OF GAMES, REPRESENTATION, AND WOMEN'S CHEEKBONES

Posts

Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=alterego
I still maintain it was not cool to threaten him to be expelled from the discussion before he did anything wrong.


If the Westboro Baptist Church started rolling into your neighborhood, would you want them there? I wouldn't, because I know that if they stop on a street somewhere, it's going to be trouble. By their nature and past provocations, they've proven to be a net loss for civilized society.
author=Ratty524
With all due respect. You are taking what Pentagon stated the wrong way.
Not really. He implied. I replied.

Unless you've lived in a society completely closed off from the rest of the world, institutionalized transphobia has been widespread for decades. Even if we've never openly stated hatred for trans (which I'm sure you haven't), there are things most societies subliminally embed within our minds that encourage the belief that transgender is wrong.
Except I mentioned that already - if you'd bothered to read any.

For instance, why does anyone refer to their friends as their "trans friend" or "gay friend", as oppose to just "friend"? It's that act of singling people out which unintentionally perpetuates the flawed idea that being transgender isn't "normal," and that's hurtful.
Usually I do so. In fact, usually I don't bring up their sexuality or gender because it's not necessary to any discussion. If someone else brings it up I will reply based on their question but that's it. If they ask whether x is male or female, I will say the gender by which they are. If they refer to them by the wrong pronoun, I politely correct them.

I've had discussions where I've had to defend a friend against asshole views. I've had discussions where people were happy to refer to them by the proper pronoun but most discussions about that particular person/s is about something incidental and not focussed on their gender or sexuality at all. As it should be. You don't say "Oh, Toby, my gay friend, said this." No. You say "Oh, hey, Toby said something hilarious the other day!"

This topic, however, brought up transgender and demanded a classification as separator. If I'd said 'I've friends' in general the point would not have been made. It is by clarifying as a group that makes the point. Specifics. In topics where you have specifics you do need to say 'I have friends who are trans/gay/etc' in order to specify. FFS. It's discussion 101. If we're talking about Chinese food and I said 'oh I like food', I've not clarified that it's Chinese food I'm talking about but food in general. I could mean bloody spaghetti for all anyone reading knows, because I've not made the point of clarification. Specifics when talking on a subject.


Even if you really have gone beyond this, to get so defensive over what is really a simple fact that can be applied for almost everyone here, let alone go to great lengths to justify yourself is kind of pretentious. You might need to do some more self-examination yourself, and so does everyone else. It's not an attack.
Implication does not mean attack. It means that something is implied. Just as you are implying (well, straight out stating, really) that I was being defensive when I was clarifying the point that you can't just blanket-case everything because there are always going to be examples of outliers and the more things become ingrained in society, the more outliers you're going to find. It's not being pretentious, it's pointing out a fact. Being pretentious is believing that everyone is exactly as you think, no matter how they were brought up, and that they're not aware of the prejudices which they were raised with or have dealt with them in their own way, identifying and recognising them and avoiding them where possible. That is pretentious, if anything.

Quite frankly, I make mistakes. We all do. I've issues I've still gotta work through and some I probably won't ever be able to. We all have our problems and issues. But there are some things I've faced in my own mind and dealt with. I am comfortable with my own intentions and thoughts towards people. I have made peace with the way I was raised in regards to the views I was taught and rejected them at a young age.

(My mother was silly in that she simultaneously taught us to make up our minds for ourselves, seek out our own truths but also believe in the Bible. She wasn't happy with how I interpreted that or used it to validate my own thoughts but frankly, she's not the one living with my thoughts - I am.)

I'm secure in my own reactions when it comes to race, sexuality and genders. Frankly, 'I could give a fuck' sums it up nicely. Don't care who you are, what you are, where you're from. Couldn't give a rats ass. It's what you do that matters to me. What you say, how you act and the things you do that, to me, sum up a person. The rest is just wrapping. I worked hard to get that state of mind so I guess I do get a bit annoyed when someone just comes along and goes 'hey, you're this because of how you were raised you can't help it because you're a product of your environment'. Yeah, no. Worked hard to get rid of those kinds of biases thanks. Take your preconceived notions and shove 'em.

And if that comes off as pretentious or facetious or some other -tious... Sorry, but I could give two shits.
I hope you don't think I was saying 'hey, you're this because of how you were raised you can't help it because you're a product of your environment'. I don't even think that's what Ratty was saying here. Reacting to things that haven't been said is what i was hollerin about.
A better comparison would be if you were trying to hold a class and everyday the same few people started to shout over you ideas that were discredited long ago. When you shout, they just shout louder, so there's no way to conduct the class without removing them first. Letting them shout is simply not a practical solution as nothing would ever get accomplished and only the discredited ideas get heard.
slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
author=Sated
author=Corfaisus
author=alterego
I still maintain it was not cool to threaten him to be expelled from the discussion before he did anything wrong.
If the Westboro Baptist Church started rolling into your neighborhood, would you want them there?
Would I want them there? No.

