Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Techs Talk Login Times, Not Gay Rights
Shane Dabiri and John Lagrave took an interview with Eurogamer, and used the opportunity to talk about the login problems that have been plaguing World of Warcraft since Christmas. As techs, they're not there to talk about the ongoing discussion involving Gay rights in their game world. Kotaku, however, is not under any kind of restriction, and reports on legal movement against the company by Lambda Legal. The group is organized around procuring civil rights for people in the GLBT community, and sent a strongly worded letter to Blizzard's legal team. From that letter: "We are very concerned that Blizzard's policy, as expressed in the foregoing statement, discriminates against LGBT gamers. Although preventing harassment is an admirable goal, a requirement that LGBT people remain invisible and silent is not an acceptable means of reaching that goal." Blizzard has already removed the warning from the player in question, saying that it was an 'unfortunate interpretation' of their EULA.
Have you ever seen a female Night Elf dance (or many other races for that matter)? Sexuality is coded in to the game. And, of course, given the nature of the average audience... players will push what can be done with those animations.
But it doesn't have to be so purile. Ever hear of in-game weddings? Any time RP-oriented players get together, a wedding is bound to happen and WoW is no exception. Now while marriage isn't all about sex, sexuality is certainly a part of it. And in fact, the whole recent hullabaloo seems to have stemmed from a in-game same-sex marriage.
Sexuality is a part of us - it's hard-coded in to our being. It is little wonder that in any environment with some degree of freedom, sexuality surfaces. And that's even in environments that don't code it in - unlike WoW.
One last point - I do tend to agree to a certain extent. I'm not very interested in sexuality in game. Some joker with a half-naked dancing Night Elf on a mailbox is a sure sight of a immature player. And I've never felt any inclination to be part of an in-game wedding (or get involved with anyone's romantic tryst RP). But at the same time, I do understand that some players will be inclined to do these things even if I choose not to play along.
It should be noted that a guild of tennis players or a guild of Buffy fans would not be tolerated, either. (Note Giant Communist Robots being forbidden). Any group with real-world ties is frowned upon.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
You have the combined weight of 1,000's of years of history and practically every major world religion on one side and you have progressives on the other.
I know which side of that I want to be on. The side without the thousand years of religious wars, oppression, torture, and persecution. But I guess it's just a sad fact there are still people who like the other side.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Personally, I think the gay guilds shouldn't be dragging transgendered people into their debate.
1. Transgendered people are completely different from gay people. They have an identity issue, not a sexual behavior issue. Men who would be women (and vice versa) might also happen to be gay in some cases, but for the most part what they are doing has nothing to do with sexuality.
2. Transgendered people don't need to join a guild full of gay people, nor do they need to assert themselves. Being "transgendered" means you choose to identify as a different gender, and WoW lets you freely choose your gender during character creation. Most transgendered people have a much easier time presenting themselves as the opposite sex in an MMORPG setting than they ever would in their daily lives.
3. Transgendered behavior is not political. A man who lives as a woman (and even goes to dangerous, painful, and expensive extremes to do so) just wants to be regarded as an ordinary woman (who, by accident of birth, developed male anatomy.)
For the last 20 years or so, gays have been adding the "T" on the end of their organization names for the sake of swelling their ranks, but statistics have shown that there are vast chasms of political thought between gays and transexuals. Transgendered people are vastly more likely than gays to be conservative politically, and even more likely to subscribe to traditional religions.
While a gay "draq queen" might choose to put on a dress and march in a parade, and actual male-to-female transexual would probably much rather sit at home doing her nails and watching TV.
But of course, we only hear from the transgendered people who are engaged in such movements, so it's easy to fall for the myth that such unique folks represent the majority.
(I a male adult of the bisexual persuasion, who recently began playing WoW with my boyfriend, who is gay himself.)
The virtual world offered (for a fee) to Blizzard's customer base, however removed from reality, is very much populated by real players, (script farmers notwithstanding,) which have a given sexual orientation, whether or not this fact is relevant to the actual game play. In this game, individuals will find all sorts of reasons to relate to each other and/or form guilds, possibly based on real-world geographical proximity, shared/anecdotal game history, stereotypical familiarity or whatever they might see as relevant criteria.
While playing the game, it didn't take long before I learned about fun things like the "/kiss", "/hug" and other such commands, and I also quickly confirmed that these actions were possible between any players, regardless of perceived gender or race. On the other hand, MSN Messenger's original emoticons assumed that a hug was given by a boy, and returned by a girl.
Which of these two services may be adding some restrictions of expression, knowingly or not, to its users?
Now, let us imagine that the next time I play this game, I should decide to form a new guild, or join an existing one, based on a common interest in photography. Which means that as we all wait endless minutes while everyone gets ready for the next raid, we can all chat about something we have in common, photography, something that others around us might be at least mildly interested in, and might even have something to share with the other guild members as well.
Obviously, if I simply lacked any interest in photography, I'd join some other group, or simply keep marching on my way, because in the end, I am playing this particular game in order to have a little fun, period.
Occasionally one of the girls would forget to /tell and my cover would be blown in a party, and some male players that were shamefully hitting on me earlier would become enraged and ask for their (quite expensive) items back. Then they would regail me, accusing me of being gay... odd, considering they never objected to my 'girlfriend' coming along (who was indeed Brian, my very awesome, very straight roommate)
I hardly think that a change of Blizzard's policy is going to fix the social problem that permiates much of nerdom as thick as it does Alabama. Play who you want. On planet Warcraft, homosexuality is discriminated against. That is a role you choose to play or not.
Speaking of which, would a handsome man like you like to escort me as I try to find my epic?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
What I'm saying is that historically being gay was kind of like eating strawberries. It didn't mean anything other than what it meant. Now being gay is like being a vegetarian - it's not about what you do (or want to do) anymore - it's about who you are.
Being homosexual is just being homosexual. Not every homosexual bases their cultural and political philosophies on their sexuality.
Of course, some of them can and have been persecuted to the extent that their sexuality does become a personal and political issue. For many, this political and cultural side of their own private sexuality is unfairly thrust upon them, most often by people who are not even homosexuals themselves.
If being homosexual is now a political issue, it is clear that this has not occurred as a result of the actions of homosexuals, but rather as a result of the politicisation of private sexuality by others.
May the Maths Be with you!
That's complete bullshit, but about what I'd expect from someone who's username is Stormin'Mormon.
A marriage license is NOT a business license. It comes with no expectations from the government. There is nothing at all in it for the government. Period. The government grants marriage licenses because the public traditionally has sought marriage licenses from the government. It's tradition, and THAT'S IT.
Like a business license. That's fucking retarded.
Gub'ment: "Hi. I'd like to grant you a license to wear Jeans."
Citizen: "Do I need a license to wear jeans?"
G: "No."
C: "Oh. So why are you granting me one?"
G: "Granting Jeans-wearing licenses is a way to foster wearing jeans without any of those privacy and human rights issues."
C: "...WTF"
Here's a shocker. You don't need to be married to have babies. Here's another shocker: Unlike your wife, most women aren't baby factories. In fact, a few have hopes and dreams that can only be achieved by NOT having the distraction of a baby, by choice!
See, it turns out, Radar, that women are people, too, and just because they have a pussy doesn't mean that somehow we get to assume that their function is to make babies.
The advantages of getting married: Family benifits packages. Lower mortgage rates. Joint taxes.
Conspiciously absent: Permission to pump out kids. Happier citizens.
The reasoning behind the gov't granting marriage licenses is to provide for families which will raise children.
FOAD. And while you're at it, try not to polute the gene pool anymore.
~Will
sig?
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."