Hogwarts Legacy - Not as good as Dog Kid University

[Rex Grossman]

Wasn’t that his joke/point though?

[ZOK]

9 minutes ago, Unofficial Who said:

 

I think we had this very conversation when Shadow Complex was released. There was a lot of "yeah, Orson Scott Card is awful in using his dosh to support anti gay marriage causes but not getting Shadow Complex is denying yourself a great game AND unfairly punishing the developers over at Chair."

 

Here's James Stephanie Sterling talking about it 13 years ago.

 

https://www.destructoid.com/should-we-boycott-shadow-complex/

 

 

edit I suspect their viewpoint on this may well have shifted in the years since.

Amazing how neatly this description of OSC could be transposed onto Rowling and her excuses for transphobia:

 

’Orson Scott Card is an American author, critic and public speaker. A number of his writings are political in nature and address the issue of gay marriage, which he believes is a “potentially devastating social experiment.” It is Card’s view that same-sex marriage would mark the end of democracy, and to that end, he has made a habit of opposing what he calls the “homosexual activist agenda.”

 

Card denies he is a homophobe: “This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals — the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.”

 

For a man who claims not to have a phobia of homosexuals, he seems quite scared of letting gay people marry. For example, he believes that gay marriage would “spell the end of democracy.” He also seems to not have much respect for homosexuals, suggesting that they are “tragic genetic mix ups.” Whether he truly hates homosexuals or not, it’s obvious he doesn’t like them very much, and is threatened by the idea of them having the same rights he enjoys as a heterosexual.’

[Kryptonian]

2 minutes ago, Rex Grossman said:

Wasn’t that his joke/point though?

 

I don't know

[g wings]

24 minutes ago, Darren said:

You know people can do both, right? And as @Zael said above, this is a discussion forum, it's where we discuss things. That doesn't mean we're not doing real stuff in the real world, and conversely doing (or not doing) real stuff doesn't preclude discussion here.

Yes, thanks. I’m really aware. I’m also aware categorically that this form of protest had the least amount of positive impact. 

And to be clear; I’m very supportive of the cause. One example;  For two years I have led pro-bono support for Minus18 (an organisation supporting LGBTQI+ youth here in Australia). I formed a team of contributors, some specialists and some just passionate supporters and advocates. Together we helped enable governmental lobbying change, funding reform, a new model for engagement and support for remote youth. Everyone who supported did so because they were fed up of this kind of discussion changing nothing. 

[Majora]

9 minutes ago, Unofficial Who said:

 

I think we had this very conversation when Shadow Complex was released. There was a lot of "yeah, Orson Scott Card is awful in using his dosh to support anti gay marriage causes but not getting Shadow Complex is denying yourself a great game AND unfairly punishing the developers over at Chair."

 

Here's James Stephanie Sterling talking about it 13 years ago.

 

https://www.destructoid.com/should-we-boycott-shadow-complex/

 

 

edit I suspect their viewpoint on this may well have shifted in the years since.

 

 

Big difference in the reach/impact/cultural relevance of Orson Scott Card and J K Rowling though.

 

That said, I didn't agree with the dedicated game topic being hijacked almost immediately. I'm not going to buy the game and am not going to support J K Rowling but as well-intentioned as it might be, I don't think refusing people the option to discuss the game as a product without being constantly interrupted is particularly helpful or productive either. 

 

Telling people they can still discuss the game in this thread if they want to feels like an argument made in bad faith to me when there is a very deliberate and persistent attempt to disrupt it at every opportunity.

[Scribblor]

21 minutes ago, Unofficial Who said:

whether or not it's ok to buy, play and enjoy a knockoff of The Worst Witch. (I kid, I kid.)

Damned right you do. It's a knockoff of Groosham Grange more than The Worst Witch.

[K]

1 hour ago, Isaac said:

 

Yes, it is the NB forum member who used misogynistic language who is in the wrong, not the billionaire who denies their entire right to exist.

