Slashdot Mirror
Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia Out of Gaming
An anonymous reader writes "A central theme for several talks at this week's Game Developers Conference has been how to deal with the abuse generated by a small segment of gamers. BioWare's Manveer Heir says he wants the industry to stop being scared of challenging the most outspoken and vituperative members of the gaming community. His GDC talk focused on 'misogyny, sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia and other types of social injustice.' He said, 'We should use the ability of our medium to show players the issues first-hand, or give them a unique understanding of the issues and complexities by crafting game mechanics along with narrative components that result in dynamics of play that create meaning for the player in ways that other media isn't capable of.' Meanwhile, Adam Orth, who became the center of an internet hatestorm last year after an offhand comment about always-online DRM, said game developers should make an effort to encourage their playerbase to behave in a more civilized manner."
That's the quickest way.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
a game or console that brings people together will ultimately be more successful than one that doesn't
We don't need new fancy words for being an asshole.
Even if none of the listed identity groups were involved, these gamers would still be rude jerks to other people.
Yeah, like the subject says: "phobia" is a misnomer.
The small sub-section of intolerant gamers doesn't need to go.
The small sub-section of Professional Victims who love to always complain should take a hike for once.
Haters gonna hate. Bigots gonna bigot. 13 year olds gonna 13-year-old.
Not until bigotry makes your appendages explode will this ever end. And maybe not even then.
"Don't say 'gay', say 'teen'. That is so teen."
it's called Stoicism
I started on a Coleco system in the 1980s. Progressed to a C64, and soon had nintendos, PC systems and mainstream consoles coming out my ears. In 32 years of gaming both online and offline: I'm sorry, but I just don't see this mythical mysogynist racist homophobic culture claimed to be ruining the experience.
Gaming is an emotional experience and in the middle of that experience shit falls out of people's mouths and they say or type things they wouldn't elsewhere. That's just part of being human. If you find yourself being offended by it then you should probably check your assumptions about the other person more than their actions.
If I can 'cope' with it for 32 years and it's not bothered me in the slightest, then there's no definable absolute problem with culture. It's those who're offended who are choosing to be offended.
We don't call it "race-phobia" or "men-phobia" or "women-phobia", the labelling of disagreeing with an accusation of fear (homo-phobia) does not allow the conversation to begin on a level of mutual respect, where people merely have disagreements on personal behavior.
Race and gender are not behavioral, but physiological facts, and therefore subjective debates easily point out a subject bias against an unchangeable reality. But it seems _any_ disagreement with homosexuality is instantly labeled as "hate", and I propose it's partly because of the fear label associated with disagreement.
No one expects a racist Nazi to love black people, but we absolutely expect them not to attack them. And we even enforce free speech laws that allow these people to openly run organizations that support racial superiority.
But with homosexuality it's the reverse, there is a movement to force a belief change and acceptance of another persons beliefs. Without honest objective discourse, emotionally biased labels and arguments will suppress disent that even Nazi's don't suffer under.
This social group (slashdot) espouses scientific disagreement as a basis for learning. I propose we start hearing both sides of the arugment about sexuality objectively, apply the doctrine of tolerance equally and remove the subjective and biased label of "homophobia" to those they merely disent.
"Billy, you're a fucking idiot! What, I don't see anything wrong with that statement, it doesn't offend *me,* my name's Jerry - for God's sake, Billy, quit CRYING."
Do I sense a smell of feminist BS?
Given the post by anonymous cowards yesterday on the Jessy Jackson article. There are plenty of slashdot readers that can fit into this category. Are they mainly gamers?
I play games for fun, not morals. Your beliefs about a moral actions may not be other's so adding your "correct" action in a game then give rewards for the right" choice is just another way of enforcing your beliefs on others.
For example I believe Homophobia is wrong, I have a right to stop someone else who is hurting another either physically or verbally, But I do not have the right to force the attacker to change his/her views, they are his/her choices and he/she believes them to be right just as he/she doesn't have the right to make me join in.
And everyone I know hates DRM's not for the fact they stop piracy (kinda) but as yet no DRM has been seamless. Frequent disconnects, ridiculous sign-up's (eg making a live account) The inability to access some content offline or even unable to play the game at all offline. We live in a world when you can't always be online, esp if you live in rural area or have bandwidth limitations. So hate about DRM's is completely justified, if you want to stop piracy look at why people pirate games, not some lackluster attempt at stopping them, you won't win, so far every DRM has been breached.
unsung veteran hero on at least two continents http://rt.com/usa/occupy-scott-olsen-settlement-433/
Seriously - would anyone have even bothered with titles like DOAX or Duke Nuke'Em if it didn't have the content it had?
They both sold like effing mad... I'll leave it up to the reader to decide why they think that is.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
No spiders allowed.
WhatMeWorry!
If you ban a player for a short interval, it's not enough to dissuade bad behavior. If you choose a long interval, they just join the game under a different player name. In essence, if a player's behavior has already deteriorated to the point of needing a ban, the battle is already lost.
Yes, the "market" is going to magically erase misogyny in gaming, because here's these games that sold super well for being misogynist.
If the content of a videogame offends you, then don't buy it. If enough people don't buy offensive video games, people won't make offensive video games.
Telling other people "you should do this" or "you should not do that" only pisses them off and wastes your time.
Just delete the humans and you're all set.
Sometimes I just want something to be non-sexual in all ways, but people insist on bringing homosexuality into it anyway. Come one, just leave some things as non PC non-sexual.
What do you mean gamers are biased against women, homosexuals and non-caucasians?
I'll have you know they're the number one consumers of asian lesbian porn!
The goal isn't to eradicate bigotry, but to lessen it as much as we can. By that measure we can, and we have succeeded. Yes, there will always be more work to do. But, overall, the world is a better place today than it was centuries ago if you are a woman, racial minority, and/or LGBT. The question is not "can we create a utopia." Obviously not. But can we make the world better than it is today? Yes, absolutely.
How? We do it by ignoring comments like yours, and working at it anyway. Your comment isn't just pessimistic, it's oppressive. It strengthens the status quo. I'm sure you have good intentions and don't outwardly hate people. I don't think you're a bigot, but you're standing in the way of progress by trying to discourage people from even attempting to improve the world. Please don't do that.
While I applaud the idea, it's as unrealistic as "Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia out of the Internet" or "Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia out of books".
Games are not like TV Shows, in that there is not a single channel in which consumers get it (like TV Stations). A single person can make a game that becomes popular with tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Combine this with the fact that one group can find content as offensive (She's has a character flaw... misogyny!) while another of the same group can find the alternative equally offensive (All the females in this game are one-dimensional... misogyny!).
I also don't see how creativity will flow if all content needs to be impossibly 'appropriate' for all people. For big companies, it's self-correcting anyway: If it's offensive to too many people, the game won't be successful... so at least big companies have interest to make games that sell on the mass market.
So, if instead of saying homophobia, I said heterosexism, all my arguments would instantly be valid? Weird that you're hung up on a word you don't understand the meaning of.
We enforce free speech laws that allow the Westboro Baptist Church to protest, don't we? Why is that "the reverse" of protecting racist Nazi's?
Oh, you mean that you want to be able to shit on other people, and face no *social* backlash? That doesn't work for Nazis, either, sorry.
Gaming is one of the last bastions where political incorrectness survives. I hope it will stay that way and that gaming won't get invaded by the armies of the politically correct spoilsports. And, yes, I am a minority and a target of some of these "-isms" and "-phobias".
Yes, saying that an unchangeable characteristic about a person is socially acceptable is too radical for Slashdot.
What's next? Games that say it's "okay" to be black?? Please, free market, save us from this terrible fate!
And here we have the classic reverse judo method.
Bioware seems like a rare example of a developer which doesn't incorporate ""isms (at least, not overly), so perhaps the gaming industry can lead by example.
Not to mention, simply removing the offenders doesn't solve shit, said offenders simple move on.
Societiy will never move forward, unless you change their minds, using the same ability which you propose limiting: speech. Otherwise, eventually, you'll help create the next (albeit, slightly smaller) generation of ""isms.
I wonder, who gets to decide? Does this mean that all game avatars will be wearing grey coveralls like THX1138?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Having met a reformed neo-nazi skinhead, in the flesh, I can personally tell you that people do change. I'm not saying that gaming environments can do it alone, but there are plenty of opportunities to influence people by the construction of virtual environments within games. Challenging people to grow out of violent, simplistic gaming models toward an appreciation for something 'better' would be more difficult for game designers but not imposssible.
Linking in-game environments to positive real world complex systems would be a good start, but since you can't sanitize a virtual environment from the ugly extrenalities of culture, it would be challenge to show participants that their behavior could have positive outcomes without preaching some form of gospel, but I'd love to see some enterprizing leadship try.
Have you ever been tested for sociopathic tendincies?
