Slashdot Mirror
Gamer Claims Identifying As a Lesbian Led To Xbox Live Ban
Goatbert writes "I just read on the Consumerist about an XBOX Live user being banned for identifying herself as a lesbian. Despite appeals, Microsoft has stood by its position that merely mentioning that you are gay or lesbian is grounds for terminating your XBOX Live membership."
As long as you get banned from Xbox live for identifying yourself as straight too, I don't see a problem with this...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
My name is "Spike"
xboxlive won't let me use that name in the "real name" field of my xboxlive profile. It says that it's a banned word.
Why could that be? I think it might be because it contains 'spik,' but even that seems ridiculous.
*shrug*
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
Don't ask, Don't tell.
I agree. The sooner we condemn Microsoft to the abyss, the better.
but do they ban themselves?
... because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap.
Whew, I couldn't agree more! Because it's been scientifically shown that exposures to gay people is what causes one to be gay. But why stop at targeting gays on the XBox? Did you know that your child might be befriending another kid in grade school and your child's friend may be gay and not yet know it? The only safe way out of this is to remove your kid from school--did you know that nearly 100% of homosexuals have gone through school? A frightening figure! You better find a conservative Christian school that teaches your child intolerance and how to properly ostracize and judge other people. That's the only way you can provide for them a pure and clean life.
And if the rest of us are lucky, we'll never have to interact with your kid.
This is not helping the already low low stereotype I have adopted of the users of XBox's online service.
My work here is dung.
That identifying yourself as 'lesbian' online is secret code for "I'm a straight guy looking for girl love. Pew pew."
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
One word:
Sue.
What's the purpose... Of identifying your sexual orientation in your profile anyway? Does the phrase "hooking up" mean anything to you? If I can't use an online service for the purpose of hooking up with members of the appropriate sex, then what good is it? Sure, you want to run a "family oriented" business -- but gays and lesbians have families too! M$ needs to apply the exact same standards to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. P.S. Next time maybe she should try identifying herself as Bi?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Uhm, the article fails to report critical details. Any word on if she's a hot lesbian?
This blog post does nothing but reference itself. There are no formal statements from MS and no proof of any kind given. Show me the proof, then I'll side with you. New tag: proveit
Also, I don't hang my hat on being straight - do you really need to point out that you're gay in your xbox profile? I mean... really? I don't think you should be banned for doing it, but I think it's a little odd.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Maybe they aren't allowed to operate there for legal reasons.
Disclaimer: I don't even know where Lesbia is (but if you haven't heard of it it's probably Europe, right?) and I've never met anyone from there!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
For the same reason you put anything in your profile. So you can find people with similar interests to play with.
In this time of economic crisis, the inevitable ensuing flamewar can heat my house.
I agree, homophobes definitely are not normal and should be condemned! Calling them "unnatural disgusting animals" does seem a bit extreme, however, even if all humans can technically be considered animals.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The purpose is to find other gamer lesbians (a pretty small subculture) to hang out with, even if you aren't necessarily looking to hook up.
Why does anyone put anything in their profile? To find people with similar interests and backgrounds. It's not true of all lesbians, of course, but a lot of lesbians have things in common that they might not with non-lesbians and especially not with your typical xbox live player.
Why should announcing your sexual orientation start a fight? The bad behavior is on the part of people who feel that it is ok to persecute someone for talking about their sexual orientation.
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
This is unusual, since Microsoft is apparently considered one of the most gay friendly employers in the US.
From the site:
It was one of the first companies in the world to offer employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners and to include sexual orientation in its corporate nondiscrimination policy. Since 1989, Microsoft has supported and sponsored gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues at Microsoft. In 1993 an organized employee resource groupâ"Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Employees at Microsoft (GLEAM)â"was launched. GLEAM now has more than 700 members.
The group even has it's own Wikipedia entry (for what that's worth).
Let's say your XBOX live name was "Steve1234" could you get banned for mentioning the following phrase, "My husband is logging on right now, his mage would help us out..."?
Can we stop this misinformation? Most gamers do not buy a new video card every 4 days.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Despite RAM prices, over 35% of Steam gamers have less than 2GB of RAM. About the same number are still running single-core CPUs. Just under half don't have a DX10-capable GPU, meaning their GPU is well over a year old. And that's with a generation of graphics hardware that gives extremely good value for money.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Yes, it's a good thing you don't go around mentioning your sexual orientation in public posts...
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Why announce it to begin with? ... gays/lesbians are looking to start fights ... a lot of minorities play that game.
As others have pointed out, it has nothing to do with starting fights and everything to do with expressing what is an integral part of your personal identity and choosing what kinds of online relationships you want to pursue.
In a similar vein, I'm curious what "game" it is that you feel minorities are playing? The "game" where they don't try to hide their identity and culture? The "game" where they expect to be treated fairly and equally with others in their workplace and community?
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
...a lot of lesbians have things in common that they might not with... your typical xbox live player. Like a vagina, for instance.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Tell me the purpose of having a profile, and I will tell you the purpose of putting "I like [whatever]" in that profile. But for gays and lesbians, the issue is slightly different. 'Coming out' is an important part of the process of self discovery and self acceptance for such people. Yes, many go through a phase where they may be a little strident about it, but that is completely natural in a society with so much homophobia. If allowed to progress through the 'angry gay' stage, most will reach a stage where being gay is just another facet of their identity.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, if she were to write in her profile that she had a husband, that'd be okay?
And if she were to write in her profile that she had a wife, that'd not be okay?
This is what's so wrong with people just saying "shut up about your sexual orientation". That's basically saying "Unlike everyone around you, you need to hide pretty much your entire life from everyone else." The fact that you see "I am gay" as equivalent to writing "Christians and Jews are the devil!" is incredibly offensive on so many levels.
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
And please stop with the whole gender thing. I don't care if you're a male.
And just shut up about what city you live in!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
That's so not a realistic comparison. When's the last time you recall anything good coming out of hollywood?
Requiem for the American Dream
When Microsoft bans, say, people from writing "I am black" in their profile because it might start a fight with skinheads or "I am an evolutionary biologist" because it might start a fight with creationists is the day I'll consider this position toward gays and lesbians even remotely fair.
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
Nah, if you're a lumberjack, you're okay.
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
...but I've been on XBox live. The vast (and I mean vast) majority of references to homosexuality in that community are slurs. Really, really ugly ones.
So we have a blanket policy saying, no mentioning of sexual orientation in your profile or gamertag. Period. Because, while it's possible that such a mention in a gamertag/profile is a perfectly true, totally non-offensive statement about an individual's self-identified sexual orientation, the odds more strongly favor it being a nasty, hateful comment (or at best, a tasteless one).
If a given behavior has a 1% chance of being legitimate, and a 99% chance of being a TOS violation, doesn't a ban make sense? I'm not sure I'm willing to blame Microsoft for not wanting to go through thousands upon thousands of gamer profiles for approval on a case-by-case basis.
And yeah, why do you feel it's important to proclaim your sexual orientation on XBox live anyway?
