Why Makeb Hits LGBT Players So Hard

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Zen Toombs:

SiskoBlue:

Zen Toombs:
You may not be in the LGBTQUIAAWTFBBQ community, but you have a firm grasp of the issues. A well written article, I commend you.

Agreed. The thing is Robert Rath IS a part of the LGBT community, everyone is, it's the same community we all live in. To me this still seems the biggest stumbling block to sexism, racism, and homophobia being eradicated from our society. Yes, we need to acknowledge it but Americans seem fixated with pigeon-holing and identifying someone as part of a separate community and then filtering everything through that. Positive or negative, discrimination means pointing out differences, literally. Focusing on how an individual is different isn't very inclusive.

The whole backlash against Jodie Foster is a good example. Yes she's gay, but people seemed annoyed she's not shouting it out. That's because being gay is not everything about her. She's loads of things, being gay is a very, very small part of who she is. There's seems to be this weird expectations that if you identify with a group then everything you do or say should somehow reflect that identity. Why? Makes me think of the South Park episode about their town flag. The kids didn't even notice what colour the characters on the flag were so didn't see the offense. That's kind of the place we need to get to, where people don't even notice. It shouldn't matter so eventually it doesn't matter.

I understand the subtle point you're making, but before we can remove discrimination we need to acknowledge that there are people being discriminated against and how they are being discriminated against. To get to be a "color blind" or "sexuality blind" society we need to see, acknowledge, and then remove those things that are discriminatory in that society. Sadly, in America we are still in those first two steps, and you have to truly be in the third step before you can start moving past some form of labels.

What my point was in saying "[Rath] may not be in the LGBT community, but you have a firm grasp of the issues" was that 1. if you are in that group of people, you are actively discriminated against so it is easier to notice the specific issues and b. even non-heterosexual people can have problems grabbing on to the core of these topics.

Anyways, what's this backlash against Jodie Foster?

You're completely right. It just frustrates me that society still seems stuck in those first stages... STILL! I agree with your remark about Rath, I was just piggy-backing off the idea of being part of this or that community. Not sure how much you've heard but in short, Jodie Foster got some lifetime achievement award. She made a speech about being proud of who she is and how she "came out" to friends and family years ago, and didn't see the need to make a big deal about it. There were a few articles floating around how she should have done more. Basically beat her chest and say how proud she is to be gay, etc. Instead she just said it's a private part of her life and hopes people respect that.

It's that sticky principal of positive discrimination. Making a big deal out of it so people take notice and deal with the issues. But on the other hand I'm not a fan of it per se. Something is definitely needed but by pointing at it, it gives those who are anti-whatever-group-it-is something to complain about. "See! I'm just a normal guy but now I'm discriminated against because I'm a white, heterosexual male!" It's bollocks but it makes them think they have a counter-argument.

SiskoBlue:
It's that sticky principal of positive discrimination. Making a big deal out of it so people take notice and deal with the issues. But on the other hand I'm not a fan of it per se. Something is definitely needed but by pointing at it, it gives those who are anti-whatever-group-it-is something to complain about. "See! I'm just a normal guy but now I'm discriminated against because I'm a white, heterosexual male!" It's bollocks but it makes them think they have a counter-argument.

I know your point, but there's a sad fact about that. I personally rate the conversion of the "anti-whatever-group-it-is" crowd to sanity as pretty low on my priority list. My priorities are to 1. convince the undecideds to my side, 2. to convince quiet people on my side to be just a touch less quiet about it, and 3. to arm the people on my side with stronger arguments.

I still care about changing others minds, but changing the minds of the irrational is mostly a misuse of my time.

SiskoBlue:

Zen Toombs:

SiskoBlue:

Agreed. The thing is Robert Rath IS a part of the LGBT community, everyone is, it's the same community we all live in. To me this still seems the biggest stumbling block to sexism, racism, and homophobia being eradicated from our society. Yes, we need to acknowledge it but Americans seem fixated with pigeon-holing and identifying someone as part of a separate community and then filtering everything through that. Positive or negative, discrimination means pointing out differences, literally. Focusing on how an individual is different isn't very inclusive.

