On Gaymers and Cons Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 23 NEXT | |
Continue to prove my point by quoting the dictionary and providing no reasonable explanation for why this is segregation other than saying it is over and over again? Thank you. Please keep it up all day.
So if everyone says it (which they aren't) then it becomes fact? Good to know that reality works that way.
I can't believe you quote the dictionary then proceed to define it in your own words incorrectly. I mean the definition doesn't state anyone has to acknowledge any differences before the act of separating. Also no effort is being made to separate people by the con itself so it doesn't match the real definition or your poor interpretation.
In that you say it applies when it doesn't, yes I can see that. | |
The ignorant straight person is a straight person who says ignorant things. I've provided abbreviated examples in the post you quoted, but basically you can take a look at most of what the "critics" (and I use that term loosely) of this con have been saying. The ignorant straight person is someone who hasn't made an effort to sympathise or understand what the LGBT community has gone through or continues to go through, and who thoughtlessly spews half-baked and ill-conceived criticisms of something that doesn't affect them, not even bothering to stop and listen to the people who are better informed than them on the matter in question. The ignorant straight person believes that they have a right for their opinion to be heard and considered, without even bothering to tone down the arrogance in their posts.
Yes, straight allies do exist and I value them greatly, but the straight ally makes a point to be respectful. They don't barge into a discussion spouting their disapproval and aggressively criticising the LGBT community. The straight ally understands that when it comes to LGBT issues, they're guests at another person's house, so to speak, and they should behave with respect and deference, precisely because they do not belong in the conversation. It's fine to say that you disagree with the ideas behind the con or that you're worried about the impact it may have on equality, but straight allies should approach the conversation with delicacy and respect. It's seriously not that hard. I'm a feminist ally, and I take the utmost care in my talks with feminists to make sure my demeanour comes off as respectful and grateful for their attention, because they have no obligation to indulge me or pay me any sort of attention. They do it out of politeness and the goodness of their hearts, so I consider it an honour I greatly appreciate.
In short? Dilution. Let me put it this way: every nation is a group of people that's more than just those of the same sexuality. In the US, what do we have to show for it? Gay rights are nowhere near acceptable. Why? Because we play nice and we do things the proper way and we take the high road. We don't beat up homophobes, we don't throw molotov cocktails to the houses of intolerant religious or right wing people, we try to get our laws passed in lawful, acceptable ways. We swallow all the rage, the injustice, the humiliation we endure, everything. When things get too rough, what's the worst thing we do? We kill ourselves. And what do we have to show for it? Slow, gruelling progress, where we have to fight for every damn inch, accompanied by the increase of hate crimes. So no, I'm sorry. Allies can support and help, but we need a safe place where we can get together and support each other, and where our voices can be heard instead of drowned by a cacophony of people who aren't part of our community, somewhere where our needs and wants matter, and aren't pushed away because we're a minority and nobody cares about us. The more straight people invade our safe spaces, the more alone and separated we are from each other, and the more drowned out we get. If straight people want to be our allies, they need to give us our space, and start acting like they are guests at our house, instead of stomping all over the place.
