Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 11:44 AM
Mon Nov 30
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/27/09
11/27/09
I think it is more commonly referred to as the "velvet mafia."
11/27/09
It comes down to this: Are intolerant gamers just the loudest minority in a sea of respectable people? Or do we have more respect than we should for the gaming audience- is everyone more immature than we actually realize?
Whether its one or the other, I don't think its a reason for homosexual people to get upset. When you come out you have understand that some people aren't going to like it- but its their problem, not yours.
Last point: When you run over a 13 year old high school kid in Halo and he says 'Thats so gay!', I don't think he means to hurt you, oh homosexual gamer, I think he means that getting run over is pretty gay. Theres a difference now, the word is being transformed, its still evolving in societies lexicon. Once it meant happy, then it meant homosexual, and now its evolving to mean something unsavoury and negative. Is it a bad thing? Well, it doesnt really matter, becuase thats the way the word is used and thats the way its going to continued to be used. Society has spoken, and its word is law...
11/27/09
Claiming that the word has two definitions, one that means "homosexual" and one that means "something negative" doesn't fly, especially when people shout things like "that's so homosexual" in a negative manner. It's very clear that it's not the word "gay" that has the negative connotation, it's homosexuality as a whole.
We as a society don't stand for people casually throwing about racial slurs (The unspoken rules about casually throwing around terms like "nigger" or "spic" are very well known, and these terms tend to stay out of people's vocabularies.) but we're fine with sexual identity slurs? That's a double-standard to me.
Furthermore, I identify as a member of the Jewish faith and ethnicity. (As it is both, and I am both.) When something throws the word "Jew" around as a negative slur, I get annoyed. Because it IS using part of my identity as a negative, and the implication is that I should be ashamed to identify as such.
I have had at least one experience where when I revealed that I was a Jew, people actually gasped. (The response was "How could you say that about yourself?") And last I checked, Judaism is at least more or less accepted by society. It's far harder for homosexuals who are not widely accepted as a whole by society and this flippant use of homosexuality as a negative only reinforces that difficulty.
(And let's not bring up the terms "faggot" or "fag", which are quite the slur themselves.)
To address your third point, for someone who doesn't identify as heterosexual, it becomes their problem as soon as a number of people don't like it. You can claim it's the problem of those who don't like it, but in a mob, they're quite capable of making it the non-heterosexual's problem. (Examples of this as a matter of race or religion/ethnicity are things like lynchings and pogroms. It IS your problem if you're a member of the minority, no matter how much anyone says it isn't.)
I wouldn't say the problem is being overblown so much as it's not an easily solved problem. Society as a whole will continue to push for slurs, and unless members of society are educated to think differently, this will always be the case. The only real solution is education and tolerance. Two things that we as a species seem to have in varying amounts and a limited supply.
(As a follow up point: For many, the only way to make slurs not matter is to treat them as though they don't mean anything. This works reasonably well over the internet, as there's a lot of anonymity, but if this sort of culture of phobia pervades and shows up further in the physical world, more and more problems will spring up. People ARE being mistreated and harassed in public areas because of their sexual orientation, and this will only get worse over time.)
11/27/09
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm willing to accept that. I'm not an expert, but me being right or wrong won't change a thing. The fact of the matter is I don't know how to feel about this subject. One part of me says that gays should just grow a thicker skin, but that argument has been defeated time and again. The other part feels that people shouldn't make fun of others for any reason- which is unrealistic and will never happen, especially over Xbox LIVE.
And to say that it should be moderated by the service providers (PSN, Xbox LIVE, etc.) is unfair and unrealistic. Its no where near cost effective and if anything attempts to moderate it would make slurring worse. Not to mention it could potentially bring in violations to right to free speech. Modern day nazis have that right too, even if its not socially acceptable.
Its as close to an unsolvable problem as one can get. Which means gay people NEED to grow a thicker skin, from the pure fact they wont be able to play online at all if they dont. It may not be right, but its the way it is, and most likely the way it will continue to be. There will always be angry, sexually confused people who want to take their angst and lack of skill out on others. So deal with it.
07/30/09
I don't get the link between being being an asshat in games, and killing a gay 14yr old. For the same matter, I don't think teabagging in games means someone is a rapist. Maybe I'm just weird that way. Smart move though, throwing the threat of death in at the end of the intro clip. Get the audience shocked, get them motivated.
I thought the intro speaker's idea that working in games would prevent realworld to be charming, but naive at best. I feel they would get better results from realworld education, and encouraging people to report and ban aggressively insulting people where they can (on servers they run, in games they play, etc).
With regards to some of the questions -
Flaunting - maybe the panel should holiday in the Emirates. Good luck trying to hold hands in the street, regardless of who you are and who you're with.
Gay portrayals in games - Panel lead was absolutely right regarding "GTA: Faaahbulous". If you could, say, pick up rent boys, you would also have the capacity to target and kill them. Which story makes the news? Equal opportunity gameplay, or a homosexual murder simulator? The answer, as effectively proven by the panel lead, was "homosexual murder simulator".
Secondly, if you make a game with a crappy lead and they're straight, then it's a crappy character and life goes on. If you make a game with a crappy lead and they're LGBT, then you're a smallminded bigoted homophobic developer who doesn't understand the LGBT community and their needs. I mean, why run the risk when you can hedge your bets and go with the mundane?
Accountability - If reporting is hard work, and therefore you don't do it, then you can't really complain about not seeing the fruits of your labour. But it's good (and obvious) that Microsoft are looking to streamline that process. So much the better.
To answer the question of showing evidence to the offenders, most assholes are just going to laugh at you. They're not going to feel challenged, or ashamed, they're just going to mock you. Welcome to the new generation. So what if they can't play Halo anymore, boohoo, back to CounterStrike on the PC. The panel recognises the problem, and that the solution is engagement, but I don't think they grasp how impossible it is to do online. You want to get people to behave better? Give Live abusers a scary letter to their Live billing address detailing how litigation works, and that Microsoft will cooperate fully with any enforcement authority. It'd be interesting to see how many people run their mouth when they get that friendly letter. If that seems too draconian, then the vaunted VoiceBan should be the frontline weapon of choice. Run your mouth? Not anymore.