If you're talking shit in the lounge or common area, then you deserve a banhammer right to the forehead. And if you're playing a non-violent or otherwise cooperative game, then nasty epithets really aren't cool.
But combat games? Actually shooting at other player opponents? Nuh-uh. Anything goes, jungle rules and survival of the fittest. If you're hunting other humans, then you should not only expect such nasty talk, but you should desire hearing it. When you've just flung a knife halfway across the map and skewered some n00b in the eyeball, then hearing them call you a bitch faggot is just icing on the pwncake.
There's also something else to consider? Being a nasty little troll can come with some really horrible, but incredibly spectacular consequences.
[End Of Line]
"But this problem isn't solved with words, it's solved with action," he continued, building to a climax. "It's solved not only with intent but convictions and a little bit of courage. It's solved by fighting, by challenging your team to do something a little deeper and making something that's important to you." - Manveer Heir
The plight of the homosexual is not really important to a heterosexual game developer. The dev's create games that are important to them, and apparently what is important to the devs are caucasian heterosexual male leads, and female supporting staff and their +10 enchanted undergarments.
What he is really saying is, make a game that is important to a small niche audience, and don't be afraid to not make any money off of it. Which, in today's gaming world is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if anyone decides it is important enough for them to do it.
It's not hard to extrapolate.
If I say "hey, hey, woah, let's check out BOTH SIDES of the evolution argument" - it's not hard to figure out that I don't "believe" in evolution. Just because your literal words sound objective, doesn't mean that they are.
Easy - the former is only said by people who think women are fragile beings who need protection by big strong men. Or, can you not tell the difference between MRAs and feminists?
It's kinda telling that, for you, "competition" has to include shitting on people who aren't even involved, or you won't enjoy it.
"Not only are they hurting the player they're insulting..." Actually, no. They're causing phantom pain and grief in other people who feel the need to stand up for those who most likely don't give a shit because they want to appear morally superior. And, no a second time. They're not teaching anyone anything other than they're douches.
In many video games, going back to some of the oldest, there's almost always been multiple races. Heck even Space Invaders had two races. WoW has over a dozen.
If you're going to make a game that involves humans. Which race do you pick? Someone's going to get offended no matter which race you pick.
I play SC2, Terran. There's Zergs and Protoss. Three races right there. Is someone offended that the Terrans appear to be primarily Caucasian? Sure there's a few bit characters that aren't. Why isn't Reynor hispanic, or Jewish or Chinese or Native American or whatever...
The only way to dissuade bad behavior is to tap into a super power hidden deep within the human body called "ignoring something." Most choose not to do so, and now we have the wonderful world we do today.
Everyone wants to feel important, everyone wants to be "in," and they'll gladly suffer humiliation or abuse just to feel like they're a part of something.
Your point seems... kind of ridiculous.
There is this thing called xenophobia, and it is not the same as racism. You might be afraid of the other gender, and I'm sure that has a name, too.
Anyway, Wikipedia has a detailed article about heterosexism, just as it has for those other words. But unless someone says people identifying as gay should be banned from the game, homophobia is probably a better way to describe it.
Mommying game content does not address the actual problem (abject stupidity), and creates another one: the watering down of content that resembles the world you thought up.
Also, game developers, take note: People mostly only have a very low count of legitimate mommies. Please do not think even for a moment that it is appropriate that you decide outsiders can, or should, fill that role in limiting your creative output. In architecting a game, please think of yourself as a god, responsible to no one, and without concern for who thinks what about whatever, except as you want them to. That's *much* better: we call this creative freedom, and good grief, do I ever want you to have it. You, and writers, and all other artists.
If you want to support (fill in group), by all means do so. Give them money, time, bags of cat food, speak to them, speak at their outreach events if they think you have something to contribute, but do not, under any circumstances, decide those groups have the chops to decide what's good for everyone else and limit what you actually want to do accordingly.
Aside from the obvious problems, this trend has very dark mirrors we can see all around us; for instance, fox news thinks its perfectly ok to distort the living heck out of any sane narrative of events, past, present or future, and then bottle-feed it to their audience.
If you want to make a game, just make the game. Don't second guess anyone, don't try to be the obedient dog of the morality police or the ethical police or the politically correct police or the religious police or the atheist police... just build your world the way you think you want it and see if people like it.
We have plenty of individuals and groups vying for the position of mommy already. Please don't add to this problem. And it is, most assuredly, a problem.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
at some point in your life someone is not going to like you for some innocuous trait. learn to deal with it and stop being a pussy.
I know reading the article is against ther terms of service here or something, but most of the points the speaker seemed to be making were more about equal representation in games, and how we can do better than having most games stars straight white males. The argument that audiences can't connect with characters of other colors, genders, ages, sexual orientations, or gender identity is suspect, given the diversity of the gaming population.
There's a difference between this and "political correctness" or "feminism", or "The LGBT agenda" people are so quick to demonize. An argument that we should have a richer pool of stories to experience is pretty hard to argue with, if you ask me.
So, you think that straight & gay people could choose to be bisexual? I guess?
And sure, you legitimately think that. There are people who legitimately think the earth is 6000 years old, too. Doesn't make you any less wrong.
Probably didn't bother you because you're a racist homophobic mysogynist.
First let's get the Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia out of the comment sections (including /.). Then maybe there can be a reasonable discussion.
Race and gender are not behavioral, but physiological facts...
Your argument is horribly flawed. Sexuality is also a physiological fact in an adult, how it forms is still being investigated but the brains of gay and straight women and men can be scanned to show differences. Nazis are racist by choice whilst homosexuals are not gay by choice because really, there are few reasons to choose it and many not to; why would you choose to be gay in a country like Uganda or Russia where you're likely to be killed because people are afraid that you'll cause all sorts of ills to befall society.
We use the term phobia because the overwhelming majority of the hate stems from a fear response which, like the majority of fears, stems from a lack of understanding, and tends to reside in the uneducated or religious (which have some overlap). It's a useful description, and frames the discussion correctly.
As for a disagreement on personal behaviour... that's bizarre. It's someone else's behaviour, is a natural behaviour for them, and doesn't affect you or hurt anybody. Why 'disagree' with it if not, at some level, out of fear?
Race does not exist. Nice kool-aid you've got though.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Someone starts saying BS I mute them. Problem solved. Lets focus on the damned cheaters that seem to infest all online games once said game has been out a few years. Obvious issue are invisible assholes on MW3. Now I realize MW3 is 2 years old, but if you try to play now you'll find an IA about 1 game in 3. Not to mention all the other cheats (wallhacks, aimbots, etc).
they are going to be pushing their own agendas towards players instead of gearing the game toward the audience.
Join a community which looks after its own. I'm a member of Something Awful, and we have groups which play most games. Although each group has autonomy, the general rule in all of our groups is 'act like a creep towards female members, get banned.'
What is shechitah? What is kapporot? What is bris?
Where is -2 Not Even A Good Troll?
Every time I turn around there's a new -ism we never knew about. As long as there is a concept of race, there will be racism. As long as there is a concept of sex, there will be sexism. As long as we have an age, a religion, a sexual orientation, there's an -ism for that. And you know what? I think it's okay. Because that's exactly how the human brain... no scratch that, that's how all animal brains work.
We 'compress' knowledge and understanding into collections of criteria. Hot, cold, tall, short, heavy, light, blue, red and on and on. It's literally built into the mechanics of our animal brains and someone is out there trying to tell you that your brain is WRONG for thinking the way it does. Interestingly, unless these people people are from another planet (that's a whole different conspiracy discussion) they ALSO have animal brains and think that way. Of course, to think that way, you're supposed to hate yourself for being (white, black, male, female, straight or gay) and want to die.
So I ask you all. Who is frikken tired of this crap!?
Everyone has a mute button. If enough people file harassment complaints against a player, it's the proof that the player is being a dick and you can justify banning them.
It's amazing how many people can screech about being "abused" online when you have the power to mute everyone.
Ok, lets be objective. Science, while not 100% settled on this topic, tell us that sexual orientation is determined before birth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B....
In other words people are born gay (or straight), If you want to provide evidence that this is not the case, feel free. That is an objective discussion of the facts.
Objective discussion doesn't allow for religious or moral arguments, since these are personal and subjective.
Assuming we accept the science, discriminating against people who are born with different sexual orientation ought to be no more acceptable than discriminating against people born with different skin color.
You are entitled to believe anything you like. (Isn't this a great country we live in!). However, if you believe that it is not "ok" to be black and say so out loud people will call you a racist. And, if you believe that it is not "ok" to be gay and say so out loud people will call you a homophobe (dumb word, I agree but it's all we have). Either way, you are a bigot.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
the labelling of disagreeing with an accusation of fear (homo-phobia) does not allow the conversation to begin on a level of mutual respect, where people merely have disagreements on personal behavior.
