part of LGB.
if someone uses the activism as a reason to not accept people for their sexuality orientation/identity then I don’t know what to tell you but… those people would have another excuse for their hatred anyways.
and again, I have told you I am not invested in this other stuff - even not Cyberpunk. This whole discussion is already going off topic but you are constantly trying to drag it even further off. But I am sure there were LGBTQ+ people speaking up against it.
as for movement, there doesn’t have to be a single named group. I am sorry but if you don’t see homophobia/transphobia in your modern western world then I can not help you. You deliberately choose to not see it.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982158#Comment_2982158
...
Wait, are you saying that being an egalitarian is *exclusive and destructive*?
I'd really like to know...how. Because, in my opinion, an ideal world is one where nobody really cares about this stuff at all, and consenting adults are free to do whatever they want with other consenting adults - and that the only way we'll ever get there is to move past all of this, and let the finer details take care of themselves either organically or, where needed, in the courts.
I'm also focusing on these parts because they do seem to be a blind spot for the LGBTQ+ community. Again, when these 'toxic elements' pop up, I don't see all that much pushback from inside this community.
I'm also not sure if there really is any sort of anti-LGBTQ+ movement in the modern west anymore - can you give an example of an current 'anti' group large or orthodox enough to be considered a movement? You get the occasional fringe bigot, sure, but aside from that - the only examples I can think of are regarding topics that are contentious even within LGBT circles (dating preferences, representation, nomenclature, pronouns, the biological reality of sex and gender etc.).
Wait, are you saying that being an egalitarian is *exclusive and destructive*?
not at all, but you referring to old-school seemed and talking about how it’s getting more and more toxic from the progressive side seemed like you were actually thinking it’s been closer to this „all getting along together“ world sometime in the past. Many people that are requesting inclusion and representation just want that after all.
Also, I don’t see how it’s a blind spot of the LGBTQ+ community? Like.. no? This community is not one single person and there are many within the community talking out against those toxic parts. Maybe we found your blind spot?
I'm also not sure if there really is any sort of anti-LGBTQ+ movement in the modern west anymore
you are kidding, right?
-
General toxicity, on top of the ######### talking that constantly happens, yesterday a killer was so angry we escaped he added everyone on steam, and then told everyone to off themselves followed by spamming gore i wont post the picture or what type it even was but it was thee worst thing i've seen probably worse than something you would find on 4chan.
just want to say I hope you reported this disgusting person on Steam for this?
as to big changes: I am personally looking forward to the big meta perk changes that supposedly will come with some (minor) base game changes that are based on why those perks are meta perks..
-
I guess that being an old-school, 'can't we all just get along?' egalitarian makes me a bit of a dinosaur in online spaces now, but it really doesn't look healthy from the outside
you really have no clue how exclusive and destructive it has been (and in many ways still is) for LGBTQ+ people in this world, do you?
you are now focusing on the toxic parts of the LGBTQ+ community while ignoring the toxic parts of the anti-LGBTQ+ people without realizing that this anti-movement has been the norm for like… ever?
-
@KateMain86 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982129#Comment_2982129
I was merely pointing out the possibility of confusion when companies may genuinely want to be supportive and representative of the lgbt community. I'm sorry if I said it the wrong way.
I don't want to be stereotyped for my faith so I distance myself from those directions/denominations that claim the banner of my faith. I'm not part of a community revolved around it. If I may ask, do you think orthodoxy within the lgbt community would be a good thing for it?
It obviously depends on what kind of orthodoxy we are talking about. But in the end it doesn’t really matter what I personally think about it as it’s not really feasible - or if it’s feasible to some extent it wouldn’t be enough to satisfy whatever it’s supposed to satisfy here. There will be LGBTQ+ people against it and it’s their right to be, it’s not like them existing is in any way forcing them to abide the rules of a community.
