EA to Host Panel on Homophobia in Gaming

Anyone who games online knows that negative comments about gay people are all too common. Compounding the problem, even game companies who treat their GLBT employees well seem to be wrestling with the notion of how deal with the open expression of sexual orientation in games.

The good news is that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) plans to hold a panel discussion in homophobia in videogame culture on Saturday. EA will host the event, which is open to the public, at its Redwood HQ. Other noteworthy organizations which will participate are Microsoft, Second Life publisher Linden Labs, GayGamer.net and the ESA.

Shacknews reports on the agenda:

Topics will include "how to provide safe spaces for LGBT people online, how to ensure the best policies are in place to prevent virtual attacks against LGBT people and how to educate the users of online communities about the effects of homophobia.

The GLAAD website reports that the panel will be composed of:

  • Flynn DeMarco (Alias: Fruite Brute), Founder of GayGamer.net
  • Dan Hewitt, Senior Director of Communications & Industry Affairs for the ESA
  • Caryl Shaw, Senior Producer in the Maxis Studio
  • Cyn Skyberg, VP of Customer Relations at Linden Lab
  • Stephen Toulouse (Gamertag: stepto), Program Manager for Policy and Enforcement on Microsoft’s XBox LIVE
  • Moderator: Justin Cole, Director of Digital & Online Media, GLAAD
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

134 comments

  1. jedidethfreak says:

    You’re absolutely right here, but I honestly doubt that this would even be glanced at during this panel.  They are going to make this into an issue solely about gay people being oppressed.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  2. Baruch_S says:

    Personally, I think there are few if any true homophobes. The definition of homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals. Plenty of people disagree with the lifestyle and a small group (mainly the Westboro Baptists) actively hate homosexuals, but I doubt that these people are actually afraid of them. It’s just a word that is used to make any sort of disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle look irrational and silly.

    And I agree that people need to just get over it. Straight white males have dealt with this sort of crap for years, and you never hear us complain about it. If we can suck it up and deal with it, I think everyone else can, too. That is, after all, equal treatment.

  3. jedidethfreak says:

    If "That’s so Christian" actually became a nationaly recognized insult to Christian people, nobody would care, because Christians are the only people who have done anything wrong in the world.  Just ask all the PC people.  They’ll tell you.  Because of them, teen pregnancy is on the rise.  Because of them, Radical Muslims are killing people.  Because of them, gay people can’t say they’re gay to anyone.

    Oh, wait, regardless of cause, only one of those three things is actually true (the terrorist one, for the uninitiated).  Studies show teen pregnancy has been in decline over the last decade (most of 8 of those ten years under a Republican, Born-Again president) and, considering the fact that Microsoft is hosting a panel on homophobia in gaming, the third one can’t be true.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  4. jedidethfreak says:

    And this right here is the problem.  Homosexuality is a totally socially acceptable lifestyle across the country, if not in most civilized parts of the world.  True homophobia is nowhere near as rampant as people make it out to be.  It’s mostly centralized among rural Southern areas and the Western mountain ranges.  However, since me being insulted because I’m straight wouldn’t bother me, they have to make it bother them because, in actuality, the ones that are speaking up now are childish.  "Mommy, he called me a name!"  Apparently, nobody thinks "sticks and stones" anymore.  Wait, straight white people do, but we have to.  Nobody’s going to protect us and pass laws for us saying you can’t verbally attack us.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  5. State says:

    So what about the straight members who have surnames containing the word "gay" in them? And they use that as a username only to be told by Microsoft to change it because it is offensive. That’s one of the problems here.

  6. cpu64 says:

    I don’t think homophobia, online or offline, is the main problem here. The fact that the gay people must tell the whole world they’re gay is a much bigger problem.

    Freedom of speech about homosexualism is only free to members I guess..

  7. Baruch_S says:

    Unfortunately, political correctness says you can. We’re creating second-class citizens in order to avoid hurting the feelings of others.

  8. Lcpuche says:

    You dont like it, stop advertising your sexual preferences, seriously, I find it unnecessary

  9. State says:

    In the UK what Microsoft have done would be considered illegal as anyone being open about their homosexuality has been banned. Therefore they are discriminating against homosexuals (although it is probably a poor attempt in the first place to protect them) and not offering the same service to them. But Xbox Live isn’t just UK based and looking at it globally it’s bad for Microsoft because whilst they go on about being a company for equality they go around banning gay gamers. Their actions are in conflict with their typical company policy.

  10. chadachada321 says:

    Yeah, I find the commercials much more hypocritical and offensive than the actual words could ever be. Just because "gay" has garnerned another meaning doesn’t mean that use of "gay" fills BOTH meanings, context is what determines if it is meant to be or ought to be offensive.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  11. chadachada321 says:

    Uh…I completely agree with your post. I don’t know what the first two paragraphs has to do with the last two, but the last two I completely agree with. Business owners should be able to kick people out of their own property, absolutely.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  12. Nekowolf says:

    I’d say, if "That’s so black" or "That’s so christian" actually became real, and then the ensuing uproar, I would say- they should pull their heads out of their ass. And right, that is to those who are upset over "That’s so gay."

    Words are nothing without meaning or context. "That’s so gay" is NOT a homophobic or anti-gay context. It is a phrase, a series of words each with its own definitions, whether it be dictionary or slang. And even then, language changes. Language evolves.

    Now, I’m not saying you don’t have the right to be offended. By all means, be offended all you want. But you do not have the right, to dictate what I can say or cannot say, or what I should say or shouldn’t say. You do not have that right, no matter how fucking offended you are.

    But, in regards to me personally, you can ask politely. Now, I may not always, but I’ll try. For example, I had a friend who didn’t like me swearing that much, so she asked me politely. I try not to swear around her that much, but still do it, just at a lesser extent.

    And honestly, that is perhaps what pisses me off the most about those commercials- they demand. "-do you know what you are saying? Knock it off," or something to that extent. Yes, I do, I am saying something sucks, NO OTHER ULTERIOR MEANINGS. And no, I absolutely refuse to knock it off just because someone may be offended by it. However, also by asking me politely, do not expect me to never ever say it again, or at least around you. If I do, oh well, deal with it. Or if it really makes you that upset, leave.

    But that’s just me. And other people may not be so lenient. And I’d expect the same attitude towards anything you might say, about my person. I may get offended as all hell, but neither do I have the right, to dictate what you can say.

  13. halfcuban says:

    "If someone makes fun of you, don’t try and silence them, either make fun of them back or make them look like fools to everyone."

    That sounds like the social equivalent of mutally assured destruction, which seems like a resoundingly poor idea. The truth is both of your options would still "silence" the person, insomuch as social ostracization would either force them to be quiet or would make them think twice about stating their opinions.

    Freedom of speech does not mean you are guranteed an audience, which is what most people here seem to be arguing for. You do have a right to say what you want, but everyone else has a right to walk away, ignore you, or if you’re in a privately owned or operated space, they have the right to forbid you or kick you out, with a handful of exceptions. At one of my local bars, the owner kicked out two patrons after calling another patron a "faggot". Did the owner "silence" them? Yes. Did he violate their right to free speech? Not in the least. The moment they touched public pavement outside they could have stood outside all day long and decried the bar for allowing "faggots" in; but no one inside has to hear them, and they shouldn’t be forced to.

    People forget that an individual has a right to be left alone and to not be harassed. Let’s be honest here teenagers calling other teenagers faggots and homos on TF2 is not a goddamned rational argument on the right and wrong’s of homosexuality. It is verbal harassment, the sort that we wouldn’t tolerate in any other situation including the workplace, resteraunts, school, nor other common venues.

  14. questionmark1987 says:

    It’s hard to recognize that someone doesn’t think badly of you for who you are when they constantly use a term that describes who you are as a way to call something else bad, wrong, sad, or otherwise imply negativity about it.

