"Gaming in Color", a Kickstarter Documentary on LGBT+ Gaming

[runic knight]

A perspective that, as you have correctly pointed out, is erroneous.

Wrong to assume, true. But understandable as to why they would ask in the first place, which was my point there from the start as to why people were asking questions.

You seem to believe that because something is understood, it is excusable. I know full well why people do that. That does not mean I have to tolerate behaviour I refuse to tolerate.

Lack of understanding or interest in something that doesn't interest them is "intolerable"? Or is it the dismissal? Or is it merely your own presumption of their motivations that you find intolerable?

What you're not getting is that offering the rebuttal you're proposing validates prejudice. The correct answer to "what's the point of this?" is "education", which is the same answer you would give to anyone who'd question the point of any educational work. Giving an extra answer (such as your proposed rebuttal) validates the idea that the documentary needs a reason other than education to exist. I don't care how common that attitude is. It's not something I have to tolerate in my own thread. If the answer "education" does not satisfy them, too bad.

Except it doesn't validate it. Honestly, if someone asks me why I bought, say, a hummer, and I answer with "to drive", it would have the same effect. I'd paint myself as some snotty douche, they wouldn't have any insight and in being so dismissive, it would validate their preconceptions about the vehicle. If I answered something with a little depth though, like "I like the way it drives and that it is virtually a tank in terms of personal safety", then suddenly there is a chance to educate as rather then offer them no counter to what is already in their heads. Other then validating their presumption by silence, I offer something that they then have to rationalize and decide between.
You keep repeating that answering the question somehow validates people being prejudiced yet you don't actually show it. People do it universal, so it can't be a prejudice against the topic itself. And that it isn't immediately clear to some doesn't suddenly mean you agree it has to do something beyond education. Hell, maybe much like the "to drive" answer, they already know that much and want more. I can answer "to educate" for a lot of things, but it sounds like a cheap, sarcastic and dickish reply. One that would drive more people away from something I supported then any question answering would, even if all I could answer was an honest "It just works for me".

How is it elevating the documentary above others? I literally said that the question should be given the same answer regardless of what kind of documentary it is. I would also recommend the same attitude for any documentary facing the same question. I am not elevating the documentary above others, I am refusing to let others treat it as something that needs special justification to exist. It's a documentary just like any other.

No, in the beginning you said that people questioning it were displaying bigotry. to quote

I do not have to put up with people's bigotry or prejudice.

(this in relation to why people were questioning the point). My counterpoint was that since people universally question things like this of all sorts, something you seem to agree with here, that it can't be said the motivation for questioning it is bigotry by default, and that any attempt to do so requires elevating the documentary above others into one where those who question it are not deserving of having their motivations presumed to be bigot driven. That you think no documentary has to justify itself is great and all, but when you presumed the motivation for questioning on this project was that much different then any other, you presented this one as special is all.

And as for the prejudice bit: please don't take offence at this, and I genuinely don't know a nicer way to say this, but I would trust my own expertise (instinct, experiences, observation and rational deduction) on what is or isn't prejudice, before anyone else's.

Problem being, the word carries weight, and has legitimate definition. Thus it still has to fit the definition, and the use of it has a near-slanderous affect to it due to strong association to racism, bigotry and the like makes it hard to see as anything but insulting when used loosely against someone or something. I sought to undercut the definition by explaining how if people act the same to any documentary, it makes it hard to justify the use as prejudice here, or that if it is prejudice and bigotry that motivates people doing that for any documentary, it removes any teeth from the words themselves as your definition of them is so loose to the point of barely applicable.

If people asked the same in the brony documentary, the same answer should have been given to them: "education". There's absolutely no reason to cave in to a person's wilful malice (and it is malice; don't believe for a second that the people asking the point of the documentary are doing it out of ignorance. I would bet that the great majority of them are doing it as an indirect way to express their derision for the subject matter). Don't like the documentary? Don't watch it. Don't give it your money. But there is no reason to acknowledge that kind of malice or treat it seriously. It is to be dismissed, not humoured.

Except by assuming the worst of people asking, you render the point of it being education worthless. This ties back into the same people asking what the point is when you act like this. "What is the point?" "education" Of who though? Obviously not going to educate anyone who already knows, you are preaching to the choir there, so scratch them off the list. And not going to educate anyone asking questions because you assume they are malicious and dismiss any concerns, complaints or questions. The ones actively against it sure aren't going to waste their time when they are being called prejudiced and bigots. Who is left? Furthermore, without a target audience that is being educated, you sacrifice the "point" you claimed in the first place. You have education that isn't educating, from a project asking money from people who the cookie shop advertiser treats with open contempt if you aren't already for it. You get why it is called mental masturbatory and self congratulating here, right?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

perhaps it's because my gaming experinces are largely solitary experinces these days, I'd find it hard to believe a member of the Rainbow Armada having a more radically different experince playing Hotline Miami than my own.

I'm going to be honest, 'Rainbow Armada' is an infinitely better name than the ever expanding series of letters being used at the moment.

Indeed. I hate the letter acronym as well since it kinda lumps every group in together.

 

[lacktheknack]

Only two and a half days to go, and it's not funded yet?

I... didn't actually expect that. Huh.

 

[theultimateend]

I really, really don't see the purpose of this documentary, why are they asking LBGT people specifically about their experiences with games as if we have some special insight?

This .

This seems like an excuse to talk about feelings and rainbows and ponies . Seems pointless . But whatever floats ur boat.

Buoyancy floats my boat.

Or perhaps its water.

I dunno these days.

 

[ajr209]

A perspective that, as you have correctly pointed out, is erroneous.

Wrong to assume, true. But understandable as to why they would ask in the first place, which was my point there from the start as to why people were asking questions.

