Sure, that’s why the tactic is so effective. Attack a suitably large group of people, and you can be sure it includes some impulsive members with poor argumentation skills who will counter-bash you with weak arguments and/or straight insults or whatnot. You then proceed to cherry-pick those and counter them by either playing the victim or pointing out some fallacy in them. Then, you act the moral victor, even though you’ve only addressed the weakest part of criticism and ignored the rest. I think it’s a tactic that’s far older than post-modern leftist populism.

Looking back at a history of political manipulation in media, I’d think that we could agree that there are differences in how strongly a given form of media promotes this or that political ideology. Something that strives to be neutral presents various viewpoints, does not try to impose moral judgements on the reader/watcher/gamer and in general is not strongly interested in manipulating opinions. Take any analysis of a history of propaganda or something for a deeper analysis. In any case, there’s no requirement that any game preach some ideology, and if many people perceive it to be so then there should be some reason for that. Doubly so if many people who claim no ideological basis are people who happen to support the ideology the product is blamed of preaching.

Now, if you mean to say that a plethora of ideologies exist in the world and that some of them will, at any time, be more powerful than others, thus requiring non-proponents to bear with them to some extent, you’d probably be correct. But even then, resisting the ”SJW agenda” or anything else because you do not support their goals or manners of operating only makes you equally bad as everyone else in the world. Even if we agree that an inevitable battle of ideologies is ongoing, it doesn’t give you any reason to lose on purpose.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying (or I didn't say it very well) but when I used the word racist I meant people that judge a work of art as racist and wanted it banned or changed to suit their agenda and that is what I'm against. You can have all the racial tensions you want in a game/movie/book and that is fine and not racist.

Also about political agendas then you can insert them into a game but if you do it in a hamfisted way that exclude people that don't agree with that political view then you run into trouble. Take the Narnia books that are now considered to be not very good because of their Christian preachy tone or Marion Zimmer Bradley Lancelot-books that are thought ill of because of their feminist whiny-preachy tone. Good writing in all forms of media is inclusive and when you insert gay/trans characters into an already established canon then fans of the original work tends to get angry and that has nothing to do with transphobia or gay-bashing no matter how much people like dtgreene wants to spew that kind of bigotry. It has to do with people don't like their memories to be tampered with. If/when Beamdog makes BG3 they can have all the gay/trans characters they want assuming they fit the setting and story and it's done without the morally wagging finger that points towards the gaming community.

That screenshot of the Steam review is perfect.

Negative review with 9 minutes of playtime, no comment of any of the game content and refunded at the same time as purchase.

For people looking at the negative reviews thinking "is this a reflection of the game's quality or just politics" then there's your answer.

Agreed, I think I misunderstood you. For sure writers can address racial issues without being racist themselves.
And I kind of understand the bad feelings about having preachy stuff in one of the best established and most loved game worlds ever. I myself am rather allergic to people telling me what to think.
I just feel this to be blown way out of proportion. It's alright to say "don't like it, won't but it" but it's a different matter to actually try to wreck a developer just because of one minor design choice. Be it as poor as it may.
This is why, in the end, I get the impression that it IS about transphobia, after all. Otherwise, I really don't understand the massive anger some people display here.

I reject this premise that Beamdog and the gang are being opportunists here. Most devs try and avoid the gator wrath at all costs, and for good reason. Gamergate is a massive group with many very motivated members, these devs are not set up for that.

No, maybe those cherries they picked are all anyone cares about. Maybe a swarm of anonymous raging fanboys with no real accountability to speak of is rather limited in how it can actually help the game industry.

Yes, we can agree that the response to this "issue" is overblown but I think gamers are just getting fed up with being told how to think and being "educated" on transgender/gay topics. It's not "inclusive" to talk down to people and Beamdog taking a jab at GG just opens up old wounds.

If you have the time I very much recommend this video on YT from a female game journo who talks about why she finds this hole Minsc dialogue to be wrong. It's good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTkQxgtuOLU&t=1193s

PS: @dtgreene if you read this it would do you well to listen to that video as well.

I'm staying well away from it, all Ive read including the writers reply lets me know I wouldn't like it and wouldnt want to support it either.... but then again I'm a "gender traitor" or a "sock puppet" cause I commit wrongthink (wait till they find out Im not even straight). IMO let BG rest in peace/mods.

Also memes in games are just lame to me.

I’m not quite sure what to make of your comment here. I’m not really intimate with the specifics of Gamergate, but I guess both them and the people who SJWs appeal to are both sizable groups, who you could niche market to if you are so inclined? I’m sure that there are many GG people who have strong political opinions and would perhaps like to see preachy games that appeal to their political views, but that’s not the entirety of the issue, nor is ”more liberal preaching” a good retort to that if you would like to have your games mostly free of that. That’s not to say that political opinions should be censored, but not everything should be subservient to carrying them. It’s a different thing for a library to have The Communist Manifesto, and for Harry Potter to transform into The Communist Manifesto, you know?

I’m also not quite sure how ”a swarm of anonymous raging fanboys” (nice labelling there, like ”loud minority”, which is also thrown around a lot to discredit views regardless of their actual validity or support base) is even supposed to ”help the gaming industry”. It’s part of a political battle not limited to gaming, and no side has the goal of ”helping the industry”.

