6 ms·

No, but it's still better than not having such a person around at all.

by Bishonen88 6y ago

veddox 6y ago
I find the two pretty orthogonal...
- clankyclanker 6y ago
  Exactly. The statement is designed to be a meaningless deflection, a mental “nothing to see here, move along,” for cultural awareness.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  How so? Presumably an individual from a specific background is more likely to be able to evaluate slights against that background, vs a random individual. Individual experiences vary, but it's a helluva better start than... you know... not.
  - Dirlewanger 6y ago
    Because it's complete nonsense. With this logic, I can make a game about the Belgians colonized the Congo, leave out all that business about slaves on plantations, maiming said slaves on plantations for not meeting their quotas etc., portray the Belgians as magnanimous bringers of culture, and then say "oh, well, we had British people involved in the making of the game so it's OK"
    - zentiggr 6y ago
      I think the closer parallel to the game opening text would be if Congolese residents were involved?
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      > "... so it's OK" Did they say that? Regardless of the end product, I'd rather support something that had the involvement of some of the subgroups involved that are depicted in the media, than support something that had the involvment of none. We can debate up and down on the relative efficiency and whether there's a better way to achieve informed representation. But I think it's a stretch to say involving more diverse viewpoints is worse than not.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    They may be better than a random individual, but they will be surrounded by their superiors who don't understand or necessarily respect their point of view. Imagine having a meeting with ten people mostly above your rank psyched about an idea and you have to start the argument that it's inappropriate. Now imagine needing to do that every day. Even with everyone involved having the best intentions, that task seems doomed to fail.

No, but it's still better than not having such a person around at all.

veddox 6y ago

I find the two pretty orthogonal...

clankyclanker 6y ago
Exactly. The statement is designed to be a meaningless deflection, a mental “nothing to see here, move along,” for cultural awareness.
ethbr0 6y ago
How so? Presumably an individual from a specific background is more likely to be able to evaluate slights against that background, vs a random individual. Individual experiences vary, but it's a helluva better start than... you know... not.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  Because it's complete nonsense. With this logic, I can make a game about the Belgians colonized the Congo, leave out all that business about slaves on plantations, maiming said slaves on plantations for not meeting their quotas etc., portray the Belgians as magnanimous bringers of culture, and then say "oh, well, we had British people involved in the making of the game so it's OK"
  - zentiggr 6y ago
    I think the closer parallel to the game opening text would be if Congolese residents were involved?
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    > "... so it's OK" Did they say that? Regardless of the end product, I'd rather support something that had the involvement of some of the subgroups involved that are depicted in the media, than support something that had the involvment of none. We can debate up and down on the relative efficiency and whether there's a better way to achieve informed representation. But I think it's a stretch to say involving more diverse viewpoints is worse than not.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  They may be better than a random individual, but they will be surrounded by their superiors who don't understand or necessarily respect their point of view. Imagine having a meeting with ten people mostly above your rank psyched about an idea and you have to start the argument that it's inappropriate. Now imagine needing to do that every day. Even with everyone involved having the best intentions, that task seems doomed to fail.