Your playing a video game online with a group of pre-pubescent kids and teenagers who are granted nearly full anonymity without any fear of punishment, what did you expect?
Now, due to the vague explanation of what happened given in the article linked in the story, I'm going to make some assumptions here. I would assume that:
* Some kids on Xbox Live noticed that the gamer identified herself as lesbian.
* Due to ignorance, or just for the "lulz", kids decide to file fake complaints against the gamertag in question to get the account banned.
* Microsoft's fully-automated complaint system receives numerous reports from many people about the gamertag in question, and automatically bans the account.
This just goes to show what a failure Microsoft's disciplinary system is. Microsoft made these game consoles and FREE headsets available to kids and teenagers, as well as adults. So, with that many people using an online service, it's fairly obvious that SOMEONE will abuse the system, break rules, etc.
And yet, Microsoft decides to not only use a centralized network infrastructure for Xbox Live, rather than the infrastructure used by most online PC games, but they even made the disciplinary system fully automated. No human involvement. No one checks the validity of reports. No one is in the games to ban abusers. No way of even verifying weather or not a ban was justified or not when someone calls Microsoft's Tech Support. Such an easy thing to abuse.
By contrast, nearly all servers on PC games are administered properly. There's at least one admin on, admins ban the hackers, cheaters, racist/homophobic people, and maintain their server's rules. Nothing's automated. There's always human involvement.
I don't think Microsoft intentionally banned this person or refused to re-activate the account because the user is lesbian. Live's servers received compliments from a bunch of people, automated system bans the account, with no way of telling weather or not the compliments were legitimate or created fraudulently.
Microsoft seems to be ignoring the lesson here: You can't trust machines to babysit children.
The few times that I have played anything on Xbox Live account, the chat is always over run with 13 year-olds, obscenities, and homo-erotic remarks.
Besides, who else thinks, it is hot, that there are lesbian girls actually playing video games? Xbox you just lost my vote, by removing possibly the one female online player.
Yay! Good job blaming the victim!! Maybe they should make it so that if anyone identifies themselves as being anything but straight, male, white and christian they can be banned!
There are two problems here. One is the harassment from idiots, and MS should indeed take a strong stance on that behavior. The other is that instead of doing what they should and punishing those who are doing the harassment, they are banning the people who are being harassed.
It's pretty clear what the reasoning is: their target market is maladjusted tweens, teens, and twenty-somethings. If they banned all of the people who were acting out, they'd lose a lot more money than if they ban the people who the jerks are going after.
If they don't want people to post anything personal in their profiles, they should eliminate the profiles. If they don't want people to have the letters 'G-A-Y' in their names, they should auto-create names when people create accounts. This sort of activity is a travesty, and blaming the victim is, to put it mildly, is un-evolved thinking.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Why should announcing your sexual orientation start a fight? The bad behavior is on the part of people who feel that it is ok to persecute someone for talking about their sexual orientation.
Okay. I'm going to go down to the local lesbian bar (I used to drink there with some friends) and say, loudly but not unreasonably so, "I like to screw chicks!" Repeatedly.
Let's see how long it takes before the police show up. I'd be lucky if someone politely asked me to cut it out, because I'm a big guy, and I look dangerous.
It's all about context, dude. Look past your prejudices.
Furthermore, the article says "Teresa says that she was harassed by other players and later suspended..." What this is known as, in rules of evidence, is hearsay.
She is supposing, perhaps assuming, that Microsoft has banned her for that reason. Well guess what? I've had people say I hit them, in a crowd, when I didn't even touch them. There's no quoted email from Microsoft saying, "HI. WE ARE THE MICROSOFT AND WE BANNED U 4 THE GAY." There needs to be some evidence for this to be more than just Internet flotsam.
I'm sorry, but in the age of blogs and Internet truthiness, all of you gullible types are going to have to bone up on what is admissible evidence, because it's generally equal to what counts as credible evidence.
This sounds, barring actual evidence, very much like someone who has a chip on her shoulder about being a lesbian, assuming and projecting her own pathologies onto a corporation because they are unlikely to challenge her. Anyone who had any evidence at all could provide some kind of official correspondence, or at the very least, anyone with a clue could fake it.
This is just someone trolling. And you bit. So did Slashdot. Nuff said. Look past your prejudices.
--
Toro
When's the last time you recall anything good coming out of hollywood?
Two years ago, although sadly they put it out before it reached the rest of LA.
(j/k; I like SoCal... even LA ;) )
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
Then don't read their posts and live in denial. Don't expect the rest of the world to limit themselves to what your highness approves of.
I say "Shut up about your sexual orientation" to everyone. Come on, ban everyone who says they're straight too!
I refused to state my sexual orientation on the grounds that I would annoy me if I did.
Huh, so gamers don't mention their family? Funny, because when I googled Elrous0, one of the first pages I found was this... and hey, looky what's in the "Relevant Pages" section at the bottom:
"I am the only one to use the PS3 in this household ... I very much doubt my wife would want to play Warhawk"
And *even still*, it'd still be hypocritical to have a policy *ban* one group from doing so and not another.
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
Never thought a Star Trek TNG quote would apply to anything but...
"When children learn to devalue others, they can devalue anyone - including their parents." - Captain Jean-Luc Picard
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
They'll just put a blanket ban on mentioning your sexual orientation or romantic status. The pride people will still be angry but they can't argue discrimination, at least not successfully (I'm sure they'll still argue it is discriminatory because it is in place solely to stem their pride speech, but people won't care anymore).
The "game" is being deliberately offensive/unprofessional, and then using one's "protected status" as an excuse or dodge. For example, a local TV studio had a black lesbian employee who was seen (by quite a few individuals) having sex with her girlfriend in a car in the parking lot. When this was reported to the managers and the police called, it was discovered that she (a) was in fact employed there (nobody had been risky enough to try to identify who it was, just that it was going on) and (b) that she hadn't clocked out - she was doing this on company time instead of doing her job.
The most she got was a formal reprimand in her file. You can damn well bet if it had been a white, straight male, there would have been an immediate no-questions-needed firing.
In either case, Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The hard place being the users (who want "self-expression", whatever that means) and the rock being the ridiculous ESRB ratings system. Games can be "re-rated" based on user-created mods these days, and any game with an online component has to have the whole "user experience may change" nonsense (which is why the Wii still lacks voice chat; Big N doesn't want to take any risks at all).
So MS has a choice. They either leave the system completely open - and take the risk of being hounded and hounded and having their console have to be kept out of sight behind store counters and sent home wrapped in giant paper bags as if it were a $300 dirty magazine - or they have to be immensely censorious and deal with the aftermath of stuff like this in order to appease the ESRB's ratings crew and keep games available to be purchased.
Yeah, there will be boneheaded decisions. There will be decisions you personally feel are wrong. The reality is, they don't really have a choice. It's either little blowups like this, or painting a giant target on themselves for the witch hunt.
So you're a black, evolutionary biologist, are you? We don't tolerate your kind on Slashdot.
Anyone else find it amusing that they are so concerned about being offensive to gays, but where is the consideration about being offensive to everyone else?
Anyone find it amusing that Kral presented the situation as precisely exactly the opposite of what happened, without intending to be ironic?
