Harebrained Schemes confirm again Linux support for BATTLETECH is a high priority

Quoting: Patola

Quoting: slaapliedjeHere's the thing about all of those species, it's population control for them to evolve with any homosexual tendencies. If heterosexual mating is required to reproduce, then by the natures of law it is required that the species be hetero/bisexual at the very least, correct? Just because a few of them or even large quantities are being homosexual, doesn't necessitate that the species still has to have some heterosexual activity to propagate the species. And yes, there are species that just change genders on the fly due to the needs of the gene pool.

Dude, you didn't even previously know about homosexual animals, and now you already got an explanation for the phenomena? For all the hundreds of thoroughly documented species, with all the quite different cases and strategies? For all the intrincate courtship rituals, for all the life-long bondings, for all the complex mating behaviors and preferences, for all the promiscuity and celibacy of the individuals, for all the coupling dynamics, for all the hormonal and brain conformations, for all the reproduction results? And for all the very diverse results of thousands of papers published? NO, YOU DON'T. And what you said makes even less sense: There is no such thing as "population control". Evolution never works "for the good of the species", because if one individual sacrifices himself for the species, the "sacrifice behavior" gene does not succeed, and it is eliminated from the gene pool (and since many rival alleles exist on the gene pool of the larger population, the copies of the gene on relatives do not succeed at a higher rate). This hypothesis, a form of group selection, was completely refuted in the 50's with lots of theory, calculations from population genetics and experiments, you are more than sixty years late. BTW, the famous lemmings documentary was a hoax.

Besides, the scientists which design these experiments are not retards. The first thing they want to check is whether it is a proper adaptation or collateral effect of other adaptations and/or constraints. Almost all experiments, field studies and research are designed to take this into consideration and eliminate (or ascertain) this possibility.

So, I will say it clearly: homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality are, in almost all cases where this was settled, proper adaptations. And to the point that it is an irreductible feature of most species -- and, again, even majority of the population in some.

Sorry but you need a better understanding of Evolution. I urge you to read books like the Selfish Gene by Professor Dawkins for a good introduction to the subject.

What? I knew about homosexual animals, I also know those are mutations (yes Dawkins himself said so in the video you linked. The "Pirate" is your mutation there. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying that's just the way it is, and that yes some animals are bi, some are gay, but if there weren't a large portion of them that were straight/bi they would die off, right? Like literally no one would be reproducing and the species would have no progenitors.

There was a video with Bill Nye where he discusses Bonobos, and he mentions a book that specifies that they being homosexual was more common within zoos or captivity. So tell me, let's say a plane with a sports team crashes on a deserted island. They spend 10 years there, bonding and surviving and living off the land. Eventually maybe they decide they need to let off some testosterone and start homosexual acts. This is pretty much their only course outside a wank here and there, or pure abstinence. Now let's say they come back to civilization, pretty sure there'd still be jerks that said they could have held out for 10 years..

Let's say they happen to luck out and somehow they had crashed on an island, but there were wars everywhere else and mankind had completely wiped each other out. So here's one team of all guys on a deserted island. Guess what? That's an evolutionary dead end. This is why there is no such thing as heteronormative. It's REQUIRED by evolution to actually BE ABLE to evolve! It doesn't matter if people have evolved and some of them have homosexual tendencies (I agree with the spectrum, people aren't 100% gay or 100% straight.)

This is why I say that homosexual/bisexual tendencies ARE an evolutionary thing. Apparently you missed me saying that in my other post. I said that it's an evolutionary thing due to overpopulation in a confined area. As per the Bonobos in a zoo being more likely to be homosexual than ones out in the wild.

Hell, with some of my previous hetero relationships, I'd rather go gay then have another like that!

BUT (all caps!) the reason for this discussion is the completely unnecessary inclusion of non-gendered people (yup, that's what I'm calling anyone who doesn't fit the yin/yang, pick one, don't be greedy like bisexuals.) in video games. Okay, let's say some science fiction writer starts writing a book now, and includes people of ambiguous sexuality/gender, and it becomes this huge hit and everyone's cool with it.

Suddenly there is a change in society (like some huge new religious cult, or whatever, could happen even in this 'age of reason') and anyone who isn't strictly male and female are killed at 10 because of a requirement of population control (say 100 years after hypothetical sci-fi series was completed) and then they start forcing out all of the 'they' in the series.

Oh wait, this already has happened with people wanting to remove the 'N' word out of all the Mark Twain books! It's already happening with new writers making Sulu gay (even though George Takei was for a gay character in Star Trek, but disapproved because Sulu was supposed to be straight, in his swashbuckling awesomeness.)

This is my complaint, when current social trends dictate what should be and overwrites or stamps over their thoughts on what the original writers had conceived.

It's up there with people saying Jesus was black, or a woman, etc. I say he was Hispanic, but that's for another discussion ;P

Quoting: slaapliedjeWhat? I knew about homosexual animals, I also know those are mutations (yes Dawkins himself said so in the video you linked. The "Pirate" is your mutation there. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying that's just the way it is, and that yes some animals are bi, some are gay, but if there weren't a large portion of them that were straight/bi they would die off, right? Like literally no one would be reproducing and the species would have no progenitors.

