Yes, but a long line of acceptable characters and representations can be easily overlooked for some demographics by a shorter line of notable offensive examples. No one remember all the times someone has successfully used a crosswalk, but they remember when someone got face peeled on the front of a truck in it.

If you are respectful and do it will it will go unnoticed. Most people do not care if you are speaking on things second hand. Just don’t drown out the first hand experiences, be respectful, and in general your actions will go unnoticed. And the tiny number of loud people won’t matter in the grand scheme. Empathy-policing Georg is an outlier and should not be counted.

I get anxious about terms like "acceptable." I'm on board if you mean not relying on stereotypes--I take as a given that stereotypes make for bad characters. I think you're saying that an author creating characters must not block the way for first-hand experiences. The latter is autobiography, though, and I'm talking about fiction. Tom Wolfe had never been a young woman in college when he wrote "I Am Charlotte Simmons." Richard Price had never been an African American gang member when he wrote "Clockers." Neither was writing to go unnoticed or overlooked. Writing fiction is often an act of breathing life into characters until at some point they act on their own in service fo your story. They don't exist to offend or not to offend. Say I create a character. She might be the antagonist. She might do bad things. She was conceived as an individual, not as an identity or a representation, but if you're steeped in an ideology that emphasizes group identity first and foremost and views human history as a power struggle between groups, then this character might be threatening because she is interpreted as a negative representation of a group. That's not my frame of reference because I don't view history that way, but if you do, then I've dropped the ball because I haven't served up a positive role model for one side of the struggle.

I like to think you're right, that over time, great writing survives , but this debate has been going on (in academia at least) since the 80s. I hope we get back to a place where we take people as individuals, real or fictional.

If you are respectful and do it will it will go unnoticed. Most people do not care if you are speaking on things second hand. Just don’t drown out the first hand experiences, be respectful, and in general your actions will go unnoticed. And the tiny number of loud people won’t matter in the grand scheme. Empathy-policing Georg is an outlier and should not be counted.

The ideological grounds are almost always a long road of people before doing it poorly/distasteful/exploitatively. A vocal minority might never accept it, but if done well and with understanding such things tend to be acceptable to the masses.

I don't often hear that stated. What I hear is that I, by virtue of what I am, have no business presuming that I can create characters outside my demographic (or really have any opinion about issues that affect a demographic other than my own). And it's not like artists just figured out the day before yesterday how to create a broad range of characters well and with understanding. There is a long road of artists doing so.

Would you buy it to get a remasterd version of Vanquish?

Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, a wise man once said.

Line 7 :
"It is the star to every wand'ring bark,"

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but if you mean male protagonists that show their feminine side, I can list many sensitive male protagonists dating back 50 years or more. Holden Caulfield, call your office.

Lol. Holden was absolutely not a role model, and the whole point of the book was to show he was kind of shit and needed to grow up.

A-ha! You just explained why he was a role model for me. :) I'm smiling, but I'm making a serious point.

Lest anyone try to read between the lines and attribute all kinds of crap to me, I believe all people should be treated with respect. I don't care for exploitive media, but i also think we can easily err in over emphasizing its effect on behavior. I don't think most media makes us shoot or rape each other, and I think most of us can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

It's more subtle than that. It's the accumulation of cultural ideas and attitudes expressed in media that get reinforced. And yes, over time this does affect you.

Probably so, but much depends on what "it" is. If "it" includes the notion that human history simply consists of a nefarious patriarchy that subjugated women, then yes, I think "it's" more subtle than that.

You originally brought up an interesting point. Your assumption of who (and by implication, how many) would dislike playing as Alyx is what stopped me. I see this kind of characterization a lot. Everyone who disagrees with me is throwing fits, blowing dogwhistles, or they are idiots clutching at pearls. It makes actual debate difficult.

Don't talk about anything unless we're an expert. Gotcha.

I wasn't clear?

Harmanimus' post is a fine elaboration.

Snark and Hyperbole rarely ever are. You don't seem to realize that in your attempt you have only added to what you protest. Oh well. I await the deferred.

If I've misunderstood your point feel free to correct me. If you're simply annoyed I dismissed your point so readily, that's on you.

Nah, I'll pass this time. I grow tired to the abuse of my good faith. I hate this, but if you can't see past your own nose, that is your own problem. Everything you need to extrapolate from is there, including the added verse you made.

I suppose you'll have to await the deferred too.

Edit: Saw this. Had to add. I regret nothing.

Don't talk about anything unless we're an expert. Gotcha.

I wasn't clear?

Harmanimus' post is a fine elaboration.

