Mastermind Pet: Clones and/or female minions

[Steampunkette]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

Oh look, more strawmen.  Try arguing against the actual points I made.

What -are- the actual points you made? Please put them in a numbered chart because if I'm not hitting them I'm not understanding them.

 

Here's what -I- got from your post:

 

1) Codifying laws and/or rules to protect minorities increases the divide between them and everyone else.

-Right Wing Catchphrase meant to shift the onus of the divide onto the people who are trying to protect the marginalized group.

 

2) Our justice system is adversarial.

-Completely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're trying to say that the Gay/Trans Panic defense SHOULD be allowed in which case this conversation is over.

 

3) Same as number 1, stated differently.

-Tried to explain the difference between Equality and Equity, 'cause you still don't seem to understand that 'treating everyone fairly' only works after the systemic barriers have been removed.

[Steampunkette]

17 minutes ago, EyeLuvBooks said:

According to Morgan Freeman, a very intelligent black man, that's exactly how we deal with it. No offense but I'm not going to take a white person's advice on a black matter over a black man's any more than you should take my advice on a Trans matter because I'm not Trans. No matter how I grew up, what I've seen or what I may think I know, I can't possibly fully understand what it means to be trans. Unless you were born black, I don't think you need to be talking about what will and will not work with racism.

Jesus Christ, really?

 

Did you just honestly "I have a black friend who disagrees" with Morgan Goddamned Freeman?

 

Allow me to direct you towards the massive fucking swaths of black people who disagree with him. Everyone from Black Lives Matter through the NAACP.

 

But the fact is I'm not trying to champion black rights as a white woman. I'm trying to draw parallels to how the majority treats the minority by using a Parable from my own life experiences. From when I was an unintentionally racist little shit who didn't know she was racist.

 

That's not to say I was a little 'Junior KKK' Member or some shit. I never ascribed to White Supremacist ideals (Though my brother did and my sister drops N-Bombs to this day). Just that I grew up in a racist fucking society and it's taken me decades to unlearn what I've managed to unlearn.

 

Still got a ways to go, though.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Steampunkette

[biostem]

6 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

What -are- the actual points you made? Please put them in a numbered chart because if I'm not hitting them I'm not understanding them.

 

Here's what -I- got from your post:

 

1) Codifying laws and/or rules to protect minorities increases the divide between them and everyone else.

-Right Wing Catchphrase meant to shift the onus of the divide onto the people who are trying to protect the marginalized group.

 

2) Our justice system is adversarial.

-Completely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're trying to say that the Gay/Trans Panic defense SHOULD be allowed in which case this conversation is over.

 

3) Same as number 1, stated differently.

-Tried to explain the difference between Equality and Equity, 'cause you still don't seem to understand that 'treating everyone fairly' only works after the systemic barriers have been removed.

You just can't avoid mischaracterizing people you don't agree with, can you?  Let me spell it out very simply:

 

1. Everyone should be treated the same and as equals.  This means legally and in most social settings, (I say "most" here, because, for instance, if two people were talking, and one started randomly cursing or threatening violence, then obviously how that other person is treated will have to/should change.  Or a child should not necessarily be entitled to the same level of autonomy as an adult).

 

2. I made this point because defense attorneys likely use the "Gay Panic" defense as a way to get charges against their client dropped/reduced.  I agree that it is extremely distasteful and should be done away with.

 

3. As I have already said multiple times - I acknowledge that people were historically, and still are in many circumstances, treated unfairly.  My point of contention is that creating new laws and policies to treat even more people unfairly is not the way to bring about some ultimate equality among everyone.  How is making a law that you cannot discriminate based upon race, gender (identity), religion, etc, not sufficient?  What sort of "special protection" law wouldn't be encompassed by the former one?

[biostem]

36 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

Right Wing Catchphrase meant to shift the onus of the divide onto the people who are trying to protect the marginalized group.

This sounds very conspiratorial to me.  Do you think the different laws for black & whites during Jim Crow served to bring the two groups together, or to separate them?  Let's say a law was passed, which prohibited police from stopping and questioning anyone identifying themselves as LGBTQ+.  Do you think that would endear said group with the greater populace, or serve to drive a wedge between them?  Wouldn't a more general "police must provide a very strong & demonstrable case for stopping *anyone*, and may not do so solely based upon any race/gender/sexuality/manner of dress/etc", be better?

Edited September 14, 2019 by biostem

[GM Sijin]

Mind the political tangent. While there is certainly some of that to consider that remain on topic the discourse is straying further and further from direct relevance to the intended discussion and may actively discourage additional participants. I encourage that if you do wish to continue the tangent to do so in a more appropriate venue.

