Are There Any LGBTQ Survivors In The Game Or Planning To Be
Comments
-
I am not the gay stereotype I act straight because that's the way I act. just because people say gay people can be noticed most of the time they don't because not every gay person acts like the gay stereotype. so if they added an LGBTQ+ person to the game or added it to someones out of game lore than it doesn't mean they have to change them it just means that it is added and that maybe one day they might come out with something that has the LGBTQ+ flag on it or something.
0 -
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logic
4 -
@Jack11803 said:
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logicwhat i was saying is that if they stated that one character was the only LGBTQ+ one or two of them were then the rest would be straight
0 -
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logicwhat i was saying is that if they stated that one character was the only LGBTQ+ one or two of them were then the rest would be straight
The Hell!? No! That’s called assuming. It’s makes an ASS(out of)U(and)ME.
2 -
@Jack11803 said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logicwhat i was saying is that if they stated that one character was the only LGBTQ+ one or two of them were then the rest would be straight
The Hell!? No! That’s called assuming. It’s makes an ASS(out of)U(and)ME.
again THEY WOULD SAY ONE OR TWO WERE LGBTQ+ AND THEN (sorry you have no brain) THE REST WOULD BE STRAIGHT (because they would of said so)
0 -
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logicwhat i was saying is that if they stated that one character was the only LGBTQ+ one or two of them were then the rest would be straight
The Hell!? No! That’s called assuming. It’s makes an ASS(out of)U(and)ME.
again THEY WOULD SAY ONE OR TWO WERE LGBTQ+ AND THEN (sorry you have no brain) THE REST WOULD BE STRAIGHT (because they would of said so)
This would limit famcreations, and fab imagination. Have you read or seen some of the fan art? People pair others or make stories for the characters, lots a times dwight is gay, etc. that would end it all. We dot need this because your flimsy mind lacks creativity. Less is more.
2 -
@Jack11803 said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logicwhat i was saying is that if they stated that one character was the only LGBTQ+ one or two of them were then the rest would be straight
The Hell!? No! That’s called assuming. It’s makes an ASS(out of)U(and)ME.
again THEY WOULD SAY ONE OR TWO WERE LGBTQ+ AND THEN (sorry you have no brain) THE REST WOULD BE STRAIGHT (because they would of said so)
This would limit famcreations, and fab imagination. Have you read or seen some of the fan art? People pair others or make stories for the characters, lots a times dwight is gay, etc. that would end it all. We dot need this because your flimsy mind lacks creativity. Less is more.
you know that many people are straight on television shows but does that stop the fanfiction? if they confirmed some of them as LGBTQ+ and the rest as straight it would not stop the fanfictions if anything their would be more
0 -
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logicwhat i was saying is that if they stated that one character was the only LGBTQ+ one or two of them were then the rest would be straight
The Hell!? No! That’s called assuming. It’s makes an ASS(out of)U(and)ME.
again THEY WOULD SAY ONE OR TWO WERE LGBTQ+ AND THEN (sorry you have no brain) THE REST WOULD BE STRAIGHT (because they would of said so)
This would limit famcreations, and fab imagination. Have you read or seen some of the fan art? People pair others or make stories for the characters, lots a times dwight is gay, etc. that would end it all. We dot need this because your flimsy mind lacks creativity. Less is more.
you know that many people are straight on television shows but does that stop the fanfiction? if they confirmed some of them as LGBTQ+ and the rest as straight it would not stop the fanfictions if anything their would be more
Congratulations!!! You yourself just said exactly why this is so pointless.
3 -
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logic> @Jack11803 said:
The point is, unless there is a character directly stated to be straight, there will be none directly stated as homosexual. If not a single character is marked as specifically not transgender, there will be no indication of a transgender. It’s basic equality of logic
Here, we have further evidence that my earlier frustration about the goal posts being moved is justified. After being clearly directed to page eight where your points were brought up and addressed, you denied they were there and then repeated more previously addressed points. After being called out, you refused to have any sort of courage in the form of a concession but dropped everything to shift to a completely different hoop for me to jump through.
I am not playing this game. Whack-a-mole time is over.
Post edited by Wahara on0 -
For all you know, some of the survivors are gay. Why are specific labels necessary for you? If you want to see the character as homosexual, go ahead. There's no reason you shouldn't unless you assume that they're straight. If you do, that's a you issue because, judging by the fanart, a lot of people don't have trouble viewing some of the characters as gay. Yes, a lot of characters in main stream entertainment are straight, That doesn't automatically make the characters in DBD heterosexual. As for comparing it to race and gender, there's the massive difference of visuals. You don't have to read Claudette's backstory to see that she's black or female. It's incredibly obvious. Sexuality isn't something you can show visually without using stereotypes and I doubt that would be acceptable.
2 -
Everything you just discussed was addressed literally one ######### page ago.
Please show yourself out.
0 -
@Wahara said:
Everything you just discussed was addressed literally one [BAD WORD] page ago.Please show yourself out.
No thanks. This is a public forum and I'll comment on your post if I want.
5 -
Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.
You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
0 -
I just wanted to again state for people like @ShrimpTwiggs that this question if asked would be addressed in a Q&A or other Dead By Daylight Stream and that it would not affect the gameplay but only the lore in the dead by daylight wiki and as common knowledge that x survivor or survivors x was LGBTQ+ (whether it be gay or trans or anything else which is NOT always noticeable) and the rest are considered straight. there, could be would not be needed, info added to the in-game tab of their info. maybe if this happened they could add a cosmetic that would show a small LGBTQ+ flag or something of the sort.
1 -
@TheLegendDyl4n1 You can simply reask it in the mnxt Q&A but don't get upset or post conspiracy theories just because your question isn't chosen. There's tons of other people who've done the same thing when their questions weren't chosen even going so far as to harass the devs on stream.
3 -
@Wahara said:
Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
You're going to ask me to "show myself out" on a public forum and claim that I'm the one embarrassing myself? And I read the post. It doesn't change much.
