Customizable pronouns

[Krotoan]

Ignoring the people slinging vitriol here for a moment, I'd be quite on board with this idea. Representation is good.

Sure, but there's a point where the work involved (even from scratch) isn't worth the actual player use of a feature. This would be like adding Vitiligo skin textures. It would be awesome to have those people represented and go towards making awareness their particular challenges and normalizing their appearance... but it's 1-0.5 % of the population. A lot of work for a minimal userbase.

This whole topic is crazy baiting, nobody wants to exclude or hates nonbinary people. Sure we'd all love to include everyone and make everyone happy but this is a QOL for a tiny userbase.

The whole thread has just been virtue signaling and sarcasm.

[mario710]

Ignoring the people slinging vitriol here for a moment, I'd be quite on board with this idea. Representation is good.

Your agenda is not my agenda.

Keep your politics out of this game.

[Iscah]

I really hate the term "virtue signalling". Is nobody allowed to be genuinely empathetic any more?

It's a self perpetuating argument.
"You don't mean that, you're just virtue signalling."
"No really, I mean it because I can understand it from the other person's point of view."
"Now you're virtue signalling by saying you're genuine."

There's simply no way to escape that logic. If they're faking it, they're rightfully shot down; if they're genuine, they're wrongly shot down. But never ever taken to actually mean what they say.

And not this is not virtue signalling, it's genuine frustration.

[Krotoan]

I really hate the term "virtue signalling". Is nobody allowed to be genuinely empathetic any more?

It's a self perpetuating argument.
"You don't mean that, you're just virtue signalling."
"No really, I mean it because I can understand it from the other person's point of view."
"Now you're virtue signalling by saying you're genuine."

There's simply no way to escape that logic. If they're faking it, they're rightfully shot down; if they're genuine, they're wrongly shot down. But never ever taken for genuine.

And not this is not virtue signalling, it's genuine frustration.

Every empathetic response isn't necessarily virtue signaling sure, I can concede that. Every single positive response is not virtue signaling. But when you've got a hotbutton topic such as allowing nonbinary people to present (or identify) as they wish where most people in their right minds wouldn't be against allowing someone such a basic personal freedom, anyone who stands against it for any reason (valid or not) is going to get absolutely flattened by people telling them about what horrible people they are. People line up , especially in the anonymous world of the internet, to dogpile upon those who have "bad" personal views. 21 Pages of it.

This topic was possibly made as an innocent "want" but even on the first page there are people anticipating the namecalling and shaming.

EDIT: 5 replies down:

Yep, inclusivity is completely unnecessary. Can we extend this to RL as well. I hate having to respect people for the way they were born. /s

Fantastic pointless input from everyone in this thread so far.

that's how long it took before someone took an innocent and factually correct response and turned it into not only questioning someones morals but implying that they themselves were above people who felt the same.

[Kolsykol]

I really hate the term "virtue signalling". Is nobody allowed to be genuinely empathetic any more?

It's a self perpetuating argument.
"You don't mean that, you're just virtue signalling."
"No really, I mean it because I can understand it from the other person's point of view."
"Now you're virtue signalling by saying you're genuine."

There's simply no way to escape that logic. If they're faking it, they're rightfully shot down; if they're genuine, they're wrongly shot down. But never ever taken to actually mean what they say.

And not this is not virtue signalling, it's genuine frustration.

I hear ya.

I do think that '' virtue-signaling '' is an actual legitimate term ( a lot of right-wingers do it too, even tho it's basically just used to attack people on the left for the most part. ).
But people overuse it a lot, it's the same with terms like '' SJW ''.
Yes... '' SJW's '' are an actual thing and they're extremely obnoxious and annoying, but just because you're progressive doesn't mean that you're one of them...

I am very sex-positive and I think that A LOT of people on the left and self-proclaimed progressives are extremely problematic too, like I dunno if I am allowed to say certain things on this forum but some of the language that so called progressives use when talking about women who are '' too sexy '' ( according to them ) is extremely disgusting and way worse than what I hear even from very conserative people.
Kotaku released an article covering a 3D model fanart of Samus from a Riot artist, an the comment section was seriously calling the model some incredibly disgusting things under the guise of '' wokeness ''.
Even big mainstream Youtubers that have now become popular ( Breadtube or whatever they're called ) do this.
'' Titninja '' is a lesser one, but there are way worse.
But seriously... If you refer to someone as a '' titninja '' then you're really just a sexist piece of shit and you're the one sexually objectifying women ( especially since they say it about female characters who they don't know shit about other than what they've seen, which I thought was something that '' we '' were supposed to be against? ).
And whenever I point it out I both get accused of being an '' SJW '', an '' alt-right incel '' AND of '' virtue-signaling '' all at the same time LOL.

People love to throw these words around as if it's some kind of an '' I win button '' and as if it's an actual argument.
I don't think that you can really accuse someone on the internet that you've only interacted with once of '' virtue-signaling ''.
There sorta needs to be a long-running pattern there which is usually inconsistent and mainly just following trends and isn't based in actual principles, otherwise you really don't know.

[Jollyy5]

Initially I was planning on trying to post something constructive.

But after reading about 16 pages, against my better judgement, all I can say is:

I wish to identify as a fork, please include.

[Specterfuge]

Long story short, if you want treated inclusively, you have to be inclusive yourself.

[Kolsykol]

But uh, yeah...
This debate that people are having clearly isn't in good faith.
It just seems like a lot of '' gotcha's '' and wild accusations.

I can't imagine it going anywhere good...

[Lunavi]

Considering how little work would actually be required for this IF they have coded stuff properly (BIG if), I am all for it. It wouldn't be a huge resource cost at all IF they have coded it properly and if this is the case I do strongly endorse this. However, if it requires too much work, then no. While I strongly approve of a system like this I do more highly value other things, such as making more glamours available for both genders and all races and the creation of new content. This shouldn't be such a huge deal that it should take longer than a day or so to fix, but you never know with the spaghetti-code.

[Krotoan]

This shouldn't be such a huge deal that it should take longer than a day or so to fix, but you never know with the spaghetti-code.

This will require reworking of the entire MSQ text for many languages or it will result in very weird and unnatural sentences. In english there would at least have to be quality control to make sure it all works OK. This is not a day or so thing.