lord.jeff: You've had several posts about how special interest groups are taking away your toys, changing gaming/convetions to suit them and not you, this entire forum is filled with you trying to play the victim of these groups it sounds very biased to me.
Yes. But you see thats the difference between PLAYING the victim & actually being a victim. For instance if i were to come upto you & punch you in the face, you are now a victim of violence. Now if i stand on the other side of a room & think about punching you in the face, but don't punch you in the face, the fact that i could punch you in the face makes you not a victim. Standing around telling people how you are victim because i could have punched you in the face is PLAYING victim.
That Hyena Bloke: I suppose I have to ask, is that really a big deal?
no its not a big deal. There is no reason to believe it'll degenerate into some kind of echo chamber, but there is also no reason to believe it won't. However had some of these panels occoured at a run of the mill convention that chances would have been higher that it would not have degenerated, due to actually having an inclusive group of viewers.
That Hyena Bloke: If you ask me, if there's a call for something and someone is willing to raise the money and organize it, let it run.
No disagreement here, its the free market model in action.
That Hyena Bloke: Gaymercon got well over three times the funding they needed through Kickstarter, so clearly there's a call for it and people can choose to go if they want.
Oh kickstarter... ick.
No offense but Kickstarter is kind of the leaking anus of the internet (taking over the role previously held by 4/chan). Just because something gets kickstarter funding, doesn't mean it should... I think we all learnt that lesson with the feminist frequency scam... Hey Anita, where are those videos that were due out at the end of last year? Whats that, you spent the money on a new prius for yourself instead? Awkward.
But at the end of the day i wish them the best of luck with there convention... I just personally don't see any other reason other then ego for it to exist, but to each there own i suppose.
Now i've ignored the rest of your post because frankly once i read through half a dozen lines of you using yourself as a stand in for every game man ever & once you then used that to insinuate your own self inflicted victimhood five or six times i kind of got bored.
Maybe I have strong feelings on this. It's true, I do. Although it isn't really my "victimhood" because I decided to stop taking people like you seriously a long time ago but I've seen what homophobic and ignorant comments like yours have done to people. Don't believe me? Turn on the news. Have a look at how many LGBT suicides there are every year.
And the irony of you complaining about someone else using victimhood after your ridiculous comments about "feminists oppressing men" despite white, straight men being the most powerful and least oppressed group of people in the history of ever whilst women where told they could only be housewives and babymakers, owned by men, black people where enslaved and gay people where executed. Oh but no, poor patriarchy! Woe is you.
Firstly, stop over using fear words. The above prospect does not scare you... Now, me chasing you around with a chainsaw screaming "The eggs, the eggs are hatching," as i try to remove your head with a chainsaw, backed up by a posse of clown faced spiders, thats actually scary.
This... I do not know what to do with this. Yes, that would be scary, but fear is not limited to basic, primal stuff, it can be extended to anxiety concerning society. This is fairly obvious. You don't see me having a go at you for some of your grammatical inaccuracies, stop trying to nitpick, it just looks like you're running out of points and it seems like you are.
Secondly absense does not denote exlcusion. There are plenty of games with gay, lesbian or bisexual characters, some are even protagonists. The fact that we can name more that aren't those minorities is not suprising... You do get that a "minority" means you are not in the majority. In fact in America members of the LGBT actually makes up less then 5% of the entire population mass (something i only found out yesterday, as it was a fun census fact).
To which I respond: so? 5% is a lot of people. That's 15 and a half MILLION people. Just in a America. That's a hell of a lot of people and that's not even taking into account that the actual number is estimated to be much higher than that because people are too scared to speak out because of societal pressures.
Of course none of that changes the fact that the gaymer con is about ego, as are almost all human endeavours. Had they been legitmately interested in civil discourse they would have been better off having it as part of a "normal" convention.
Okay, while I think this is bollocks, assuming we went with the assumption that it is about ego, as well as all "human endeavours", then surely there is no problem? Because if a regular con is about "ego" then it's sub-categories are also about ego just as much so it doesn't even matter?
Your arguments are senseless and ignorant. You seem to lack the ability to comprehend that not everyone is exactly the same and therefore sometimes it's nice to just be part of something that accepts you. Luckily for you, I'm guessing you happen to be my quite a majority stand point so you get accepted a lot, but other people don't. Think about other people for a second.
lord.jeff: You've had several posts about how special interest groups are taking away your toys, changing gaming/convetions to suit them and not you, this entire forum is filled with you trying to play the victim of these groups it sounds very biased to me.
Yes. But you see thats the difference between PLAYING the victim & actually being a victim. For instance if i were to come upto you & punch you in the face, you are now a victim of violence. Now if i stand on the other side of a room & think about punching you in the face, but don't punch you in the face, the fact that i could punch you in the face makes you not a victim. Standing around telling people how you are victim because i could have punched you in the face is PLAYING victim.
Did you get jumped and beaten down by a group of homosexuals?
HHammond: "feminists oppressing men" despite white, straight men being the most powerful and least oppressed group of people in the history of ever whilst women where told they could only be housewives and babymakers, owned by men, black people where enslaved and gay people where executed. Oh but no, poor patriarchy! Woe is you.
Hahahahahahahaha, no.
Wow, you are either a poe, or an a complete idiot: i'll let you decide which one.