Your comparison of gender and race to sexuality holds little ground. If you made all the characters explicitly white men, that directly excludes others. Whereas none of the character's sexualities are confirmed in DBD, therefor no one is excluded. It's just not confirmed. If all the characters were confirmed as heterosexual, you comparison would make more sense. We would have a reason to ask why some of the characters aren't gay. But, since some of the characters could very well be gay, they aren't excluded. The comparison falls flat.
"Why should I have to play pretend?"
Both sides do, because nothing is confirmed.The characters can be either gay or straight.
"It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something."
This is a you issue. A lot of people have no issue imagining some of the characters as gay. You even stated it in your own words. "Assumed." You can assume the characters are gay all you want, just as someone else can assume they're not. No one is right or wrong. Nothing is explicitly confirmed.
"Why is race and gender okay to portray but sexuality isn't?"
No one said it wasn't okay, but race and gender are much easier to show visually without having to include it in a bio. Since the characters have to be visual in this game, it's easy to include people in this way. I personally think it's better that the characters sexuality is left to the audience's imagination. Makes it seem like their ships and fics hold more weight. Again, if you want the character's sexualities to be shown visually, I doubt it'll be received well. At the end, it's the dev's choice.There are some things I can agree with. I think saying it's not necessary isn't a good argument. Because at the end of the day, no lore in this game is necessary. But that only makes this post all the more ridiculous, because it's essentially an argument over things that don't matter.
I can also agree that representation is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean we should pressure the devs into including it, nor does it make it explicitly necessary in DBD.
Now do us both a favor and drop this attitude you've got going on. You want representation and acceptance, yet your first reaction to my opinion was to "show myself out."
Post edited by ShrimpTwiggs on4 -
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Wahara said:
Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
You're going to ask me to "show myself out" on a public forum and claim that I'm the one embarrassing myself? And I read the post. It doesn't change much.
Your comparison of gender and race to sexuality holds little ground. If you made all the characters explicitly white men, that directly excludes others. Whereas none of the character's sexualities are confirmed in DBD, therefor no one is excluded. It's just not confirmed. If all the characters were confirmed as heterosexual, you comparison would make more sense. We would have a reason to ask why some of the characters aren't gay. But, since some of the characters could very well be gay, they aren't excluded. The comparison falls flat.
"Why should I have to play pretend?"
Both sides do, because nothing is confirmed.The characters can be either gay or straight.
"It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something."
This is a you issue. A lot of people have no issue imagining some of the characters as gay. You even stated it in your own words. "Assumed." You can assume the characters are gay all you want, just as someone else can assume they're not. No one is right or wrong. Nothing is explicitly confirmed.
"Why is race and gender okay to portray but sexuality isn't?"
No one said it wasn't okay, but race and gender are much easier to show visually without having to include it in a bio. Since the characters have to be visual in this game, it's easy to include people in this way. I personally think it's better that the characters sexuality is left to the audience's imagination. Makes it seem like their ships and fics hold more weight. Again, if you want the character's sexualities to be shown visually, I doubt it'll be received well. At the end, it's the dev's choice.There are some things I can agree with. I think saying it's not necessary isn't a good argument. Because at the end of the day, no lore in this game is necessary. But that only makes this post all the more ridiculous, because it's essentially an argument over things that don't matter.
I can also agree that representation is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean we should pressure the devs into including it, nor does it make it explicitly necessary in DBD.
Now do us both a favor and drop this attitude you've got going on. You want representation and acceptance, yet your first reaction to my opinion was to "show myself out." You're a complete hypocrite.
i am asking for them to confirm any of them being LGBTQ+ (not just gay) so is it that hard for them to answer the question. and it does matter because i would want to be able to relate to a character more and since nea is rebelous thats why i play her because i love her story.
1 -
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Wahara said:
Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
You're going to ask me to "show myself out" on a public forum and claim that I'm the one embarrassing myself? And I read the post. It doesn't change much.
Your comparison of gender and race to sexuality holds little ground. If you made all the characters explicitly white men, that directly excludes others. Whereas none of the character's sexualities are confirmed in DBD, therefor no one is excluded. It's just not confirmed. If all the characters were confirmed as heterosexual, you comparison would make more sense. We would have a reason to ask why some of the characters aren't gay. But, since some of the characters could very well be gay, they aren't excluded. The comparison falls flat.
"Why should I have to play pretend?"
Both sides do, because nothing is confirmed.The characters can be either gay or straight.
"It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something."
This is a you issue. A lot of people have no issue imagining some of the characters as gay. You even stated it in your own words. "Assumed." You can assume the characters are gay all you want, just as someone else can assume they're not. No one is right or wrong. Nothing is explicitly confirmed.
"Why is race and gender okay to portray but sexuality isn't?"
No one said it wasn't okay, but race and gender are much easier to show visually without having to include it in a bio. Since the characters have to be visual in this game, it's easy to include people in this way. I personally think it's better that the characters sexuality is left to the audience's imagination. Makes it seem like their ships and fics hold more weight. Again, if you want the character's sexualities to be shown visually, I doubt it'll be received well. At the end, it's the dev's choice.There are some things I can agree with. I think saying it's not necessary isn't a good argument. Because at the end of the day, no lore in this game is necessary. But that only makes this post all the more ridiculous, because it's essentially an argument over things that don't matter.
I can also agree that representation is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean we should pressure the devs into including it, nor does it make it explicitly necessary in DBD.
Now do us both a favor and drop this attitude you've got going on. You want representation and acceptance, yet your first reaction to my opinion was to "show myself out." You're a complete hypocrite.
The ######### savagery is uncanny and I love it lmao these guys won't comprehend basic arguments and refutes to the fact they trying to force something that isn't really a 100% relevance.
3 -
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
i am asking for them to confirm any of them being LGBTQ+ (not just gay) so is it that hard for them to answer the question. and it does matter because i would want to be able to relate to a character more and since nea is rebelous thats why i play her because i love her story.
