Cyberpunk 2077 - CRITIQUE AND DEBATE - DISCUSS ANYTHING

Fair enough. Learn something new every day. It's good that things that start off with negative connotations can lose them and be made to be positive.

Like now it's just seen as cool, not something to fear.

Knoyleo wrote:
mic wrote:Can anyone direct me to some good reading on the Japanese obsession with American culture?

Meet the ‘yankii.’

Thanks for that. Do you think it’s fair to say that Japanese culture has to some extent internalised its demonification in American culture, for example by often portraying their heroes as having giant blue eyes and blond hair?

I thought that was a generic Nazi villain thing

Green Gecko wrote:...And being offended by something doesn't in and of itself necessitate that thing being changed, in order to avoid possibly offending anyone. I think that's just as dangerous as fascism in some cases and presents a danger to eroding culture and stifling speech in some cases.

But one shouldn’t judge another’s offence by how offended one is themselves.

Even if someone isn’t sincerely offended by something, the thing that caused the offence may well genuinely offend someone else. Besides, how can you accurately discern genuine offence? Something unimportant to you could mean a great deal to someone else. Wasn’t that the whole point of GamerGate? I don’t think it’s fair to say “leave my culture alone”, because if something within that culture is offensive it needs changing, rather than defending on the basis of offence being tiresome.

For example, I’ve seen that same mentality play out on a few different occasions, where reported racism in schools has been met with consternation on the part of authorities that just don’t want to have to deal with it, brushing the offence off as mere banter or, worse, blaming the victim for being too sensitive.

I’m not casting aspersions onto you GG, btw, I just thought this needed saying...

What if it only offends 1 person? Should that thing be changed? or would it be OK because the offended people are so minimal?

Well, usually "offence" is a kind of shorthand, right? I think to answer your question we have to ask what it means to be offended. I suppose it's an emotional indicator that you've been confronted with an idea violates your moral perspective. If your moral basis for rejecting the idea is sound, then yes, you will therefore be able to communicate your argument that the idea should be rejected. I think it's possible, hypothetically, to be the only person who notices an idea is objectionable, but still make a sound objection to it.

I certainly value that perspective as I don't like pissing people off in general but it can also lead to fence-sitting and just.. boring stuff that can't possibly upset anyone. It needs more deconstructing as Karl has done. When I was a child with speech regulation and diction issues I used to annoy and upset people just with the tone of my voice, something I didn't understand and couldn't control because I have a communication disability. Sometimes it didn't even matter what I would say, it just offended people that I was "grumbling". That's an example, of highly abstract "offence" that means almost nothing in any sort of verbal reasoning/logical sense.

I very literally mean that "this offends me" shouldn't empirically mean "This is dangerous, it must change for the benefit of society". I can be offended by someone randomly calling me a twat because I walked slightly too close to them on a train and that offended them, but that doesn't mean I need to adjust my behaviour for the benefit of society, it might just mean that guy is an intolerant self-important wanker who needs to get over himself.

(In this particular instance I was a metre away passing by someone on a train carriage, I have no idea what they were upset about, unless a bright green bag and my haircut upset them.)

I'm probably expanding this issue out in too generalist a manner with absurd metaphors as I tend to. Still, there are certainly instances of people being offended by total bollocks (they has to be, it's part of free speech and human nature to have the free will to respond to things in bizarre ways) and I do think some people take it upon themselves to be professionally offended - I am absolutely not talking about gender or identity politics because I support that, but regarding any and all things. That can and does make life miserable for others because it seems to serve less of a societal purpose than to amuse and entertain the individual that gets upset about stuff. Like I say, a form of sadism, I believe this exists. I might be wrong.

mic wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:
mic wrote:Can anyone direct me to some good reading on the Japanese obsession with American culture?

Meet the ‘yankii.’

Thanks for that. Do you think it’s fair to say that Japanese culture has to some extent internalised its demonification in American culture, for example by often portraying their heroes as having giant blue eyes and blond hair?

Dunno mate, I'm not Japanese, and my exposure to their culture is my confined to videogames, socially acceptable anime, and teppanyaki videos on YouTube.

I'll be there in September, though, so I'll check my phrase book for any questions on internalised demonification.

Knoyleo wrote:socially acceptable anime

Keep telling yourself that, weeb.

I get what you mean now, GG: Karl’s breakdown is very useful and is certainly the criteria I always use, although I suppose ‘moral basis’ is subjective. Something that’s always amazed me is the offence taken against mothers who breastfeed their babies in public, for example.

So you’re not wrong... but, to bring it home, I find it problematic to apply the idea of tiresome offence to CDPR’s use of either sexualised transgender imagery (without context) or ethnic stereotypes that can ultimately be construed as racist.

Knoyleo wrote:...I'll be there in September, though, so I'll check my phrase book for any questions on internalised demonification.

Well, just for the record, I'm not doing that. More riffing on the general thread of what it means to be offended by something, and that they can be such a thing as inconsequential offended-ness.

Breastfeeding is one I agree is weird and not logical.

Hey, man, you don't see me sucking a cows teet in public. I don't wanna see no lovely breasts while I'm out and erection could be catastrophic if had at an inappropriate time.

The shittiest thing about it is mother's aren't able to naturally feed and comfort their babies as and when they need to be. They have to use toys, dummies and fake milk and gooseberry fool.

British people are strawberry floating dumb about stuff like that.

Posing in political cyberpunk game thread.

Karl_ wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:socially acceptable anime

Keep telling yourself that, weeb.

Honestly, I swear, I've never even heard of a fan-sub.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cyberpunkgame/ ... h/er9n6tj/

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear.

(3) is a particularly weird take. Obviously I can't peer into his brain, but to me it sounds like the kind of thing you'd say to rationalise a bad decision after getting paid a lot of money. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

One of the few threads I was clinging on to was that Pondsmith was being a positive influence on that team and their obvious lack of experience with diversity.

Nope.

He also said this:

Oof.

I don't think anyone here is saying he "should be offended" by anything, to be fair. Maybe there are people out there saying that, but it'd be misapplied to this discussion. (Unless he thinks, like, no-one should critically assess his work at all, which I doubt.)

Mike also isn't queer as far as I know - certainly there's no indication he's trans - so whereas one might make a point about giving his projects the benefit of the doubt on black representation, I don't think it's so easy to hand-wave away the transphobia.

Cyberpunk 2077 - CRITIQUE AND DEBATE - DISCUSS ANYTHING

Who is online

Affiliates