    How much of an uproar would the entire country be in if someone said "That’s so black." or "That’s so christian." when talking about how wrong and bad something is, how it should be "fixed" (thinking in terms of broken or difficult things in games.).

    That would be a massive news story that a lot of people would be upset about I bet. And there would be more happening then a simple round table discussion over it.

  15. Phlopsy says:

    Oh goodie, host a panel. 

    That will fix everything.

    Why don’t you commission a blue ribbon committee while you’re at it, and then convene a task force? 

  16. Baruch_S says:

    Hold up, I think you misinterpretted my post. I fully agree with you and was trying to state in my post exactly what you said in this one. I don’t think anyone should be stopped from expressing their opinions or orientations. Homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to force their opposition into silence anymore than the opposition should be allowed to force the homosexuals to be silent. Both sides should be free to talk to, disagree with, and even insult each other.

  17. jccalhoun says:

    Yes you can say whatever you like — in public or in your own house. The First Amendment is about the government infringing on freedom of speech not companies. The first amendment doesn’t mean that Microsoft can’t kick someone off their service if the person is saying things that they explicitly say they don’t allow.  X-Box Live is not a free speech zone.  It is in essence Bill Gates’ house.  If Bill Gates doesn’t like what you say he has every right to kick you out of his house.  (that’s of course an over-simplification and Bill Gates is retired and since there is a contract between the user and MS there are certain requirements but that is a difference in degree not in kind. The basic consept still applies. 

     

    http://www.popularculturegaming.com

  18. State says:

    You assume too much. Where did I say that I wanted to state my sexuality? Where did I state that I wanted to supress your right to say that you were against homosexuality? I merely said that whilst you proclaimed your right to freedom of speech at the same time you wanted to surpress it from others (basically using your freedom of speech to say how you wanted it taken away from others). Your freedom of speech does not override someone else’s right to that too, you believe that you can say whatever you want but other’s can’t and try to use the freedom of speech argument to say why.

    So whilst you should be free to state your views, others should be free to state their sexuality if they so wish.

  19. Baruch_S says:

    If I proclaim my heterosexuality, people are welcome to try to make fun of me. Of course, they’ll also fail to bother me. I think straight people would be more amused by an attack on their sexuality than anything.

  20. Baruch_S says:

    Homophobia… its been taken, much like the word gay has, and changed to mean something else…

    This is also very true. Many people aren’t homophobic, they simply don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle for one reason or another. However, calling them homophobes makes them all sound crazy and makes their side look bad. If people hear the term over and over, they’ll eventually start to associate all people who disagree with homosexuality with crazy, irrational fear.

  21. Baruch_S says:

    Exactly! People seem to have trouble realizing that people against homosexuality have just as much right to speak their minds as homosexuals do. Their views may not be popular or politically correct, but they can still have and profess them. For some reason, our culture seems convinced that everyone should be forced into politically correct mouds so that everyone can pretend to get along and be happy.

  22. chadachada321 says:

    Eh, that’s gay that people would kill themselves over just their sexuality. =/ I’ve thought about suicide before (as has many people) but it’d suck to live in an area where sexuality is so sensitive that someone would consider suicide over just their sexuality. Luckily, the area I live in is incredibly lax about everything, incredibly tolerant to others. And I’ll be going to U of M soon, which is even MORE tolerant of everyone.

    (notice what I said? saying "that’s gay" isn’t just for things that annoy me, it’s also for sad things too. i truly am sympathetic and hopefully someone that is in a situation that you described will read this and understand that 99% of people that say "that’s gay" don’t mean any harm at all and will embrace their sexuality)

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  23. chadachada321 says:

    Agreed. Reminds me of something that I heard about South Park. It went something like, "the beauty of South Park is that they make fun of everybody. Equal discrimination." If someone makes fun of you, don’t try and silence them, either make fun of them back or make them look like fools to everyone.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  24. questionmark1987 says:

    Everyone seems to be missing the point. The reason saying "that’s gay" or using racist language or ANY kind of racial, gender, sexual orientation etc. slur is bad isn’t because the use itself is offensive though that is a valid point. The reason it’s bad is that you will always have at least ONE idiot in the group who really is crazy enough to go and HURT someone, in REAL LIFE and they get the idea it’s acceptable because everyone around them SEEMS to hate the minority group they hate as much as they do.

     

    WHen you say "that’s gay" you’re not really hurting anyone, but you ARE giving permission to anyone who hears you to hurt someone, and you’re doing it without even thinking about it or realizing it.

    Not to mention everytime you say it it makes someone who is gay and is struggling with being accepted that much likely to just give up. I mean think about it, how would it feel for everyone and everything to act as if you’re lower then everyone else, to hear people validating and defending that idea. At some point you just start to wonder what the point in being alive is if you’re going to have to deal with that forever. As a teen I nearly killed myself because I just didn’t ever think that I would be able to be open and honest with people close to me. I know now that I can choose what kind of people to have around me, and I’m very unforgiving. I don’t keep friends, acquaintances or anything else that treat gay as a put down term or a lesser kind of people. I don’t support businesses that frown on me being there because I’m gay. I also have a large body of friends and family and they all do the same. Suicide is very high among gay teens specificaly because things like saying "that’s gay" give them the perception that they can never be happy, and they think there’s no point to go on. THINK about how you affect other people. If you don’t care then you don’t deserve the time or consideration of others.

  25. Majutsukai says:

    I love how people complain about gay people "advertising their sexual preference" as if straight people don’t do exactly that, all the fucking time.

    Don’t believe me? How much backlash will a guy get for uttering the words "my boyfriend" compared to the words "my girlfriend"? Either way, he’s advertising his sexuality. The catch? One sexuality is okay to advertise, and the other isn’t. Guess which is which.

    That said, stricter regulations do not a solution make. If anything, it rubs salt in the wounds; it INCREASES anti-gay sentiment. (As all this complaining about gay people "hijacking words" proves.) If someone wants to call someone else a faggot, fucking let them– better to let the idiocy out into the open air where it can be mocked for what it is.

  26. Thomas says:

    Most homophobia in gaming is inact, like people have said, because of anonimity. But there is also another aspect to it.

    In real life.. nobody is allowed to be uncomfortable around homosexual people.. nobody is allowed to think badly of a gay person, because oh no.. homophobia!

    I hate that word.. Homophobia… its been taken, much like the word gay has, and changed to mean something else… a Phobia is an irrational fear of something. Now, people who do have a gut reaction that makes them dislike gay people, are labled with the same tag as someone who takes a bat to beat them up, even if they never act on it and have perfectly reasonable reasons. But I’m going off on a tangent…

    People online behave in ways they wouldn’t in real life… this is fact, and until this changes (and I hope it doesn’t) people will say dumb things. Build a bridge, and get over it.

    "We never paid any heed to the ancient prophecies… Like fools we clung to the old hatreds, and fought as we had for generations"

  27. jedidethfreak says:

    But the reverse is true in your case.  You want to be able to freely express your sexuality, but you want to suppress the free speech rights of people who don’t like gay people.  By you wanting this, you sound just as hypocritical as the person you responded to.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  28. DarkSaber says:

    More fool you then.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  29. thefremen says:

    I need to remember to stop reading comments on stories when I know those comments are going to destroy any faith I had in humanity. I can always follow that rule on Youtube but for some reason I think Gabe’s Internet Fuckwad Theory doesn’t apply on GP. 

  30. State says:

    But isn’t it free speech to openly state your sexuality? By you wanting them banned you’re sounding hypocritical because whilst you want free speech for yourself you don’t allow others that liberty.

  31. Neo_DrKefka says:

    Microsoft can meet and decide to ban people due to their word usage but face it, your going to ban a good percentage of the population and have them go to another machine. I don’t like homosexuals, that is my right as an American. You don’t like that, whatever go ask your President to force a law through breaking Free Speech laws.