- So you want confirmation over something that is trivial?
- It's not hard for them to answer they just dont care.
- If you want Nea to be gay then think it while you play just don't be trying to demand or ask for them to confirm something that doesn't really matter at all even other LGBTQ here don't care for this stuff.
1 -
@MichaelAMyers said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
i am asking for them to confirm any of them being LGBTQ+ (not just gay) so is it that hard for them to answer the question. and it does matter because i would want to be able to relate to a character more and since nea is rebelous thats why i play her because i love her story.
- So you want confirmation over something that is trivial?
- It's not hard for them to answer they just dont care.
- If you want Nea to be gay then think it while you play just don't be trying to demand or ask for them to confirm something that doesn't really matter at all even other LGBTQ here don't care for this stuff.
- how is it trivial if its something that exists.
- didnt know know you worked on the dev team and know everyone thier individually
- i never said Nea i said someone. and it does matter when you say it doesnt with no facts.
1 -
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Wahara said:
Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
You're going to ask me to "show myself out" on a public forum and claim that I'm the one embarrassing myself? And I read the post. It doesn't change much.
Your comparison of gender and race to sexuality holds little ground. If you made all the characters explicitly white men, that directly excludes others. Whereas none of the character's sexualities are confirmed in DBD, therefor no one is excluded. It's just not confirmed. If all the characters were confirmed as heterosexual, you comparison would make more sense. We would have a reason to ask why some of the characters aren't gay. But, since some of the characters could very well be gay, they aren't excluded. The comparison falls flat.
"Why should I have to play pretend?"
Both sides do, because nothing is confirmed.The characters can be either gay or straight.
"It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something."
This is a you issue. A lot of people have no issue imagining some of the characters as gay. You even stated it in your own words. "Assumed." You can assume the characters are gay all you want, just as someone else can assume they're not. No one is right or wrong. Nothing is explicitly confirmed.
"Why is race and gender okay to portray but sexuality isn't?"
No one said it wasn't okay, but race and gender are much easier to show visually without having to include it in a bio. Since the characters have to be visual in this game, it's easy to include people in this way. I personally think it's better that the characters sexuality is left to the audience's imagination. Makes it seem like their ships and fics hold more weight. Again, if you want the character's sexualities to be shown visually, I doubt it'll be received well. At the end, it's the dev's choice.There are some things I can agree with. I think saying it's not necessary isn't a good argument. Because at the end of the day, no lore in this game is necessary. But that only makes this post all the more ridiculous, because it's essentially an argument over things that don't matter.
I can also agree that representation is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean we should pressure the devs into including it, nor does it make it explicitly necessary in DBD.
Now do us both a favor and drop this attitude you've got going on. You want representation and acceptance, yet your first reaction to my opinion was to "show myself out." You're a complete hypocrite.
I acknowledged the reasons for my anger and how, specifically, you could avoid being subject to it. Therefore, you cannot blame me for the reaction you received nor can you reasonably call me a hypocrite. It is understandable to be frustrated when the same points such as the one's that you had made are repeated near verbatim. I don't apologize and stand by the fact you deserved it. It is rude and a disservice to a conversation when you enter and voice a position without taking into any account where the conversation has already been and which points have already been visited. Here, you don't do much better, though you are a bit more long winded about it.
The argument you make in your first paragraph is entirely dependent on the argument you're making underneath the claim I've made that "heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default", so I'll begin with that to knock two birds with one stone. You are ignoring the point that I made that while someone is LGBT has the ability to imagine their character as possessing their orientation, they do not have the ability to do that as easily as heterosexual players do, since heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default. It is inherently easier as a straight player to project their sexuality onto their survivor/killer of choice. They do not have to go out of their way. LGBT folk do.
Further, you have not justified why, even if race or gender is easier to show, how that is relevant to the discussion of whether sexuality should be explicitly confirmed. How "much" easier sexuality is to express than race or gender even if true, is being grossly overstated. A verbal expression, for example, (as has been already discussed and admitted by others to be effective), such as a few simple sentences could do the trick. And be done in a way that is both innocuous and non patronizing. Still, interesting to note, it is only the comparison with race that is disputed but the comparison with gender is left alone.
0 -
I acknowledged the reasons for my anger and how, specifically, you could avoid being subject to it. Therefore, you cannot blame me for the reaction you received nor can you reasonably call me a hypocrite. It is understandable to be frustrated when the same points such as the one's that you had made are repeated near verbatim. Here, you don't do much better, though you are a bit more long winded about it.
The argument you make in your first paragraph is entirely dependent on the argument you're making underneath the claim I've made that "heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default", so I'll begin with that to knock two birds with one stone. You are ignoring the point that I made that while someone is LGBT has the ability to imagine their character as possessing their orientation, they do not have the ability to do that as easily as heterosexual players do, since heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default. It is inherently easier as a straight player to project their sexuality onto their survivor/killer of choice. They do not have to go out of their way. LGBT folk do.
Further, you have not justified why, even if race or gender is easier to show, how that is relevant to the discussion of whether sexuality should be explicitly confirmed. Still, interesting to note, it is only the comparison with race that is disputed but the comparison with gender is left alone.
Actually, my argument holds rather well, because you having trouble imagining these characters as gay is a you issue. You do not speak for all gay people when you say it is hard to see them as gay. I find it extremely arrogant that you try to do so. Judging by the swaths of fanart, there are people who have no trouble seeing characters as gay. And my argument holds regardless, because, as I've said, nothing is confirmed and your feelings don't change that. The devs never said that the survivors are gay or straight. All because you assume that they're straight, doesn't mean you're right or wrong.
And the purpose of the comparison with race wasn't to say that sexuality shouldn't be confirmed. It was to show why one is easier than the other. This is a visual game. The characters don't have to have lore in this game so you can leave out details, but you do have to be able to see them. That's why one takes priority when used for inclusion. Since you have to design character models, you have less excuse to not include certain groups that can be seen visually. But sexuality is much harder to show this way. And read my post again. I did include gender. Lastly, I will stand by calling you hypocritical. You want acceptance , but you wrote me off and told me to "show myself out." As for whether sexuality should be confirmed or not, I've already given my opinion on that front. I personally would rather it be open to interpretation.