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
Pink Triangle, meet Red Ring of Death.
Why should announcing your sexual orientation start a fight? The bad behavior is on the part of people who feel that it is ok to persecute someone for talking about their sexual orientation.
It shouldn't. But announcing sexual orientation, much like announcing opinion on /., can be done in various troll/flamebait ways. Compare and contrast:
"Hi! My name is soandso and I'm a lesbian here in whereever, USA. My favorite games right now are Gears of War and Catan."
"Hi! My name is soandso and I'm an oppressed lesbian here in Redneck City (wherever), USA. Fuck Christians! I'm gay and fuck God if he hates fags. Christians are all closet fags anyway with priests molesting lol"
This story simply isn't complete without the full text of her profile.
More Twoson than Cupertino
A few points:
What gives you the right to tell Microsoft "I've decided that your network isn't going to be family friendly"?
She wasn't telling Microsoft that, it's more common knowledge that their network isn't family friendly. I can say the sky is blue, but that's not telling the sky to be blue.
Video games started largely as an activity of children, and thanks to the Wii, is headed back in that direction.
I'd say the opposite - from what I've seen, the Wii seems to be moving gaming closer to an adult demographic.
Ultimately, its their network, a private entity. If she doesn't like their policies, then go somewhere else.
Just like if I don't like their policy of "No blacks allowed," I can simply find some other network to play my Xbox 360 on.
I think it's time for all of us to add "I'm a lesbian" to our profiles. Let Microsoft ban us all!
I love PC gaming too man, but the couch is mighty comfortable.
The game of playing the victim regardless of what actually happened. This case is not in any way equatable to real discrimination. She wasnt kicked because she IS a lesbian. She was kicked because she was flaunting it and refused to stop.
I personally do not like homosexuality at all (BTW, where is my freedom of speech to say that without being flamed for it?), but I agree that certian things just dont matter. For example, in job hiring then there should be no difference between white/black straight/gay for most jobs. ( Going back to the game reference, it can actually be better to be some minority a lot of the time because you can complain you were discriminated against and the media is automatically on your side, affirmative action anyone?
In an elective setting where you are there of your own choice (like a live account) then the owner/manager of that setting has the right to say what they will or will not allow, especially when something is known to be disruptive for no reason other than to be disruptive.
And a vagina in their face, on occasion. Even more true for lesbian slashdotters vs regular slashdotters.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Because being a Lesbian automatically makes you 100x more attractive to guys. There's no WAY they'd ban a girl.
Furthermore, you know it's bullshit because she says "They followed me into the games and told all the other players to turn me in because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap."
People with kids don't play X-Box live. People with kids certainly don't check user profiles. She was either doing something obscene, or that's not why she was banned.
Either way, I find it all fishy.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Why confront bigotry and set clear rules against it, when you can just ignore the problem and maintain an environment where mentioning an alternative sexual orientation will get you harassed? Let us, as you say, do absolutely nothing about the problem, and hope that education will slowly convince them.
Wait, what education? I thought nothing would be done about it? Didn't you also just say that "they don't know they're wrong, and they never will?" Can you make up your mind?
I guess people should also just keep from attaching pictures of themselves to their profiles, in case whoever's watching might have something against their race.
This has nothing to do with people getting into fights. According to TFA, she was banned for what she had in her profile. Now granted, there's probably a lot more to this story than what's in the article, but I keep seeing other people trying to say that MS is in the right because mentioning that you are gay will elicit an aggressive response from others. That's just plain flawed logic.
Now my best guess is that this chick either didn't quite use the term "lesbian" in her profile or she didn't use it as the sole descriptor. I am also under the impression that this was all over one single isolated incident.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Okay. I'm going to go down to the local lesbian bar (I used to drink there with some friends) and say, loudly but not unreasonably so, "I like to screw chicks!" Repeatedly.
At risk of being labeled as a troll or worse, I would think that at least half the patrons' first response would be an immediate: "...AND SO DO I!"
That aside, one would think that you would be thrown out for being a repetitive irritant long before you'd get pitched on philosophical/orientation grounds... much like nobody likes to talk to the little kid who always responds to everything you say with "...but why?"
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I guess she should also avoid mentioning that she's a woman, since maybe 1 in a 100 people might think video games are no place for women and she shouldn't shove the fact that she's playing in their faces, right? I guess people who are bigoted little shits with thin skin should have their precious feelings coddled, right, or else they'll throw a tantrum and it'll be my fault.
Some people stamped their feet and howled and threatened to hold their breath until they got their way, and your solution is to spoil the brats further.
Honestly, your rhetoric sounds like that of many people I know who like to outwardly pretend they're tolerant but who are inwardly homophobic, and have decided to adpat the position "my problem isn't homosexuals, it is that they shove it in my face." Of course, by shove it in your face, you would be refering to the fact that they have the audacity to openly exist and wish to seek relationships with like minded consentual adults, something they can't do without mentioning the fact that they have no interest in persons with certain genital configurations.
If you have a problem with open, out sexuality then you are the one who has the problem. If your skin is so thin that people have to walk on eggshells around you, then you need to toughen up. I, for one, have no patience with that kind of person and have no tolerance left for the intolerant.
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
Do you understand the concept of 'victim blaming'? You're right, we could avoid the issue of people starting fights over other people's sexuality by banning the mention of other sexualities from people's profiles, but why should this policy be enforced across the board? Why can't users choose whether they'd like to closet themselves and avoid conflict or be open?
Also, being gay is not mutually exclusive with being a homophobe--I feel bad that you've convinced yourself that people who make *any mention at all* of their sexuality are giving other gay men and women a bad name.
Nope.
"User experience may change..." notices always have that little ESRB tag attached to them, even on Nintendo Wii games. The reason is that there is "user-generated" content on there. If you're playing Halo 3 with someone online, you can't guarantee that they won't start spewing obscene language everywhere. You can't guarantee that they're not going to use words that would make a sailor blush. You can't guarantee that someone won't insert a crude drawing on in-game art, or do something else with a webcam... you just can't.
That little tag is the ESRB throwing up their hands and saying "screw it, we can't actually rate this", but if a game got a bad reputation for user behavior with enough substantiated reports, they COULD theoretically use that to "adjust" the game's rating retroactively.
One piece at a time, like the ram/motherboard/CPU/graphics card. Oh wait.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Right, Rosa Parks shouldn't have tried to keep her bus seat-she could have provoked a fight!
I think you've missed the GP's point. I've met a number of (admittedly teenage) lesbians (and a couple of gay men) who seem to treat their sexual orientation as their primary defining personality feature. It's worse than a lot of other obsessions because they often seem to need to mention it at every available opportunity and try to challenge you with it. If someone's lesbian/gay I don't really care, once you get past the whole "lesbians + me" lesbian fantasy and the "asses to the walls" homophobia a persons sexual orientation isn't a big deal.
It's wrong to ban someone just because they put "I'm a lesbian" in their profile, but I can see banning someone who is constantly forcing this on other people (like the type of person above) because that other person is irritating others with it. I have also met a man hating lesbian stereo-type, someone who might go on a game and start slagging off men in a fashion no better than trolls should be treated as a troll, regardless if their topic is about computers, cars, tv, music, sexual orientation, race or religion.