An with that i move on. Things to do that are actually useful... Study, sleep & get back to work mostly (maybe the beach if it cools down). Educating you to the point where we can have a real discussion about the actual issues i'm afraid is just not on the cards.
lord.jeff: Did you get jumped and beaten down by a group of homosexuals?
Immaterial to this conversation. There is a difference between an actual victim & self imposed victimhood of an American.
But to be fair mate, the term is used because people know its going to get a rise out of you. Be the bigger person, if you are indeed gay, then how is that an insult? you know how you fight that kind of thing? Turn around and really gay it up: "Oh baby want to come over here & make it a threesome... you can be the meat in this sandwhich." Because nothing removes the power of a term like taking it for your own... You giant Geek.
You know, I'm sure it's really easy for people who are not constantly verbally harassed, threatened, and abused to decide what they would do in such a situation. The fact is, unless the word has been hurled at you hundreds of times a year, for a decade or so, occasionally while being PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED, you don't get to decide the proper reaction to it. LGBT people have the right to complain when people go out of their way to hurt them with a term specifically designed for offense; your faux-enlightened "take the power away from them by not reacting" is essentially victim-blaming.
When a homophobic asshole verbally harasses a gay man, 100% of the fault lies with the person doing the attacking, and the victim has the right to react with anger and frustration. I tend to think that those who disagree are people who never really have to endure such behavior. If you were attacked on a daily basis because of an essential part of who you are, with words designed specifically to highlight that elemental facet of your humanity as negative, debased, and shitty, then I think you'd be a little less quick to provide LGBT people with condescending strategies for "getting over it."
Wow, you are either a poe, or an a complete idiot: i'll let you decide which one.
An with that i move on. Things to do that are actually useful... Study, sleep & get back to work mostly. Educating you to the point where we can have a real discussion about the actual issues i'm afraid is just not on the cards.
Don't worry, the irony of this statement is not lost on me.
No offense but Kickstarter is kind of the leaking anus of the internet (taking over the role previously held by 4/chan). Just because something gets kickstarter funding, doesn't mean it should... I think we all learnt that lesson with the feminist frequency scam... Hey Anita, where are those videos that were due out at the end of last year? Whats that, you spent the money on a new prius for yourself instead? Awkward.
But at the end of the day i wish them the best of luck with there convention... I just personally don't see any other reason other then ego for it to exist, but to each there own i suppose.
I'm in agreement, there is plenty of stuff on Kickstarter that's crap. But it's still a part of the free market, in fact it's a pretty glaring example of it. Someone offers something and if there's enough demand it's produced. I'm sure if the Gaymercon heads of staff run off with the money that will make the media too, and we'll be having that discussion if and when it happens. For now the fact remains that it was successfully funded.
To be fair, I really do see where you're coming from with a lot of this. I used to be a part of the whole left wing activism thing before I realized it was just a bunch of people who liked to get angry about things and saw any kind of workable compromise as surrender. And yeah, I can definitely see a con like this devolving into little more than preaching to the choir. I just think that they should be allowed to have it, and if it becomes a magnet for extremist segregationists at least they'll end up snubbing the other cons and leaving the more reasonable LGBT people behind.
I'll admit that argument is playing on emotions but there are real gay victims and you shouldn't ignore them just because it doesn't help prove your case. Discrimination is still strong in America, maybe not as strong as a lot would like you to believe but it's still there in stronger force then it should be nor should you ignore ligament claims of discrimination. These people just want a weekend to get away from that while doing something they love, games/con going and nothing is wrong with that.
Andy of Comix Inc: I wanna reply to you and say this cos 1) you have hats in your avatar and 2) you seem like you'd understand more when I say:
This is not gay gamers having their own con. This is gay gamers having a gay-friendly con. A place where they can go a mingle and have fun without being mocked for what they say or do or wear. It is not exclusive for LGBT people, straight people can come join in too! It is about being more inclusive. Not less!
Shit. That'll teach me to post in threads without doing my research.
matthew_lane: [quote="Xanex" post="6.397621.16255377"]What is so bad about having a con where LGBT issues in gaming is the main focus?
Yeah, thats what i was talking about before when i was talking about going to a womens comic convention & we ended up leaving early because the female friend i was with was deeply offended by the open bigotry & gender hatred being spoken. It was her who amusingly pointed out that "that wasn't a womens comic convention safe space, that was just a man hating convention for comic book fans."
It really was quite an eye opening experience.
Ah, a traumatic experience made you into who you are. You are the Goddamn Batman!... except you use anecdotes and paranoia rather then your fists. Go on, fight the gay mafia and the evils of feminism so that no man shall endure the adversity you had to face.
I'll admit that argument is playing on emotions but there are real gay victims and you shouldn't ignore them just because it doesn't help prove your case. Discrimination is still strong in America, maybe not as strong as a lot would like you to believe but it's still there in stronger force then it should be nor should you ignore ligament claims of discrimination. These people just want a weekend to get away from that while doing something they love, games/con going and nothing is wrong with that.
I'm sorry, when did any of these violent acts upon members of the LGBT community occur at a gaming convention?
I dunno. I'm comfortable with homosexuals but not with a homosexual-centric convention with a wider theme...if that makes sense. Why is there a difference between gamers and 'gaymers'? So some gamers are homophobic and ignorant. That's okay. Some of them are racist and sexist. Shall we make a blacks-only Gamercon? Or am I being facetious?
