Hacker News Reader

Comment by xalava | Hacker News Reader

The most relevant point of this article is not about historical accuracy, but on the contradiction of claiming cultural sensitivity by including gender and origin diversity while totally missing the point on deeper issues.

I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity. With proper education anyone can compensate and treat them as pure simplistic fiction, but I do think that those new debates, if nuanced and not reduced to representation, could bring quality to pop culture items.

Particularly in the video game industry, and this company, that have proven to have flawed IRL corporate cultures.

View on HN

> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity.

I don't think such a period ever existed. Hollywood had the Hays code, comics had the comic code etc. Popular culture always have to navigate the hangups and sensitivities of society.

It is possible that these concerns were invisible to you because they corresponded to your own values. When they change because society changes, you suddenly notice them.

It is a valid point that there has always been cultural codes and that I'm probably more sensitive to changes that I've seen in my lifetime. And thanks for pointing Hays code. I've dug into some history of censorship and morality in US cinema.

However, by cultural sensitivity I refer to something beyond codes. Nothing that this article points out is particularly illegal, immoral or even shocking. Yet, probably due to cultural globalisation, social media, and the polarisation of the debate in the US on certain social issue, I am under the impression that this kind of clumsiness is more likely to be noticed.

> I don't think such a period ever existed.

Probably not in the US, no. Then again, the world is comprised of many other locations and cultures. Even in the West, I'd say mainly predominantly protestant countries (among which the anglosphere as a whole) tend towards political correctness.

Where did this exist outside of the US? I'm a Chinese person and you can see all the way in our long and well-documented history that literature has always expressed notions of class, culture, gender roles, and clearly knew what audience it was being distributed to and considered appropriately. The language of scholarly text expected to only be read by other scholars vs the scholarly text expected to be disseminated widely are very different.

"Political correctness" is just what you call it when you notice it. You probably don't think of it as political correctness when there are no black cowboys, but that is just political correctness of another time.

A lack of representation isn't the same as political correctness in my book. Political correctness to me is the cultural elite's group-think, mainly in terms of moral judgements. Nothing about that group-think says it's taboo to have black cowboys, per se.

It sounds like you're using it more like a Zeitgeist?

I was referring to how political correctness changes over time. The Hays code was the political correctness of its time. Western movies with only white cowboys were political correct in their time. It is just the term "political correctness" that is new, not the concept.

You can call it "group-think" or you can call it "cultural values".

I was responding to the suggestion that there was a time and place without "political correctness". I dispute that. Every time and place have some ideas of what is and isn't morally acceptable. But if you are born into it, it may be invisible. The majority of the audience at the time did not wonder why there were so few black cowboys in movies. But they noticed it when more black cowboys started to appear.

> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity.

Same, and as unpopular it may be, i firmly believe it's kind of better to not care. Because the opposite is precisely what happens here, which is caring only about a specific set of 'aspects' that are currently fashionable in the society, while failing to cover for the large majority of inequalities that are not "visible".

It's the exact same than positive discrimination, you end up only caring about women or color people in the name of "equal opportunity" and no one care anymore about economic inequalities that are largely the main factor of inequality at birth. In the end it's still the same rich people from the same parents but they just look more diverse, and no one care of young people from trailer parks & getthos.

I don't blame prejudiced people fighting agaisnt their prejudices tho, imo it's more a consequence lazy politics and politician trying to get votes instead of taking on more complex and deeper problems.

Quoting the article:

>Does all of that matter? Yes, I think it does. As I have argued here many times, fiction is often how the public conceptualizes the past and that concept of the past shapes the decisions we make in the present. Is one video game going to lead to a return to colonialist thinking? Of course not. But a culture in which such sanitized narratives are common is a culture far more willing to make those decisions; these stories matter in the aggregate. And so it is incumbent on designers and developers to construct their stories and their worlds with care, especially when they are set in the very real past.

>> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity.

>Same, and as unpopular it may be, i firmly believe it's kind of better to not care.

As a white dude, I've found that "not caring about it" means "only white male characters are allowed"

I've noticed that folks who "don't care about it" actually care A LARGE AMOUNT, A VERY VERY LARGE AMOUNT, when a non-male or non-white protagonist is the only option. And heaven forbid we not let you play a straight character...

Just saying, in my experience, "don't care about it" is literally identical to "marginalize everyone but me", as that's our history.

> when a non-male or non-white protagonist is the only option

There’s a difference between a racist or sexist reaction (anger about a character’s race or sex) and anger that the studio picked the character’s race or sex as a nod to their own identity politics (or perhaps kowtowing to the broader identity politics that are so fashionable these days). It’s the same difference between racism and equality. It’s hard to tell from your comment whether you object to the racist reaction or the egalitarian reaction or both, but at least in my opinion the racist reaction is very uncommon.