Snark and Hyperbole rarely ever are. You don't seem to realize that in your attempt you have only added to what you protest. Oh well. I await the deferred.

If I've misunderstood your point feel free to correct me. If you're simply annoyed I dismissed your point so readily, that's on you.

Don't talk about anything unless we're an expert. Gotcha.

I wasn't clear?

Harmanimus' post is a fine elaboration.

Snark and Hyperbole rarely ever are. You don't seem to realize that in your attempt you have only added to what you protest. Oh well. I await the deferred.

It's good to be under the rock. Sorry for your troubles, my friend. Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, a wise man once said. My best to you both.

All good my man, thanks.

I hope the point I was trying to make was clear. I'm consistently surprised how difficult it is to empathize with people. The skill ceiling, so to speak, is unlimited.

I got it. I’m a literature guy who got into it at a time when the academic fad was to deconstruct its value and essentially deconstruct the possibility for words to have a meaning that can be commonly understood. To my mind the value of literature has always been to improve our ability to empathize. If it’s not obvious I’m pretty passionately against narratives that make the barriers between us seem insurmountable. On a personal note when I was younger and actively writing my fiction was more often than not told from the female perspective. That’s just what came out. I got praise for it from women. Today I don’t think that would be acceptable by some on ideological grounds. Frankly I think that’s bull.

Interesting! I've not felt much success writing the female voice, though to be fair I've not attempted it all that much. From what I've heard, it really shouldn't be all that different from a so-called male voice. Problem starts with me, I'm quite sure.

Completely agree that barriers between people are not insurmountable. Will we know each other perfectly? No, of course not, but we can get good enough. ;)

It's good to be under the rock. Sorry for your troubles, my friend. Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, a wise man once said. My best to you both.

All good my man, thanks.

I hope the point I was trying to make was clear. I'm consistently surprised how difficult it is to empathize with people. The skill ceiling, so to speak, is unlimited.

I got it. I’m a literature guy who got into it at a time when the academic fad was to deconstruct its value and essentially deconstruct the possibility for words to have a meaning that can be commonly understood. To my mind the value of literature has always been to improve our ability to empathize. If it’s not obvious I’m pretty passionately against narratives that make the barriers between us seem insurmountable. On a personal note when I was younger and actively writing my fiction was more often than not told from the female perspective. That’s just what came out. I got praise for it from women. Today I don’t think that would be acceptable by some on ideological grounds. Frankly I think that’s bull.

It's good to be under the rock. Sorry for your troubles, my friend. Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, a wise man once said. My best to you both.

All good my man, thanks.

I hope the point I was trying to make was clear. I'm consistently surprised how difficult it is to empathize with people. The skill ceiling, so to speak, is unlimited.

Harmanimus' post is a fine elaboration.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but if you mean male protagonists that show their feminine side, I can list many sensitive male protagonists dating back 50 years or more. Holden Caulfield, call your office.

Lol. Holden was absolutely not a role model, and the whole point of the book was to show he was kind of shit and needed to grow up.

Lest anyone try to read between the lines and attribute all kinds of crap to me, I believe all people should be treated with respect. I don't care for exploitive media, but i also think we can easily err in over emphasizing its effect on behavior. I don't think most media makes us shoot or rape each other, and I think most of us can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

It's more subtle than that. It's the accumulation of cultural ideas and attitudes expressed in media that get reinforced. And yes, over time this does affect you.

I mean. You’re putting forth an image that is reflective of the core concepts of solipsism as if it is adolescent rubbish. Rumination on self actualization and the impacts of social pressures on how that is outwardly expressed is probably one of the best and most digestible things Cody has presented in quite some time. This is a huge topic with many rabbit holes. But he’s actually highlighting a specific circumstance that makes for an even more interesting position for the question.

Also arguments aren’t made to convince your opponent to agree with you, but to ensure that others may see that there are alternatives to your opponent’s conclusions.

I know. I did mention Cyberpunk, did I not? It's not what he said, it's how he said it... as I suppose it tends to be with me. As I recall, I've said that a few times before here.

Also, I've never liked the "argument" concept. More often then not, it always becomes a contest of ego instead of a contest of exploring perspectives you may not of comprehended otherwise. Plus passions tend to get involved, and then everything gets crazy. Winning! Feh. Open the door, and lets explore such brilliant sorrow together, if one can.

That's the simple version anyway.

Then again I suppose doing it "right and proper" would be rather energy intensive wouldn't it.

But Hey! Let's entertain this for but a moment. I have spoken what I see in all its beautiful fallibility, would you have me do anything else?