Supporting segregation isn't going to help anybody be more tolerant. Chill.
Thyunda: I dunno. I'm comfortable with homosexuals but not with a homosexual-centric convention with a wider theme...if that makes sense. Why is there a difference between gamers and 'gaymers'? So some gamers are homophobic and ignorant. That's okay. Some of them are racist and sexist. Shall we make a blacks-only Gamercon? Or am I being facetious?
Supporting segregation isn't going to help anybody be more tolerant. Chill.
Again, I'll reiterate... for the 6th time. No-one is segregating. Gaymers still go to regular cons, and straight people are welcome at Gaymercon. It's not segregation, it's having a home turf. You wouldn't accuse the Yankees of segregating themselves from the rest of the league just because Yankee Stadium exists, because the Yankees still play ball with the rest of the league, and have away games as well as home games. Likewise, Gaymers are just creating their own home turf. Chill.
Thyunda: I dunno. I'm comfortable with homosexuals but not with a homosexual-centric convention with a wider theme...if that makes sense. Why is there a difference between gamers and 'gaymers'? So some gamers are homophobic and ignorant. That's okay. Some of them are racist and sexist. Shall we make a blacks-only Gamercon? Or am I being facetious?
Supporting segregation isn't going to help anybody be more tolerant. Chill.
Again, I'll reiterate... for the 6th time. No-one is segregating. Gaymers still go to regular cons, and straight people are welcome at Gaymercon. It's not segregation, it's having a home turf. You wouldn't accuse the Yankees of segregating themselves from the rest of the league just because Yankee Stadium exists, because the Yankees still play ball with the rest of the league, and have away games as well as home games. Likewise, Gaymers are just creating their own home turf. Chill.
Sports was an awful example. A Manchester United supporter of course supports football. But don't call them Manchester City supporters, because they're not. If sports was your analogy, then Gaymers, though they play games, are not to be associated with Gamers, because there's a natural divide between the two.
Thyunda: Sports was an awful example. A Manchester United supporter of course supports football. But don't call them Manchester City supporters, because they're not. If sports was your analogy, then Gaymers, though they play games, are not to be associated with Gamers, because there's a natural divide between the two.
Actually, in this analogy, Man U fans would be straight gamers and City fans would be gay gamers. In which case the stadium argument still stands. (:
Thyunda: Sports was an awful example. A Manchester United supporter of course supports football. But don't call them Manchester City supporters, because they're not. If sports was your analogy, then Gaymers, though they play games, are not to be associated with Gamers, because there's a natural divide between the two.
Actually, in this analogy, Man U fans would be straight gamers and City fans would be gay gamers. In which case the stadium argument still stands. (:
Yes...because of that football team the two share (!)
Thyunda: I dunno. I'm comfortable with homosexuals but not with a homosexual-centric convention with a wider theme...if that makes sense. Why is there a difference between gamers and 'gaymers'? So some gamers are homophobic and ignorant. That's okay. Some of them are racist and sexist. Shall we make a blacks-only Gamercon? Or am I being facetious?
Supporting segregation isn't going to help anybody be more tolerant. Chill.
Again, I'll reiterate... for the 6th time. No-one is segregating. Gaymers still go to regular cons, and straight people are welcome at Gaymercon. It's not segregation, it's having a home turf. You wouldn't accuse the Yankees of segregating themselves from the rest of the league just because Yankee Stadium exists, because the Yankees still play ball with the rest of the league, and have away games as well as home games. Likewise, Gaymers are just creating their own home turf. Chill.
Sports was an awful example. A Manchester United supporter of course supports football. But don't call them Manchester City supporters, because they're not. If sports was your analogy, then Gaymers, though they play games, are not to be associated with Gamers, because there's a natural divide between the two.
No, the analogy holds. In my analogy straight gamers and gay gamers aren't the fans. They're the players. (see what I did there? A-hyuck...) They're both Football players (Gamers) and they're both into sports (pop-culture) and within these fields they play matches (go to cons) but sometimes they'll have home games, and sometimes they'll have away games. That way neither team exclusively gets the home team advantage. I mean sometimes they create a common shared space for everyone to come together when they have an Olympics (Create a utopian subculture where Gay gamers don't feel isolated, threatened and ostracised) but that only happens every 4 years (Hasn't happened yet ever.)
Again, I'll reiterate... for the 6th time. No-one is segregating. Gaymers still go to regular cons, and straight people are welcome at Gaymercon. It's not segregation, it's having a home turf. You wouldn't accuse the Yankees of segregating themselves from the rest of the league just because Yankee Stadium exists, because the Yankees still play ball with the rest of the league, and have away games as well as home games. Likewise, Gaymers are just creating their own home turf. Chill.
Sports was an awful example. A Manchester United supporter of course supports football. But don't call them Manchester City supporters, because they're not. If sports was your analogy, then Gaymers, though they play games, are not to be associated with Gamers, because there's a natural divide between the two.
