That's(imo, and likely in actuality) strawmanning said "rules" and those who supposedly make them up....they MUST be bad...bad bad rules.

And you sidestepped the other bits.....about you putting words in people's mouths/strawmanning them(painting them as bad you could with your words)...why is that?
-----------------------------

How is that anywhere close to a strawman??

First of all, you never addressed who made up the rules. You never dignified me with an answer. You kinda explained, if you read between the lines because for some reason or other you were too afraid to answer a direct question, that it is the person itself that makes up the rules, i.e. you make up the rules. I then asked a question, granted a leading question, but one nevertheless, about what the rules are based on. It's clear it's what I think, and it's clear I'm trying to get a reply out of you, but absolutely none of it is a strawman.

Please review what a strawman is. Which bits? And for the last time, those aren't strawmen, the logical fallacy. Painting someone as 'bad' (whatever that means) has nothing to do with a strawman. If anything, it's an ad hominem.

I did, though...I said iirc that there are no "rules" per se.

I mainly was talking about some of your replies to others and the thread(painting those who disagree with such in games as seemingly all bad or doing it for bad reasons[in various ways] for one).

Yes I meant ad hominem)with the painting bit), my mistake, but you also did some strawmanning as well(see above).

And you do it a lot, it seems....so either you cannot spot your own fallacies, or you're doing them on purpose & discussing partially in bad faith.

So then which is it?

I totally disagree about "special" thing. Journalists that were writing about games are no different than at least those who write about other media. And I see little difference compared to other types of journalists either.

Journalism (I mean real journalism) is always about presenting the most trustworthy information that covers most adequately the items you write about. That is (and should be) the highest priority. The moment your goal changes from the most adequate coverage, you stop being a journalist. Regardless if you write about games, other media or real world events.

The poblem is that most of the gaming news portals are now ether shutting down or are hanging by a thread. Hit piece articles and drama is the only thing that keeps them alive at this point.

So how does it get determined that a particular writer to a movie of vidya game, pandered to the audience and shoved an agenda down your throat? You seem convinced that this happens all the time - you're saying nobody determines it, there are no rules, yet clearly they are determined as being such. Some supernatural entity maybe decides? Throws a coin?

So now you're saying that that particular example you said was a strawman, actually wasn't a strawman, yet I clearly made other strawmen? Sure sure. I believe you even more now.

Yet you cannot show me a single example of me making a strawman. Hm.

See above. You're convinced I make strawmen everywhere, yet you were horribly wrong already on that example. Who is to say you aren't wrong about all your other examples (which you have yet to show)?

Look man - if you insist on using strawman to point out negative things in a discussion, please for the love of *bleep* ensure you know what you're talking about, before accusing people of logical fallacies. We all make logical fallacies, and it's good to sometimes point them out, but you posted at least 4-5 posts accusing me of them, and all of them were misguided or flat out lies (my money is on misguided and ignorance - I don't think you wrote that out of malicious intent).

I hope we can move past the 'fallacy' fallacy now, and maybe discuss the topic at hand.

Like how you magically think that someone somewhere decides for you whether social justice diversity pandering happens for a particular vidya game or movie.

Does "pandering" mean that the authors of the media are designing it to target the broadest group of people?

And that's bad? Why?

For example, why do we consider, especially today, that "white male protagonist" is the default, and everything else is pandering? If the player character isn't a white male protagonist, the developers are trying to send some sort of message?

To me, the more important thing is storytelling, and "generic white male protagonist" is almost always more a signpost that the game is going to have a generic boring story than not. It communicates to me that the developer didn't think very deeply about the game, and just went with the "default" (in their mind).

Games and other such media are a reflection of society, or the ideals of society. Formerly sidelined and minority groups are more active and present on the world-stage today, and games have been updated to refect that reality.

But apparently some people here want ESRB style warnings on the box "WARNING: Game contains diverse characters in major roles.

