Nintendo remove racismsims

  • 80 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for DocSanchez
#51 Posted by DocSanchez (4876 posts) -

Presented without comment. Oh, Nintendo...

Avatar image for Jag85
#52 Edited by Jag85 (12224 posts) -
@kali-b1rd said:

People getting annoyed at Katie Perry for doing a show in a Kimono - while the actual Japanese couldn't give a sh*t either way shows how disconnected the overly-progressive movement is.

I'm pretty sure the progressive movement really hates White Female Red Heads too:

  • Mary Jane (Spiderman MCU ) now Black.
  • Triss Merigold - (Witcher Netflix) now Black
  • Starfire (whatever shit it is) now Black

Many of the people who were offended by Katie Perry's Kimono show were Asian-Americans, including Japanese-Americans. Whereas most native Japanese people in Japan couldn't care less. It was similar for other instances of Japanese "cultural appropriation" backlash, such as Avril Lavigne's "Hello Kitty" song, or the "whitewashing" in Death Note and Ghost in the Shell. Many of the people offended by these are Asian-Americans, including Japanese-Americans, whereas most native Japanese couldn't care less either way. The difference in worldview comes down to a differing majority-minority dynamic. Asian-Americans are a minority group with a history of being marginalised, particularly Japanese-Americans, whereas native Japanese are the majority in their own country.

As for the "White Female Red Heads" thing, to address each of those claims:

  • As already pointed out, Mary Jane is not in the MCU. And neither was she in The Amazing Spider-Man, where she was replaced by Gwen Stacey... Ironically, Gwen was Peter's original love interest in the comics, before she was killed-off and replaced by MJ. As for the MCU, they didn't want to use either Gwen or Mary again because that's already been done before. Marvel wanted a fresh modern-day start, so they decided to introduce a new female lead for Homecoming. And since Spider-Man's hometown of Queens is only 25% white (non-Hispanic), it wouldn't make sense for the new character to be white. Marvel set out to make a realistic representation of modern-day Queens (which is highly diverse). That's where MCU Spider-Man is from, not the Queens of the 1960s (when the area was predominantly white).
  • The Witcher Netflix series is based on the original books, not the games. Triss was not a redhead in the original books. The Witcher author himself said the game characters don't look much at all like his book characters. Geralt also did not have a beard in the books, so the backlash against Henry Cavill's lack of beard is ridiculous. It's obvious most Witcher game fans haven't read the books. Furthermore, many Witcher game fans don't even like the books or its author, who they attacked simply for having the nerve to ask for royalties. Many toxic Witcher game fans clearly have no respect for the original source material. As for the actress playing Triss in the Netflix series, she does not look black, but looks mixed-ethnicity (possibly part-white & part-black). If anything, she's light-skinned enough to pass for a "tanned" Southern European (when she straightens her hair).
  • And finally, the Titans Netflix trailer looks like the same old "dark and edgy" DC garbage. Makes no difference whatever ethnicity the characters are. Also, if you're not a Teen Titans fan anyway, why would the ethnicity of the actors even bother you at all?

Avatar image for onesiphorus
#53 Posted by onesiphorus (2559 posts) -
@ProtossRushX said:

will the attack still be in the game without the feather on his head or is he just getting nerfed?

Only the feather is being removed.

Anyway, why is this thread in System Wars? Where is the Political Gamers forum? Put this thread THERE!!

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#54 Posted by nintendoboy16 (35365 posts) -

@DocSanchez: Pretty sure that's why they changed Jynx's skintone to purple in the modern Pokemon games.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#55 Edited by uninspiredcup (28568 posts) -

People are arguing if Pokemon is racist, when it's essentially promoting imprisoning animal fighting to children.

Any argument of Pikachu and other similar ilk"willingly" doing it because they are "friends" is irrelevant when stockholm syndrome is taken into account.

Far worse than a black-face Pokemon imo.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#56 Posted by PC_Rocks (1305 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@KungfuKitten:

Would it be okay to make a game where you play as Nazis defending your fort against Jews? Or as white slave owners defending your plantation from angry black slaves? Because that's essentially what Fire Attack (and a lot of old "cowboys & Indians" shit) was, where you play as white "cowboy" colonialists "defending" themselves from Native American "savages", a racist narrative that was used to justify the Native American genocide for centuries. It's easy to see why that shit would be offensive to Native Americans (or frankly, anyone who is repulsed by the Native American genocide). The old racist "cowboys & Indians" garbage may have been popular decades ago, but that shit is not popular today.