     

  32. jedidethfreak says:

    Classic, Snipzor.  Instead of actually arguing the point he’s trying to make, you just attack his religion.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  33. Baruch_S says:

    Extremist statements? So advocating the right to proclaim unpopular views is extremist? I thought that we had that right covered in the First Ammendment, but I guess freedom of speech for religious people with unpopular views is extremism. Please tell me where you get thse Constitutional updates; I’d like to know which freedom is going to get stolen away from me next.

    I wouldn’t say anyone should buy everything in this video–it’s obviously coming from one side–but many of these incidents are hard to ignore or spin in a positive way unless you actively hate Christians. That minister in Canada who was convicted for saying that homosexuality is a sin is a great example of the government throwing around its weight to try to forcibly change the beliefs of a group because another group finds them offensive. If advocating equal freedom of speech for Christians (and all other groups) is extremist, I’ll gladly take the title. I’d rather be a fair extremist than someone who buys into everything the media and government tells him.

    If you see maturely holding opposing views and proclaiming them in as non-volatile a way as possible as something that should be illegal, congrats on your fascist viewpoint. This sort of thinking smack of Orwellian Thought Police. I certainly hope people like you never end up running this country because I don’t like the idea of having the Thought Police telling me what I can’t believe and throwing me in jail when I disagree. Enjoy your distopia; you probably won’t see what’s going on until it’s too late.

    I don’t support the idea of America as a Christian nation ruled by Christian laws. We have freedom of religion; we can’t have a nation ruled by one religion or belief system. However, I believe that we shouldn’t be ruled by any beliefs. Why, then, do we let homosexuals get by with these actions while Christians are silenced and arrested for the same actions? You can’t deny the inherent unlawfulness of refusing to allow Christians to peacefully state their beliefs about homosexuality (or maybe you can; if so, I’m not sure how you call yourself "tolerant" or "fair"). It goes against the basic freedoms given every person in the Constitution when Christians are silenced while homosexuals are allowed to spread their views without any restraints just as it would violate the Constitution to allow Christians to state their views while stifling homosexuals. The rule goes both ways; you can’t deny one group a right while allowing it to another without violating the basic premise of equality that is supposed to pervade our Constitution and laws.

    EDIT: in hindsight, that last paragraph was unneccessary. I don’t need to resort to insults to show everyone else that your views are being parroted straight from the media and the far left (although you seem incapable of actually countering my views and instead devolve to name-calling and insults. Why do you think that is? Did it ever occur to you that you might not have anything supporting you but are going on the lies the media and the far left want you to believe? Try reasoning through your beliefs from start to finish and see where you end up. If you can actually drop your ingrained bigotry against Christians, I think you’ll find that your views don’t logically add up). I think I can safely assume that the rest of the world is intelligent enough to realize that freedom of speech goes both ways and that one group shouldn’t be silenced by another who they disagree with. If they can’t realize this, they’re probably not worth talking to anyway.

     

  34. Snipzor says:

     Congrats, you’ve gone to actually support the extremist statements of a propaganda movie who’ve gone on to push legislation for recognition America as a Christian nation. Which is against freedom. I’d give you are round of applause, but then again you actually believe every word in this piece of propaganda. Well, at least now I have full knowledge of you being devoid of any intellectual content, now I don’t have to waste my time on someone who has already made up their mind.

  35. Baruch_S says:

    If I have a strawman, point it out. Otherwise we have a red herring on top of the rest of this dysfunctional, innane mess.

    If this is about discouraging speech that won’t benefit anyone, who decides what is beneficial and what isn’t? Everyone is going to be biased and more likely to discourage those against them while letting those who agree with them get by with more. I don’t think hate speech benefits anyone, but the logical problems that come along with trying to determine what is hate speech and silencing are enough to make me cringe away from the entire idea. As I’ve said, I’d prefer to deal with a few haters instead of seeing a forced facade of political correctness and love.

    I’m also not sure why you referenced the "Silencing Christians" video. If it’s the same video I’m watching, it’s actually saying stuff along the same lines that I’ve been saying. It’s not saying the Christians are unfairly legislating against homosexuals; it’s saying that homosexuals are pushing their agenda in such a way that they can use the law to silence Christians who disagree with them. How exactly does pointing out a video that says homosexuals have a monopoly on freedom of speech while Christians are frequently undermined and stifled aid your argument any (if you want a good example, listen to the story at 19:00)?

    Oh, and my pointing out that Christian groups are anti-gay is a factual statement.

    Being against homosexuality isn’t being anti-gay. You can disagree with the lifestyle without hating the people who practice it. Many Christians do it all the time. Just because you don’t like the idea that people can disagree with homosexuality and still be decent people doesn’t mean that plenty of people don’t do just that.

    I think you’re also mistaken if you think Christians have extreme clout in the creation of laws. Christians don’t have a lot of clout in laws anymore, and it’s waning even more as the years go by. Christians are already heavily restricted from any sort of display of religion in schools or government institutions, and they’re one of the few groups who can be discriminated against and denied their freedom of religion with little fear of reprisal. If a gay person slanders Christianity, you’ll never hear about it, but if a Christian says anything remotely un-approving of homosexuality, he gets ripped a new one and probably sued. You should try being part of such a group instead of believing the stories the media tells you; Christians have it a lot worse than you’re under the impression they do.

     

  36. Baruch_S says:

    Believe me, I’ve noticed. I figure that if I can keep baiting him along, he’ll eventually say something that completely and utterly discredits his view and will provide hilarity to the rest of the world. I realize that I’m arguing with a brick wall (who may or may not have been brainwashed by the mainstream liberal media), but I figure I can at least provide amusement to others while showing the absurdity of that view.

    EDIT: Anyone want to help me out here? Maybe we can convince him if he sees that multiple people believe the same basic thing (namely, that Christians and other groups who disagree with homosexuality have the right to do so under the First Ammendment).

  37. Snipzor says:

     Okay, before I do anything. You probably should not partake in a strawman while claiming I had done the same even though you had missed the point I had shown you.

    But anyways. I can’t understand why you would have no problem with open bigotry in society. Look at the key word in that sentence, "OPEN". This isn’t about silencing speech, this is about discouraging speech that doesn’t benefit anything. Quick question, how does this kind of hate speech benefit anyone? You’ve yet answered this simple question.

    Another thing to ask yourself. Who spends the most when it comes to stopping gay rights legislation? Conservative PACs and Christian groups. "Silencing Christians" is a movie that talks about exactly that.

    Oh, and my pointing out that Christian groups are anti-gay is a factual statement. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make me a bigot against an organization which has extreme clout in creation of laws. Ignorance against the ignorant is not ignorance, it is rationality.

  38. jedidethfreak says:

    He’s one of those intolerant people you are ranting about.  No point in trying to convince him otherwise.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  39. Baruch_S says:

    Murder and torture violate other basic human rights; don’t try to create a straw man by equating these abhorent practices with disagreement with homosexuality.

    What makes you think that hate speech will become socially acceptable? We’ve had the KKK and Neo-Nazis spouting stuff for decades; no one thinks their messages are acceptable. Homosexuals are receiving more acceptance now than ever. Public opinion will change on its own. Personally, I’d prefer to let it change over time instead of starting to censor anyone who has a disonant opinion by accusing them of hate speech. It happened in the civil rights era; there’s no reason why history shouldn’t repeat itself with gay rights now.

    You don’t seem to understand the inherently negative quality of censoring anyone. Nobody should be forced into silence, even if they have mean opinions that you don’t agree with. If we start doing that, we’re setting ourselves up for a society that forces political correctness upon all its people by destroying their freedom of speech. I’d prefer to see a few haters online to having an intolerant society posing as a paragon of love and happiness.

    And yes, the majority of Christian groups do partake in the hate.