No, the analogy holds. In my analogy straight gamers and gay gamers aren't the fans. They're the players. (see what I did there? A-hyuck...) They're both Football players (Gamers) and they're both into sports (pop-culture) and within these fields they play matches (go to cons) but sometimes they'll have home games, and sometimes they'll have away games. That way neither team exclusively gets the home team advantage. I mean sometimes they create a common shared space for everyone to come together when they have an Olympics (Create a utopian subculture where Gay gamers don't feel isolated, threatened and ostracised) but that only happens every 4 years (Hasn't happened yet ever.)
So your Utopia for gay people is to create a mirror image of 'straight culture' and populate it with gay people...and this won't make them feel ostracised from normal society? Might I make a comparison to the apartheid? Blacks can use THOSE toilets. They won't be threatened or ostracised in there, because that's THEIR part. I mean really, why would they want to eat with white people anyway? Black people only like fried chicken, and white people like proper food...so we'll send all the black people to those carts there, and all the white people can stay in the cafés where they won't harass or assault the black people.
Sports was an awful example. A Manchester United supporter of course supports football. But don't call them Manchester City supporters, because they're not. If sports was your analogy, then Gaymers, though they play games, are not to be associated with Gamers, because there's a natural divide between the two.
No, the analogy holds. In my analogy straight gamers and gay gamers aren't the fans. They're the players. (see what I did there? A-hyuck...) They're both Football players (Gamers) and they're both into sports (pop-culture) and within these fields they play matches (go to cons) but sometimes they'll have home games, and sometimes they'll have away games. That way neither team exclusively gets the home team advantage. I mean sometimes they create a common shared space for everyone to come together when they have an Olympics (Create a utopian subculture where Gay gamers don't feel isolated, threatened and ostracised) but that only happens every 4 years (Hasn't happened yet ever.)
So your Utopia for gay people is to create a mirror image of 'straight culture' and populate it with gay people...and this won't make them feel ostracised from normal society? Might I make a comparison to the apartheid? Blacks can use THOSE toilets. They won't be threatened or ostracised in there, because that's THEIR part. I mean really, why would they want to eat with white people anyway? Black people only like fried chicken, and white people like proper food...so we'll send all the black people to those carts there, and all the white people can stay in the cafés where they won't harass or assault the black people.
No... where did I say that? My utopia/Olympics is the hypothetical future place where both groups can share a space together without one group feeling marginalised/threatened/ostracised. My point is that we're not there yet, and in the interim we're making our own sandbox to play in occasionally as well as going to normal cons. Gaymercon is only ever supposed to be a temporary solution, and most if not all LGBT gamers would very much like to see a future where it's not needed. But for now it is. Is it a perfect solution? Probably not. Is it far better than things continuing as they were? Definitely.
No, the analogy holds. In my analogy straight gamers and gay gamers aren't the fans. They're the players. (see what I did there? A-hyuck...) They're both Football players (Gamers) and they're both into sports (pop-culture) and within these fields they play matches (go to cons) but sometimes they'll have home games, and sometimes they'll have away games. That way neither team exclusively gets the home team advantage. I mean sometimes they create a common shared space for everyone to come together when they have an Olympics (Create a utopian subculture where Gay gamers don't feel isolated, threatened and ostracised) but that only happens every 4 years (Hasn't happened yet ever.)
So your Utopia for gay people is to create a mirror image of 'straight culture' and populate it with gay people...and this won't make them feel ostracised from normal society? Might I make a comparison to the apartheid? Blacks can use THOSE toilets. They won't be threatened or ostracised in there, because that's THEIR part. I mean really, why would they want to eat with white people anyway? Black people only like fried chicken, and white people like proper food...so we'll send all the black people to those carts there, and all the white people can stay in the cafés where they won't harass or assault the black people.
No... where did I say that? My utopia/Olympics is the hypothetical future place where both groups can share a space together without one group feeling marginalised/threatened/ostracised. My point is that we're not there yet, and in the interim we're making our own sandbox to play in occasionally as well as going to normal cons. Gaymercon is only ever supposed to be a temporary solution, and most if not all LGBT gamers would very much like to see a future where it's not needed. But for now it is. Is it a perfect solution? Probably not. Is it far better than things continuing as they were? Definitely.
How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea of a gay-centric convention to prevent homophobic abuse? It doesn't make SENSE. I mean, I get called a rape apologist worryingly frequently because I don't believe you can educate people not to rape. But homophobia can be removed, and giving people more reason to believe that other group are different and isolated is not a healthy idea. If homosexuals are normal people too, why do they have a separate convention? What's going on with that?
Think about it. Stop doing shit to make people think that being gay is special, because people resent special. It's a problem with society, but all you're doing is telling the flu victim that pneumonia feels pretty similar.
Thyunda: Sports was an awful example. A Manchester United supporter of course supports football. But don't call them Manchester City supporters, because they're not. If sports was your analogy, then Gaymers, though they play games, are not to be associated with Gamers, because there's a natural divide between the two.
Actually, in this analogy, Man U fans would be straight gamers and City fans would be gay gamers. In which case the stadium argument still stands. (:
Yes...because of that football team the two share (!)
They both have an interest in football, correct? But they have separate places to celebrate that interest. United fans like to be at their stadium, supporting their team, and City fans the same. There's nothing to stop them having one stadium they both can visit.
Actually, in this analogy, Man U fans would be straight gamers and City fans would be gay gamers. In which case the stadium argument still stands. (:
Yes...because of that football team the two share (!)