1 -
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@WaharaI acknowledged the reasons for my anger and how, specifically, you could avoid being subject to it. Therefore, you cannot blame me for the reaction you received nor can you reasonably call me a hypocrite. It is understandable to be frustrated when the same points such as the one's that you had made are repeated near verbatim. Here, you don't do much better, though you are a bit more long winded about it.
The argument you make in your first paragraph is entirely dependent on the argument you're making underneath the claim I've made that "heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default", so I'll begin with that to knock two birds with one stone. You are ignoring the point that I made that while someone is LGBT has the ability to imagine their character as possessing their orientation, they do not have the ability to do that as easily as heterosexual players do, since heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default. It is inherently easier as a straight player to project their sexuality onto their survivor/killer of choice. They do not have to go out of their way. LGBT folk do.
Further, you have not justified why, even if race or gender is easier to show, how that is relevant to the discussion of whether sexuality should be explicitly confirmed. Still, interesting to note, it is only the comparison with race that is disputed but the comparison with gender is left alone.
Actually, my argument holds rather well, because you having trouble imagining these characters as gay is a you issue. You do not speak for all gay people when you say it is hard to see them as gay. I find it extremely arrogant that you try to do so. Judging by the swaths of fanart, there are people who have no trouble seeing characters as gay. And my argument holds regardless, because, as I've said, nothing is confirmed and your feelings don't change that. The devs never said that the survivors are gay or straight. All because you assume that they're straight, doesn't mean you're right or wrong.
And the purpose of the comparison with race wasn't to say that sexuality shouldn't be confirmed. It was to show why one is easier than the other. This is a visual game. The characters don't have to have lore in this game so you can leave out details, but you do have to be able to see them. That's why one takes priority when used for inclusion. Since you have to design character models, you have less excuse to not include certain groups that can be seen visually. But sexuality is much harder to show this way. And read my post again. I did include gender. Lastly, I will stand by calling you hypocritical. You want acceptance , but you wrote me off and told me to "show myself out." As for whether sexuality should be confirmed or not, I've already given my opinion on that front. I personally would rather it be open to interpretation.
LGBTQ+
1 -
No, it doesn't. You're resorting to mis-characterization, now. I did not say that everyone who is LGBT will have a hard time imagining their characters as having their orientation. I said that it is harder for them to do so compared to players who are straight, given that heterosexuality is the assumed default. How would you like that to be spelled out for you more clearly? Would you prefer a pop up book?
Again, and I asked you why whether or not sexuality is easier to display or not is relevant, not just to the question of whether or not sexuality should be confirmed, but to anything.
Oh. Wait a second. Finally! You actually made a new point! One that hasn't been repeated! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm so proud of you. Your point is still bullshit, of course, but I'm proud of you. Good job. The claim, if I understood correctly, is that "Race and gender are easier to display than sexuality, therefore there is less excuse to not include them and that they have priority over sexuality."
The problem is that both of those conclusions don't hold water. You cannot connect the ease of something or the difficulty of something to whether you should do something. Sometimes, the harder thing to do takes priority over the easier thing to do and vice versa. See? Now if you had made this point the first time instead of rudely repeating what had already been addressed several times, you wouldn't have gotten such an attitude. Was that so hard?
And no, you mentioned gender, but the only thing you actually attempted to dispute in detail was the contrast with race. Within the context of a video game, I will argue that sexuality is easier to display than both gender and race. Gender and race both require coding to express. By comparison, a few simple sentences is much easier.
0 -
@Wahara said:
No, it doesn't. You're resorting to mis-characterization, now. I did not say that everyone who is LGBT will have a hard time imagining their characters as having their orientation. I said that it is harder for them to do so compared to players who are straight, given that heterosexuality is the assumed default. How would you like that to spelled out for you more clearly? Would you prefer a pop up book?Again, and I asked you why whether or not sexuality is easier to display or not is relevant, not just to the question of whether or not sexuality should be confirmed, but to anything.
Oh. Wait a second. Finally! You actually made a new point! One that hasn't been repeated! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm so proud of you. Your point is still bullshit, of course, but I'm proud of you. Good job. The claim, if I understood correctly, is that "Race and gender are easier to display than sexuality, therefore there is less excuse to not include them and that they have priority over sexuality."
The problem is that both of those conclusions don't hold water. You cannot connect the ease of something or the difficulty of something to whether you should do something. Sometimes, the harder thing to do takes priority over the easier thing to do and vice versa. See? Now if you had made this point the first time instead of rudely repeating what had already been addressed several times, you wouldn't have gotten such an attitude. Was that so hard?
And no, you mentioned gender, but the only thing you actually attempted to dispute in detail was the contrast with race. And technically, within the context of a video game, I will argue that sexuality is easier to display than both gender and race. Gender and race both require coding to express. By comparison, a few simple sentences is much easier.
The reason me and everyone else is repeating ourselves is because you’re not refuting is at all! This is literally all turned into a massive YOU problem. Your imagination sucks, you can’t get immersed, no one cares. And because no one cares it’ll never get changed. Also, have you seen how gay this games player base is? It’s super gay and I love it. Look at the reddit for ten seconds and the gayness will break any heterosexuals computer screen. And those people are the exact reason you DO NOT specify these things. You you can make crack assumptions like them that can’t be denied. It’s awesome
4 -
Er, my previous post shows pretty clearly that I know when a new point is being made versus when one isn't.
But hey, it seems like you're finally starting to get it. slow clap You made a new point too, just like Shrimp did! And it's actually...not that bad. If you guys can keep this up, I'll be less of a #########. I promise. :chuffed:
To that, I would say you wouldn't necessarily have to confirm sexuality for every single character. Some could be confirmed, some could be unconfirmed. Fan fiction people still get their jollies and so do people like me.
