Why use that phrasing? Am I standing on "Mt. Moral Superiority" when I highlight that Kingdom Come is lining the pocket of a neo-nazi, who is the face of the entire company. Am I standing on "Mt. Moral Superiority" when I tell people that regardless of how much they claim to hate J. K. Rowling, they are still validating her bigotry and supporting her by buying her game? Your phrasing sounds like mockery.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
A call to Era's developers and mods about the "think of the poor devs" argument.
- Thread starter Weltall Zero
- Start date
Why use that phrasing? Am I standing on "Mt. Moral Superiority" when I highlight that Kingdom Come is lining the pocket of a neo-nazi, who is the face of the entire company. Am I standing on "Mt. Moral Superiority" when I tell people that regardless of how much they claim to hate J. K. Rowling, they are still validating her bigotry and supporting her by buying her game? Your phrasing sounds like mockery.
I've already clarified what I was trying to say in this thread. My point isn't that they are equal. My point is that they are all happening and all need to be addressed, but it's difficult for me to know where to draw the line. From a post literally a few posts back from yours: I feel like I should have to do something for everything listed, but find it difficult to know where to draw the line. I would feel just as bad buying Harry Potter (I won't) as I would about buying Assassin's Creed (I won't). When I go shopping, I feel just as bad about buying a non-cruelty-free bottle of shampoo as I do buying a pair of Nikes. These things are on my mind every time I make a purchase that I know has questionable outcomes or questionable means of coming to be. I haven't purchased new shoes since 2015, and I only use Paul Mitchell hair products. All I was saying is it's difficult knowing when to reel it in and how even doing everything in my power still doesn't feel like enough. It's a question rooted in anxiety, isn't it? Some people can live their lives without ever thinking about it. Some people are able to draw a line here or there. I have a hard time doing that without admitting that in order to buy anything you have to shut off at least a part of that brain function, which feels bad. I really don't understand how I was misinterpreted, but I guess I got too off-topic for the thread.
My original post merely said I find it difficult and then proceeded to list the factors that make weighing what is okay to buy and what isn't okay to buy difficult. You have to, at a certain point, shut off a part of your brain. Either you are aware of what's happening and you shut off your brain or you have no idea what's happening/don't care. So, you say, "I won't buy AC or Harry Potter for the obvious reasons, but I will buy Red Dead 3 or whatever." You are saying the issues in the former are more important than the issues in the latter, which, like, yes, of course they are. I wasn't saying that I think that and then do nothing. I was saying I think that and then think of the next thing and next until I'm wondering when I should stop.
From "What about the devs?" to "I don't care." Feels like the latter is what selfish people want to say but don't want to say it directly, so they use stuff like the former.
Lots of complains about the Prince of persia remake just cause it didn't look good and not because it's an Ubisoft game.
Fair enough. At the end of the day, all of us make our own decisions and draw our own lines.
It's not just a question of "what company do I wish to support". Our choices affect us as well. They make us who we are. And sometimes we have to learn to be okay with certain choices. I can't check the entire history of every product I buy, so I will choose to believe that it was made in an ethical way unless contrary info comes to light. If the info isn't specific enough to make a decision (for example, if forced labour is being used in Chinese factories to make products, but I can't tell exactly what brands are involved), then I won't boycott a product merely on suspicion.
With all that said, when I find an issue contrary to my deeply cherished values, and it involves a product, I will absolutely boycott it. I believe in consumer rights, but it's not exactly something I cherish and hold high. So I won't boycott playstation just cause buying exclusivity is anti-consumer. However, I will boycott Insomniac cause they allowed devs to be abused to such an extent that one of them was driven to contemplate suicide. One of the abusers still works at Insomniac.
So if you need help deciding, figure out what core values you hold dear, and make your decisions on the basis of those values. Cheers.
I've already said this but this isn't the argument anyone is having. "Think of the dev" isn't about if people should be forced to buy a game they don't want to. Like nobody is saying that. If that were the argument then every person would have to buy every game because devs worked on them. This conversation comes up from the other direction, with people telling others they shouldn't buy a game because of one of the many people who will make money from it. I honestly think it's a little dishonest to imply what you're both implying here. But perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of what people are saying.
