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

The Anti-SJW crowd is as tiresome as the SJW crowd. Can we just get back to playing games

That's like saying chemotherapy is as tiresome as cancer.

Right.

You're right, we should just be getting back to playing games and ignoring the identity politics. But some developers are not, they're caving in and trying to make their games more 'inclusive'.

Good games are a kind of art. You're surprised artists are expressing themselves? Really?

- You need more pronouns
- You need more skincolor options
- You have too many black and not enough native people (Far Cry 5..)
- You can't show a sexy ass, that's objectifying ..

As long as there are SJWs pushing their joy-killing agenda I'm afraid we need the Anti-SJWs.
Thanks for the heads up on the issue, not buying infected products.

As long as there are people afraid of pronouns and colors...

Well, I'll buy your copy, gabber. Full price.
I've just put in on my wish list so I won't forget on Linux release.
You're welcome.


Last edited by Eike on 5 May 2018 at 12:20 pm UTC

It's a fun game, you can blow stuff up.
Glad it's getting a port at all.
Shame there are so many sour people around.

It's a fun game, you can blow stuff up.
Glad it's getting a port at all.
Shame there are so many sour people around.

Basically my thoughts.

I rarely get into these discussions, as they always turn sour very quickly. The way I see it though: Does an option like this stop other people playing it how they want to? That's the question that should matter, from what I've read and seen, it doesn't affect the gameplay in any way, so I just don't get why it's an issue for some.

Obviously all opinions welcome here, this is my own personal opinion, just keep it as respectful as you all can.

Edit: Spelling error.


Last edited by Liam Dawe on 8 May 2018 at 7:36 pm UTC

It's a fun game, you can blow stuff up.
Glad it's getting a port at all.
Shame there are so many sour people around.

Basically my thoughts.

I rarely get into these discussions, as they always turn sour very quickly. The way I see it though: Does an option like this stop other people paying it how they want to? That's the question that should matter, from what I've read and seen, it doesn't affect the gameplay in any way, so I just don't get why it's an issue for some.

Obviously all opinions welcome here, this is my own personal opinion, just keep it as respectful as you all can.

Earlier today I was reading some article about how Vulcans are racist, sexist and homophobic... Not even sure why I was reading it, but I learned a new word. Heteronormative... wtf? Uhm, sorry how is that even a word? The normal state of being for any creature, animal, etc is heterosexual. It's part of evolution, a species wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't.

Also it tried to say that just because Spock was more comfortable hanging out with dudes, that means he must be gay. It was pretty ridiculous. This was after arguing that he saw all women as illogical emotional messes because he grew up with his human mother. If you were a Vulcan in his situation, you'd probably rather hang with your buds as well.

This stamping onto Sci-Fi settings of current political or social climate is what's bothering me. Like the whole thing with them showing that Sulu has always been gay in the new Star Trek movies, just because the actor who played him originally was. Even George Takei was not thrilled about them doing that.

This is Battletech, which while not as well known as something like Star Trek, has a full history and timeline, and am pretty sure none of it is filled with pronouns.

The silly thing is, if 'they' would stop throwing it in everyone's faces, we'd ignore them like we ignore each other. The attention grab is what keeps them going. I watched some video a while back where someone was trying to argue that there were more than two genders, and they said that if someone didn't address them by their chosen pronoun (which the person never did) then it's an 'assault'. It was pretty ridiculous.

Anyhow, I'll still buy the game, I'll just ignore and/or find a mod for proper pronouns :P

The normal state of being for any creature, animal, etc is heterosexual. It's part of evolution, a species wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't.

Bonobos seem to be actively bisexual normally, and lasted some million years.
Clownfish are transsexual.
Salmons are hermaphrodites.
Brine shrimp are doing self-fertilization.
And there's many more examples.
Evolution has brought up many more ideas than heterosexuality.

The silly thing is, if 'they' would stop throwing it in everyone's faces, we'd ignore them like we ignore each other. The attention grab is what keeps them going.