They both have an interest in football, correct? But they have separate places to celebrate that interest. United fans like to be at their stadium, supporting their team, and City fans the same. There's nothing to stop them having one stadium they both can visit.
matthew_lane: An since gay =/= gay men, but actually equals gay men & women, an if we've agreed that sex sells (to everyone); then by extension wouldn't the lesbians want to be sold the sexy female characters & the gay men sold the sexy male characters, how is that at all different then selling those same characters to a hetrosexual crowd?
Dude, it's even *worse* for lesbians! Sure, they have a lot of eyecandy that they indirectly benefit from, but it's not for them. It's like sitting in a restaurant and seeing waiters passing by you with all these delicious dishes, and you never get a single one. And the few cases where they get girl-on-girl, they end up wondering if it's really aimed at them in an effort to be inclusive, or if it's like straight porn, where all the girl-on-girl is there to please straight men.
matthew_lane: I wish i could get into my photo bucket, because i've actually got one that shows this concept to be silly. Its one from DCU online where as i'm talking to Hal Jordan for the first time, the camera spends the entire time looking at Hals arse.
Oh honey. That's not looking at a man's ass. You're looking at his entire body, tilted to the side, and the camera isn't even focusing on him.
matthew_lane: Don't get angry, get smart. Stop for a second & perform a few seconds of introspection: Are you getting angry because you think i'm saying something bigoted, or are you getting angry because you've realised i'm not saying something bigoted: That what i'm saying has some credence to it.
We're angry because you are not listening. You are some sort of pretentious self-importance elemental who is completely blind to the arrogance of patronising and straightsplaining[1] why we're wrong. You are exactly the type of straight person the comic makes fun of. You know full well that even if you disagree with us, this isn't any of your concern and you should stay out of it, but nope, you have to butt in and tell us how wrong you think we are.
CriticKitten: We're asking what makes it different from all of the others....
I answered this about 7 or 9 times already. Read pages 7 to 11, that's where we all spent most of our energy writing comprehensive posts. So you get the short answer. If you want further explanation, go to page 7 and start looking for posts made by me, Guestyman, Spot1990 and others.
The entertainment industry (and by extension, the gaming industry) aims its products at straight white males. The gamer community is, in turn, populated by a majority of straight white males. If we want the industry to take notice of us and start catering to us as well, we need to do something to let them know we're a significant demographic. And finally, the LGBT community might just want a safe place where they don't have to face the casual homophobia of the gamer community.
All of this is perfectly reasonable and has nothing to do with straight people (it won't affect them in any way).
matthew_lane: Its not one ass shot mate, its actually pretty common place, for both genders. At any time in which someone enters a scene for the first time who is not just attractive, but is meant to be super attractive, the slow pan (which is the actual name of the technique) is used as cinematography short hand for; beware this character is being established as very attractive, just so you know.
That wasn't an ass shot. That was a back shot. But I see how you can be confused, as the gaming industry has yet to do a proper man ass shot outside porn/erotic games.
matthew_lane: yep, totally for men. Hey you know those games literally made for girls, those are made for men too. Hey, what about words with friends, oh yeah totally for men, only men know how to spell & have friends. Come off it mate, drop the hyperbolic bullshit. Neither gaming culture, nor the gaming industry is made specifically for men.
First of all, games made specifically for girls are A) Incredibly stereotyped (Cooking Mama, Barbie anything, etc) and B) a hilarious minority, which are instantly negated by, say, sports games where you only have male players (because girls don't play sports, silly!), or shooters with only/mostly male protagonists (because girls don't like shooters, silly!), and so on.
Second of all, you para-elemental of disingenuity, because you found one game where gender is more or less irrelevant doesn't negate the myriad of examples where that is not the case.
secretsantaone: However, if you play in such a competitive and immature environment such as XBL, people are going to call you bad words. It really doesn't matter what you are, they'll find some way to offend you and make it stick. The same way that people will say they slept with your mother last night, of course they fucking didn't, but people get defensive of their mothers and take offense. This person is trying to offend you, no matter what your sexuality. It just so happens "faggot" is a great way to cause offense.
Let me try to be as clear as possible: That's not the problem! The problem is that faggot is a way to cause offence! Why is faggot an offensive word, if not homophobia? If sexuality was no big deal, being gay would carry the same insult weight as 'water-drinker'!
secretsantaone: Take "bastard". Literally it means a child who's parents weren't married when they were conceived. This was bad back in the day when sex outside of marriage was considered a cardinal sin and the resulting bastards would be cursed. Nowadays, children outside of marriage are pretty commonplace, there's no longer the same social stigma attached to the concept. However "bastard" is still a general pejorative term and is still considered a pretty serious swear word. This is because people associate it now with offense rather than it's original meaning.
Same with "faggot", originally targeted towards gay people when homosexuality was not tolerated whatsoever, with the changing social climate and homosexuality becoming more and more accepted by society, it's losing it's impact as "gay = bad" and is instead being used because people associate it with offense.
Bastard had an extra meaning, it was specifically about being disavowed by your (almost always male) parent. I would never use the word bastard near someone I knew had been walked out on by a parent.
