I don't know if this topic is allowed to be discussed on Tildes. I left my thoughts on the game and the controversy in another recent thread, but it was locked shortly thereafter. To summarize...
I don't know if this topic is allowed to be discussed on Tildes. I left my thoughts on the game and the controversy in another recent thread, but it was locked shortly thereafter.
To summarize though, I've found the game to be extremely trans-inclusive and LGBT positive. Probably more than any AAA title I've played before. If this ban is in regards to trans-inclusiveness, I hope they consider the contents of the game and not just the outside factor of the original author of the Harry Potter universe.
All that said, I'm not sure yet if it would be an interesting game to speedrun. Personally I find speedruns the most interesting when they exhibit technical skills. But you never know which glitches will pop up over time.
It's possible GDQ wanted to avoid any controversy at all, and that's why they're banning the game. In that case they may be stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they'd receive criticism for a ban or permitting it. If they didn't want to showcase it though, perhaps the best option would have been to simply avoid picking any runs to be featured during the show.
edit: Removed the link to the previous thread. I was disappointed to have spent so long writing a comment that nobody could read, but presumably the thread was killed for a reason so I'll respect that.
Just to elaborate on /u/jackson's point a bit, I think it's fair to say that GDQ is a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights (e.g., canceling their Florida venue contract following the passage of the...
It's possible GDQ wanted to avoid any controversy at all, and that's why they're banning the game. In that case they may be stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they'd receive criticism for a ban or permitting it. If they didn't want to showcase it though, perhaps the best option would have been to simply avoid picking any runs to be featured during the show.
I think the calculus here was pretty obvious. Allowing the game at their event would piss off many of their supporters (and runners) while disappointing many others. But disappointment is not the same thing as anger. Probably the largest class of people actually outraged by this decision are transphobes, who probably don't care for a progressive organization like GDQ anyway.
I've always thought it was cool how GDQ features so many trans runners and commentators. I watched one run last GDQ by Speck who talked about going back to school specifically to study clinic...
I've always thought it was cool how GDQ features so many trans runners and commentators. I watched one run last GDQ by Speck who talked about going back to school specifically to study clinic mental health studies and gender-affirming care. He said he was inspired by meeting so many transgender folks in the speedrunner community, and wanted to be able to give back and help them. I found it very touching and it was my favourite moment from the marathon.
Yeah, one of the reasons I love GDQ is that they have been explicitly trans inclusive for a LONG time. Not only have they featured trans runners, but they've done a LOT to make sure that their...
Yeah, one of the reasons I love GDQ is that they have been explicitly trans inclusive for a LONG time. Not only have they featured trans runners, but they've done a LOT to make sure that their runners and hosts can enjoy the event in a hate-free environment, which is not an easy task in the gaming community. The anger they've received for these decisions has thankfully died down in recent years, but for much of the mid-to-late 2010s you couldn't bring up GDQ anywhere without people flying off the handle in horribly regressive ways.
I watched the run you linked live last marathon, and his speech warmed my heart. It also impressed the hell out of me that he was able to be so thoughtful and articulate while also, you know, speedrunning.
I don't know if you're following ESA, but there was a similar moment last night -- also during a Sonic run. argick gives the lead-in to a speech by huds about a friend that they lost, and it brought tears to my eyes.
Out of curiosity, are you transgender? As a trans woman, my reading of the "trans inclusive" aspects of that game is as a very, very shallow "cover my ass" attempt, rather than a genuine effort...
Out of curiosity, are you transgender? As a trans woman, my reading of the "trans inclusive" aspects of that game is as a very, very shallow "cover my ass" attempt, rather than a genuine effort towards inclusion. Especially since the profits directly fund Rowling's transphobic policy efforts.
No, I'm not. I haven't finished the story yet, but the part that really impressed me was featuring a heroic transwoman early on in the main campaign. She didn't feel "token" to me as a one-off...
No, I'm not. I haven't finished the story yet, but the part that really impressed me was featuring a heroic transwoman early on in the main campaign. She didn't feel "token" to me as a one-off character might. She's actually a shop owner that you can visit at any time.
The other thing that impressed me was the character creator. It lets you adjust the pitch of your voice, so you can make either voice option more masculine or feminine. You could also choose to be a witch or wizard independently of any of your previous customizations which I thought was nice.