0 -
@Wahara said:
Er, my previous post shows pretty clearly that I know when a new point is being made versus when one isn't.But hey, it seems like you're finally starting to get it. slow clap You made a new point too, just like Shrimp did! And it's actually...not that bad. If you guys can keep this up, I'll be less of a #########. I promise. :chuffed:
To that, I would say you wouldn't necessarily have to confirm sexuality for every single character. Some could be confirmed, some could be unconfirmed. Fan fiction people still their get their jollies and so do people like me.
Honestly, to summarize why we don’t want this, this community is big on the “font fix what isn’t broken” and even a few word changes in the bio would introduce a game breaking big. Tis spaghetti code
1 -
@Jack11803 said:
@Wahara said:
Er, my previous post shows pretty clearly that I know when a new point is being made versus when one isn't.But hey, it seems like you're finally starting to get it. slow clap You made a new point too, just like Shrimp did! And it's actually...not that bad. If you guys can keep this up, I'll be less of a #########. I promise. :chuffed:
To that, I would say you wouldn't necessarily have to confirm sexuality for every single character. Some could be confirmed, some could be unconfirmed. Fan fiction people still their get their jollies and so do people like me.
Honestly, to summarize why we don’t want this, this community is big on the “font fix what isn’t broken” and even a few word changes in the bio would introduce a game breaking big. Tis spaghetti code
as i have previously stated multiple times that they didnt have to change anything in the game but just say who was LGBTQ+ and who was straight and it would be added to the DBD wiki and become common knowledge to older dbd players.
1 -
@Wahara said:
No, it doesn't. You're resorting to mis-characterization, now. I did not say that everyone who is LGBT will have a hard time imagining their characters as having their orientation. I said that it is harder for them to do so compared to players who are straight, given that heterosexuality is the assumed default. How would you like that to be spelled out for you more clearly? Would you prefer a pop up book?Again, and I asked you why whether or not sexuality is easier to display or not is relevant, not just to the question of whether or not sexuality should be confirmed, but to anything.
Oh. Wait a second. Finally! You actually made a new point! One that hasn't been repeated! I thought I'd never see the day. I'm so proud of you. Your point is still bullshit, of course, but I'm proud of you. Good job. The claim, if I understood correctly, is that "Race and gender are easier to display than sexuality, therefore there is less excuse to not include them and that they have priority over sexuality."
The problem is that both of those conclusions don't hold water. You cannot connect the ease of something or the difficulty of something to whether you should do something. Sometimes, the harder thing to do takes priority over the easier thing to do and vice versa. See? Now if you had made this point the first time instead of rudely repeating what had already been addressed several times, you wouldn't have gotten such an attitude. Was that so hard?
And no, you mentioned gender, but the only thing you actually attempted to dispute in detail was the contrast with race. Within the context of a video game, I will argue that sexuality is easier to display than both gender and race. Gender and race both require coding to express. By comparison, a few simple sentences is much easier.
Fine. You said that gay people have a harder time seeing these character as homosexual compared to straight people. My point still stands. You do not speak for all of them. Drop this arrogance of yours. And my argument does still hold up. Because none of the characters have been confirmed as straight, there is no exclusion. If you assume that they're straight, that's on you. Your feelings don't change that.
And I don't think you did understand my next statement, because I never said that race and gender have priority over sexuality in general, I said it was prioritized because it is easier to show visually, therefor more likely to be included in the game because this is a visual game. It's easy to see someone's race or gender, but not sexuality. And as for the race and gender thing, I used both. I said that both race and gender are easy to see visually, but sexuality is not. I also never said that the ease of something connected to if it should be done, but it does connect to what's more likely to be done. But I guess 'ease' isn't the correct word, so I can see where that would cause confusion. A better word would be 'convenient." The devs have to make character models for the game. Since they have to make the characters look like some kind of race or gender, they are more likely to use this as the median for inclusion, since, again, this is a visual game. Since a lot more of their time will be dedicated to designing the character models, that's what they will use to show a variety of groups. It takes care of two things at once. The lore however, isn't necessary. It's not needed, therefor, they'll dedicate less time to it. Certain traits will be left out. If the devs don't think that a character's sexuality is important, they'll leave it out. If this game was a dating simulator, where a characters sexuality was more relevant, then they would use that as a median to include different sexualities.
And when I repeated what you said in my post, it wasn't with the intent of being rude. i was doing so to make clear what points I was addressing.
As for if they should include the character's sexuality, that's entirely up to them. If they don't want to label their characters, they shouldn't be pressured to do so. The purpose of my posts was to state the most likely reasons they didn't include it, and why it's not a big deal if they don't. At the end of the day, the devs showed the race and gender of the characters because this is a visual game and that's the median they chose to include different groups. Sexuality doesn't fall into that category. And did it ever cross your mind that the devs didn't include that in the lore because they didn't want too? Why, then, should they be pressured into adding it? In my opinion, it's better if they don't. If homosexual people have a harder time seeing character as gay, then what if one of the characters they were trying to identify with was confirmed straight? Wouldn't that make it even harder to identify with them?
3 -
Those are some dense paragraphs, Shrimp. I'll wait a little bit to actually try dissecting all of that, because the thoughts expressed appear a bit disjointed to me and I'm not sure how I'm going to structure my response without it looking really disorganized.
Though, I will say on the subject of arrogance, you were the one who misrepresented what I said and used it as a basis for accusing me of arrogance, so I showed you what real arrogance looks like. For what it's worth, for you in particular, I will return to base line. Your post appears to contain what seems like back pedaling, but I can genuinely see that you are trying, and see no indication that you're being intentionally obtuse. (Which is what triggers the ever living ######### out of me) I see no reason to punish you for that. The tone is sincere. That's not to guarantee anyone else is safe from me turning the ######### switch back on. I will bring it right back up to ten once I start noticing weasel tactics.
A full response will be given tonight or tomorrow. I'm not sure yet.