Oh, also, bastards weren't prone to hate speech or hate crimes. Being picked on? Sure. But I don't recall a single instance of hate speech or hate crimes against bastards.
secretsantaone: Sorry, but you're not. In such an unstable market no one is going to take the risk of overtly appealing to the "gay gamer" demographic.
What do you even want from videogames to make it appeal to homosexuals? Beyond some homosexual relationships in RPGs, what exactly is it that makes videogames to alienating to gays?
Oh my goodness, I didn't know that on top of being an expert on equality and LGBT issues, you were also an expert in economics, finance and the gaming industry! Since I can't very well just laugh at your post and leave it at that, I'll attempt to explain: it's not up to you to decide! You're not the gaming industry, so your opinion is meaningless! If we fail at our attempt, let us fail and try again. You're not part of our group, so our failures will have no repercussions on you. If you're so assured about how doomed our efforts are, then shut up, sit back and watch it happen.
Uh. Okay. Remember that post I quoted? The one I wrote myself, back in page 7? Yeah, there I cited a lot of cases where, not only in RPGs, games were aimed at a straight male audience. Just look at any game with female characters and see how they're all dressed in titillating, revealing outfits, just for the pleasure of the straight male gaze. Getting the same treatment with men (putting Nathan Drake in tight hot-pants, for example) would be a step in the right direction. And then we have games where main characters have established relationships. Why can't they be of the same gender? Why can't the protagonist of Alan Wake be a woman (who has a wife)? Why can't Dante flirt with guys too (and get guys falling into his arms and almost-kiss situations with men)? Why can't the protagonist of Catherine be a woman (oh, because it would undermine the game's awful message regarding gender)?
The list goes on forever. Inclusion isn't a gay option in RPGs. It's a complete overhaul of how the gaming industry approaches character relationships, outfits, titillation and protagonists.
secretsantaone: I don't really think you can compare yourselves to poor people in the economy. Poor people are directly linked to the economy, homosexuals just aren't the primary target market for videogames because they're too much of a niche market.
Oh, forgive us for thinking that we, as people of different sexualities, were directly linked to the portrayal of sexuality in games. Whatever were we thinking.
Also, the 'too much of a niche market' nonsense is exactly the sort of thing the con is setting out to disprove.
secretsantaone: Ignoring the statement "The biological components of masculinity (muscle mass, body hair, height and so on) have been proven, time and again, to be completely independent from sexual attraction." (which is probably why fat, hairy midgets are so popular with the ladies), of course it's a cultural and social construct born out of homophobia. That doesn't make it any less offensive when you're called it.
I don't think you're processing the words you're typing. You are saying that you acknowledge that the whole "gay = not manly" is a completely arbitrary social construct (that can change, obviously), then you admit that people take offence at it (let me repeat it, straight people take offence at being called gay), think it's perfectly okay, and then go right back to wondering why we want our own con. There's some place in the logical chain where you get lost, I think.
It's like you're incapable of putting yourself in another person's shoes. You have absolutely no idea what it's like to be non-straight, and brazenly spew the same nonsense we have to contend with every day, and then you still wonder why we want our own con. It's astonishing, really.
secretsantaone: Don't really see the point of avoiding obscenities and then saying that you wanted to use them. Seems to negate the effort.
I think there's a difference between saying "Fuck you, you rampant dickweasel" and not saying that.
[1] borrowing this term from the feminists' "mansplaining", which is basically "men telling women why they're wrong about sexism and misogyny", in this case, it means "straight people telling LGBT people why they're wrong about discrimination and homophobia"
As a gay I feel I should probably throw my two cents into this one. To everyone calling this some some of gaming convention with a "sexual orientation segregation," you're just wrong. There's nothing exclusionary about the convention, it's (from my understanding) going to be a convention focusing on the aspects of gaming culture more relevant to the gay gamer, where said gamers know they will be in a welcoming environment. I've been to plenty of cons where there was a fair degree of homophobia on display; why shouldn't gay gamers have a place to meet like minded people where they know they won't have to put up with bigotry and weird looks? Even things like hitting on people can be a mind field at normal conventions for a gay man. Who knows if that guy you just hit on is going to be a psychotic homophobe and beat the shit out of you just for being who you are?
The most important part of the whole debate though is that conventions are places where members of a specific subculture can gather to meet likeminded people with similar interests. Gay people who play videogames, while they may be a small part of gaming culture as a whole, are a subculture just as deserving of having their own conventions, in the same way Star Trek fans are allowed conventions even though science-fiction conventions already exist.
There's nothing from stopping ManU and Mancity people from both supporting the *England* team. The analogy stands. Actually it's reinforced by your link to that article. If Man City supporters are harassed and threatened with violence by a small, but vocal and dangerous subset of ManU supporters, whose interests are served by forcing them to associate 100% of the time and taking away Man City's home turf?
Thyunda: How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea of a gay-centric convention to prevent homophobic abuse? It doesn't make SENSE. I mean, I get called a rape apologist worryingly frequently because I don't believe you can educate people not to rape. But homophobia can be removed, and giving people more reason to believe that other group are different and isolated is not a healthy idenormala. If homosexuals are normal people too, why do they have a separate convention? What's going on with that?
Think about it. Stop doing shit to make people think that being gay is special, because people resent special. It's a problem with society, but all you're doing is telling the flu victim that pneumonia feels pretty similar.