You seem to believe that because something is understood, it is excusable. I know full well why people do that. That does not mean I have to tolerate behaviour I refuse to tolerate.

Lack of understanding or interest in something that doesn't interest them is "intolerable"? Or is it the dismissal? Or is it merely your own presumption of their motivations that you find intolerable?

What you're not getting is that offering the rebuttal you're proposing validates prejudice. The correct answer to "what's the point of this?" is "education", which is the same answer you would give to anyone who'd question the point of any educational work. Giving an extra answer (such as your proposed rebuttal) validates the idea that the documentary needs a reason other than education to exist. I don't care how common that attitude is. It's not something I have to tolerate in my own thread. If the answer "education" does not satisfy them, too bad.

Except it doesn't validate it. Honestly, if someone asks me why I bought, say, a hummer, and I answer with "to drive", it would have the same effect. I'd paint myself as some snotty douche, they wouldn't have any insight and in being so dismissive, it would validate their preconceptions about the vehicle. If I answered something with a little depth though, like "I like the way it drives and that it is virtually a tank in terms of personal safety", then suddenly there is a chance to educate as rather then offer them no counter to what is already in their heads. Other then validating their presumption by silence, I offer something that they then have to rationalize and decide between.
You keep repeating that answering the question somehow validates people being prejudiced yet you don't actually show it. People do it universal, so it can't be a prejudice against the topic itself. And that it isn't immediately clear to some doesn't suddenly mean you agree it has to do something beyond education. Hell, maybe much like the "to drive" answer, they already know that much and want more. I can answer "to educate" for a lot of things, but it sounds like a cheap, sarcastic and dickish reply. One that would drive more people away from something I supported then any question answering would, even if all I could answer was an honest "It just works for me".

How is it elevating the documentary above others? I literally said that the question should be given the same answer regardless of what kind of documentary it is. I would also recommend the same attitude for any documentary facing the same question. I am not elevating the documentary above others, I am refusing to let others treat it as something that needs special justification to exist. It's a documentary just like any other.

No, in the beginning you said that people questioning it were displaying bigotry. to quote

I do not have to put up with people's bigotry or prejudice.

(this in relation to why people were questioning the point). My counterpoint was that since people universally question things like this of all sorts, something you seem to agree with here, that it can't be said the motivation for questioning it is bigotry by default, and that any attempt to do so requires elevating the documentary above others into one where those who question it are not deserving of having their motivations presumed to be bigot driven. That you think no documentary has to justify itself is great and all, but when you presumed the motivation for questioning on this project was that much different then any other, you presented this one as special is all.

And as for the prejudice bit: please don't take offence at this, and I genuinely don't know a nicer way to say this, but I would trust my own expertise (instinct, experiences, observation and rational deduction) on what is or isn't prejudice, before anyone else's.

Problem being, the word carries weight, and has legitimate definition. Thus it still has to fit the definition, and the use of it has a near-slanderous affect to it due to strong association to racism, bigotry and the like makes it hard to see as anything but insulting when used loosely against someone or something. I sought to undercut the definition by explaining how if people act the same to any documentary, it makes it hard to justify the use as prejudice here, or that if it is prejudice and bigotry that motivates people doing that for any documentary, it removes any teeth from the words themselves as your definition of them is so loose to the point of barely applicable.

If people asked the same in the brony documentary, the same answer should have been given to them: "education". There's absolutely no reason to cave in to a person's wilful malice (and it is malice; don't believe for a second that the people asking the point of the documentary are doing it out of ignorance. I would bet that the great majority of them are doing it as an indirect way to express their derision for the subject matter). Don't like the documentary? Don't watch it. Don't give it your money. But there is no reason to acknowledge that kind of malice or treat it seriously. It is to be dismissed, not humoured.

Except by assuming the worst of people asking, you render the point of it being education worthless. This ties back into the same people asking what the point is when you act like this. "What is the point?" "education" Of who though? Obviously not going to educate anyone who already knows, you are preaching to the choir there, so scratch them off the list. And not going to educate anyone asking questions because you assume they are malicious and dismiss any concerns, complaints or questions. The ones actively against it sure aren't going to waste their time when they are being called prejudiced and bigots. Who is left? Furthermore, without a target audience that is being educated, you sacrifice the "point" you claimed in the first place. You have education that isn't educating, from a project asking money from people who the cookie shop advertiser treats with open contempt if you aren't already for it. You get why it is called mental masturbatory and self congratulating here, right?

You seem to be operating on the very false notions that A) something only has educational value to someone who knows nothing about the subject B) It is possible to give knowledge to someone who doesn't want it C) Someone has to have deep down to the bone all consuming hatred for any of their actions to be called bigoted or prejudiced D) there isn't any possible negative reasons someone would ask for justification for one thing when it wouldn't even occur to them to ask for justification for anything else that is comparable in nature.


While a documentary/book/lecture/etc. might provide the most amount of new info to someone not already familiar with the subject matter people already familiar with it can gain things like a fresh perspective, bits of info they didn't have already or in this case reassurance that whatever they are going through they are no alone in it,which is something that is priceless if you are of a group who is not of the majority and often held back or harmed as a result of not being the majority. Do you think only someone who knows nothing of physics would benefit from attending a lecture on physics or only some who knows nothing of Darwin would benefit from reading his work?

Someone who doesn't want to be taught can't be taught. If someone has already made up their mind that a documentary has no merit on the grounds that they want nothing to do with the subject that documentary couldn't hope to pass on whatever it is trying to because they've shut themselves of from it. It's kind of like trying to teach geometry to a kid who's rolling his eyes and saying "why do I have to learn this? I'm never going to use it in real life". It's unlikely that kid will learn anything regardless of how hard you try because he's shut himself of from the very concept that this knowledge could in any capacity enrich his life.