I think you're mixing up the words "mutation" and "mutant" here. There would be no evolution without mutation, but it simply means random changes in (the DNA of) an organism, possibly resulting in a trait that might or might not be beneficial or significant. A mutation is not a ninja turtle or a gay animal. I doubt Dawkins said anything like that, and if he did, he was oversimplifying to the point of losing the message. Always an easy mistake to make in explaining science.

In any case, I don't see your point. Yes, a species would die off it they didn't reproduce. How is that relevant to the discussion? Why does that make you care if someone does or doesn't use a pronoun? As a native Finnish speaker, I find the whole concept of gendered pronouns totally pointless, but that's neither here nor there.

@Patola: feel free to correct my corrections on the subject of biology or evolution. I'm no expert.

Quoting: slaapliedjeThis is why there is no such thing as heteronormative.

IMHO, you're just misinterpreting the term. It's not used to say that being hetero is unnormal, it's supposed to say that being hetero is not a norm/standard to be set for everybody. There's different people, and that's ok.

Quoting: slaapliedjeBUT (all caps!) the reason for this discussion is the completely unnecessary inclusion of non-gendered people (yup, that's what I'm calling anyone who doesn't fit the yin/yang, pick one, don't be greedy like bisexuals.) in video games.

Nothing about video games is necessary. Their contents (and their very existence) are up to the makers/artists. Question is, why do you think artists shoulnd't put non-hetros in their art?

Quoting: slaapliedjeThis is my complaint, when current social trends dictate what should be and overwrites or stamps over their thoughts on what the original writers had conceived.

Sorry, but this totally describes what you are doing at this very moment: You want to dictate the makers of the game to stop such "completely unnecessary inclusion". They are "the original writers" of their game.


Last edited by Eike on 8 May 2018 at 7:55 am UTC

I caved in actually and installed this game on windows ( I know, I know! But I had a kickstarter key)
But wow honestly the game is incredibly good, I love it.
Best PC game this year. Very addictive!


Last edited by nattydread on 10 May 2018 at 9:16 am UTC

Quoting: zimplex1I can't in good conscience support this game; not with the forced diversity and the "they" issue.

From a quick scan it seems they don't care about they or them.
They just made a universal character creator. Women with beards for instance...

What I must say…
1) FSCK "they". That's just plain wrong and should not exist! IT is the correct pronoun! Anyone without gender specefication should be addressed IT, as it always was. :D Like "Yesterday I saw a dog on a street. It was kinda cute!"
2) The whole dispute is moot as the game is not available on Linux. We are basically discussing non-existent thing.

I do find it hilarious that people take issue with the whole pronoun thing. Battletech is a universe where giant robots are able to walk around and not fall through the ground. Considering the rich history of science fiction, how is it that gender diversity is still an issue today? Gender diversity is prevalent throughout the various species on our planet (as discussed in the previous dissertations), what is the issue? No one is forcing you to play a non-binary character - it is entirely OPTIONAL.

That people decry this somehow impacts their "free speech" is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. No one is threatening free speech here. Indeed, you can release your own game showcasing as little or as much diversity as you want. Games featuring aesthetically pleasing heterosexual white men aren't going anywhere. That people feel threatened on this issue shows how incredibly thin skinned they must be.

It's no skin off my nose if I'm able to pick a non-binary character. It's nice to have more options. If this helps people who identify in that group get more immersed in the game, then all the better for them. I don't see why we need to cater for the snowflakes who preach intolerance so that we have a narrower selection. Instead of straw-manning the argument, they should take a hard look in the mirror and consider why they have gender acceptance issues.

The silliness in this thread is over 9000. SJW have _no_ place in really much of anything. To dismiss that as trivial and "just get back to discussing gaming", when the devs themselves take such a political stance is a bit revolting. It's a glimpse into what one should expect from not only the game but the company, for some that is preferably before spending their money. I don't see a problem with that. I'd rather know upfront how they will respond when presented with the inevitable challenges every other community has faced.

Going on record to say there are two biological genders. Whatever else YOU identify as is irrelevant. I'm not going to go out of my way to discriminate or harass you but arguing about pronouns is pedantic.

Watched what I could stand of the pre release stream on twitch. It's not that the game or the genre is bad but was being presented quite poorly. They should have had an actual streamer or two on their official channel. It's hard to describe but PUBG tournaments have the same problem atm.

Fun fact, Valve took flack for not changing the team names in Counter-Strike after September 11th, 2001. Thankfully they knew better but I doubt that would fly now.

Quoting: devnullTo dismiss that as trivial and "just get back to discussing gaming", when the devs themselves take such a political stance is a bit revolting.

I still ask: Why should we care. I just don't see what shocks you to the point of revulsion here. Artists and creators do have their own politics and opinions, just like the rest of us. I'd understand if they were spreading hate speech or something. This is almost the opposite.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: devnullTo dismiss that as trivial and "just get back to discussing gaming", when the devs themselves take such a political stance is a bit revolting.

I still ask: Why should we care. I just don't see what shocks you to the point of revulsion here. Artists and creators do have their own politics and opinions, just like the rest of us. I'd understand if they were spreading hate speech or something. This is almost the opposite.

It's virtue signaling and identity politics, nothing more. This isn't Life is Strange where left/alt left liberal correctly fits the games narrative. It's literally about battling robots.