But just to be clear, the notion of "think of the devs" isn't a call to action for anyone to buy the game. It's people saying they don't agree with withholding their intended support from a game because of the association with a bad person.
Well, that's the further discussion against the argument itself, which I'm not going to make (personally, I understand where both sides are coming from but ultimately I will not be purchasing this game or any Harry Potter products, despite it being such a positive part of my childhood)
To me this thread was inherently about the intent of the people. It's suggesting that the people making this argument are doing so in bad faith and should be punished for it. I personally disagree with that. If you don't care about intent then so be it.
It's such a ridiculous argument every time it's made.
Don't want to buy a game because of some obscure technical issue? Seen as totally justified. Don't want to buy a game because of the abhorrent views and actions of a prominent person involved who might get royalties? But the poor devs, who were already paid...
Not to mention, like, the fact that you are not buying every game by default. Everyone has a budget; even without donating to charity or people who need it, there are a billion other games that you could buy and support those devs instead.
Don't want to buy a game because of some obscure technical issue? Seen as totally justified. Don't want to buy a game because of the abhorrent views and actions of a prominent person involved who might get royalties? But the poor devs, who were already paid...
Not to mention, like, the fact that you are not buying every game by default. Everyone has a budget; even without donating to charity or people who need it, there are a billion other games that you could buy and support those devs instead.
I mean, sure. But how do YOU feel? I'm genuinely interested.
I've seen an argument come up a few times in this thread that amounts to "if JK will still have millions of dollars if the game fails, what's the point of boycotting it"? I don't know dude, maybe I just don't feel like putting money directly into the pockets of a completely shitty person. Boycotting isn't always about the end result, thinking "that'll show 'em, now they know not to have bad opinions", it's about me, personally, not wanting anything to do with someone who sucks that bad. Say whatever you will about however much money or influence she still has, there's really nothing me or anyone can do about that, but that's really not the point of not buying her stuff. I think she's garbage, so I'll avoid anything she's associated with for my own conscience's sake. That's as far as this goes.
"Associating with a bad person" is a reductionist take on what is happening and what usually happens. Bad people do not exist in a vacuum nor do they impart upon the world actions which have no consequences. Bad people tend to do bad things, hence why they're bad people. In Rowling's case, she is using her influence to advocate for transphobic beliefs and organizations, influence that is significant enough that we've got people attempting suicide due to her participation in a transphobic environment. It is, at this point, pure stochastic terrorism. And people are balking at the implications of what supporting this game means on an ethical front simply because Rowling wrote the book series the game is based on, a book series that was dear to them in their childhoods.
I mean, that's the reality of the situation. Our money, our actions, our support of individuals, however trite in their individualism, nonetheless have effects on the wider world at large. And people can either choose to either confront that by simply trying to take actions that reduce their impact without regard for the egoism of their intent, or they can continue with old habits in the pursuit of base consumerism and simply keep buying Harry Potter shit without regard for the fact that the money is going to someone who is, at the end of the day, hurting transpeople. Those are the choices people have, and you can't get mad when people judge you for making the choice that is measurably harmful to their existence. If you "don't agree with withholding intended support from this game," then fine. But you live with that choice.
I never really understood the argument on its face, because *of course* there are consequences to choices, and if many people choose not to purchase a game based on the association with bigots, it might mean some people get paid less because the game is less successful. That's the fucking point. For change to happen, consequences have to exist, and when it comes to capitalism, the consequence that works is impacting the bottom line.
Do I feel bad for developers who might lose jobs or make less money because of this? Of course. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.
Do I feel bad for developers who might lose jobs or make less money because of this? Of course. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.
It's clear to me you aren't reading what I'm saying and are trying to have a very different argument from the one I'm having. Though I will admit that I think a fundamental difference in our viewpoint is that I think there are two different arguments in this thread and I suspect you view it as only one. I'd accept that difference as simply incompatible for debate, but I maintain that I think you're also ignoring most of what I'm saying too. Purely because you are cherry picking things I am saying other people say and re-presenting them as my own argument. Even when in the very post you're quoting I am saying that I've no intention to support this game, and I've no intention to support it specifically because of JK Rowling.
Regardless, I've said all I have to say on the matter. I think assuming anyone who says they want to support the devs is doing so in bad faith is wrong. I also think this is a messy and complicated situation and I feel really bad for many people involved. Have a good day.
