Comments

• I'm not normally the type to post on message boards but this debate caught my attention and I felt compelled to weigh in and ask some questions.

  First, the definition of intrinsic is belonging naturally, or essential. Blackface was a medium by which racist stereotypes were spread to a wide audience. It was a powerful way of controlling a narrative that depicted a group in a negative way. Racism is inherent in the history of blackface. That's regardless of the intent on the behalf of a modern-day wearer. This makes racism is an intrinsic element of blackface. The act of a non-black person dawning a black face - using make up or not, I'm not sure the distinction truly matters except at a semantic level - is close enough to blackface as to be indistinguishable. I'm not sure what the argument is here.

  Further, regardless of a personal stake in the mask, the developers saw their creation used in a way that hurt people and decided to take remedial action. That seems like the responsible thing to do. In doing this, they only blamed the people using the cosmetic for ill means. In reading about this, I haven't seen the developers call into question the motives of any other users. This seems incongruous with the backlash, where players seem to feel the need to proclaim themselves as not racist. If Behaviour didn't call you out specifically, no one called you a racist, and this argument seems irrelevant.

  What I'm really interested in is why Behaviour taking a step they felt morally compelled to do to safeguard the playing experience of some of their players - regardless of the size of that audience - bother some so much? This is a game, it is designed to be enjoyable, and Behaviour seems like they're trying to keep it enjoyable and protect their brand image. Does this cosmetic contribute significantly enough to your gameplay experience that you should be able to keep it even though it can be used to torment others? If Behaviour is no longer comfortable with this cosmetic being available because it is being used to do harm to others, should they be forced to leave it in at the expense of their feelings even if just some members of the audience want it? And do you really feel that their moralistic decision should be up for the debate of the community if their work is being used to hurt people in a way they don't like, and they took what they felt was the best action they could to prevent others from being targeted? It doesn't mean they're telling anyone how to think or feel, but removing a tool to be used by some to hurt others.

  in Leatherface masks removal Comment by intrinsicobserver January 8, 2022