Education - I think the educational opportunities are poor in online gaming. Suggesting that using a GayGamer logo or LGBT avatar/image means you don't tolerate "fag" insults is lacking to me. I for one believe that NOONE should have to tolerate racial and sexual abuse. It doesn't matter if my image is rainbow sprinkles, or a big old slice of cherry pie, I play on services that aren't meant to tolerate that sort of behaviour.
Heterocentric games - No offence to the person who posed the question, but this was utterly tedious. "Oh I can't think of any examples that aren't heterocentric" - R-Type? Spore? Pretty much any Sim game ever? Pikmin? Katamari Damacy? I mean, COME ON.
With regards to the panel -
I think GayGamer founder's "I'll go here and make a club of my own" suggestion was a poor turn of phrase? Sounded very much like segregation, even if it's "friendly" segregation. I did find it interesting that the he was ok with "gender neutral" language, such as in Rock Band, which I would have thought was cheap pandering to the community. I mean, fair enough that Rock Band is just a music game, but in other games (deeply involving RPGs immediately spring to mind) would people not prefer to have their sexual identity acknowledged properly?
Other than his initial poor turn of phrase, I thought he was a great contribution to the panel. The insight was relevant and provoking. He acknowledged that people declaring sexual identity in their tag WERE breaking the rules, said he could see both sides. I can completely respect that, and it was a more honest reply than the bulk of commentators on this very site. I totally respect him for it. He went out and engaged a homophobe, and I can respect that too. I do think he has the right idea on engagement and confronting people, but again I just don't think you can achieve the same face-to-face dialogue throught most anonymous online services (forums and games, specifically).
Off the back of his contribution, in toto, I would be inclined to check out his site - where otherwise it would have held no interest to me. Thought I have to state that, seeing as I'm not a homophobe, I think this only highlights the issue that only irredeemable haters or neutral/supportive people are going to visit a site that is going to be so "blatant" (if you will) about it's target base. I mean, consider a website called StraightGamer, or WhiteGamer...
Microsoft dude was ok on his company line, but I think he really failed when adding his own "flavour". Specifically the physical violence in arcades - I don't think people should be pushing violence as a solution to harassment. If you called someone gay as an insult, and they thumped you, you're only reinforcing the perceived negative connotations of the word. You're not teaching anyone a lesson, other than "might makes right" and that if you've got the biggest stick then your opinion is the only one that matters. Other than that, I think he communicated MS's stance pretty well.
The rest of the panel really didn't carry the same sort of weight in terms of contribution. The industry rep didn't stand out, Lindens rep was unfortunately what I've come to expect from Second Life, the lady from the Spore team only seeemed to bring her personal interests to the table. The three really didn't seem to contribute, interact, or offer solutions to the same extent as the rest of the panel. Just my opinion, nothing more.
It'd be handier to have the footage in a more complete form, for nothing else other than something to post on other forums/blogs to stimulate debate. I'd be interested in seeing more of those sorts of discussions, although ideally without drama intro videos and a more realistic approach to education.
Ok folks, you can now grey this to death!
07/30/09
I don't think if you made a crappy GLBT character it would mean you're a homophobic bigoted developer any more than a crappy straight character. If you just half-heartedly put a character in there and decide he's going to be gay and I'm going to draw on these stereotypes, then yes that would mean such.
I think if you're interpreting the "I'll go here and make a club of my own" suggestion as segregating, you're mistaken. Nothing in it is segregating, unless he were to add "and you can't join." It simply was that he didn't find something that suited his needs, so he made it. And he made it open to everyone who wanted to join. There was no attempt to disparage any other group or deny people.
If you find it improper to start something that suits your needs, and thinks he should have stuck to homophobic communities that are out there and try to change them while not complaining, that makes less sense. There are fortunately many communities now, though, that aren't homophobic and have grown to appreciate diversity... and I don't think GayGamer has hurt that progression at all.
07/31/09
Dude. I'm gay, and I want to let you know that pretty much every thing you said (and I did read all of it) is Dead. Fucking. On.
I would elaborate, but it would turn into a giant rant, so all I gotta say to you is:
Pretty fly for a straight guy ;D
07/31/09
@alexguenser: You've a valid point, but what I was trying to say was that if people were to use any minority and then screw it up (not necessarily just stereotypes but "negative portrayals") then it would be a major issue to the minorities involved. If you abuse a generic "straight white male" character then there is no issue - people just accept it as is.
As for the club, I just believe that forming a group for likeminded people is still a form of segregation, even if it's a friendly sort of segregation where others are welcome but, on balance, not likely to come.
Off the top of my head I have some poor examples, such as a D&D group welcoming non-gamers or hip-hop fans turning up to a death metal club. It'll only attract the curious and/or tolerant.
Please don't misunderstand, it's good and right to group with people who share your interests, but forming a safe haven could lead people to informal segregation. Tolerant, open, and friendly, but still segregation.
That's why I give props to Flynn primarily for getting out and engaging the offenders. That's the integration angle.
I could get sidetracked on the issues for straight gamers who are involved with openly gay organisations, or the specific issues for trans/bi gamers, but I think that's beyond the scope of this topic :)
Above all, thanks for reading and commenting.
07/31/09
Probably because the straight white male charcters are designed by straight white males. It's more common that minority characters would be designed by different people. If you had a group of black people that designed a game about a ridiculously stereotypical white guy, that probably would raise an issue... wouldn't you agree?
As far as your club comments goes, from your wording they do apply to every group in existence, and I don't find that a logical form of reasoning.
Is every club in existence a form of segregation because they invite people of similar interests together? They'll only attract the curious and/or tolerant.
Is Kotaku membership a form of segregation, because it's a place for gamers, though others are welcome?
Are you therefore wary of all clubs and organizations because they can lead people to informal segregation? And only if knitting clubs decide to integrate with foreign language clubs will you give them props?
All clubs could lead people to informal segregation, but it's a little ridiculous to point that out as a negative of clubs, as if people should not to form groups and that everyone should just be part of the entire human community and no sub-communities.
08/02/09
My club comments do apply to every group, and they are entirely sound. People who isolate themselves soon become comfortable with their isolation. Too comfortable. Consider it a form of institutionalisation.