Can you please read some of the 18 pages that came before you so I'm not having to endlessly repeat myself? We're not doing it to feel special. We're doing it to feel normal for once.
How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence? It doesn't make sense. At all.
Think about that. Stop accusing me of trying to feel special, because I resent me feeling safe and normal being called special treatment, because all you're doing is telling the pneumonia victim that taking his medicine is selfish.
Spot1990: There's a list of the panels. That's what's different.
....
Some actual descriptions of panels:
What do YOU think? Was Birdo from Super Mario Bros. 2 transgender?
It may not seem like it if you haven't encountered it already, but LGBT gamers (of all stripes) and fans of anthropomorphic animals (aka "furries") are - pun intentional - natural allies.
What level witch are you? The "Satanic panic" of roleplaying games like Dungeons & Dragons leading to occultism has become cliché, but to what degree is it true?
Okay, I'm being unfair. I like the looks of some of the panels there, actually. But to be honest? I would rather see these issues addressed in all of the other gaming conventions out there. The fact that they're only appearing in "GaymerCon" means that the odds of anything coming from these panels are likely to be slim. What chance do we really have of moving forward with the idea of more LGBT characters in video games, for example, if we're only addressing this issue at a single gaming convention devoted to that particular group of people? It's like trying to convince the industry to move forward with more positive portrayals of both genders by occasionally bringing up the issue once in a while in a panel or two at one convention, and then spending the remaining 364 days of the year arguing about "fake gamer girls".
That said, some of the panels are positively absurd, and I have to be honest, I really don't see how discussing the sexuality of Birdo, or discussing how D&D is tied to witchcraft, is somehow improving the image of LGBT gamers. Nor how it is offering positive contributions to the image of gamers as a whole. In fact, some of these things (like the "are you a witch who likes D&D?" panel) are actually helping to set back the appearance of both the hobby of gaming and gamers themselves by several decades. We've made so much progress that it feels downright awkward to be going out there and giving more fuel to these old stereotypes.
I mean, what sort of person would....
A meetup for all the nekomimi at the con - anyone wearing animal ears & tails is welcome!
matthew_lane: I'm not gay, but i'll try to nswer it any way: There is very little legitimate homophobia in geek based conventions. In axactly the same way there is little in the way of legitimate sexism at geek based conventions (for the most part).
Yes there are arse backwards examples of both sexism & homophobia from the convention scene, but its by no means a trend.
That right there is your problem. You are incapable of knowing how much homophobia there is at any place unless you ask someone who suffers from it. This is like trying to figure out the intensity of a solar beam when you're in the shade. The only way you can figure out how intense the solar beam is is by seeing the effect it has on things that are actually exposed to it. You have no exposure to the solar beam, so you are not qualified to determine the intensity of the solar beam on your own.
Repeat after me: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you haven't witnessed any instances of homophobia doesn't mean they don't exist. I am sure that there are plenty of animals and plants in the world that you haven't seen and still very much exist.
matthew_lane: If someone objective doesn't make a statement...
That right there is something so fundamentally wrong with you that I honestly have no idea how to even begin to tackle it.
You are not an objective source of information! This is a binary state, either you are affected by homophobia, or you aren't! If you aren't affected by it, you're just as biased to say that it doesn't exist as the person affected by it is biased to say that it does! There is no objective position here! There is no objective truth in this matter, because it's all subjective perception! If we perceive homophobia and you don't, we have to construct a situation where we don't suffer it and you guys get the least inconvenienced possible. That's the proper way to solve these issues, not by pretending objectivity exists in such an inherently subjective matter and then passing ludicrous decrees.
matthew_lane: Except i'm posting BECAUSE i'm objective. This is happening in a different country, on a different continent, on the other side of the world from me. I literally have no horse in this race. I also hold no animosity towards gay people, but am aware of minority persecution complexes. As such i can put forward a view based only on what is, not on emotionalised logic. Makes me the perfect objective speaker.
You are not objective! You cannot be objective! There is no objectivity to be found in this matter! This is not science! This is emotions, social interaction and flawed human perceptions!
Stop giving yourself a position of superiority over the rest of us. You are not some enlightened sage that sees what the rest of us blind masses do not. If that's what you tell yourself in order to justify your existence and stave off depression, that's your business, but it will actively undermine your own efforts to get your point across.
When you step down from the rickety second-hand stool you brought in an attempt to be "that guy" (you know the guy, the one that sees a long conversation and thinks it's absolutely ridiculous that it has gone on for so long when he has the answer), we'll be ready to engage you in an actual intelligent conversation. Before that happens, we will keep on treating you like an arrogant quasi-elemental of ignorance.
There's nothing from stopping ManU and Mancity people from both supporting the *England* team. The analogy stands. Actually it's reinforced by your link to that article. If Man City supporters are harassed and threatened with violence by a small, but vocal and dangerous subset of ManU supporters, whose interests are served by forcing them to associate 100% of the time and taking away Man City's home turf?
Thyunda: How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea of a gay-centric convention to prevent homophobic abuse? It doesn't make SENSE. I mean, I get called a rape apologist worryingly frequently because I don't believe you can educate people not to rape. But homophobia can be removed, and giving people more reason to believe that other group are different and isolated is not a healthy idenormala. If homosexuals are normal people too, why do they have a separate convention? What's going on with that?