My honest question is: Would any developer really care and actually leave these jobs that provide a livelihood if these situations came up in their organization?
I know the poor dev excuse is not valid, but why call out people for using it as an excuse to support vile people when developers are not quiting their jobs to find others in bigger numbers when they know they are working to support the funneling of money to these people? Why feel offended by the use of this excuse if some are also using excuses to justify working in these places?
I myself am in a similar situation and know the company I work for may partake in ethically questionable stuff, yet I am not quiting or getting offended when people call out employees.
I think I agree with you that it is shitty excuse, but some of the reasoning I disagree with because most of us have to deal with these unethical practices in different ways and we have to deal with it, not just quit in protest. I know I can't possibly afford that, it would kill me.
I don't think everyone making the argument is doing so in bad faith. I think the argument itself, regardless of whether you're invoking it to be an asshole, or you're invoking it because you- for some reason- feel morally conflicted in this situation, ultimately hurts transpeople, and I personally care more about transpeople than I do video games or the Harry Potter franchise. To me, the priority is clear, so yes I view it in a pretty binary way. Sue me.
Makes sense. I must admit, that even though I have the thread open in a tab, I haven't read the one that particularly discusses this situation. I've only been in the game reveal thread so far. So, I should have probably looked around before going "don't persecute me, guys!" as if that even matters here. Also, good job parsing through my typos there, wow lol.
That's what I was saying, because that's what the thread was about.
I mostly feel the same way you do from a personal standpoint. I think the only thing we really differ on is that you, as you say, don't care about the intent. I think intent matters, when at least matched between their response to the situation. I think there's a big difference between "I think it's unfair the devs are being punished because of JK's actions, and I want to support them" and "who cares about what JK did, we should just buy the game anyway". In this particular instance, someone arguing the latter is inherently wrong. Someone arguing the former, though, I think is valid. So long as they don't then go on to write off transpeople's concerns with that approach, because then that's really just the latter in disguise.
Dev Response: ShutterMunster @ Activision
I've been fortunate to receive sizable bonuses at the studios I've worked for, but I know plenty of devs who have not even upon the release of a vastly successful game. Even still, the bonuses often times equate to the same amount, if not a lower amount than what developers should have been paid for the unpaid OT required to ship the game.
Long story less long, players should do what they feel is right. If you don't want to support a game because you think the IP creator, company shareholder(s), or creative leadership behind it are bad folks then don't support it. Chances are you ain't doing the developers any harm. No more harm than their superiors are already doing onto them.
Long story less long, players should do what they feel is right. If you don't want to support a game because you think the IP creator, company shareholder(s), or creative leadership behind it are bad folks then don't support it. Chances are you ain't doing the developers any harm. No more harm than their superiors are already doing onto them.
User banned (3 weeks): antagonistic concern trolling
The Harry Potter game from Avalanche looks great to me. I don't need to justify my purchasing decision for anyone. I feel offended that you not only seem to think that I should be able to justify my purchasing decision with a political line of defense, but that you additionally are offended by a very reasonable example of such a defense. I buy a lot of indie games on Steam, but I think I will skip your game.
How can an argument be bad faith if it stems from ignorance?
I know it can be tiresome, but attacking the ignorance (informing with facts) is better than punishing/banning. If you punish someone, and they don't understand what they did wrong, they will only resent you or your cause. Even warnings are negative reinforcements imo
Would be cool if there were FYIs instead of Warnings, that mods could easily allude to an informative link when dealing with common arguments like this.
OP
OP
I, personally, would not buy a Harry Potter game even if I knew developers would get paid less for it. My empathy towards trans people, a profoundly underprivileged group, trumps my concern towards fellow game developers.
On other topics I make a case-by-case decision; for example, buying console hardware when I know part of it has a good chance of having been manufactured by Uighur slave labor. I'm considering skipping next-gen consoles unless this is addressed.
If you want to continue this conversation we can take it to PMs so as to not derail the thread. In the end I'm just one more guy trying to make it in indie development so my opinion shouldn't count more than any other dev's (which is the entire point of making a thread about it).
Yes, of course. I myself have rejected high-paying IT jobs for banks, corporations and high-frequence trading, because I wanted to do something more meaningful with my life than making rich people richer. My last paying job before going indie dev was in telemedicine. I don't imagine I'm the only software engineer out there that would rather be happy with themselves and what they do, than be paid more.
