BAFTA Adds 'Diversity' Requirement which must be filled in order to Qualify for an Award

[S w a t s o n]

13 hours ago, comander said:

THIS IS NOT DIVERSE ENOUGH

 

Damn even I gotta admit making the yellow power ranger Asian and the black power ranger african-american was a bit tone deaf. Girl in pink is 100% forgivable. Ahhh the 90's...

 

Anyways this is trash, good thing no one cares about the BAFTA awards

[steelo]

2 hours ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

Diversity for the sake of diversity is the lamest thing ever. 

It always amazes me how a lot of these sjw's consider 'diversity' to be the complete exclusion of Whites, particularly, White males. They'll even go as far as telling them to 'know their place', as if they are a lower class of people. As a Native American, this still sickens me.

 

Hate=hate, folks.

[Beerzerker]

3 hours ago, Suika said:

Yes, some chimpanzees that haven't once spoken to people from minority groups dictating what does and doesn't get an award from a group that I had to Google to become familiar with will change censorship laws. I already know you're arguing slippery slope nonsense, so there's not much I can argue that could change your opinion, but the fact that the my only familiarity that use of logic is conservative christians arguing against gay marriage and trans right tells me it's probably not good.

 

Best case scenario, minority groups become normalized within the video game industry and people become significantly less hateful toward them. Worst case scenario, people begin arguing about strict diversity quotas and shift blame from idiots who should never be granted any level of power to those very minority groups that needed help and protection, and make the overall industry more hostile to them.

People here tend to confuse freedom of speech and censorship with the right to say whatever the hell I want without consequence and the ability to be needlessly offensive, so I don't believe this forum is the best place to gauge such conversations.

This is an awards show, which means it has nothing to do with the power of individual reviews upon the launch of a title. Also, you're overstating how much influence they have in this industry to begin with. Maybe it's because I'm American, but I was completely unfamiliar with BAFTA until yesterday.

 

Nothing in this argument makes sense to me as it's all based on that bit of slippery slope logic that I only see white, christian mothers use to discredit social issues they hate.

BAFTA's ultimate goal? Public relations and excessive pandering. It's pretty clear, to be honest. If you think they have some sort of ulterior "agenda," then you're bordering on conspiracies that aren't worth the time of day.

At a basic level, it means women not getting harassed regularly, or being demeaned because they're a different gender from the majority of the industry. It means that if someone hosts a livestream and uses the LGBT+ tag, people don't come in to the chat specifically to start attacking the streamer and causing trouble. It means if a video game studio makes the artistic decision to create a trans or gay character, people don't instantly complain and attack the LGBT+ community for "poisoning" video games.

 

It also means not dismissing legitimate issues by comparing them to animated characters hitting each other too often.

I haven't heard a single person complain about the "violence" in Looney Tunes, only about some of the racist stuff the show had displayed (which Warner Brothers thoughtfully worked to fix with informative cards at the beginning of episodes, none of this "UH YEA LET'S JUST DELETE IT AND PRETEND IT NEVER HAPPENED" bs).

The problem with hateful, misinformative media is that, even if you ignore it, it still affects your life in other faucets, so sure, continue demeaning legitimate complaints.

 

Also there's a difference between edgy but funny jokes some people might not enjoy, and being hateful. If you can't tell the difference, there's a problem.

 

From the demeaning wording of your post you have a problem with white christians, you've referred to them twice with the above in the negative and that in itself is discrimination or some could even view it as hate.

 

And before you open your yap in reply I happen to be of mixed White and Native American heritage myself, well to the native side of it.

It's your thing, do as you want because it's not my problem nor ever will be.

And saying the truth about what something could become in itself isn't bad, it makes one think and be mindful of the possibilities of it here.

If you wanna play ostrich well, go ahead - Ignore it and stick your head in the sand but I'll not play along myself. I'll keep an eye open and see what goes instead of just going along with it.

 

It's not slippery slope nonsense as you put it, instead the possibilities are real but what you are saying is to just go with it no matter where it leads and to do so blindly without question.

Yes - I dare to think for myself, question things and will not apologize for doing so. 

 

It's you doing the demeaning here - All I've done, have been doing and will do is simply to point out the possibities to consider and let folks decide for themselves..... And they should, just as you have already for yourself.

 

But I guess you have a problem with that.

 

Now I'm really done with this considering all the hate that just came out over a simple opinion of things. Just because I don't necessarily agree with the majority doesn't make me wrong or you right and that is true for the opposite of it too.

~Good day to you.

 

 

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, my biggest issue with sjw arguments is most of the time they don't know the history of the lore nor do they understand the characterization.

Doesn't matter. As soon as you see someone complaining about SJW in any pejorative stance, you know the person is complaining for the sake of complaining.

 

Complaining about Social Justice Warriors in the 2010's is like complaining about Politically Correctness in the 90's. Sometimes it gets very pedantic, and just makes people pissed off and dig in their heels deeper. See Vegan culture. It doesn't matter if you're right if you're being a awful about it.

 

Here, very easy example about pedantic:

This is a real book.

 

Do you know anyone who actually uses any of these phrases? No. Because it's SATIRE.