Just because a person isn't a stone cold bigot doesn't mean things they say or do can never be viewed as bigoted. Sure there's no one screaming for anyone to be harmed physically but there are plenty of people who are opposing the very notion that people who are different than themselves deserve anything along the lines of the same respect and representation they get/demand. To make matters worse some, yourself included, have gone on to defend this, try to turn the tables and place blame for bigoted actions on the people who are on the receiving end of them and tell minorities to pretty much take it on the chin. You may not like to think of that as being the situation but that IS what's gone on here. If a person isn't a bigot then they should think about how their actions/words could be interpreted instead of saying the first insensitive thing that pops into their head, otherwise the whole but we're not bigots defense doesn't hold a hell of a lot of water.

 

[runic knight]

You seem to be operating on the very false notions that A) something only has educational value to someone who knows nothing about the subject B) It is possible to give knowledge to someone who doesn't want it C) Someone has to have deep down to the bone all consuming hatred for any of their actions to be called bigoted or prejudiced D) there isn't any possible negative reasons someone would ask for justification for one thing when it wouldn't even occur to them to ask for justification for anything else that is comparable in nature.

A. Everything has value of some sort, but in terms of effort and money required to make the documentary versus what it will do, if you limit your audience to only those who already know and agree, it makes it very hard to counter any complaint of "what is the point?" without it being mental masturbation. Because education is justification for itself, but few people outside of those who want to be pandered to will see the point in a documentary as limited as this. So the point would not be "we want to educate" but rather "we want to make ourselves feel good"
B. It is possible, but a hell of a lot harder and less effective, and far more likely to result in spite ignorance. No one appreciates being forced to learn, be in tied to a chair or perpetual guilt and labeling.
C. Not necessarily. But my case was that there are people who would object to this on means completely unrelated to bias or bigotry to begin with. Also, review my point about how labeling something with bigot is bad because of it being a loaded term.
D. There are, and I am sure some are asking for justification out of spite. Problem is, I was arguing that it is unfair to claim all are, let alone with use of loaded emotionally charged terms to do so.

While a documentary/book/lecture/etc. might provide the most amount of new info to someone not already familiar with the subject matter people already familiar with it can gain things like a fresh perspective, bits of info they didn't have already or in this case reassurance that whatever they are going through they are no alone in it,which is something that is priceless if you are of a group who is not of the majority and often held back or harmed as a result of not being the majority. Do you think only someone who knows nothing of physics would benefit from attending a lecture on physics or only some who knows nothing of Darwin would benefit from reading his work?

I agree information is valuable already, so I don't get the point here? Are you assuming that a work made and presented in a closed and insular manner to show the perspective of a group of people is in the same worth as sciences backed by facts and that are both more timeless and more useful to the world as a whole? Are you saying that a project asking for money shouldn't have to at least reach a hand out with some degree of practicality to present the goal?
As I said, I already can see the value and point of the project, even if I don't agree with it fully. My problem is the dismissal of people who are questioning it as bigots and the idea that it being educational means it is above questioning of the point of that education.

Someone who doesn't want to be taught can't be taught. If someone has already made up their mind that a documentary has no merit on the grounds that they want nothing to do with the subject that documentary couldn't hope to pass on whatever it is trying to because they've shut themselves of from it. It's kind of like trying to teach geometry to a kid who's rolling his eyes and saying "why do I have to learn this? I'm never going to use it in real life". It's unlikely that kid will learn anything regardless of how hard you try because he's shut himself of from the very concept that this knowledge could in any capacity enrich his life.

Just because a person isn't a stone cold bigot doesn't mean things they say or do can never be viewed as bigoted. Sure there's no one screaming for anyone to be harmed physically but there are plenty of people who are opposing the very notion that people who are different than themselves deserve anything along the lines of the same respect and representation they get/demand. To make matters worse some, yourself included, have gone on to defend this, try to turn the tables and place blame for bigoted actions on the people who are on the receiving end of them and tell minorities to pretty much take it on the chin. You may not like to think of that as being the situation but that IS what's gone on here. If a person isn't a bigot then they should think about how their actions/words could be interpreted instead of saying the first insensitive thing that pops into their head, otherwise the whole but we're not bigots defense doesn't hold a hell of a lot of water.

I am not trying to blame people, I am trying to say "you are not special in how you are being treated here and nor can you infer motivations for how you are being treated because of that". See, one is accusing someone, the other is saying "put the damn victim card away, questioning the point is nothing new because the topic is slightly controversial."
Saying someone who isn't a bigot has to watch their words unless it offend someone else is the very idea I want to strike down here. They don't, and they shouldn't because in doing so YOU MAKE YOUR PROJECT UNEQUAL TO ALL OTHERS. When you try to paint people as bigots for opposing your project in the same way other people oppose other project, you do a disservice.

 

[Darken12]

I was actually going to reply, but I saw that ajr had summed up more or less what I was going to say and you still repeat the same things you have been repeating over and over again. You are unwilling to even consider the idea that people might actually be prejudiced whether they intend to be prejudiced or not. That seems to be a completely irreconcilable difference, and it is not likely to change any time soon.

This is not going anywhere. Further discussion is clearly a waste of time.

 

[ajr209]

You seem to be operating on the very false notions that A) something only has educational value to someone who knows nothing about the subject B) It is possible to give knowledge to someone who doesn't want it C) Someone has to have deep down to the bone all consuming hatred for any of their actions to be called bigoted or prejudiced D) there isn't any possible negative reasons someone would ask for justification for one thing when it wouldn't even occur to them to ask for justification for anything else that is comparable in nature.

