Transphobes are doxxing Stardew Valley fans after they asked the game developer for pronouns
Transphobes are doxxing Stardew Valley fans after they asked the game developer for pronouns
You're viewing a single thread.
WTF man, Stardew Valley of all things?
If you pay attention to a lot of the undertones in Stardew valley it’s clear (IMO) that Concerned Ape is conservative.
I like the game but I’m always surprised that people think Stardew is a leftist/liberal paradise because it allows same sex relationships.
This is a wild take. The politics of the game - to the extent that it exists at all - are skeptical about office desk jobs and large supermarket chains. It is even hard to even take those elements too seriously because they entire presentation is so whimsical.
Do all games need to be overtly leftist in order to not be conservative?
Conservative? What in the fuck? The game is a soulful, anti-capitalist love letter to the earth, growth, love, hardship, seasons, animals, and personal relationships. The only thing conservative about it is a reverence for small community and a simpler way of life. I'm left-wing as hell and even I long for those things. It'd be different if the villagers were xenophobic or something, or if the main plot was to keep a Sikh family from settling down into the valley..
Conservative undertones? I'm curious why you think that. Could you elaborate?
There's strong tones of anti-corporatism and a clear favour towards communal living. And the obvious "care-for-the-Earth" stuff. But I don't think those are necessarily conservative. I could see the argument for Christian undertones, but more in the traditional "love thy neighbour" and "custodianship" sense.
Please elaborate!
This is news to me
Well for starters it’s completely capitalistic and supports the idea of work = reward. Big business is bad but small business is good.
But socially, it stereotypes issues and what little different cultures there are.
There are no Asian people. There is one black character whose first quest is to farm a melon. Seriously.
The person experiencing homelessness is the noble savage who doesn’t mind not having a home, it’s his choice.
The alcoholic is saveable and finds the error in their ways.
The abandoned child gets adopted and it’s a happy ending.
There’s no crime.
The teacher is a young white woman.
The mayor is an old white man.
The doctor is white man.
The shop owners are a white man and two white women.
The blacksmith is white.
The town failure who lives in a trailer is saved by the player by getting a house which solves their problems. They are also a euphemism for white trash because putting a ghetto in Stardew would have been a bit too on the nose.
It’s a middle class white person who works in IT idealised society (I.e. concerned apes) where there are simple cause and effect solutions to complex problems. I.e. a conservative ideology.
I like Stardew as much as the next person but I am not going to be shocked when Concerned Ape rebuffs attempts at him to declare his position on trans issues.
I see where you're coming from, but the experience of playing the game doesn't present you with this kind of avalanche of dog whistles. I'll agree that it's a naive and somewhat 1D take on country living, but I think it actually does a lot of work to be inclusive, and show themes of mutual aid, if not actually advocating for socialism or anarchy.
I’ve played the game.
A lot.
As I said, I like Stardew but this was always my impression of it.
If CA wasn’t solely responsible for everything in the game you’d be able to make some concessions about this but this game is (IMO) a reflection of their world view. Consciously or subconsciously they’ve written it into the game.
Again, it’s fine I don’t mind playing around in one guys idealised society (Demetrius quest line aside), I wish it wasn’t as mono as it is but the game play and lore are still good enough.
I still disagree with you but thanks for posting an explanation
Is Maru not black?
Yeah she’s half black.
I also thought that Sandy was brown but that was a mistake the closet to a brown character is Gus but I’m not even sure that’s the case.
I see you edited your comment to remove you saying there only being one black character.
Also, please explain Abigail being the secret love child of the Wizard in a conservative fashion.
I'm off the pronoun thing. Just stop. Be whoever, whatever you want. Your pronoun does not define you. You can't make English nonsensical. 'They took a bath.'
They has been a singular pronoun for centuries. It's only nonsensical if you're a brainlet sucking on the teat of outrage media
This is only true if the referent is unknown. The new thing about singular they is that it is now being used for known referents. Which is perfectly fine of course, but not centuries old.
I'm not centuries old but I've used it to refer to individuals when I didn't know their gender, and also when it wasn't necessary to indicate gender to determine who I was talking about.
I'm almost fifty and went to private schools if it helps.
Oh sure, I use singular they a lot too. And I have no problem using it for non-binary people. I just don't like wrong information being posted online without it being disputed.
https://www.englishgratis.com/1/wikibooks/english/singularthey.htm
There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend — Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3, 1594
'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech. — Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 3, 1600–1602
So lyke wyse shall my hevenly father do vnto you except ye forgeve with youre hertes eache one to his brother their treaspases. — Tyndale's Bible, 1526
All of these are centuries old, and each of them know the gender of whom they speak of. You are incorrect. Please update your knowledge and don't correct someone for something you didn't at least look up.