[WumpusRat]

I want female henchmen. I've wanted to make a Knives of Artemis mastermind ever since CoV went live.

 

Will some people abuse their female henchmen? Sure. Do some people already abuse their male henchmen? Yes.

 

Should the fear that "someone might do something wrong with this thing" stop it from being implemented? Hell no.

[Steampunkette]

Just now, biostem said:

You just can't avoid mischaracterizing people you don't agree with, can you?  Let me spell it out very simply:

 

1. Everyone should be treated the same and as equals.  This means legally and in most social settings, (I say "most" here, because, for instance, if two people were talking, and one started randomly cursing or threatening violence, then obviously how that other person is treated will have to/should change.  Or a child should not necessarily be entitled to the same level of autonomy as an adult).

1) Cool Beans! I'd love that! But we're not there, yet. We're nowhere -near- that point. There's all kinds of Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, and shit codified into our society.

 

You mentioned Jim Crow Laws. Let's bounce on that. Jim Crow Laws were put into place to enslave Black People. See, the 13th Amendment freed the slaves except those who are incarcerated. So white folks passed a -bunch- of new laws to affect primarily Black Folks so they could enslave them, again. So no. I don't think they brought people together. I think they were laws specifically designed to maintain economic and social superiority of white people over black people.

 

But a Voter ID Law is an 'Equal' law, in that it applies to everyone equally, that affects black people more than 3 times as much as white people: https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access See, Generational Wealth for black folks is kind of fucked and has been for a LONG time because of stuff like Jim Crow Laws, so a large number of black people can't afford a car for themselves to drive over to the DMV to renew their Voter ID. Equal Law, inequal impact.

 

23 minutes ago, biostem said:

2. I made this point because defense attorneys likely use the "Gay Panic" defense as a way to get charges against their client dropped/reduced.  I agree that it is extremely distasteful and should be done away with.

2) But that would require Rules and Laws that explicitly benefit Gay and Trans people but -NOT- Straight or Cisgender people. Which is what you're railing against, here. These rules would 'Widen the Divide', wouldn't they? Or is it just that you agree with them and thus don't find them objectionable as a result?

 

25 minutes ago, biostem said:

3. As I have already said multiple times - I acknowledge that people were historically, and still are in many circumstances, treated unfairly.  My point of contention is that creating new laws and policies to treat even more people unfairly is not the way to bring about some ultimate equality among everyone.  How is making a law that you cannot discriminate based upon race, gender (identity), religion, etc, not sufficient?  What sort of "special protection" law wouldn't be encompassed by the former one?

3) Discriminate in what way? That's where the problem is. Did you know that there are federal laws against housing discrimination on the basis of Gender and Race... but not on Sexuality or Gender Identity, so Gay People and Trans People can be denied housing legally in many places. There's laws against Discrimination in Schooling... but not for Sexuality or Gender Identity. And laws against Discrimination in the workplace... but not for Sexuality or Gender Identity. And there's some places, like Wisconsin, that are 'Right to Work' states. They allow Employers to fire people with -NO- reason given. So even if you are fired for being Black or a Woman you're shit out of luck.

 

And, I mean, you'd think 'Gender Identity' would fall under Sex and Sexuality wouldn't even be something someone should -consider- when it comes to housing or employment... But the anti-discrimination laws have to be expanded every once in a while because people find new ways to marginalize people.

 

14 minutes ago, biostem said:

This sounds very conspiratorial to me.  Do you think the different laws for black & whites during Jim Crow served to bring the two groups together, or to separate them?  Let's say a law was passed, which prohibited police from stopping and questioning anyone identifying themselves as LGBTQ+?  Do you think that would endear said group with the greater populace, or serve to drive a wedge between them?  Wouldn't a more general "police must provide a very strong & demonstrable case for stopping *anyone*, and may not do so solely based upon any race/gender/sexuality/manner of dress/etc", be better?

The first law is designed to be dumb. It ostensibly gives LGBTQ+ people license to be criminals because the cops can't stop them. "FREEZE! Drop the gun!" "Oh, officer! I'm Gaaaaay!" "Right. Well. On your way, Ma'am, sorry for disturbing you."

 

The second law is great! But here's a question for you: Do you earnestly think White People get stopped by cops -because- they're White? Or are you just favoring an 'All Encompassing Description' of a law that will only actually protect minorities?

 

I think that's what the big thrust is, here... You seem to not like the idea of EXPLICITLY protecting minorities, but IMPLICITLY doing it is okay, so long as it doesn't smell like it's going to protect minorities. 

 

If you wanna continue this discussion, please send me a PM. This is my last post in this thread on the matter.