Your reaction is precisely what has gone wrong with our overly PC western society, the American "Don't ask, don't tell policy" is wrong as it forces people to hide an important part of their life that they shouldn't have to. But going to the other extreme and hiding behind that reason is far more annoying to those around you, my motorcycle is highly important to me and a fundamental part of who I am but I don't introduce myself as "I'm Steve the motorcyclist". Nor do I feel the need to troll about cars. If I did most people would consider me strange (at best) and irritating at worse. In this case unless Microsoft profiles include a sexual orientation section you have to ask why anyone would care and why a person would feel the need to put the information in there, I certainly don't feel the need to write "Straight" in my online profiles.
Reading the blog it seems (from knowing only her side) that other player's homophobia has caused this issue and she really is a victim. The fact Microsoft has come down on the homophobes side is very worrying and some sort of action needs to start to get this corrected. She deserves an apology from Microsoft and the people who have been attacking her need to be banned.
Fact: When someone says "I don't want to hear about [a gay person's] sexual orientation" what they are really saying is "Stop breaking my comfortable assumption that everyone is straight".
The enemies of Democracy are
Freedom of speech means you get to speak. NOT that you get to speak and I don't get to respond. It doesn't mean you have the right not to be challenged for your beliefs. It also doesn't mean that I have to let you, for instance, print whatever you like in my blog, or talk however you like in my house. It just means the government can't censor you without a very good cause.
I have never understood this attitude. It's so inherently hypocritical and just plain illogical. A 'flame' as you call it, is protected speech. Even a flame about your protected speech. Your statement, "(BTW, where is my freedom of speech to say that without being flamed for it?)" is semantically equivalent to "(BTW, where is my freedom of speech to say that without you having freedom of speech to rebut it)"
You may also be interested to find out that you do not have a Constitutional right not to be annoyed or offended. Imagine that.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That makes so little sense it's bizarre. It's not normally offensive to a gay person to say "I am straight", so why should it be offensive to a straight person to say "I am gay" ? Seriously, no-one here honestly believes that someone would have been banned for saying they had a boyfriend or girlfriend in their profile if they were a girl or boy respectively. No-one here honestly believes that someone's account would have been closed if their profile said: "I'm hetero." So it is correct to point out that this is a double standard. And as to other people being offended? Well you can be offended by people's actions and statements toward you, but if someone is offended by a personal detail about you, that's their problem and you shouldn't be punished for it. According to the article, this girl was hounded by others who kept following her into games and telling other players to "turn her in." That isn't acceptable if someone's profile says they're Black, or Indian or White or Christian or Muslim, and it isn't acceptable if someone says they're gay. Profiles are so you can learn a bit about the other person if you wish to. Being gay is a fundamental part of who someone is. At least most gay people would consider it to be and they're perfectly entitled to put that in their profile if they wish.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
XBox Live has strict rules against racism. Surely racism and homophobia draw on the same irrationalities, so why doesn't XBox Live have strict rules against homophobia? It doesn't matter what people think are right and wrong. You have the right to state your race on XBox Live, and people do not have the right to antagonise you for it. You should also have the right to state your sexuality on XBox Live, and people should not be allowed to antagonise you for it.
There's a time and place for everything, and XBox Live certainly is not the place for homophobia. It is, however, a place for casual conversation, whatever that may constitute. Including your sexual orientation.
My analogies are perfectly sound. If you think otherwise, I'd suggest that you explain yourself, rather than just saying so. You're stumbling over your own feet, contradicting yourself multiple times within the same post. It's definitely not my argument that needs improvement.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Why confront bigotry and set clear rules against it, when you can just ignore the problem and maintain an environment where mentioning an alternative sexual orientation will get you harassed?
Because the potential number of bigoted customers you lose is higher than the potential number of harassed customers you lose. The easiest, cheapest, and most profitable model is simply do that the largest number of your potential customers want you to do, and hang the rest. To all that say "vote with your feet/dollars", this can be the result.
Typical? Not one of my coworkers is still on his first xbox 360. Some are on their third.
The thing is, most people are going to have some sort of PC anyway. Obviously you do, because you're on the internet. Now, *if* that PC is a desktop (which if it isn't, you already spent enough on it to build a killer gaming desktop), it will cost you about $100 every year or two to be able to play almost any PC game that comes out at fairly high settings, and starting about a year ago they will look better than the console version. For me, that comes out to cheaper than or comparable to a console ($300 up front). And I can play all my old old games any time I want, because they're still compatible, as opposed to being locked out of anything but just the last generation.
YMMV, but just because some people spend thousands of dollars every year on a dick length competition for PC gaming doesn't mean that is required. The vast majority of developers are forced to target people with machines much lower than that - therefore, if you have a machine a bit lower than that, you're fine.
Both consoles and PCs have their strengths and weaknesses, but this money sink weaknesses people seem to project onto PC's is a bit of bullshit.
...but I can think of some misguided but almost rational reasons for the policy:
- Specifying sexual orientation could be construed as prospecting for potential partners. XBox Live is not a dating service.
- Specifying your sexual orientation explicitly could be interpreted by some as a politicized statement. XBox Live is not a political forum. ps- this falls apart when Microsoft encourages you to contact your elected officials to protest whatever they are planning to to do that might impact Microsoft's XBox business. It's only a matter of time, if not before this gaffe, soon enough.
- Advertising anything beyond game-related facts is just asking for trouble. XBox Live is intended for game-related discussions, facts, and entertainment. Anything else is a distraction. Of course, gaming is a distraction, so this is logically inconsistent on some level.
And I think all of these arguments, save the first, are lost and pointless.
The first argument is also pointless, but for a different reason. I haven't seen a public forum on the Internet yet that didn't turn into an A/S/L chatfest. It's the way it is, and the younger the audience, the faster it happens.
Good luck with that policy, Microsoft. You will lose this fight, or lose more $ than it could possibly be worth.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think you've missed the GP's point. I've met a number of (admittedly teenage) lesbians (and a couple of gay men) who seem to treat their sexual orientation as their primary defining personality feature
As opposed to your average hetero teenage male gamer who's as prudish as a Victorian nun?
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
Words don't always mean just what their roots would imply. For instance, xenophobia means hatred of strangers. There is such a thing as homophobia. And since you bring it up, you may want to look in your latest DSM to see if homosexuality is immoral or abnormal.
You can justify your bigotry any way you like, but it is still bigotry. Southerners had similar justifications for slavery, but now we look back on them as ignorant, backwards and racist. Just like future generations will look back at homophobia.