 

I suppose we could be quite binary about this and I could post something like “oh, calling women bitches and cunts and sluts is OK, is it? Good to know” and you could post something along the lines of “trans women deserve to be exterminated? Wow. Your mask slipped a bit there” and then we keep going back and forth with variations of “actually, the thing I mentioned is the only bad thing here”.
 

But it’s not that nuanced a point, is it? You don’t have to choose between calling women cunts and thinking JK Rowling is right about everything. It’s not either/or.  We could - just floating an idea here, hear me out - stop using gendered insults on women, and also criticise JK Rowling. 

[mikeyl]

8 minutes ago, Kryptonian said:

 

I don't know

 It was. Never trying that again

[PaB]

Just now, Majora said:

 

 

Telling people they can still discuss the game in this thread if they want to feels like an argument made in bad faith to me when there is a very deliberate and persistent attempt to disrupt it at every opportunity.

People can discuss the game In This thread just fine. The alternative is having  a thread that says “ Hogwarts legacy - GAME CHAT ONLY” and it’s not going to work ( nor should it really). And we shouldn’t expect mods to police any comment that isn’t specifically about the game. 
 

I mean if the game is good I’ll buy it and maybe I’ll talk about it in here. I don’t feel any one is disrupting that. 

[Kryptonian]

1 minute ago, mikeyl said:

 It was. Never trying that again

 

Sorry, likely my fault missing your intention.

[Rex Grossman]

10 minutes ago, ZOK said:

threatened by the idea of them having the same rights he enjoys as a heterosexual.’

I think she’s been quite open that her issue is exactly that though. That she believes extending trans rights erodes the right she enjoys as a woman (‘women’-only spaces etc) so it’s not hidden like it is with OSC.

[mikeyl]

1 minute ago, Kryptonian said:

 

Sorry, likely my fault missing your intention.

Lol I don’t have the subtlety and nuance of writing that JK has

[Ork1927]

6 minutes ago, Majora said:

 

 

Big difference in the reach/impact/cultural relevance of Orson Scott Card and J K Rowling though.

 

That said, I didn't agree with the dedicated game topic being hijacked almost immediately. I'm not going to buy the game and am not going to support J K Rowling but as well-intentioned as it might be, I don't think refusing people the option to discuss the game as a product without being constantly interrupted is particularly helpful or productive either. 

 

Telling people they can still discuss the game in this thread if they want to feels like an argument made in bad faith to me when there is a very deliberate and persistent attempt to disrupt it at every opportunity.

 

Are they being interrupted though - there was an immediate post in that thread asking for people to boycott the game that could have been ignored.  Maybe the poster intended to post the same thing over and over and over and over again (although there was not indication of that) every time anyone mentioned flying looked cool, but at that point it was a single post and then numerous posters had to take issue with that or start asking question.

[Zael]

While I do appreciate the thread is noisy and if you're just here to talk about the game you have to ignore a lot of posts. But that said, go back and look at the last 10 or so pages of this thread. People have posted things about the game, we've had several trailers, some gameplay footage etc yet a lot of the "Can we just talk about the game" posters aren't really engaging with that and seem more interested in saying "can we just talk about the game" over and over.

[ZOK]

2 minutes ago, Rex Grossman said:

I think she’s been quite open that her issue is exactly that though. That she believes extending trans rights erodes the right she enjoys as a woman (‘women’-only spaces etc) so it’s not hidden like it is with OSC.

Which is one of the myriad reasons the description could be transposed so neatly.

[Ork1927]

3 minutes ago, Zael said:

While I do appreciate the thread is noisy and if you're just here to talk about the game you have to ignore a lot of posts. But that said, go back and look at the last 10 or so pages of this thread. People have posted things about the game, we've had several trailers, some gameplay footage etc yet a lot of the "Can we just talk about the game" posters aren't really engaging with that and seem more interested in saying "can we just talk about the game" over and over.

 

Plus the game isn't even out or even been reviewed so how much is there to discuss - its currently the equivalent of moaning that people are posting too much about Zachary Levi possibly being anti-vax in the Shazam 2 thread instead of talking about the unreleased film.