Yeah, those examples are precisely what I mean. The article you linked to explains exactly what I mean, even stating that Shakespeare wouldn't have used "they" if he knew the gender of the person he referred to.
The referents in these cases are general, not specific people. "Not a man" - no one, not referring to a specific person. "Some more audience than a mother" - someone else than a mother, not a specific person. "Each one" - not a specific person but every person.
If you look at dictionary definitions over the centuries, you'll find singular they mentioned, but always specifically for this general meaning.
As an added note I don't think it makes a difference if the current use is new or not, and it shouldn't matter in this debate. Language changes all the time, even if people resist it.
Lol, they just had the exact same argument with me.
Yeah, it's silly. I think the whole linguistic discussion is irrelevant. It's a new phenomenon, which is great. I love how language evolves.
...even stating that Shakespeare wouldn't have used "they" if he knew the gender of the person he referred to.
I literally gave two examples of him doing so. What are you talking about?
Sure, they aren't referring to any specific person, but the gender is clearly stated. Your prior reasoning was that it was improper if the gender is known, not if the person is known. Stop shifting goalposts and just accept new information when it's presented.
As an added note I don't think it makes a difference if the current use is new or not, and it shouldn't matter in this debate. Language changes all the time, even if people resist it.
Yes, that's correct. Someone was the first to use singular they. The argument about being grammatically correct is fairly stupid, because it's clear it is now. However, some people make an appeal to tradition saying it wasn't but it always has been for as long as they've been alive.
Take a chill pill, read the article you linked and have a nice day.
How dare thou use "you" as a singular for Sawzall. He/she/xi/fae/ze/whatever clearly identify with 1000-year old English. What would someone do with verbs after singularly "you"? Put plural verbs like "are" there? Would be ridiculous.
Touch grass.
Arguments made in bad faith (such as that made by Sawzall) deserve any ridicule. ¯\(ツ)/¯
Staple satire; filling, reliable, but a little hammy. 5/7 with rice?
"Make" English nonsensical? Lol, English is already one of the most nonsensical European languages!
Yeah dude, that Shakespeare guy didn't know English at all when he used the singular they! We should go tell him! Oh, that was over 400 years ago, and wasn't even the originator of it? Oh no. The language has been ruined for so long!
Congrats, we don't speak in Shakespeare.
Dude, Shakespeare is basically the epitome of English writing.
If your argument is that it's new, well you're fucking wrong because one of the most renowned writers of English used it centuries ago, as well as some translations of the Bible and other things.
If your argument is that grammar changes well then I'm sorry you're several centuries behind on this development. This one isn't new, however much of how we speak and write today is significantly newer. Notice no "thou art" or anything like that in either of our comments.
https://www.englishgratis.com/1/wikibooks/english/singularthey.htm
There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend — Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3, 1594
'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech. — Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 3, 1600–1602
So lyke wyse shall my hevenly father do vnto you except ye forgeve with youre hertes eache one to his brother their treaspases. — Tyndale's Bible, 1526
All of these are centuries old, and each of them know the gender of whom they speak of. You are incorrect. Please update your knowledge and don't correct someone for something you didn't at least look up.
Singular they is older than singular you. So that is "thy pronoun doesn't define thee" for thee, olden English person. I forbid thee from slandering yon fine folk whilst unlearnéd in the history of speech.
Complains about nonsense English, provides perfectly normal English sentence as an example. 🤔
Not I were talking about one person...
Do you not read much or something? I've been using both singular and plural "they" my whole life.
I’m well aware, it’s still a perfectly normal English sentence. “They” has been used as a singular for decades, and the recent acceptance of it in formal writing has no bearing on if it is a proper English sentence.
It would have been a proper sentence even 30 years ago.
Centuries, not decades. It predates Shakespeare.
I didn’t know the proper scope so erred on the side of caution. 😜
language changes. we don't speak like people did last century. gay used to mean happy. we can make english "nonsensical". we have, and we are, and we will. and you can't fucking stop it any more than you can stop kids from making slang. as much as you hate it, you know how the singular they works, and have no reason to be a little bitch about it. its in the dictionary. suck it up and stop whining.
Be you, whatever you want. Unless it annoys me. Then don't be that.
It does not annoy me at all. Just don't change grammar.
"They" has been used as a singular pronoun for literal centuries. No one's changed any grammar.
Please use They as a single person in a sentence I'd understand.
They already did.
You've been given several examples already, and even provided one yourself. If you don't understand any of those, you're either too stupid or too willfully ignorant to understand anything else I could come up with.
Obviously it annoys you enough to come on here and whine about "grammar."
Whyfor ne?
lollol you’re just a few years away from complaining that kids don’t speak properly anymore