You seem to have responded to being called out on missing the boat with a pile of insults and vile talk.

I'm sorry you're wrong.

Apparently, you are an awful person in real life, just when you think it won't have any repercussions.

People who are better looking do enjoy privilege from that. Why would you jump to the bizarre conclusion that men do NOT enjoy privilege because of this?

Money is a source of privilege, but it is important to understand that we have many forms of privilege in this world. If I am born rich, I get privilege from that. If am born white, I get privilege from that. These things do not cancel each other out. Being rich and black does not make you stop feeling the effects of race privilege. Being white and and a woman does not make you stop feeling the effects of gender privilege.

Privlege is not about whining. Privilege is about those who can simple presume that the world will work out for them in various ways, and especially when they do not even realize this is not so for others.

For example a rich black family cannot feel certain that their children will be exposed to positive examples of black people in their general school curriculum. A poor white family CAN be assured that their children will be exposed to positive examples of white people in their general school curriculum. That's an example of privilege.

Complaining is not what's going on. What's going on is that people are raising the bar, and saying that our interactions and our creations should be made in light of awareness that these issues do exist. They do not mean that we need to do penance, or feel guilt, or make a froth about our liberties being impugned. They mean, be aware, and act accordingly.

You should try it.

So when it's pointed out that someone is using a very tired excuse for privilege your counterargument is "you're telling me that I can't speak!".

This is also absurd.

Except in this case, the subject matter is inclusion along racial, gender, and orientation lines, and this was (projection) insisted that it's a removal of free speech / reduction of freedom.

Of course the REALITY is that this is a wake-up call for designers to consider issues of inclusion, so pretty much EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what is attempted to be claimed by our little knee-jerker.

So if you think that the response "you are knee-jerking by proxy defending a lack of inclusion" is somehow.. inaccurate. Well, it's not. That's what's happening.

I've worked for companies where doing the work involved lots of learning from coworkers. Those places were full of competence and excellence.

I've also worked for companies where doing the work involved no help and no learning. Those places were full of waste and idiocy.

If you want your company to be inefficient and shitty, by all means don't create a culture where people are being trained all the time.

You think that, but there's nothing legitimate about it. There's no foundation that makes any sense other than fear and hatred, and those are undeniably bad things to teach to children.

Observe the behavior of the modern homophobe. You see, he or she accepts that there are "lesbian catering developers", thus making the idea of inclusion somehow an abnormality, while pretending that he or she doesn't mind this abnormality. He or she can continue expressing that inclusion is perverse while attempting to maintain the illusion that he or she is not wallowing in privilege.

Well, the summary was misleading. The article was about the game content and design, not player behavior so much.

That said, the concerns here are not about racist, or misogynist games, but are about games that might have characters who are racist or misogynist. That this poster can't tell the difference suggests a problem.

http://birdofparadox.wordpress...

Would you like to try another form of well-worn denialism? There's a whole list to choose from!

To expand here. I've been mugged. The kids who did it certainly need help, and that help can't just be someone giving them some money or other soft response, but longterm incarceration won't do anyone any favors. It won't help them, it won't help me, it won't help our criminal system costs, and it won't make the neighborhood safer.

What they need is a system that requires them to accept responsibility for their actions and to make restitutions for them so they don't feel guilty for life. That's called restorative justice.

Well, the ORIGIN of the US prison system was around the idea of reform. You were giving people time away from society where they could be "penitent" about their actions, and via reflection, come to more clearly consider where they had gone wrong. It's where we got "penitentiary".

Obviously I agree this is not how things played out, and everyone should be well aware that modern prisons serve only two possible uses. 1 - removal from regular society 2 - punishment.

Personally I find 1 to be a legitimate thing for some classes of crime, while i feel that most forms of 2, punishment, don't work to reduce crime.

robbery?

"Theft of trade secret" is a thing.

It's kind of an odd concept. When you accept that exclusive ownership of something is a intellectual property thing, then someone who shares it while under a contract to not do so is depriving you of that exclusion. Your trade secret is no longer secret and your advantage is taken away from you.

This stuff stems from guild laws, like the secrets of making good parmigiano-reggiano or whatever that were supposed to be kept within the organization and were only shared with you if you agreed to abide by these terms.

Personally, it seems quite awkward to use the verb "theft" in this context, and I would not choose to do so, but it is established usage. Additionally, I find the whole protected trade secret concept sort of awkward, but I might not fully grasp what it is needed to protect in a modern context.