General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A gay perspective on masculine and male related issues (and leering). [View all]eridani
(51,907 posts)His comments, again
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/17/lowest-difficulty-setting-follow-up/
Your description should have put wealth/class as part of the difficulty setting.
Nope. Money and class are both hugely important and can definitely compensate for quite a lot, which I have of course noted in the entry itself. But they belong in the stats category because wealth and class are not an inherent part of ones personal nature and in the US particularly, part of our cultural sorting behavior in the manner that race, gender and sexuality are (note inherent here does not necessarily mean immutable, but thats a conversation Im not going to go into great detail about right now). You can disagree, of course. But speaking as someone who has been at both the bottom and the top of the wealth and class spectrum here in the US, I think I have enough personal knowledge on the matter to say it belongs where I put it.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/23/final-notes-for-lowest-difficulty-setting/
The second major sticking point is the chunk of folks who really very truly believe that I should have put class/wealth into the difficulty setting in addition to or instead of race/gender/sexuality. Again, Ive already explained why I designed the analogy as I did, and while I think its fine that people disagree, I havent been sufficiently convinced by their arguments that I was wrong in the manner in which I designed it. I think some people are suggesting that I dont think wealth and class matter in a significant way; they need to reread the entry. Its not about whether it makes a difference. It does. Its about where its properly placed in the analogy. Some have commented this is set-up that really is specific to the US, not other places in the Western world; Im not wholly convinced of this, but then I live in the US, not other places in the Western world.