I don't get why you don't see segregation as a negative. You can't be in favour of racism and sexism? Informal segregation is the most dangerous kind, because it's not openly harmful. Again, I didn't say clubs were non-negotionable bad, and I took pains to say it's good to share your interests, but my point is that when you shun mainstream socialisation you're making a prison for yourself. It's a nice, friendly prison, but it's a still a prison. A gilded cage.
08/03/09
And I looked up Kurtlar Vadisi Irak. What about it? Is there something wrong with a film portraying fictional depictions of actual events? If so, we've got a lot of problems then.
But what you're saying is a problem with people who isolate themselves, not a problem with clubs. It's not Kotaku's fault that a few members - only a few - may become too comfortable in a community of gamers that they don't integrate with the rest of society.
And you're reading something in my posts that isn't there if you think I don't see segregation as a negative... I said I don't see communities as segregation.
And I 100% do not think someone is shunning mainstream socialization and making a prison for themselves by starting a GLBT-friendly group among gamers. But think that if you want. So here we'll disagree.
08/04/09
Kurtlar Vadisi Irak is an example of media by another ethnic group that has largely been ignored despite it's bias against the white Judeo-Christian invader.
You're echoing what I have said to you - I have an issue with segregation, not clubs, but clubs permit segregation. I don't believe that an enabler should be absolved of responsibility.Again, this is a plus point for Flynn because he runs his site AND is still showing that he can engage. If he made his site and turned it into a bunker then I'd have less praise.
I'm intrigued that your closing "I'm taking my ball" comment is barbed to insinuate my viewpoint is restricted to LGBT groups - my viewpoint applies to all gilded cages. But regardless, we can agree to disagree.
08/04/09
I agreed that it's not a magical excuse, why are you sorry?
And it seems you're diverging from your original point about people making a poorly thought out offensive stereotyped protagonist of a different group to many different things now.
Six Days in Fallujah isn't recieving criticism for that reason, neither is Kurtlar Vadisi Irak. Both are far from poorly thought out, and have a message. The actual events that occured by the hands of Americans are what have a bias against us... because we were the bad guys. Facts don't carry bias.
I didn't say your comment was restricted to GLBT groups, I don't think that... it's just that you seem to have a very interesting viewpoint when the first thing that comes into your head about people creating a support community is that they're segregating themselves... and you feel that's the most important thing you need to comment on about the creation of GayGamer.
Clubs don't permit segregation, people do. A person can equally segregate themselves in a club as they can segregate themselves individually and isolate themselves. The enabler of such isolation and segregation is the individual, not the person who creates a club to build a community. And I have no idea how you could turn a club or a site into a bunker and prevent people from socialization... or encourage it. People will do what they individually want to do.
Have any tips on how to create a bunker or not to?
08/04/09
If you can't see how these issues overlap with your own, perhaps it would be easier for you to just watch "Boys Beware" from the Prelinger Archives?
I do feel "comfortable segregation" is an important issue, and I don't see what's so unusual about being concerned for people getting trapped in their comfort zone. I comment on it only because of Flynn's (imho) poorly worded statement about going off and forming his own club.
The enabler is the club. It is the club that gives people a safe place to hide, they don't magically generate their own safe haven.
How to turn a club into a bunker? Internalisation. Isolationism. Cliques. Refusal to integrate. Perpetuating a belief that by only being in the club can one truly appreciate whatever the club is interested in. "Elder worship". Essentially anything that results in members being ill-prepared to deal with the outside world or does not activately motivate them to integrate and be involved.
How not to bunker down? From what I've seen, I'd say follow Flynn's example.
08/04/09
Six Days criticism isn't about how people can stereotype their own community. At all. It's about whether or not it's too soon, or whether or not a game can portray what needs to be portrayed. And individual soldiers disagree. Regardless, they haven't messed up anything when the game hasn't even been released.
And how are these soldiers stereotyped? What makes them a stereotype? The fact that the movie depicts events that occured or didn't occur isn't how someone makes a stereotype. It could be attempting to make a stereotype that Jewish-Americans are anti-Semetic... which is interesting. Someone prejudiced against themselves?
The film's scriptwriter Bahadir Ozdener isn't trying to make an offensive stereotype, this is what he is trying:
"Our film is a sort of political action. Maybe 60 or 70 percent of what happens on screen is factually true. Turkey and America are allies, but Turkey wants to say something to its friend. We want to say the bitter truth. We want to say that this is wrong."
I agree, it's wrong. Abu Ghraib was wrong. The events after the battle for Mazari Sharif were wrong. And they are completely allowed to depict wrong events and that doesn't mean they're stereotyping.
I can see similarities and only a little how they would relate to making an offensively stereotyped protagonist, and I still agree that neither is a magical excuse.
NOTHING is wrong with being concerned about how individuals segregate people. Something is wrong with saying that creating support communities is segregation.
And a lot of your suggestions on how to bunker down and how not to seem to apply to individuals behavior, and I have no idea how a site creator encourages any of your tips: How does a site creator encourage "internalisation, Isolationism, Cliques, Refusal to integrate, Perpetuating a belief that by only being in the club can one truly appreciate whatever the club is interested in, 'Elder worship', anything that results in members being ill-prepared to deal with the outside world or does not [actively] motivate them to integrate and be involved?"
And specifically which of those did you hear in Flynn's statement that led you to believe his intent was to segregate communities?
And as how not to create a bunker down site, you say follow Flynn's example... and do what exactly?
And please make sure to stick to what the club leader does about the club, which you see as the problem, not what individuals can do, which is where I see the problem.
However, it's interesting that you see that you can follow Flynn's example on how to create a non-segregated bunker site... and also think his own words lead you to believe he wants to create that site.
08/05/09
In this way many minority groups cripple attempts to break into their market, because they are not "break even" screwups but entire economic failures. It's unfortunate but that's business for you.
To Valley of the Wolves - An anti-Semitic portrayal means the portrayal of the character is anti-Semitic. As for the defence, I would imagine that the creator of "Boys Beware" would have issued a similar platitude were he held to account by a dissatisfied community.