0 -
@Wahara said:
Those are some dense paragraphs, Shrimp. I'll wait a little bit to actually try dissecting all of that, because the thoughts expressed appear a bit disjointed to me and I'm not sure how I'm going to structure my response without it looking really disorganized.Though, I will say on the subject of arrogance, you were the one who misrepresented what I said and used it as a basis for accusing me of arrogance, so I showed you what real arrogance looks like. For what it's worth, for you in particular, I will return to base line. Your post appears to contain what seems like back pedaling, but I can genuinely see that you are trying, and see no indication that you're being intentionally obtuse. (Which is what triggers the ever living [BAD WORD] out of me) I see no reason to punish you for that. The tone is sincere. That's not to guarantee anyone else is safe from me turning the ######### switch back on. I will bring it right back up to ten once I start noticing weasel tactics.
A full response will be given tonight or tomorrow. I'm not sure yet.
You can say that I'm arrogant if you want, but I'm not the one trying to speak for a whole group of people. To make things more organized, I'll shorten my points.
1.) You said that it's harder for gay people to imagine these character's as gay compared to straight people. You don't speak for everyone.
2.) This is a visual game. Therefore, that's the median the devs chose to include more groups of people. It's more convenient that way, because this is a visual game. The lore isn't necessary, therefor, less time will be dedicated to it and the devs will drop unnecessary pieces. Sexuality isn't something that can be seen visually, so it's less likely to be put in the game. If this game were a dating simulator, that information would be more relevant.
3.) When I repeated what you said in my other post, it wasn't with the intent of being rude. It was to clarify the points I was addressing.
4.) My point of addressing race and gender compared to sexuality still stands. None of the characters in DBD are confirmed straight, so there's no exclusion. If you see them as straight, that's on you.
5.) The devs could very well not have included sexuality because they didn't want to. If they don't want to confirm that, they shouldn't be pressured to do so. And what if someone who is gay was trying to relate to a character that was confirmed straight? Wouldn't that make the problem worse?
At the end of the day, this isn't your work. If the devs don't want to confirm a character's preferences, they don't have to. It's not a big issue if there's no answer to a character's sexuality.
7 -
say no homo first
0 -
I..never said you were arrogant. I said that I displayed arrogance to you because you accused me of it. You know, the "If they think I'm this, I'll show them this" rationale. Okay? You are right, I don't speak for everyone, but you are mistaken in believing that is what I am doing. When I say that it is easier for straight players to project their sexuality onto their characters, that does not mean I am saying I have a difficult time my projecting my sexuality onto my character. It does not mean that I am saying all LGBTQ folks will struggle doing this. It means exactly what it states, that by comparison, it is more difficult.
If you want to argue (and this where I suspect you are back pedaling) that the fact race or gender is easier to represent is why it was more likely to be put in, then I agree with you. I just don't know where you intend on going with that since that isn't related to the arguments I was putting forward. Your first post was with the full intention of discrediting my comparison by highlighting the differences between race and gender from sexuality in terms of obviousness. Now, you are arguing that you only meant to show that obviousness was the basis for why they were more likely to be included. The comparison is not being used as point to argue what is or what isn't likely, it is being used as an argument to determine what is fair. The aforementioned is also why I do not accept the claim stated in the third parenthetical.
While the fact DBD characters have sexuality that is unconfirmed is not an explicit exclusion, the point is that it still functions as one, given that heterosexuality is the default. Heterosexuals are not really forced to use their imaginations in the same way that LGBTQ folks are. Assuming that all the characters were explicitly confirmed to be heterosexual, your argument that that one could simply use their imagination would still apply. But you wouldn't, because as you previously admitted, that would be unfair. The onus is on you to justify the still remaining unfairness. Why should the fact that heterosexual players have an easier time, generally, relating to their characters than LGBTQ people be the status quo?
You're right, maybe the developers didn't want to. I mean, I didn't create the game. I have no idea what their processes were. That isn't necessarily a good reason not to ask for LGBTQ characters, though. Simply because they don't want something doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea or that efforts of persuasion aren't worth it. Personally, I think survivors are imbalanced at high rank play, but I don't think the developers really want to do anything about it. Does that mean no one should try and convince them otherwise? No. I also don't really know what you mean by "pressure" What exactly do you have in mind? People keep using words throughout this discussion like "forced" in particular, as if those of us who want LGBTQ characters are ready to storm BHVR HQ and hold them at gun point.
As to your hypothetical regarding the ability of a gay character to relate to a straight character, this is about options. It would not be an issue because he could play a gay character if he wants.
0 -
@Wahara said:
I..never said you were arrogant. I said that I displayed arrogance to you because you accused me of it. You know, the "If they think I'm this, I'll show them this" rationale. Okay? You are right, I don't speak for everyone, but you are mistaken in believing that is what I am doing. When I say that it is easier for straight players to project their sexuality onto their characters, that does not mean I am saying I have a difficult time my projecting my sexuality onto my character. It does not mean that I am saying all LGBTQ folks will struggle doing this. It means exactly what it states, that by comparison, it is more difficult.If you want to argue (and this where I suspect you are back pedaling) that the fact race or gender is easier to represent is why it was more likely to be put in, then I agree with you. I just don't know where you intend on going with that since that isn't related to the arguments I was putting forward. Your first post was with the full intention of discrediting my comparison by highlighting the differences between race and gender from sexuality in terms of obviousness. Now, you are arguing that you only meant to show that obviousness was the basis for why they were more likely to be included. The comparison is not being used as point to argue what is or what isn't likely, it is being used as an argument to determine what is fair. The aforementioned is also why I do not accept the claim stated in the third parenthetical.
While the fact DBD characters have sexuality that is unconfirmed is not an explicit exclusion, the point is that it still functions as one, given that heterosexuality is the default. Heterosexuals are not really forced to use their imaginations in the same way that LGBTQ folks are. Assuming that all the characters were explicitly confirmed to be heterosexual, your argument that that one could simply use their imagination would still apply. But you wouldn't, because as you previously admitted, that would be unfair. The onus is on you to justify the still remaining unfairness. Why should the fact that heterosexual players have an easier time, generally, relating to their characters than LGBTQ people be the status quo?