> Just saying, in my experience, "don't care about it" is literally identical to "marginalize everyone but me", as that's our history.

That’s not our history though; our history was literally “marginalize blacks, women, native americans, italians, irish, eastern europeans, asians, etc”. We have made remarkable progress toward equality, and that’s due to egalitarianism—teaching people that superficial characteristics oughtn’t matter—not merely a different identity hierarchy. “Not caring about it” is precisely the key innovation and the catalyst for so much progress.

As another white dude, I call BS. The world has changed. Even in the backwards semi-rural area where I live there is enough diversity to beat it into my head that "people are just people". Let alone connecting to the internet, where you have no idea what another commenter looks like. So, it boggles my mind that people still care about this so much. It's self evident to me that people need to be treated based on what they do or say and not oddities of their genetic structures. I tend to think that if people stopped pointing out those differences, the problem would eventually grow much smaller. Some people are always going to not like each other for trivial reasons at some level, but why point out such differences to them?

Its not really true.. 99% people will not care if you play a black guy or woman.

People made the same argument about women representation in video games but hey have you heard of "tomb raider" ?

There's other: "Urban chaos" with a black female, some character of unreal tournament were poc...

Most people dont care and when they do they find diversity cool. The point is that as a political fight its useless and may actually be on the side of harmful for society.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted because you have a point. Remember the controversy that ensued when a black girl was cast as Rue in the Hunger Games movie?

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/white-until-prov...

But controversy on the internet doesnt represent any reality. Like at ALL.

Get off the internet forums

That sexuality of a character in a game is even known is problematic; this implies the sexuality is being acted on. I wish developers would stop exploiting the four Fs to induce us to buy, and sadly my minimal consumption of video games is only a splash against the tide.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a video game character being gay, straight, or otherwise. for the most part, I do think video game romances are incredibly poorly done. I have not yet played a game where the romantic/sexual tension was not intensely cringey. we are still deep in the uncanny valley here. usually it's a fully optional side arc (eg, mass effect), so I can't say it's much of a problem in practice.

Baldur's Gate 2 ? Though not having fully animated 3D models (so you have to imagine it) probably helped a lot !

Some (many/most?) rp-games do not fix sexuality, allowing to choose any option available at playtime. The earliest that I remember is fallout 2 where you can play both guy and girl and marry/engage with both.

But it's unclear why you see that "sexuality being acted on" is problematic. It depends and is very situational, imo.

It also undermined the ideal of people being treated fairly. Some HR departments currently fail to uphold these basic tenets in my opinion.

I am aware that ideals aren't enough for policies. Example is accessibility. Everyone who hasn't a bad day right now is for it, but can you make sure you always hold up to your own expectations? Probably not, so there is a need for mechanisms that ensure that.

But the impetus to "positively" discriminate in HR actually stems from a feeling of superiority that isn't warranted at all. And it is also lacking elegance and understanding and I don't even have high expectations. I just don't work with them.

Sorry, but you're just not looking for it. I'm personally a part of many social circles that talk about discrimination and diversity from Marxist lenses and it seems to be exactly what you're talking about. The people tweeting about More Female CEOs might be the majority in the US but fortunately they're far from the only group that talks about these issues.

I’m the opposite of a Marxist but they get class critique correct as the major difference between people. A privileged white male who went to private school and the Ivy League has tons in common with a privileged black woman who went to private school and the Ivy League than he does to a poor white man in a rural area. Celebrating success based on identity means a lot less through the class prism.

I personally don't think it means less, it just leads to different conclusions. While I still see class as the predominant factor, I still believe everyone would benefit from seeing "different" people in more spaces, regardless of class. For example, a rich black man still has things to add that a white man doesn't, for example, simply because of how being black influenced their own experiences which in turn mold the person they are now.

So someone black is just different enough to admitted to these spaces, but someone poor isn't?

Economic apartheid isn't just endemic in the US, it's a core value and seen as a positive thing.

And gender/race identity politics are not a serious threat to it.

Because it means corporations can carry on being corporations as long as they have a couple of privileged middle class women in the boardroom.

It's an improvement of sorts, but only in a very limited way. Time and time again in the US we've seen this does nothing to alter the predatory values that make corporations so toxic.

Ultimately it's not about tribal identity at all. It isn't even about class.

It's about values. Is your culture driven by generosity, maturity, open-mindedness, and curiosity, or is it motivated by greed, narcissism, selfishness, competitive snobbery, and naive tribal identification which is relentlessly hostile to out groups?