I don't mind discussing things with you, because you approach the subject respectfully (for what I've seen). My problem isn't with all straight people, it's with those who can't be bothered to be respectful with their criticism and can't even accept that maybe the LGBT community knows more about what it's like to be LGBT than them. | |
And yet gay marriage is still a contentious issue, and homosexuality is still very much taboo in certain religious circles. So the "fight" is most certainly not over. | |
As a bisexual, I think it's somewhat strange. I know a significant amount of gay/bi people and there's an (in my opinion) annoying tendency a lot of them have, to make absolutely sure that you know they're gay and that they're proud. ...kinda like what vegetarians do ;) I honestly feel that the attention the issue gets(in this case the comic is lashing out towards bigots) is worse than anyone asking questions about the con. Actually, this is something you(Rydell & Carter) do really often. You point at the obvious morons, sweep anyone aside that has an actual point and make some snarky and sarcastic remark on everyones' expense. Sarcasm really is a poor substitute for wit and you guys rely way too much on it. I really hope you read this, because I'd love to see the comic go in a more positive direction, one where you give people a bit more breathing room to actually debate and not split them up in groups shouting at each other. | |
Seeing as nearly all my homophobic friends aren't white I agree on some level. It's very easy to blame white people for being unambiguously hateful but it kinda ignores reality. Edit: Literally just did a headcount and all my homophobic friends are Asian. The only person in my life that is white and homophobic is my half brother. Now everyone here knows more about my social circle than they cared to. double edit: Might be unfair though since I grew up in Bremerton right next to Bangor. So a disproportionate amount of the people I have known in my life have been Asian. I'm sure if I was somewhere with a different demographic the majority in that region would be the one with homophobes. Basically its just a small % of a population and if the population is big in an area they'll seem like the predominantly less open minded group. | |
Yeah, it's weird. There wasn't anyone accusing them of "trying to segregate Christgamers from Atheistgamers." Maybe a few people found it weird, but there weren't several opposing comments on the first page alone. Perhaps it was their delivery - all goofy and playful... It assured (or fooled) those that "didn't see the need for a Gamechurch" that they were just fooling around, that it would be all about the games and the beer, bro, and that Jesus was just a mascot. Or people simply weren't weirded out by Christian gamers wanting to gather and discuss issues that pertain to both faith and games. I don't get why Gaymercon gets the opposite reaction. It's like, "What are you guys talking about there? Stop that! Gaming has nothing to do with LGBTQ issues. I don't care about your extensive list of panels, events and open forums; you come back to E3 immediately!" Geez. | |
I'll start off by saying that it's well written. I don't really agree with you, but your point comes across nicely. In these situations though, it's often that some people fight a little *too* hard for their rights and come off as self pitying or crusaders. I'll quote the con's webpage: "Educating and informing the gaming community of the presence and importance of sexuality and gender diversity in our digital lives and promoting acceptance and social change through bettering the gaming experience." Before that it states: "Gaymer X is open to all, whether you're bisexual, transgender, gay, asexual or an ally and we hope to make an experience that will be meaningful as well as educational and fascinating." Open to all. Except, y'know, the people who need to be informed about the situation. Non-related people are well within their rights to ask questions about this con. They should be respectful, of course, but there's no reason to show any special curtesy or treat us like victims. If we want to have a sober debate, we need to show that we're able to behave maturely, that we're PEOPLE like everyone else. Here in DK our LGBT organization doesn't self promote as weak or act as if we can't take care of ourselves in any way. They've just started to organize workshops for LGBTs in Tanzania where people get lifetime imprisonment for homosexuality. They promote tolerance and rights where there are NONE. In the last fifty years we've seen more progress than we have in several hundreds. That might be slow and grueling to you, but in the big picture we're doing pretty well. As for ignorant straight people... I think you're being too sensitive. I would rather take an ally that questions my actions and decisions bluntly, than have them walk on eggshells and be ultra sensitive to my "situation". Maybe we should coin the phrase "ignorant LGBT". People who think no one else has a hard time and that they can't relate to intolerance unless they're in a minority. | |
Just thought I'd pop in and have my say. I read a few of the comments back there, but not all of them (you understand, right? We all have better things to do than to read this whole damn thing.) I'm not here to debate or argue here, never was any good at that. The reason I'm excited for GaymerX is because there's a place for me to act and interact with like-minded people. I recently came out as pansexual September last year. My group of friends were supportive and didn't really draw much attention to the whole thing ( other than the common question of "what's a pansexual?") but when we hung out later on, the way they'd react to things made me a bit uncomfortable, from calling things gay or faggy, to something as small as saying "ew" in reaction to the thought of a gay Shepard, to laughing when one of the characters in a show turns out to be gay (depending on the context, this last point is totally fine, but in this case, it wasn't). I don't really fault them for those latter reactions to things, but it makes me a tad uncomfortable. I'd like to go to a place where I can be comfortable with my sexuality, so I occasionally drop by an LGBT meetup in town. I'm also a gamer, so I head over to our video game themed bar, and go to conventions like pax and such. The idea of combining the two, especially with the video game industry which has some image issues concerning homophobia and all that, sounds like a ton of fun! Will I stop going to the other conventions? Of course not, PAX is awesome, but the idea of going to a convention that celebrates a hobby that has become a part of my life, and doesn't alienate in small ways the way some marketing and a portion of the general gaming demographic does, sounds like a blast. | |
Thanks. The thing is, at the end of the day, we're in it together and I still got your back even if I rabidly disagree with you. :P
You cannot educate people who don't want to be educated. Educating someone against their will, even with good intentions, is called brainwashing. We cannot force unreceptive straight people to listen to us.