    Yeah, and the majority of Muslims partake in terrorist activities. *eyeroll*

    For someone pushing for tolerance of homosexuals, you seem rather intolerant yourself. How many Christians have you talked to? How much of their theology do you know? Based on your one statement, you don’t sound very informed. Maybe you should try being learning about Christians before you start throwing around offensive and untrue stereotypes. Otherwise, the religious people are going to have to come together and get their own little anti-religophobia panel to figure out ways to block people who throw unfair and uninformed generalizations around. But you’d be all for that, wouldn’t you? After all, we should silence the mean people so everyone can live under the illusion of love and acceptance. Maybe you should try looking at things from another point of view; you might learn something and be less likely to advocate censorship so readily for problems that will go away on their own in 50 years.

     

  40. Snipzor says:

     So we should let the gay/lesbian community treat their detractors like shit by stifling their freedom of speech? Do you see the irony in this? The religious people and conservatives have as much right to voice their opinions as the homosexual community does. Just because brainwashed, politically-correct media whores (I’m not talking about homosexual here; I’m talking about other people [I have to specify so I don’t accused of being some sort of gay-hater]) don’t agree with them doesn’t give anyone the right to silence them. Silencing them also isn’t going to fix anything. If anything, it will make things worse because the detractors will resent the gay/lesbian community even more and will be that much more solidly set against them. Intolerance (if you can call holding opposing beliefs intolerance; not all Christians are part of the hatemongering Westboro Baptist Cult) is generally best solved with logic, not more intolerance.

    That’s misguided, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If freedom of your speech was defined by what you said, torture and murder would be fine because it is part of that person’s "freedom of speech". This is about preventing more hate from spreading around, or god forbid, that hate becoming socially acceptable. Oh wait, it is socially acceptable because people like you don’t want to remove people’s "freedom of speech". You don’t understand why public opinion is what it is. If the majority of the country thinks that hate speech is appropriate, then things will be worse. If the visibility of the hate is reserved for people like the Wesboro Baptist Church, then it will be an extremist public opinion, making it less socially acceptable. The less people see the hate, the less they will accept it.

    And yes, the majority of Christian groups do partake in the hate.

  41. Baruch_S says:

    I disagree. We don’t need to do anything to change the general opinion of homosexuality because it’s already changing. In 20 years, I think the level of anti-homosexuality that we’re talking about here will be uncommon and have about the same association that racism has for my generation. Nobody will be reminded that hate speech is wrong; they’ll be reminded that they can’t do it. If you want to teach them that it’s unacceptable, let them say what they want and then rip them apart (in a mature, logical way, of course). Society already looks like a place where bigotry is wrong, it’s just going to take a few years before we get that fully extended homosexuals now that we’re finally trying to give them equal rights.

  42. Monte says:

     "Bullshit. This will do nothing to improve public opinion because you’re not actually changing people’s minds. People will still hold the homophobic views, and they’ll still be propogated in the home and on every playground. "

    But they will be propagated less, and people will be constantly reminded that this kind of speech is wrong. The parents may try to pass their bigotry down to children, but the influence of a society that constantly says otherwise and seems to rarely speak of their parent views can influence children to think for themselves; hell that’s pretty much how children raised in religious homes can still become atheists (they learn alternate views and come to think its alright to have them)… limit the ability to spew bigotry and society will start looking like a place where that bigotry is wrong and those being raised in that society will often come to reflect society instead of the views of their parents… this is part of how you change public opinion over time

     

     

  43. Baruch_S says:

    If by priveleges, you mean the exact same resect everyone else gives to other people? Then yes.

    You must be on a different Internet than I am. Any time I advocate something that’s controversial or not politically correct (like saying homosexuals shouldn’t get special treatment) I get insulted and ripped into (by people saying my posts are stupid). There’s no respect on the Internet for views that aren’t mainstream, popular, or politically correct; there’s only flames and name-calling.

    Because religious people and conservatives are the ones that make up the majority when it comes to people enslaving others literally, and metaphorically? I don’t know, maybe it has to do with the fact that conservatives and religious were the ones who started treating gays and lesbians like shit.

    So we should let the gay/lesbian community treat their detractors like shit by stifling their freedom of speech? Do you see the irony in this? The religious people and conservatives have as much right to voice their opinions as the homosexual community does. Just because brainwashed, politically-correct media whores (I’m not talking about homosexual here; I’m talking about other people [I have to specify so I don’t accused of being some sort of gay-hater]) don’t agree with them doesn’t give anyone the right to silence them. Silencing them also isn’t going to fix anything. If anything, it will make things worse because the detractors will resent the gay/lesbian community even more and will be that much more solidly set against them. Intolerance (if you can call holding opposing beliefs intolerance; not all Christians are part of the hatemongering Westboro Baptist Cult) is generally best solved with logic, not more intolerance.

    The fact that it won’t be pronounced online as much is a good thing. That’s actually how you improve public opinion. Hate speech is dangerous because of the power it can have. The more class online communities have, the better.

    Bullshit. This will do nothing to improve public opinion because you’re not actually changing people’s minds. People will still hold the homophobic views, and they’ll still be propogated in the home and on every playground. If the gay/lesbian community wants respect, they’re going to have to earn it like any other group, and that will only happen as public opinion changes over time. Stifling diversity is never a good thing. People may not like having to deal with those who disagree with them–and some people may express their views in very immature ways–but silencing them for an illusion of peace is a more abhorrent thing than any immature flamer.

     

    By the way, please refrain from inferring stupidity in other people’s posts. You may not agree with it, but roundabout ad hominem attacks aren’t exactly legitimate methods of debate. If you disagree with me, disagree with me. There’s no need to get nasty; I think we can discuss this maturely without resorting to insulting each other’s intelligence.

  44. Snipzor says:

    This might take a while. The stupid in your post is strong, so I need to deal with it in increments.

    No, these people want priveleges.

    If by priveleges, you mean the exact same resect everyone else gives to other people? Then yes.

     Why should the gay/lesbian community get safe havens and special treatment when religious people, conservatives, and a host of other groups gets chewed up one side and down the other for saying something unpopular online?

    Because religious people and conservatives are the ones that make up the majority when it comes to people enslaving others literally, and metaphorically? I don’t know, maybe it has to do with the fact that conservatives and religious were the ones who started treating gays and lesbians like shit.

    They’re not going to get respect here, they’re just going to get special treatment so no one hurts their feelings.

    Said everything I had to say in response #2

    There’s still going to be as much homophobia as ever, it’s just not going to be as pronounced online. This won’t fix the problem; it’ll just cover it up with a pretty moderation banhammer-fest.

    The fact that it won’t be pronounced online as much is a good thing. That’s actually how you improve public opinion. Hate speech is dangerous because of the power it can have. The more class online communities have, the better.

  45. Baruch_S says:

    No, these people want priveleges. The rest of the unpopular groups on the Internet have figured out that you either don’t proclaim your controversial views or you deal with the flak you get for them. Why should the gay/lesbian community get safe havens and special treatment when religious people, conservatives, and a host of other groups gets chewed up one side and down the other for saying something unpopular online? They’re not going to get respect here, they’re just going to get special treatment so no one hurts their feelings. There’s still going to be as much homophobia as ever, it’s just not going to be as pronounced online. This won’t fix the problem; it’ll just cover it up with a pretty moderation banhammer-fest.

  46. jedidethfreak says:

    Making un-PC comments is something legally REQUIRED to be informed to future employers.  It is also something that can legally be used to prevent hiring of a prospective employee.  Thus, Political Correctness is defacto restriction on free speech and, I admit, a "tamer" form of blacklisting than what was used before.

    Doesn’t change that I can’t say what I like without having to worry about getting into trouble in a country that’s supposed to allow me to say what I like.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  47. Nekowolf says:

    I’m not. Nor are they actually blacklisted. Fired =/= blacklisted. If it’s a public figure, or if they reach the public’s attention? They’re not blacklisted, either.