To the clubs - Site creators lead by example. Community elders lead by example. If the community leaders internalise, then the community will itself internalise. Yes, all my examples are individual actions but they're also group actions. If a group refuses to accept a thing, then new members will also be encouraged to follow suit. The founder of such a group, if he does not take action, is therefore encouraging by inaction the development of such behaviour. Unless the community leaders intend to stage some form of coup, they will follow their leader in order to maintain their status. Here we overlap with tribalism and politics.
To quote myself - "I think GayGamer founder's "I'll go here and make a club of my own" suggestion was a poor turn of phrase? Sounded very much like segregation, even if it's "friendly" segregation". I did not state a negative intent on his part, in fact I was quite clear to say I felt he misspoke and used a poor phrase because the rest of his comments are largely about integration and the freedom to integrate without fear of reprisal.
I think you're reading altogether faarrrr too much bias from my comment about a poor phrase. If I did not like the man or his approach, I would not be lauding it. That much should be inherently clear. He is running a good site and he leads as an example of getting out there and not hiding away - which is PRECISELY why effectively stating "I'll segregate myself" was what I consider to be a poor turn of phrase.
I do hope that clarifies the issue for you. In short form, I respect him and I respect the site, but I thought he used a poor phrase and went on to examine why I considered it to be a poor phrase, and the associated dangers of enabling informal segregation.
08/05/09
There is a difference between a game failing, which is what you're saying now, and a game having a poorly thought out offensive stereotyped protagonist, which is what you started with. I've been trying to get you back on that topic, but apparently I'm failing. You need to look at the reasons WHY people think games are screw ups, because those reasons are all different, on different levels, and games can fail on one front and succeed on another.
While I don't play shooter games, there are many games about war and I don't think they generally contain offensive stereotypes of the protagonist. I've yet to see one, including Six Days.
Of course, not all groups will agree on whether a game should be made or not, or a movie should be made or not, or a book should be written or not. That's not what I've been discussing.
I've been discussing how creating an offensively stereotyped main character won't tend to draw criticism if the same group made that character - and therefore nobody can believe the group is prejudiced. Will people get mad at Tyler Perry or Eddie Murphy when they create stereotyped black characters? No, because they're black. Will people feel cautious about Richard Downey Junior playing a black man in a movie? Yeah, because he's not black.
Has anyone been talking about making an LBGT-centric game? Did you wish to start a conversation about this by bringing it up?
As far as "Kurtlar Vadisi Irak," you said you don't believe that a minority group making a poor majority protagonist would be newsworthy. How did you hear about this film? From someone who thought it was newsworthy and gave it criticism? Because it has created controversy, I believe... which does tend to go against what you've said.
There have been stereotyped characters that haven't drawn criticism. Bernie Crane from GTAIV is my favorite example.
Actually, I don't think there are that many games that have "screwed up" LGBT characters and drawn criticism just for that reason. Can you name some? Hopefully you're not talking about "Watch Out Behind You, Hunter!"
And you imagine the creator of Boys Beware would want to be saying the same defense? REALLY? "Our film is a sort of political action. Maybe 60 or 70 percent of what happens on screen is factually true. Gays and straights are allies, but straights wants to say something to its friend. We want to say the bitter truth. We want to say that this is wrong." Of course rape is wrong. But this isn't a message to gays, this is a message to fellow straights, to watch out because gays will rape you. Straights? No, they never do that.
All of your actions are individual actions and groups of individual actions. None of them are what a physical club structure can do. None of them are how a club can turn social people internalized. If individual members refuse to accept a thing, then new members can do the same. So everything you're saying is about individuals behaviors. Or about what groups can decide to do regardless of the type of club or not-club they associate themselves with. And the reason they do that is not because of the site, because it's what the individuals want to do. Nothing you've said talks about how leaders LEAD to segregation... just how leaders need to STOP segregation.
As far as your quote, I still would like to see which of your "bunkering up" criteria was found in that statement. He didn't effectively state "I'll segregate myself" at all. You thought he used a poor phrase but you've yet to clarify why making a club is intent to segregate. So I'm still not clarified on that issue.
08/07/09
In my original analysis of the Panel, I was referring to the "relucatance" to make LGBT games. Some panellists blamed the industry shortfall on LGBT people, I consider that the larger issue is the financial risk because being a member of a community doesn't automatically mean you do everything that community does or like everything it likes. Thus, 10 people of any given community could help work on a game (my example is Six Days) and still end up being criticised by other members of the very same community (in that case it was veteran on veteran).
"Kurtlar Vadisi Irak" - I like Gary Busey and foreign language films. What can I say. You think it's newsworthy? I don't see a multimedia campaign organised to ban it... could you honestly say the same for anything that would be denigratory to the LGBT community? If you think this particularly film is a friendly message to an ally, I think you've watched a different film or only choose to be offended by certain stereotypes and not others.
You ask for examples of "bad" game portrayals, and I assume from legitimate companies. I think they'll be pretty hard to find, other than the generic over-effeminisation of gay males (Conker's Bad Fur Day, GTA, or Streets of Rage for instance) or as use of such as a slur on "masculinity" (Cops in GTA, dildo anyone?). Why are they hard to find? Because noone wants to risk the money. Hell, Sega cut Ash from SoR for the Western release. The West goes ape. The devs/pubs are terrified. If they weren't so worried, you'd see a raft of releases with neuter characters who "happen to be LGBT". It'll not be part of the game, or the plot, it'll just be so they can say "Oo our game has an LGBT character" because that's how the West works. However, since fear rules, you only see portrayals sparingly and mostly done competently. Which would the community prefer, do you think?
If there was less fear of outcry, you'd see more people experimenting in the field. Yes, there'd be screwups just like "heterocentric games" but there'd also be an opportunity for real development.
Clubs are refuges. People want to fit in. The leadership dictates the policy, the members dance. You don't dance to the tune? You get "asked to leave". Remember, it takes more than one person to make a clique, and peer pressure is a wonderful way to get the nervous newcomer in line with your beliefs. If the leaders decide that BT people aren't as "real" as LG people then you can be certain that anyone voicing a dissenting opinion will soon be voicing it elsewhere.