It's funny that you think that being called 'homophobic' is really what's imbalancing the 'level of mutual respect' in debate about homosexuality. I would have thought saying that you deserve to die of AIDS and suffer an eternity in hellfire would be vastly more imbalancing. Yes, I realize you don't necessarily endorse that view about gay people, but if we're talking about discourse in general, it's very naive of you to think that it's the people who use the word 'homophobic' who are dragging down the quality of the discussion.
Have you ever been tested for sociopathic tendincies?
Why? Are so sociophobe? If you can't accept anyone for who they are you are a disgusting bigot. Fuck you.
shouldn't it be misterogyny?
I can't wait!!! They sound soooo much fun!!!!
Much like spoiled children.
If you keep patting gamers on the head and tell them how excellent they are for passing the tutorial stage (and even awarding them achievements for doing so) then it is only natural that they will enter the online arena with a false sense of skill and thus an aggressively competitive userbase will emerge as their perceptions of their own ability is shattered.
When players lose at something they were fooled into thinking they were good at, it angers them and they feel lied to and thus the excuses begin to fly ("You're cheating/hacking/etc")
I believe racist and homophobic abuse from online games is not personal. If the angry teenager who is constantly losing knows you are female, he will spout the most offensive, rude insult pertaining to that particular trait, in this case - something inherently sexist. If he knew you had (for example) a prosthetic leg, he would be calling you a retard, spastic etc. is 'ableism' suddenly the problem? No, anger is the problem. Compelling gameplay that naturally encourages players to try again instead of yelling insults is the solution.
But remember you will never be able to completely remove this from any competitive activity - Families have been split apart over heated games of Monopoly.
Videogames are representations and manifestations of our society of which sexism (and other -isms) are prominent. There are many things that are not well represented in videogames that are not well represented in the society, either.
When these minorities are better represented in the real world, they will no doubt be naturally represented in videogames too. I have no doubts that in 50 years being gay will be completely normal, this will absolutely inevitably be reflected in the videogames around at that time and nobody will question it.
The problem really comes from people treating videogames as though they should serve as role models to children and the general public. Just because some people are stupid enough to assume they are an approximation of reality does not mean that videogames have any responsibility for those people and their idiocy.
I've personally had my account suspended for defending myself by Blizzard/Activision in World of Warcraft about 6 years ago.
For defending (quite civilly, simply stating offenders keep their views to themselves instead of putting others down for differences of lifestyle (that's almost word for word)) someone for being attacked for being in a LGBT friendly guild which turned into a big immature slander match in public chat in IF (IronForge) - I was subsequently approached by a GM about complaints made against me, after which they determined I was "Promoting unacceptable social behaviour" and had my account suspended indefinitely.
There's bigger issues here than just the gamers.
The solution, of course, is to enslave all women and remove from them all human rights. This will not be just. This will not be right. This will not be good. But, with ball gags in their slave mouths, it will at least be quiet.
If this can not be done, then kill all the minorities and most of the women, leaving enough for breeding stock. This is far more likely, genocide often being used effectively throughout history.
No, these aren't serious proposals. I state these outlandish ideas in order to point out this: these people who constantly complain about every single thing in the world that they don't like, and demand that others change, are without realizing it relying mightily on the good will of the very people they're bitching to and about, to refrain from simply hauling off and killing them. Good will that is rapidly running out.
You continue to bitch at your peril.
I myself am a kind and humble man. I will never lift my hand to do any terrible thing to anyone. But when others do lift their hands... I will watch, and I will laugh as you all reap what you have sown.
Well you see the thing is not that the homophobes are latent as has been suggested by gay rights folk for quite some time. The issue is that they fear men.
The reason they fear men is that they know how they treat women or how other men treat women and they fear gays treating them that way, so phobia is appropriate.
When it comes to racism it could be a fear or it could be a conditioned hate (think old WW2 vets who never got past the conditioning), or it could be the lowest rung of society trying to come up with a single thing that makes them better than someone else, so they can feel better.
I personally find games that promote sexist themes and violence against women disgusting and I do not buy them. I mostly play sports games and have found mature well balanced people on online gaming session. I have also found a fair share of egotistical disgusting sociopaths who frankly need mental health counseling. Even if companies stopped making these games for consoles they will just seek out another outlet to live out their fantasy of committing violent acts against women.
"Oh look," I said to myself, "an article on sexist and homophobic game culture. On Slashdot. I bet 90% of the comments are going to be 'we like our disgusting frat house the way it is' by sociopathic morons, and the other 10% will be self-professed 'nice guys' explaining to women how they're doing feminism wrong."
But I was wrong. It's 100% sociopathic morons.
And even if gays and lesbians were being homosexual just for the hell of it, it would still not follow that that is bad. Whether or not it's bad would depend on your ethical system.
... and why should I or anyone else give a tinker's damn what the hell he thinks?
I wonder do male gamers with daughters think differently about games that promote violence against women then single male gamers with no children? As a father of girls I cannot in a clear coconscious buy games that have sexists concepts and promote violence against women.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."
--Martin Niemöller
Live is good as long as your are not one of the groups being maligned. Once you become one of "them" you will start to worry and not be 'tired of this crap'.
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones"? Are we such wimps that we're now going out of our way to be offended by the fantasy worlds that we're voluntarily taking part in?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Get the chicks, fags and niggers out of gaming.
Says the liberal faggot trying to censer the world. 5 bux says he loves the BBC.
Have you ever been exposed to reality?
Standard shaming language response.
Game developers are understanding that it may be more benefitial to curb sexist, homophobic, or otherwise derogatory behavior in order to attract more people. This is a classic example of the free-market working to achieve a social good. We should be welcoming it and supporting it.
and not care if it's politically correct.
GP's solution..."Disable player chat" is a classic example of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"
It's a problem in our industry, thinking this way, b/c it's ridiculous. Turning it off isn't a "fix" and it never will be.
I don't know about TFA...but as you say:
I'm saying it's all part of the same thing. idk, maybe you and TFA author would agree with me there, but I feel it's important to drive home that compartmentalizing these issues into little sub-domains is not a solution.
We all have to change, and be vocal about it. We have to "show people" by doing the things they would expect ***AND*** we have to actually do it, too...which means going down some hallways that most geeks would rather keep in the dark.
Virtually everything about gaming is designed to appeal to a particular adolescent male sensibility....it's unnecessary (see: NES & Super Nintendo) and it **alienates women**
"gaming" isn't a bunch of guys in a room farting & quoting "Princess Bride" or fatasses in their underwear on the headset...well...it doesn't have to be
Thank you Dave Raggett
No one expects a racist Nazi to love black people, but we absolutely expect them not to attack them. And we even enforce free speech laws that allow these people to openly run organizations that support racial superiority.
And we also look down on them and pity them for how pathetic they are, and many of us with they would die or at least stop breeding, all the same stuff that people have to say about gays that they would like us all to respect as a valid view. Well, that's not going to happen, so just build a bridge and get over that motherfucker. Homosexuality is older than any religion or indeed belief system with us today, it's not going anywhere — your belief system is.
This social group (slashdot) espouses scientific disagreement as a basis for learning. I propose we start hearing both sides of the arugment about sexuality objectively,
Objectively, the idea that some people's sexuality is okay and other people's sexuality isn't when neither group is harming the other is subjective, and therefore fails your own test. Go away and do not troll us a second time.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As opposed to the Axe cologne, Hanes underwear etc guys who are of course of perfectly average build?
Yes, sexy women in ads sell... guess what, so do sexy guys. Very few ads with models are realistic in terms of average body/muscle/fat mass.
There's a difference between treating somebody differently because they are factually different (e.g. it is silly to try to get a man pregnant, but makes sense to make the same attempt with a woman; it makes sense to separate men and women in sports) vs treating them differently because of a belief that has no basis in reality (e.g. dark-skinned people are less intelligent, women are less intelligent, women can't learn how to do X, etc.). Let's keep the former while getting rid of the latter. "isms" fall into the latter category, but people sometimes go too far and slot something that'd fit into the first category as an "ism", which is equally silly (it'd be the opposite belief, treating them the same because of a belief that they're the same when in reality they're not).
Sound more like feminist victimization rehashed...
Sounds to me more like game developers are thinking long and hard about what is happening elsewhere in the entertainment industry.
["Frozen"] took the No. 13 spot on the all-time worldwide box office list this week, passing "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" and "Jurassic Park."
It's been a big week for "Frozen," which has been in the top ten at the box office in the U.S. and Canada for 17 weeks.
On Wednesday, Disney said that "Frozen" had sold 3.2 million DVD and Blu-Rays on Tuesday, becoming one of the biggest home entertainment debuts in recent years.
Disney chairman and chief executive Robert Iger told shareholders Tuesday that "Frozen" was on pace to be the most successful animated film in history, surpassing "Toy Story 3," which ranks No. 11 on the all-time list with $1.063 billion.