    Shunned, yes. But NOT blacklisted, unless it’s by some organization. But the public is not an organization. And while at a job, they may keep it on their records on you, but it’s not something shared with other employers. While you can say those records are "blacklisting" that’s still something of a stretch. You can get other jobs elsewhere; it may suck, but you still have that option.

  48. jedidethfreak says:

    Trust me, they’re not homophobes.  They believe that gay people should shut up, considering that gay people who act like normal people are accepted in this world.  Also, they believe that this isn’t the time to be actively fighting the government over some false claim of equality, considering there is a horrible job market, the economy is in the toilet, crime is on the rise and terrorists want to destroy this country.  They believe that, after those problems are fixed, maybe we can talk about it, instead of outright demanding it and getting pissed at people for not believing it should be granted.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  49. jedidethfreak says:

    Just because blacklisting was arguably worse fifty years ago, it’s okay to blacklist people today for the same things (speaking their minds)?  Explain that.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  50. jedidethfreak says:

    Keep telling yourself that, if that’s what it takes to make yourself feel better about shoving your life choice down other people’s throats and expecting us to pass laws for you.  Meanwhile, my gay friends and I will play DnD, not caring what you think.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  51. Nekowolf says:

    Funny. Cause he’s BACK ON THE RADIO. Let us take a look.

    Today: Uh, the worst is, you could probably lose your job. While yes, that can be devastating, especially in today’s job market and failing economy, it’s still just that, unless you go out of your way to actually, do or incite something illegal, in which case you could face court. Because your are doingk, or inciting, something illegal.

    Let’s turn the clock back. Let’s go…Well, technically, there’s two events, but I’ll summarize as one: The Red Scare. The overpowering (and still presistent among certain groupings even now) of, *gasp!*, COMMUNISM!

    If you were blacklisted back then, you didn’t even NEED to be a Communist, just under the suspicion of being one. Or maybe you were Socialist (which does NOT mean you are Communist). You know what could have happened then? Harrassed. Arrest. Imprisoned. Deported. Some were even killed.

    It was WAY fucking worse to be blacklisted back then, then it is now.

  52. Snipzor says:

    I’m sure your "friends" have a good reason.

    But you don’t get it, I’m implying you made up said friends because for every person who opposes gay marriage, they can remedy it because they have a gay friend who believes in exactly what they say. Which is highly suspicious, and incredibly enough, complete bullshit. The only bigot in the situation here is the one who has to cover their ass by adding the token person.

    I don’t have to listen to what you say, because all of it (Yes, everything you have said here) is a lie and exaggeration.

  53. jccalhoun says:

    I have more than one gay friend, and none of them want gay marriage.  Does that make them homophobes too?

    It depends on the reason.  I have one gay acquaintance who opposes gay marriage because he thinks marraige is a bad thing and for gays to want to get married is in his opinion replicating the negative structures of heterosexuality. 

    I have another gay acquaintance who opposed gay marriage because he was homophobic.  Even though he self-identified as gay anything that even hinted of homosexuality freaked him out. We went to a gay bar once — the straightest gay bar I’ve ever seen — and he wouldn’t even use the restroom.

     

    http://www.popularculturegaming.com

  54. jedidethfreak says:

    I have three gay friends.  I think that they are really cool people (thus them being my friends) and the fact of the matter is they don’t believe that gays should get married.  So you believe that my friends first of all don’t exist, and if they did they aren’t "gay" enough for you.  That is biggotry my friend, and no, being gay doesn’t mean you aren’t able to be a biggot.

    Also, I suggest your BS meter be fixed, considering you’re trying to make judgement calls about people you’ve never met based on an idea you have about other people stemming from the fact that you’re unwilling to listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  55. Snipzor says:

     I’m a bigot against my own lifestyle. Yeah, remember recently when you called me a retard. What’s that old saying? "It’s like the pot calling the kettle black"?.

    I’m saying you don’t have any gay "friend" (Key word) because every conservative that doesn’t agree with gay rights, can just remedy that by having exactly "one gay friend" (Only one) that agree with your position, even though that has nothing to do what they might not have said (Because they don’t exist). You may think that description was a little specific, but understand, when you (I) spend a ton of time identifying bullshit for a living (For fun). Well, you (I) tend to be nuanced.

  56. jedidethfreak says:

    Well, I’m white and I don’t believe enslaving black people is okay.  Doesn’t that disagree with what you are saying?  I’m not rich, but I don’t believe the government should give me a paycheck for sitting on my ass on the backs of rich people.  By your argument I don’t exist because I’m going against my interest.

    You sir are a biggot for thinking that a gay person can’t have an opinion against gay marriage.  And you’re an idiot for thinking I don’t have gay friends.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  57. Snipzor says:

     So when it comes to perspective based opinions, different life history doesn’t play into it. God damn you are butthurt.

    But I’ve heard social conservatives say that all the time. Yeah, they have exactly ONE gay friend, who believes in anti-gay legislation. I cry "bullshit", to you and the other 30 people who have told me in person exactly that (Not counting the internet personalities). The idea that a gay man or woman would go against their interest is a step above the "People chose to be gay" claim. Reminds me of a David Cross joke.

  58. jedidethfreak says:

    Careers are ruined because of un-PC comments.  Don Imus for example.  Being in any position of power and saying anything not PC will get your life ruined.  That’s the way it is.  You just think it’s okay because it’s happening to straight white people.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  59. jedidethfreak says:

    "I believe that a Latina woman would come to a better conclusion than an old White man."

    Yeah, that’s not activist at all.

    I also like how you totally sidestep my actual question of whether or not a gay person who doesn’t believe that gays should be allowed to marry is a homophobe.  Way to be a douchebag by claiming to know me.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  60. Neeneko says:

    The two blacklists are not even remotely the same.

    Saying something mildly un-PC will get you some nasty looks and a little flaming.  And then a bunch of like minded people come to support and bail you out.  You have to say/do something pretty significant or be someone pretty significant for it to even vaugly effect you and even then you still get an outpouring of support from others.

    Have you ever known someone who was actually blacklisted?  Your life is destroyed in the process.  No one comes to help since they don’t want to be destroyed too.   

  61. Snipzor says:

     "I have more than one gay friend, and none of them want gay marriage.  Does that make them homophobes too?"

    That makes you a liar, because your gay friend doesn’t exist. Just like how all those republican "black friend"’s don’t exist. In case you are wondering, yes, I am blasting you for being a deceitful human being, and for the last time, there’s no thing as activist judges. Only judges you don’t agree with.

  62. jedidethfreak says:

    "I’ll take today’s whiney PC to ‘if I talk about this I might get blacklisted at best and lynched at worst’ any day."

    This statement just proves how hypocritical you are, because PC does the "blacklisted at best" happens to people who speak their mind, much less people who are actually homophobic.  Like me, saying that I believe gay marriage should be decided by a vote of the people of each state vs. activist Supreme Court justices.  The first time I said that on GP, I was blasted as being a homophobe.  I have more than one gay friend, and none of them want gay marriage.  Does that make them homophobes too?

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  63. Neeneko says:

    Society is getting to a point where we are all sorted into just 2 groups- opressors or the opressed

    This is no differnt in the past.

    What has changed is that groups that are being treated poorly are more likly to get empathy and support from larger groups AND the barrier to show displeasure has decreased.  In the past the oppressed just stayed quiet until it got bad enough for violent retaliation.  This public discourse has provided a valuable safty valve on these issues.  It no longer takes a riot or death to get a group’s issues on the table.  Sure this means more groups are talking, but shutting them up does not actually solve any problems.