-
@KateMain86 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982094#Comment_2982094
You're absolutely right in that there doesn't seem to be a majority within these movements. I think thats why there never seems to be satisfaction as a community because when one thing happens it'll never be enough for someone else in the community. When one character is made gay, then someone else will want a trans character. When they get the trans character, someone will want a non binary character and so on. Honestly I feel like many companies who try to represent the lgbt community don't fully understand it themselves and I can't blame them when everyday there seems to be a new acronym, pronoun, gender, sexuality, etc. added to the community. Who can keep up with this and understand it all when its constantly changing? I do agree with you in that the lack of orthodoxy within the lgbt community hinders them from having common ground on many things they stand for.
I can't blame them when everyday there seems to be a new acronym, pronoun, gender, sexuality, etc. added to the community.
you are so careful with your words, please also avoid making these false claims which could otherwise be twisted into something you would never say
also about the changing inside the community… it’s just a community full of diverse and individual people. Blaming them for individual takes is really… unreasonable. Especially for someone identifying by their faith, or do you want to get judged by every direction of those that say they have the same faith as yours?
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982083#Comment_2982083
Sigh. And this is why I hate getting drawn into these discussions - because, as here, people can be incredibly uncharitable and will start inferring a negative intent where none exists.
But okay, lets try again.
I'm not 'blaming' anyone.
I'm simply trying to demonstrate how this looks from the perspective of an outsider.
The issue isn't that it's a minority or a majority - it's that there doesn't seem to be a majority within these movements. That's what I mean by orthodoxy. It's one of the weaknesses of this new incarnation of 'intersectional solidarity' - which these days seems to mean 'I have to defend my 'team', even if I don't agree with what they are saying, or at least refrain from public disagreement'.
Again - this wasn't a few posters on a forum. This was thousands of people harassing an actress for 'not being gay enough' to play Batwoman, a mangaka for making the wrong character bi and massive media outlets like Kotaku and Polygon crucifying a game designer for...you know, I still don't fully understand the 'why' there. They just had a beef with CDPR. And they only people I saw disagreeing with them were centrists.
Also - you can't use a void as an argument. If you are asserting that there is a significant number of people who are as 'rabid' as you claim, and I can't find many, you can't just turn around and say 'well, there must have been but they were deleted' or 'well, they aren't saying it but I know that they are thinking it'. As I said - as someone who tends to be in the 'neutral' camp, there was at least as much pushback from progressives on making David gay (because it wasn't the exact representation they wanted) as there was from people who didn't want a gay character, if not more.
Sigh. And this is why I hate getting drawn into these discussions - because, as here, people can be incredibly uncharitable and will start inferring a negative intent where none exists
will agree to that as it happened several times to me in this very thread. Though you haven’t been drawn into it by anything but yourself.
there doesn’t need to be a majority. There will always people praising and hating on anything anyone does within a community, this can’t be stopped. Holding that against such a diverse community as a whole is unfair.
again, I am not talking about batwoman or any other kind of specific representation outside of BHVR, I am currently mentally and physically not even capable of reading into every bit of it. I am talking about David King and inclusion of LGBTQ+ in DbD as that’s the topic. It’s obviously not done perfectly and some kind of constructive criticism is expected and needed. But just looking at the forums and twitter I can tell you it’s been hatred without any reasonable basis and not just from a small minority, but plenty of people. and I am not saying they must have been deleted, that’s a fact, it’s stated kn the rules that these kind of posts will get deleted and result in a ban/warning.
also pick up a mirror. You started this whole argumentation about minority/majority and they supposedly not being rabid (your word that I just used for the other side) but ‚irritated‘. Where is your claim?
also also, that pushback (again, can you backup the claim it’s at least as many as people not wanting a gay character) could very much just be false flagging as well.
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982058#Comment_2982058
He's definitely the humorous character, but I found that he got fleshed out really well as the series progressed. And him being bi was actually a very interesting wrinkle, due to his past behavior.