And thanks to its ubiquitous anthem "Let it Go," the soundtrack has sold over 1.4 million albums in the U.S. It has also been streamed more than 100 million times on Spotify.
'Frozen' surpasses 'Jurassic Park' on all-time box office list
In Blu-Ray sales at Amazon, "Frozen" is #1, "Catching Fire" #2 and "Gravity" in 3D #10.
The point being that ditching gender stereotypes in mass media can have a very big financial payoff. If it means ditching the foul mouthed, misogynistic and eternally adolescent male audience that perpetuates these stereotypes, that can be a price worth paying.
I didn't major in underwater basket-weaving, so can someone translate that into English please?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No, I'm not marry-your-stepgranddaughter-a-phobic.... I'm just put-off by the sorts of warped dirty old men who are loved by Hollywood while they take advantage of their parental roles to pursue intimate relationships with vulnerable people whom they SHOULD be parenting/mentoring ..... and appalled that modern society is decaying so fast that these people feel comfortable publicly condemning normal decent people. This also applies to famous directors marrying their stepdaughters, famous directors drugging and raping underage girls, etc. (if you cannot figure out the references than you have not been paying attention to the people who have been "entertaining" you)
Before we get all wrapped-up in arguments about removing WORDS "spoken" by imaginary characters in video games, how about we do something about REAL molestations, improprieties and abuses taking place IN THE REAL WORLD. Not too long ago, we were bombarded by left-wing cries of "war on women" and told that there was an "epidemic" of "sexual harassment" which was frequently defined (by left-wing feminists) as a man being sexually involved with a woman of lesser political/social/career/etc power. The man in any such power-imbalanced relationship was presumed to be wrong becasue the very existence of an imbalance of power meant the woman was not truly freely involved. Of course, the left dropped most of that when Bill Clinton was caught molesting the intern (and the secretary, and the campaign worker, etc) but by THOSE standards, all the previously-mentioned Hollywood types SHOULD get the scorn of the left. They don't of course, because for progressives "the ends justify the means" and if those men of Hollywood are generally advancing progressivism then "how important are a few young women?"
Oh, and since you brought it up, there is no such thing as "homophobia". Phobias are medically-defined irrational fears. "Homophobia" was a word created and pushed by gay activists as a political attack on their opponents; as such it is no more valid or reasonable a moniker than ANY political label applied to gays by straights who oppose homosexuality. Back then, AIDS was spreading like wildfire through their communities and many saw them as diseased and noted that they refused to do anything (like close the "bathhouses") to stem the tide of the then-still-not-understood disease... so the activists sought to use a political attack that would paint their critics as diseased as well. As a political tactic, it worked rather well (given that the media was sympathetic to them and eager to push their propaganda) but it was still just that - propaganda and no more valid than anything Leni Riefanstahl pumped-out. People who oppose homosexual activity based on the belief that such activity is dysfunctional/backward/sinful/dangerous/etc (for WHATEVER reasons, possibly religious, possibly they simply see the activity as contrary to the best interest of human evolution, or possibly they're just personally disgusted like vegans looking at a plate of bacon) are nothing more and nothing less than people with opinions and beliefs; no "phobias" are involved.
Your contrasting of free speech of racism and free speech of antihomosexual doesn't make any sense. People are just as free to spout racist speech as antihomosexual speech. That doesn't mean it will be allowed on network television... but hey, buy your own TV station if you want to. You act like people are more aggressive on gay issues than racism issues. I don't see it. Say the n-word and fag and see which one gets you beat up first.
in Pac Man! Why is Lara Croft WHITE?!?!?!? (perhaps it's a plot to wipe-out blacks by making young black men drool over white women with bad British accents and circular sunglass fetishes?) Why is she a GIRL??? (perhaps a cute guy could wear those outfits and make all the little gay game players happy?) Are the Asteroids in ... well... Asteroids.... WHITE as a subtle hint to hispanics that white men were first into space??? Was Tetris written by a HOMOPHOBE who feared the triangle symbol????
Can we PLEASE drop all this garbage? There are REAL problems in the REAL WORLD. Any attempt to fix the real world by making subtle changes to entertainment to "re-program" average people is almost, by definition, the most foul form of propaganda. I guess I'm not surprised to see it from the usual suspects over there on the left - the same people who pushed Obama and/or Obamacare messages into entertainment TV shows, video games, sports, etc.
Because people like you are scaring away sales from women, various ethnic groups, and gay people.
If people like you would stay away from the chat rooms it wouldn't be a problem.
I could pick apart the entire post, but I think this is the core of the discussion:
apply the doctrine of tolerance equally
If we were doing this, we wouldn't be having conversations about homophobia and bigotry.
Your entire post is very well written, but essentially boils down to "tolerate the intolerance."
The only proper response to that is "No."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I hope they make a profit over their decision to remove freedom and dissension over popular opinion.
I won't be funding it.
I prefer gaming - not having to cry over social issues and dwell over how insecure I might be.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
How about instead of convincing everyone to behave, you convince everyone to stop being oversensitive idiots who care what others say. I for one do not give a shit what some random assholes type about me online. I don't know them and I have no reason to respect their opinion of me. They can say anything they want to me and I sincerely don't care. That is a healthier mindset to have than constantly basing your self-image on what others think of you, especially anonymous people. The people who get all worked up about it are the ones with the actual problem.
Why, because you're an idiot?
Are people who want social change necessarily Professional Victims?
The mod point distribution of the comments on this board is a totally disgusting reflection of the "who gives a fuck about you" attitude of our society.
While undoubtedly some poor unfortunates suffer from it, I have yet to encounter anyone who has a genuinely pathological homo-phobia, in the sense of an actual anxiety disorder. I have, however, encountered homo-ignorants and homo-bigots. The ignorant I can understand, but it's very hard to respect a bigot.
Sexuality is a physiological fact too, as any person who has experienced puberty can attest. Whether you are primarily heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, if you see an attractive person who matches your preferred phenotype(s), your body reacts physiologically (it can also react to partial matches and false positives, which can be really confusing for those raised with an "either-or" mindset).
And while you can attempt to apply behavioural modification to a person's physiological responses via various feedback techniques (some ethical, some not), that works for any sexuality - and about as (in)effectively. Thus, any claim of "homosexuals can choose not to be homosexual" is just as (in)valid as "heterosexuals can choose not to be heterosexual".
True. From an idealistic viewpoint, we shouldn't force people to change just because they have different beliefs. From a cynical viewpoint, letting them go about their business peacefully means more opportunity for information on their ideologies, intentions and whereabouts. And from both viewpoints, it gives those people more exposure to facts that contradict their beliefs.
Is that the same "honest objective discourse" that paints homosexuality as a psychological disorder? And if we're wanting to be honest and objective, we also don't want to ignore the preponderance of other movements in other directions or pretend they're not there. How many countries make all heterosexual activities a crime punishable by imprisonment or death, again?
Agreed, and therefore I propose a new term for the condition of an irrational but non-pathological antagonism towards homosexuality: "homobigotry".
I've found out, that mute button is a good way to weed out people who offend you.
People get upset so easily these days, that it's best to leave the moderation to each individual user instead of culling the whole herd.
Bullshit. Make fun games. Making a fake utopia inside games is about as plausible as doing it in real life. People fucking suck... and to enjoy life you'd can pretend they don't exist. You need to learn how to have fun despite them. The same goes for games. The only thing worse than someone that say insulting things is someone that wont let you speak because they're afraid you'll say something wrong.
I'll readily agree that people form predispositions that can manifest themselves physiologically and can be seen in brain scans, but that's true for many things, not just sexuality, and does nothing to address the question of morality. Some people are more susceptible to addictions, yet that does not justify alcoholism. Likewise, brain scans can show us that some are predisposed towards violence, yet we would still morally object if they were to act on those predispositions. That a predisposition has a "natural" physiological basis is merely an explanation, not a justification, the two of which should not be conflated when answering questions of morality.
Addressing your closing question:
It's someone else's behaviour, is a natural behaviour for them, and doesn't affect you or hurt anybody. Why 'disagree' with it if not, at some level, out of fear?
If a person is an alcoholic, it may not affect me or even hurt anybody, but I still disagree with the behavior on moral grounds, regardless of other factors. Fear plays no part in it. And yet, while few would object to what I said up above about alcoholism and violence being physiologically explainable without being morally justifiable, and even fewer would suggest that my objections were borne out of fear, if I have a similar moral objection to someone acting out certain sexual predispositions, I'm immediately labeled with politically and socially charged terms that end the opportunity for having a civil discourse. Once you label someone with a term like "homophobe", you've decided that they have nothing to say. While there are times and places for doing so, I would agree, it seems incredibly intolerant to so readily apply it simply because someone cordially disagrees. Like labeling someone a "troublemaker" if they fail to agree with everything you say on a topic.