There's some other smaller stuff, like one older woman mentioning her wife during a tutorial quest. Gay characters aren't uncommon nowadays, but bear in mind this is the late 1800s!
I'm only 20 hours in and still have a lot left to see, but it definitely doesn't feel shallow to me. It's hard to explain but all of the character responses are so kind and positive. It really warms my heart when I play it!
I'm really glad it warms your heart. That's great! I would ask, though, that you try to understand why people in the group being portrayed are, in general, much less impressed.
I'm really glad it warms your heart. That's great! I would ask, though, that you try to understand why people in the group being portrayed are, in general, much less impressed.
Absolutely. It's not a perspective I can have, so I'm happy to hear personal accounts. I don't wish to overwrite anybody else's views with my own. This is the first time I've heard the comment...
Absolutely. It's not a perspective I can have, so I'm happy to hear personal accounts. I don't wish to overwrite anybody else's views with my own.
This is the first time I've heard the comment that their portrayal is shallow, although I've been in spoiler lockdown mode so I haven't read much. Maybe we could discuss it more once I've finished?
Sure, I'd be happy to discuss it further in the future. I do want to point out, though, that a big part of the issue is that no matter how good the in-game representation is, it's in service of...
Sure, I'd be happy to discuss it further in the future. I do want to point out, though, that a big part of the issue is that no matter how good the in-game representation is, it's in service of making money for a woman who wants trans people to stop existing and uses her money to advance that aim, so it has a pretty hard cap on how positive it can possibly be.
I know you and I disagree on the utility of giving a billionaire a dollar or whatever, that's fine and I'm not looking to revisit that. But I'm genuinely curious: let's assume someone attaches...
so it has a pretty hard cap on how positive it can possibly be.
I know you and I disagree on the utility of giving a billionaire a dollar or whatever, that's fine and I'm not looking to revisit that. But I'm genuinely curious: let's assume someone attaches their purchase of this game to a 10 * $ROYALTY donation to The Trevor Project or similar charity. Is that not a morally positive transaction? If not, is there a multiplier where it is?
Sure, whatever. In the grand ranking of all possible actions, donating to a good charity and buying something based on IP by a notorious bigot is better than not doing either of those things....
Sure, whatever. In the grand ranking of all possible actions, donating to a good charity and buying something based on IP by a notorious bigot is better than not doing either of those things. Doing only the former is better still. To me, this makes about as much sense as Christians buying indulgences, but if it makes you feel better, I'd rather that money go to charity than not.
But to be honest, the thing that really gets me is this: lots of people look at Harry Potter, an IP full of slavery apologia and antisemitism by a woman who wants me dead, and go "well, it was really important to me as a kid, so I'm just going to overlook that stuff."
It was important to me as a kid, too. I was into wizard rock and HP fanfiction and I owned a signed copy of the 7th book. Then I grew up, and she revealed that she was a total jackass, and I changed my opinion. Do whatever the fuck you want, but don't pretend that it's unreasonable for other people to make judgements about you or your morality based on it, or that an organization like GDQ that's 50% trans people by volume should pretend to be neutral on this for some reason.
Fair points. Of course anyone is free to judge anyone for any reason they wish. And I understand that in many cases, it's coming from a place of hurt. But man would the general online response...
Fair points.
Do whatever the fuck you want, but don't pretend that it's unreasonable for other people to make judgements about you or your morality based on it
Of course anyone is free to judge anyone for any reason they wish. And I understand that in many cases, it's coming from a place of hurt. But man would the general online response have been so much better if it reflected your above points and directed people to charities instead of jumping on sometimes barely-online people who had no idea what they were wading into.
I agree that I don't think this manages to change very many minds, and it's most certainly a tactic that the right likes to exploit to make it seem like minorities actually hate cis white straight...
instead of jumping on sometimes barely-online people who had no idea what they were wading into.
I agree that I don't think this manages to change very many minds, and it's most certainly a tactic that the right likes to exploit to make it seem like minorities actually hate cis white straight people.
But I also think it's pretty reasonable for someone who's being actively targeted by the social lens right now, is a member of a class of humans for which simply being a part of that class can get you killed in certain parts of the world (and legally restricted in many other places), has significantly reduced opportunities for education and employment, and has a higher chance of being raped and murdered than nearly any other class of humans to be a little bit upset about people actively supporting the causes behind their inhumane treatment.