Whenever someone has asked an honest question and not a rhetorical one meant to express disapproval or reproach at the idea, I've answered it to the best of my abilities. Nobody said anything about being treated like victims. You don't treat the owners of the house like a victim simply because you're expected to observe proper decorum while you're under someone else's roof, do you?
It's relative. Sure, we're better than we've been in the past, but we're still far from this utopia of equality some straight people seem to be convinced we live in.
And I would rather have an ally that lets me make my own decisions and doesn't demand that his opinion be heard on every little thing my friends and I want to do, and who doesn't try to educate me on what furthers or hinders equality. But I guess it's a matter of personal taste.
Cute. Adorable, even. Especially when I've posted about the kyriarchy on this thread over and over, repeatedly acknowledging that most of us are oppressed one way or another, and that most of us know what it means to be discriminated against. Plus I've said it a few times by know, privilege doesn't mean that your life is automatically good. However, the cold hard facts are that the LGBT community is the expert when it comes to knowing what being LGBT is. And that's something straight people aren't. Now I don't know about you, but when I;m having a discussion with my college professors, I make sure I keep in mind that they probably know a great deal more than I do on the subject, and that they deserve respect. | |
Can I just say that this is entirely too ridiculous that the thread has gone on for as long as it has? This entire discussion can boil down to the following: Gay gamers want their own little sandbox, so they made one. With their own money. Who on Earth are you to say they can't have it? When you boil it down like that it seems rather simple, doesn't it? If you don't like the idea of Gaymercon then don't go. But just because there exists a place on earth where you are not the target audience does not give you any rights over it. And if the outcomes of the discussion don't effect you, then you have NO PLACE in the discussion. End of story. Seriously this is getting ridiculous. This thread has over 460 replies and you wonder why we feel like we're sick of being controversial and want to be the normal ones for a change? Let me make an analogy. It's like if you have some siblings and between you and your siblings you own a toy. I'm your best friend from school and we often play with your toy, but sometimes your big brother is a massive jerk to me, and sometimes I just like to play with my brother instead so I buy myself a toy that's similar to your toy, but mine is a different colour that me and my little brother like more but you don't. I don't stop coming 'round to play with you, I just play with my little brother as well. Then you come 'round to my house and start getting offended by me owning my own toy. "I always let you play with mine! What's wrong with my toy?" you ask. And the answer is nothing. Nothing is wrong with your toy. The fact that you always let me borrow/play with your toy doesn't mean I can't have my own. And if I buy my own, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with yours. I might like the colour of mine better, or not want to play with your jerk of a brother. You're still my best friend, and we'll still hang out. Me having other friends and other toys doesn't mean I'm going to stop being your best friend, and I find it stupid that you think we're going to segregate myself in my room just because I spend some time there. This is a ridiculous argument to be having. Just let me have my toy. | |
Common ground IS nice, I agree and the bond across countries is hopefully one that'll stay strong.
That's not really my point. I agree, you can't teach those who don't want to learn, but non-allies and LGBT aren't all like that, obviously. This con should be a gate to non LGBT gamers who can meet us on common grounds, at least if the education part of it is sincere. It's a nice opportunity to engage others, but it seems very much like a closed event.
I'd expect a lot of dumb questions if I invited ignorant guests over, to teach them about my group. That's the point.
It's not relative, it's fact. Still, I can't blame some straight/"normal" people for being tired of hearing minorities whinge. There are definitely some people in our midst who don't know when to shut up and take a look at the bigger picture.
We all need eachother to grow. If we don't broaden our horizons with input, we can't learn or learn the sympathy that we want from others, assuming we don't just end up and congregate for ourselves. I'm not sure we're aligned on this point. Take your example on your feminist friends that you mentioned earlier, my impression is that you're way beyond respectful or maybe you're over describing your interaction with them. MY POINT is that I learn something new often, and that whenever I feel upset or agitated over something LGBT related, there's a friend to take me down a notch and remind me that I'm really not that bad off or that I'm being a bitch.
