GayGamer.net has a lot to answer for
- Thread starter ThePlasmatizer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Or possibly he clearly was making a joke about the behaviour exhibited by these manly men with their bromances.Miumaru said:
When Lotr came out people where making jokes about Frodo and Sam's relationship in the movie, was their attitude an insult towards the gay community? I don't think so. We need to keep level headed about protecting others from discrimination and prejudice without antagonizing people who have done nothing wrong.
It's politics. Something you have to understand is that people in positions of power, or at least influance within a minority group (whether that be Blacks, Homosexuals, etc...) need conflict to stay relevent, as their importants rests on being a leader, or source of information/propaganda to that community.ThePlasmatizer said:
With little to complain about within the gaming industry, which is by and large politically correct and ultra left wing, a site for "gay gamers" needs to jump on anything it can, in the most extrme way it can, in order to remain important.
I'm going to disagree with the way the definition of "gay" and "faggots" works, these are negative terms and they are negative because of homosexuality. The meaning, and intent is clear, it's just that a lot of people who use the terms, especially those who are heavily left wing, like to think of themselves as being open-minded and "well I'm not anti-gay, so obviously I don't literally mean it that way".
What's more in the article in question I do believe the term gay was in part meant because of homosexuality, and the fact that the entire "Macho Man" genere has been under criticism and analysis for a while now. There have been substantial arguements with people analyzing the themes and talking about the undercurrents, and fanboys who don't want to believe they are attracted to something that is homosexual, even if they claim to be politically correct.
You have to dig, but the stuff crops up once in a while. It's sort of like how there is the giant arguement about homoeroticism in "Batman" (going back decades) which can be defended academically, and is even mentioned in passing on Wikipedia. The odd thing being that DC comics has actually banned the reprint of some artwork from the actual comic books which was absolutly gay, albiet non-sexual (there was no porn in Batman, especially back when this was most prevelent). A number of people have drawn some analogies over the years, and while I believe it was pulled, I do remember a few years ago that there was site showing promotional artwork of Master Chief, Marcus Fenix, and other characters, alongside some of those batman pics, and then with illustrations from psychological books dealing with body language and communication, and I will say it did make a painfully obvious case. Of course the same source also made it clear that the creators and/or artists might be gay even if they don't acknowlege it, with these things slipping out through their work despite the intention of the characters being heterosexual and marketed that way.
-
All arguements of that sort aside, I will be frank in saying also that right now the nation is fairly well polarized on the issue of gay rights. It's just few people (like me) will publically admit to being anti-gay men, unless it's part of some kind of religious rant. While the gaming community is politically correct on this subject (and most others), it's not like those who are anti-gay are some kind of lunatic fringe. The guy doing the criticism thus needs to grab pretty much anything he can to keep a specific "gay gamer" voice active and relevent since it's aimed at a specific community where there is little or no actual conflict despite the points above.
Such are my thoughts on the topic. Apologies to whom this might offend.
1. Who cares that not every homosexual person is offended? It's irrelevant. Many still are. Finding one or two people who aren't offended isn't implicit permission to go ahead and start using it everywhere.-Samurai- said:
2. Yeah, words are trivial alright. See: hate speech. Victims of hate speech should just grow up and ignore the things that bother them, yes? THEY'RE ONLY WORDS.
[
That's a brilliant stance. I wish you good luck in life.
Yes ... so what you're saying is that we shouldn't listen to people at all ... just stalk them to see what they are like?BlueInkAlchemist said:
That's a brilliant stance. I wish you good luck in life.
So...
If gay people wish to not be segregated and want to be treated on an equal level to anyone else, why do they need to have their own specified gamer site only for them?
If gay people wish to not be segregated and want to be treated on an equal level to anyone else, why do they need to have their own specified gamer site only for them?
1) Who cares that some of them are offended? Someone being offended by something isn't a good enough reason to do away with the thing that offends them. Then we'd live in an empty universe, because everything offends someone.rockyoumonkeys said:
What if I say that I'm genuinely offended by your very presence in this forum? Will you leave and never come back, or will you say "Too bad. I can be here and I don't care that it bothers you."?
2) Yes.
But some things are more offensive than others. Everything isn't black and white. Being offended by hate speech isn't on the same level as being offended by clowns.-Samurai- said:
And yes, if something offends enough people, that's a perfectly good reason to do away with that thing.
What it comes down to is that it's far easier and far more reasonable for you to stop using slurs and hate speech than it is for so many people to STOP being offended by it.