You're right, maybe the developers didn't want to. I mean, I didn't create the game. I have no idea what their processes were. That isn't necessarily a good reason not to ask for LGBTQ characters, though. Simply because they don't want something doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea or that efforts of persuasion aren't worth it. Personally, I think survivors are imbalanced at high rank play, but I don't think the developers really want to do anything about it. Does that mean no one should try and convince them otherwise? No. I also don't really know what you mean by "pressure" What exactly do you have in mind? People keep using words throughout this discussion like "forced" in particular, as if those of us who want LGBTQ characters are ready to storm BHVR HQ and hold them at gun point.
As to your hypothetical regarding the ability of a gay character to relate to a straight character, this is about options. It would not be an issue because he could play a gay character if he wants.
The main purpose of my post was to explain probable reasons why the devs didn't include sexuality in their characters. That's where I was coming from with that point. And as for the original comparison, it didn't hold up because you stated situations with a massive difference. If the devs made all the characters white men, that directly excludes other groups. But in DBD, their sexuality is unknown, so it doesn't shut anybody out. If the characters were all confirmed as straight, then your comparison would make more sense.
And not stating the character's sexuality doesn't exclude anybody. All because YOU assume heterosexuality is the default, doesn't mean everybody does. Judging by some fanart, there are a lot people who have no problem imagining the characters as gay. The character's sexuality is completely unknown, so there's no right or wrong answer. And I never said having to use your imagination is unfair. If only one side had to, then it would be but both straight and gay are forced to use their imagination in DBD. That's fair to me.
As for your comparison of balancing the game to adding LGBT characters, there's another big difference. The balance of the game is vital. The sexuality of the characters isn't. As for the reason not to add LGBT characters, again, nothing is confirmed. Some of the characters could very well be. I don't think pressuring the devs into doing that is the best way to go about it. If they want to confirm character's sexualities, then they should do it if they want. And, again, what if a gay person was trying to relate to a character and they were confirmed as straight? Wouldn't confirming character's sexualities lead to more problems?
When it comes to the devs being pressured, it can come from many places. Whether people look down on them for not explicitly stating a characters sexuality or simply making a post asking about it. Not all pressure is bad, but I think it's better that they don't feel pressured at all on this topic. I think it's something that they should come to their own decision on. Make a post asking for it if you wish, but forums are made for discussion. People may agree or disagree. I personally prefer if they left the character's sexuality unknown.
5 -
Okay, you're being a bit obtuse, there is definitely more than few points in that post that you're just repeating but phrasing in a different way. I would call upon the integrity of people in the audience, but nah. Actually, I would ask for Orion's help, since his posts suggest he's smart enough to know better about a lot that's being said in this topic.
At any rate, you're going in the same boat as MichaelMyers: the "posts not worth paying attention to or dignifying with a response" boat. Get cozy.
Edit: Okay. Since I want to be completely fair to shrimp, as far as I can tell, a lot of his points are just re-phrasings of things I've already responded to. If you have followed the conversation and see something specific in his most recent post where you think he might have me, try quoting it and phrasing it differently. It is 3:16 am now and I acknowledge the possibility of missing something.
Post edited by Wahara on0 -
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Wahara said:
Er, my previous post shows pretty clearly that I know when a new point is being made versus when one isn't.But hey, it seems like you're finally starting to get it. slow clap You made a new point too, just like Shrimp did! And it's actually...not that bad. If you guys can keep this up, I'll be less of a #########. I promise. :chuffed:
To that, I would say you wouldn't necessarily have to confirm sexuality for every single character. Some could be confirmed, some could be unconfirmed. Fan fiction people still their get their jollies and so do people like me.
Honestly, to summarize why we don’t want this, this community is big on the “font fix what isn’t broken” and even a few word changes in the bio would introduce a game breaking big. Tis spaghetti code
as i have previously stated multiple times that they didnt have to change anything in the game but just say who was LGBTQ+ and who was straight and it would be added to the DBD wiki and become common knowledge to older dbd players.
The most recent time period survivor in the game is the beginning 2000’s. LGBTQ didn’t even exist. There’s your reason
2 -
@Jack11803 said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Wahara said:
Er, my previous post shows pretty clearly that I know when a new point is being made versus when one isn't.But hey, it seems like you're finally starting to get it. slow clap You made a new point too, just like Shrimp did! And it's actually...not that bad. If you guys can keep this up, I'll be less of a #########. I promise. :chuffed:
To that, I would say you wouldn't necessarily have to confirm sexuality for every single character. Some could be confirmed, some could be unconfirmed. Fan fiction people still their get their jollies and so do people like me.
Honestly, to summarize why we don’t want this, this community is big on the “font fix what isn’t broken” and even a few word changes in the bio would introduce a game breaking big. Tis spaghetti code
as i have previously stated multiple times that they didnt have to change anything in the game but just say who was LGBTQ+ and who was straight and it would be added to the DBD wiki and become common knowledge to older dbd players.
The most recent time period survivor in the game is the beginning 2000’s. LGBTQ didn’t even exist. There’s your reason
lol, what? Yes it ######### did. LGBT has been a thing since the beginning of human civilization.
1 -
@Orion said:
lol, what? Yes it [BAD WORD] did. LGBT has been a thing since the beginning of human civilization.I think what he meant to say was wide-spread support for the LGBT community didn't really start until the 2000s, but I can't speak for him. His statement seems incomplete.