A. Everything has value of some sort, but in terms of effort and money required to make the documentary versus what it will do, if you limit your audience to only those who already know and agree, it makes it very hard to counter any complaint of "what is the point?" without it being mental masturbation. Because education is justification for itself, but few people outside of those who want to be pandered to will see the point in a documentary as limited as this. So the point would not be "we want to educate" but rather "we want to make ourselves feel good"
B. It is possible, but a hell of a lot harder and less effective, and far more likely to result in spite ignorance. No one appreciates being forced to learn, be in tied to a chair or perpetual guilt and labeling.
C. Not necessarily. But my case was that there are people who would object to this on means completely unrelated to bias or bigotry to begin with. Also, review my point about how labeling something with bigot is bad because of it being a loaded term.
D. There are, and I am sure some are asking for justification out of spite. Problem is, I was arguing that it is unfair to claim all are, let alone with use of loaded emotionally charged terms to do so.

While a documentary/book/lecture/etc. might provide the most amount of new info to someone not already familiar with the subject matter people already familiar with it can gain things like a fresh perspective, bits of info they didn't have already or in this case reassurance that whatever they are going through they are no alone in it,which is something that is priceless if you are of a group who is not of the majority and often held back or harmed as a result of not being the majority. Do you think only someone who knows nothing of physics would benefit from attending a lecture on physics or only some who knows nothing of Darwin would benefit from reading his work?

I agree information is valuable already, so I don't get the point here? Are you assuming that a work made and presented in a closed and insular manner to show the perspective of a group of people is in the same worth as sciences backed by facts and that are both more timeless and more useful to the world as a whole? Are you saying that a project asking for money shouldn't have to at least reach a hand out with some degree of practicality to present the goal?
As I said, I already can see the value and point of the project, even if I don't agree with it fully. My problem is the dismissal of people who are questioning it as bigots and the idea that it being educational means it is above questioning of the point of that education.

Someone who doesn't want to be taught can't be taught. If someone has already made up their mind that a documentary has no merit on the grounds that they want nothing to do with the subject that documentary couldn't hope to pass on whatever it is trying to because they've shut themselves of from it. It's kind of like trying to teach geometry to a kid who's rolling his eyes and saying "why do I have to learn this? I'm never going to use it in real life". It's unlikely that kid will learn anything regardless of how hard you try because he's shut himself of from the very concept that this knowledge could in any capacity enrich his life.

Just because a person isn't a stone cold bigot doesn't mean things they say or do can never be viewed as bigoted. Sure there's no one screaming for anyone to be harmed physically but there are plenty of people who are opposing the very notion that people who are different than themselves deserve anything along the lines of the same respect and representation they get/demand. To make matters worse some, yourself included, have gone on to defend this, try to turn the tables and place blame for bigoted actions on the people who are on the receiving end of them and tell minorities to pretty much take it on the chin. You may not like to think of that as being the situation but that IS what's gone on here. If a person isn't a bigot then they should think about how their actions/words could be interpreted instead of saying the first insensitive thing that pops into their head, otherwise the whole but we're not bigots defense doesn't hold a hell of a lot of water.

I am not trying to blame people, I am trying to say "you are not special in how you are being treated here and nor can you infer motivations for how you are being treated because of that". See, one is accusing someone, the other is saying "put the damn victim card away, questioning the point is nothing new because the topic is slightly controversial."
Saying someone who isn't a bigot has to watch their words unless it offend someone else is the very idea I want to strike down here. They don't, and they shouldn't because in doing so YOU MAKE YOUR PROJECT UNEQUAL TO ALL OTHERS. When you try to paint people as bigots for opposing your project in the same way other people oppose other project, you do a disservice.

You still don't get it. It's not the not understanding or not agreeing that's the problem. Nobody has any problem with that what so ever. It's the blatant dismissal, Demanding of justification when they would never think to demand justification from any other movie and do so only because of the subject matter, flat out saying people who who are minorities should just take it on the chin for no better reason than people who aren't minorities don't want to be inconvenienced, Trying to claim wanting to at least occasionally be represented or have the opportunity to see how people who are also of a group a person belongs to are doing is somehow special treatment when it's far less than what the majority usually gets without having to ask, and the adamant defense of these acts is where the prejudice comes in. You can try to put a friendly face on it all you like but at the end of the day it still is what it is and what it is isn't pretty.

IF the posters I am talking about were from a place of "I don't understand, can you elaborate" or "well I don't understand but hey, live and let live" or "it's not something I'm interested in",as a good amount of posters have, throwing out words like bigotry or prejudice would be completely and utterly unwarranted to the point of being shameful. I am not talking about them. The people I am talking about are stating that that it doesn't need or deserve to exist not because it is in any way wrong but simply because the subject doesn't directly affect them, if they were opposing other projects with the same attitudes and claims it wouldn't be an issue but they're not so it is, or vehemently denouncing it claiming that somehow showcasing a group of minorities will degrade the entire industry. They brand the people looking to make it as nothing more than PC thugs looking for special treatment at the expense of others. It's not a matter of something being above questioning, it's about how one goes about it and their motivation for doing it.

And yes if a person doesn't want to be called a bigot they shouldn't say or do bigoted things because it makes it hard to believe them when they claim not to be a bigot. Am I saying people shouldn't voice their opinion? F no, that's not what I'm saying at all, we all have freedom of speech but with freedom comes an equal amount of responsibility. people need to understand for every action there is a reaction and you always no matter who your are talking to or what you are saying need to think about whether or not you are prepared to deal with the potential reaction. If a person says mean things people may call them mean, the person may not be mean but that doesn't change whether or not the things they said was. Having a little forethought to ones actions is stellar advice for anyone regardless of the situation or any other factors.