I can't comment on the state of kyriarchy, you're obviously more knowledgable on sociology than I am :) As for your final analogy, that really hits home on my point that our situation is not so special that we need to be treated with respect, just because we're part of a group, one that's(mostly) based on sexual orientation. ...besides, professors and teachers who treat their students as idiots, deserve no respect at all. No matter how knowledgable they are. | |
I'd like to link to something i read quite a while ago. http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/gamer_152/in-defence-of-gaymercon/30-95516/ Basically, LGBT cons are quite important for the development of the industry. The gaming industry focuses on the straight male so much. So much is set around sexual arousal and fantasies of straight males that other gamers are left out. Women often feel out of place with few characters to sympathize with and there are very few lgbt characters that are portrayed in a positive light. A LGBT convention shows the game industry that we exist and that there is a market to cater to outside the straight male. | |
If neutral cons aren't gay enough for gay people in the gaming community, I feel it is my right to demand for a straight con, because saying that neutral Cons are straight enough for us straight people is insensitive and discrimination. | |
Okay, let me state off the bat that I'm not against an LGBT kind of gamer convention if they want one. But why, when searching for equality would you chose to make a convention made for LGBT community? Sure, while there may be undertones of heterosexual-ness in them, they are certainly NOT just for heteros... Do I sound like a misinformed bigot? Probably, I've developed a thick skin. A few, or even a lot of you probably know I'm a disabled person. It doesn't affect my speech or my mind, but my walking is horrendous. I need a waking frame for long distances outside, and my walking gait without it is very obvious without it. I have been bullied for it, left out, called names, everything under the sun for it. How does this fit in? | |
Just wanted to say that out of everyone here I feel you've nailed the reality of the situation the best. So thanks for that. As for my own two cents, I'm in favour of specialised gaming cons since it offers both a different perspective on the medium and an opportunity for people to hang out with people whose interests are more aligned with their own. I very much understand the "why would they want to?" question because most people view sexuality as such an irrelevant and trivial issue that doesn't deserve the focus, as a "straight" game convention and a "gay" game convention would be identical in their eyes. I think the LGBT community should be ECSTATIC that this question is being asked so often, because it shows just how many people don't see this us-vs-them picture when it comes to sexuality. It reminds me of that episode of South Park where the town was debating on whether or not to change the flag, which depicted some white men hanging a black man. When the kids were asked about it they didn't understand why people found the flag so offensive, as death is a natural and common aspect of life. The issue of race didn't even occur to them. EDIT: It's like people are saying "Why would blacks even want a Negro league?" I also very much understand the want for such a con, as those "ignorant white teenagers" that don't think twice about someone's sexuality would obviously have thought very little about what it's like to be LGBT and in what ways the world is different for them. Like Smilomaniac said, THEY are the ones that need the education yet are ironically not part of this convention's target audience. But even if they're not sincere about education and just want to put on a good show that LGBT folks might enjoy more than a regular con, let them go nuts! | |
The purpose of the con is for LGBT gamers to have a place to meet. The education bit is a statement of intent, one that is secondary to providing the LGBT community a safe place to get together and talk about games. Everything you're saying is contemplated, and straight people are allowed to go and educate themselves, but it's not a primarily educative con. It's not about straight people and I frankly don't think it should be about straight people. Again, it's supposed to be about LGBT people having a gamer con, not about educating straight people. We already have programs and initiatives for that.
I have no problems with dumb questions. I have a problem with dumb questions wrapped in a package of arrogance and disrespect. I know about victim mentality and learned helplessness. I know it's a thing that happens. Even if I thought a fellow LGBT person was suffering from such a state, I would still support their decisions because they're mature adults who ought to be given freedom of choice first and foremost.
You misunderstand. When I say it's relative, I meant that there is no objective measurement that we can use to determine when we've progressed enough or reached the threshold of equality. I'm not denying our progress, I'm saying that we're not at the level a lot of straight people think we are. They think that just because we've progressed to a certain point, we should stop fighting and shut up because we're annoying them (while we, of course, get labelled as overreactive oversensitive activists for saying that they should shut up when they say something offensive). I mean, look at this whole thing: some LGBT people thought it would be a good idea to have their own con (which is something that, again, harms nobody, and they have every right to do if they feel like it), and straight people started being smarmy asses (as illustrated by the comic), and then everyone just exploded because they felt they had every right to be smarmy asses! There was genuine curiosity by some posters, yes, but this was started by the straight community reacting to something that didn't concern them, wasn't harming anybody, affected them in no way, and then getting pissy when this was pointed out.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. This learning that you speak of is not an imperative, it's a choice. We broaden our horizons because we want to, not because we must, and we do it on our own terms. This goes for straight people too and ties to what I said before. You cannot force education upon people. They have to want it, and you give it to them in their own terms. And like I said, when someone has asked genuine questions, I've done my best to answer. Some questions are rhetorical, though, and they're instead used to disparage, disapprove of, or insult snidely.