 

If the game comes out and someone posts - "played an hour this is really good" and someone replies - "you hate trans people you fucking cunt" and there is a pile on then that should be looked at.  If there is parallel discussions in the thread about the game and about JKR/the issues around buying it then what is really the difference to the game being a buggy, unplayable mess on PS5 but running fine on Xbox and there being parallel discussions running in the thread on that.

[Gabe]

32 minutes ago, mikeyl said:

I don’t think this was surrendered. I think she came up with it herself

That's been raised a few times and I think @Rex Grossman previously responded to it, but I don't see that as explicitly saying she thinks everybody who buys her stuff agrees with her at all. If anything it is simply her just saying she doesn't care about losing an audience because she's still earning the megabucks such that it doesn't make a difference.

 

I guess the point is, we don't know either way, yet as @thesnwmnhas said, the ground has been surrendered already (as this thread demonstrates). She may well believe that every £ spent on HP is an endorsement of everything she says and does, but she hasn't explicitly said that, and that tweet isn't the smoking gun that many have decided it is.

 

[Rex Grossman]

22 minutes ago, ZOK said:

Which is one of the myriad reasons the description could be transposed so neatly.

I think OSC is very vague though. JKR gets specific. I think that’s the difference between them.

[Flub]

The tweet says "I don't care that a lot of you now hate me because I'm really rich off the back of it". It's not a good look either way.

[g wings]

58 minutes ago, Zael said:

I'm not buying it because my trans friends have felt things have gotten worse for them since JKR started her bullshit. One of them in particular suffered some pretty vile abuse a few months back off the back of a Harry Potter discussion. I'm boycotting the game to support them. I'm not doing it to stop JKR making money.

 

@g wingsWhy does our discussion on the anti trans side of things have to be policed by you? I'm not stopping you talking about the game, please talk about it. But in return don't tell me what to discuss.

Sorry, just saw this. Two things; 1. If you were in a thread trying to discuss on-topic and I kept coming in and detailing it I would guess it might frustrate you. 

2. Way more importantly, as I posted earlier, it’s proven to be counter productive. Believe it or not I’m trying to be helpful. 

[Uncle Mike]

Unless you're prepared to run an NGO then you can't post on rllmuk.

[Kryptonian]

13 minutes ago, Gabe said:

That's been raised a few times and I think @Rex Grossman previously responded to it, but I don't see that as explicitly saying she thinks everybody who buys her stuff agrees with her at all. If anything it is simply her just saying she doesn't care about losing an audience because she's still earning the megabucks such that it doesn't make a difference.

 

I guess the point is, we don't know either way, yet as @thesnwmnhas said, the ground has been surrendered already (as this thread demonstrates). She may well believe that every £ spent on HP is an endorsement of everything she says and does, but she hasn't explicitly said that, and that tweet isn't the smoking gun that many have decided it is.

 

I read it pretty negatively in that she doesn’t care that she’s lost/losing that particular audience as there is another audience that will continue to support her and like her stuff. She doesn’t seem bothered that that audience will also include a bunch hate filled bigots though.

 

I tried to write this post for longer than intended and still haven’t phrased it how I mean. 

[Mogster]

Aside from the implied support of buying the game funding Rowling's transphobia, surely it's enough that people just don't want to give money to the hateful person?

 

I've seen lots of posts here trying to justify it because it's just "a drop in the ocean" for her, or indeed somehow a positive thing as it's not "surrendering the argument". After all the best form of protest is no protest at all, as it's the last thing they'll be expecting!

 

Personally my main reason for not wanting to give her my money is because I don't like giving money to hateful bigots, regardless of what impact it would or wouldn't have.

 

And sure, there are better ways to make an impact than not buying a game, but I really don't see how that makes it okay to just buy it anyway and make no impact at all. It's really easy not to buy it.

 

As for this thread, I'm starting to think the best solution is just to put it on ignore. It's just too depressing otherwise.