 

And that's the thing, trying to get people to care about minutiae is very hard, and unless it's a normalized and accepted thing to do, it just makes people using SJW/PC language as haughty, and people complaining about SJW/PC ruining their consumption of media as entitled crybabies. Nobody is right here.

 

With LGBT+ crowds, the number of letters that can be added to GLBT can vary, I've seen "LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP" show up at least once. Even the position of letters can indicate a priority, and that's why it's like ... "you can't include everyone and still be fair to everyone". GLBTQ+, LGBTQ+, tends to be the limit at what people will understand the letters, with the Q standing for Queer or Questioning, and + for "everyone else who feels they belong here" If you go look up wiki pages on gender labels, there's over 200 of them, and they can all be covered by T or Q. 

 

If you want some term to become normalized, it's better to put that term into actual casual use rather than complain that it exists. Like cisgender (opposite of transgender) and TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) really only started being used in media in the last 3 years, despite being used online for quite a while before. CIS has no pejorative meaning behind it and it's basically just a way to say "not trans" without saying "normal" since nobody gets to claim "normal". TERF on the other hand describes people who do not believe trans people exist, and that gatekeeping trans people from gender binary spaces is more important than dignity. TERF's themselves prefer a different term, but they are still engaging in hate crimes no matter how they want to label themselves.

 

So going back to BAFTA. 

 

Gatekeeping is bad. Always. If a game developer decides that they should reboot their best-selling game with nothing but trans characters, that will simply burn the property to the ground. Not because it's a bad idea, but because the connection between that IP's popularity and the performative gesture is completely out of touch. How you include trans characters in a story narrative is actually pretty easy. They are just another character, and unless there is a reason to see that character without clothing, why does it even matter to the player. Last of Us 2, decided that the entire reason why the belligerent faction is hunting the trans character is because they are trans. Hmm, ok I might buy that in a vacuum, but it seems like sending squad after squad to their death over it is a bit much. So we get one detail later as to why, and it's rather misogynistic. 

 

The place where you can include trans characters in games is at the character creation screen by disconnecting the voice and body types (which apparently Cyberpunk 2077 did in later previews) and body shapes. If someone wants to be a buff woman, or a tiny man, or some NB presentation, that's nice. However does the game utilize that in it's narrative? With Saints Row 3 and 4, you already could change the player avatar at will, but there's several lines in the game that assume the player is male, which honestly don't matter that much but it feels immersion breaking. So if you design a game around this, you have to also make the game refer to the player consistently. If the player clearly has a female avatar, even as buff as a wrestler, and the game starts calling them with male pronouns in the third person, that is immersion breaking for someone who is playing a woman character, but it's personally insulting to a trans or NB person. If in doubt, refer to the player by their name (which is what Mass Effect did "Commander Shepard") and that's a lot easier to deal with than voicing three lines with different pronouns.

 

There's also this mistake that NB=Trans in some social media circles. They are different, but for the purposes of speculative fiction, they are close enough to be covered as Trans. 

 

For the peanut gallery:

Transgender, is the current acceptable word for anyone who is not claiming the gender they were assigned to. End point.

Non-binary, is the currently acceptable word for anyone who is deliberately not claiming any gender. End point.

Not all trans people are NB, but all NB people can use the trans label.

 

There's a bunch of other specific words that people will sometimes use to refer to their gender, but for all intents, if you're not claiming male or female (regardless of what you were assigned at birth,) NB is probably the right label. If you're claiming male or female, but that wasn't what you were assigned at birth than Trans is probably the right label.

 

And the entire 50% argument gender representation as asked by BAFTA then screws this up.

 

What BAFTA should have used:

A gender balance, where no more than 50% of the presented characters are all one gender.

 

That at least makes for the possibility of other not usually represented genders to be present without making it impossible to balance. And to follow up with that:

 

A gender or underrepresented-group's representation must not be based entirely on voice or speech dialect.

 

Because I could see a game throwing in a gender/skin switch, but not changing model, only the voice.

 

[hollyh88]

of course they would. lmao 

this is only going to lead to worse games.. 

[Falkentyne]

This is turning out to be one of the worst years in non-war era human history...

 

This entire WOKE thing needs to DIE.  Period.

And let's have people chosen based on how hard they work, their skill set and their adaptability and flexibility, then when those slots are filled, loosen up a little.  But seriously. Kobe Bryant, COVID and now Woke...

[suicidalfranco]

On topic: one of those English white things i hope, pray, never reaches the shore of Angola

[Unclescar]

On 7/10/2020 at 10:43 AM, Radium_Angel said:

But you bring up a valid point, it must be pretty insulting to know you got hired to fill a quote, rather than on your actual capabilities

Diversity in the USA translates directly to "fewer white men."

I'm not trying to be political here, that is a legitimate cultural push that gets you labeled as evil if you disagree.

[Suika]

5 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

From the demeaning wording of your post you have a problem with white christians, you've referred to them twice with the above in the negative and that in itself is discrimination or some could even view it as hate.

