[R&F] Inevitable thread on "Flirtatious" and "Curmudgeon" straights-only traits

[steveg700]

Ts really, really backwards and disappointing that these traits would automatically assume every leader is straight.

Well, the traits don't have to assume anything about other leaders, only the orientation of the agenda-holder. If Bruce is not interested in dealing with women, he doesn't stop to investigate their orientation.

But having said that, they are dumb traits because they have nothing to do with maximizing their unique strengths and strategic potential.

It seems like a random modifier to get AI to dislike/like you, which could actually be interesting.
This could help you predict which other AI they will like. Imagine a pangea with a male curmudgeon and all females.

I don't find much of interest to be found in such a scenario. So, you have a leader disliking other civ's for a purely arbitrary reason, and self-sabotaging himself by not engaging in diplomatic relations that would benefit him.

 

[nzcamel]

But having said that, they are dumb traits because they have nothing to do with maximizing their unique strengths and strategic potential.

That'd be all the secondary traits. Their purpose is to bring both variety and real life prejudice to the game. Prejudice is very much a dirty word these days; yet at a base level we all exercise it. Why do I like person A and not person B? It may be logical, but just as often its driven by things that are more subconscious than conscious.

 

[steveg700]

That'd be all the secondary traits. Their purpose is to bring both variety and real life prejudice to the game. Prejudice is very much a dirty word these days; yet at a base level we all exercise it. Why do I like person A and not person B? It may be logical, but just as often its driven by things that are more subconscious than conscious.

A lot of the secondary agendas work strategically. The biases against people competing for wonders or exploration, for instance.

 

[nzcamel]

A lot of the secondary agendas work strategically. The biases against people competing for wonders or exploration, for instance.

Granted; yet some agenda's aren't like that. It's pretty nuanced.

 

[Brian LeClaire]

In a literal sense it can mean being unable to distinguish tone in music. In a figurative sense it can also mean failing to recognize the tone of a discussion (for example, making a joke at a funeral could be said to be tone deaf). While I disagree with miaasma's argument, they're use of the idiom is correct.

I was kind of giving him a hard time lol

Moderator Action: Which is trolling, by the way. Please do not address other posters in this manner. -- Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[miaasma]

In a literal sense it can mean being unable to distinguish tone in music. In a figurative sense it can also mean failing to recognize the tone of a discussion (for example, making a joke at a funeral could be said to be tone deaf). While I disagree with miaasma's argument, they're use of the idiom is correct.

you are both wrong

this is a really silly discussion to continue to have in this thread but you all seem determined to keep it going, so whatever, i guess i'll bite

my use of the term "tone deaf" pertains to the idea that the inclusion of homosexuality in media is an agenda whereas heterosexuality being entirely ubiquitous is not, a bias often held by straight people who are unable to reflect on their own experience in society being catered to massively, to the point where they react poorly the second another group is treated similarly to them (homosexuality being shoved "down your throat" whenever it's even briefly mentioned in a video game, for example)

this leads to people saying things like "bioware has an agenda for pushing forward-thinking in their games", something you really have to have no self awareness to type unironically, instead of simply realizing that they are one of many video game companies who both realize that we do not live in a world in which heterosexuality is or should be normative, as well as the fact that many people who play video games are not straight. the argument you are disagreeing with doesn't exist

as for your own examples:

i'm no expert on medieval europe's racial demographics nor its density of LGBT people (all i know is that sodomy was punishable by death, but hey, stuff like that doesn't mean gay people just didn't exist), and maybe you are, but either way i'm not sure either of us is in any position to decide what amount of diversity is forced, even in these instances, since conceivably you could write from an angle which depicts these groups during this time period

i agree that context matters, which is why i'm a little perplexed by your statement that half a cast being people of colour or LGBT is "slanted", even today, considering how much media that currently exists fits those descriptions (sometimes at the same time!). if nothing else, i would say this reveals a personal bias, rather than being a reflection of society at large

which leads me back to my point about the term "forced diversity", it being that more often than not, it is used not from a critical lens but from that of a personal bias

 

[Scaramanga]

It can appear "forced" in the sense that homosexuality is not hereditary (for obvious reasons) so it needs to "recruit" through various mediums.