Also, there is nothing unusual about Nintendo's move. Disney has been doing the same thing, distancing themselves from racist caricatures found in some of their older works. Like Nintendo said, "The original game on which this depiction of the character is based was released more than three decades ago and does not represent our company values today." Nintendo is a company that has a family-friendly reputation to protect.

This.

Avatar image for Jag85
#57 Posted by Jag85 (12224 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:

People are arguing if Pokemon is racist, when it's essentially promoting imprisoning animal fighting to children.

Any argument of Pikachu and other similar ilk"willingly" doing it because they are "friends" is irrelevant when stockholm syndrome is taken into account.

Far worse than a black-face Pokemon imo.

By that same token, one could argue that keeping pets is also a form of animal cruelty/imprisonment/slavery...

Rutgers law professors say pets are 'animal slaves,' argue domestication is form of torture

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#58 Edited by uninspiredcup (28568 posts) -

@Jag85 said:
@uninspiredcup said:

People are arguing if Pokemon is racist, when it's essentially promoting imprisoning animal fighting to children.

Any argument of Pikachu and other similar ilk"willingly" doing it because they are "friends" is irrelevant when stockholm syndrome is taken into account.

Far worse than a black-face Pokemon imo.

By that same token, one could argue that keeping pets is also a form of animal cruelty/imprisonment/slavery...

Rutgers law professors say pets are 'animal slaves,' argue domestication is form of torture

Depends on the pet really. Dogs evolved to become house-pets and cats are quite independent. They get treated well and forcing them to fight would be illegal in the majority of civil countries.

Keeping a animal inside a 12cm ball and only allowing it to be free when you want it to fight is cruel and usual treatment. Him allowing Pikachu to free,over others just makes Ash less cruel through favoritism,.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
#59 Posted by X_CAPCOM_X (8171 posts) -

@uninspiredcup: blackface anything is horrifyingly bad. If one understands American history, you would immediately understand why.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#60 Edited by uninspiredcup (28568 posts) -

@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@uninspiredcup: blackface anything is horrifyingly bad. If one understands American history, you would immediately understand why.

No one said it wasn't. If you read, you would bla bla bla, bla.

Animal cruelty is worse. Something is being physically hurt and mentally hurt, and (depending) killed.

Something being offending is significantly less worse.

Because that's common sense.

Pokemon as a concept is far worse than a singular black-face Pokemon that isn't even human.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
#61 Edited by X_CAPCOM_X (8171 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@uninspiredcup: blackface anything is horrifyingly bad. If one understands American history, you would immediately understand why.

No one said it wasn't. If you read, you would bla bla bla, bla.

Animal cruelty is worse. Something is being physically hurt and mentally hurt, and (depending) killed.

Something being offending is significantly less worse.

Because that's common sense.

Looks like you don't really know American history then.

EDIT: this is quite appalling. Do you know the historical context of blackface performances? Did you know that they preceded lynchings and other violence, were used to justify state legislation enforcing segregation etc.? Also, equally as appalling, are you implying that animals should be treated better than people of color?

Another question: do you think black people use the internet, specifically, gaming forums?

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#62 Edited by uninspiredcup (28568 posts) -

@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@uninspiredcup: blackface anything is horrifyingly bad. If one understands American history, you would immediately understand why.

No one said it wasn't. If you read, you would bla bla bla, bla.

Animal cruelty is worse. Something is being physically hurt and mentally hurt, and (depending) killed.

Something being offending is significantly less worse.

Because that's common sense.

Looks like you don't really know American history then.

So to be clear, someone using a black-face in a meduim is more offensive to you, than a (example) dog) being physically and mentally abused to the point of death? Because, history?

Na, that's silly.

Pokemon as a concept is intrinsically cruel. Hidden behind cute art design and happy faces.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
#63 Posted by X_CAPCOM_X (8171 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@uninspiredcup: blackface anything is horrifyingly bad. If one understands American history, you would immediately understand why.

No one said it wasn't. If you read, you would bla bla bla, bla.

Animal cruelty is worse. Something is being physically hurt and mentally hurt, and (depending) killed.

Something being offending is significantly less worse.

Because that's common sense.

Looks like you don't really know American history then.

