Just discontinued subscription due to Wuk and increased wokeness across SE corp.

[Lusarae]

What is "western wokeness"?

Is it being inclusive of diversity? Is it being generally decent and humane? I'm not sure I know what "western wokeness" is actually defined as.

I see it as a label for a group of people that took what used to be racism on the personal level, then reversed it, made the racism systemic instead of just personal, and think they're doing the world good.

Also literally EVERYTHING I have seen under the "banner" of this group or a likeminded group has just never been good. A game? The game usually sucks. Movie? The movie is trash. Show? The show ends up getting canceled. Government leader? They end up being the worst we've had in decades. Sports? They ruin what used to be fair and turned it into a mockery of what it once was. Everyone wanted to call themselves woke about some silly perceived prejudice, but they are actually asleep to the class war that is going on which has nothing to do with race or gender. They're all "useful idiots" to the ruling class as the perfect distraction to keep everyone busy with.

[Zabuza]

(had to cut quote due to char limit lmao)

Example A is nonsense. You can dislike the voice acting and not make it about trans. I respect that opinion, it's completely valid and, even as an LGBTQ ally myself, I think the VA needs practice.
People who defend it as "omg you're just anti-trans" are the radicals you can ignore if you didn't start to make it about transgender in the first place. However if the argument is "their voice acting sucks BECAUSE they are trans", you are a bigot. Simple.

I appreciate the genuine answer. I will focus only on Example A because I don't want to derail this too much with the other examples. One could make the argument that it is hard not to make it about transgender when companies are often implementing DEI hiring practices and for someone who believed that, this would appear to be one such case since it does not make sense why the VA quality is markedly lower than other recent major characters. It is difficult to voice things like this without offending the other side and making them immediately think you are a bigot. What if the reason this trans VA was hired by the company really was because she was trans so they were given prefential treatment in the VA casting role for the MC of Dawntrail? How does one voice such a concern without appearing as a bigot for voicing that view? Whether you think this view makes them bigoted or not, there are plenty of people who would automatically write that person off as a bigot.

"I want you to respect the fact that I don't want people like you to exist and hate everything about you"

Why are lgbt expected to respect people who don't respect them? I never understood that logic

Or you can just take a step back, breathe, and not immediately come to this conclusion just because someone criticizes something about LGBTQ. A person bringing up DEI hiring practices or saying this trans VA was terrible does not mean they want your existence to be erased or for LGBTQ to forever be marginalized. LGBTQ is not immune from criticism, just like no one else should expect to be immune from criticism.

[Chiru_Kai]

I appreciate the genuine answer. I will focus only on Example A because I don't want to derail this too much with the other examples. One could make the argument that it is hard not to make it about transgender when companies are often implementing DEI hiring practices and for someone who believed that, this would appear to be one such case since it does not make sense why the VA quality is markedly lower than other recent major characters. It is difficult to voice things like this without offending the other side and making them immediately think you are a bigot. What if the reason this trans VA was hired by the company really was because she was trans so they were given prefential treatment in the VA casting role for the MC of Dawntrail? How does one voice such a concern without appearing as a bigot for voicing that view? Whether you think this view makes them bigoted or not, there are plenty of people who would automatically write that person off as a bigot.

A lot of people misunderstand DEI. You seem to be one of them.

We have a society. Let's say that 2% of people are *insert_minority_here*.
Then logically speaking, any company, institution, and etc will, in an equal world, sorta come close to a 2% representation of that minority as well. But, this is not often the case.
DEI just aims to make people aware of that ratio.

It's not a perfect system. You can criticize it. But usually the people criticizing it don't criticize the execution of it, they just say "it's bad, it needs to go away", meaning they disagree with the concept entirely and then do a little handwave as if it explains all the bad things that corporations do.
Disagreement with the concept entirely is often rooted in bigotry. Because if you believe in equality and equity like a decent human being should, DEI is just... nothing to be worried about.