And what makes you think you're right and they're being unreasonable? Maybe it's my relativistic morality at work, but I live on the assumption that nobody's right or wrong. We all have our opinions and life philosophies, and we all believe in them with absolute fervour. I think that women (and especially feminists) know more about women issues than I do, and so they deserve to be treated like the authorities on the subject that they are. I don't think I am entitled to have an opinion on whether their view of feminism is skewed or not, because it's none of my business. I wouldn't want them to criticise me on my views on LGBT issues, so out of courtesy and the Golden Rule, I don't do that to them. Likewise, I keep my mouth shut on race issues, because I am quite aware of my own ignorance on the matter and I would rather keep my opinions to myself than inadvertently offend a person of colour with a thoughtless remark. Besides, I know my opinions on racial matters are irrelevant, so I am aware that keeping them to myself is no great loss.
And likewise, I already have the rest of the world to confront me on a daily basis and challenge my opinions, actions and decisions. A bobblehead nod-doll would be a welcome change.
Of the kyriarchy? I have a post on that: "The origin of kyriarchy comes from feminism, who started using the term 'patriarchy' to talk about how society has historically placed power on men and oppressed women. As issues of race, sexuality, class and the like began to rise in prominence, the feminists coined the term kyriarchy to define the system that connects all forms of society oppression. Kyriarchy is like the patriarchy in the sense that it's an institutionalised form of oppression, only instead of oppressing only women, the kyriarchy oppresses women, people of colour, LGBT people, the disabled, the lower classes and so on. Kyriarchy means "rule of the master", though a better definition would be, perhaps, "rule of dominance". The kyriarchy is a stroke of evil genius, if you think about it, because it not only keeps a large portion of the populace oppressed (much like in times of peasantry vs. aristocracy), but it also ensures that the oppressed keep oppressing each other, so that there isn't a single enemy they can unite against. Under the kyriarchy, a straight black man oppresses a gay white man, who oppresses a straight white woman, who oppresses a straight black woman, who oppresses a straight white man of lower class, who oppresses the straight black man from the beginning. It's an interlocking network of oppression who keeps us all fighting each other and preserving the status quo that only benefits a very small percentage of the population (the age-old aristocracy under another name)."
Everyone deserves respect, particularly in their area of expertise. I frankly disagree with you on your take on LGBT issues and the LGBT community. I would rather be a team player and stick to my people, regardless of how much I disagreed with them (case in point: I am not entirely convinced I support the con, but look at me fiercely defending it from straight people) because I'm not so self-centred as to think my individual views are more important than the problems of LGBT community. To me, it's more important to form a unified front and stand together than it is to squabble between ourselves. But I respect that you feel differently and I won't try to change your mind. I'm just explaining to you why I can't agree with you or see it your way. It's a moral thing. | |
Isn't it the Falun Gong that the Chinese are concerned about? | |
Not to be rude, but you seem to have a very solid "us-vs-them" mentality in the way you speak, and I think it's doing more harm to your cause than good. You can't separate yourself based on sexuality so much and then expect people to not do the same to you. | |
The gaming industry is clearly aiming at the straight white male audience. Just because gay people aren't barred entry doesn't meant mregular cons aren't straight white male cons.
This is pretty much why I keep saying that the LGBT community ought to stand together instead of letting our differences tear us apart. Your gay friend was a dick, I won't deny that. And your position of wanting to blend in is perfectly acceptable and justified, but the position of the people who want gaymercon is just as valid and justified. Nobody is forcing you to go, and nobody's even forcing you to support them, but their choice to stand out is just as valid as yours to blend in. Now I don't think you should change your mind or anything, but not everyone can or wants to or feels they should blend in. Just like they aren't saying that you should go to gaymercon if you don't want to, I don't think it's fair to expect people who don't want to blend in to do so.