So to be clear, someone using a black-face in a meduim is more offensive to you, than a (example) dog) being physically and mentally abused to the point of death? Because, history?

Na, that's silly.

I made a nice edit on the post above. I'll include the text here for you, since you don't know US history.

Quoted text:
"This is quite appalling. Do you know the historical context of blackface performances? Did you know that they preceded lynchings and other violence, were used to justify state legislation enforcing segregation etc.? Also, equally as appalling, are you implying that animals should be treated better than people of color?

Another question: do you think black people use the internet, specifically, gaming forums?"

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#64 Edited by uninspiredcup (28568 posts) -

@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:
@uninspiredcup said:

No one said it wasn't. If you read, you would bla bla bla, bla.

Animal cruelty is worse. Something is being physically hurt and mentally hurt, and (depending) killed.

Something being offending is significantly less worse.

Because that's common sense.

Looks like you don't really know American history then.

So to be clear, someone using a black-face in a meduim is more offensive to you, than a (example) dog) being physically and mentally abused to the point of death? Because, history?

Na, that's silly.

I made a nice edit on the post above. I'll include the text here for you, since you don't know US history.

Quoted text:

"This is quite appalling. Do you know the historical context of blackface performances? Did you know that they preceded lynchings and other violence, were used to justify state legislation enforcing segregation etc.? Also, equally as appalling, are you implying that animals should be treated better than people of color?

Another question: do you think black people use the internet, specifically, gaming forums?"

You aren't really arguing, just spamming "you don't know US history" over and over and some kind of get-out-of-jail pass.

I'm fairly certain if you asked educated historians far smarter than us, or people of color (any color), who aren't bat-shit insane, they'd side with me.

Which is great. Unity. Universal humanity.

Lovely stuff.

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
#65 Posted by X_CAPCOM_X (8171 posts) -

@uninspiredcup: Anyone who makes this argument either doesn't understand US history, or they are frankly OK with racism.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Am I "bat-shit insane" for pointing out the absolutely horrendous historical context of using blackface?

Also, I am pretty sure if I asked a well-read historian about the etymology of the language associated with jim crow performances and blackface itself, they would agree with me. I don't think you know what you're talking about.


Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#66 Edited by uninspiredcup (28568 posts) -

@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@uninspiredcup: Anyone who makes this argument either doesn't understand US history, or they are frankly OK with racism.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Am I "bat-shit insane" for pointing out the absolutely horrendous historical context of using blackface?

Also, I am pretty sure if I asked a well-read historian about the etymology of the language associated with jim crow performances and blackface itself, they would agree with me. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

If said persons think seeing a black-face pokemon is more troubling than seeing a living dog be abused to the point of death then yea, I think it is bat-shit insane, with no amount of "association with history on anything really, overtaking it.

Your benefit is irrelevant lol

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
#67 Posted by X_CAPCOM_X (8171 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:
@X_CAPCOM_X said:

@uninspiredcup: Anyone who makes this argument either doesn't understand US history, or they are frankly OK with racism.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Am I "bat-shit insane" for pointing out the absolutely horrendous historical context of using blackface?

Also, I am pretty sure if I asked a well-read historian about the etymology of the language associated with jim crow performances and blackface itself, they would agree with me. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

If think seeing a black-face pokemon is more troubling than seeing a living dog be abused to the point of death then yea, I think it is bat-shit insane, with no amount of "association with history on anything really, overtaking it.

Your benefit is irrelevant lol

I didn't claim any of that. Is that imagery you explained there even depicted in pokemon?

Another thing: you, in an attempt to make yourself seem morally ground (on whatever basis you are picking here) compare violence in pokemon to animal torture, and use language as such (see "living dog be abused to the point of death"), but when blackface is used in the same medium, you make sure to mention it with jest (see "black-face pokemon). You're treading some troublesome waters here.

The question is not for my benefit. It's to clarify your position on these important questions, which are increasingly important given the period we are entering. You are conveniently avoiding the questions. Why?

Avatar image for X_CAPCOM_X
#68 Posted by X_CAPCOM_X (8171 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

Sadly, the offensive Italian stereotypes remain. Nice work Resetera, you guys are just the best.

Also peep this. You make sure to mention this, even though it isn't even offensive or a stereotype in any way. But pokemon fighting are worse than blackface. (see what I did there?)

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
#69 Posted by Blackhairedhero (2053 posts) -

Lol lib snowflakes doing what they do best.