Would I pay attention to them? No.

Does that mean I'd stop them from speaking their mind or forcibly remove them? Also no.


Better comparison: the Westboro Baptist Church drags their signs into a movie theatre and starts picketing and preaching inside. Do you let them stay and harass everyone there?
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
Bringing this back around to Penta's point instead of arguing hypotheticals...

author=PentagonBuddy
This specific issue (where it's super easy for people to show up to a thread, comment in a way that primarily tries to shut down discussion or derail it into censorship or complaints about "why are people discussing this?", and technically not violate existing policy) is where I personally think there could be some room for change either in policy or how it's enforced.


Penta, if you have any suggestions or ideas for how you would adjust policy or generally make this place more friendly and accommodating, feel free to contact me with them if you like. I'm interested in your thoughts.
Yellow Magic
Could I BE any more Chandler Bing from Friends (TM)?
3154
@All: No, I didn't say that I think that Solitayre's actively going to ban people for dissenting opinions, but I feel there's a slippery slope involved when it comes to revising the Code of Conduct to suit certain member's opinions or attitudes towards certain opinions...

author=WetMattos
For most part, i can't take responsability for what have been said before me, but if anything i have said in any way suggests that i want to ban people who disagree with me, here's me saying that i put that wrong, and that was not what i meant.

Cool, I probably just misunderstood you then, apologies.

...at which point I have to admit I'm just lost re: This topic at this point
author=PentagonBuddy
I am trans and I would not be so self-assured as to think this makes me magically immune from ever saying/doing something transphobic. (and if a friend ever thinks of me as their Trans Friend they will quickly find i am actually their Trans Enemy)

you missed a golden opportunity to use the term "Trans Former Friend"
Zeigfried_McBacon
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
3820
author=Sated
author=slash
author=Sated
author=Corfaisus
author=alterego
I still maintain it was not cool to threaten him to be expelled from the discussion before he did anything wrong.
If the Westboro Baptist Church started rolling into your neighborhood, would you want them there?
Would I want them there? No.

Would I pay attention to them? No.

Does that mean I'd stop them from speaking their mind or forcibly remove them? Also no.
Better comparison: the Westboro Baptist Church drags their signs into a movie theatre and starts picketing and preaching inside. Do you let them stay and harass everyone there?
That's a terrible example. It would piss me off if anybody started picketing in a cinema, regardless or who they were or what they stood for.


Plus, you have to take into account that they have(or at least had) many lawyers in their ranks, so they knew the line very well. With that said, the cinema example I;m sorry to say my friend, is kinda bad, since the owner can demand they leave and if they don't, the police can get involved and detain them, which as far as I can tell, they are very careful to avoid.
slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
You're right, the metaphors are silly. My short and sweet point is that a message board isn't a public street. The mods are enabled by the owner to do what they want, and if they want to enforce certain rules, they can. If kentona wanted, he could enforce a rule that only people who think the Maple Leafs have been cheated out of the Stanley Cup for the last fifty years are allowed to post.

But he's not asking that, nobody is. They're just asking that people don't post obtusely and aggressively racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or generally hateful things. That's not really a lot to ask.

(EDIT: I think it's safe to say that plenty of us are gonna screw up at some point and post something we don't realize is cruel, but from what I've seen, the mods are pretty damn forgiving about those things.)
yeah the Leafs are shitty enough on their own. they don't need any outside help.


e: wait, this isn't in welp. Whoops, sorry! My urge to partake in dissing the leaves overrode any sort of posting decorum
Zeigfried_McBacon
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
3820
author=GreatRedSpirit
e: wait, this isn't in welp. Whoops, sorry! My urge to partake in dissing the leaves overrode any sort of posting decorum


No, I think this is exactly what this topic needs right now. Thanks GRS!
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
My analogy wasn't bad until someone took it indoors.

author=GreatRedSpirit
e: wait, this isn't in welp. Whoops, sorry! My urge to partake in dissing the leaves overrode any sort of posting decorum

At first I was like "Toronto? You mean the guys in red? That one guy just kicked ass." Then I realized that the color at the top of the screen doesn't correlate with the color of the uniforms.

Nice twirl though, blue guy; my Bonnie avatar approves.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
I was in Toronto this weekend. First time I've ever visited Canada, actually.

author=Liberty
If a person doesn't believe in something you don't jump on them in a dogpile of hate. You gently open their eyes. And they have the right to their own personal beliefs as long as they aren't shoving them down others' throats. Like you are doing, demanding that others must believe as you do. People don't have to believe in the moon landing, they don't have to believe in cheese, they don't have to believe in alternate sexuality.