At the same time, I can certainly agree up to a certain point with your observation that sounds to me like "It's the member's own fault for not having conviction of their beliefs" but at the same time I think bullied people desperate to fit in with "their own" will soon fold no matter how solid their opinions are. This goes for Wikipedia or LARPing or anything else you care to mention - it's not restricted to any one group.
Flynn does effectively state he segregated himself. He was not accepted or did not feel comfortable with the level of hate in a community (I don't mean to put words in his mouth, I'm just covering several reasons) and chose to "form his own club". One could take that to mean, very negatively, inaccurately, and unfairly, that he meant to form his own version where he could freely hate on his oppressors. Or, and it's the view I hold, you could take it to mean he intended to start a refuge for other likeminded people.
Either way, he removed himself from a community. That is segregation. He did it for a bloody good reason (I'd have done it, for what it's worth), but it's still segregation. Going back to my original explanation, clubs are only of interest to the curious/sympathetic, or haters. In this case, the relevant question is "Would a straight male with no prior bias google for GayGamer?". I doubt it. Is someone who has no interest (social, commercial, or otherwise) in LARPing going to sign up on related forums? Of course not.
Now, I could run a LARP site that is "non-LARPer friendly" but it would be a token gesture at best. Who is going to care, other than a PR exercise?
This is when I have to point out that GayGamer does not fall into that category because, as Flynn shows, their founder is quite happy to venture out and get debate going. He's not hiding on his LARP forum keeping away from the unbelievers, he's getting out and about.
Does this help better explain how a club is effective segregation?
EDIT - Just a further note. Making a club is "intent to segregate" purely in the sense that you want it to consist of more people like you, or sharing your interest. It is up to the founder and leadership as to how far they take that segregation. Flynn didn't take his very far at all, which we can agree is a good thing.
08/07/09
You're right, it is a big risk to make a lead character that isn't a straight white male. They are highly over-represented in games, as a recent study showed.
I don't think games need to be LGBT centered, but there are plenty of games that are hetero-centric that could easily be adjusted so that everyone can choose who to play as. Perhaps somebody will make a LGBT centric game and it will work as part of the story, that would be nice.
For "Kurtlar Vadisi Irak," it must be newsworthy if many people had issue enough to criticize it. Here's an AP article about it, so they thought it was newsworthy. John Stewart also reported on it. But I choose not to be offended by depictions of things that actually happened, as most of that movie was. [www.msnbc.msn.com]
As far as media campaigns organized to ban things, bans don't work because Freedom of Speech is the 1st Amendment. So you wont see LGBT banning anything either.
Thank you for showing that while you've claimed the LGBT community goes nuts over a bad LGBT portrayal, there aren't really much games to support that. In fact, you see people upset that they didn't include an LGBT character that was just as poorly implemented as any other character in the game. Just like how Nintendo turned Birdo from a man who thinks he's a girl into just a girl. It's not because they're worried about the LGBT crowd... no way, it's because they're worried about the Christian crowd. Japanese don't have nearly the problem with LGBT characters that Americans do.
I'd prefer people get over what Christians want (and they're doing that plenty) and just make characters. If you're doing a fighting game where everyone is poorly implemented, there won't be an issue with gays being that way when straights are too. Don't go making a game with great characters though and put in an offensive LGBT character without trying.
One could also take Flynn's statement, as you did, negatively, inaccurately, and unfairly, that he wanted to segregate himself and other people. But nothing in his statement implies that at all. You keep saying he's said that, and have yet to show me which part of his actual statement means he wanted segregation. What he really said was that he wanted community, he wanted to NOT be segregated- and he couldn't find that where he was, so he looked elsewhere, he made an elsewhere. The original community was the segregated one, not open to LGBT, so Flynn rejected that and with his comment and actions supported a non-segregated community.
Either way, he didn't remove himself. As you've clearly said again many times. He said if you are going to "shove me to the back of the bus" and "make me drink out of certain water fountains," I'm going to rally up against that.
Of course nobody without an interest in a club is going to search for that club. That doens't mean that people in that club are segregated.
Making a club is "intent to congregate" purely in the sense that you want it to consist of more people like you, or sharing your interest. NOT segregate. There is a big difference. It is up to the members, and the leaders, if they decide they need to segregate, but most clubs 100% do not in any way.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
I don't believe anyone here has been talking about being allowed to discuss sexual activity, unless I missed it. Most people are talking about sexual orientation - you know, like "I like girls" or "I'm married to this person"... is that stuff not suitable on an E for Everyone gaming network?
07/30/09
Are you implying that bisexuals are not monogamous???
You should probably figure out what those GLBT terms mean before you go commenting about them.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/29/09
Oh right, sometimes I forget how prejudiced I am and that I actually don't have gay friends, you caught me! You know because as a white male, I am obsessed only with the thought of a threesome and am powerfully homophobic! Silly me.
07/30/09
Then again, if they should partake in said sexual activity, what's to stop them from doing so if no one is looking?
Same applies with the GLBT community.
07/29/09
It is easy to relieve yourself of accountability of your prejudices when you reproduce lies like the 'Homosexual agenda' and the belief that it is acceptable to treat another person as less then equal because of your personal (often "divine") convictions. It has become to easy (especially with virtual Anonymity) for people to say things that are clearly not true and are socially backwards. Hate spreads like the flu, and apathy towards hate is extremely dangerous.
Even if people like solder_CLE and fatherfingers don't hate gay people, their expectation that it is not appropriate to discuss our personal lives in a virtual community encourages an attitude of apathy towards the problems facing the LGBT community.
LGBT individuals are everywhere: workplaces, schools, virtual communities, and our families. Even if you reject political positions for de jure bans the LGBT community, the expectation that their life experiences are not fit to be exchanged freely in a open information marketplace is destructive.
We all manufacture our identities from the things that mean the most in our lives. Our identities are what makes us human and not automata. The people we love and share our lives with make up our identities. Our families, coworkers, peers, and partners make us who we are. But a significant portion of our society are being denied their identities, whether it is at work, at the courthouse, or in virtual communities.
There has been great changes in the public discourse on LGBT issues. Where once there was expectation that LGBT people belong in asylums, now it is recognized by the scientific and political community that there is little to no difference between LGBT individuals and any other person. But people who support status quo (often called "traditional" whatever that means) beliefs about human sexuality and identity pose a great threat not only to the LGBT community but to any group that has felt the shame of being denied person-hood.