Surely, my disdain for such people and my overwhelmingly negative experiences with them has nothing to do with the fact that I was raised by devout people, completely jaded by all of the lies and backward logic that was instilled in me from a young age. No, it must be hate! /s

 

I guess it's easier to say I just "discriminate" or "hate" than to hold a discussion to convince me otherwise. Heck, just ignore an entire argument altogether and say I was hateful to a group of people that's historically been incredibly hateful (and murderous) to everybody else. That's a constant with those people, let me tell ya'.

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

And before you open your yap in reply I happen to be of mixed White and Native American heritage myself, well to the native side of it.

It's your thing, do as you want because it's not my problem nor ever will be.

Uhm, neat?

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

And saying the truth about what something could become in itself isn't bad, it makes one think and be mindful of the possibilities of it here.

If you wanna play ostrich well, go ahead - Ignore it and stick your head in the sand but I'll not play along myself. I'll keep an eye open and see what goes instead of just going along with it.

"Truth" is a very bold word to use here, if it's even applicable. Still just arguing in slippery slope logic.

 

Look, I'm not defending BAFTA here. They're doing some awful things by pretending to be "woke allies" and the discussion in this thread is evidence of it, but I don't buy for a second that we're headed for a bleak future because of this sort of excessive pandering. Now, we're headed for an extraordinarily bleak future for many other reasons, but this is not one of them, and suggesting that you're a different kind of woke that sees through the bullshit is just silly.

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

It's not slippery slope nonsense as you put it, instead the possibilities are real but what you are saying is to just go with it no matter where it leads and to do so blindly without question.

"A slippery slope argument, in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect."

 

If you have a different definition, I'd love to hear it or be corrected. That's just the definition I find and go by, which your argument falls under.

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

Yes - I dare to think for myself, question things and will not apologize for doing so.

...and the hivemind thinks for me? If your goal isn't to be insulting, then this is such a strange friggin' thing to bring up.

 

(I wonder if the hivemind did think for me, would I be a happier person? Hm.)

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

It's you doing the demeaning here

You boiled down legitimate issues in the gaming industry to being as simple as people not liking animated characters hurting each other, insinuated myself and others are incapable of individual thought, and dismissed hateful content by saying to change the channel, but continue.

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

All I've done, have been doing and will do is simply to point out the possibities to consider and let folks decide for themselves..... And they should, just as you have already for yourself.

You've argued a fallacy that I predicted would plague thread before I clicked on it. If anything, you've pointed out that I should go get a lottery ticket (if only it were actually that easy).

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

But I guess you have a problem with that.

Yea, that's why I'm here. I want to have a discussion about it because from my point of view, you're arguing a simple fallacy and I want to see why this is the route you've taken to argue against inclusivity in the gaming industry. When people typically argue against inclusivity of any degree (and in fairness, this is an extreme case that BAFTA deserves all this hate for), it's because they're hateful, so I want to see if you're different or if you decide that there's a failure in your argument.

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

Now I'm really done with this considering all the hate that just came out over a simple opinion of things.

Mighty presumptuous of you to think a simple discussion has cost me enough mental energy to develop feelings over the opinion some guy on the internet said, it's a fun exercise at best. Or if you're going back to my disdain for a type of person I've dealt with too often, I mean, it'd be funny if you fell in that category. I wouldn't apologize for it, because many of those types owe me an apology first, but still funny.

6 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

Just because I don't necessarily agree with the majority doesn't make me wrong or you right and that is true for the opposite of it too.

This is less so about being in a majority/minority group of opinion and more so there's a flaw in what you're arguing and I want to dig further. Guess you'd rather shutdown than defend it which is just more likely to make me feel objectively right.

[Beerzerker]

I have no need to defend anything.
It was simple opinion and nothing else on my part and thought I had made that clear.

 

I never mentioned anything about it being an absolute as fact, I said it's possible and to say it in that way is not a fallacy - That being the point because history has shown many times before things developed for the betterment of man was eventually twisted into something it was never intended to be. Neither of us can do anything about it except to realize it is possible but with this topic it's not fact.... And I hope it never is.

As for feelings, you made the references and that's what I got from it and said as much just as you have here.

 

No arguement on either side of it is going to be perfect so.... Let's not argue about it - Nothing to be gained and that's why I said I was done and TBH it's not helping the topic or forum either.
If you'd like to continue, let's take it to PM's and be done with it.

[Vishera]

2 hours ago, Unclescar said:

Diversity in the USA translates directly to "fewer white men."

It's more accurate to say that: Their interpretation of diversity is to replace the white man with something else and cast him (the white man) aside.

If that is not racism and sexism in broad day light then i don't know what it is...

They (SJWs) have become what they sought to destroy (racism and sexism).

[StDragon]

4 hours ago, Falkentyne said:

This is turning out to be one of the worst years in non-war era human history...

 

This entire WOKE thing needs to DIE.  Period.

And let's have people chosen based on how hard they work, their skill set and their adaptability and flexibility, then when those slots are filled, loosen up a little.  But seriously. Kobe Bryant, COVID and now Woke...

We're missing the sweet meteor of doom. It would tie up the year 2020 in a nice little bow.

[WkdPaul]

* thread locked *

 

This went way off-topic, and has now ran it's course.