Think about it. Stop doing shit to make people think that being gay is special, because people resent special. It's a problem with society, but all you're doing is telling the flu victim that pneumonia feels pretty similar.
Can you please read some of the 18 pages that came before you so I'm not having to endlessly repeat myself? We're not doing it to feel special. We're doing it to feel normal for once.
How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence? It doesn't make sense. At all.
Think about that. Stop accusing me of trying to feel special, because I resent me feeling safe and normal being called special treatment, because all you're doing is telling the pneumonia victim that taking his medicine is selfish.
Whoa...hostility bro, uncalled for. Took that all a little personally, didn't you?
There's nothing from stopping ManU and Mancity people from both supporting the *England* team. The analogy stands. Actually it's reinforced by your link to that article. If Man City supporters are harassed and threatened with violence by a small, but vocal and dangerous subset of ManU supporters, whose interests are served by forcing them to associate 100% of the time and taking away Man City's home turf?
Thyunda: How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea of a gay-centric convention to prevent homophobic abuse? It doesn't make SENSE. I mean, I get called a rape apologist worryingly frequently because I don't believe you can educate people not to rape. But homophobia can be removed, and giving people more reason to believe that other group are different and isolated is not a healthy idenormala. If homosexuals are normal people too, why do they have a separate convention? What's going on with that?
Think about it. Stop doing shit to make people think that being gay is special, because people resent special. It's a problem with society, but all you're doing is telling the flu victim that pneumonia feels pretty similar.
Can you please read some of the 18 pages that came before you so I'm not having to endlessly repeat myself? We're not doing it to feel special. We're doing it to feel normal for once.
How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence? It doesn't make sense. At all.
Think about that. Stop accusing me of trying to feel special, because I resent me feeling safe and normal being called special treatment, because all you're doing is telling the pneumonia victim that taking his medicine is selfish.
Whoa...hostility bro, uncalled for. Took that all a little personally, didn't you?
Why shouldn't he? He had a VERY valid point.
Let me point out this part:
How can, - Snip - somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence?
As well he should. This isn't an intellectual exercise for us. It's our lives that are on the line. (Not our mortal coil, but our ability to live as we should.)
There's nothing from stopping ManU and Mancity people from both supporting the *England* team. The analogy stands. Actually it's reinforced by your link to that article. If Man City supporters are harassed and threatened with violence by a small, but vocal and dangerous subset of ManU supporters, whose interests are served by forcing them to associate 100% of the time and taking away Man City's home turf?
Can you please read some of the 18 pages that came before you so I'm not having to endlessly repeat myself? We're not doing it to feel special. We're doing it to feel normal for once.
How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence? It doesn't make sense. At all.
Think about that. Stop accusing me of trying to feel special, because I resent me feeling safe and normal being called special treatment, because all you're doing is telling the pneumonia victim that taking his medicine is selfish.
Whoa...hostility bro, uncalled for. Took that all a little personally, didn't you?
Why shouldn't he? He had a VERY valid point.
Let me point out this part:
How can, - Snip - somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence?
Because it simply moves the problem a little bit to the left. It doesn't fix anything.
Whoa...hostility bro, uncalled for. Took that all a little personally, didn't you?
Why shouldn't he? He had a VERY valid point.
Let me point out this part:
How can, - Snip - somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence?
Because it simply moves the problem a little bit to the left. It doesn't fix anything.
It's as good an option as any for the moment. I can definitely see the "Moving it to the side" point. But for the moment, the human race isn't the beacon of tolerance and we're going to take what we can get.
Zydrate: Mostly because I don't want a guy like this
Coming up to me and being the umpteenth guy to ask me the dumbest lesbian questions that I keep hearing.
I don't go to cons, but I can see the logic. Maybe I just want to play some goddamn demos, not be an educator for how two females have sex.
I can assure you that people who do that are also obnoxious to NON-homosexual people.
How can, - Snip - somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence?
When has this happened at a gaming convention? If it did was security notified?... apart from the stares, I guess. Can't be upset with someone for staring at/taking notice of public displays of affection (for how else would they know you to be homosexual?).
Yes. But you see thats the difference between PLAYING the victim & actually being a victim. For instance if i were to come upto you & punch you in the face, you are now a victim of violence. Now if i stand on the other side of a room & think about punching you in the face, but don't punch you in the face, the fact that i could punch you in the face makes you not a victim. Standing around telling people how you are victim because i could have punched you in the face is PLAYING victim.
no its not a big deal. There is no reason to believe it'll degenerate into some kind of echo chamber, but there is also no reason to believe it won't. However had some of these panels occoured at a run of the mill convention that chances would have been higher that it would not have degenerated, due to actually having an inclusive group of viewers.
No disagreement here, its the free market model in action.
Oh kickstarter... ick.
No offense but Kickstarter is kind of the leaking anus of the internet (taking over the role previously held by 4/chan). Just because something gets kickstarter funding, doesn't mean it should... I think we all learnt that lesson with the feminist frequency scam... Hey Anita, where are those videos that were due out at the end of last year? Whats that, you spent the money on a new prius for yourself instead? Awkward.
But at the end of the day i wish them the best of luck with there convention... I just personally don't see any other reason other then ego for it to exist, but to each there own i suppose.