Identity politics without value politics is a superficial band-aid which can't fix the political and economic hemorrhaging caused by the unaddressed underlying condition.

> So someone black is just different enough to admitted to these spaces, but someone poor isn't?

Yes they are. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing against that, but to be clear I'm advocating for "identity politics" complimenting the class struggle, not the two being mutually exclusive.

> I've grown up in a period when pop culture didn't care much about cultural sensitivity.

I wonder when that was, cause pop culture has always cared about that in one way or another. I believe you are projecting.

> The most relevant point of this article is not about historical accuracy, but on the contradiction of claiming cultural sensitivity by including gender and origin diversity while totally missing the point on deeper issues.

I can't summarize this fantastic write-up, but either way, here goes...

The author goes to great lengths about how in said game the Scandinavian culture is only shown in a positive light (with the bad such as slavery and rites being avoided), whereas the Christian religion is deliberately put into a bad light. That is what the article is mainly about. Example: Christianity is shown as intolerant and hegemonic, Scandinavian the intolerance and hegemony is avoided at all costs. Slavery? Pillaging? Apparently non-existent; instead the Scandinavians colonized Saxon ground, and never took slaves, never raped women, never pillaged or set anything a-fire. Furthermore, Norse culture was very patriarchal, this game shows nothing of that either.

The gender/origin issue is minor in comparison, both in coverage as well as in how relevant the author finds it. Gender a subset of the lack of showing the patriarchy in Scandinavian culture. Origin is a bit odd, as the trade route with North-Africa is more accessible than the one to Eastern Europe and Asia whereas the races shown do not reflect this. It is you who finds the gender/origin issue 'the most relevant'; not the author, nor did the author ever imply such.

A fantasy world can be based on real history as we know it (consider, for example, the Nordic theme in World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, or the Norsca and Warriors of Chaos in Total War: Warhammer II). If it is then inaccurate, we're OK with that, we see it as artistic freedom. This game tries to base itself directly on history. Big difference!

The author also literally claims the following:

> [...] And to be clear, that is not empowering feminism so much as virtue viewed from a society (like the Romans) which blithely assumed that men were better; it is misogyny masquerading as empowerment. And of course the game indulges in this too, as noted above.

The author does not, at all, appear to agree with your take on the matter.

The author's final chapter is titled: "Conclusion: A Love Letter to Colonialism" which again isn't your take on the matter.

As a side note, what I find funny, is that in a certain music genre, Scandinavian culture is idolized as well: metal music. Certain metal bands, such as for example Amon Amarth, exercise this practice. Coincidentally, the music is also going against the Christian religious dominance. I believe the game is made with such 'counter-culture' in mind; as the deeply religious Christians would not opt to play a Scandinavian religious person. I admit, pure speculation from my side.

> I wonder when that was, cause pop culture has always cared about that in one way or another. I believe you are projecting.

I see people pining for this forgotten past time a lot, and it makes me realize that none of them remember or think the same way of things like the satanic panic, moral majority, etc, let alone remember the times when people got offended over the mere suggestion of an interracial couple or a woman who didn't want to be a housewife. Oh the scandals that would occur if basically any program run today were to be broadcast then. They don't remember the Television Code or the CCA, nor did they grow up on a diet of classic Hays-code era films, dripping in extreme sensitivity.

I think that the complaint is that the goalposts have moved when they should have expanded (isn't creating a broader range of what's acceptable the point of "diversity" and similar goals?).

In those days you couldn't have (on your professionally produced, mainstream, mass market TV show) a woman who didn't want to be a housewife as a main character on your show unless that was portrayed negatively or being used for comedy. These days you can't have a woman who wants to be a housewife as a main character on your show unless that's being portrayed negatively or being poked fun at.

Por qué no los todos?

> These days you can't have a woman who wants to be a housewife on your show unless that's being portrayed negatively or being poked fun at.

Is that really true though? If you mean that you can't have a houswife as a character on your show that very obviously isn't true. If you mean you can't make a show where a character aspires to be a housewife, I'm not sure I understand what the narrative purpose of such a story would be. Becoming a housewife isn't really an aspirational achievement in the way having a prestigious career is, and I don't think it's a story many are really interested in, nor one that would be easy to tell in a manner that doesn't seem forced. There is certainly a lot of media (both in the past and today) where a woman aspires to romance or marry someone, and domestic fantasy is a common element in those, but that isn't really specific to becoming a housewife, and the romance is the key aspiration in those.

It also doesn't help that maintaining a family on a single income is not economically viable for most people anymore. People want stories that relate to their own fantasies.

> If you mean you can't make a show where a character aspires to be a housewife, I'm not sure I understand what the narrative purpose of such a story would be. Becoming a housewife isn't really an aspirational achievement in the way having a prestigious career is, and I don't think it's a story many are really interested in, nor one that would be easy to tell in a manner that doesn't seem forced.