The virtual community is definitely not the defining battleground for equal rights. However inequality anywhere threatens equality everywhere. There virtual community is a powerful mover, and if we hope for change in the future, then everyone needs to be moving in the same direction.
07/29/09
I am humored that you assert that I "hate" the GLBT community, and imply my ignorance to the content of the videos (which I did watch, and have read the blog, btw), yet you fail to see where one might have a civil disagreement with some of the points that GLAAD might make.
It does not surprise me that there will be advocates for the GLBT community that will aim to portray the homosexual lifestyle with a victimized view; and portray anyone that may even remotely disagree as "victimizers"., just as it doesn't surprise me that there would be some to take a militant stance in defense of their lifestyle.
Again, I do have friends that are gay, bi and lesbian. I am also engaged to a bi-sexual. However, it never meant that I had to buy into the Marshall Kirk philosophy.
To be frank, I believe that there are overzealous people on both sides of the topic. I am not for the militant advocate of EITHER side, but am for a healthy and civil discussion between both sides of the topic. I believe that if that occurs, then perhaps both sides will come to a better understanding, and maybe even give some confession to the opposing side's concerns.
Whether you do (or don't) believe that the late Marshall Kirk's 6-step plan of objectives is an "agenda" or not is healthy conversation. However, when you make statements like Even if people like solder_CLE and fatherfingers don't hate gay people, their expectation that it is not appropriate to discuss our personal lives in a virtual community encourages an attitude of apathy towards the problems facing the LGBT community., you attempt to stifle the discussion, even as this one has "warts and all" to discuss. You might not like ALL of the topic being discussed, but this is as good as any a time to bring forth healthy discussion on the differences, similarities and compromises
that people on both sides of the discussion (and in between) to talk it out.
So, with all due respect, what you call "a virtual battlefield" is really a "virtual gathering place for the exchange of ideas and opinions"; even if there are some that we might disagree with.
Let it be that.
07/30/09
"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." - Noam Chomsky
That being said, I don't personally like GLAAD (I think they try to control too much, and alot of my gay/bi/lesbian friends/family members agree) but I think their intentions are in the right place.
07/30/09
You have just posted the most intelligent post on here, Wolfgeist.
You get it. YOU REALLY DO!
I am recommending you for your star right now!
Again, well done : )
07/30/09
Am reading the mans work currently myself after a suggestion from an old friend.
07/30/09
I wound up getting a 3 on my next EPR :(
07/30/09
Yeah usually not a good thing to argue with ones SSG.
Still D: none the less my friend.
Though great to see you being not afraid to discuss such topics either. Never lose that edge, since its a wonderful gift.
07/30/09
Did you write a grievance on the EPR?
Every NCO/PO in the United States Military should remember the words "No One Is More Professional Than I" in their creeds.
It is professional and civil to respectfully disagree. It is illegal to be retaliatory because of it. Each branch has provisions against that practice, and it is also something that you can bring up with your EEOC NCO and OIC, on the grounds that you received a poor evaluation arbitrarily and capriciously for disagreement on a civil discussion.
Your Chaplin is also your friend on this matter (and most matters requiring a civil touch), as your older peers might attest to.
If it's relatively recent, I recommend grieving it with those channels.
07/30/09
@Witzbold: Awww, thanks :) Also, the SSG in question (and his co-worker) were dicks. I've overheard them on more than one occasion hinting to troops, seriously no less, that if they didn't vote for McCain next election they might assign them with extra duties. I like to think that they got theirs with the results of the election :D
Meh, bad times for me in the military, but enough about that.
07/30/09
There is a saying that I subscribed to, from Enlisted to "Mustang", and that is:
"There are no bad troops, only bad leaders."
That philosophy both inspires and motivates all those given charge to lead by example, instead of seeking personal advantage or gain, which the non-commissioned officer and commissioned officer creeds of the United States Air Force vehemently speaks against.
I don't know your NCOs, but from how it sounds, they fell asleep in that class.
As for your 1SG (E-7 to E-9), a good one has a backbone. A terrible will not. (Same goes for your USAF Chiefs.) Your commanders apparently showed "conduct unbecoming", and I'd be shocked if they still had their bars when the proceedings were over. In other branches, that would have made either "The Stars and Stripes", or "The (insert branch here) Times.
As for the 30 SecFor troops engaged in drug deals, I am not surprised, especially if this were in Lackland. It's no secret that the funnel runs though Ft. Huachuca, AZ in the west, Ft. Hood a little up north and of course nearby Ft. Sam Houston, TX.
What you're not mentioning is that it is also a "gang related problem" that had failed to have failed to have been policed up.
CID would love to know more, if my annual salary against your paycheck had anything to say about it. ; )
Also, "hinting" requirements to vote for one candidate or another is principally wrong, and illegal if fear of retaliation were implied in their briefings. The odds are there that they will try that against the wrong person that is well versed and aware of his/her rights, as well as how to handle retaliatory/fear tactics.
People get reduced all the way down and are made example of in some commands. He or she sounds like a bad NCOER walking around.
Sorry to hear that about your experiences. We all see messed up stuff when we're in long enough, but I hope that it didn't completely affect your time in service.
07/30/09
Sounds like military life is just like life outside the fence too eh? *mean that in a positive manner. Am pretty sure you know what Im hinting. At least I hope you do, since explaining it here would piss off a lot of folks I can imagine.
Yeah kinda sounds like other events where all sorts of pressure is thrown around. Granted totally different end of the spectrum but for example things related to the recruitment field and those having to head up said recruiting. Of course totally on a different level.
But guess its just like any other job where the higher ups like to screw with those under them in order to make themselves look better. Or just abuse power. Either or. :/
Thanks for sharing this bit of information with us though its highly appreciated!
07/30/09
07/30/09
?
07/30/09
I didn't assert that you hated gay people, I don't even know you. But your attempts to reduce the gay rights movement as a "GAY AGENDA" is intellectually dishonest. Even if there was a codified agenda that all gays agreed on (I have yet to get one in the mail), that would not at all change the nature of the conversation about LGBT rights and issues. Bring up the "6-six point plan" is just red haring.