If you're a programmer, then working in game development, whether on AAA or indie, is already sacrificing half of your potential salary just to be able to make what you enjoy. Working on a game you consider actively harmful makes zero sense; you may as well work for the nearest corp and get paid twice as much.
I can think of a multitude of reasons, primarily:
1) Because "devs not quitting their jobs" don't often post here to tell us why they don't. I'm not in the habit to speaking to hypothetical people.
2) Because their (again, hypothetical) excuse would actually be honest. They aren't saying they don't quit their job for the sake of other people. They are saying they don't quit their job for their own benefit, because the money they are paid is worth to them more than the transgender people the game hurts, which is the self-obvious truth. They aren't using other devs as a shield, nor feigning concern for an unrelated group of people.
Again, you aren't using "a shitty excuse": you are using no excuse at all, which is actually honest. I am not your conscience, you owe me no explanation at all for your actions (and I wouldn't know enough about your particular situation to judge even if I was so inclined, anyway). You only every owe moral explanations to yourself.
Again, what I'm calling out in this thread isn't people buying the game. It's people buying the game and justifying the moral consequences of them by using us as a shield.
You're offended? Notice how in your post you never once used the "but the devs" argument? You just said, I like the way it looks and want to play it. In other words, this thread isn't about you.
You're getting offended for the sake of getting offended.
The thread is about people justifying their purchasing decision based on an inherently flawed argument. It's not asking you to justify your purchasing decision; It's asking you to think twice before saying, "I'm supporting it to support the devs."
They're banned but I'm sure there are more like this.
You don't need to justify your purchase. It's about electing to use a justification that doesn't work.
If you want to buy it, fucking buy it. Maybe don't tell people who don't buy it to that their decision is invalid because "poor devs." (or other excuse)
Or, alternatively, if you're choosing to buy it, don't engage with people who may be sensitive to the situation. Keep it to yourself.
This is one of the most active game sites on the internet, and for the most part people who visit here have a more informed opinion on subjects, but I have been struggling lately with the toxic, nasty treatment of people from the "big" publishers and developers, and the only superficial response by resetera. We pump our chest and talk about how bad a place like Ubisoft is, but I know many here are still buying games made by them. We excitedly forget about something they have done when a game we love pops up. From my very sole I don't want to be a censorship type person, but I honestly feel there needs to be a real effort to continue to bring up actions by these companies when it comes to sexual assault, transphobia, and discrimination. As long as the most "informed" site on the net continues to overlook these actions, these companies will get away with it.
Blowing off bad behavior because we have to think of the developers is flawed. People are not going to die if a company does not sale as many games because we are upset someone is a nasty person who wants to continue to push an idea that leads to suicide, and assaults on part of our world. When a thread about a game goes up, you get this amazing OP doing all the PR work for these companies, and a few threads down you will get someone talking about how they are not going to support that company. The damage is done. We have helped that company push a product and hide their nasty behavior because not everyone reads through 1000 replies.
I honestly feel a group at resetera should really compile and come up with a group of companies that are beyond nasty, and any OP that is pushing a game from that company should start with a mod warning that this game is being made by or supported by a company that is harmful and destructive to other humans.
I don't care anymore if this seems extreme. I am too old and have seen too many people do bad things because of hate. We need to stop supporting bullshit.
Blowing off bad behavior because we have to think of the developers is flawed. People are not going to die if a company does not sale as many games because we are upset someone is a nasty person who wants to continue to push an idea that leads to suicide, and assaults on part of our world. When a thread about a game goes up, you get this amazing OP doing all the PR work for these companies, and a few threads down you will get someone talking about how they are not going to support that company. The damage is done. We have helped that company push a product and hide their nasty behavior because not everyone reads through 1000 replies.
I honestly feel a group at resetera should really compile and come up with a group of companies that are beyond nasty, and any OP that is pushing a game from that company should start with a mod warning that this game is being made by or supported by a company that is harmful and destructive to other humans.
I don't care anymore if this seems extreme. I am too old and have seen too many people do bad things because of hate. We need to stop supporting bullshit.