Just because some dude in a weird outfit claims that some invisible guy in the sky says that something is bad and wrong does not make it so. The only people who think homosexuality is abnormal or immoral are people who's religion or culture told them that. Nobody is born thinking it is wrong. Nobody arrives at that conclusion without coercion from an outside source.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I was kind of homophobic as a kid. It was only through exposure that I eventually realised I didn't give a fuck about someone's orientation. People's minds can and do change and it happens all the time. I watched some kids who were quite racist at school lose their racism when a black kid (it was a fairly white area) joined our school and it slowly dawned on these kids that when they made anti-black comments they were actually talking about one of their friends. Exposure is the way to reduce prejudice and it works all the time. But by your arguments Rosa Parks should have bloody well known her place and gone to the back of the bus. Same logic. Although this is to a far less degree. There's a profile section that says: "Tell us about yourself..." So she did. Shouldn't be her problem that some people don't like what she is. There's nothing offensive about being a lesbian, but that's what Microsoft are saying.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
There is a difference between saying that a company has no right to do something, and saying that it's stupid and unfair of them to do that same thing. I don't think anyone here is arguing the legality / contractual compliance of the action -- just that it's a stupid stipulation to put in the terms of service in the first place.
You may not feel the need to write "Straight" in your online profiles, but the odds are good that you acknowledge your heterosexuality in one way or another, like you did several times in your post. The issue with this reasoning is that straight people flaunt their sexual orientation every bit as much as gay people do, if not far, far moreso.
The offense on behalf of the LGBT community is that we shouldn't be forced to hide who we are, or to deny it, or to downplay it. I agree that some people do make a point of broadcasting it to the world, and get pretty damned annoying, but so do some straight people, and you really need to calm the fuck down if you're offended by seeing a couple of girls holding hands, or if you hold a queer couple sucking face in a park to a different standard than you would a straight couple: that act is offensive because they should get a room, not because it's two guys making out instead of a guy and a girl.
I don't really think that she should be advertising on her gamer profile that she's a lesbian, but I don't exactly make a secret of my sexuality when I'm playing WoW, either. If I get hit on, I politely decline and explain that I like girls. *shrugs*
Also... do you have any idea how often girls get hit on by horny retards in games? Often enough that a lot of them will pretend to be male (I used to, hence the /. name) just to avoid it. She was probably saying she was a lesbian in a misguided attempt to discourage them: I've found, from experience, that while some guys will stop hitting on you when they find out they're not getting anywhere, a lot will just try harder in the hopes of racking up a conversion. My usual response to that is something like "if you point that thing at me, I'll remove it with a rusty spoon", and even that's not enough to discourage all of them. Until you've actually *been* a female gamer, you're not qualified to really comment on what kind of things we need to do in order to avoid being hit on by retards.
Fortunately, there's an operation to fix that, if you're interested. I have some friends who've been through it, and they're quite happy with the results. :)
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
This is the reasoning that would allow for barber shops to hold up signs saying "No blacks allowed." You don't want to sit at the back of the bus, man the fuck up and ride a different bus you communist.
That would work, if they A) wouldn't advertise to me or B) note in their advertisements of the XBox the restrictions that exist on the XBox live network, or at the very least C) advertise on the XBox box wrapping itself the restrictions of the XBox live network.
Do they, in actual fact, note such limitations on the box? No? Then I'm perfectly justified to bitch them. I may not have a legal case, but hell, I have a moral one.
I'd like to find out the full story as this sounds suspicious. IMO, if she added a note to her profile that she's a lesbian and was subsequently banned, they have treated her unfairly. If that's the case, the people who carried out the banning may well have broken the law. She'd certainly have my support, for one.
However, for all we know, she could have been causing trouble and getting into arguments with people over other issues. The linked report doesn't go into much detail other than her claim that she was banned for mentioning that she was a lesbian. I'd like to see some evidence, either way.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
That's actually not a bad idea. If they had to deal with a large number of profiles all proclaiming to be gay they'd have to rethink that policy.
Problem is, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate like that in the first damn place. I am straight myself, but this is the 21st century already. Almost everybody would be on her side if this happened because she mentioned that her boyfriend was black. When the hell is it going to recognized as a basic human right to be with anyone you want as long as that person is a consenting adult? It's way past time to get rid of this Bible-thumping, repressed Victorian crap.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
What do you think this is, some kind of generic news aggregation site?
When was the last time you read Slashdot?
Er, no. I seriously don't give the slightest damn about anyone's sexual orientation unless they are female and I'm in the process of offering them a drink.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
INTERIOR: TATOOINE -- MOS EISLEY -- CANTINA.
The young adventurer and his two mechanical servants follow Ben Kenobi into the smoke-filled cantina. The murky, moldy den is filled with a startling array of weird and exotic alien creatures and monsters at the long metallic bar. At first the sight is horrifying. One-eyed, thousand-eyed, slimy, furry, scaly, tentacled, and clawed creatures huddle over drinks. Ben moves to an empty spot at the bar near a group of repulsive but human scum. A huge, rough-looking Bartender stops Luke and the robots.
BARTENDER
We don't serve their kind here!
Luke still recovering from the shock of seeing so many outlandish creatures, doesn't quite catch the bartender's drift.
LUKE
What?
BARTENDER
Your droids. They'll have to wait outside.
We don't want them here.
Luke looks at old Ben, who is busy talking to one of the Galactic pirates. He notices several of the gruesome creatures along the bar are giving him a very unfriendly glare.
Luke pats Threepio on the shoulder.
LUKE
Listen, why don't you wait out by the speeder. We don't want any trouble.
THREEPIO
I heartily agree with you sir.
Threepio and his stubby partner go outside and most of the creatures at the bar go back to their drinks.
No sig for the moment.
And many people consider Muslims to be evil and Blacks to be stupid and Jews to be conspirators. Does that mean these rules should apply to all of those descriptors as well?
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
There are enough minority people and a general social mentality that racism is bad (compare the small number of people that would actually make such comments) so that the trade-off is the other way. They would lose more than they would gain by allowing racist content.
Do note, I do not justify anything, but rather simply explain what I see as the real reason behind the policies or lack therof, i.e. profit. Piss off the fewest customers as possible for the largest revenue.
Well there are many contexts in which you don't want sexually explicit details of any orientation shoved in your face. If I were playing an online game I probably wouldn't want to see graphic descriptions of another players sex life appearing on my screen regardless of orientation. But your comment is misrepresenting what I said (and what this woman said in her profile, apparently). I simply referred to a statement about someone stating their orientation which is no more graphic when someone says "I'm a lesbian" than it is when someone says "I'm straight." That's very different to your objecting to someone "shoving in your face what you like to fuck or lick" as you say, which makes it sound like there is sexual content which there wasn't.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
If that was in the actual profile, she wouldn't have been banned for stating her sexual orientation. Microsoft would have said she was banned for other comments. They have come out and said she was banned for stating her sexual orientation NOT for being offensive or using offensive language which is extremely clear in their TOS, so if they wanted a non-controversial way to ban her, they'd use that.
Common sense dude. Why assume something else was done when if that was indeed true, events would have transpired in a completely different manner.
and who is at fault? the ones causing all the trouble over it? or the one shoving it in their face while they'd rather just not know? imo both are just as wrong
If they didn't want to know about the person, they wouldn't be viewing their profile. If I asked you to tell me about yourself and you identify yourself as a Christian, is that shoving your religion in my face?