The whole backlash against Jodie Foster is a good example. Yes she's gay, but people seemed annoyed she's not shouting it out. That's because being gay is not everything about her. She's loads of things, being gay is a very, very small part of who she is. There's seems to be this weird expectations that if you identify with a group then everything you do or say should somehow reflect that identity. Why? Makes me think of the South Park episode about their town flag. The kids didn't even notice what colour the characters on the flag were so didn't see the offense. That's kind of the place we need to get to, where people don't even notice. It shouldn't matter so eventually it doesn't matter.

I understand the subtle point you're making, but before we can remove discrimination we need to acknowledge that there are people being discriminated against and how they are being discriminated against. To get to be a "color blind" or "sexuality blind" society we need to see, acknowledge, and then remove those things that are discriminatory in that society. Sadly, in America we are still in those first two steps, and you have to truly be in the third step before you can start moving past some form of labels.

What my point was in saying "[Rath] may not be in the LGBT community, but you have a firm grasp of the issues" was that 1. if you are in that group of people, you are actively discriminated against so it is easier to notice the specific issues and b. even non-heterosexual people can have problems grabbing on to the core of these topics.

Anyways, what's this backlash against Jodie Foster?

You're completely right. It just frustrates me that society still seems stuck in those first stages... STILL! I agree with your remark about Rath, I was just piggy-backing off the idea of being part of this or that community. Not sure how much you've heard but in short, Jodie Foster got some lifetime achievement award. She made a speech about being proud of who she is and how she "came out" to friends and family years ago, and didn't see the need to make a big deal about it. There were a few articles floating around how she should have done more. Basically beat her chest and say how proud she is to be gay, etc. Instead she just said it's a private part of her life and hopes people respect that.

It's that sticky principal of positive discrimination. Making a big deal out of it so people take notice and deal with the issues. But on the other hand I'm not a fan of it per se. Something is definitely needed but by pointing at it, it gives those who are anti-whatever-group-it-is something to complain about. "See! I'm just a normal guy but now I'm discriminated against because I'm a white, heterosexual male!" It's bollocks but it makes them think they have a counter-argument.

Hey, I just saw these comments now (at some point when I think comments have trailed off I stop checking to focus on the new column) and I wanted to say I appreciated this perspective. The reason that I mentioned that I wasn't "part of the community" was that, in the absence of extensive interviews or someone specifically stating that the controversy felt like re-fighting real-world struggles, I didn't want it to seem like I was either telling LGBT gamers how to feel about this or suggest that I was in any way a spokesman. In other words, I wanted to make sure people understood that this was nothing more than my perspective in looking at the issue, and leave the door open for people to tell me I was utterly and completely wrong, if that's how they felt. I still feel like it was the right decision to make, since I got messages from gay gamers that were supportive of the article and others that felt I was making a mountain out of a molehill and shouldn't speak on behalf of them (many more of the former than the latter, I should add, and all very polite). For what it's worth, I did talk to several gay friends of mine about the controversy and asked them how they felt about it before writing the article at all.

Having said that, I definitely understand how that statement could've been read as distancing myself from the community or speaking of the LGBT community as some sort of separate category from the rest of society. Please understand this wasn't my intention - you're right, we're all one people. I just wanted to distance my opinion so as not to be considered speaking on behalf of those who can speak for themselves, if that makes any sense. And while it carries some undertones of separation and exclusion, I think it's sometimes helpful to talk about smaller communities inside the greater community of humankind. But I will definitely remember the point you've made and carefully consider my wording in the future.

Thanks for reading!

Robert Rath:

SiskoBlue:

Zen Toombs:
I understand the subtle point you're making, but before we can remove discrimination we need to acknowledge that there are people being discriminated against and how they are being discriminated against. To get to be a "color blind" or "sexuality blind" society we need to see, acknowledge, and then remove those things that are discriminatory in that society. Sadly, in America we are still in those first two steps, and you have to truly be in the third step before you can start moving past some form of labels.