Sorry. Got busted not bothering to read through 5 pages there. Valid point still, though, imo. It's the same ridiculous thing over and over really, but I think it actually boils down to how ridiculously scared straight men are of being associated in any way to homosexual men, causing them to need to segregate as to leave straight guys alone.rockyoumonkeys said:
Anyways, on the topic here I'm tempted to just exclaim "YOU'RE gay", just to make a point. Homosexuals don't own the word. it's a slang. It also has several meanings, the original one being "fun", later "homosexual", but these days also "lame/stupid". Get over it. Jeez.
On the contrary. We should listen more intently to what people say. Not just to the words that are coming out of their mouths, but do the intent behind those words. While I agree with SageRuffin on this...PaulH said:
...I'd take it a step further and say the destruction came from the intent of those words rather than the words themselves. Words are tools we use. Do you blame the gun when an innocent person gets shot? Sure, a gun is a deadly weapon and its use is likely regulated if not illegal, and words are just phantasmal human constructs, but intending to shoot someone in the face and intending to publicly humiliate them to the point they go away are two sides of the same pejorative coin.SageRuffin said:
Valksy said:
Well I'm sad to tell you that if someone wants it to mean something else they can, look at the word gay and ******, they didn't always mean homosexual, so there ya go
1. No, it boils down to the fact that you completely miss the point of why such sites exist. Just like Escapist is a site for people with certain interests, GayGamers is a site for people with certain, more specific interests. It's not about segregation, it's merely about surrounding yourself with people you have the most in common with.Nom Pretentieux said:
2. Nobody "owns" any word. Doesn't mean it's okay to go around saying whatever you want to whomever you want. And no, it's not slang. It's a slur. There's a difference. If you're using it incorrectly, that's your problem, not ours. Fix your vocabulary.
Gay and Fag don't necessarily mean homosexual. The dictionary might disagree, but it's wrong and will soon be appended.
In this case though, I'm pretty sure he meant to say bi-curious space marines.
Seriously though, the battlefields of the future just don't have a lot of ladies, and power armor can have a strange affect on your libido. (it's the vibrating nano-motors i think)
In this case though, I'm pretty sure he meant to say bi-curious space marines.
Seriously though, the battlefields of the future just don't have a lot of ladies, and power armor can have a strange affect on your libido. (it's the vibrating nano-motors i think)
Well we all get angry at things. It's human. We all have things that are dear to us, define us, or are a part of our lives. Sure he might've taken a harmless comment out of proportions (while very bad for a journalist we've all done it), but theres been worse grievances done.
Well thats not really right though. Language only works if it has set social factors behind it's usage. there is a reason why we have various levels of discourse in society.BlueInkAlchemist said:
Theres a language we use at work (possibly entirely made up by jargon terminology others wouldn't understand) and a language we use in academic circles (once again, jargon that others might nmot understand), and a language we use in social circles.
But we must always take into account that no matter what our intentions are, we may offend another if we do not use our terminology effectively. We must also accept that there has to be naturally some rationalkity behind the very words we use and the context of which they were born from.
Grace is a professional working within a media company that designs products for public consumption. Whilst I understandt hat one should have freedom of speech (therefore make characters in games tht might be seen as offensive caricateurs of a different time and place) but it must also be expected that his chosen discourse must be chosen wisely.
There is meaning, both inherent and literal, in words. It has to be in order for them to make sense. I think it's more than apt that people be offended that a person who should be sympathetic enough not to use 'gay' as a derogative teminology chose not to.
Frankly it's immature, unprofessional and something that people should aspire to raise themselves above.
As I said .. as a kid amongst many in the school I went to we used the saying "Don't be a Jew" when trying to persuade (and insult) a person whose not likely to loan you a couple of bucks. This is an inherently wrong thing to say. It doesn't matter if the person really does mean Jews are greedy or not.
We should better ourselves as we get older, not allow ourselves to tarnish proper social etiquette and norms of discourse in favour of childish expressionism. AS I said ... 'gay' as a derogative is something only a child should utter, but as we grow older we should atleast recognise that as adults we need to set an example.
It wasn't that long ago that 'faggy' was a term that was broadly used in society as to demean anybody weaker than the person using it. Don't you think it's better that we have fortunately escaped it's terminology?
Bra-fucking-vo, sir. The above statement recieves my seal of approval.Valksy said:
And on-topic, stupid and ever-so-slightly damaging to the group he wants to represent and defend man is stupid etc. Perhaps Denby could have kept himself above the lowest common denominator and avoided this farce, but then again, perhaps Wootini should start acting like a sensible human being and realise that the man was going for the lowest common denominator.
Stupid over sensitive dicks like that give gays and bis a bad name.