The problem isn't so much Mineta, as it was the ridiculously vicious reaction to the reveal. But this is exactly what I'm talking about - 'we need an LGBT character' far too often becomes 'we need an LGBT character that is the specific character I want, and if you do anything else I'm going to have my 50000 followers call you a massive bigot on your Twitter feed and hassle your publisher'.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982056#Comment_2982056
How is it not a minority? I just glanced back at previous posts, and I'd say that 95% of the posts about this were either celebratory or, at absolute worst, neutral like myself.
This may sound blunt, but I don't think that you'll get this sort of world until the LGBT etc. 'community' becomes a bit more orthodox (in that they actually get a definitive, majority consensus within their movement as to what they want, who their movement includes and who it doesn't) because, again, from the perspective of an outsider, it looks like there is literally no action that can be taken that some aspect of the community won't go ballistic over and start attacking people - which tends to reflect badly on the entire movement and makes people unwilling to even try.
Beyond this, you can't have both normalization and endorsement. Endorsement explicitly means exceptional, and exceptional is never normal.
those posts get deleted, even on Twitter plenty of posts got deleted. And there are also those people that outright state they don’t speak their opinion to avoid punishment.
but for someone claiming that it’s just a minority you are quick to blame the lgbt community for something that could also be blamed on a small but vocal minority..
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2982024#Comment_2982024
I'm...not?
I'm just saying that, from where I'm standing, these are a ridiculously small minority of the people talking about this, and could very well just be individuals poking the bear (see: trolling).
The majority of people seem to be saying...roughly what I'm saying - if you enjoy this, then more power to you - but wouldn't it have been better if this had been a little bit more organic? Also - this seems to be the antithesis of normalization.
Also also: yes, I say 'hyperfocusing' for a reason - because this suddenly becomes the only important thing about the character.
At best, that leads to clumsy storytelling - and at worst sends the discourse around that media product off in all sorts of silly directions (see the 'queer erasure' stuff about David 'not looking gay enough', or how making him gay is an insult because he's not a totally new character etc.).
From the outside, it looks like there is just no way to win here - if you make a 'diverse' character, then people immediately start insisting that you make them 'diverse in the right way' - they can't have flaws, be unlikeable, or have any connections to anything that might be considered 'problematic', can't be portrayed by an actor that isn't 'gay enough' etc.
Once again, my best examples of this outside of DbD would be the Mineta thing from My Hero Academia: after it became popular in the west, fans demanded an LGBT character, but when the author revealed that a specific character might be bisexual, it caused a huge backlash because it was 'the wrong character':
https://www.polygon.com/22607424/my-hero-academia-memes-bisexual-mineta-manga-anime
The Cyberpunk ad, where a massive social media firestorm was kicked up because...it was problematic for trans people to be linked to capitalism (this resulted in a bunch of stuff being cut from the game)
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/cyberpunk-2077-transphobic-ad/
Or what happened regarding Batwoman:
Do you see why, from the perspective of an outsider, this might all seem a bit...well, much?
It’s not a minority sadly, and it’s not just trolling.
i really would love to live in a world where this was the case. But sadly it’s not this world, at least not yet.
i really can’t say much about those other video games and how they managed it and how the community reacted.
-
Yes that was the right BP count to use. It’s been confirmed by the mods here on the forums in other threads
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981691#Comment_2981691
Well, yes. Because the lack of orthodoxy within these movements means that something can be both simultaneously praised for being x while also being demonized for being x - it's a perfect lose/lose situation these days, as you cannot appease a base that doesn't actually know what precisely it believes or wants.
Lara Croft was an icon of the genre, and not once did anyone at the time go 'oh wow, a female main character that kicks all the butt!'. Because that just wasn't something people were especially concerned about. Hell, I've always played female avatars, and it's only within the last...maybe 5 years that anyone called attention to it (apparently it's 'massively problematic' for a straight, cisgender male to play a female avatar in World of Warcraft...urgh, that was some ridiculous guild drama).