[Majora]

23 minutes ago, Ork1927 said:

 

Are they being interrupted though - there was an immediate post in that thread asking for people to boycott the game that could have been ignored.  Maybe the poster intended to post the same thing over and over and over and over again (although there was not indication of that) every time anyone mentioned flying looked cool, but at that point it was a single post and then numerous posters had to take issue with that or start asking question.

 

It just feels to me like there's some bad faith arguments being made around discussion of the game. I'm pretty sure someone earlier in this thread asked if a thread could be made sticking to discussion of the game and numerous people said anyone was free to create a new thread on this forum if they wanted to.

 

So someone creates a thread, it immediately gets derailed and locked, and then people get told a separate thread can't be created after all which seems to be a rule for this game and this game only.

 

I don't care about Harry Potter so it's easy for me to not care about this game but I can see why it's frustrating for people who do? The air in here is very much 'no-one is stopping you talking about the game. Of course you can!' but the tone in this thread is also really hostile and combative so I can see why people don't feel comfortable talking about the game much either. 

 

It feels like this forum doesn't want to be seen to outright censor discussion of the game like Resetera so the aim is to technically allow discussion while creating an unpleasant environment for people who want to do so. It feels dishonest.

 

I know people are also arguing they don't see the need to separate art and artist but just because I don't want to fund a game or person doesn't mean I'm not interested in seeing a discussion of the product. Hate Rowling and have no stake in Potter but actually I am quite interested in seeing how the game turns out and whether Avalanche came good and whether there are any interesting ideas in there etc

 

Similarly, if Jonathan Blow ever came out with a new game I couldn't in good faith buy it because I think he's exposed himself as a massive right-wing prick. But I love Braid and The Witness and I would still be incredibly interested to read critiques and thoughts about a new game without being constantly told he's a prick. I know he's a prick and that's why I wouldn't be buying a new game from him. But I'd still like an uninterrupted discussion on the product itself too.

 

TLDR I can be very much aware of the issues around certain games and creators and choose not to fund or support them while still being curious enough about the product that I'd quite like to read discussion of them without pages and pages of circular discussions about the creator.

[fragglerock]

No safe space for TERFS seems like an okay thing.

[Hexx]

It takes more flexability that to play RealQidditch Quadball to say a a tweet stating JKR takes comfort and validation from her earnings/wealth has no impact on whether people should contribute to her earnings/wealth.

 

And the main reason the thread is so circular is that everyone so often someone comes in to Cisplain "No, seriously, there's no one anyone should judge or think anything about me buying this game". There's always a trigger.

 

And really at it's core. There's no need for a separate thread. If you can deal with ever so slightly funding hate to play HL, you can surely deal with having to scroll past a few posts to talk about HL. You don't get to have a selfdefined safe space.

[Haribokart]

2 hours ago, Isaac said:

Yes, it is the NB forum member who used misogynistic language who is in the wrong, not the billionaire who denies their entire right to exist.

 

Well when you think about it you can clearly see their plan all along was to get banned from Rllmuk for calling a cunt a cunt therefore being sent to prison so they get some raping in. It's just what they all do innit!

[g wings]

13 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

Unless you're prepared to run an NGO then you can't post on rllmuk.

Who said that? 

[Darren]

2 minutes ago, Haribokart said:

 

Well when you think about it you can clearly see their plan all along was to get banned from Rllmuk for calling a cunt a cunt therefore being sent to prison so they get some raping in. It's just what they all do innit!

 

 

[Rex Grossman]

2 hours ago, Isaac said:

 

Yes, it is the NB forum member who used misogynistic language who is in the wrong, not the billionaire who denies their entire right to exist.

 

They were not/are not the only one using misogynistic language as you know full well.

 

Also, although I don’t believe for a second that this particular forum member is a misogynist I’m not convinced being NB means it’s impossible to be a misogynist.

You can’t support misogynistic language just because it’s against a woman you hate any more than you could support racist language just because it’s against someone else you hate.