More arguments can be along the lines of "they intentionally hire worse people for the job just to meet DEI requirements". Again, such an argument is often rooted in an assumption that the minority hire was not the best option available. That all the hire could do was meet some sort of DEI quota for representation. But that is a WILD guess, and it shows some unspoken judgement on the decision. Because you would not be blaming DEI or some such for the bad performance of the hire, if the bad hire wasn't a minority. You can just point out "that was a mistake" without ever mentioning DEI or the hire's minority status. But the simple fact that someone DOES do that, is just a dead giveaway what they think.
Correct implementation of DEI means that, given all things are equal, and two people apply to the same job with the same qualifications and the same experience, but one of them is a minority. Then DEI guidelines might tip the scales and give a benefit to someone part of a minority group IF it leads to better representation of that minority within the corporation. But we do not know who else was approached to be the voice of Wuk Lamat, for example. So to claim the 'bad performance' is because of "DEI preferable treatment", is a logical leap that can be easily interpreted as bigotry against a minority.

[TKOtheKDR]

A lot of people misunderstand DEI. You seem to be one of them.

We have a society. Let's say that 2% of people are *insert_minority_here*.
Then logically speaking, any company, institution, and etc will, in an equal world, sorta come close to a 2% representation of that minority as well. But, this is not often the case.
DEI just aims to make people aware of that ratio.

It's not a perfect system. You can criticize it. But usually the people criticizing it don't criticize the execution of it, they just say "it's bad, it needs to go away", meaning they disagree with the concept entirely and then do a little handwave as if it explains all the bad things that corporations do.
Disagreement with the concept entirely is often rooted in bigotry. Because if you believe in equality and equity like a decent human being should, DEI is just... nothing to be worried about.

More arguments can be along the lines of "they intentionally hire worse people for the job just to meet DEI requirements". Again, such an argument is often rooted in an assumption that the minority hire was not the best option available. That all the hire could do was meet some sort of DEI quota for representation. But that is a WILD guess, and it shows some unspoken judgement on the decision. Because you would not be blaming DEI or some such for the bad performance of the hire, if the bad hire wasn't a minority. You can just point out "that was a mistake" without ever mentioning DEI or the hire's minority status. But the simple fact that someone DOES do that, is just a dead giveaway what they think.
Correct implementation of DEI means that, given all things are equal, and two people apply to the same job with the same qualifications and the same experience, but one of them is a minority. Then DEI guidelines might tip the scales and give a benefit to someone part of a minority group IF it leads to better representation of that minority within the corporation. But we do not know who else was approached to be the voice of Wuk Lamat, for example. So to claim the 'bad performance' is because of "DEI preferable treatment", is a logical leap that can be easily interpreted as bigotry against a minority.

[Chiru_Kai]

*img*

Oh hey it's you.
Do you not have a rock to crawl under and feel terrified of the real world™?

[Zabuza]

Everyone wanted to call themselves woke about some silly perceived prejudice, but they are actually asleep to the class war that is going on which has nothing to do with race or gender. They're all "useful idiots" to the ruling class as the perfect distraction to keep everyone busy with.

Indeed. The purpose being to keep everyone divided so no one pays attention to the small group of people that are actually oppressing everyone. If one day people could come to accept each other's differences and unite against the true oppressor, we would have a much better world. But instead we're all distracted and at each other's throats over things like this while the ruling class laughs. It is not the 'woke' side or the 'bigoted' side that is keeping us all poor. But I guess this would make me sound conspiratorial, so I'll get off my soapbox.

[1313]

Indeed. The purpose being to keep everyone divided so no one pays attention to the small group of people that are actually oppressing everyone. If one day people could come to accept each other's differences and unite against the true oppressor, we would have a much better world. But instead we're all distracted and at each other's throats over things like this while the ruling class laughs. It is not the 'woke' side or the 'bigoted' side that is keeping us all poor. But I guess this would make me sound conspiratorial, so I'll get off my soapbox.

Nobody understands this, because Murica

[Tachion]

I see it as a label for a group of people that took what used to be racism on the personal level, then reversed it, made the racism systemic instead of just personal, and think they're doing the world good.

Also literally EVERYTHING I have seen under the "banner" of this group or a likeminded group has just never been good. A game? The game usually sucks. Movie? The movie is trash. Show? The show ends up getting canceled. Government leader? They end up being the worst we've had in decades. Sports? They ruin what used to be fair and turned it into a mockery of what it once was. Everyone wanted to call themselves woke about some silly perceived prejudice, but they are actually asleep to the class war that is going on which has nothing to do with race or gender. They're all "useful idiots" to the ruling class as the perfect distraction to keep everyone busy with.

No one needed to make racism systemic Hon, it's been there all along.
The rest is just indistinct rambling.