The "just came out" gay attention-seeking, tell-everybody-about-it phase is similar to the "linux user" attention-seeking, tell-everybody-about-it phase, which is also similar to the "born again christian" attention-seeking, tell-everybody-about-it phase.
When you have such a big change in your life, you want to advertise it to everybody... It's natural and if it happens to a friend of yours, you need to be patient while you wait for him/her to adjust to their new situation...
No sig for the moment.
I'd pay to see that, lol. That would be great.
And you're right, it is about "look at me, give me attention". A lot of it is also about "I'm sick of hiding who I am, and want to openly and publicly embrace my culture." It's part of coming out and coming to grips with who and what you are, and most queer people I know grow out of it eventually, when they realize that most of the enlightened populace doesn't give a shit that they're gay, it doesn't change who they are. But as with drag queens, a lot of what goes on in Pride is deliberately over the top with the purpose of provoking people, and the intention of having a good time. It really is a great party, if you relax and just embrace what's going on. Tons of fun.
*shrugs* Each to their own. It's been a few years since I've been to pride, and I don't have a rainbow sticker on my car either. As I see it, the only circumstance under which you've got a right to know what I like in the bedroom is when you're there, or there's a chance you'll be invited. Unlikely... I like girls, and I don't think you are one... ^.~
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
which overpowers the right of the majority not to be offended by them.
This right here is where you go off the deep-end and become someone who is need of a serious ass-kicking.
Let me bold this for you: there is no right for anyone to not be offended. Now go pay attention in Civics class before I run you off to a gulag.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Why would anyone write about their husband/wife, sexual orientation, race, religion, or their favorite breed of dog in a GAMER PROFILE?!?!? It's a gamer profile, not your fucking personal blog.
Because it is natural for people to identify with other people who share interests or status. What's wrong with a gay gamer being interested in playing with other gay gamers? What about Christian gamers wanting to play with other Christian gamers?
Merely taking offense to someone saying "I am gay" is incredibly senseless. That's not even the problem, people don't have to say it, they can 'act' it and it's offensive.
As much as homosexually frightens anyone, I am far more frightened by mindless attitudes.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Because it isn't really a natural form of sex
How is it not natural if it occurs in nature? And assuming it isn't natural, how is that a bad thing? Things like assault and murder are natural human behaviour, and things like medicine and ice cream are wholly un-natural. Your point?
but, I can understand people not wanting to really have it shoved in your face (no pun intended) as to what you like to fuck or lick.
I don't like having heterosexual behavior "shoved in my face" every hour of every day, but it happens. Nothing I can do about it, c'est la vie. But when somebody mentions they're gay on an online profile, holy shit, tell them to get the fuck out.
Homosexuality IS natural. Animals do it, and not just the sex part, the setting up a couple and spending life together part, too. The latest research seems to conclude it's linked to physical differences in the brain...
As the song goes: Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it...
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
"First off hate speech is not protected speech so your example falls on it's ass"
Why isn't it? Hate speech laws (as opposed to hate crimes laws) haven't been tested in SCOTUS, so we don't know if they lack protection or not. But they certainly violate the 1st Amendment. Calling someone a racial epithet, for instance, is nasty, but not the same thing as shouting fire in a crowded theater. What good is freedom of speech if we only protect nice speech? If we only protect speech that we approve of?
Besides, "hate speech" codes are sliding into political correctness with the force of law behind it. The hypocrisy of "freedom" libertarians and liberals never ceases to amaze me when it comes to government control of social systems. They cry out that social conservatives are fascists for wanting to impose their idea of social order, but then these same people have no problem when social order is imposed from the other direction.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Maybe by "wife" he meant the dude that's his S.O.
Bob. Bit of a funny name for a girl. :D
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Diners are completely private entities, owned by people who sunk money into the business? Are you suggesting it's okay to stop blacks from sitting at the counter?
Morally? No. Legally? Yes. And it's also legal for a lunch counter in Harlem to refuse service to whites.. And despite what you think, the legal right to "refuse service" has never changed. What changed were attitudes, because of the dedication of protestors, and the impact they had on public opinion. Read up on the Greensboro Sit-Ins. Authorities never made Woolworth's desegrate; they did so because the protests were starting to hurt their business. When a group of sit-in protestors at another business tried to press their legal right to use the facility, they lost.
It was the use of organized protest, public awareness, and economic boycotts that desegregated lunch counters. Not the law. The didn't come into it until it addressed issues of equal access to public services.... i.e. schools, courts, etc. No one ever told a restaurant they had to desegregate. They did because it was necessary to survive economically.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
That's just flat out wrong, on both counts. Maybe you'd be safe declaring your homosexuality in, say, the Castro district of San Francsico. But even in, say, Hunter's Point or China Basin in San Francisco, you would get your ass BEAT for doing that. Reverend Phelps, on the other hand, goes around to funerals of gays all over the US with his inbred clan and they hold up signs and chant things like, "God hates fags!" without being stopped. At FUNERALS.
You seem as though you are jealous of minorities for getting to play the victim card. You seem to want to play the victim card yourself, but you aren't really a victim, so you invent things that sound like, "I'm a victim because people don't agree with me about being a bigot." I'm guessing you are a member of the dominant culture and have never had to face any kind of serious prejudice.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Because it isn't really a natural form of sex....many people consider it as abnormal as necrophilia, pedophilia, or bestiality.
Really? Many researchers and observers of animal behaviors in the wild would disagree. Many species perform 'gay sex', and other homosexual behaviors, naturally. There's tons of research on the subject, you should do some reading some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html
Appeal to authority is a type of logical fallacy. But it is also a logical fallacy to assume an conclusion is wrong just because the argument uses a logical fallacy. There are good, simple arguments against murder. Specifically, we have almost all agreed to the social contract that states: I don't want to be murdered, therefore, I agree not to murder and to punish murderers. See how simple that is?
I have never heard a good moral argument for denying anyone their right to express their love how they choose, given that that expression doesn't violate any other agreements they may have.
My current working hypothesis is that the 'homosexuality is wrong' meme is part of a larger, dysfunctional social dynamic. This hypothesis predicts that cultures that are more isolated in space and time from certain 'epicenters of violence' will show certain traits, namely: no ritual genital mutilation, no ritualized child abuse, no social hierarchy, no strict sex roles, and no sexual taboos, including adultery, homosexuality, or even incest. The hypothesis also predicts that in those cultures, each of those sexual activities will happen less often than in cultures where they are forbidden.
In my opinion, the evidence seems to support this hypothesis, although it is hotly disputed by some. Such cultures have existed, do exist, and they are quite isolated from said epicenters of violence. For references, you may want to start with The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff, and Saharasia by James DeMeo.
If I'm right, it doesn't prove homosexuality is not wrong. But wrong is not the default position, one must come up with a good reason, one that the vast majority can agree to, for censoring the behavior of another if that behavior doesn't harm you directly. And just to be clear, 'moral outrage' is a type of self-harm.