I don't think you're wrong. You may well be right. I admit, I snap into paladin mode when I feel someone is oppressing a minority. I crusade, I do. But I am still absolutely against the idea that LGBT be told how to handle LGBT issues. I will do my best to try and be as diplomatic and civil about this as I possibly can, but the truth of the matter is that I'm completely convinced that LGBT people should be allowed to do whatever they feel is best without facing undue negativity from straight people who aren't affected at all by their actions. | |
I guess where we differ is that I don't agree with your stance on moral relativism. I'm an objectivist, and concern myself with discovering the objectively better (i.e. objectively less oppression in an objectively shorter time frame) option and encouraging people to pursue that. If a section of a community is acting in a way that appears to be hurting their cause I have no issues with bringing that to their attention. Maybe all they needed was that difference in perspective to be able to reassess their actions and come up with much more effective campaign. I think that's much more useful than standing back shouting "You go girl!" while they run themselves into the ground. | |
I can't speak for everyone in the LGBT community (I think this might be a polarising issue), but I would rather drive myself to the ground on my own, and due to decisions I made, than arriving to a better place because I followed someone else's instructions. I had this argument with classmates and coworkers in my field of work. I would much rather allow a patient to refuse treatment and watch them as they worsen or die, than to attempt to pressure/manipulate them or their families into accepting that treatment. For me, the principle of autonomy is absolute and supreme. All we take with us to our graves is the decisions we've made, and they're not fully your decisions if you blindly followed instructions. So like I said, I would rather support the LGBT community in a potentially bad decision (that doesn't contradict my morals) than to try and dissuade them simply because it's not what I would do in their place. | |
Fair enough, and again we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this issue. If you're willing to let a selfish sense of pride take precedence over real and tangible benefits that's your prerogative, but I honestly hope you DON'T speak for the entire community because I think you'd be a horrendous spokesperson. :P Also, I really don't think your doctor-patient analogy holds up, as affecting someone's body against their will is WILDLY different to suggesting a better alternative. I would say you have an obligation as a healthcare professional to educate the patient about different treatments and make strong, firm recommendations where possible. It's ridiculously irresponsible to just do whatever stupid quack treatment the ignorant patient read about on the internet. YOU are the doctor, YOU are responsible for their health, YOU have an obligation to do what it takes to heal them (excluding breaking the law, obviously). | |
I'm just curious... did anyone in these 14 pages mention the annoyance of being an LGBT gamer from the other end, i.e. how painfully ungeeky LGBT groups often are? I've tried to connect with the LGBT community in my area, and it's mostly about the bar/club scene. If you're older, disabled, and can't/don't drink, that's incredibly boring. I asked the bi women's group once if they had events, other than the meetup itself, that weren't bar-centric, and the conversation went like this: "You don't go to bars?" "No" "Well, what do you DO?" (in this kind of astonished/horrified tone) "Go to movies, discussion groups, once in a while a convention, and I play a lot of games" "Well, there must be *some* kind of science fiction nerd club or something for people like you" (said very dismissively) It comes down to a feeling that they're not really "my people"-- I'm not comfortable with them, sexual orientation is just not enough to have in common. But as a lot of other people mentioned, the casual homophobia at a regular gaming con is really off-putting (for me, the casual misogyny even more so). So I think it'd be awesome to have con space where everyone's geeky *and* you don't have to deal with the random homophobia. And don't count out the sexual element, a lot of people hook up at cons. A lot of people would find it a bonus to be able to flirt with someone without worrying whether they're going to be offended or openly disgusted (or, if you're a man, hit you) because you guessed wrong and they're straight. | |
I think what Jerram means is that the idea of there being a flat choice of 1. Be told what to do, or 2. Be left to your own devices, is a dangerous way of filtering potential advice. Without even considering the discussion in this topic, I certainly know if I was about to hurt myself and a student could tell me to stop because of concern I'd hear them out. Even if it turned out the concern they had was ignorant/irrelevant for whatever reason I'd certainly hear them out, simply out of mutual respect. This isn't to say you just lay down and let others trample you though, just to accept the possibility that those whom you believe you deserve respect from deserve some back. I consider myself an ally to the existance of this con, and to the ideas it represents and the steps forward it's trying to make. These are all positive things. And while I'd like to support you aswell, I can't do so knowing that there is little chance of mutual respect. I'm not of the idea that someone can be infallible, regardless on their 'areas of expertise'. I am most certainly for the idea of respect amongst peers, allies, friends and everywhere inbetween. However I'd find it to be of poor character if a friend felt the need to hold their tongue because they were afraid of offending me. | |