If anything, the gay agenda discussion stops the conversation, because it is such a pointless subject. You effectively put a road block to discourse when you accuse the LGBT community of concocting a grand plan for.... what?
What do you think proponents of the LGBT movement should say in regards to the "gay agenda"? I usually shrug it off, because it is a misrepresentation of the goals of the LGBT community. Let me rewrite the agenda for a different group:
1. Talk about our African culture and our heritage as loudly and as often as possible.
2.Portray the segregated black community as victims, not aggressors.
3. Give Protectors of the African American community a just cause.
4. Make African Americans look good.
5. Make racists look bad.
6. Get funds from corporate America.
I mean honestly, it is so stupid to debate this. So I am done with the gay agenda.
I never said "a virtual battlefield", I said "The virtual community is definitely not the defining battleground for equal rights." Regardless how you define a virtual community, the idea is there are rules, whether de jure or de facto, and when those rules foster inequality, the rules must change.
07/30/09
It is a valid discussion, since Marshall Kirk's six tenets of proliferating the GLBT cause has been studied and utilized in great detail, much like other agendas of other causes are used (without mailing en-masse to people who sympathize or subscribe to cause).
If you don't agree, that's fine.
Regardless, the gay agenda and civil rights agendas are distinctly different, since one deals with GLBT issues, and another deals with immutable characteristics.
What is intellectually dishonest is the lumping of both together; when the GLBT agenda aims for the acceptance of social deviant taboos, while the other seeks acceptance of characteristics that one is born with.
The six rules of Marshall Kirk's "After The Ball" is not a red herring, since they are proponent to the discussion, and do not detract.
As for your not asserting that I "hate" the GLBT community, it is easily implied in your first post:
From AngelofEvolution:
...It is easy to relieve yourself of accountability of your prejudices when you reproduce lies like the 'Homosexual agenda' and the belief that it is acceptable to treat another person as less then equal because of your personal (often "divine") convictions. It has become to easy (especially with virtual Anonymity) for people to say things that are clearly not true and are socially backwards. Hate spreads like the flu, and apathy towards hate is extremely dangerous.
Even if people like solder_CLE and fatherfingers don't hate gay people, their expectation that it is not appropriate to discuss our personal lives in a virtual community encourages an attitude of apathy towards the problems facing the LGBT community...
Within that excerpt, and it's examples, you have implied that I hate the GLBT community.
Do you wish to retract that statement?
As for "gay agenda": If you are too busy running away from the term, you'd know it means to make GLBT lifestyle and practice considered a "legal norm", and protected in ways similar or the same to civil rights.
I'm surprised that you would deny this and even dismiss it.
07/30/09
07/30/09
Understandable
07/30/09
I would've approved it. I am a firm believer that on such hot-bed topics, the civil discourse from both sides of the subject (and the moderates/gradients in-between) should have a say in this discussion; warts and all.
I believe that when this happens, the real discussion begins.
07/30/09
Your reproductions of what I said is true, however once again i did not say you hated the GLBT community.
"...It is easy to relieve yourself of accountability of your prejudices when you reproduce lies like the 'Homosexual agenda' and the belief that it is acceptable to treat another person as less then equal because of your personal (often "divine") convictions. It has become to easy (especially with virtual Anonymity) for people to say things that are clearly not true and are socially backwards. Hate spreads like the flu, and apathy towards hate is extremely dangerous.
Even if people like solder_CLE and fatherfingers don't hate gay people, their expectation that it is not appropriate to discuss our personal lives in a virtual community encourages an attitude of apathy towards the problems facing the LGBT community..."
Prejudices do not always manifest themselves as hate. One can maintain prejudice while not having hate. Prejudice is just an implicitly held belief about a group of people. Whether it be a religion, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation (though believe it or not, the LGBT community is a ethic community, ethnography is a very complicated adn interesting topic but outside of the scope of this comment). Prejudice can manifest as pity, physical disgust, admiration, or (most importantly) apathy. Abraham Lincoln is an excellent example of prejudice that didn't manifest itself in hate:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people" -A.L.
Clearly Lincoln didn't hate the black slaves, or he would not have broken our country over there right of the black community to be free of slavery. However he allowed himself to be governed by his prejudices, and believed that even though black slaves should be free, they should not be equal (not to different for the LGBT community)
I genuinely don't know if in your heart of hearts you hate the LGBT community. This is just a comment section, and I don't know outside of this page on Kotaku.
Soldier_CLE, what I have accused you of is intellectual apathy. Your arguments are half thought-out and archaic. Being blunt here, your rhetoric reeks with conservative misinformation. No one takes the gay agenda put forth by the religious right as real. Regardless how convincing you think it is, what Kirk most likly proposed is not the verbatim list you read off of the FOTF website. However there are genuine agenda's put forth by the LGBT community and they can be easily summed up as: EQUALITY. There is a lot of changes that need to be made to bring about that goal, but none are malevolent or dangerous.
I would suspect that you truly don't know or are close to anyone for the LGBT community (and labeling your spouse as bisexual while she participates in a healthy heterosexual relationship doesn't count). I wish there weren't an excess of quotes of you calling homosexuality social/sexual deviance. How can you say that if you have truely met productive members of our society that happen to be gay? Honestly, what is deviant about homosexuality, what does that even mean? The clinical definition of deviance: "is a behavior that violates sociocultural norms." True, we may be able to define homosexuality as outside the sociocultural norm, but that seems so 20-30 years ago. However even if we did say homosexuality was outside the sociocultural norm, it would have no barring on the ethics of the issue. A plea to tradition is a plea to the dead.
Furthermore you comparatives between homosexuality (between two healthy adults) and pedophilia and zoophilia are weak and wrong. There is nothing dangerous about homosexuals. However that can not be said about pedophilia (obviously). There might be important, when to consider zoophilia, to ask if it is dangerous to anyone but the individual behaving in that manner (but out of the scope of this growing comment).
You continually say "some people say/believe..." you never try to confirm or disprove what they (who are they?) say. You just repeat some Focus on the Family line and go from there. I am curious if you use the line "some people say/believe..." to avoid committing to a belief?