I don't think a transactional view of morality like that is useful personally. The morally positive thing and the morally negative thing can't cancel out, they just both happen at the same time....
I don't think a transactional view of morality like that is useful personally. The morally positive thing and the morally negative thing can't cancel out, they just both happen at the same time. Considering a charity dedicated to helping trans people is going to put some amount of its resources to undoing the kinds of harm done to trans people which is funded by someone like Rowling, it's probably better that neither thing happens in the first place.
(there's also the issue of using wealth to buy your way out of purposely doing a bad thing which, abstractly, is a bit iffy)
In general I agree. But if the harm we're talking about here is the political lobbying/outreach type, can't that be pretty effectively opposed by outreach and political lobbying? A comparison...
(there's also the issue of using wealth to buy your way out of purposely doing a bad thing which, abstractly, is a bit iffy)
In general I agree. But if the harm we're talking about here is the political lobbying/outreach type, can't that be pretty effectively opposed by outreach and political lobbying? A comparison would be carbon credits, although carbon expenditure/capture is obviously a lot less nebulous.
I think that's a likely reason, seeing how they've banned all Harry Potter games. It may also be because funds from HP game purchases go against GDQ's charitable goals.
It's possible GDQ wanted to avoid any controversy at all
I think that's a likely reason, seeing how they've banned all Harry Potter games. It may also be because funds from HP game purchases go against GDQ's charitable goals.
I don't know if this topic is allowed to be discussed on Tildes. I left my thoughts on the game and the controversy in another recent thread, but it was locked shortly thereafter.
To summarize though, I've found the game to be extremely trans-inclusive and LGBT positive. Probably more than any AAA title I've played before. If this ban is in regards to trans-inclusiveness, I hope they consider the contents of the game and not just the outside factor of the original author of the Harry Potter universe.
All that said, I'm not sure yet if it would be an interesting game to speedrun. Personally I find speedruns the most interesting when they exhibit technical skills. But you never know which glitches will pop up over time.
It's possible GDQ wanted to avoid any controversy at all, and that's why they're banning the game. In that case they may be stuck between a rock and a hard place, as they'd receive criticism for a ban or permitting it. If they didn't want to showcase it though, perhaps the best option would have been to simply avoid picking any runs to be featured during the show.
edit: Removed the link to the previous thread. I was disappointed to have spent so long writing a comment that nobody could read, but presumably the thread was killed for a reason so I'll respect that.
Just to elaborate on /u/jackson's point a bit, I think it's fair to say that GDQ is a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights (e.g., canceling their Florida venue contract following the passage of the Don't Say Gay bill). I mean, at any given GDQ event there are probably more trans woman speedrunners than cis woman speedrunners, so I'm sure this issue felt more personal than most.
I think the calculus here was pretty obvious. Allowing the game at their event would piss off many of their supporters (and runners) while disappointing many others. But disappointment is not the same thing as anger. Probably the largest class of people actually outraged by this decision are transphobes, who probably don't care for a progressive organization like GDQ anyway.
I've always thought it was cool how GDQ features so many trans runners and commentators. I watched one run last GDQ by Speck who talked about going back to school specifically to study clinic mental health studies and gender-affirming care. He said he was inspired by meeting so many transgender folks in the speedrunner community, and wanted to be able to give back and help them. I found it very touching and it was my favourite moment from the marathon.
https://youtu.be/0KaP0NkGWgg?t=1096
Yeah, one of the reasons I love GDQ is that they have been explicitly trans inclusive for a LONG time. Not only have they featured trans runners, but they've done a LOT to make sure that their runners and hosts can enjoy the event in a hate-free environment, which is not an easy task in the gaming community. The anger they've received for these decisions has thankfully died down in recent years, but for much of the mid-to-late 2010s you couldn't bring up GDQ anywhere without people flying off the handle in horribly regressive ways.
I watched the run you linked live last marathon, and his speech warmed my heart. It also impressed the hell out of me that he was able to be so thoughtful and articulate while also, you know, speedrunning.
I don't know if you're following ESA, but there was a similar moment last night -- also during a Sonic run. argick gives the lead-in to a speech by huds about a friend that they lost, and it brought tears to my eyes.
Out of curiosity, are you transgender? As a trans woman, my reading of the "trans inclusive" aspects of that game is as a very, very shallow "cover my ass" attempt, rather than a genuine effort towards inclusion. Especially since the profits directly fund Rowling's transphobic policy efforts.