My question is, will I be able to go to such events even though I'm straight? or will I be shunned upon for such a visit? | |
Apparently you can go to a gaymer-con even if your straight. (Unless you just want to go there to yell at gay people for being gay, of course.) That's what it seems to set up as from what I'm reading anyway, but I don't know if they are all like that. From what I can tell it's set up like this; You like games? You gay, or okay with gay people....existing? If so, come to a Gaymer-Con if you feel like it. From that, I see no issue. >_< But it seems other people are still taking issue with that. :D Oh well. More fun for Gay people, and their straight buddies. :/ Wish I could go to ANY gamer-con at all. Maybe the next Escapist Expo. :) I NEED to go to one of those. | |
yeah...in a world where gay people can;t get married and people motivated by religion and even non-religous proplr still make like hard for them keep dreaming | |
Hmmm, well, I have to say I disagree with the point of this most recent strip. Not so much because it's gays, but because I've always opposed "reverse discrimination" and the justifications behind it. The basic arguement is that minorities need to do these kinds of things because of how much they feel like they stick out at general events (of whatever sort). In reality all it does is force division as opposed to assimilation, as well as promoting the idea that if your a minority your allowed to be exclusionary if nobody else can. Basically if you make a club and basically say "only white people can be members" that's racist and attacked, but if blacks do the same thing, that's not a problem. Basically saying that minorities effectively have special rights, simply based on their status, becoming in many respects an elite that doesn't have to follow the general rules. The arguements behind why this occurs are well known, but the bottom line is that the point of having laws, including anti-discrimination laws is for them to apply to everyone. You shouldn't selectively apply them for minorities forcing themselves into the majority, and then not apply them when a minority wants to force the majority out. It doesn't matter if your gay, hispanic, black, a follower of a specific religion, or whatever else. Some argue "I don't get it" but the thing is I do. Well intentioned or not, things like this actually hamper the overall objective of assimilating minorities into the mainstream. The idea is to stop mainstream rejection, but also to put an end to minority counter-culture that causes them to not fit in as well. Both ends being pushed together towards the middle so to speak. At any rate, my personal opinion about "gays" aside, my thought about this is pretty much the same thing as the attempts to have "Gay Games" as an alternative to the Olympics. It's a bad joke disguised as being socially relevent. It doesn't matter what group is doing it. See, to an extent the gays just created a situation where it's hard to justify why you can't have a straights only gamer convention, and tell gays to "go to your own con, when you have it". Unless your a dangerously naive pro-minority bigot, you can see why the laws and standards need to go both ways. If you support the group in question you should realize your best interests are to prevent stunts like this. - I'll also say I did find the Shaolin referance kind of amusing, it wasn't that long ago when I was basically argueing against the sanctity of churches in the US when it comes to legal searches and such due to a seperation of church and state. Meaning that I don't care if it's Baptist or a Mosque, the police should be able to treat it just like anywhere else (with the standards depending on whether it's publically accessible, or private, like many other businesses). The intent wasn't the same, but the bottom line is it made me think of "well, why do seperate religions all want special treatment", and how I was just argueing they might want it, but they shouldn't get it. That includes my own religion, I'm a Christian, but this isn't a Christian theocracy, and I have to hold the Catholics/Protestants/etc... to the same standards I think need to be used for Muslims and Cultists. | |
Those situations have to be intrinsically similar for his comparison to make sense. | |
Consider that cons, especially gaming cons, are meant not only to be a showcase for games, but also the culture of gamers. Gay gamers, myself included, have a culture all their own. It's not separate from gaming culture at large, but it has many unique facets and is different enough that Gaymercon is at least warranted, if not essential. As a general rule, I try not to make judgements about the wants and desires of groups of which I am not a part. I may not attend any LGBT gamer cons, but I definitely see the need for them. If you don't see the need for them, then there is no need to bring it up. | |