PS: relating to the discussion about Norse mythology, nobody today practices the religion of the Vikings- there's no tiny group of hold-out minority asgardians in some village somewhere- they were all completely wiped out or converted. There are only neo-pagans who practice stuff that they learnt about later from what they read after the fact. And since most that we know about Norse mythology is questionable stuff that comes from a medieval Christian monk, we probably can't speak with any certainity about the details.

You've just said it yourself - it's the excellent story, where character having a certain race or sexuality makes sense. And that race or sexuality or gender - all has its place in that story.

If you just make a male character to have sex/kiss with another male character. Or someone to declare personal sexuality out of nowhere - that's clearly "virtue signaling". Especially if those qualities don't make sense in the world you've built or particular situation you use them in.
No.
We aren't. You are.

Really?
So if a male character has sex/kisses a female character, that's perfectly normal and nothing weird, but if they do it with a male character, it is virtue signaling?

I'd say you just proved my point.

I've never said that.
The only thing I've proved is that you can't make your point without lying.

Oh, I give up.....you seem to just want to discuss in bad faith and do all the things you claim to dislike to others cuz reasons.....i'm done(for now anyways) unless you want to talk in food faith.

It's not gaming journalism, journalism itself reeks with opportunism and corruption. It especially sucks because they keep pretending it's not the case.

Also, when it comes to certain themes in games... i dunno, i'm a "person of color" from a "poor" part of the world and i can tell you every time i see these things in games or media, i feel insulted. it's like some (most of the times) american person feels they "share my experience" because they have a certain skin color and a funny sounding name. i'm sorry, you don't. i don't need to be lectured. i can advocate, learn and work for myself. i'm not weak enough as to need a bunch of pixels telling me i'm "valid". i know that. i've managed to get a degree and have a job all on my own. now, can you please take all that time you wasted on this idiocy to actually make a good game? that would be awesome if you ask me.

OR it's just the character being themselves, and people reading too much into it, jumping on a hate band wagon.

Again, you have no way of knowing that a gay character was written into the story BECAUSE they wanted a token gay guy.

And even IF they did not specifically have a specific gay background story or just a story about being gay or what it meant on some deep level with a social commentary on society etc., it shouldn't matter either way if they happen to be gay.

That's the whole point. It shouldn't matter. You don't have to force them to have a specific contribution to the storyline *because* of their sexual orientation. Just accept that they exist, and are normal.

I agree, they did just prove your point.
YES! I DID IT!

;)

Also, couldn't put your money where your mouth was, could ya? No example of your accusations against me? Please stop it with the slander then.

No, pandering is adding in some groups to a piece of media to appeal to them to get money from them and get them to support it.

[No, only if they add such things in(as said above) to make more money and appeal to people's identified group to make more money or gain good PR.

No, not necessarily...there have been many good examples of other groups added to media in ways that isn't pandering and is done well.

I like varied characters as well, but also don't mind playing white guys(or women)....as long as the story is good.

The problem is that too many times(as said above) they add it in because(or seemingly because) they want to make more money by appealing to said groups and tugging at their sense of identity(racial/etc).

Heck Trek has done it better(adding such groups in) over the decades...so i'm not saying it cannot be done, just that nowadays it seems to be used more and more to make a quick buck

No, a warning if they add such or something else to push their own ideologies only....and I was just musing about it...other ideas could also work.

Interesting info to know...thanks for adding this.

It depends on context...like how it's added in and why they added it....it's not virtue signaling in all cases, of course.
===============================

This seems to me to be cherry picking and cognitive dissonance to maintain your own world view.

(i.e. you seem to be afraid to contemplate if ideas you disagree with might be right...you just toss them into the rubbish bin)

Most accept that already.

Not slander, and I could bring up examples......I just don't see the point given how you reply to me and others you disagree with.

Imo it's likely pointless arguing with one such as yourself.....who seems closed to opposing POV and seems to like insulting people and putting words in their mouths while only replying to the bits of their posts that make you look good and others not as good.

In other words, you act like a *censored* & aren't worth a serious reply unless one agrees with your POV.....whether you don't see it or do and don't care is still up for debate, though.