As for sociopaths, they should behave according to the generally accepted principles such as 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you, if you were in their shoes,' because those principles make sense and give them the greatest likelihood of success in life. That's the same reason most of us are born with a conscience and very few people are sociopaths: because it makes sense, even at a genetic level. Cooperation is just as universal a principle as competition is, that is obvious even to those of us who don't believe in a higher power.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That's actually not a bad idea.
Well, that depends on which end of the ban-hammer you're at, and whether or not your account is paid for.
I'm sure that M$ will be quite happy to kill a few thousand accounts and laugh all the way to the bank for people violating their TOS.
[End Of Line]
Threepio is SO gay.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Maybe you didn't read the part about them not wanting to get hit on? Oh wait, why am I saying this, now you'll assume that they are all just faking being lesbians and hit on them anyway, won't you?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Because it isn't really a natural form of sex....many people consider it as abnormal as necrophilia, pedophilia, or bestiality.
And those people are close minded bigots. None of those three types of sex are between two consenting adults, unlike gay couples. Besides, putting 'I'm a lesbian!' in your freaking profile isn't exactly forcing someone to watch icky sex they find disgusting, is it.
Would you be equally as happy banning people from putting 'I'm black!' or 'I was born deaf!' in their live profiles? Cos being gay, black and born disabled are all genetically predetermined.
If you have no problem being bigoted against one group, then you should be just as proud of your bigotry against the others.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Taking offense at the actions of others is a form of self-harm and I don't understand why anyone does it. It's like cutting yourself, it's fucking weird.
Now, stopping people from doing things to others against their will is a different matter. We don't want that done to us, and have therefore both agreed not to do it to others AND to stop/punish other people who do it. It's a simple contract I have agreed to based on what I believe to be best for me. No feelings of judgment, condemnation, or offense need be involved.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Obarthelemy is not using that example to justify, he's using it to disprove the naturalistic fallacy the guy before him used.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What SHOULD they write in it? That they're a gamer? Gee, you don't say, never would have expected to read in a GAMER profile that the person is a GAMER. If you aren't writing a little bit about who you are in your profile for /just about anything/ then your profile is completely useless.
And for the record, I've heard and seen many gamers talk about their families or relationships both in game and on profile pages. It's neither uncommon nor completely inappropriate in itself. Banning somebody for it, even if there are people out there who are irrationally intimidated by and intolerant of your preferences in a sexual partner, is simply absurd.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Maybe you wouldn't. If you don't like it, you can ignore it, just as you can ignore the people who write about their favourite breed of dog. If you're not going to say whatever is important to you on your profile, how is it an interesting profile?
It sounds like you are advocating banning anyone who discusses any topic that is not of particular interest to you.
ps. Beautiful day today, isn't it?
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
That isn't acceptable if someone's profile says they're Black, or Indian or White or Christian or Muslim, and it isn't acceptable if someone says they're gay.
Being gay shouldn't be grounds for hounding--it's not hurting anyone (except all of us straight males who can't get a date because the accursed gay males convinced women that men should know how to dress well). But what exactly is wrong with hounding Christians or Muslims? It's about time that we as a society moved beyond basing major life decisions on fairytales and wishful thinking. Why shouldn't people who use faith to justify ANYTHING be hounded and harassed and mocked? For one thing, Microsoft's and society's homophobia is almost certainly a direct result of Christian faith.
That said, I'd prefer if people identified their faith-vs-brightness status upfront. It'd save a bunch of time.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Morally? No. Legally? Yes.
Giving legal advice to strangers is rarely a good idea.
No one ever told a restaurant they had to desegregate.
Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States, upholding Title II, Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That said, you were right inasmuch as such economic boycotts and demonstrations helped create the social consensus necessary to pass these laws.
P.S. I take no position on whether or not these laws were wise or just.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
No. As opposed to a (non-average) hetero teenage male gamer, who runs around saying "I LOVE PUSSY!", or "I'm God's gift to women. Behold my cock!" It's one thing to be open about one's sexual orientation (whatever it is), and another thing entirely to embellish it to the point of irritation.
The lesbians that I, personally, know (and know of) are pretty quiet about the whole thing, just as I am about my own sexuality. Same thing with the gay folks that I consider friends. But just because I'm accepting, doesn't mean that I invite loud proclamations of anyone's sexuality into my life. I'd rather treat people based on their treatment of me, non-sexually, than on boisterous claims of their sexual preference, or worse, the depth of a man's throat or the length of a girl's tongue.
Those things aren't important to me. And the converse is also true: Even as a hetero male who definitely enjoys a good blow job[1], especially one that employs the exquisite feel of the tonsils and the soft palette, I'd really care not to know how deep a girl's throat is, or how long a man's tongue is -- especially in a gaming environment.
What this has to do with Xbox Live bans, I'm not sure, but I'm just trying to reiterate OP's point, which you took to such an extreme that it seems that you've lost it entirely.
[1]: This statement might be offensive to some. And, if this were a family-oriented service like Xbox Live, I'd expect repercussions for it. But it's Slashdot, so: *shrug* If it offends you, then I guess my point is thus validated.
Kid-proof tablet..
Actually, by virtue of the Interstate commerce clause- and it applies to MS as well, Microsoft or your diner would be in violation of federal law for refusing service based on race. As far as Xbox and the gay population though- sexual orientation is not a protected status- yet. So, MS is completely within their rights to ban this girl. If she were however banned for being black or Asian or whatever, then they would be breaking the law.
I think the assumption that being gay is the defining aspect of a person's life is much more offensive than declaring that discussion of sexuality may not be appropriate in all settings.
My friends list is mainly composed of people in the military. I'm in the military and enjoy playing some COD4(Did enjoy, currently deployed) with like minded individuals. I'm here to play a game, don't really care that LeetA$$HuntR69 is gay or not. It really has no bearing on the game at all. I am also surprised that this is MS's policy. Everytime I play any game on Live, everyone is calling everyone a fag. I just assumed that I was surround by was gay.
Look out, you'll shoot Dorkus.
IMO, this is more of an indication of the narrow-mindedness of the general Xbox-Live demographic than of Microsoft. Microsoft is a business, so it's likely that this person got banned because of a huge number of complaints from their customer base. They don't want to lose business, so they appeased their customers.
If however they didn't receive all that many complaints (comparatively speaking), then I think someone needs to take serious legal action against them if possible. It may sound a bit hypocritical or contradictory to hold them responsible in this case, but this to me sounds like a problem with the mindset of the general population, and Microsoft can't really be held responsible for that.
Hi, I'm straight. Will I get banned of XBoxLive, too?
Actually it was R2D2 that was the flamer, you would not know it,
but he loved to being behind Luke on the xwing...you could always hear him scream...
"wreeeeeeeehhhh".
The challenge to this is to ask yourself to face the converse implication. Would you be okay with someone putting "I'm a heterorsexual and only want to game with other heterosexuals" in their gamer profile? Would you be okay with a whites-only game guild, and okay with it being advertised as such?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why should someone be banned for a word that someone else finds offensive?
Eh? Banning someone because they were offended by a word is surely what happened here. And yes, it is "horseshit".
it's THEIR Xbox Live, not ours. ... and it is Microsoft's rulebook. Don't like it? Don't join.