1 -
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
1 -
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
0 -
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
0 -
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
0 -
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
Especually by greece. But that’s also out of time, but this time the other way around (no character is that far back, pretty sure the earliest is late 1800’s)
0 -
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
Especually by greece. But that’s also out of time, but this time the other way around (no character is that far back, pretty sure the earliest is late 1800’s)
Like I said, I agree with your conclusion. You are right that people are unlikely to admit being LGBT. Even nowadays this is true. However, I wanted to point out that it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
My own country, while tolerant and progressive, has a few bad apples. Just by holding hands with my BF, I triggered some old fart to make the most disgusted face I'd ever seen.0 -
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
Especually by greece. But that’s also out of time, but this time the other way around (no character is that far back, pretty sure the earliest is late 1800’s)
Like I said, I agree with your conclusion. You are right that people are unlikely to admit being LGBT. Even nowadays this is true. However, I wanted to point out that it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
My own country, while tolerant and progressive, has a few bad apples. Just by holding hands with my BF, I triggered some old fart to make the most disgusted face I'd ever seen.For a second I thought you were saying you caused a loud ass fart and this guy gave you a nasty look. I can read lol
0 -
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
Especually by greece. But that’s also out of time, but this time the other way around (no character is that far back, pretty sure the earliest is late 1800’s)
Like I said, I agree with your conclusion. You are right that people are unlikely to admit being LGBT. Even nowadays this is true. However, I wanted to point out that it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
My own country, while tolerant and progressive, has a few bad apples. Just by holding hands with my BF, I triggered some old fart to make the most disgusted face I'd ever seen.For a second I thought you were saying you caused a loud ass fart and this guy gave you a nasty look. I can read lol
Silent but deadly. That's my style. It's also how I prefer to play games.
2 -
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
@Orion said:
@Jack11803 said:
This. I meant support for it. Thus the characters from those time periods are less likily to be/express it
While I agree with your conclusion, the premise is faulty. Opposition to LGBT is a fairly recent (and cultural) phenomenon.
It wasn’t openly opposed, but it wasn’t even heard of either. Except gays. And they were harassed and opposed.
Not if you go farther than, say, 1000-1500 years (keep in mind that human civilization is about 10000 years old). It wasn't heard of because, ironically, it was accepted as normal behavior by everyone, as opposed to nowadays.
Especually by greece. But that’s also out of time, but this time the other way around (no character is that far back, pretty sure the earliest is late 1800’s)
Like I said, I agree with your conclusion. You are right that people are unlikely to admit being LGBT. Even nowadays this is true. However, I wanted to point out that it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
My own country, while tolerant and progressive, has a few bad apples. Just by holding hands with my BF, I triggered some old fart to make the most disgusted face I'd ever seen.For a second I thought you were saying you caused a loud ass fart and this guy gave you a nasty look. I can read lol
Silent but deadly. That's my style. It's also how I prefer to play games.
Is an Insidious Letherface
1 -
Get a signed petition with 55% of the Dead by Daylight playbase agreeing with you, then we'll see how many really care.TheLegendDyl4n1 said:@Mc_Harty said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
if no one gives a ######### then why do i?Because you're a very shallow individual that needs neon signs to relate to something.
but i still give a ######### and so do others
1 -
I answered your question ages ago. People ship David and Dwight (Gay) and Nea and a number of the other girls (Lesbian). I also stated that a number of male users lust after Jake Park (Gay). You got your answers and stayed to try and a LGBTQ survivor added just for inclusion.TheLegendDyl4n1 said:@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
guys i really dont want to argue i just want to discuss who could be LGBTQ, why they could be, and have fun in another discussion. when people come into these discussions and say stuff like why does it matter or that its irrelevant to the game.
when you do this is saddens me because all i wanted to do was start another post about something i believe in why cant you just let me ask what i want and not campaign against it if you dont believe in it.
i want a confirmed LGBTQ character in this horror game that i have many hours into because i want to be able to relate to a character for real not just say oh this persons gay and i believe that.
so when i ask for them to confirm if in any characters lore, they believed they were LGBTQ so that i can personally relate to them for real, not just in my head its something thats reasonable.
if you dont want to talk about who you think is LGBTQ and try and find reasons why they are by looking in the current lore or coming up with lore yourself for if they were LGBTQ then leave
so, again if you dont agree with any of LGBTQ, you want to constantly go against anything any of us put, or just come up with reason after reason why this question i ask cant be added to the game's lore as a small part of it thats only one sentence long if that.
so, if you qualify as anything i said before then just go, leave, get out of this thread because no one needs you negativity in a thread thats asking for a small thing to be added that will not effect your quality of life unless you are a homophobe or transphobe or anything against LGBTQ and if you are then give good, solid reasons why its wrong to be LGBTQ (LGBTQ stands for everyone that is not strait just because there is not a letter there does not mean it is not represented) and if you can do that then go ahead and try.i am gay, i am also a Baptist Christian going to a Christian Baptist School who believes in God. so if your argument is that it is a sin against God then your argument is invalid because we are all sinners in Gods eyes and every sin is equal.
so, if your going to be negative then just go and let me and other people who want to participate in this thread participate peacefully.
(side note if your color blind and cant read this post tell me and i will post a different version that has no color)
let me post again since people think i want to argue. if your here because your against it then why are you here? i literally said in the post we would discuss who would be LGBTQ+ and if anyone had proof of them being it before it but you didn't read the post did you? you just say add a LGBTQ+ character and that was enough for you guys arguing right? i am going to let @Wahara take this for now on since obviously no one listens to me and i dont have enough time to deal with this. also going to add i posted this reply on page 3 and look where we are now
If you really wanna sexualize a game that has nothing to do with sex I will once again recommend you try R34 instead for what you're looking for.
Post edited by Peasant on2 -
Damn @Wahara pulling no punches.Wahara said:Fair, you're more than free to embarrass yourself by indicating you haven't bothered to follow the conversation properly before spewing your opinion.
You're entitled to that and nobody can take it away from you.
When I warned the gloves are off, I meant it. Nobody gets wiggle room anymore. Nobody gets to run away from a point. No distractions, no red herrings, no BS. You will be a faithful and honest participant in the discussion or I will go out of my way to make you look like an idiot, and I'll succeed.
This going to be fun0