 

[steveg700]

this leads to people saying things like "bioware has an agenda for pushing forward-thinking in their games", something you really have to have no self awareness to type unironically, instead of simply realizing that they are one of many video game companies who both realize that we do not live in a world in which heterosexuality is or should be normative, as well as the fact that many people who play video games are not straight. the argument you are disagreeing with doesn't exist

When you say heterosexuality isn't normative, what does that mean? Does the use of the word here separate and apart from numerical representation, in either general population or people who play video games?

Is it wrong to consider it normative behavior for people to buy hamburgers at McDonald's just because most people do? Just curious how the word is being purposed here.

 

[nzcamel]

this leads to people saying things like "bioware has an agenda for pushing forward-thinking in their games", something you really have to have no self awareness to type unironically, instead of simply realizing that they are one of many video game companies who both realize that we do not live in a world in which heterosexuality is or should be normative, as well as the fact that many people who play video games are not straight. the argument you are disagreeing with doesn't exist

With respect, heterosexuality is and should be utterly normative. That's not a comment on homosexuality etc at all - That's just biology 101. That you make such a statement suggests that you're not interested in logic.

 

[steveg700]

With respect, heterosexuality is and should be utterly normative. That's not a comment on homosexuality etc at all - That's just biology 101. That you make such a statement suggests that you're not interested in logic.

See, I think it's better to just ask a person what they mean. I think it's safe to assume that when people are using these pejoratives like "gendernormative" or "heteronormative" that they are disregarding the concept that if something is in a dominant majority that it should be considered the norm.

 

[nzcamel]

Well there's dominant majorities and dominant majorities! Yes most people are on a sliding scale of bisexuality; but the overwhelming dominant majority are going to be heterosexual/heteroflexible.

It's disingenuous to say that heterosexuality isn't normative given human biology.

 

[miaasma]

Well there's dominant majorities and dominant majorities! Yes most people are on a sliding scale of bisexuality; but the overwhelming dominant majority are going to be heterosexual/heteroflexible.

It's disingenuous to say that heterosexuality isn't normative given human biology.

it's disingenuous to interpret my post in this way when it was entirely formulated around societal attitudes and not strict numerical values

your posts point out to me that you aren't interested in having this conversation honestly

this is about what i expected when i made that post, so i guess i'm a glutton for punishment

It can appear "forced" in the sense that homosexuality is not hereditary (for obvious reasons) so it needs to "recruit" through various mediums.

oh online forums

 

[nzcamel]

it's disingenuous to interpret my post in this way when it was entirely formulated around societal attitudes and not strict numerical values

your posts point out to me that you aren't interested in having this conversation honestly

this is about what i expected when i made that post, so i guess i'm a glutton for punishment

oh online forums

You cannot just separate societal attitudes from strict numerical values that go back as long as humanity has walked the earth sorry. It wouldn't surprise me if Bioware bought into the idea that you can separate these things either...but they'd be wrong too.

 

[miaasma]

oh, online forums

 

[Homusubi]

It was probably an oversight on the part of Firaxis, and although I'm not straight myself, I'd rather keep the status quo than force Firaxis to change it because of perceived political correctness.

Having said that, I am in the process of making a reverse-Flirtatious agenda mod for anyone else who wants gay leaders.

 

[halfhalfharp]

It was probably an oversight on the part of Firaxis, and although I'm not straight myself, I'd rather keep the status quo than force Firaxis to change it because of perceived political correctness.

Having said that, I am in the process of making a reverse-Flirtatious agenda mod for anyone else who wants gay leaders.

That sounds nice but I think LGBT agendas work in a more complex way.

Just as what I have said:
Take an example of a gay man, he will dislike any rivalry, male or female, in a relationship. That will him dislike anyone in the game. Thus I don't think that it will be practical to add a homosexual agenda in Flirtatious.

That will be a mess for homosexuality:
"I hate you Cleo, because I sexually don't like woman.
I hate you Trajan, because you may seduce my man, but I like your strong arms."