That they're wrong or not isn't the issue in question. The issue is that they aren't harming you by not believing as long as they aren't trying to force you to believe (or disbelieve). Fair enough, if they're being assholes and going all "I don't believe in x and thus you don't matter." This was not the case. He stated his own personal opinion, as part of the discussion. There was no implied hate there, no looking down on people, just a difference of opinion.

Not every single differing opinion is an attack, ffs. If the only people you talk to are those who believe exactly as you do, a shallow world it would be. There's a fucking huge difference between mentioning your own belief - without judgement or any secondary meaning - and deliberately trying to insult or demean people by using 'code'.

Him saying that he considered it a sin, that it wasn't something he believed in was not him shitting on others opinion - quite the opposite in fact. He was sharing his own belief. When people do that, try to change their minds if you want, but don't just dismiss them because of that. Educate them. Integrate them. Teach them the truth and open their eyes. Instead of driving them away, encourage them to learn and grow as people - and maybe learn from them in return.

Rabid attacking is pathetic on both sides. You are basically acting just like those you condemn for their hate.

I pretty strongly agree with what Liberty has to say here.

author=slash
author=SnowOwl
You can put it any way you want, but what I read is that you want your opinions and your right to talk about whatever you want to be favored over others, and that people with a differing opinion should be silenced.
They're differing opinions, but one is actively harmful and disrespectful, even if it's presented as politely as possible.

Slash, the problem is in the absence of an objective, always-correct governing authority to adjudicate which opinions are "harmful" and which aren't. That's why we have the governing principles of liberalism, like freedom of speech and freedom of thought. No one is asking you to agree with the statement that "homosexuality is a sin" or to give it equal credence to what you view as a more intelligent, more informed statement. The problem with silencing "wrong" opinions is that it's a bad precedent to set, because the same censorship can later be used against opinions you don't think are wrong. Power, especially the power to censor, is a huge dumb bludgeon, not a precise scalpel-like tool.

Neil Gaiman on this.
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
An important distinction to note in Gaiman's piece is he is defending the right of artists to include thoughts and ideas in their work that some might consider questionable. Under no circumstance would I, nor, I hope, anyone on this site want to censor what someone can or cannot put into their projects, although RMN has users under 18 and generally chooses not to host explicitly adult content.

It's another thing entirely to judge what is proper to allow one person to say to another because some things are harassment. The problem is people don't agree on where the line is.
Can I talk about the elephant in the room for a moment about a issue I'm trying to figure out? Because every now and again I hear about these cases.

I understand there been cases when a person thought the other person was such-and-such a gender in the relationship, but turned out to be the other, and usually the drama never ends well. Does this happen alot? I'm thinking that is part of why transphobia exists because people don't want to get surprised like that, and usually it is quite upsetting for both parties emotions.
Mirak
Stand back. Artist at work. I paint with enthusiasm if not with talent.
9300
@Kaliesto: A very long time ago I posed a similar case in another forum i visit and was pelted with stones for even daring to propose it, hopefully here i'll receive more calmed responses.

Say that you get into a relationship with someone, that someone never let's you know they are trans, so you make a mistaken assumption that the person, for example, is a woman (and not a trans woman) and engage in a relationship with that person, but then a time comes when you find out they are trans (for dramatic purposes let's say when you're about to have sex), and then drama happens. The lack of communication was a big issue here and if people had known what they were getting into then proper action could have been taken a long time before it got to that point, either by accepting the person regardless, or by politely turning them down if your preference lies elsewhere.

When posed by this scenario, people (who claim to be part of the trans community) in that forum then proceeded to aggresively* state that 1) You're transphobic for some reason if you turn the person down regardless of your preferences or likes, 2) When with a trans person, sex should be unnecesary (or preferably non-existent) and never a focal point of the relationship, 3) The fact that you were even surprised means you're a piece of shit, 4) They never had the obligation of letting you know they were trans because apparently that's hurtful, 5) It's your fault if you have a preference to be with a cisgendered person because you most likely haven't critically analized why you have that preference and you definitely have internalized issues that you need to sort out (in other words, you're not allowed to have preferences if you don't want to be transphobic).

Which to me was pretty unfair. Your preference is your own, nobody can force you to find anything attractive. And you don't have to explain/justify your sexual preferences to anyone. Whether they pertain to individuals or whole groups. The important thing it to not be an insensitive jerk when dealing with people who may be hurt by that disparity of preferences and goals.

* = Is this a thing? That people from certain groups can't have a discourse without going aggresive or defensive about it? Because holy crap were the responses i got loaded with lots of unnecesary hatred and bile.

But i dunno.