Avatar image for 360mli
#70 Posted by 360mli (332 posts) -

its all ab COMCAP my frend

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#71 Posted by uninspiredcup (28568 posts) -

@DocSanchez said:

Presented without comment. Oh, Nintendo...

This reminds me of Mr.PoPo. They made him blue in Dragonball Kai.

Better dialogue but the music absolutely sucks.

Avatar image for DocSanchez
#72 Posted by DocSanchez (4876 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@DocSanchez: Pretty sure that's why they changed Jynx's skintone to purple in the modern Pokemon games.

That really doesn't help.

Avatar image for DocSanchez
#73 Posted by DocSanchez (4876 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:
@DocSanchez said:

Presented without comment. Oh, Nintendo...

This reminds me of Mr.PoPo. They made him blue in Dragonball Kai.

Better dialogue but the music absolutely sucks.

I've seen things on some old SNK games too. I'm no "woke warrior" or anything but jesus, this shite belongs in the 1800s.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#74 Posted by GarGx1 (10410 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:
@knight-k said:

And further we sink into an extreme leftist dystopia.

OP, is this resetera's doing?

Part of it.

As a Scottish person I've been use to seeing grounds keeper willie present Scottish people as simple, backward, angry, bitter, easily upset, xenophobic, ginger, loud, emotionally cold to family members etc..

And although this is factually correct at no point did we complain.

If only he was a person of color with a vagina. Resetera would be all over that shit. Saving us.

-

But still, it will basically have no effect on the game either way. So eh.

We do have a habit of embracing our stereotypes and making them our own though.

Russ Abbot started the See You Jimmy thing as a piss take, it's ours now.

The rest of the world could learn a thing or two about growing a thicker skin from us.

Avatar image for toonlonk
#75 Edited by ToonLonk (438 posts) -
@saltslasher said:

How is that racist? Didn't Indians scream, wear feathers and etc. back when there were Cowboys?

Not really. If you look back at the actual history, European settlers (read:white people) greatly exaggerated Native Americans' mannerisms to make them appear as "uncivilized savages." Plus, the moniker "indians" is a racist misnomer that should have never been used on anyone not of Indian heritage to begin with.

Avatar image for Jag85
#76 Edited by Jag85 (12224 posts) -
@toonlonk said:
@saltslasher said:

How is that racist? Didn't Indians scream, wear feathers and etc. back when there were Cowboys?

Not really. If you look back at the actual history, European settlers (read:white people) greatly exaggerated Native Americans' mannerisms to make them appear as "uncivilized savages." Plus, the moniker "indians" is a racist misnomer that should have never been used on anyone not of Indian heritage to begin with.

Exactly. Whenever a group of people were/are perceived as "the other" or "the enemy", they would be villified, demonized and/or dehumanized, in order to justify any oppression, subjugation, genocide, atrocities and/or violence meted out against them.

Also, the colonial-era characterization of Native Americans as "uncivilized" is widely rejected by modern historians. Sophisticated urban civilizations in what is today "Latin America" (e.g. Mayas and Incans) are well-documented. As for natives of what are today the US and Canada, they weren't particularly urbanized (hence perceived as "uncivilized"), but they were advanced in other ways, such as being healthier with a higher life expectancy than Medieval Europeans (before European colonialists carried the plague to them) as well as forms of proto-democracy among various tribes (which later influenced US democracy).

Avatar image for ronthallsballs
#77 Posted by RonThallsBalls (134 posts) -

@Jag85: I read a NON-FICTION book called Empire of the Summer Moon, it’s about the Comanches in the 1800’s. Litterally opens with a Comanche raiding party attacking a settlers fort, killing and mutilating the men, raping the women and kidnapping a little girl who ended up giving birth to the most famous leader of the Comanches, Chief Quanah Parker. So yeah, exact same scenario as a nazis defending a fort from Jews or slaves. Yep, Native Americans were totally helpless and never ever EVER did anything to justify something as tone deaf and insensitive as a video game depicting them doing exactly what they never did. Ever. For like 60 years in what is now Texas.

Never.