Yep.
I don't see how you have any merit, when you throw out the term "SJW" as if it weren't a smear from those bigots.
Oh, and maybe you should read up on Gamergaters if plan on supporting their cause so casually.
When did backhanded insults become "staying out of it"?

The "endgame" of any "Social Justice" movement usually ends up with unspeakable atrocities being committed "for the greater good". Give people a moral justification for cruelty and oppression and they'll fight for it twice as hard as any other form of evil.

From things like: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/top-khmer-rouge-leader/2527606.html

...to the "SJWs" of Twitter who openly call for concentration camps and mass killings for "GamerGaters" and anything else they find "Problematic" or "Offensive", "Social Justice" is a true hate movement. (That's not to say anything about all of the actual racist, homophobic and sexist attacks I've seen from people who claim to be Social Justice Warriors, usually broadcast with with shaky justifications and pride as an ongoing attempt to dehumanize their ideological opponents.)

You can be kind to people and be an advocate for equality and inclusiveness without taking it to extremes. We shouldn't tolerate true bigotry in our society, but empathy and debate will get you a far better result than blind hatred, attempted shamings and various other attacks. (Empathy and debate being something that is impossible to achieve when your first reaction to being intellectually challenged is to slam that Block button and claim that you're being attacked, as these "SJWs" are prone to doing.)

Good catch. Yes, SJW is also a label. However, it’s widely used and we all also have a pretty good idea what it entails, so its an effective shorthand. I could say, for instance, ”aggressive new leftist” to get pretty much the same idea, but it’s a bit clumsy.

Now, what the GG people do or don’t is ultimately beside the issue, because the argument is not about them, but about the undesirability of using an established fantasy world to push a contemporary political agenda. I don’t rember pledging to support a ”GG cause", so I don’t see how I would need to be familiar with that. Any ideas I have are my own, though of course influenced by a variety of sources through life experience.

I was happy to grow up in a rather politically stable period with ideological extremism in the decline, so I’ve come to value freedom of thought and expression more than most other values. Which is why I’m rather wary of the current left, because I think that ideological totalitarianism is looming on the logical end of that path, as Buckid said. I’m willing to acknowledge the New Left as one possible school of thought among many in this world, but no more than that, certainly not moral superiority. People have contemplated ethics for thousands of years, and I’m certainly not convinced that the black-and-white morality propagated by some is some kind of end-it-all for that.

I said I'm staying away from the game, doesnt mean I can't talk about why,, and yeah I think memes in games are lame, wow such a terrible insult, sorry I triggered you.

Agreed.
But that applies to both sides. What we have here is a writer who goes a bit (really: not much) to far in including her personal views into a minor side NPC. NOTHING extreme, I've read the interviews and blog posts. It's rather innocent, in an mildly agitated kind of way.
And people fly into a rage of righteousness about it?
That is way harsher in the terms of intolerance and lack of kindness than anything Amber Scott or Beamdog might have said. It's a completely different level of aggressiveness. It's personally insulting to the highest degree while Scott just wanted to uphold her principles. They are not necessarily mine either, but they don't insult me by just being there.

Games have been slowly approaching sexuality for a while, way before SJW or Gamergate where even a thing.

I wonder if people got upset back when they played The Longest Journey. From what I remember you have a lesbian couple and gay police officer pretty early on in that game, and it was released in... 1999-2000?

Completely off topic but...
Yes, and I'm quite sure that Joe Stalin claimed his actions were in defence of "Socialism" and that Joe McCarthy claimed he was "defending America". A criminal cloaking themselves in the mantle of a pleasant and benign sounding ideology is nothing new. Politicians are prone to do such things, so one Cambodian genocidal maniac claiming something about their motivations means absolutely nothing.

Myself, I haven't come across anyone who wears the mantle of Social Justice Warrior who espouses the things that you claim and moreover wouldn't consider anyone who did condone "mass killings" or "concentration camps" *TO* be a Social Justice Warrior - rather they are just another breed of Internet troll, since they wouldn't participate in such things if given the chance.

As to attempted shaming and/or hitting the Block button, well boo stinking hoo. If you care that someone blocks you, or feel shame at the behest of others, then you probably shouldn't be online in the first place... that's like getting butthurt because someone gets booted off a forum - no we are not all "special snowflakes" and entitled to expressing ourselves on privately owned communication venues.

I'm a happy warrior for justice, social and otherwise and when people try to use the term as an epithet it makes me laugh at their ignorance and misplaced bile. A social group trying to turn the concept of social justice, i.e. equality and fairness into a *bad* thing is beyond laughable... especially when coming from a sub-sub-segment of troll culture claiming to be fighting for Ethics! >laffs< Too ridiculous to make up.....

But this has little to do with AD&D and even less to do with the 0.01% of content of a small add-on game that is actually under discussion. People who can't stomach a little bit of contemporary social issue commentary in their games, or the fleeting presence of a Trans person therein, should just take their gaming money, and gaming time, elsewhere. I doubt that such a "loss" will impact BD in the least.... or they wouldn't have introduced such concepts into THEIR game in the first place.