    The past was MUCH better at hiding problems.  But a lot of people were misserable (treated like crap) and had no path to doing anything about it.  I’ll take today’s whiney PC to ‘if I talk about this I might get blacklisted at best and lynched at worst’ any day.

  64. lumi says:

    "That said, I personally don’t want to play XBL, WOW, or anything else with redneck 12 year old gay-haters.  I’m all in favor of expanding filtering and rating features to allow those little shits to be weeded out."

    This.

  65. Baruch_S says:

    Unfortunately, it is. I think homosexuals should have equal rights. They should not have special rights. However, for some reason I get accused of being a homophobe or a racist if I push equality instead of special treatment.

  66. Snipzor says:

     You mean the fraction of the parade itself? And not the majority of the parade that acts like any other parade which includes honouring groups and services, and music? Have you ever been a mile away from a festival?

  67. jedidethfreak says:

    That’s the same type of things that gay people are going for in the US.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  68. jedidethfreak says:

    No, the people who distance themselves from gay pride parades don’t want to be associated with people acting like douchebags.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  69. Baruch_S says:

    What they want are the rights to follow their beliefs in the same everyone else can follow theirs. Honestly, why shouldn’t we extend them the right to marry someone of the same gender? It’s not going to hurt anyone else if two gay men get married. They should be able to follow their beliefs just like anyone else.

    I would, however, draw the line at that UK situation. They shouldn’t get special treatment by making companies hire a minimum number of gay people or anything like that. They should get equal treatment. If they’re qualified, they should get the job. This is also why I’m against things such as Affirmative Action: nobody should get special treatment because of their race/gender/beliefs/sexual orientation. If these groups want to be equal, they should start by getting where they want to be like everyone else: through their own hard work and merit.

  70. State says:

    Currently gay people have the same rights as heterosexual people, to my knowledge the law doesn’t stipulate sexuality. Gay people have exactly the same marriage rights as straight people, as in everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex ("love" is not defined in the laws of marriage) and a gay man is allowed to marry a lesbian (many of you will claim that they wouldn’t do this, but the fact is that gay people are not banned from being able to marry), the question is whether to extend the marriage rights for everyone so that anyone can marry a person of the same sex.

    Gay equality is somewhat different to gay rights, gay equality is about being treated equally, gay rights is also about extra protection and extra laws exclusively for gay people. Gay rights in the UK is about pushing for companies to have quotas on the minimum about of gay people they have to employ etc.

  71. Baruch_S says:

    I’ll be honest here, I don’t know how people can justify being against gay rights. Homosexuals have just as much right to their rights as everyone else. You don’t have to agree with their lifestyle choice (in fact, I’d encourage people to continue to disagree with it instead of letting themselves being made into politically correct clones), but I don’t see how anyone can justify denying people rights just because they hold different beliefs.

  72. State says:

    GayGamer.net to my knowledge focuses on gay issues within gaming, gamepolitics.com focuses on the political issues within gaming. It’s debatable whether gay guilds need to exist as sexuality does not have an affect over the actual gameplay, but I suppose they serve the purpose of playing in an environment where homophobia isn’t present.

    There seems to be a misconception here that if you tolerate gay people then that must mean that you support all gay rights, and that if you don’t suppose all gay rights you have to be against tolerance full stop. People should be tolerant of gay people, but they should also have the freedom to be either for or against gay rights.

  73. Baruch_S says:

    I am a white male. (Which, I have come to understand, means that I am Evil )

    Yeah, we’re both screwed. White males are the only group that can be universally discriminated against without any fear of negative consequences. Add another descriptor like "Christian" or "conservative," and you’re lucky that US law still applies to you else you’d likely be shot on sight.

    I also agree that we need to stop making such a damn big deal about race/religion/sexual orientation/gender. Honestly, who cares? If people would just shut up and quit dragging those differences out into the spotlight, we’d probably have a highly tolerant society within 50 years. Of course we’d still have people like the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Cult, but they’d be so small and look so ridiculous that no one would care. But I guess it’s more fun to bitch and moan about stuff now instead of just letting it be inconsequential so everyone forgets about it.

  74. jedidethfreak says:

    Your post reminds me of an episode of Carlos Mencia.  He commented on how white men have no freedom of speech.  To prove his point, he challenged anyone to be okay with someone with a bumper sticker that said "I’m White And I’m Proud."  Even white people would think he’s a skinhead.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  75. jedidethfreak says:

    Doing it as an act of defiance is still doing it.  Other than this, you’re probably right.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  76. GoodRobotUs says:

    I think it’s an act of defiance to be honest. I don’t agree with every strategy used to get acceptance for Homosexuals, certainly, I understand the motivation behind ‘Gay Pride’ festivals, but also think that they may not be the best way of approaching acceptance, by deliberately distancing yourself from people who aren’t gay, I think it’d be much better to walk down the street dressed in work clothes, suits, labcoats, overalls etc, holding a placard that says something like ‘Do we look Gay?’

    I think middle ground has to be found, in an ideal world, GayGamer.net would be ‘Gamer.net’, since that’s the part that everyone has in common, and wouldn’t single itself over the part that is different, but, as the behaviour of kids on XBox prove, neither side is innocent of that.

  77. GoodRobotUs says:

    Minorities are equally capable of being small minded idiots as majorities, this much is certain.

    However, it would be interesting to see how many Gays are actually the type who think that their sexuality is the most important thing about them? I think if you took out the ones who do it as an act of defiance to Homophobes, you’d probably find there are no higher percentage of ‘in your face’ gays than there is, for example, the percentage of Texans who live in an armor-plated shed surrounded by guns, which, despite that particular stereotype, is surprisingly low.

     

  78. Im_not_Herbert says:

    In theory, that all sounds great.

    So, why then do they need a gay gamer website?  Why do they need gay guilds?  Or black, or latino, or whatever?  Why the need to publicly announce and be identified by that single aspect of themselves?  Why then cry foul if someone actually *does* relate to them as such?  You have to accept that if one goes to lenghts to identify themselves by that particular aspect, then that is what others are going to focus on.  And if you pose that question, you are instantly labeled homophobic/racist ect… you are forced to accept anything and everything about them and if you dont, that one aspect is drawn upon in order to throw a derogitory label on those who disagree with them about *anything*.

    I am a white male. (Which, I have come to understand, means that I am Evil )  Whatever.  Generally, I don’t give a flip what color/race/sexual orientation some else is.  It is simply irrelevant.  It only ever becomes a question when I see them lining up to join the Gay Mans Guiild, and I know that if I ever wanted to join a White Mans Guild, people would assume every wicked, disgusting thing about me that they could imagine- and could then freely label me as such with the blessings of society at large.

    One cannot be considered "equal" until one stops deliberatley segregating onesself from the rest of humanity on *any* basis.

     

     

    Your Yak is Weak!

  79. jedidethfreak says:

    For every gay person to whom being gay is not a priority, there is at least one person who has to make being gay the only thing that matters.  These people are the ones who scream that being called gay is offensive, but support an openly gay blogger who calls another person a faggot because he didn’t like him.

    The fact of the matter is no ethnic or sexual group has any moral superiority over any other.  In America today we assume that a supposedly oppressed people are somehow more moral than anyone else.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  80. GoodRobotUs says:

    ‘The Majority’ were in favour of Slavery once…

    I play in a band with two musicians who also happen to be homosexuals, yes, amazing as it may sound, they are musicians first, and their sexual orientation is a long way down the list as to things that are relevant.

    It always amazes me how people see the word ‘Homosexual’ and it manages to blot out absolutely every other trait, skill or ability the person has, as though their sexuality is so important that anything they have done with their lives, anything they have achieved is totally irrelevant next to it.

    Now, part of the reason we will never get rid of Homophobia is because of people like you, who think that because lots of people are homophobic, it’s ok to be homophobic yourself, because ‘everyone else is doing it’

    Get some originality about yourself, actually look about, and instead of seeing ‘Gays’, see Doctors, Scientists, Physicists, Astronomers, Astronauts, Artists, Musicians, Tatooists, Steel Metal workers (Everybody dance now!) and a whole host of other human beings.

