Yeah, I guess time will tell. I'm hoping for the best but in the 2020s, it's stupid to not be prepared for the worst.

Apologies from me as well, but you do not know what "my side of the political divide" actually is. I'm firmly convinced I'm in one of the four dimensional middles. But what do I know, thinking that considering the rights of minorities and the minoritized shouldn't tie you to any side of a political divide. Civil rights certainly weren't solely the field of activity of the American left back in the day, and their loss wasn't cheered on by anybody. As to the invectives, you're definitely correct in the assumption that calling members of a discussion either ends the discussion, so I wouldn't do it. But: One of those words ties somebody to an actually existing belief system (a horrible, yet intrinsically functional one), and it's the name the people who believed in that system gave to themselves, while the other is basically just a collection of stereotypical, pejorative and dehumanizing features that are used to define and identify an enemy concept at the same time.

Apologies yet again, our perspectives diverge way too much here. Even if you managed to show correlation in one or two of your examples, you still can not show causation. And if you could show causation in some singular cases, we would have to open that horrid can of worms i.e. how much a backlash was tied to what is called 'cancel culture' in some circles (a concept of the political right that by its very definition can not be used to describe the actions of the political right even though that would help us immensely to define a possibly existing actual problem). If conservative parents took their kids out of the Boy Scouts because of an additional option on their application form, the problem isn't the additional option, it's close minded people, and I hope you agree at least there.

I hope you won't find me short tempered for not tanking way too many blablas into our back and forth. The Oscars have as I said been in decline for decades, and if nobody goes to the cinema in the pandemic era, triply so. A fourth quarter loss is likely unrelated to a first quarter advertisement. EA is doing great, Bioware will go the way of all EA acquisitions. Snopes sees no causation between gender inclusive actions of the Boy Scouts and loss of members. Dragon Age and Mass Effect paved the way for inclusive games with genderfluid races and LGBTQ characters. The vastly successful Back to the Future trilogy was making billions less with each new instalment, far less than Disney during their nauseatingly repetitive Star Wars and MCU stuff. Actually, I think Disney should have lost so much more viewers so they start having original ideas again.

With Netflix, we have the fundamental problem with the GWGB theory exemplified: If they fail, it's because of their inclusive values. If they thrive, they're just holding on right now, but their values are interpreted as some kind of a 'creeping toxin' that will definitely bring them down eventually (as I said, I see other forces at work here). Now this creeping toxin idea is a conspiracy theorist's wet dream, because causation will only ever be strongly assumed but can never be shown. Now, if I argue with a conspiracy theorist, I'd say things like "If you want to overdose on fluoride, you'd have to eat 17 tubes of toothpaste". And the conspiracy theorist would say: "Ahhh no, I'm not talking about an overdose. Fluoride is a creeping poison that accumulates in the human body. It will kill you decades later". Arguing against the creeping poison theory should actually be easier in this particular case though, because I think the idea of that particular political stream is that we are in fact overdosing on inclusivity right now. So it's not a creeping poison, we're wearing the acute overdose shoe already and can't pull another one over. We should see the effects right now because that's the idea. Cause: go woke, effect: go broke. And we don't.

Lastly ... this thread already exemplifies the problem. Now if CDPR goes down one day, it will certainly be because they have adopted ESG standards, and not at all because they released one hell of a bug fest born out of thousands of crunch hours with Cyberpunk 2077.

which part of the ESG rating system does this relate to?

The problem is that "those assholes who try to bully others" is very often used as a synonym for "everybody who don't agree with me" (and very often used like that by assholes who try to bully other while pretending to have the moral high grounds for doing so)

And with Paypal and credit card companies of just a few years ago 'if we don't like what you're doing, we'll shut you down'.

ESG scores from what i've gleamed are another way to bully companies and customers into submission, kinda like the credit score in China. Credit score too low? Sorry can't leave the country. Sorry can't go onto the train. Sorry can't hold a job... Say something we don't like on some other public forum, and you we'll punish/ban you.


Paypal and firearms forum
Vox, credit scores being punished for buying video games

I very much specifically mean those bullies those who have something against people who are different and optionally use insulting names for them.
Taking action against someone who harrasses others, insults them for skin color, weight, gender, sexual orientation or nationality or heritage? Against people who spread lies? Not only am I willing to accept that, I encourage it.

Who can't respect the equal rights of others, does not treat them with a minimum of respect, can't expect that anyone treats him with respect.
People should not be judged by what they are, but by what they do. Every gender, every country, every heritage has it's share of assholes.

Does that put me on a moral highground? I let others be the judge of that, because personally I don't care.

Sickening

Just wanted to say the second paragraph of your post (the longer discussion) is really well-put. I couldn't quite put my finger on what feels off about these discussions, and now I know it is the "heads I win tails you lose" aspect and "correlation equals causation" assumption, as well as many other assumptions people seem to make.

It occurs to me that one of the assumptions people make is that the "go broke" is a bad thing. I find this particularly strange, in light of "GWGB" being put forth in terms relevant to the customers' interests (even though we know this is just a facade in most cases to disguise the real reasons the arguments are being made).