Yes, bigotry and prejudice are words are harsh terms. You know what is harsher? Being on the receiving end of bigotry and prejudice. What's harsher still is being on the receiving end of bigotry and prejudice and being told to pretend it's not happening because speaking out against it makes people uncomfortable.

 

[runic knight]

You still don't get it. It's not the not understanding or not agreeing that's the problem. Nobody has any problem with that what so ever. It's the blatant dismissal, Demanding of justification when they would never think to demand justification from any other movie and do so only because of the subject matter, flat out saying people who who are minorities should just take it on the chin for no better reason than people who aren't minorities don't want to be inconvenienced, Trying to claim wanting to at least occasionally be represented or have the opportunity to see how people who are also of a group a person belongs to are doing is somehow special treatment when it's far less than what the majority usually gets without having to ask, and the adamant defense of these acts is where the prejudice comes in. You can try to put a friendly face on it all you like but at the end of the day it still is what it is and what it is isn't pretty.

IF the posters I am talking about were from a place of "I don't understand, can you elaborate" or "well I don't understand but hey, live and let live" or "it's not something I'm interested in",as a good amount of posters have, throwing out words like bigotry or prejudice would be completely and utterly unwarranted to the point of being shameful. I am not talking about them. The people I am talking about are stating that that it doesn't need or deserve to exist not because it is in any way wrong but simply because the subject doesn't directly affect them, if they were opposing other projects with the same attitudes and claims it wouldn't be an issue but they're not so it is, or vehemently denouncing it claiming that somehow showcasing a group of minorities will degrade the entire industry. They brand the people looking to make it as nothing more than PC thugs looking for special treatment at the expense of others. It's not a matter of something being above questioning, it's about how one goes about it and their motivation for doing it.

And yes if a person doesn't want to be called a bigot they shouldn't say or do bigoted things because it makes it hard to believe them when they claim not to be a bigot. Am I saying people shouldn't voice their opinion? F no, that's not what I'm saying at all, we all have freedom of speech but with freedom comes an equal amount of responsibility. people need to understand for every action there is a reaction and you always no matter who your are talking to or what you are saying need to think about whether or not you are prepared to deal with the potential reaction. If a person says mean things people may call them mean, the person may not be mean but that doesn't change whether or not the things they said was. Having a little forethought to ones actions is stellar advice for anyone regardless of the situation or any other factors.

Yes, bigotry and prejudice are words are harsh terms. You know what is harsher? Being on the receiving end of bigotry and prejudice. What's harsher still is being on the receiving end of bigotry and prejudice and being told to pretend it's not happening because speaking out against it makes people uncomfortable.

Perhaps a more centralized explanation would help things, as it seem neither of you really get my motivation or contention.

I replied when Darken said that people who were questioning the point were bigots and prejudiced. I decided to attack this point in two ways. First was to point out that people asking questions, including the "what is the point", is common among any sort of documentary. I tried to call up examples I knew of and ones off the top of my head. I tried to call of personal experience and even referenced a thread on these forums about the brony documentary. The whole line of reasoning in this point was "you aren't special in how people treat this documentary just because of the subject matter."
This undercuts the claim that people who question the point are bigots or prejudiced by showing it to be a basic reaction, regardless of the subject being controversial or not.
The second way I tried to debate the claim was explaining that asking questions, hell, even outright dismissal, is not a sign of bigotry or prejudice. I did this by bringing up other examples as comparing the same reactions they get to this one, as well as pointing out how it requires leaps of logic or presumption to assume the motivation for anyone else's action solely on the action itself. The flaw with this is more easily noted through example, such as a murder. If a white man murders a black man, you can not just go "well, racism" because the victim was a minority, and yet you do that sort of jumping to conclusions when you propose to know why people were asking what the point was.

Furthermore, the conversation broke into other areas. The idea that asking the point was unjustified, the presumption that asking the point was discriminatory, what the point of a documentary is if it is nothing but self congratulatory and the like. so I'll try to answer your main chunks here as best as I can, as I feel the purpose of calling out a bullshit claim has been deluded thus far. Here goes.

-----
Point one.
Demand of justification of a documentary is nothing new, nor limited to ones based around LGBT community. Hell, it can arise around popular ideas from people who don't get the reason for it to exist if everyone knows about it already. Thus any complaints about it being special in this case are worthless unless proven otherwise. Since the criticism is universal, it is not enough to determine motive.
You can talk about them taking it on the chin and paint it however the hell you want to, but the bottom line is pretty simple. Everyone gets the question, thus it is equal and not limited nor related solely to the topic of LGBT community. This does not mean it can't be, merely that it can not be presumed to be just because. Thus you can't use it to support your claim of bigotry or discrimination or of people asking what is the point being motivated as such.
Your premise: People asking the question are motivated by prejudice.
Your conclusion: Thus are bigots and this is discrimination.

My complaints: Your premise is wrong, thus your conclusion is not valid.

And, that is pretty much my point of posting this chain to start with. I don't care what you try to stack onto it after that point, if you can't build an argument that stands, all you are doing is throwing bricks into a heap. Thus any attempt to describe the plight of the LGBT or say they are owed being treated differently or that this is them trying to be occasionally represented for once does not matter. If your argument doesn't stand, it does not matter. I wont even delve into the logical fallacy of every appeal to emotion there until the argument itself is fixed...