I experienced the opposite here. If no-one would have brought it up here to complain about it, I still wouldn't have heard about it. The only things I had heard about the game is that it seems to be a good one.


Last edited by Eike on 6 May 2018 at 10:08 am UTC

However, I am even much more concerned with the political and cultural environment that this pronoun "revolution" represents, with university professors being jailed for using the 'wrong' pronoun. Ask Jordan B. Peterson. This is disheartening. This is real tyrannical oppression.

I read a bit about this person, but didn't find she was in jail and not even in court for anything she has done.

(I never heart about the law he's fighting. While of course, transgender people shouldn't be discriminated against, I'm not convinced using the right pronouns should be part of the law. (On the other hand, if we could imprison people abusing their language... ;) ))


Last edited by Eike on 6 May 2018 at 8:39 am UTC

Earlier today I was reading some article about how Vulcans are racist, sexist and homophobic... Not even sure why I was reading it, but I learned a new word. Heteronormative... wtf? Uhm, sorry how is that even a word? The normal state of being for any creature, animal, etc is heterosexual. It's part of evolution, a species wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't.

Sorry, I am not with the SJW crowd, but what you've said is just plainly wrong, biologically and scientifically.There are now about more than three decades of solid research (thousands, if not tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers) showing variations in expressions of sexuality in virtually every animal species, and I am not talking about hermaphroditism in fishes or the weird sex changes of reptiles, but of mammalians and birds. Sexual strategies varies a lot amongst species, and in most species there are almost always cases for which not being strictly heterosexual and "cis" (sorry, I don't like this word but there is transexuality involved too) pays off, in some of them it pays even for the majority of the population, and in some cases even exclusive homosexuality with no offspring can pay off because you might help other copies of your genes succeed. There is one thing in Evolution called [Evolutionary Stable Strategy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUxt--mMjwA) which helps a single species develop varied ways of living and reproducing, and that includes variations in sexual orientation and mating tactics.

I can cite lots of references that to you (I have a masters degree in biology), but I think the easiest would be the 1998's book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl (which although rich in pictures and examples lacks in evolutionary explanations), and the deep book Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective from Aldo Poiani.

Here'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.

Is that same thing happening to mankind? Maybe. We have weird social rules, unlike the Bonobo who just go off with whomever they like! Either way, a species needs to be able to procreate to survive.

Our species is clearly evolving due to longer lifespans, successful birth rate is higher, etc. We used to have the occasional plague happen to thin the numbers, but that hasn't happened for a long time.

I have nothing against gay people, I have nothing against anyone being whatever the hell they want to be. I just don't like it being constantly shoved in my face.

By the way, I'm fairly certain the main reason homosexuality was deemed so evil for so long is due to the latter days of the Roman empire. Earlier ones certainly embraced it, but with Christianity becoming the the main religion ~300AD, when they formulated the 'official' bible, I'm sure is when most of it was set in stone. Both Greek and Roman culture was fine with it before. Oddly that's also around the time the Dark Ages started, to be fair.

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.

I suggest The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch by Terry Pratchett and professors Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart instead for a slightly less academic but a more entertaining read. :P

Hey, don't judge me. These books are actually not bad as far as popular science goes.

I will look forward to reading this book, but on this very same subject I've also got a hilarious book to recommend: [Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Tatiana%27s_Sex_Advice_to_All_Creation). It is not exclusively about homo/bi/transsexuality, but it is so funny (without oversimplifying anything, and always maintaining scientific accuracy) that it spawned a TV series.

Man, this sounds great for learning something without making it too hard. I'm surprised it hasn't been translated to German...

I will look forward to reading this book, but on this very same subject I've also got a hilarious book to recommend: [Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Tatiana%27s_Sex_Advice_to_All_Creation). It is not exclusively about homo/bi/transsexuality, but it is so funny (without oversimplifying anything, and always maintaining scientific accuracy) that it spawned a TV series.

Man, this sounds great for learning something without making it too hard. I'm surprised it hasn't been translated to German...

A book about sex... that doesn't make it too hard...

I absolutely did not giggle.

Here'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

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.

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.

This 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.