It will not be simply the liking of the same gender, and hate another. He will literally dislike every rivalry. Heterosexuality on the other hand has no such problem.

How will you handle such complexity?

 

[Kwami]

That sounds nice but I think LGBT agendas work in a more complex way.

Just as what I have said:
Take an example of a gay man, he will dislike any rivalry, male or female, in a relationship. That will him dislike anyone in the game. Thus I don't think that it will be practical to add a homosexual agenda in Flirtatious.

That will be a mess for homosexuality:
"I hate you Cleo, because I sexually don't like woman.
I hate you Trajan, because you may seduce my man, but I like your strong arms."

It will not be simply the liking of the same gender, and hate another. He will literally dislike every rivalry. Heterosexuality on the other hand has no such problem.

How will you handle such complexity?

I'm not sure why you think that homosexuals are somehow different than heterosexuals with regards to relationships. That's just total nonsense. To illustrate, consider if Cleo was Flirtatious. "I hate you, Gilgamesh, because I don't like men." "I hate you, Vicky, because you might compete with me for romances, but your breasts are nice." See? It's not any different.

Anyway, we're all off-topic a bit. I don't see many calls for adding gay leaders to the game. The agendas have many other problems, too. Best to just remove them.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I'm not sure why you think that homosexuals are somehow different than heterosexuals with regards to relationships. That's just total nonsense. To illustrate, consider if Cleo was Flirtatious. "I hate you, Gilgamesh, because I don't like men." "I hate you, Vicky, because you might compete with me for romances, but your breasts are nice." See? It's not any different.

I suppose a straight Cleo won't have the slightest intention to sleep with Vicky because she has nice breasts.
A gay Alexander will think Trajan as a potential rivalry to his relationship with Gilgamesh, as well as having the intention to sleep with him.
Just for example, of course.

Heterosexuals (if they are purely hetero) will not consider the same gender as potential partners, they consider each other rivalries.
While homos will consider the same gender as both potential partners and rivalries.
Can you see my point?

 

[Kwami]

I suppose a straight Cleo won't have the slightest intention to sleep with Vicky because she has nice breasts.
A gay Alexander will think Trajan as a potential rivalry to his relationship with Gilgamesh, as well as having the intention to sleep with him.
Just for example, of course.

Heterosexuals (if they are purely hetero) will not consider the same gender as potential partners, they consider each other rivalries.
While homos will consider the same gender as both potential partners and rivalries.
Can you see my point?

No, your point is utter nonsense. Homosexual relationships are not different from heterosexual relationships. All you'd have to do to make the "Flirtatious" agenda "gay" is flip a bit so that the leaders likes same sex and hates opposite sex. I'm not suggesting that we should do that (I'd rather remove the creepy agendas entirely), but that's all it would take.

To be clear, a Flirtatious leader likes all leaders of the opposite sex and dislikes all leaders of the same sex. There's no concept of rivalry or prefering one leader in a class over another. So, in your example, Alexander would like Trajan and Gilgamesh and there would be no problem.

It's all quite silly and bad.

 

[steveg700]

it's disingenuous to interpret my post in this way when it was entirely formulated around societal attitudes and not strict numerical values

your posts point out to me that you aren't interested in having this conversation honestly

this is about what i expected when i made that post, so i guess i'm a glutton for punishment

Well, you had multiple choices of posts to respond to, and many ways to respond. You chose not to respond to my softball questions seeking a clinical response and instead went with the reply where you could espouse indignation. So, that will leave folks questioning if you were interested in conversation or was just seeking to have your predispositions validated.

Does "_____normative" involve decoupling the numerical majorities from creating a normative for social attitudes? If the issue at hand were trying to deal with the line between calling things "aberrant" or "deviant" in a pejorative sense because they deviate from the norm, then I think that's got a solid foundation to build on. But it seems there's more going on than that.

oh online forums

It's a mixed bag, but you can't control that. You can exercise your own sense of accountability. If you are of the opinion that people are either on board with you from the get-go or they're idiots deserving of disdain, then indeed your words were doomed.