Point two.
If you aren't talking about all posters, but only those who fit your requirements, why are you arguing the point with me? My complaint was that people asking "what is the point" were being unjustifiably called bigots and prejudiced. Those saying it doesn't need to exist fall into the same category of those asking "what is the point" though, as you still get that universally, and you can't infer motivation from it because of that. I can think of perfectly valid reasons someone would say "you know what, this is pointless, it doesn't need to exist". You may disagree with their reasons, but you can't use their stance alone on that to claim prejudice or bigotry without being intellectually dishonest. I am curious who has said it doesn't deserve to exist though, as I have not seen that one. And no, there is difference there between those two, as need suggests it just isn't worth the effort (a possibly valid stance in opinion, documentaries in general don't need to exist), while deserve suggests it has not right to exist, something that is wrong based on the education stuff we talked about before. Someone saying it doesn't deserve to exist suggests different projects have different rights though, so I could see a reasonable case made about prejudice in that instance, as saying something doesn't deserve implies some do which in turn might point to actual discrimination and prejudice, though I still don't recall anyone actually saying it that way. Interesting argument to be had though I suppose.
For the rest of your second paragraph I remember quite a few threads on the brony documentary (and a suggested one/suggested addition to the brown doc, on the furry subgroup that was a part of it) that argued those exact points. It showcased a minority of nerds (or broniees), it pandered, it was pointless, it was masturbatory. They argued much in a similar fashion about it as this one. As for mention of PC asking for special treatment, given how much of what both you and Darken have argued for special treatment (in a round about way, though special pleading fallacies are asking for special exception), I can see why it is brought up.

Point Three
People can also take what you said wrong or misrepresent it for personal gain or just spite. Part of the reason when it comes to claims and arguments, I try to follow the rules. Thus things like labels have to fit to be applied. Stances have to be supported to be used. Logic has to be obeyed and fallacy pointed out.
People can have the best foresight and some asshole can still spin it into whatever they want to hear. Shock jockies makes it a hobby, and internet threads can use it often. A documentary that is perceived as a PC pandering mental masturbation fest and a question about the point of said documentary is perceived as an attack on the right to exist of the documentary itself and reveals a prejudice the person asking the question might not even realize they have.
This is why I argue and call fallacies. This is why I force people tossing labels to justify the use and I call them out when they aren't.
Two wrongs do not make a right and when it comes to holding people honest, I'd rather keep the side I am sympathetic to honest, as I associate with those people. And yes, I do sympathize with the LGBT community and their plight of living in a society that is still barely recognizing them let alone treating them equally. But you know what, it doesn't matter my stance on that as my complaint was about the claim that those who asked questions, hell, those that saw no value in the documentary were prejudiced bigots. The claim was dishonest from the start and it has never stopped being dishonest. No, it DOESN'T matter what the gay community has gone through in the past, the present or will go through in the future, the claim is still wrong. No, it DOESN'T matter how terrible or terribly common such treatment of other people can be, the claim is still wrong. No, it DOESN'T matter that a portion people asking the question turn out to be legitimate racist homophobes or whatever else. No, it doesn't matter what reason you use to try to emotionally justify it, THE. CLAIM. IS. STILL. WRONG.

 

[Smeatza]

The irony of it all being that those who accuse others of bigotry for asking such questions, by their own logic, are bigots themselves.

 

[ajr209]

snip

I just flat out said it's not the questioning that's the problem it's the how and the why. Seriously, did you actually read my posts or do you just skim it for words you don't like? Your argument is invalid because no one is complaining about questioning itself, it's the way they are doing it and the reason they are. I pointed out not everyone is coming from the same place with their questioning. That there are some that are coming from a bad place and some that aren't. Trying to whitewash the clearly prejudiced posters by lumping them in with the ones that clearly aren't just so the prejudiced ones don't have to feel bad about having expressed prejudice is a great disservice to the innocent and enabling the ones who are doing wrong to continue to do it. The ones who are innocent shouldn't receive blame they don't deserve and the ones who are saying prejudiced things shouldn't just have their prejudice ignored because doing so is an insult not just to their targets but also to those who chose to question but were civil about it. I really can't put it more plainly than that.

Nor do I wish to. I'm not a teacher and you aren't my student, it's not my contractual obligation to repeat and clarify myself indefinitely just because you don't want to listen.

 

[ajr209]

The irony of it all being that those who accuse others of bigotry for asking such questions, by their own logic, are bigots themselves.

*points at post #151*

 

[Schadrach]

Only two and a half days to go, and it's not funded yet?

I... didn't actually expect that. Huh.

A day left and still not there, close though. Given final 48 hours usually have a sharp uptake in funding (and yesterday was no exception), it'll probably get there.

I hope it makes it, it at least didn't try any of the underhanded shit that's been seen in certain other Kickstarters (underhanded shit that generally only works because it lines up neatly with an existing narrative so people are less likely to really look into it and more likely to assume anyone who calls it out has other problems with the project).

 

[runic knight]

snip

I just flat out said it's not the questioning that's the problem it's the how and the why. Seriously, did you actually read my posts or do you just skim it for words you don't like? Your argument is invalid because no one is complaining about questioning itself, it's the way they are doing it and the reason they are. I pointed out not everyone is coming from the same place with their questioning. That there are some that are coming from a bad place and some that aren't. Trying to whitewash the clearly prejudiced posters by lumping them in with the ones that clearly aren't just so the prejudiced ones don't have to feel bad about having expressed prejudice is a great disservice to the innocent and enabling the ones who are doing wrong to continue to do it. The ones who are innocent shouldn't receive blame they don't deserve and the ones who are saying prejudiced things shouldn't just have their prejudice ignored because doing so is an insult not just to their targets but also to those who chose to question but were civil about it. I really can't put it more plainly than that.

Nor do I wish to. I'm not a teacher and you aren't my student, it's not my contractual obligation to repeat and clarify myself indefinitely just because you don't want to listen.

hmmm, really now?

If you aren't talking about all posters, but only those who fit your requirements, why are you arguing the point with me?

I could ask the same question about if you are reading my posts or just skimming. Hell, I feel I have to ask why you are replying to me at all given my complaint, as I explained several times now is with Darken's broad, all encompassing comment. Also, aside from you adding more detail and discussion, and I was replying to not just your post but the overall arguments by both of you, so I made it long.