OP
OP
Because more often than not, it stems from wilful ignorance. Paint it as you want, but when you say you'll buy a game to support the devs, what you're saying is that you care more about the hypothetical wages of devs than about actual, present minorities being hurt.
This is a meta-moderation argument I don't much care for. A warning IS an FYI; renaming them in order to preserve some fragile egos is whatever.
We're adults and can search for things on our own, PM mods for more information, etc. If you are warned for a specific reason, and then do it again instead of informing yourself, then I don't care how "resentful" you are towards whatever "cause", you deserve to be banned for a while to reflect on it.
Again, I feel like you are making an argument about Era moderation in general rather than specifically about this topic, so this is probably not the best place for it.
The devs aren't getting "punished" in this scenario though because- again- no one is obligated to buy a product for any reason, nor are people obligated to maintain support of a product. If someone wants to buy a product, but then changes their mind for any reason, whether it's ethical concerns, or they won't have the money, or a better product comes along, then oh well. The creators of that product are not being "punished." Lost sales are the reality of capitalism. Furthermore, you also cannot disentangle the devs from Rowling's pockets; "supporting them," aka, buying the game, is giving money to Rowling, meaning the end result of supporting the devs is giving money to a transphobe. You literally cannot buy a new copy of this game and not give Rowling your money.
This is why I say the intent doesn't really matter. Donating money to a transphobe because you want to support a company was contracted to produce a game based on that transphobe's IP has literally the same exact effect as donating that same amount of money to a transphobe because you don't care about the collateral damage of the game's success and just want to roleplay as a wizard: in the end, transpeople get hurt. And to me, that's why this is issue is actually simple as all hell. Either the devs come first, or transpeople do. It's one or the other. And gamers as a whole seem intent on proving that the devs matter more.
Which I would respect more if they, like, just...admitted that they don't care and just want to play "the game of their childhoods" or whatever. Like, buy the game and play it if you want to. Just don't complain when people disagree with that decision on obvious moral grounds.
OP
OP
Then you can't read, because what I've said, over and over, is that you don't need to justify your buying habits to me, and I very specially don't want you to justify them if the alternative is using me to do so.
Also, how is it "a very reasonable example of such a defense" when literally every dev in this thread has told you it's bullshit?
Oh noes. Anything but that. Woe is me. The horror. The tragedy. The humanity. Whatever will I do, however will I survive, etc.
BTW, I think that someone willing to buy a game tied to an author that actively hurts transgender people, but actively going out of their way to boycott the game of someone that wronged them in a forum, tells you everything you need to know about the "separate author from work" argument. :)
I've said like at least three times now that as far as I understand it the argument isn't telling anyone that they should buy the game if they don't want to. You keep talking as if the argument is "regardless of how you feel, you should buy the game" but that clearly isn't the case. "The devs didn't choose to be associated with a transphobe" is a defense argument against people being told they shouldn't buy the game, not an offensive argument trying to convince other people they SHOULD buy the game.
If people are using it like that, I haven't seen it, and I inherently disagree with them.
Yeah, that's all fair.
Like I said, I'm not buying the game and I'm not saying that people making "but the devs" arguments are morally correct.
Honestly, I disagree with you on a few things, but I think the people you actually want to be arguing against are elsewhere.
I can't tell anyone specifically what to do, but I have personally left one job because of the sexist management and it being acquired by facebook. I have also declined interviews with the larger tech companies on similar grounds; their exploitation of workers and problematic place in our society.
I also recognize that I'm in an overwhelming place of privilege to be able to do so; not everyone can afford to do this, and in fact, at the job I left, there were many people, talented developers, trapped under the harsh management that they couldn't leave.
So, my stance is thus:
A) Call them out publicly and repeatedly, to help the workers stuck in this situation to get heard. There are likely people who are in that studio that have reservations, and if there's enough attention and buzz, journalism can pick up and amplify their opinions.
B) The employees wallets aren't likely getting hit directly by people not buying the game, or generating negative press; But the publisher and company absolutely will be. They're the ones who will be impacted by this, and incidentally they're the ones who threw their lot in with JKR in the first place. Unless the employees are given generous incetives (and spoilers, they aren't), they will have already gotten their paychecks. Employee's compensation comes from the publisher and company, not from game revenue.