You say 'rabid'. I say 'irritated'. And it's not because these characters are female, POC or LGBT, it's because this tends to be hyperfocused on to the extent that it becomes the entire focus of the story, often to the detriment of the game, comic or story as a whole.
There probably hasn't been a time when this was completely normalized, but it was definitely a bit less...well, arch than it is now. Again, this is my opinion, but the way to normalize something is to just have it be there, not call a massive amount of attention to it. This was the case with the L and the G, with the rest of that acronym being...difficult, as even within progressive movements there are about 10 different variations, with many of the identity groups themselves being the subject of contention.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981935#Comment_2981935
Okay, let's dig in here a bit. Again, I'm trying to balance being blunt and not offending anyone, so please read with a charitable mindset.
You are...partially correct, but I think that you're getting things a little out of order.
'Acceptance' is a point on...well, what I'm guessing is that path you're looking for.
It usually goes:
Tolerance -> Acceptance -> Normalization.
You can demand tolerance - in that people won't take actions to stop you from enjoying your identity, but may not agree or be fully comfortable with it. Acceptance and normalization are something that will occur organically, over time.
If you start attempting to bypass tolerance and instead enforce acceptance, it seldom goes well, because it often ends up feeling forced.
I don't think that hyperfocusing on this stuff, and particularly the endless and often venomous criticism or wokescolding of media for not being 'diverse' enough (or worse, 'diverse but not in the way I personally approve of' - see the Cyberpunk drama, Batwoman, MHA etc.) is productive, and may actually work against you - because when people are confronted by extreme criticism/attempts at cancellation for even well intentioned attempts at placation or inclusion, they tend to become resentful.
Also - prejudice? Sure. As long as we are talking in a legalistic sense (you can't demand that anyone thinks a specific way, only how they act). But 'fear of judgement' - that's ridiculously subjective. I don't think there is anyone in the world who doesn't at least partially fear judgement in some sense. And as for 'violence around the world'...I'm not sure that's within the scope of what anyone can demand, because there are large parts of the world where violence is horribly common and there are deeper societal issues that need to be fixed before this stuff is even on the radar.
Beware Kafkatraps - using the criticism of an action as the justification for that action, because that tends to devolve into circularity very fast.
Again - I think you're inferring a negative intent where there is none. I'd say that the vast, vast majority of gamers don't really care about their character's sexual orientation outside of RPGs, because it's not relevant to the game at all in, again, almost any game. When this stuff starts being introduced, it very quickly becomes a minefield (again, see Cyberpunk or Batwoman) and everyone loses.
Not gonna talk about Lara Croft anymore - i still don’t believe that there wasn’t criticism for her as a female heroine in a time were women were mostly damsels in distress but I do see that I don’t have any evidence for or against this claim.
And it's not because these characters are female, POC or LGBT, it's because this tends to be hyperfocused on to the extent that it becomes the entire focus of the story, often to the detriment of the game, comic or story as a whole.
thing is.. people against inclusion are always making a fuss over this ‚hyperfocusing‘ and call out one simple tweet among hundreds of others.
and yes I say rabid as I have seen plenty of people just here on the forums going on against inclusion and representation on ways that can’t be excused as irritated. Please don’t try to justify those people. I agree there are some among them that are meaning no harm and may be ‚irritated‘, but plenty of them are just people full of hate trying their hardest to use ‚reasonable‘ arguments against inclusion.
-
I just love when you gotta blank out the names of hackers to protect them, even if they're without a doubt 100% cheating with gameplay footage
gamertags are not unique and this could start a witch-hunt against an innocent/framed person.
also rules from the DbD forum obviously can’t be transferred to other social media/world wide web.. but the twitter account in your post actually still censors names in most cases
-
There has been information in the in-game news about this! (I do oversee those news often as well though..)
it’s part of the community-choice event.