I don't think anyone's saying this shouldn't be allowed. But just as they might have a right to do this, equally others have a right to tell people about what happened, and criticise Microsoft to do so. Don't like it? Don't RTFA.
You are also missing several major points:
* That an account is suspended, rather than being warned up front.
* That MS do nothing about people being harrassed, and instead responded by saying that people found her sexuality "offensive".
* If the article is correct, it seems they blanketly ban "gay" - even if it's in your name. Do they automatically ban anyone who puts the word "straight" somewhere in their profile, even in another context?
And like I asked before, WHAT does your sexual orientation NEED to be displayed for? So you can get a higher score in something? WHY BOTHER? I don't put "I love the ladies" in my profile
Of course, the decision of what people should want to put in their profile should be based on what Doctor_Jest (688315) thinks should go in his profile. Heaven forbid that someone should have a different point of view.
Supposing MS disagreed with you? You wouldn't moan if your account was suspended without warning?
There would be Human Rights complaints if you organized a Straight Pride parade. "We're straight, and that's great!"
See, that's the problem right there. Hetro isn't the 'default' sexuality, it's *a* sexuality. Classifying it as 'default,' or 'normal', is classifying everything else as 'abnormal.' It's like saying 'male' or 'female' is the 'default.' Nope.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Ok I haven't been on Xbox live in awhile so maybe things have changed. I used to play Halo 2 online via xbox live.
I don't see the big deal. When I was on the only thing people seemed to talk about was identifying each other as: Gay, Fag, Homo, etc...
Seems like the whole community lead an alternative lifestyle really, so I am not sure what the big deal is about lesbians... Girls need love too y'know! :)
I have yet to see anything that disputes that the user would have been similarly banned if they had "I'm heterosexual" in the profile.
TFA states that someone got banned even when "gay" was part of his name. ( http://consumerist.com/5010527/microsoft-confirms-gaywood-is-an-offensive-surname-mr-gaywood-responds ). Also given that this doesn't seem to be part of a TOS that states "don't mention your sexuality", this seems to more be a case of banning people for using words deemend offensive. I'd be suprised if someone was banned for the word "straight" being in their profile, but I'd be curious to see.
Furthermore, if someone was banned for saying they were straight, you can bet that people here would be all over it, criticising Microsoft, generally taking the anti-censorship line (both these views are are common on Slashdot), and playing the "Straight people have it worse than minorities" card. Yet because it's someone gay, that's okay? I'm ashamed to be reading some of the comments here.
Like it or not, sexual orientation is a mature subject.
Right, so let's censor all mention of sexuality for kids - relationships, marriage. Let's certainly not have kids at weddings. Of course, your argument is absurd - no one thinks that this is a mature subject, unless it's two people of the same sex.
"I'm into bondage and have a latex fetish"
Well, you're getting into specific acts, rather that what people you like.
What I do have a problem with are people--gay or straight or anything else--who use everything in life as a forum for their cause, even in "neutral" places such as an online gaming service.
So why do they allow these "tags" at all?
Everyone who plays online games knows that it's actually moderately difficult to get banned unless you're incredibly stupid or actually trying, which is another reason that I think the user is either soliciting something or pushing an agenda.
Citation needed?
You seem to be implying that discussing sexuality with children against the will of their parents in inappropriate places is perfectly fine. Is that correct?
Nice straw man. Point to me where she did this?
You seem to be entirely happy to discuss sexuality on a public website, aren't you worried that you're forcing it onto children without the consent of the parents? Pweease won't somebody think of the children!
Equal rights means EQUAL rights, not "we just changed who can get away with what", dumbass.
Speaking as someone who is bisexual, I have no problem with your proposal, and suggest that you have missed the point. The issue isn't whether people are allowed to be small-minded, it's whether those people are allowed to force their worldview on others.
I find your attitudes at least as offensive as you apparently find mine--probably more so. Welcome to the Internet. In this most public of fora, tolerance is an absolute necessity. It's a very simple concept. If we do not have equality, we have unfair discrimination--by definition. We suffer a loss of freedom, the extent of which is determined by some arbitrary and subjective censor. Your views may be an affront to me, but censorship is an affront to the freedoms of all men.
If someone wants to start a child molester's WoW guild, or an islamic terrorist's guild, or any such thing, as long as they confine themselves to methods of expression that do not cause demonstrable harm to others, they should be allowed the same liberties as any other man.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
It's not getting bent out of shape. My actual feelings on the matter aren't important. I choose to take action and speak out against bigotry because it is wrong. It doesn't matter if I am the only one in the world who sees it that way, I will still speak out against it and say it is harmful, it removes other people's freedoms unnecessarily.
A word in English does not always mean the same as it would in Latin. Homophobia is like xenophobia. You may not agree with the definition, but that is how it is commonly used, and it's part of the dictionary definition of the word, so you are simply wrong.
You are in the minority. Your opinions amount to fundamentalist religious intolerance, similar to the Taliban wanting women to wear veils. Your type of fundamentalism brings shame to our entire country and make us look like back woods buffoons to the rest of the first world.
Look at how you've been modded here, and who gets modded up. Still think you're in the majority? If you were, we'd have had anti-gay marriage laws passed nation wide. Even if you were in the majority, you would still be wrong. People used to think owning slaves and treating women like property was okay. Now we look back at those people as backwards, unenlightened savages. That is how future generations will look at you.
You advocate limiting the freedoms of someone else because you find behavior that doesn't impact you in any measurable way offensive. It is your choice to be offended. Some people choose to cut themselves with knives, that is their right.
I'm not offended by your backwards, bigoted, harmful opinions, I just think they are harmful and should be stopped. Like an avalanche or a flood should be stopped. I don't take offense at the behavior of the flood, even though it kills. I just work to stop it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your tactic here is known as 'poisoning the well.' You want to put a shadow of a doubt out there. You have no proof of any misconduct on this woman's part, but plenty of proof of other's misconduct. People shout 'fag' all the time on Xbox Live. Guys hit on girls all the time there. Yet no one punishes them. You hear this woman's story and immediately begin a propaganda campaign implying, again and again, that she must have done something offensive. Why is that?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You may not feel the need to write "Straight" in your online profiles, but the odds are good that you acknowledge your heterosexuality in one way or another, like you did several times in your post. The issue with this reasoning is that straight people flaunt their sexual orientation every bit as much as gay people do, if not far, far moreso.
Very true!
It's quite difficult to see your own biases, especially when you live in an environment that supports your way of doing things.
When a right-handed person walks into a computer lab and sits at a computer with a mouse on the right side, it seems normal to him. A left-handed person immediately recognizes a problem, if they haven't already adjusted to using mice on the right side.
A white man goes to the store to buy band-aids. Traditionally, band-aids were made to blend with white skin, not black or other shades of brown. If asked what color a band-aid is, the white man might say "flesh colored," not realizing that the band-aid was manufactured to complement certain skin-tones and not others.
We flaunt and support our biases just by living them, and when we encounter a different way of doing them, the "other-ness" factor triggers and we feel uncomfortable. Completely normal part of human existence, as long as it is recognized with curiosity as opposed to hostility.