hmmm… that’s a good point.

Oh, wait a minute, no it’s not! Knowing the demographics of a group is extremely relevant.

Would you say it’s irrelevant if 79% of people who got a specific disease were men, just because less than 0.01% of the population ever got the disease?

What about if 79% of a prison population was of a certain ethnicity, even though only 1 out of 100 people were incarcerated?

What about if 98% of school shooters were men, even if they are only a tiny fraction of the population?

Obviously not, these are key data sets to understanding the underlying causes. Sure, it helps to know how those stats compare to the general makeup of the population, and understanding what percentage of a population is effected is another useful piece of data depending on the questions you want answered. But to write off the makeup of a group as irrelevant is… dumb.

For half a second there, I was like “yeah, so glad Lemmy is more rational than that site”.

Few comments later, folks be talking about “Ukranian Nazis”…

Irrelevant to what? It’s fair to say she is clearly Pro-Choice, so understanding the demographics of those who are anti-choice is very relevant. Especially if your point is that “since 4 out of 5 people opposed to abortion rights are men, who will not be directly affected by these laws, their opinion is functionally irrelevant”.

Or are you just upset that this fails to acknowledge that just because men are more likely to be anti-abortion then women, that does not mean that men are likely to be anti-abortion in general? Because I would argue the latter is irrelevant to the fact that the majority of people who are against abortion rights will never be directly affected by it.

Well, assuming the 79% statistic is accurate, you could start from that discrepancy and extrapolate from there?

I wouldn’t call Kamala a radical, but I guess I could see why you think that.

And now we find ourselves at the beginning of the meme.

Also, I find “people are greedy” to be an uncompelling reason to support a system that incentivizes greed and exploitation. If people bending a system to benefit themselves is a problem, then the system should be designed to be resistant to this, in a way that incentivizes promoting the common good. Or at the very least shouldn’t encourage these problems.

Capitalism encourages these problems.

But it’s also not like the person who runs the whatevers has to be beholden to shareholders and profits. They could instead be incentivized to prioritize the collective well being of the workers.

And for that matter, politicians and the bureaucracy also live in a system that incentivizes (to the tune of millions in bribes) them to prioritize the interests of businesses owners, and thusly shareholders and profits, at the cost of the common good. Which is a major reason they can’t be trusted.

Bars certainly can be held liable for drunk drivers they served.

Sorry Emilio, but when you had a reported $200 million dollars, 500 developers, and 7 years to make a game, you don’t get to play the “but its really hard” card when people complain that your game is soulless corporate crap.

You’re a professional, act like it.

Damn man, I know rootkits and your comment is a rootkit!

You ignored my goodbye, you ignored most of what I said frankly, you are under no obligation to read or respond, and I’m under no obligation to not respond. Sorry if my ability to respond is so offensive to you.

Buddy, you have literally misrepresented what I have said multiple times, and what @Obonga@feddit.de said, and now you are saying I’m going by my feelings? I did ask for clarification…

Could you point out where they were “fairly clear” that they wanted to avoid all awkward social interactions, and could you explain how you are so confident you know what interactions they deem awkward?

You told me it wasn’t worth your time to “nitpick”.

And I don’t believe I missed the mark at all. You either misunderstood or misrepresented what they wanted, just to tell them that they should go play something else, as opposed to possibly just letting them enjoy the game in their own way. Even though they clearly enjoyed it enough to get through aspects they didn’t like.

When pressed on this, you exaggerated the extent of their issue to fit your original viewpoint. And when asked for clarification, you said I should have asked for clarification… Do you honestly just skim everything you read or?

When did I ask you to nitpick? You said something that didn’t make sense to me, and I asked for clarification. If you didn’t have any reason to believe they were referring to all NPC interactions in the first place, why were you so confident that they weren’t enjoying the game? And how is the point of view we were discussing unrelated? Why when they mentioned a single thing they would like changed did you feel it would be helpful to tell them to stop playing the game entirely?

I get the feeling that you were arguing just for the sake of arguing and at this point have noticed you were kinda just wrong about your assumptions and have decided to abandon ship and pretend this whole thing was beneath you all along…

Honestly, I tried to make your arguments make sense, but they really only do if I assume you ignored most of what was said and cherrypicked the information you wanted to argue against.

Speaking of which, you recommending someone try a different game that they would enjoy more in good faith didn’t upset me. I even acknowledged that I possibly misinterpreted your meaning on that front. I also explained why I interpreted it the way I did. I just think even if your assumptions were correct, it was still bad advice. Not upsetting advice, just bad.

Anyway, I suppose it’s bad form of me to bother someone after they said they don’t feel like engaging anymore. So sorry to take up your time and have a good one. Cheers.

Could you point out where they were “fairly clear” that they wanted to avoid all awkward social interactions, and could you explain how you are so confident you know what interactions they deem awkward? Because it seems to me like you are making a lot of assumptions.

They were specifically talking about the awkwardness they feel when turning down romantic advances. They did say they “hate awkward social interactions”, but seeing as they also are talking about turning down romantic advances detracting from their enjoyment, it’s fair to assume they found that specific event awkward. They very well could have (and indeed seemed to me to have) meant that they don’t like personally rejecting the advancements of people they are close with. That does not mean that they find the same awkwardness in any of the other role-playing events.

Also, since they were saying removing those specific interactions would enhance their enjoyment, it’s fair to assume they were enjoying the game.