https://twitter.com/deadbybhvr/status/1531651758618968070?s=21&t=ZRWCydiqSTqU_b2FMxn_kA -
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981698#Comment_2981698
Also a slight correction + very off topic, Elix uses they/them out of drag and she/her when in drag iirc (labeled as "She/They" on twitter)
Noted and corrected :)
-
@amazing_grace said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981819#Comment_2981819
I don't mean to intrude, but I think there's a misunderstanding happening here where the other user is assuming that a crossdresser most likely identifies with more groups than just being a crossdresser and you're just addressing the situation that someone is just a crossdresser. I think the other user is thinking that a good portion of crossdressers do identify with either being queer, gay, or nonbinary, which by this classification would make them a part of the LGBTQ+ group. I can see your point that if someone is straight and cisgender, that if they're just cross dressing for "fun" they wouldn't necessarily be grouped as being LGBTQ+ (unless you consider them an ally if they are). I definitely do not condone the people who just fetishize crossdressing/trans people or crossdress for jokes. I can see why this deeply offends you because it is disrespectful to make light of this situation. The grey area that I see with cross dressing and being cisgender/straight is that this type of person can be marginalized because of taking part in this type of lifestyle, but again, I feel like someone who cross dresses usually will be either queer or somewhere in the + part. It's definitely odd to imagine someone deciding to cross dress who's cisgender/straight because this behavior isn't usually done by someone who identifies as both of those, so I see your point in not including them generally.
I am definitely talking about crossdressers who are not doing it out of funsies or due to a fetish (which I already clarified) - but I do mean crossdressers that see this as part of their individuality/lifestyle and are probably partly non-binary or at least in some extent queer or part of the + kind the LGBTQ+ community.
as for Drag Queens/Kings I also think they are part of the + , as they are strongly associated with queer/gay culture and are being marginalized for that.
-
Just wanted to make you aware:
after linking those two accounts together you will be able to unlink separate accounts - if you however unlink your Epic account you will lose the progress from that account and won’t be able to relink your account immediately.
so I guess read the faq on the website I just showed you earlier and don’t unlink your accounts after linking if you don’t have to.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981812#Comment_2981812
Bi people who are in a straight relationship can't just delete their mind and suddenly only be attracted to the opposite gender, so no, it is not the same as taking your clothes and makeup off.
Your POV isnt the same as scientific POV. You either are cisgender, or you are transgender. Transgender also including people on the "spectrum" which are nonbinary people. Nonbinary people aren't considered crossdressers either.
I'm not twisting your words though, I literally quoted you, you're just backtracking now. What speaks volumes is again other LGB people thinking it is ok to talk over trans people and compare us to crossdressers. I wish I could say I'm surprised but at this point I am not.
No you did not only quote me. You literally ignored my POV and considered yours the only truth and therefore said I must have meant crossdressers are transgenders even though I said I don’t think that.
And we are not talking about crossdressers in the sense they just wear it once for a giggle and then don’t think anymore about it. We are talking about crossdressers who while still being cisgender like to dress gender- on-conforming and for whom it’s part of their individual person.
you are the only one making comparisons between crossdressers and trans people. I specifically mentioned several times see crossdressers as part of the LGBTQ+ community while they are not part of the T.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981760#Comment_2981760
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981792#Comment_2981792
Just because I only say LGBT doesnt mean I dont include queer and whatever else. A lot of the letters added after LGBT are terms that were already included in LGBT.
No crossdressers are not part of the LGBTQ+ community. Being a crossdresser doesn't mean you're queer. Being a straight cisgender drag queen doesn't mean you should be included in a marginalized group either.
You can go home and take off your lil makeup and costume and just live with your privilege, transgender people and gay/bi/etc can't afford that.
"AND SAYING A CROSSDRESSER IS A CISGENDER IS ALSO NOT REALLY THAT ACCURATE", so yes you did say they are trans. If they aren't cisgender it means they are trasngender. You are lying and being transphobic by implying being transgender is equal to putting on a costume.
You can go home and take off your lil makeup and costume and just live with your privilege, transgender people and gay/bi/etc can't afford that.
many LGBTQ+ people can do the same. Especially bi people that are in a heterosexual relationship - which doesn’t make them any less bi.