If a company has lost touch with fans and is acting in ways people don't approve of, shouldn't we be rooting for them to "go broke"? In most cases, it is highly unlikely that a company or franchise disappears entirely, without some other external factor. If a company has to go back to roots or downscale, I think it's good for consumers.

It does feel a little callous knowing that workers would lose jobs, but if there is sickening "crunch", perhaps loss of job is also good in a way for workers. I guess the workers should be the ones to determine that for themselves and I can't really speak on it. But for the management I don't think we need to shed any tears they have smaller profits.

You clearly missed the point. And the point is that there are two (maybe more, depending on your views) camps of people each one accusing another of harassment, bullying, and oppression and demanding aggressive actions against the opponent. How are you going to decide, whose accusations are legit and who is just projecting?

If you really think that loss of a right to free speech "wasn't cheered on by anybody", then it's quite clear what is your side.

It will be both, because those things are connected.

So, in your view, I can't be misguided or simply wrong, but I have to be lying? Now that's ballsy. That's an antiquated, superficial take that holds about as much water as a cavalry charge against tanks. Politics is downstream from culture. No, it's just the unavoidable reaction to the endgame of decades of indoctrination in academia and subversion of culture by way of entertainment, which has accelerated since 2016 due to a number of events throughout the world that went contra the narrative. Would I then be right to assume that you hold those who do not hold "anti-racism, sexual parity and inclusion" as concerns are your enemy, a threat and the cause of everything bad? This is what happens when you have a manicheistic view of people. You end up characterizing a caricature of them and opposing it to show how virtuous you are. The only mental gymnastics are those of individuals who, in order not to be trapped into a corner when their "antiracism" paints them as the virulent racists they are, have to resort to redefining 'racism' and coming up with formulae involving prejudice plus power and the likes. Again, you're caricaturing the subject. The problem is when you have to stop the story to preach the message, and your film/game/book fails on that account. If a Varangian Viking movie with a Black character failed, no one would claim it bombed because of the Black character. But a Viking movie with a Black thane going all BLM towards Valhalla would definitely be accused of that. Is it really so hard to comprehend? Agreed. The people who carry out The Message are evil, as their goal is not to tell a good story, make a good game, or craft serviceable razor blades. They view the world in their ideological binary lens, and panic as soon as they're called out on it.

Who cares.
Fix the forum and bring less crappy games.

Would I be wrong in the educated assumption that your sympathies most definitely do not lie on, say, the conservative side? I don't believe anyone was addressing the 'rights' of minorities and the minoritized. One of the problems we have (on both sides of the argument) is a tendency to overly conflate. Twisting your nose at seeing a gay Armenian samurai in a movie set in the Edo period in Japan and claiming the movie is more concerned about a message than in telling a good story isn't the same thing as saying the Young Turks had the right idea, or that gay people should be consigned to a San Francisco ghetto. That's actually incorrect. So same as above, essentially. And, lest you think I'm downplaying the former, I'm merely equating it with the latter. That's why one has to take the context into account, instead of just dismissing 'get woke, go broke' as a mindless motto just because it's used by people one might disagree with. I don't see why you'd consider that a can of worms. The Satanic Panic nearly destroyed D&D in the 80s, after all, so it's definitely not a left/right/what-have-you thing. The problem is how pervasive it has become, how it leaves no room for redemption, and demands complete, public and utter capitulation instead of compromise. You simplify the matter because you agree with it and have contempt for the other side, confusing belief with close-mindedness. Not at all. I'm enjoying this exchange, and believe it's proving to be a model disagreement. I hope my replies can keep the standard. I specifically made a point of mentioning that the Oscars had their lowest viewing ever in a year in which cinemas had just had a post-pandemic +100% rebound in movie attendance. Customer alienation and controversy cannot possibly be discarded for a fourth quarter loss and the subsequent lack of similar ads. EA had a tremendous loss in what was otherwise one of their main movers. Snopes doesn't see a great many things, but even it is forced to admit in the very last paragraph that it's plausible. Dragon Age I had absolutely nothing that can be construed as paving the way for inclusive games, genderfluid races and alphabet characters. Back to the Future isn't on the same juggernaut league of the examples I was using (think Lord of the Rings, Avengers, Harry Potter, etc.), but my bad for not clarifying what I meant. But... we do. A better analogy would be a vast army exposing itself to unsanitary conditions. The individual units will fall ill and die off, and would be wiped out if they were a simple company, but the army holds and will be able to march on for a while longer. Megacorporations don't just 'go broke' like that, but anyone who thinks this is a tenable and sustainable situation has another thing coming. That ignores the general context. CDPR had been giving off signs way before Cyberpunk 2077, and is now showing the symptoms.

So the better analogy is to interpret representation and inclusivity as a lack of hygiene that leads to disentery. Well, thanks for your honesty I guess.

This is probably a bad idea. Given CDP's history I doubt they could get a good ESG score. They've been unwilling to change in the past but maybe they will for the future. Not holding my breath though.