What my point was in saying "[Rath] may not be in the LGBT community, but you have a firm grasp of the issues" was that 1. if you are in that group of people, you are actively discriminated against so it is easier to notice the specific issues and b. even non-heterosexual people can have problems grabbing on to the core of these topics.

Anyways, what's this backlash against Jodie Foster?

You're completely right. It just frustrates me that society still seems stuck in those first stages... STILL! I agree with your remark about Rath, I was just piggy-backing off the idea of being part of this or that community. Not sure how much you've heard but in short, Jodie Foster got some lifetime achievement award. She made a speech about being proud of who she is and how she "came out" to friends and family years ago, and didn't see the need to make a big deal about it. There were a few articles floating around how she should have done more. Basically beat her chest and say how proud she is to be gay, etc. Instead she just said it's a private part of her life and hopes people respect that.

It's that sticky principal of positive discrimination. Making a big deal out of it so people take notice and deal with the issues. But on the other hand I'm not a fan of it per se. Something is definitely needed but by pointing at it, it gives those who are anti-whatever-group-it-is something to complain about. "See! I'm just a normal guy but now I'm discriminated against because I'm a white, heterosexual male!" It's bollocks but it makes them think they have a counter-argument.

Hey, I just saw these comments now (at some point when I think comments have trailed off I stop checking to focus on the new column) and I wanted to say I appreciated this perspective. The reason that I mentioned that I wasn't "part of the community" was that, in the absence of extensive interviews or someone specifically stating that the controversy felt like re-fighting real-world struggles, I didn't want it to seem like I was either telling LGBT gamers how to feel about this or suggest that I was in any way a spokesman. In other words, I wanted to make sure people understood that this was nothing more than my perspective in looking at the issue, and leave the door open for people to tell me I was utterly and completely wrong, if that's how they felt. I still feel like it was the right decision to make, since I got messages from gay gamers that were supportive of the article and others that felt I was making a mountain out of a molehill and shouldn't speak on behalf of them (many more of the former than the latter, I should add, and all very polite). For what it's worth, I did talk to several gay friends of mine about the controversy and asked them how they felt about it before writing the article at all.

Having said that, I definitely understand how that statement could've been read as distancing myself from the community or speaking of the LGBT community as some sort of separate category from the rest of society. Please understand this wasn't my intention - you're right, we're all one people. I just wanted to distance my opinion so as not to be considered speaking on behalf of those who can speak for themselves, if that makes any sense. And while it carries some undertones of separation and exclusion, I think it's sometimes helpful to talk about smaller communities inside the greater community of humankind. But I will definitely remember the point you've made and carefully consider my wording in the future.

Thanks for reading!

Your articles are fantastic. Love reading them. Don't worry, I understood your intention perfectly. I just think it's a shame we have to qualify what we say. It should be implicit that your voice is your voice, and as part of the human race it's also a voice for all humans. If that makes sense. An opinion with a well-reasoned basis is always valid, regardless of who it comes from. Unfortunately the value of what people most people say is judged based on the speaker, and not it's content. Again, love the articles, keep it up.

Also, interesting fact: according to Karen Traviss's books in the Star Wars mythos, LGBT rights were already supported by a certain group: none other than the Mandalorians. You heard me right: Boba Fett, one of the biggest badasses of all time, supports our rights. That was before Disney though. Unfortunately it's not widely known fact.

Agreed. Well written article, but this quote made me LOL at the fact that I patiently waited that whole time (with a paying subscription) for my top-notch, hawt, healing BH to be allowed another ginger, mask-wearing companion to come along...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zll5gSegVTs

"...and I'm guessing that convincing LucasArts/Disney - both of whom are notoriously protective of their brands - to allow gay relationships in their ostensibly family-friendly galaxy was a lengthy process in itself."

And it makes me sick we have to refer to it as a "family-friendly" galaxy only when it doesn't include homosexuals.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here