"AND SAYING A CROSSDRESSER IS A CISGENDER IS ALSO NOT REALLY THAT ACCURATE", so yes you did say they are trans.
only true if you deliberately ignore everything else I said. I said I don’t believe that there is only cis- or transgender but it’s more like a spectrum from my pov. And I directly stated I don’t think crossdressers are transgender.
so the fact you are still trying to twist my words to accuse me of transphobia speaks volumes. (Edit: but nice to see you keep throwing around labels)
-
@RaSavage42 said:
One just didn't like the fact that they retconned David's lore... just to make him gay
They could've taken a character that they are working on and make them LGBQT (sorry if I missed a letter)
I may sound a type of way but I don't mean it
No retconn happened.
if you still think it’s a retconn then legions tome retconned Julie and Frank to be straight and in a relationship. So the question arises - why have a problem with David but not with Legion.
also you can just say LGBTQ+, with the plus you make sure to be aware there is more not directly mentioned in the acronym
-
I am pretty sure I have seen Mandy confirm the other day that P3- level 1 is enough for the reward
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981772#Comment_2981772
Someone who is not cisgender is transgender.
Wearing clothes that are associated with the opposite gender in society isnt the same as being transgender.
Again, this has been a problem for a long time with people confusing transGENDER with transVESTITE/crossdressers. We're just not the same. They are not under the transgender umbrella either. A tomboy is still a woman, a femboy is still a man, they're not transgender, they're crossdressers.
I am saying that crossdressers and drag queens/kings are part of the LGBTQ+ community with focus on Q and +. I never said they are LGBT people (which you still only talk about). The Q stands for queer. Not only gender-queer. And the + says it’s more than just LGBTQ people.
i don’t say crossdressers are transgenders or transsexual. They are not the same but are part of the LGBTQ+ community.
please stop trying to put words into my mouth. I never said or implied tomboys or femboys are transgender???
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981760#Comment_2981760
Cisgender is the opposite of transgender. If you think a straight cis man putting on a dress is the same thing as a trans person, that's disgusting and offensive.
That’s not what I said at all.
i still think of it more as a spectrum, I don’t see gender as something completely binary. But I definitely did not say a man putting on a dress is a trans person and I think you trying to put these words into my mouth is disgusting and offensive.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981612#Comment_2981612
A cisgender straight man has no place in the LGBT community just because he likes to wear women's clothes, and saying they do is just opening a door for all kinds of fetishes. No thanks, we already get labeled with enough ######### by conservatives.
Again, crossdressing is not necessarily a fetish. And saying a crossdresser is a cisgender is also not really that accurate though i guess debatable in every case.
you are the one throwing around labels here.
-
@Bwsted said:
It was still present in the ptb where they tried a tentative fix. That's all for now. They might still release another fix at chapter launch, but nothing has been announced afaik.
Oh well, didn’t know the fix didn’t work. But I guess they are aware of this and trying to get it done for release or in the following bug fix patches.
-
Bug Fixes
- Tentatively fixed an issue that caused players to rubber band after the 5.7.0 update
As part of the most recent PTB and presumably part of the upcoming chapter release:
Important Progress & save data information has been copied from the Live game to our PTB servers on May 11th. Please note that players will be able to progress for the duration of the PTB, but none of that progress will make it back to the Live version of the game. Features New Map - Garden of Joy New Killer - The Dredge… -
@Shut_Up_Meg said:
Ignorance you say? Would you like to start a discussion about what Oppression is or isnt?
I was just talking about the fact that you assumed it were fake problems when you literally had no info whatsoever.
-
@Shut_Up_Meg said:
Ugh, nevermind....I thought this was a serious problem like being murdered or something. Hurt feelings I can deal with, fake problems I got no time for.
lol. Great to show your ignorance when I clearly said I don’t know to which extent?? Inform yourself before talking about fake problems.