[biostem]

3 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

 

But a Voter ID Law is an 'Equal' law, in that it applies to everyone equally, that affects black people more than 3 times as much as white people: https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access 

Except that what you really should be measuring is how difficult it is in getting a state or other official ID, not who or doesn't have a car.  If you can walk or hop on a bus/subway to get an official ID that would meet the requirements of a voter ID law, then you're covered.

 

5 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

2) But that would require Rules and Laws that explicitly benefit Gay and Trans people but -NOT- Straight or Cisgender people. Which is what you're railing against, here. These rules would 'Widen the Divide', wouldn't they? Or is it just that you agree with them and thus don't find them objectionable as a result?

No it wouldn't;  You pass a law that you cannot claim some sort of distress or psychological trauma as an excuse if a person you engaged with relationally/sexually didn't turn out to be of the sex or gender that you thought they were.

 

7 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

The second law is great! But here's a question for you: Do you earnestly think White People get stopped by cops -because- they're White? Or are you just favoring an 'All Encompassing Description' of a law that will only actually protect minorities?

Do you think that every person that is stopped, who happens to be of a minority group, is questioned merely because they are of that group?  Is it not possible for such people to be stopped because of other actions/characteristics/etc?

 

10 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

I think that's what the big thrust is, here... You seem to not like the idea of EXPLICITLY protecting minorities, but IMPLICITLY doing it is okay, so long as it doesn't smell like it's going to protect minorities.

Then you would be wrong.  Attribute to me and my motives whatever you like, but your track record is .000 so far.

[Galaxy Brain]

Wasn't this thread about summoning minions that look different in a vidya game?

[Steampunkette]

3 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Wasn't this thread about summoning minions that look different in a vidya game?

All of life is political. *shrugs!* The choices we make are based on out experiences and the society we are brought up in.

 

We could make female MM pets, but need to be aware of the impact doing so is going to have when someone does something terrible with that very simple power. Doesn't even have to be many people, really. Just a few.

 

Each of those people has to be reported when their offensive actions have already occurred, rippling out to everyone who sees them/interacts with them. But will it even get reported? Our society is very lax when it comes to the mistreatment of women, and most people would rather personally look away than step forward to enact positive change (Otherwise most of society's social ills would have been dealt with generations ago).

 

Like... I get why people think it's not a big deal? Even 'if' something bad happens it's not like someone got shot. It's just a drop in a bucket of frustration and annoyance for women. The problem is that it's -always- just a drop in a bucket.

 

That's how buckets get filled.

 

Thankfully, I've outlined the more impressive and immediate problem a few times, now, as to why this shouldn't happen. So even with people who want it bad enough to keep filling buckets it's probably not going to happen for at least a very long while.

 

*cue immediate announcement in the Beta forum of updated Patchnotes for 9/14 adding new Female MM Pet Set*

[Zepp]

Finally caught up on all the posts in this thread. I understand Steampunkette's concerns. I'm still not sure what sort of arguments y'all thought you were making against her, they did not seem to be all that cogent. Because inequality and toxic masculinity are so common, it is important to note that there is a great deal of need for approaching this topic reasonably and honestly. I think that the issue of whether it ought to be done is more important than the question of whether it could be done (it is not a degeneration of the discussion, but an escalation). I also think that if one were to undertake the effort of implementing this, they ought to begin with Illusion Control as it involves less work, is much more difficult to abuse, and could demonstrate whether the online CoH community is mature enough to handle it. Again, if this is implemented, it needs to be implemented with a great deal of caution and consideration.

[Steampunkette]

Thank you, @Zepp!

[Galaxy Brain]

Doesn't illusion control already make female phantoms?

 

Another thing with the clone pets that could be concerning, if you have a costume slot that is female, then after summoning you change costumes to a male is that not the same problem?

[Steampunkette]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Doesn't illusion control already make female phantoms?

 

Another thing with the clone pets that could be concerning, if you have a costume slot that is female, then after summoning you change costumes to a male is that not the same problem?

Illusion does have female pets, yes. But they're short-lived, are randomized, and are as featureless as the guys. It's possible to be a complete shit as an illusion controller... but really -really- hard.

 

Making a female pet set would make it a whole hell of a lot easier.

 

As to the Clone thing: Ostensibly yeah. You could use a costume slot to have a female costume and make all your clone pets women, then swap over to the McPimpin suit or whatever you liked.

 

 

[Bossk_Hogg]

5 hours ago, Zepp said:

Finally caught up on all the posts in this thread. I understand Steampunkette's concerns. I'm still not sure what sort of arguments y'all thought you were making against her, they did not seem to be all that cogent. Because inequality and toxic masculinity are so common, it is important to note that there is a great deal of need for approaching this topic reasonably and honestly. I think that the issue of whether it ought to be done is more important than the question of whether it could be done (it is not a degeneration of the discussion, but an escalation). I also think that if one were to undertake the effort of implementing this, they ought to begin with Illusion Control as it involves less work, is much more difficult to abuse, and could demonstrate whether the online CoH community is mature enough to handle it. Again, if this is implemented, it needs to be implemented with a great deal of caution and consideration.