There are plenty of people off the deep end, of course, to whom strong labels such as "homophobe" aptly apply, but there are many of us who hold no hatred towards homosexuals, nor animosity, nor resentment, nor fear, who have them in our lives as friends and coworkers, treat them with the same respect due anyone else, and think equal provision should be provided under the law, yet while still believing that what they do is morally wrong. I have similar moral objections to folks who get drunk or sleep around on a regular basis, yet I don't hate those people, fear them, nor even give them a hard time. Likewise, no one labels me with charged terms for having moral objections to their lifestyles, yet I'm labeled by strangers on the Internet (even smart ones, like the folks here) with the strongest, most vitriolic labels possible when it comes to the topic of sexuality.
In contrast, talk to those around me with whom I've shared my objections to their lifestyle, and you'll find that "friend" is the label that continues to be applied in every single case. I don't share my opinion until and unless they pointedly ask me what it is, but if and when they do ask, I answer them with the same respectful honesty I use with any of my friends for any topic. I make clear that my objections are purely aimed at what they do, not at them, and I hold up my past conduct towards them as a set of actions that speak louder than any words I might have, demonstrating clearly an abundance of love and respect and a complete lack of fear, resentment, or hatred. Every one of those friendships has improved following that discussion, because my conduct towards them has always proven my words to be true, dispelling any anxiety they may have had and allowing us to have deeper, more meaningful discussions.
But, hey, I object to something people do, so let's ignore any nuanced points, turn the vitriol up to 11, slap the most politically charged label we can find over anything I've said so people know to skip it, and dismiss me as some guy who lives his life in fear of them. It's certainly easier than having a conversation.
I think what he's saying is that what is called 'homophobia' is not just a misnomer but an intentionally dishonest one. Homosexuals aren't widely feared. It's not that people are afraid of getting bitch slapped by roving bands of girlymen. People who hate jews are known as anti-semites. That is an accurate label because it is about hatred and a desire to oppress or hurt/destroy jews. They aren't called jewphobes because fear isn't the problem.
People who hate people of African ancestry do not usually just hate them. They also feel contempt and often fear as well. Our terms are really overly simplistic. Nevertheless the term 'homophobic' is unusually unfortunate and its dishonesty is intentional IMO.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Delighted to see SlashDot readership is dealing with GDC's theme with the disdain it deserves. I don't pay $1500+ to go to SF to be brow beaten. Keep this crap up and GDC will lose relevance.
What community? People who think Biowhore is a bunch of psuedo-PC racist fucks themselves discriminating against heterosexuals and sucking on EA corporate cock? Oh sorry slurping on corporate cunt I guess since Bioware is mainly a bunch of carpet munching dykes whose badly written Harlequin Romance-esque characters really only appeal to other Lesbians and perhaps anyone with a sufficiently low IQ to think the bad writing is clever and repetitive popamole gameplay is the height of fun.
Because Bioware has chosen to discriminate against the majority instead of the minority does not make them right. It's discrimination itself that is the problem. A writer should have the creative freedom to choose whatever protagonist he/she wants based solely on creative reasons, not based on making sure that every sexual orientation, race, religion, and philosophical viewpoint is evenly represented. Lesbian authors who only write about lesbian characters are every bit as 'bad' as heterosexual writers who only write about heterosexual characters.
Of course neither of the writers who only write about characters of their own sexual orientation are bad. It's the people encouraging discrimination who are the enemy of creativity everywhere and the ones who are wrong. Writing in both novels and video games should be based on what the author thinks makes for an interesting character and an interesting story. Period. As someone who dabbles in a bit of writing myself the aggressiveness of the LGBT community would make me want to give them all a wide birth and not include any non-heterosexuals in my fiction. Period. There's no real reason to. No pressing need. Plenty of good stories to tell that don't involve worrying about sexual orientation.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
You intrigue me with that. Pray tell, what is your definition and does it have anything to do with biology? (Hint: genetics says you're wrong.)
Is it ethnocentric to say that Japanese games are often Misogynist in nature?
Look, we get enough anti-male crap from all around by you assholes, and a few of s like to escape that abuse (for being a disposable, devalued male) by Gov, companies, general psycho-bithces that can shut-up about wanting more money or you spending time with other people so are not as easily abused, etc.. or hell, I think kicking guys in the balls is what half those assholes do to get back because they are failing even though they have so many personal advantage as a man.. so you hate them.. and want to compete.
I - like so many - have had enough of this crap.
As long as I have breath I will continue to argue that misandric feminism is so widely and completely intertwined with most of the feminist policy that government is using, in every aspect of life, real and jaw-dropping personal and sexual freedom, police policy, family law, criminal law, criminal penalties, and nearly a free pass to use the 'rape' accusation to get that extra edge for those so psycho-twisted as to do it to save less then $20 cab fair. And never a day in jail - but send him away for 20 years as a sex predator without a blink- to be raped daily.
F-ing psychos that keep this silent or lie about 'small numbers'.
So.. you don't like bad words.. well, we all get them - please put on you big girl pants, please. I won't give you shit unless you continue to act the idiot twit you seem to glorify so much.
Please, all, feel free to speak out about this BS.
["Frozen"] took the No. 13 spot on the all-time worldwide box office list this week, passing "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" and "Jurassic Park."
The point being that ditching gender stereotypes in mass media can have a very big financial payoff.
Strong female heroines have done well in Disney animation for decades. It's been a long time since "Someday my prince will come". "Brave" did about $0.5bn against $185m production cost. "Mulan" did very well. So did "Pocahontas". "Frozen" is a classic Disney musical, with music, merchandise, and othe tie-ins. (And, inevitably, sequels. "Frozen 2" is in development. Disney used to have a whole division, Disneytoons, devoted to crap direct-to-DVD sequels, such as "Mulan 2" and "Pocohontas 2". It's not clear whether the Pixar tradition of good sequels or the Disney tradition of crap sequels will win out.)
In contrast, "Tangled", which has a female lead who's not that heroic, wasn't as profitable. ("Tangled" cost $260 million to produce. Six years of software development on the hair. Really.) So we can expect to see more heroic princesses come out of the factory in beautiful downtown Burbank.
Most Japanese anime seems to be about female heroines. It all started with "Dirty Pair" in the 1980s, and never stopped. It's such a cliche now that there are anime which parody it.
With a wide enough spectrum for the definition, solar energy is the most polluting kind of energy we've used...because all energy is eventually solar energy. Except, maybe radioactive decay from Uranium in the earth's crust. It has provided energy for 4.3 billion years to the Earth's mantle, with a safety record of 1 catastrophic event per billion years.
You see how overly wide sprectra for terms makes them pliable to interpreted in too many ways to be useful for communication?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
BURN THEM!
Word recognition software that detects any slur. Upon detecting a slur from your microphone your in game character has their speed and various other stats halved or quartered (it can vary from game to game. now you get to play for a bit at a disadvantage from everyone else. They will kill you with impunity and your rank will suffer. You being such an easy target hampers your team in team based games and ensures you are excluded.
Examples please - or is this some sort of attempt at a joke and you've left out the punch line?
I certainly couldn't see any lesbian overtones in a guy in a diving suit with a drill on his arm and a little girl sticking a syringe in dead bodies. How about some examples of what you think I am missing?
Of course race exists, but racism is learnt.
If races didn't exist, then we wouldn't have names for them. Also, children always inherit the race(s) of their parents, without fail.
One could argue that race is really no more than family resemblance on very large scales. So fine, let's give a name to the concept of "very widespread family resemblance that provides visual cues of where a person's ancestry may have originated from". Perhaps a simple name. Let's call that concept "race". Howzat?
Little story...
When I was a kid I lived in central Africa, out in the sticks. Where we lived there were very few palefaces. (I must have stuck out, being a little blond kid.)
Then we moved to Europe. Where we lived, at the time, there were very few non-palefaces.
Two years later I was on the bus and friend said "Hey, look. There's a black man." After looking around for a moment I said "That woman's wearing a dark blue dress, but I can't see anyone wearing black.".
No one had taught be the concept of race.
---
Of course, now that I know what races are, I can see that most of my friends are of other races. But each person is who they are, regardless of race.
Being racially aware is not the same thing as being racist. But of course race exists, so don't fall for that "Race does not exist" kool-aid.
Make a sequel of Daikatana, loaded with all of those elements in abundance. They'll immediately stop being cool.
it's straight white males that are the cause of every problem in society.
Notice how he snuck "nationalism" in there?
If nothing else, this is an excellent example of how the race and gender warriors aren't going to stop at race and gender. Suddenly nationalism becomes equivalent to wanting to keep black people as slaves and women in the kitchen. What next, will they complain about capitalism in games?
and suddenly everyone else other than them has a phobia!
Treating people different because they ARE different is inevitable. It's based on [limited/finite] experience of individuals. It's a feature and function of the animal brain. You cannot escape it. Pick any given label that makes you dislike someone. How about republican or conservative? How about Christian or Mulsim? How about terrorist or government? There's one in there somewhere. Oh, how about "some people." A nice vague one you used there. Can be used anywhere.