Pretty much. The United States is pretty much divided 50-50 on the subject, despite some legal legislation going in this direction there is a lot of fallout given that it's not happening due to a clear majority. Outside of the US while some first world nations have become very gay-tolerant, the majority of the planet isn't, with something like 80% or more of the world's women living as second class citizens despite attempts at reforms (consider India and China both make up 1/3rd of the human race pretty much, so 2/3rds there before you go into The Middle East, Africa, South and Central America where Machismo is alive and well, and so on), homosexuality has it even worse, through a lot of the world there aren't even any real legal considerations or time to ponder "rights" gays are discovered and it's over with pretty quickly and brutally. I can understand where the guy your responding to comes from though, after all if he calls heavily liberal sites like this one as a matter of coruse, it's easy to totally dismiss the other side or how extensive and powerful it is, or really understand all the issues with the gay rights laws in a nation that is supposed to value democracy (a lot of reforms are called into question simply due to stepping on the will of the majority in specific areas, as well as violating certain parts of the process of law, which can get complicated). In the end I'm admittedly anti-gay men, one of a minority here. I won't argue my sentiments, especially seeing as I'm pretty much agreeing with you as far as this thread goes (which I'm not going to go beyond). To be honest with you, I half expect there to be a civil war before mainstream acceptance of homosexuals accross the US occurs. The civil war won't occur specifically over that issue, but because right now the country is divided 50-50 between the two major political positions and the associated issues. Obama won his last election by like 3% and even that's debatable, and it's the latest of a long line of "razor's edge" elections. It won't happen during his term, but given that he's been doing everything in his power to piss off the opposition and not compromise, it's just going to get worse. 10-20 years from now if things don't change on a general level (that's like 4-5 elections) issues like gun control, pro choice/pro-life, homosexuals, immigration, and other hot button issues are cumulatively going to cause So basically yeah... it's not "over" not by a long shot. We're pretty much on the opposite sides here, but we can both agree with that. Sadly, I just think things are going to get nastier accross the spectrum until they finally burst. I'm not looking forward to a civil war or anything (I'm highly nationalistic when you get down to it, and a civil war would decimate the country's global standing) but I can recognize the signs (as have some other people I've talked to), to be honest it's bloody amazing the US has gone this long without a civil war in this climate. In Africa, South and Central America, Asia.. etc... people would have started shooting each other en-masse long before now. Our social values and identity might have held it off longer than most, but I don't think we're immune. | |
1.your never going to stop people being gay 2.you may as well say you have a problem with BDSM or Anal because thats what it comes down to ultimatly, having a personal issue with whos fucking who and how | |
Well said. To all of it, I mean. I have nothing further, but thanks for putting time and effort in your response, it's a pleasure to read :) | |
Thank you. In the western world, we really live in cozy societies where we're mostly free to express ourselves and worry about the little things. My biggest concern is that we're moving from legitimate threats to our lives to bickering about anything and everything and in the process lose sight of what's important. I think your response hits the nail on the head, people without preconceptions have a legitimate right to know what the deal is and this is really a great opportunity to educate them on the matter and explain why using "faggot", "gay" or similar terms in gaming might not be the best choice of words :) (even if I personally have no problem with it, I understand why some do.) The vast majority of people I tell about my sexuality respond by saying "so what". Others go as far as thinking it's cool or special, but I prefer the response where they don't care, because they really don't see the difference or any reason that it should matter. This, to me, is a sign that I am accepted as who I am and that we've come very far in equality. So like you said, it's understandable that this con is made and the premise is fine, but we SHOULD be ecstatic that people are asking why and that the question is often based in the thought that we are no different and not because they feel an undesireable group is congregating. :) | |
| Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 23 NEXT | |
Maybe because that was a post about some goofy evangelists who had a booth at a major convention? Saying this as someone who is routinely annoyed by street preachers who stand around shouting at people in front of the library at the university I attend, that's a funny story, but there doesn't seem to be much else to it. The discussion was also all of 100 posts, consisting of people having a chuckle at said funny story, compared to the nearly 500 posts in this one of people debating the issue that you brought up (re: why would gay people want their own convention?) I'm really not seeing the connection here. One comic sets out an argument. The other is an anecdote.
Brilliant piece of click bait, by the way. I doubt most of the people posting in here had even heard of Gaymer con before reading the comic.