No, I'm not. I haven't finished the story yet, but the part that really impressed me was featuring a heroic transwoman early on in the main campaign. She didn't feel "token" to me as a one-off character might. She's actually a shop owner that you can visit at any time.
The other thing that impressed me was the character creator. It lets you adjust the pitch of your voice, so you can make either voice option more masculine or feminine. You could also choose to be a witch or wizard independently of any of your previous customizations which I thought was nice.
There's some other smaller stuff, like one older woman mentioning her wife during a tutorial quest. Gay characters aren't uncommon nowadays, but bear in mind this is the late 1800s!
I'm only 20 hours in and still have a lot left to see, but it definitely doesn't feel shallow to me. It's hard to explain but all of the character responses are so kind and positive. It really warms my heart when I play it!
I'm really glad it warms your heart. That's great! I would ask, though, that you try to understand why people in the group being portrayed are, in general, much less impressed.
Absolutely. It's not a perspective I can have, so I'm happy to hear personal accounts. I don't wish to overwrite anybody else's views with my own.
This is the first time I've heard the comment that their portrayal is shallow, although I've been in spoiler lockdown mode so I haven't read much. Maybe we could discuss it more once I've finished?
Sure, I'd be happy to discuss it further in the future. I do want to point out, though, that a big part of the issue is that no matter how good the in-game representation is, it's in service of making money for a woman who wants trans people to stop existing and uses her money to advance that aim, so it has a pretty hard cap on how positive it can possibly be.
I know you and I disagree on the utility of giving a billionaire a dollar or whatever, that's fine and I'm not looking to revisit that. But I'm genuinely curious: let's assume someone attaches their purchase of this game to a
10 * $ROYALTYdonation to The Trevor Project or similar charity. Is that not a morally positive transaction? If not, is there a multiplier where it is?Sure, whatever. In the grand ranking of all possible actions, donating to a good charity and buying something based on IP by a notorious bigot is better than not doing either of those things. Doing only the former is better still. To me, this makes about as much sense as Christians buying indulgences, but if it makes you feel better, I'd rather that money go to charity than not.
But to be honest, the thing that really gets me is this: lots of people look at Harry Potter, an IP full of slavery apologia and antisemitism by a woman who wants me dead, and go "well, it was really important to me as a kid, so I'm just going to overlook that stuff."
It was important to me as a kid, too. I was into wizard rock and HP fanfiction and I owned a signed copy of the 7th book. Then I grew up, and she revealed that she was a total jackass, and I changed my opinion. Do whatever the fuck you want, but don't pretend that it's unreasonable for other people to make judgements about you or your morality based on it, or that an organization like GDQ that's 50% trans people by volume should pretend to be neutral on this for some reason.
Fair points.
Of course anyone is free to judge anyone for any reason they wish. And I understand that in many cases, it's coming from a place of hurt. But man would the general online response have been so much better if it reflected your above points and directed people to charities instead of jumping on sometimes barely-online people who had no idea what they were wading into.
I agree that I don't think this manages to change very many minds, and it's most certainly a tactic that the right likes to exploit to make it seem like minorities actually hate cis white straight people.
But I also think it's pretty reasonable for someone who's being actively targeted by the social lens right now, is a member of a class of humans for which simply being a part of that class can get you killed in certain parts of the world (and legally restricted in many other places), has significantly reduced opportunities for education and employment, and has a higher chance of being raped and murdered than nearly any other class of humans to be a little bit upset about people actively supporting the causes behind their inhumane treatment.
I don't think a transactional view of morality like that is useful personally. The morally positive thing and the morally negative thing can't cancel out, they just both happen at the same time. Considering a charity dedicated to helping trans people is going to put some amount of its resources to undoing the kinds of harm done to trans people which is funded by someone like Rowling, it's probably better that neither thing happens in the first place.
(there's also the issue of using wealth to buy your way out of purposely doing a bad thing which, abstractly, is a bit iffy)
In general I agree. But if the harm we're talking about here is the political lobbying/outreach type, can't that be pretty effectively opposed by outreach and political lobbying? A comparison would be carbon credits, although carbon expenditure/capture is obviously a lot less nebulous.
I think that's a likely reason, seeing how they've banned all Harry Potter games. It may also be because funds from HP game purchases go against GDQ's charitable goals.