So just what do you mean by "some people?!" You must be some kind of -ist biggot!
I say it's all okay. What's not okay is being an asshole to people.
The trick appears to be to keep going until anyone that could question you walks away in disgust, but mostly it appears to be about doing a bait and switch in front of an audience that doesn't know any better. I find it sickening.
Since misogyny, racism, and homophobia could be defined in any number of ways, the notion of eliminating them is silly.
They could be defined so restrictively that all behavior could be circumscribed.
... and fuck feminist cowshit.
The content of the games themselves are not any more offensive then the typical content in other formats.
As to internet trolls hurting peoples feelings... the mute feature is highly underrated.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now we have the PC/Groupthink crowd invading games; what happened to the 1st Amendment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
Do you have any factual proof that making the world a better place for lobbyists and politicians is actually better for us all? I mean, outside of your inner moral compass that can easily be wrong or manipulated. Indeed, lobbyists and politicians are living right now the closest to an utopia since the fall of communism.
Then MS bans your account because your are a gay flirting with minors.
You know, even for people that "believe" in evolution, there's a lot to say against the way evolution is preached in public schools as some form of magic that grants borg-style invulnerabilities to organisms. Just because the other side in the discussion supports a likely wrong hypothesis doesn't mean they cannot come up with good counterarguments.
No. I do not want to be preached at while I'm gaming, and if you put that kind of crap in the game I won't buy it.
It's not unchangeable. It's known that people that suffered sexual abuse tends to end hating people of that sex, either becoming themselves abusers, or becoming homosexuals.
It's also known that rich and succesful people are likely to embrace the most extreme forms of drugs and sexual deviations. In fact, homosexuality was known to be a vice of the powerful, just like pedophilia (also related to homosexuality). Just look at Hollywood stars, music stars, big artists, politicians, bankers... you'll find a huge disproportion of homosexuals and drug-addicts in those positions.
Then, there's a few children than it's obvious from birth that they are not very masculine, nor feminine, suggesting that they have some sort of birth defect, even if the LGBT lobby managed to impose by force and coaction that homosexuality cannot be a disease of the mind, regardless of scientific evidence.
However, empirical evidence shows that even the most "queer" people can get sexually attracted to some person of the opposite sex, though if they dare to reflect it they get violently attacked and coerced by the LGBT lobby for being a "poser". Do you think homophoby is bad? Then you haven't seen the LGBT in action.
This post could be better titled "How can we make men, not men? And how can we make women, not women? Perhaps only robots can play online games?" STFU and go cry somewhere else.
Actually, it's resolved by having the women avatars to always win untouched. That's already the way it works in Hollywood, and also the reason why movie writers don't pick females as the main characters, as the idolization by feminists have made sure female characters suck and are extremely limited in what they can do.
If you think that's stupid, then you haven't seen the MTG Controversy, in which feminists rabidly attacked one of the stories (and the art of several cards) that displayed a female planeswalker who had cursed a man, poisoned him, fought against him, and beat him badly, because the man tried to defend himself, and was bigger than her!
So, you either stop portraing women in fiction, or start ignoring the lunatics.
BTW, there are LOTS of things that don't exist and we have names for them.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
It's not my definition, it's science's. And hint for you, genetics says you're wrong. Humans have never diverged enough to reach the status of different races.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Sweetie pie, your Californianess is showing.
In this thread you will find a great many white males whining. They are afraid they won't get to tell "nigger" jokes anymore. Likewise, they will move past defending the right of developers to include stereotypically racists and sexist depictions, a position which nobody argues against, and right into attacking the idea that they ought to move past those depictions. They will do so without noticing or ever understanding the difference.
If we all meet and agree that no one in the universe will ever be offended, then we have done the right thing, even though it's self-censoring of the worst kind. How would schindlers list be if nothing could be in it that offended anyone?
Rather let all censoring be off limits, and let the ideas live or die on their own merit.
There is no "both sides of the argument". Being gay isn't a particular choice, and it doesn't affect you. You either accept gay people as equals, or you're a bigot.
Race does not exist. Nice kool-aid you've got though.
We can call it breed if you prefer, although that term is usually reserved for other animals. Or are you so brainwashed you honestly believe there's little to no genetic difference between a pygmy and you? If so, do you reject dogs have races as well?
but I still disagree with the behavior on moral grounds, regardless of other factors.
What does disagreeing with something on moral grounds entail exactly? If something does no harm to anyone, what possible grounds are there to consider it "wrong"?
Alcoholism is a bad example because even if you don't hurt anyone around you (which is rare) you are hurting yourself, so on some level you could arguing that self-destructive behaviour is bad or wrong.
But being homosexual (which is not a choice anyway) doesn't hurt the person, or anyone around them, in any way.
The irrational aversions of people around them probably do cause harm as a consequence, but you can't be held responsible for other people's shortcomings.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
This modern politically correct version of the internet can suck my dick. If teenagers want to call eachother cunt, faggot, nigger - ONLINE! - then let them. Who truly gives a shit. You'll find surprisingly few of the 'offenders' transfer this mentality to real life and are surprisingly well behaved. Too many pussies on the 2014 internet -- too many fucking cunty faggot pussies, to be exact.
I agree that homophobia is more often than not a misnomer. But if the norm were something along the lines of 'heterosexism', how would that make things fundamentally different? Sounds like you're pining for a word that ignores the bigotry and abuse inherent in homophobia, heterosexism, or whatever you want to call it. In other words, you're looking to replace one misnomer with another.
Let people express whatever they want to say and whatever they believe in. Stop imposing your values as if you have the moral upper hand. Whatever moral high horse you are sitting on (be it on matters of human rights, religion, homosexuality, racism, misogyny, etc.) it's all make believe: it's just as illusory as the content you are fighting against.
Actually Genetics say YOU are the one who is wrong JMC. Years and years ago different hominids did procreate, Some of us are more neanderthal than we are erectus and viceversa.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
the problem with the "born that way" argument is we can also say serial killers are "born that way" sociopaths are "born that way"
Just because someone is "born that way" doesnt make it right or normal*
I am not saying it is wrong to be gay, only that the argument you are using has holes in it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The fact that you said "the N-word" instead of "nigger" but had no trouble saying "fag" says answers your own question
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
As the etymology of the word bad most probably derives from the old english word baeddel meaning hermaphrodite/effeminate man, I seriously doubt that gay being used as a euphemism for stupid/crappy will stop anytime soon.
Well actually, no. As it turns out, humans are more interrelated than we previously believed, and "race" is a specious concept. All we have are clusters of genes which tend to go together, and as it turns out none of our genetic groups are quite so homogeneous as you believe.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
but I still disagree with the behavior on moral grounds, regardless of other factors.
What does disagreeing with something on moral grounds entail exactly? If something does no harm to anyone, what possible grounds are there to consider it "wrong"?
It has absolutely nothing to do with it. The decision is made purely on dogmatic grounds. And this is where the fear comes in: Fear to examine one's preconceptions. Most people are so afraid to look within themselves that they will do essentially anything to avoid it. The pinnacle of exemplification is Adolf Hitler, the descendant of Jews and probable homosexual, who set the world (and many jews and gays) alight as a result.
Most homophobes aren't very afraid of individual queers. They're afraid of what homosexuality represents. Hilariously, it represents not just the present and future, but our past as well. The same guys who will get a big stiffy over the ancient Greeks' military culture and landed gentry (who were the only people with a vote — racially privileged male landowners) get all butthole-covering when they get to the part where greeks didn't believe that men and women could have equal relationships, and therefore a man could only truly love another man. Somewhere deep within their psyche is a strong current of homosexuality and if they admit that, they might have to change their lifestyle and be shunned by their community just as they would do if one of their neighbors came out. It either puts the lie to loving them like a brother, or it shows that they are pretty miserable people who wouldn't treat their family very well.
But being homosexual (which is not a choice anyway) doesn't hurt the person, or anyone around them, in any way.
Nope. But there's lines around blocks of people who will hurt people if they admit their homosexuality. That's enough to instill fear of getting some gay on you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
the problem with the "born that way" argument is we can also say serial killers are "born that way" sociopaths are "born that way"
The problem with your comment is that we've already covered the part where if it's not hurting anyone it's not your problem, but you're willfully ignoring that part because it invalidates your argument. Congratulations, this is what homophobia looks like (see also: the mirror)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The fact that you said "the N-word" instead of "nigger" but had no trouble saying "fag" says answers your own question
No, the one and only thing is means is that more of the population cares about black rights than gay rights. Which is sad, because sexuality transcends "race". You've really pulled out all the stops in this thread, and gone for every possible logical fallacy. You are one of the most homophobic individuals I've ever encountered on Slashdot. Dropping the N-bomb really drives that home; you want to shock people away from the actual conversation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So now the PC police have discovered video games, one of the few remaining venues where people can act out any sort of fantasy and behave in ways they never would in real life. Let's stamp out any sort of behavior that is objectionable to the PC collective, the ultimate arbiter of everyone's thoughts and actions!