Finally, trying to distinguish civil rights from LGBT rights is just not true. If your argument is that the rights are only for the LGBT community, then ending segregation is not a civil right because it only benefited the African American community (however I can see that it did benefit the rest of the American community by supporting rights of all to be equal). IF your argument is that homosexuals are not born homosexual, or that it is not immutable like race, then you clearly have never met a genuine LGBT person. Maybe you wife bisexuality has lead you to believe that everyone chooses, then I propose to you that you declare that date you decided to be straight? However even if you do supply the date of your coming out of the straight closet, there is mountains of scientific data showing that sexuality is not mutable, and is even genetically determined. Check out the "Journal of Homosexuality" if you are genuinely interested.
None of your arguments are new, nor are my rebuttals.
This comment is way to long now. If it wasn't for the story by Flynn DeMarco about the person he corresponded with by emails, who had an ill informed view on gay rights, I would not have done this. Usually I take the road Richard Dawkins takes with Creationists and I don't bother to debate people who seem genuinely uninteresting in developing their understanding of the issue that they wish to address. But maybe this will turn around. However this is most likely the last post I will do because these are too long, and there are other more fruitful conversations going on here.
07/31/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
First off, everything they touch on pretty much applies to any marginalized group, be it women, minorities, religious groups, etc. etc. For those of us who aren't straight white male with a judaeo-christian background, trust me, you'll relate to it. If you are a white male, blah blah, you probably need to watch it more than most. (I don't care how bi your wife is, you will learn a lot from the discussions.)
Within the greater context of homophobia, there is a lot of discussion regarding the concept of anonymity and online spaces, which relates to the dehumanization/deindividuation that tends to amplify people's aggressions, and some discussions on how to address this.
There's a good deal of insight into XBox Live's online policies, operation philosophies, enforcement, and their goals moving forward.
The ESA rep mentions several salient points about gaming, online policy, and how the industry needs to respond to issues such as homophobia. Most people, myself included, probably don't know much about the ESA, so its good to get a perspective on how they operate, and what they do.
Kotaku Alum Flynn is fucking hilarious, and makes a lot of great points in terms of representing gamers in online spaces, regardless of sexual orientation.
07/29/09
And you're super correct about Flynn too. Well spoken and knowledgeable and thoughtful...and funny.
07/29/09
Queers (Don't get mad at me, all "slang" pulled from pro-gay sites and how individuals describe themselves.) feel this need to dress up in cock socks and run around the block screaming gay pride. They make it a point to plaster their gay car in rainbows. FFS yesterday at a local beach they have Bikes on the beach, guess who had to have 10 bikes there and rainbow from head to toe? Two of which where holding hands while driving. Yup you guess it, the gays.
Trust us, we can tell the difference between a gay person and a straight one. Its not that hard, you don't have to flaunt it EVERYWHERE you go.
None of us care that you love penis or vag, we care that you have the common sense and just keep that to yourself, esp if we didn't ask you. People are worse then door to door salesmen I swear.
I'm not anti gay or anything like that, shit my wife is bi and regularly sees other women. I am against this flaunting shit. You're here, You're Queer, STFU. (and play)
07/29/09
And the reason that gays are so vocal is because they still lack the right in many states to have their relationship legitimized by the law. Not to mention all the benefits that come with marriage.
07/29/09
*sigh*
07/29/09
Some might make discussion for same sex unions. Others for redefining what the word "Marriage" is, others to be tolerated and some to be accepted. At the same time, there are those who will voice on their beliefs, their philosophies and their reasons for non-tolerance/non-acceptance of what is a hotbed topic (no pun).
That said, people on both sides of the issue argue for individual reasons unique to each individual, and sometimes are argued en-masse when one side or the other agrees/disagrees with it.
07/29/09
Or how about people can act how they want to act, and you just fucking deal with it?
There has never been an incident in your life were some random homosexual stopped you in the street and told you they were gay without there being a reason to. I can honestly make that assumption, because that isn't how people act. If what you mean by flaunting is acting in a way you would consider obviously gay, then again, you can just deal with it.
07/29/09
07/30/09
So you're now saying that people SHOULD be asshats on the internet and that YOU should just deal with it?
Erm..
07/30/09
"It's not hurting anybody," right? :-P
07/29/09
who defends our name when its used in a derrogatory manner
who has nothing better to do than to scour forums around the world accusing anyone that uses the noobs good name in an inflamatory manner as a misinformed bigots
where here where noobs get used to it.
07/29/09
When the gay community speaks up about their want for game developers to release titles they can relate to they are still seen as the minority. (Although this shouldn't stop them from placing the option to choose your gender or sexual prefernce in the game. The first publisher to make this a standard feature in all of their games will be praised and recognized for it and I encourage someone to step up to the plate and get the ball rolling as far as that goes).
07/30/09
Unless you're going to water down the dramatic impact of the game so much that gender neuter dialogue and behvaiour is used throughout..
07/30/09
If the player selects heterosexual male they are portrayed as a man, have romantic relationships with women. His romantic interest is a female avatar in game and all characters in the game call her a her.
If the player selected a homosexual male they are portrayed as a man and have a romantic relationship with a man. His romantic interest is a male avatar in game and all characters call him a he.
---------------
What do you mean by gender neutral behavior? Are you saying that if the character is homosexual that he would have to act different? That seems like stereotyping to me. How does a gay person act?
07/30/09
It's not my intention to say that people "act different", I think that's an unfair assumption, but what I'm trying to describe is that you can't really have the male PC tell the male NPC they "have a really great rack" for example. The dialogue needs to be tailored and professionally delivered.
If I played a game as each sex and each preference, and the dialogue was on-screen text and IDENTICAL (that is "You're the most amazing person I've met" instead of "You're the most amazing man I've met"), I'd feel very short changed. It's a childish, cheap politically correct move that doesn't seek to engage the player.
I prefer approaches similar to, dare it say it, KotOR where romancing is specific to the PC and the NPC they're wooing. No cut and paste.
07/29/09
07/29/09
Congrats. : )
07/29/09
EDIT: I found an email address for the blog and emailed them asking them to make a post correcting their error.
07/29/09