  81. Neo_DrKefka says:

    Well, I guess I am with the mass majority then.

    I bet if you forced everyone who posts here to say they support homosexuality or be banned a good number of the users would be banned from the site. Same with Xbox Live

  82. Wormdundee says:

    If you are referring to homosexuality then…grarg.man, seriously. The way you conduct yourself online has made me think you are the posterboy for intolerance and bigotry.

    You are a blight on society. 

  83. Baruch_S says:

    Xbox Live itself is one huge problem with immature kids yelling offensive names at each other. I don’t think we need special protection for the homosexual community so much as we just need better policing of the network as a whole.

  84. jccalhoun says:

    First off, don’t assume that this is about being "allowed" to speak his mind.  X-Box live and other online voice services are not free speech zones.  They are owned and operated by companies who have every right to dictate the rules (within certain limits prescribed to them by the government.)  I would imagine that if MS decided that mentioning the word "Sony" was a bannable offense then they could.

    Regarding the actual question "why should the other people have to change?" Well they don’t have to but no one should have to just put up with harrasment regardless of the reason for it.  If you want to debate a subject fine but when you devolve to name-calling then they shouldn’t just have to "get a thicker skin."  It isn’t as if the only time "gay" or "fag" is used online is after someone mentions that they are homosexual.  It is used all the time regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.  No one should have to put up with being called names — especially when it is like xbox live when you pay for the service.

     

    http://www.popularculturegaming.com

  85. Baruch_S says:

    Let me counter your question with another question: why should the other people have to change? You’re arbitrarily deciding who should and should not be allowed to speak his mind.

  86. jccalhoun says:

    While there are some situations of people on xbox live with names like "gaymer" being harrassed online that is the exception.  People use "gay" in a neggative way all the time even if the opponent doesn’t say anything about sexual prefernce.  People call other people "fag" when they are mad at the other person.  

    Most of the time someone is online playing and then the opponent starts calling them names.  Why should the person have to just accept it? 

     

     

    http://www.popularculturegaming.com

  87. chadachada321 says:

    A larger problem is that a girl got BANNED simply for having in her profile that she was a lesbian. Being made fun of is fine if you advertise it, but to be banned for it is just wrong. I think that anyone should be able to put their sexuality on their profile like they can on myspace or facebook profiles without threat of banning. As for being made fun of…shit sucks, that’s a social issue that will take a lot longer to fix but isn’t as easy to fix as the immediate problem.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  88. Adrian Lopez says:

    "Why is this such a big deal? EIther grow a thicker skin or quit advertising your sexual preference."

    So what you’re saying is… stay in the closet or quit complaining?

    These people want respect. Hiding to avoid being insulted is no substitute for the respect they seek.

  89. jedidethfreak says:

    The problem is not only that what you suggest actually makes sense, but also it doesn’t give people that think they deserve something what they think they deserve.  These people don’t like that if they call me straight, I don’t get offended, whereas if I call them gay for whatever reason, it’s an insult.  Therefore, they believe they deserve some sort of reparations because they can’t insult me in kind, because their words hold no actual power in this particular case.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  90. Baruch_S says:

    Why is this such a big deal? EIther grow a thicker skin or quit advertising your sexual preference. The Internet is highly intolerant of many groups (homosexuals, religious people, conservatives); if you belong to one of these groups and don’t want to be targetted, don’t advertise.

    I know somebody is probably going to call me intolerant or say that I’m ignoring the problem, but if all these other unpopular groups can deal with or avoid the flak they get on the Internet, the gay and lesbian community can too.

  91. chadachada321 says:

    Agreed 105%

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  92. Baruch_S says:

    I would agree with you here. People shouldn’t be banned for being homosexual, religious, or anything else that might be controversial; they should be allowed to express their views/orientations if they so choose. However, if they want to do that, they’re going to have to deal with the crap they get. When you put yourself out there, people are going to disagree with you, and some of them are going to be nasty. If people aren’t capable of dealing with those nasty people and their comments, they should avoid posting views that they know will set such people off. Things will probably get better with time, and that’s really the only way to fix the problem. We can’t do anything to force tolerance; any attempt to do so is just going to cover up the problem instead of fixing it.

  93. jedidethfreak says:

    No, it’s the court’s job to interpret the law.  Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, or in any State constituion, is it written that minorities deserve special protection.  Do you know why?  Because it would create an unfair advantage for some.  The Constitution explicitly states that "All Men are Created Equal."  By giving minorities some sort of advantage, the Supreme Court would be expressly violating the Constitution, which is the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  94. Tacticus says:

    When the conservatives blatantly lied to the people voting in the issue?

     

    Also IT’S THE FUCKING JOB of the courts to protect the minority because you generally don’t get the majority voting to stop the persecution

  95. Neo_DrKefka says:

    It’s the mass majority of people again the most Liberal Commie state in the union voted to ban Gay marriage which overturned the Supreme Court decision.

  96. chadachada321 says:

    "A lot of the youth have replaced "fun" with "shooting video games." This isn’t a good thing, and it slowly trains these young idiots to accciate "shooting" with "fun." But then again, I don’t think their taunts are intentionally homicidal.

    Sorry, but I call complete bullshit on most of point number 2. I say "that’s gay" while gaming or with friends, and I have absolutely no problems with gay people, I support gay marriage, and have 2 gay friends and several bisexual friends (then again, even saying that "i have a gay friend" means nothing over the internet, but I can definitely prove it if you want me to). There shouldn’t be efforts to stop the use of the word, there should be efforts to stop derogatory remarks towards homosexuals. Gay now has an alternate meaning. Gay means as such: "happy," "homosexual," and "lame." Much like "boob" means "a dumb person" or "a breast."

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  97. Arell says:

    While I’m certain that there’s a fair ammount of legitimate bigotry being conveyed online, I think there’s at least two other forms of discrimination against homosexuality that isn’t "hate based":

    1.  Overreaction.  I seriously don’t think Blizzard or Microsoft hate gay people.  Yet they’ve managed to screw them over in the past by banning homosexual guilds and erasing names that have "gay" in them.  These online companies are probably so on edge about getting called racist for allowing gamers to say homophobic things with their service, that they just jumpped the gun and banned actual gays without thinking.  That doesn’t make it right, but we have to at least understand where they’re coming from.

    2.  A lot of the youth have replaced "lame" with "gay."  As in, "that’s so gay!"  This isn’t a good thing, and it slowly trains these young idiots to accociate "gay" with "bad."  But again, I don’t think their taunts are intentionally homophobic.  Often when they say these derogatory remarks over voicechat, they’re probably not even thinking about homosexuality.  Still doesn’t make it right, but realizing the real source of these terms helps to direct efforts to stop them.

  98. chadachada321 says:

    Thank you. Language is becoming more relaxed and tolerant of things, and seems to care more about context rather than face meaning.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  99. Tom says:

    In many ways this is an example of the Greater Internet Fucktard theory.  The problem isn’t that there’s homophobia in gaming, the problem is that given a sense of anonymity and a lack of repercussions people feel comfortable being the bigot that they truly are.  Again, the issue is much deeper then "homophobia in games," it’s more like, "gaming as an outlet for homophobia in society."

    The common usage of "that’s gay" to denote something that’s bad is an example of the passive aggressive gay-bashing that is an undercurrent in our generally sexually conservative society but it’s also, and this is important to remember, a natural development in the organic growth of a language.  For example, I say, "oh man, that’s so gay" when something bad happens but I harbor absolutely no ill will towards gay people or concerns about my sexuality – the phrase has just become a part of our lexicon.