Games are a fantasy world. People should be free to indulge in any sort of behavior there that they want, without some PC Mrs. Grundy nagging at them. So, sexism, misogyny, and racism are bad. Should we censor all traces of them out of games? Clearly all of these behaviors are repugnant in real life, at least to most of us. It is a small step from racism and misogyny to violence, another behavior that is completely unacceptable in polite company. Shall we ban all violence from video gaming as well? In the ideal-world endstate, then, all games will consist of happy teletubbies playing politically correct nonsexist, nonviolent games and snacking on raw vegetables. (The cookies had to go; they promote childhood obesity.)
For me, I'll take freedom: The freedom to do and think as I please as long as I don't do violence to anyone else. Leave me alone.
Dude, you've been smoking too much ganja. Try reading some scientific articles and get your head out of that cloud of smoke. You might want to also look up the definition of 'human'.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I guess it all depends on where we draw the line. We are "ALL" related, in the fact that we are all nothing but stardust, I guess the question is where do we draw the line. Do we consider a labrador the same as a chiuaha? They are both dogs but they are different types of dogs. Perhaps race is the wrong word, but yes we are all humans, but asians are not the same as the irish or the african
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Clearly you didnt read the 2nd part of my comment. I was simply making the argument that being born that way is not a good enough reason to say something is ok. No homophobia here, I have no irrational fear of gay people
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
im sorry if you are offended at me using actual words. I dont care for political correctness, If we are talking about the word, its ok to say the word
Example
It is ok to discuss the reasons one should not say "nigger"
It is not ok to call someone a dumb nigger
If you cant see the difference between saying a word in a debate manor, and using it as an insult is just sad drinkypoo.
You are reading too much into my comments my friend
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They never got the chance to say "that's gay" to begin with because I boot minors as soon as they show up.
It almost sounds like this man believes people are acting the way they are because they don't realize what they're doing to people. Which is kinda sad, someone being that ignorant of society. People know. They just don't care. That's the issue. And frankly, I don't like games making a system that work in such a way where you have to make a certain moral choice in order to progress or even get a better outcome.
We don't call it "race-phobia" or "men-phobia" or "women-phobia", the labelling of disagreeing with an accusation of fear (homo-phobia) does not allow the conversation to begin on a level of mutual respect, where people merely have disagreements on personal behavior.
I'm not going to discourage you to create new words but I think it's important to note think about how people react when someone tells them that something they said was racist. I've called plenty of people out on racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic things that they have said both in university classroom settings, workshop settings (were people were there to learn about things like transphobia or racism in LGBTQ communities), and day to day life when I'm hanging out with people. When do people act the most defensive or offended that they were called out, or even just that made aware that something they said wasn't ok? When it has to do with racism. I think this has to do with the imprint that historical racism and organizations that are blatantly overtly racist have made on most people that grew up in the US compared to the imprint that feminists one or many of a variety of feminist schools of thought have made. So yes you can say that homophobia and transphobia have a suffix that means "fear". However if your going to say that -phobia makes those words imply a sense of fearing people who are gay or trans and thus that means that people react less favorably to those words than racism or sexism then I suggest you take a look at your examples and also look at examples of how people react to people pointing out that something they said or did was homophobic or transphobic vs. racist.
What does disagreeing with something on moral grounds entail exactly?
If you mean in terms of how a moral objection would be acted out by me, it doesn't mean much. As I said above, I don't force my beliefs on others; I let them come to me if they're curious. The way I see it, I regularly prove myself to be a hypocrite since I have plenty of moral objections to the things I do in my own life, so I don't need to go around berating others for the things they do in theirs.
If you're asking what a moral objection even means, however, or on what basis it may be founded, I'll point out that there are multiple theories on the topic, the most recognizable perhaps being the divine command theory (i.e. something is right to do because $deity has told us to do it), though that is by no means the only one. In the simplest of terms, disagreeing on moral grounds would mean holding to the belief that the thing being done is wrong. And in the set of beliefs I subscribe to, whether or not something is considered wrong is independent of if it is natural, explainable, or accepted by society.
Regarding alcoholism, you're quite right, it's not a perfect example, and I only intended for it to be applied as an example inasmuch as it helped to illustrate that objections can exist for reasons other than fear. As you said, alcoholism has other traits that make it objectionable to others (e.g. self-destructive), but that's precisely why I chose it, since I was confident that everyone here would morally object to it for their own reasons, none of which would be based on fear, which was all I was trying to illustrate. By no means was I intending to draw other parallels between the two topics.
As for choice, I think your simple statement brushes aside quite a bit of complexity inherent in the situation. To reiterate what I said in my last comment, I readily admit that we all are predisposed in certain ways, among them our sexuality, and that many of those predispositions have a recognizable physiological basis (whether it's genetic or not is inconsequential). As such, in this regard, I agree that none of us chose to be the way that we are. Even so, suggesting we are governed by those predispositions and incapable of choosing otherwise would mean condemning the person predisposed towards violence to a life behind bars and abandoning the person more susceptible to addiction to a life of unhealthy behaviors, which are not, I should hope, things that you would do.
Rather, you likely believe as I do: that people are able to choose, sometimes with difficulty, to rise above their predispositions, and that with proper support they are quite capable of doing so. Where we differ, however, is that I believe that homosexuality offers that same choice, though the difficulty is oftentimes greater. Suggesting that homosexuals are incapable of making a choice is to give them less credit than they are due. Whether or not they recognize that they have a choice or believe that they should make a choice are other matters, of course, but suggesting that they don't even have one is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the numerous individuals who have by choice put that lifestyle behind them. Just as there are groups aimed at supporting "violent" people or recovering alcoholics, you can find support groups for people who have left homosexuality, though, as you'd expect, most of them are religious-based (e.g. Exodus).
As I said, I don't force my beliefs down other's throats, whether it be about their excessive drinking, their sexual habits, or some other thing they have going on. It's their life to live, I have plenty of stuff to fix in my own life, and the last thing they need is a hypocrite riding in with a holier-than-thou attitude. Put differently, as a society, we recognize that not everyone w
I can understand wanting the character to be hot, but why do you enjoy misogyny and sexism?
When I can finally look out of my window and see an "enlightened" corpse swinging from every lamppost.
I'm pretty ashamed to call myself a geek after reading the majority of responses to this thread.
At a guy who's grown up with video games, the misogyny has certainly become more apparent and intolerable as I grow in maturity. At this point I'm kind of embarrassed to play something like GTA in front of my girlfriend. No one is asking for censorship here, but rather that more mature individuals provide dialog and plot.
I get the impression from the various anti-feminist rants that a lot of readers here are deeply threatened by females. That's understandable, but disappointing all the same.
Its different in the US than it is here, so this may or may not apply there.
Here people have just gradually become better educated on the matter, and a majority of people now understand that it is something quite natural that you have little control over. People understand it is not a 'belief', nor a 'lifestyle', nor does it say anything about a person other than the gender of their partner. In turn this has led to people understanding the ignorance in outdated homophobic views, and they naturally see people who espouse these views as being ignorant and/or bigoted. There is no real movement to force people to change their views, you can believe what you want. There is a movement to protect homosexual people from those views being used against them in a practical manner.
I don't care if you think of me as a faggot, I do care if you harrass me over it.
That said, I have met american activists that made me sick to my stomach and seemed intent on forcing their views onto everyone. These people are idiots of the highest order.
Opportunity to rub shoulders with NGOs, academia, Brooklynites, "the Art World"? Check. Being able to side with the bourgeoisie against people who aren't allowed to look good (13-year-old heterosexual males, proles, trashy white guys)? Check. That same bourgeoisie repaying you by allowing you to call your "$40 plus 24 non-sequential hours that could be spent improving yourself" a Serious Work of Art? Check. Being able to dismiss criticism of games (EA's "homophobes") as bigotry? Check. Being able to justify to yourself the decision to produce "$40 plus 24 non-sequential hours" as Serious Artistic Endeavor? Priceless.
im sorry if you are offended at me using actual words. I dont care for political correctness, If we are talking about the word, its ok to say the word
That's not what I said. I said you were trying to be offensive.
You are reading too much into my comments my friend
You only think that because you don't understand mine. I only cannot decide if you are being a disingenuous douchebag or a demented dolt.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
and I cant tell if you are just a troll or you just like to look for an argument where there really is none. I in no way was trying to be offensive, if you were offended by my use of the word in the context I used it, well that says more about you than it does me. I understand exactly what you said, you have done nothing but insult me and talk down to me in this entire thread without realizing that nothing i said was factually wrong, OR intended to be offensive.
as I said you are looking too deep into my comments (which Ive noticed you doing quite often lately)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You're not changing the world or even really trying to, you're just being self-righteous, judgmental a-holes and fake-victim attention whores vying for your own screwed up version of victim status, since nobody likes you and your self-righteous "rules". It's pathetic, please stop.