C) Advocate for employee unionization, to prevent this from occurring at your own workplace and to allow those who are trapped in this sort of situation to be given voice. Normalizing employee-driven development will only benefit the industry, and the only ones who stand to lose are publishers and owners who currently collect the profits from bigotry and exploitation.
Therefore I will be boycotting this game, and I think the 'think of the employees' argument doesn't hold water.
I also recognize that I'm in an overwhelming place of privilege to be able to do so; not everyone can afford to do this, and in fact, at the job I left, there were many people, talented developers, trapped under the harsh management that they couldn't leave.
So, my stance is thus:
A) Call them out publicly and repeatedly, to help the workers stuck in this situation to get heard. There are likely people who are in that studio that have reservations, and if there's enough attention and buzz, journalism can pick up and amplify their opinions.
B) The employees wallets aren't likely getting hit directly by people not buying the game, or generating negative press; But the publisher and company absolutely will be. They're the ones who will be impacted by this, and incidentally they're the ones who threw their lot in with JKR in the first place. Unless the employees are given generous incetives (and spoilers, they aren't), they will have already gotten their paychecks. Employee's compensation comes from the publisher and company, not from game revenue.
C) Advocate for employee unionization, to prevent this from occurring at your own workplace and to allow those who are trapped in this sort of situation to be given voice. Normalizing employee-driven development will only benefit the industry, and the only ones who stand to lose are publishers and owners who currently collect the profits from bigotry and exploitation.
Therefore I will be boycotting this game, and I think the 'think of the employees' argument doesn't hold water.
Last edited:
That's clever but it really doesn't. It just tells you about that poster's hypocrisy.
Dev Response: Feep @ Iridium Studios
I've pretty much said my piece on this already, but I sure hope all the "think of the devs" people know that they can never logically boycott any company, ever, for anything, if you follow this line of reasoning through.
I'm glad you're thinking of us, that's not a bad thing to think about, but the specifics in this case indicate 1) The workers are not directly profiting, 2) The Harry Potter game is likely going to sell fine enough, despite our actions here, and 3) Even if it didn't, it's unlikely Avalanche would go under as a result.
There's *also* the logical extension that if people don't spend 70 on Harry Potter, they'll spend it on another game, keeping the net number of jobs in the industry equal. Even if Avalanche DID go under, those talented devs will eventually end up somewhere else, in equilibrium, because the industry will not have contracted.
I'm glad you're thinking of us, that's not a bad thing to think about, but the specifics in this case indicate 1) The workers are not directly profiting, 2) The Harry Potter game is likely going to sell fine enough, despite our actions here, and 3) Even if it didn't, it's unlikely Avalanche would go under as a result.
There's *also* the logical extension that if people don't spend 70 on Harry Potter, they'll spend it on another game, keeping the net number of jobs in the industry equal. Even if Avalanche DID go under, those talented devs will eventually end up somewhere else, in equilibrium, because the industry will not have contracted.
I agree that intent doesn't matter here. But when you say, "either the devs come first, or transpeople do" I think the people you are arguing against see a correlation between them buying the game and the devs being rewarded, but do not see a correlation between buying the game and trans people getting hurt. I would have to question whether either of those correlations exist in reality. People here have already made some valid points about whether or not the devs would be impacted at all by our individual game purchases. Why would trans people be hurt by my individual game purchase? Because I'm contributing/supporting J.K Rowling, a transphobe, you might say. But does my individual purchase of the game impact her ability to have a platform for her transphobic thoughts? If the answer is no, which I think it is, then how is my purchase of this game hurting trans people?
I was wondering, is there a way for this company or WB to buy out whatever stakes JKR has in HP like what happened between Mojang and Notch with Minecraft? Like disassociate themselves officially from a person that doesn't represent their values or their games.
I think it would be good for the developers to publicly disowned Rowling and her views. If members of the main cast did it, also can they.
All I'm doing is dismissing the use of the term "punished" because I think it is needlessly sympathetic. 99.9% of working adults work for a company or in an industry that is problematic as a necessity of just surviving in the world of capitalism, which in turn is exploitative and immoral as hell, and thus boycotts happen all the time, whether they be individualistic or more widespread. If someone wanted to boycott my workplace because of some valid ethical concern, well, good on them! I hope the company changes. And I hope fans of the company don't run to my defense saying that I'm being "punished."