  100. chadachada321 says:

    Um…I would have no problem with people saying "that’s straight" or "that’s white" to mean something that was bad/annoying. Nice try though. Context means everything, and as long as I understood that the person stating it wasn’t make a purposeful jab at my gender/race, I wouldn’t care. "That’s gay" is used enough in general language as a non-prejudice statement that anyone that finds it prejudice is hilarious to me.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  101. chadachada321 says:

    Thanks for defending me while I was gone, lol. I only use it in casual settings (when gaming or with friends) because it is most definitely tasteless in more formal settings.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  102. MechaTama31 says:

    No.  Nonono.  See, you need to accept that context matters.  If I say "fuck you", does that mean I am discriminating against people who have sex?  Of course not.  Calling something gay to mean that it sucks/is bad/whatever may be tasteless, but it is hardly sufficient in and of itself to be called homophobia.  A more similar example is calling something retarded.  I doubt anybody who does so does it with any sort of malice towards the mentally challenged.  In the sense they mean it, it has become divorced from its "original" meaning.  I put "original" in quotes because retarded didn’t actually mean mentally challenged at first, it just meant slowed.  Sort of like gay, in fact.  Gay didn’t mean homosexual at first, it meant happy.

    I guess what I’m saying is, just because a word is emotionally charged for you, doesn’t mean it is for everyone.  You need to look at what they are actually saying to see if it is a homophobic sentiment.  The mere use of the word "gay" is not enough.

    And personally, I don’t use gay or retarded in the pejorative sense.  As I said, I think it’s tasteless.  But I don’t think it’s necessarily homophobic.

  103. jedidethfreak says:

    Ask black people.  They supposedly reclaimed the N-word.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  104. Stealthguy says:

    And how exactly does one go about reclaiming a word or two because one is sick of how it’s being used?

  105. DarkSaber says:

    I think it’s about time we reclaimed the words ‘gay’ and ‘queer’ from people who like the same gender. It never used to be referring to them, so lets have them back if they don’t want them.

    I mean what next? We can’t use the word ‘straight’ to mean ‘on the level’ because it can imply that if you aren’t straight (as in, you are gay) you’re not on the level?

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  106. chadachada321 says:

    Lol, I never understood back when I played Runescape when males would give free items to female characters. My friend has even convinced others to give him free stuff by having a female avatar and claiming to be a girl. Relationships belong in Reality, not on the internet with random avatars ^^

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  107. jedidethfreak says:

    It could possibly become that if homosexuals get their own servers to play on.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  108. State says:

    So everyone will leave because Microsoft would allow everyone to openly state their sexuality? So the majority is homophobic and will leave if they know Microsoft allow gay players on their network?

    I find it hard to believe that Xbox Live is the heterosexuals Vs the homosexuals and that there will only be one winner.

  109. DarkSaber says:

    What he said. Boy oh boy, what he said.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  110. Wormdundee says:

    There is a difference between homophobia/homosexual prejudice and saying "that’s gay."

    No. Nonono. How would you like it if society used your sexual preference as an alternate way of saying something was bad or annoying? This usage of the word rose out of homophobia and it’s ridiculous that you think it’s perfectly fine to use it in this way.

    Disregarding that fact though, I think it’s hilariously ironic that you take a jab at the ‘immature 12-year olds’ and then in the very next line assert your right to call something gay if you don’t like it. If you haven’t gotten over calling things gay by the time you’re 14 or so, then you sir, are the immature one.

  111. State says:

    I want a safe space for straight people like me too. With females. Preferably hot gaming females.

    Perhaps you should check out PS Home and be one of the many boys on there that surrounds any female avatar in the hope that this would lead to some sort of real life relationship.

    I would like to hear Microsoft’s opinion on this issue as they seem to be the ones who have done the most to propagate homophobia, banning gay screen names, banning gay gamers at the request of other gamers. Surprised Lucasarts aren’t there too, what with their denial over the existence of homosexuality.

  112. chadachada321 says:

    While there definitely is mass homophobia on Xbox-live (by 12-year-old kids that think it’s cool to shout every obscenity in the book), I don’t want to be banned for saying "that’s gay" if I get spawn-killed or something. There is a difference between homophobia/homosexual prejudice and saying "that’s gay." The former shows severe intolerence and stupidity, while the latter is just a means of expressing anger at a stupid aspect of a game ^^

    O, and if there are safe spaces for lesbos, I want a safe space for straight people like me too. With females. Preferably hot gaming females.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  113. Wormdundee says:

    Your last 2 posts didn’t make sense grammatically or logically. At least attempt to write your rants in understandable english.

  114. Neo_DrKefka says:

    Some people rather lose money rather then trying to report correctly just look at NBC and GE you should of seen the pissed off people at the GE shareholder meeting.

     

  115. MaskedPixelante says:

    Good luck getting rid of homophobia on Xbox Live.

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  116. Neo_DrKefka says:

    I think these groups want to control how the mass majority think and react. Bottom line you go into an Xbox Live chat of game you admit your gay and your going to get pushed out.

    The most Liberal Commie State in the United States Califronia voted in a mass majority to ban gay marriage to overturn the courts.

    These companies can go ahead and appease gays but all your going to do is appease an minority and force the majority to go elsewhere and in an tense video game wars on sales that can make or break a game.

  117. xMrAx says:

     I sort of confused. Is this article talking about homophobia online with players or homophobia in the industry and games themselves.

  118. Snipzor says:

     Assignment as in "The male gender can only be defined along certain perameters". What makes the gender stylistically, not what gender.

  119. State says:

    Gender assignment? Eh?

    Not sure what you’re going on about but gender swapping is well known about within gaming with many people interested in why people choose opposite gender avatars.

  120. KayleL says:

    I find it odd how discrimination against gay people and Jewish is much worse then Black people, yet racism seems to get the most attention. Hell, discrimination against women gets more attention, and that is probably one of less common type of discrimination when compare to others (within first world countries. I am aware women are treated like crap in countries like India)

  121. Snipzor says:

     And what makes them so special that they need to be cotton-wrapped and given special treatment? They’re gay, big deal.

    That isn’t the problem, in fact, you are ignoring the real problem. The people that care that others are gay are the ones who spend their days trying to place gender assignments on other people. This isn’t just a gay/straight thing, that would be ignoring the problem. This is a gender problem that has moved to the gay/straight front.

    If you really think that bigots should be representative of online groups, then when can gaming groups ever be taken seriously?

  122. Zerodash says:

    Society is getting to a point where we are all sorted into just 2 groups- opressors or the opressed.  There seems to be a new designer victim group created every single day.  Just wait until the asexual rights groups gain steam.

    That said, I personally don’t want to play XBL, WOW, or anything else with redneck 12 year old gay-haters.  I’m all in favor of expanding filtering and rating features to allow those little shits to be weeded out.

  123. Bennett Beeny says:

    What makes them special is the fact that homophobia is virtually a pandemic online.  Gamers seem to be about the most gay-obsessed people on Earth.

  124. DarkSaber says:

    "Topics will include "how to provide safe spaces for LGBT people online"

    And what makes them so special that they need to be cotton-wrapped and given special treatment? They’re gay, big deal.

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  125. Bennett Beeny says:

    It’s not just teens.  In my experience homophobia seems to extend well into the twenties and thirties.

  126. Kabyk says:

    Generally, the "older" (relatively) gamers, 19,20,21+ aren’t all that bad when it comes to things like this. The trash talking usually degrades only down to skill and noob level, not all the way to the bottom where sexual orientation comes into question. Or at least less so than what is normally experienced on a game on Xbox LIVE. This is because the older crowd is dwarfed by the self-centered, spoiled, and generally homophobic tween and young teen boys (12-16).

    As long as they run rampant, nothing will change. You can educate and hold panels all you want, but the 13-yr old tea-bagging you in Halo 3 isn’t going to change.

Comments are closed.