In regards to “how it was gatekeeping”, you might have missed that I indicated I could have misunderstood your intent. But telling someone that they shouldn’t play a game they want to and it sounds like they enjoy, just because it has an aspect they don’t enjoy that could be modded out, is gatekeeping. I get that you believe they hate all of the interactions that could possibly be seen as awkward, and that under that impression you made what I’ll assume to be an honest attempt to steer them away from playing a game they might not enjoy. But frankly, we disagree on how much of the game they found to be awkward, and just as you seem to have missed my point, and I believe you missed their point, I guess it was just very easy to misinterpret your “friendly recommendation” as telling them if they don’t like every aspect of a game you like out of the box, they should stop playing it, when they could very well just mod it to be even more fun for them.

If I took advice like yours, even in it’s best intent, I would have missed out on some of my very favorite games. Daggerfall, couldn’t get into it at all, Daggerfall Unity, amazing. New Vegas at launch on the PS3, frustrated me to no end, modded a decade later, top 5 games of my life. Warcraft 3 (hell any RTS), can’t stand em. DOTA, lost countless hours to (and that one they gutted 90% of the game). Sometimes, being willing to make your game your own is the path to enjoyment.

You didn’t say it was a big deal, I said I didn’t think it was a big deal. Even if someone wanted to remove all of the dialogue from the game because they just loved the combat, classes, skill, etc, I wouldn’t think its a big deal. I love the RPG elements in BG3 (frankly, awkward social interaction simulators are some of my favorite games), but I don’t really mind if someone plays something just because it’s popular and they want to see what the buzz is about. Nor do I mind if they have specific anxieties that they don’t want to be subjected to (no different from turning the giant spiders into bears in Skyrim imho). Nor if they just want to be on a power trip in a world that they like the design and lore of. And if they can have fun doing so, I really don’t see why they should avoid that just because they might have to experience the fun of modding as well.

Maybe I misread your comment, but you saying:

If you cant handle awkward social interactions in the “fantasy social interactions simulator” youre probably playing the wrong game

In response to their comment:

My point was that me being friendly was taken as me wanting to bang. That happens irl and it happens in this game. Just because this happens irl does not mean i have to enjoy them ingame. I simply hate awkward situations and while i might be able to dodge them irl i can dodge them in my games which would not make me an anyphobe. There were 4 Characters that hit on me and only one romance i was interested in. Indeed i have felt the same level of awkwardness no matter the sex of the character i rejected.

Made it seem like you believed @Obonga@feddit.de wanted to remove 50% of the game, as opposed to the single situation they said they wanted to avoid. I can see how you might have assumed their statement that they “hate awkward social interactions” meant all possible interactions that could be construed as awkward. But when I read their comment, it seemed to me like they meant a specific interaction they personally find awkward, and to me that one interaction does not constitute 50% of the game. Rather it is just 1% of that 50%.

Guess I just choose the “people should be allowed to enjoy the games they want the way the want” hill to die on today. Gatekeeping fun has never sat right with me.

I am all for exposure, and building empathy. I do think representation is extremely important. And I greatly appreciate you sharing your point of view with me. I hadn’t considered that to the extent I should have. And I whole heartedly agree that greater exposure to the situations being discussed would lead to a more ideal society.

My only point was that if they want to mod out the awkward conversations where they have to turn down their friends advances, regardless of the characters sex, gender, or orientation, and that is the only road bump preventing them from fully enjoying one of the best RPG’s, then I think it’s okay that they get to enjoy their game. They didn’t strike me as being bigoted, they didn’t ask for LGBTQ+ representation to be removed from the game, they just felt bad about hurting their friends feelings. That to me already shows a fair amount of empathy.

And if such a mod (again, not the bigoted mod the post is about, but the hypothetical mod being discussed in this comment thread that “allows you to have less awkward methods of not engaging in relationships with characters you are not romantically interested in so as to avoid feeling bad about turning down your friends”) is the difference between them playing the game or not, then wouldn’t also be fair to say they are getting more exposure just by being able to play the game?

If you feel that wanting to avoid hurting your friends feelings in a game through mods would cause a significant blow to society developing empathy for and getting exposure to LGBTQ+ issues, while we do have a difference of opinion on that line, I still respect the battle you are choosing to champion and say more power to you. Good luck fighting the good fight.

lol. Don’t get me wrong, I see your point (fwiw, I did not mod sword combat out of Dark Souls, or difficult role playing decisions out of my RPG’s). But I just don’t think someone else doing so in a non-bigoted way is that big of a deal. Especially when they made it clear that they just don’t want to hurt their in game friends feelings, regardless of their sex, gender, or orientation. And if that is the only little road bump to them enjoying what is one of the best RPG’s I’ve ever played, then I say I would rather have them not miss the game.

I dunno Yogi, seems hypocritical to champion inclusively in gaming on one hand and tell folks they are probably playing the wrong game for wanting to avoid a specific feature in it.

I fully agree that mod sites should not tolerate bigoted mods. But saying someone should avoid playing a game they enjoy just because there is a specifically uncomfortable social interaction for them, when it could be modded out had the same energy as the folks saying the Sekiro easy mode mod shouldn’t exist.

Should they remove the “feminist Nerevarine” mod from Morrowind as well because there is sexism in the game, just because some folks still want to play it but not be forced to personally engage in sexist behavior? Should they remove the “Spiders are Wolves” mod in Skyrim? Should people not play games they only enjoy modded? If so, Bethesda is in big trouble…

I dunno, just because they were upfront about something that obviously sucks doesn’t mean you can’t complain about it. Especially when modding has been a corner stone of Bethesda games for decades.