-
@Fujo_chan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981695#Comment_2981695
Aaahh, I see, thank you very much for your help! :D
So, just to clarify, all of my achievements, skins and DLC can be added to my Steam account so long as I play Steam DBD for a little bit and link the accounts to BHVR?
Achievements are tied to the platform, those won’t be shared.
but DLCs, in-Game purchases and rewards like cosmetics and characters as well as tome/rift progress and challenges, daily’s etc will be shared.
you don’t need to actually play the game but you have to start the game at least once so that you were in the main menu, that should be enough (it’s probably required to create your internal DbD Account for that platform)
-
@Shut_Up_Meg said:
And this indvidual was attacked? And where, if I might ask
I don’t know anything about that, but apparently they were attacked during a live stream. I don’t know when it was or what form of attack.
-
@Shut_Up_Meg said:
Who is Elix?
Elix is a Streamer on Twitch that is playing DbD (and possibly other games?)
They are part of the Fog Whisperers program afaik and happens to be a drag queen - sometimes streaming in drag and sometimes ‚casual‘ with face cam.
a lovely person at least from what I have seen
edit:
edited again for pronoun correction
-
You can use cross progression so that you have the same progress on both Steam and Epic DbD Account. You need to have purchased the basegame on both platforms and have to at least have started the game once on each platform to do so. DLCs will be shared if you only have them on one platform.
If you have the game on both platforms you can create a BHVR account on the following link and then link both your games to that new account:
-
@StarLost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981158#Comment_2981158
If you don't mind me asking - why?
I mean - for a long chunk of gaming, characters were barely recognizable as human, let alone specific. This is what I mean by it striking me as a bit self defeating - we've gone from universal appeal to more and more granular 'representation'.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981318#Comment_2981318
It's not a problem. It's just a bit...odd, and I wonder if it's counterproductive.
To me, a good game is universal. Tomb Raider was the absolute business when I was a teen, and I don't think anyone complained that they had to play as a woman. This idea that you can only enjoy a game if someone in the game 'represents' you...I guess I just don't understand it.
And it's not so much that people aren't satisfied - it's that people get rabid about this stuff, if it's not handled to their liking. My best recent example - look at what happened to the original Batwoman actress.
I am pretty sure Lara Croft has been criticized for this.. even though it didn’t stay in memory - though I could be wrong of course. Wasn’t really invested in videogames back then. But just considering how women were portrayed in media for and how it changed. Well.
and people are getting rabid about inclusion of LGBTQ+ character in media all the time and are trying to find any thing they could complain about it. People act like there was a were it was okay and just accepted - but there never was such a time.
-
@Tostapane said:
Instead of thinking about those things you should think of the game's problems (since we all play this game a bit of balance wouldn't be bad) ... I'll never understand why people consider it so important to being represented in a video game... Oh well, whatever...
I'll never understand why people consider it so important to being represented in a video game..
Is it really so hard to accept that people have individual feelings about topics?
also, read this thread:
@GoodBoyKaru said:
Very short post I'm putting here so I can link to it every single time a thread comes up, here's a University Thesis from a friend of mine that recieved a first pass (highest pass possible) explaining exactly why representation is important, and if you believe it's a waste of time I implore you to read it at least.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DKV2cNdnwODbNiqj47_doQhFxImVMDBB8doEh8h5UB4/edit
And also if you don't care about representation please follow your own advice and don't bash people who want it, you make yourself seem like you do care quite a bit
-
@EvilJoshy said:
The thing I hate about lgbtq representation is they beg for someone to be <insert letter>, they get one, I hook them and they call me racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic. You wanted representation in a horror game. Did you think I was going to give you special treatment? I'm treating you the same way I treat any survivor. Can we just play the damn game?
ever heard of the term false flagging?
-
@anarchy753 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981596#Comment_2981596
Actually their announcement stated the following:
https://i.imgur.com/IDz2OSG.png
The roster did not feature any LGBT representation. Not 'our LGBT characters were secret' or 'we hadn't announced that any of them were represented.' The roster had none. Then it was changed to.