Now, the problem I keep bringing up is that you can't presume people's motivations by the "way" they ask nor can you assume the reason for it outright. Thus, you can't just whitewash a comment like "if you ask what the point is, you are prejudiced and bigots" by saying "well, some are, so it is ok." No, it isn't, it never has been and god damn, it has been the point I have been harping on for the last dozen posts.
I have not said we should ignore bigots. I have not said there aren't any. I haven't said there aren't any in the thread. All I have been arguing is that saying "if you question the point, you are prejudiced and bigoted" is wrong. Because bricks keep being tossed on top of the pile, I have been trying to deal with them one at a time. But you know what? Doesn't matter, as you have twice now ignored my point to reply to me as though I am making claims I am not. For someone trying to pretend I am not listening because you want something more to be there, please, let me put it out there once again. I'll quote my very first reply too, so you can see it was there from the start.

Reread what I was saying if you must, but try to do so without your own perchance to cry bigotry. I can fully see someone saying "this is pointless" based on a number of issues, anywhere from concentrating on a minority opinion in a field where even majority opinion can and often is ignored (see DRM practices), to the idea that it will be bland, uninteresting endeavor since gay gamers are still just gamers in the end and thus they would not see their responses to most things any different then their own. Any project advertising itself will have people question it, because that is human nature. Get over the topic of it for a moment when looking at my post and instead look at it in a general view, as I have been trying to keep it. A project is asking for money advertised in a thread. This will get:
1. Discussion
2. Questions
3. People asking what the hell the point of it all is
This is pretty universal, regardless of topic, so blaming people doing so on bigotry or whatever else like that comes off as dismissive, hand waving and outright dishonest.

Once again. If you question the point, hell if you see no value in it at all, it is not a sign of bigotry or prejudice.

Now, if you stance is really one of simple common sense, as you present it, why the hell are you replying to me at all? Is it because you think I am trying to excuse the bigots? Cause...no. I am trying to hold Darken honest and have been from the start of his claim. His claim which is, as you put it, "an insult not just to their targets but also to those who chose to question but were civil about it".

See, this was what set me off to start with. "Actually no, I do not have to put up with people's bigotry or prejudice". I got this in relation to saying people would have to expect questioning, even about the point. No exception or exclusion, merely that questioning in general is prejudice and bigotry. Hence I have stuck on it, and keeped hammering on it as wrong. Now, after 2 pages of putting up with him, you want to pop out of the woodworks, misrepresent my stance because you don't understand and then accuse me of skimming through your post while trying to take up the same damn stance I have been arguing all along, that such a claim of "everyone is this" is wrong? Screw that.

"The ones who are innocent shouldn't receive blame they don't deserve" yet if they question the documentary, they are prejudiced and bigots according to Darken's presentation. But heaven help me if I call that out for being bullshit, because in doing so I have to be claiming that no one who ever questions anything is a bigot. I am arguing against presumption of motivation from a universal action. I am not arguing that the presumption can't be right occasionally, merely the presumption is flawed and it is dishonest to present it as anything else. Before you reply, if you choose to do so, please go back and reread all the replies. You will probably not follow my chain of thought there, but perhaps the repetition of it all might convince you that your presumption of my stance is wrong.

 

[ajr209]

snip

Yes really. It's not the questioning that's the problem it's the how and the why and just because there are those who are civil doesn't mean we should ignore those who aren't has always been my stance. You would know that if you actually bothered to read what I said instead of just latching on to words you don't like and ignoring the rest.

I KNOW that's what you did because I've said it's not the questioning that's the problem it's the how and the why and just because there are those who are civil doesn't mean we should ignore those who aren't in one way or another in each of my posts yet you go on and on as if I didn't. And you're still doing it!!!

Your argument is invalid because it is entirely based on the complete and total and purposeful misrepresentation of my stance. Read what I am about to write very carefully- I am not nor have I ever said questioning in and of itself is bigoted. Context (how and why) is important. There are people who have questioned civilly. That is good. It is a way to voice opinions,spark legit debate and for those who want info to get it. There are people who have not questioned civilly. That is bad. It was merely there solely for the purpose of people having a platform to publicly express prejudice and to tell minorities to go sit in the corner. Ignoring the bad enables it to continue and is an insult to the targets of the bad and those who had the decency to put in the effort to be civil despite not agreeing or understanding. That is and always has been my argument. Got it?

You are the one who has misrepresented someone else's stance, and repeatedly with several people at that. You have mangled and cherry picked quotes in a way that is at best dishonest. You go on and on about how people shouldn't have their voices silenced just because someone doesn't like what they have to say then say that I have no business replying. That that is what you chose to do is not my fault and I'll thank you very much to stop trying to shift the blame for your actions.

 

[Darken12]

The kickstarter reached funding by the skin of its teeth. Rejoice!

 

[runic knight]

snip

Yes really. It's not the questioning that's the problem it's the how and the why and just because there are those who are civil doesn't mean we should ignore those who aren't has always been my stance. You would know that if you actually bothered to read what I said instead of just latching on to words you don't like and ignoring the rest.

I KNOW that's what you did because I've said it's not the questioning that's the problem it's the how and the why and just because there are those who are civil doesn't mean we should ignore those who aren't in one way or another in each of my posts yet you go on and on as if I didn't. And you're still doing it!!!

Your argument is invalid because it is entirely based on the complete and total and purposeful misrepresentation of my stance. Read what I am about to write very carefully- I am not nor have I ever said questioning in and of itself is bigoted. Context (how and why) is important. There are people who have questioned civilly. That is good. It is a way to voice opinions,spark legit debate and for those who want info to get it. There are people who have not questioned civilly. That is bad. It was merely there solely for the purpose of people having a platform to publicly express prejudice and to tell minorities to go sit in the corner. Ignoring the bad enables it to continue and is an insult to the targets of the bad and those who had the decency to put in the effort to be civil despite not agreeing or understanding. That is and always has been my argument. Got it?