This is not a true statement for many folks out there, and there are plenty of people who can relate to stories of being in the home. I think the best answer is broadening the things that are acceptable to aspire to, not opening one door while simultaneously locking another.

Lots of people relate to stories about domesticity, and about being a housewife, but the actual process of becoming one fundamentally doesn't centre aspiring to be one. The work one puts into becoming a housewife isn't about working to become a housewife, it's about finding a spouse. There is a massive amount of media depicting romance, including domestic fantasies, it just isn't targeted at the same audience as many here fall under. A lot of these stories even involve said person not knowing what they want to become and choosing a domestic life out of passion for the romantic interest.

Becoming a housewife isn't really an aspirational achievement in the way having a prestigious career is, and I don't think it's a story many are really interested in, nor one that would be easy to tell in a manner that doesn't seem forced.

That is actually the premise of the ABC show "American Housewife" which has run for at least 5 seasons (the main character is a housewife, and does not aspire to be anything more than the best housewife she can be, because she sees it as just as fulfilling than--or even more fulfilling as-- being employed in the workforce.)

Housewife characters are uncommon, and they tend to be portrayed as vapid, boring, incompetent or else otherwise their occupation is the butt of the joke (e.g., “Claire” in Modern Family who is as intelligent as any of the characters but is a low key alcoholic and eventually breaks free of her housewife occupation to become an executive at her father’s company).

I think this is more a case of only noticing them as housewives when it gets called to your attention. Neutral/warm depictions of housewives are incredibly common but don't grab your attention because of how ordinary they are. It doesn't exactly stand out in most people's minds when they see a caring mother figure or a loving spouse.

If you want a return to the sanitary, saccharine dom coms of the sort the Simpsons was originally a parody of, I have to vehemently disagree that there is any real desire for that.

Housewives as main characters are featured in most of ABC's shows, including at one point all of their Wednesday comedy block alongside Modern Family. Similarly, Fox has had housewives as main characters on most of their animated sitcoms, and with rare exceptions their occupation is not treated as a joke. On NBC's most popular show (This is Us), the lead female character is a housewife.

I think it's because they grew up in a leftist community where its was cool to make fun of the groups going under moral panics. Most of the moral panics came from some sort of lower / middle income religious right.

Now the moral panics are in the upper income left, and they actively try to get you fired if you trangress and all of a sudden it feels a bit restrictive in that environment.

Also social media makes average people significantly more vulnerable. Drunk comments would stay drunk environments outside of work comments, now drunk FB comments on a public group can get you fired.

Respectfully, I think you got most of it right, but incorrect on a big nuance when you said: "A fantasy world can be based on real history as we know it (consider, for example, the Nordic theme in World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King, or the Norsca and Warriors of Chaos in Total War: Warhammer II). If it is then inaccurate, we're OK with that, we see it as artistic freedom. This game tries to base itself directly on history. Big difference!"

The author very explicitly states: "As I have argued here many times, fiction is often how the public conceptualizes the past and that concept of the past shapes the decisions we make in the present."

Through that lense, I would argue that "the Nordic theme in World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King" or "Norsca and Warriors of Chaos in Total War: Warhammer II", while inaccurate, will still heavily sway perceptions on them. The artistic licenses do shape how they are percieved to the player.

Indeed, even back in the day, the arc from Warcraft 1 to Warcraft 3 was noticeable.

In Warcraft 1 the humans were good Christian knights, healed by clerics, and the Orcs were evil devil-worshippers.

By Warcraft 3 the Orcs followed an aboriginal religion and the humans were setting up concentration camps.

Sounds like warcraft 3 became more realistic towards humans then. Not much can be said about orc as there's really nothing to reference it to.

Knowing a little bit about Chris Metzen and his history, horde stands for the outcasts of society.

> As a side note, what I find funny, is that in a certain music genre, Scandinavian culture is idolized as well: metal music. Certain metal bands, such as for example Amon Amarth, exercise this practice.

Oh yess : Norwegian Reggaeton : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0YXfeNxJJ0

> Coincidentally, the music is also going against the Christian religious dominance. I believe the game is made with such 'counter-culture' in mind; as the deeply religious Christians would not opt to play a Scandinavian religious person. I admit, pure speculation from my side.

So, Ubisoft should have maybe presented Christianism in this way ? : Valhalleluja : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9WWz95ripA

> I wonder when that was, cause pop culture has always cared about that in one way or another.

Maybe they've cared of their own white-western culture sensitive issues, but not much about anybody else's, especially not about foreign cultures perceived as less civilized...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com