David was not gay, and now he is.
Up to interpretation.
It was never stated that every character was straight either. And I would interpret the phrase ‚not featuring representation‘ not in the way that there were none LGBTQ+ character but that there were none revealed as such for representation.
David wasn’t gay nor straight nor anything.
or… you could also say they changed Julie and Frank to be straight with their tome lore because their sexual relationship wasn’t part of the base lore.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981568#Comment_2981568
For me it is based on sexuality and gender identity. so LGB + A and T, which also includes nonbinary people. That's it.
*for you
thats the thing. It’s not you who defines it or decides who is part of the LGBTQ+ community and who is not. There are obviously many people disagreeing with you on this.
-
@Persephone_ said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981539#Comment_2981539
And to add to that drag queens are literally being attacked in "first world countries".
And in our very own community. Remember Elix was swatted not too long ago?
I wasn’t aware of Elix getting attacked as I am not following the DbD streaming community that well. But, yeah, very good point! Especially the fact that drag queens/cross dressers do get marginalized even within the LGBTQ+ community!
-
@anarchy753 said:
I just hope they manage to do representation well.
Tacking a new sexuality onto an existing character because they were popular in gay ships was lazy and tacky, but I'm not going to pretend it's an easy thing to do.
Hell, I'm a gay guy and I've certainly turned more than one of the movies/series you mentioned off because it started trying to preach gender ideology for like 10 minutes straight.
That wasn’t really the only or main reason for it and in David’s case, he was never said to be straight/not gay to begin with
@Hilidaris said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981541#Comment_2981541
Why not, some want to add bestiality in the community, since it's a sexuality it wouldn't be a problem as you said, the community is tied to their sexual orientation and/or gender
Bestiality is not a sexuality. Please don’t spread this false information. It’s paraphilia.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981531#Comment_2981531
In first world countries you can go outside dressed as you like, as long as you aren't exposing yourself. Sure some people will give you weird looks, but I also got weird looks when I dressed as a goth in highschool.
Yeah but the world consists of more than first world countries. And even in those it really wasn’t like this always
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981499#Comment_2981499
Because LGBT people cant choose to be LGBT. People have a choice to dress how they want to dress.
You can go outside and dress how society thinks you should dress, but trans people don't go outside and stop being trans, like gay people dont go outside and stop being gay.
You are still only talking about LGBT people while I made it obvious I am talking about the LGBTQ+ community.
and no. You literally cant go outside dressing however you like. Not everywhere in the world. And just because a crossdresser doesn’t dress like that in public doesn’t magically change their person.
-
@Metronix said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981434#Comment_2981434
Inclusion of the disrespectet, pitty eyed, the ones who get the "not normal"-treatment by society, the bullied, misunderstood, the ones that desperatly search for others to understand them and a safe place. Inclusion of everyone who needs to be included, because they are not included anywere else. You might think this is an exaggeration, it is not. At least not yet. Drag Queens definetly belong there. Straights - and I mean that respectfully - do not.
Straights maybe not directly, but there are LGBTQ+ people that are straight and are part of the community.
-
@Marigoria said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2981489#Comment_2981489
Dressing as a girl/boy is not gender identity. If a guy decides he likes to wear dresses it doesn't mean he identifies as a woman. That's just being gender non-conforming.
That's why you can still see trans women who like to trans masculine and trans men who like to dress feminine.
I can see how so many words and definitions with the word "gender" in it can be confusing, but they're not the same. Gender identity =/= gender presentation.
What would you consider "acting straight"? Because afaik the only thing that makes someone gay is liking someone of the same gender, not any other acts. Sure there are stereotypes, but that isn't really proof that someone is gay/straight/whatever.
But that’s exactly my point. Gender non-conforming is part of the LGBTQ+ (mind the + please) community.
and with acting straight I meant acting straight. Like, actually having a public-heterosexual relationship as a cover up.