You are the one who has misrepresented someone else's stance, and repeatedly with several people at that. You have mangled and cherry picked quotes in a way that is at best dishonest. You go on and on about how people shouldn't have their voices silenced just because someone doesn't like what they have to say then say that I have no business replying. That that is what you chose to do is not my fault and I'll thank you very much to stop trying to shift the blame for your actions.

My argument.... which has been a rebuttal to Darken's stance from the start, is a misrepresentation of your stance, which you gave after several posts? You understand how time works, right? You understand that I can't misrepresent your stance by keeping on the same damn point I had from earlier on and literally asking you what the hell you are complaining about. -sigh-

I wrote another long post but you seem to ignore paragraphs of information so lets go slow here so you don't fall off the rails. One step at a time.

1. You know what my stance is on Darken's original claim, yes? It is solely that not everyone who questions is a bigot and it is dishonest to claim they are. That is it, nothing more, just a rebuttal to a claim made. Not saying they can't be. Not saying some aren't. Merely, claiming that questioners in general are bigots is wrong. That is it.

2. "How" people ask questions is irrelevant to that stance. Darken didn't make exceptions in his stance, and I didn't mention it because of that, so going off on my about that is at best, pointless. Your personaly opinion might include that, and you know what, I can see some arguments being made there. But it doesn't matter because neither the stance I am arguing against nor the stance I counter with relate to detail that at all.

3. That -YOU- haven't made the stance I am arguing against is irrelevant, being that I have been arguing against it for the last page before you posted. You tried to rebuttal me on a complaint to someone else's claim. Hence why I keep asking what the hell is your reason for doing so if you don't disagree with my stance (that not ever questioner is a bigot).

You with me so far? Don't want to lose you now and have you tossing out more "cherry picked" and "misrepresented my stance" crap like a parrot who just heard of logical fallacies. And yes, I will treat you like a condescending asshole because I've tried twice now to explain clearly that you are getting shit wrong, but you instead don't see it, put your hands over your ears going "LALALALALA" while accusing me of doing that instead.

The people no questioning civilly? Don't care, didn't get to them yet, they are unrelated at the moment. That some do so civilly? Don't care, didn't get into any details or exceptions in the original claim. Context of the questioning? Don't care right now because I am working on a foundation stance Darken made, and rather then have 20 side discussions I'd like to address the biggest, most obvious flaw in HIS argument before moving on. Maybe, after that is sorted, we can move on. But for now, right here, no, I don't care about the added details, all I am sticking to is calling out a dishonest claim. Every time I try to address a myriad of topics, it gets deluded and confused and then you seem to think I am making claims I am not or backing points I didn't make, so screw it.

damn, still longer then I wanted here.

 

[ajr209]

sinp

His point was in fact 'that's your question? well this is the answer' coupled with the point I've been making. He tried to tell you this but just like with me rather than listening you latched onto a phrase you didn't like and ignored the rest. Your point was every bit as invalid with him as it is with me and for the exact same reasons. Getting increasingly condescending does not change that.

You are misrepresenting other's stances. You are making false claims. You are mangling and cherry picking quotes to in a way that is at best dishonest. Once again that this is what you have chosen to do is not my fault, or Darken12's for that matter.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

I just really hope that this doesn't end in some kind of Feminist Frequence 2.0.

Where everyone says every single thing said in the documentary is audaciously wrong and heterophobic. While almost everyone else says that the documentary is "just stating the obvious" and thus "just a complete waste of time and money". And "How much could this documentary cost to make? This sounds like a cheap exploitative money grab."

From what little of this thread I've read, I am indeed worrying this will become a Feminist Frequency 2.0. The comments in this thread are already looking Feminist Frequency-esque.

 

[runic knight]

sinp

His point was in fact 'that's your question? well this is the answer' coupled with the point I've been making. He tried to tell you this but just like with me rather than listening you latched onto a phrase you didn't like and ignored the rest. Your point was every bit as invalid with him as it is with me and for the exact same reasons. Getting increasingly condescending does not change that.

You are misrepresenting other's stances. You are making false claims. You are mangling and cherry picking quotes to in a way that is at best dishonest. Once again that this is what you have chosen to do is not my fault, or Darken12's for that matter.

If someone answers "I don't have to put up with their bigotry" to "You sort of have to expect this sort of question", exactly how am I misrepresenting that? Hell, I have restated that stance is the one I dislike for several posts now and he hasn't refuted it, instead increasingly trying to defend it by appealing to a motivation he can't know and only infers because of the target, regardless the commonality of the questioning to begin with.

So, where is that wrong? Where is the misrepresentation of his stance or the cherry picking of data or quote mining of opinions out of context? Why, if I was so mistaken, was this not sorted out after the first post with "I don't mean all, just some/many/non-all-encomapssing generalization". Why, if I was mistaken, would the defensive be an attempt at justification and defense for what I understood to be his stance rather then an explanation of the misunderstanding of it?

If the answer to my assertion of "you sort of have to expect this sort of question" is "you are bigots", I happen to find flaw there and yes, I will latch onto the flaws. Of course, given that I reply long, and to many points, it is a little hard to claim I am cherry picking things, unless you mean I am doing so to entire posts. Or do you mean how I am now trying to concentrate on more narrow points, in response to getting nowhere attempting to hit them all?

So, for clarity's sake, tell me, what is my stance? If it is invalid as you say, if my claims are false, tell me, what claims are false and what my stance actually is.