People compartmentalize the morality of consumerism all the time. When some purchasing decision falls near a person's compartmental line, they tend to want to justify their choices. JK Rowling is a perfect example where people have deep emotional investment in HP and emotional investments in gender inclusivity. It creates mental dissonance. I think there's an argument to be made that we should go easy on those people.
I think it makes sense to say I won't buy or play x because it will result in a net harm to the world of in one situation and then compartmentalize and buy or play or watch y in another instance where it might also result in harms. Nobody is capable of consuming in a way that escape negative external effects. We all draw lines and we *should* draw them.
I've drawn the line on HP stuff, but it was an easy one to draw because my investment was low. For some people it's a harder line to draw.
This is mostly unrelated to your "poor devs" point, which I think is well taken.
I think it makes sense to say I won't buy or play x because it will result in a net harm to the world of in one situation and then compartmentalize and buy or play or watch y in another instance where it might also result in harms. Nobody is capable of consuming in a way that escape negative external effects. We all draw lines and we *should* draw them.
I've drawn the line on HP stuff, but it was an easy one to draw because my investment was low. For some people it's a harder line to draw.
This is mostly unrelated to your "poor devs" point, which I think is well taken.
So basically at this point you're just arguing that it's okay to give money to famous bigots because your money won't be missed within the bigots' stockpile.
That is certainly a take.
OP
OP
How is it at all questionable that supporting Harry Potter media, therefore ensuring it keeps getting made, gives Rowling a bigger platform from which to keep shouting her transphobic agenda? Do you think she would have 14 million followers, or that we'd even be having this conversation, if people had moved on from HP?
If you fail to recognize that transgender people are human beings and show us empathy during your argument towards buying the game then you have no hope for maturing on this topic. If you start off with three paragraphs about being an ally but then decide to buy the game anyway then you're fake as shit and I don't care about your record in the community. Be an ally all the way. Not when it's convenient.
I apologize if my word choice is poor or upsetting. My intent is to show that there are people who don't view the devs of this game and JK Rowling as the same thing. The devs are people working on a game that's source material was written by a transphobe. As far as I understand it they were not aware of JK's views when they took on the project and they have expressed concern over both what she's said and how it will effect their game. My point has always just been that people who sympathize with that and express it are not inherently doing so in bad faith because there is a chance that they will be negatively impacted by JK's actions.
If my wording is poor then my apologizes, but as I have said many times I am not arguing on behalf of the devs or this game. I was arguing on behalf of people who felt bad for the devs and are suddenly being lumped in with bad faith trolls and transphobes, as that's what I read this thread as doing.
It's literally been explained in the other thread how JK Rowling continuing to have a platform based on her most famous creation impacts trans people and particularly children, who may read the most famous series of modern children's books about a fantastical journey through teenage years, and then see what the creator actually thinks of them. Jesus wept. The strength of the platform she uses to spread her bullshit is the strength of the franchise.
Please read this:
An open letter to J.K. Rowling - Mermaids
Dear J.K. Rowling, We would like to begin by offering our solidarity with you as a survivor of domestic and sexual abuse. Reading your moving and honest account, we felt a connection to your pain. That connection exists between us, regardless of any differences we may have around gender...
mermaidsuk.org.uk
OP
OP
If one can imagine it, it's even worse than that. While lining the pockets of bigots is obviously bad enough, buying this game also keeps the HP franchise alive, which gives her a bigger platform. So in this case it's unambiguously worse to buy this game than it is to simply donate whatever percentage Rowling would get directly to her.
She has billions of dollars, so she can have as big of a platform as she wants. This huge discussion around J.K Rowling and her transphobia predates this game. Her platform was built by Harry Potter, but as there isn't much recent Harry Potter media apart from this game, I fail to see how her platform is sustained by new Harry Potter media.
I have been there, and it sucks, but none of that is on the consumer. Bonuses are manipulative work tactics and no one should EVER plan for them, in any industry. I see the bonuses my company puts out each year (not gaming) and hear all the stories from people who planned for that money and didn't get it.
Most people don't get bonuses even on a project basis. Tech included. But lots of bonuses are talked about. Carrot on a stick.
Her...
Her billions of dollars are the direct result of the Harry Potter franchise.
You cannot be this obtuse.