Then we better get rid of all models but white dudes. Because someone, somewhere is going to do something inappropriate with them. 

 

Or we can trust what has historically been a very good community, to the point where COH had sponsored LGBTQ events on live, to stamp out bad actors. That someone may be triggered by someone using a threaten emote on a female pc/npc/minion isnt a good reason to ban emotes or female characters. Or have their body issues come up with the idealized body types we're forced to play.

 

Like I said, I can respect people's life experiences, and still think it is a poor reason to ban basic creative tools from the community.  

[Steampunkette]

Appeal to ridicule, Slippery slope.

 

Not adding something 'cause it would be used badly is so incredibly different than 'Banning Creative Tools' or removing content from the game.

[Bossk_Hogg]

2 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

Appeal to ridicule, Slippery slope.

 

Not adding something 'cause it would be used badly is so incredibly different than 'Banning Creative Tools' or removing content from the game.

Pearl clutching fear mongering that someone would do something to offend you.  You apparently don't want the potential for anything bad to happen to a female avatar in your presence.

 

We can both play that game if you want. 

[Galaxy Brain]

This is tricky.

 

On the one hand, as Steampunkette points out it may be more likely for people to do douchey stuff if there were female minions than with male / unknown gender minions. There will inevitably be someone who does goofy stuff with these minions whether it be sexist, or just odd with the clone or further custom ability.

 

On the other hand, it would be really nice to have more options to fulfill a lot of player creativity. On top of this, while it's sort of a strawman... there already exists ways to report and control people who do bad things in game, and there are already methods to do such bad things using existing customization.

 

 

[Steampunkette]

45 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

Pearl clutching fear mongering that someone would do something to offend you.  You apparently don't want the potential for anything bad to happen to a female avatar in your presence.

 

We can both play that game if you want. 

And now Ad Hominem.

 

I was pointing out that rather than present an actual argument you used logical fallacies in a sweeping gesture to dismiss the argument. Kinda like that, frankly sexist, Ad Hominem about pearl clutching.

 

We're not playing the same game, Bossk. If we were there'd be a thermal detonator waiting for you. 😉 

[Zepp]

Bossk_Hogg, try to be cautious that your lack of sensitivity and rationality in your comments don't make Steampunkette's case stronger...

[Bossk_Hogg]

Just now, Steampunkette said:

And now Ad Hominem.

 

I was pointing out that rather than present an actual argument you used logical fallacies in a sweeping gesture to dismiss the argument. Kinda like that, frankly sexist, Ad Hominem about pearl clutching.

 

We're not playing the same game, Bossk. If we were there'd be a thermal detonator waiting for you. 😉 

Just because you continue to shout out logical fallacies doesn't make them so. Seriously, by your logic they never should have added POC pets because someone could be racist with them. Do you have a counter argument?

Or is it just "no new tools until the world is perfect and everywhere is a safe space"? 

[Zepp]

1 hour ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

Then we better get rid of all models but white dudes. Because someone, somewhere is going to do something inappropriate with them.

With the lack of nooses and burning crosses, it is a tad more difficult to demonstrate clear racial violence than it is to demonstrate clear gender violence.

[Bossk_Hogg]

4 minutes ago, Zepp said:

With the lack of nooses and burning crosses, it is a tad more difficult to demonstrate clear racial violence than it is to demonstrate clear gender violence.

We are talking about playing a game where our characters routinely beat up male and female enemies. If the threaten emote, which I'm not even really sure how you would notice in routine play, is how low the bar is, then I don't know what to say. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Bossk_Hogg

[Steampunkette]

10 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

Just because you continue to shout out logical fallacies doesn't make them so. Seriously, by your logic they never should have added POC pets because someone could be racist with them. Do you have a counter argument?

Or is it just "no new tools until the world is perfect and everywhere is a safe space"? 

Again, appeal to ridiculousness, Strawman argument, and both combined with a slippery slope and followed up with an Ad Hominem for the combo.

 

You keep attacking me and my motivations instead of my positions, Bossk. Why is that?

Edited September 14, 2019 by Steampunkette

[William Valence]

Good lord, all I asked is why you thought the system was set up in a way where the AI and models were somehow "Baked" into a henchman, and therefore things couldn't be redirected.

 

I regret bumping this nonsense, it may be time to have a mod shotgun blast this.