I noted some games have only a male perspective (the playable character), which seems too strange for women who wants to play them. In the far past, I wrote to Konami asking for a Winning Eleven with female soccer. And for Sega, asking for the next version of OutRun give the opportunity for the girls to drive the Ferraris with Alberto in the passenger seat. Tere is a bit of sexism in OutRun2 and OutRun 2006 Coast to Coast. I choose one of 3 grils to ride with me, she requires some trickies to me and kisses me as long I do the manoeuvers. Women just as spectator. I note these things inthe few games I loke to play or see, I am not a hard gamer.
you're all a bunch of fagots
If game developers ever succeed in getting their playerbase to "behave in a more civilized manner" they should be immediately coerced into plying their skills at the United Nations.
(e.g. it is silly to try to get a man pregnant...)
But damn if it isn't fun to try.
Odd no one mentioned this tome by James Desborough and Jonny Nexus.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Frozen? The movie that has two hot women princesses in the main roles?
Seems like the point you're trying to make is that Rush Limbaugh is correct when he says feminism is by and for unattractive women.
Maybe he was ok with beating up gay guys before, but now he has established a bond with this character and thus becomes uncomfortable with the scene and questions long held beliefs?
Reality check: the knuckle-draggers who are ok with beating up gay guys don't have sufficient attention span to sit through, let alone be swayed by or be introspective about, the work of sensitive artists.
We use the term phobia because the overwhelming majority of the hate stems from a fear response which, like the majority of fears, stems from a lack of understanding, and tends to reside in the uneducated or religious (which have some overlap). It's a useful description, and frames the discussion correctly.
Yes, what you said is true for the "overwhelming majority of the hate", and that's an appropriate use of "homophobia".
Are you implying that hate is always involved?
I'm uncomfortable with the use of the word for the case where hate is not involved, and there are many of those people who wish to have a dialog.
The people I know are older, and as societal awareness increased, the discussions of the rights of homosexuals came into general discussion. We had to consider things in the context of our personal history and beliefs of the times in which we were raised. Almost all of us began with the beliefs we were raised with: homosexuality is at least an aberration, and for some a perversion. Almost all of them have moved to complete acceptance, and all of the people I know have at least moved to a belief in equal rights for homosexuals.
Here's the thing" I have never had in the social and work circles I move in personally known a person, male or female, that hated homosexuals, nor any that were afraid of them, nor anyone who was afraid of being called one. We di in fact start out on the wrong side of the discussion, but in no way did the term "homophobia" apply. I have met actual homophobes and heard their rants, so I'm not totally ignorant.
It seems to me that all too often if a person merely wants to discuss the effects on society of normalizing (mainstreaming?) homosexuality, that person is called "homophobic" and the dialog shuts down. I've even seen it applied to otherwise active LGBT people who failed to support some spokeman's position.
I think "Homophobe" is a pejorative as it's used today
It's self-defeating behavior to call people names - it hurts the cause in the short and in the long run.
What about misandry? Except for a few exceptions, games with human or humanoid opponents had the vast majority, if not 100% of the enemies being male. So it's wrong to have women be targets of one form or another in games, but just fine for men to be slaughtered wholesale? Or how about the stereotype that all heroic men are buff and good looking, never ugly and scraggly, or even average? What about the self esteem of male gamers plummeting when they realize that they will almost certainly never be as good physically as the character they control? What about animals? Shouldn't games not have animal opponents because they're glorifying animal cruelty? If they want to open one side of this, they have to open it all.
Region lock multiplayer games so I don't have to play with Russians on EU West servers.
We don't call it "race-phobia" or "men-phobia" or "women-phobia", the labelling of disagreeing with an accusation of fear (homo-phobia) does not allow the conversation to begin on a level of mutual respect, where people merely have disagreements on personal behavior.
Race and gender are not behavioral, but physiological facts, and therefore subjective debates easily point out a subject bias against an unchangeable reality. But it seems _any_ disagreement with homosexuality is instantly labeled as "hate", and I propose it's partly because of the fear label associated with disagreement.
No one expects a racist Nazi to love black people, but we absolutely expect them not to attack them. And we even enforce free speech laws that allow these people to openly run organizations that support racial superiority.
But with homosexuality it's the reverse, there is a movement to force a belief change and acceptance of another persons beliefs. Without honest objective discourse, emotionally biased labels and arguments will suppress disent that even Nazi's don't suffer under.
This social group (slashdot) espouses scientific disagreement as a basis for learning. I propose we start hearing both sides of the arugment about sexuality objectively, apply the doctrine of tolerance equally and remove the subjective and biased label of "homophobia" to those they merely disent.
I couldn't agree more.
Thank you Sir for this rare display of common sense.
Said the proctologist looking for more work.
Old joke: A fag goes to his doctor because his butthole is just ruined. He wears diapers etc.
The doctor says: We've got a new operation, we'll give you a butthole transplant. We've got a tissue match from a straight man.
The fag is overjoyed. The operation goes well. At the first followup visit (the fag isn't supposed to be on solid food yet) the doctor takes a look and the butthole is just ruined...The doctor is besides himself...but the fag explains: 'I did that to my own butthole, what did you think I was going to do to a strangers?'
Malaria carrying mosquitoes don't hurt anyone?
The word is 'disease vector' and it certainly can hurt society.
Here is Adam Orth: http://www.mcvuk.com/cimages/7...
Here is Maneier Heir: http://www.dicesummit.org/imag...
They advocating censor the internet of Free Speech. Any thought that is not lock step with BioWare's Manveer Heir' world view is now banned. Classy.
OK, but we can still shoot each other, right?
Let people make the games they want how they want. Don't like it, don't play it.
The PC crap is really ruining anything fun nowadays. I for one won't buy anything pushing an agenda. Whether I agree with it or not. If I want to be preached to I'll go to church.
Hey; preaching left wing nonsense worked for Hollywood right? Lets try it here!
Because you know that to people that talk like the guy in the article; any disagreement over policy makes you fall into one of the bad groups (racist, nationalist, whatever).
He called it "Much ado about nothing."
Insensitive clods, idiots, and outright jackasses get to express themselves just like everyone else.
That they do so is not a crisis to be solved.
But it is a great excuse and cover story for efforts to deny freedom of expression.
Not all are fooled.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Because there's nothing that gamers want more than to pay $50 to be preached at by self-righteous moon-bats. No, that won't kill an entire industry. Look how well that worked for fantasy/science fiction genre in literature. Oh, wait...
I buy and play games to relieve stress, not to listen to a shin-kicking session about how insensitive I am. I'm a female in a high stress job and don't want job BS in my games! I don't want moral busybodies telling me how I need to think because it's for my own good. I can decide what's for my own good, thanks. I'm not going to buy games that have a kind of moral stick some whiny shin-kicker wants to smack over my head at every opportunity. I just won't buy those types of games and we'll see how the gaming industry is doing at the end of the social engineering experiment.
So a few users have handles like 'niggerhunter' or 'twatsmacker'; so what? Ignore them and be done with it. Sheesh.
People need to stop using the term, homophobia, since this is not a fear.
What people are attributing to the term, is a dislike or a revulsion. Case in point. I hate brussels sprouts, I dislike them in my presence and am repulsed when they are on my plate.
They gross me out, yet I am not afraid of them. Therefore, I am not -phobic of brussels sprouts.
What we have is a dislike, a revulsion and a gross out. The same with what people are using homophobia to apply towards those who are gay.
Face it. People aren't afraid of the people or their desire for the same gender, they are simply grossed out and repulsed. They dislike the behaviour and the desire one would have for their same gender.
This is called a dislike. This is not a phobia.
Save the root word, phobla, for actual persistent fears, such as
Claustrophobia
agoraphobia
suriphobia
arachnephobia
vaccinophobia
and of course,
anatidaephobia
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
...bigotry against Bigots. They already suffer quite badly from stereotyping. Besides, in the case of Bigot Gamers, it may cause them to stop gaming and go out in the world, where they may meet a real girl and conceive offspring (by rape or otherwise). And that would be bad.
"More valuable." Because our value is determined purely by our reproductive capacity. Fuck you, and fuck everyone who modded you up. A person, man or woman, is not the sum of his or her fucking private parts and ability to make babies.
And I don't care what agenda you're trying to push, if you kill off 45% of any population, you're going to have some numbers problems. It's not a matter of "no problem" and "big problem," it's "big fucking problem" and "even bigger fucking problem."
When your sexuality alters a society, then it is harming someone. Whether the harm matters is debatable. However, it appears you'd rather shout down these debates rather than address them.