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.
A company can't deny any sort of service to somebody based solely on their sexual orientation.
Blizzard is doing just that.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
I've never seen a parade of fundies strolling down the street of my town demanding "political equality NOW!", but I've seen it three separate times from The gay lobby.
And I'm not saying it doesn't happen, so don't try that crap.
Both side politicize the issue, why you thought you could get away with claiming otherwise I don't know.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
So they excluded intolerant people? Well, that's rather intolerant!
So you don't think infertile couples should be allowed to marry?
You said
"The Religious Right has made this a political issue, when in fact it is not even an issue."
I refuted you, and I think you knew when you posted it that your statement was wrong.
"You're missing the point of the argument; I don't think Homosexuals would be parading up and down the streets asking for the same rights as everyone else if they wheren't having their rights infringed upon for no apparent reason."
I didn't miss the point, you never made it. However, if you'd like to show me where you made that point in your previous post, I'll reasess what I've said.
Finally, YOU missed MY point. The gay lobby is JUST LIKE any other political organization, and your blind assumption that they are "asking for the same rights as everyone else" betrays your ignorance. They are a POLITICAL LOBBY, and like ALL the other political lobbies, they are about self interest. Make no mistake, if they could get what they wanted by trampling your rights, it would happen in a second.
In the future, replace every instance of "gay" with "fundie" in your argument, and reconsider how you feel about it then.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Whoa. Minorities need to shut up about their differences? "They cry when they are discriminated against, yet flaunt their differences constantly?"
Countless people died during the civil rights movement just so that we (as minorities) COULD show our differences and not have to be just like everyone else. No offense kid but you are a moron and when it comes to minorities you need to STFU because it's obvious you don't know what it took to get equality into this country in the first place.
www.unofficiall.com
the art and science done by religious men was done on the backs of peasant laborers who had no choice but to tithe their hard work to the church under threat of violence
What are you smoking? This would fit building a cathedral - yes. But that's not what I had in mind. I had the painting on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel in mind. I had Handel's Msesiah in mind. I had illuminated manuscripts laboriously hand-copied for generations by monks (voluntarily!).
I would argue the opposite. Most of the injustices done in the name of religion had nothing to do with religious belief or conviction. Religion was a powerful institution so it made sense to hijack it to get rich, powerful, etc. By contrast Handel's Messiah is nothing without the Messiah. I'm not saying you can't make great art without religion. But I am saying that a large chunk of our great art is inseperable from the religious sentiment with which it was made.
What I consider to be the essential criteria of religion: it's morality, it's consideration of mortality, it's philosophical insights are far more angel than demon. I understand that in the name of God much that is demonic has been done - but that doesn't reflect on religion, in my opinion, so much as it reflects upon human nature. If you were going to do great deeds - for good or ill - in the days before powerful nations were distinct from their gods you could not do it without invoking the vocabulary of religion. That doesn't make the deeds themselves - good or bad - necessarily religious.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.