Avatar image for Jag85
#78 Edited by Jag85 (12224 posts) -

@ronthallsballs:

What do you think the European settlers were doing? They were invading a foreign land, attacking the Native settlements, killing and mutilating the men, raping the women, enslaving children, and waging biological warfare (i.e. inflicting the plague on them). Except the invading settlers were doing on it on a far larger genocidal scale, and for much longer, as far back as the 1490s. After centuries of genocide, some Native tribes like the Apaches and Comanches finally decided to fight back in the 1800s and wage rebellions to take back their land. And during these Native rebellions, there were some Comanche who adopted some of the same savage tactics that the European invaders had been using against them for centuries.

Similarly in the 1800s, there were occasional slave uprisings against slave owners. And during those slave rebellions, there were some slaves who adopted some of the same savage tactics that the slave-owners had used against them. After quelling slave rebellions, European slave-owners often used them as justification to dehumanize Africans and continue slavery, i.e. painting them as savages who need to be kept in slavery. While completely ignoring why there was a slave uprising in the first place.

It's like a feedback loop: oppress and subjugate a people, then wait for a reaction, and then use that reaction as justification to continue oppressing and subjugating them. That's a tactic that oppressors have always used to dehumanize and oppress entire groups of people. And that's also how a lot of old racist stereotypes were born.

As for the Nazis, if you've watched Inglorious Basterds, there's a Nazi propaganda movie playing in the theater, depicting a Nazi "war hero" defending a Nazi fort from the Allies. That's essentially what a lot of those old racist Cowboys & Indians stories are. Just like how the Nazi propaganda movie completely removes the context behind why Nazi Germany is being attacked by the Allies (i.e. the Nazi invasions and genocides), similarly those old Cowboys & Indians propaganda stories completely removed the context behind why invading European settlers were being attacked by some Native tribes in the first place (i.e. stealing their land and perpetrating genocide against them).

Avatar image for ronthallsballs
#79 Edited by RonThallsBalls (134 posts) -

Ffwwwwhaat?! Sources plz. I’d like to read these historical accounts of slaves rising up, raping and kidnapping their masters. Same with the Europeans kidnapping and raping Natives. The Comanche were not a peaceful people that ust all the sudden decided they’d had enough like some goddamn Deathwish movie, they were a primitive, violent tribe that treated other tribes just the same as the Parkers. Their whole culture was based on following the buffalo so they never stayed in one place long enough to settle and develop agriculturally. They survived of the buffalo and raiding other tribes.

Bottom line is, yore analogy where you make out that the shitty cowboys and Indians games depicting Native Americans as a savage warlike people is based off pure propaganda is horseshit!

Avatar image for Jag85
#80 Edited by Jag85 (12224 posts) -

@ronthallsballs:

Here is an academic book that covers the topics of rape and kidnapping in American history:

Rape and Sexual Power in Early America

It shows that European settlers were kidnapping, enslaving and raping Native women on a mass scale. It was far more common for European settlers to kidnap/enslave/rape Native women than it was for Native men to do so to European women.

As for slave uprisings, I meant lynchings. In some slave uprisings, there were instances of slaves who lynched their masters, which was later used by slave-owners as justification to show how "savage" the slaves were. According to the book I cited above, there is no clear evidence of slaves raping their masters during uprisings, although there were made-up stories accusing black slaves of raping white women during an uprising.

As for the Comanche, they were just one of numerous Native tribes, so not sure why you're singling them out. And there wasn't even any tribe called the Comanche until the 1700s. Comanche culture itself was the result of heavy European influence, after the introduction of the Spanish horse, which is what much of their culture revolves around, ironically. And the Comanche raided other Native tribes in order to capture slaves to sell to European settlers.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#81 Posted by GarGx1 (10410 posts) -
@toonlonk said:
@saltslasher said:

How is that racist? Didn't Indians scream, wear feathers and etc. back when there were Cowboys?

Not really. If you look back at the actual history, European settlers (read:white people) greatly exaggerated Native Americans' mannerisms to make them appear as "uncivilized savages." Plus, the moniker "indians" is a racist misnomer that should have never been used on anyone not of Indian heritage to begin with.

Actually the term "Indian" used for people originating from North America, prior to the European settlers arrival, is actually from an error and is not meant a racist slur. When Columbus landed in the Americas he initially assumed he had travelled to his intended destination of the East indies. The moniker just quite simply stuck. Besides using the correct name i.e. "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" is frankly just far too cumbersome to use in everyday speech.

The best person to ask is, by far, someone of that particular racial group though and I have no idea if we'll get that opportunity on System Wars.