Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN BANS ON GAY MARRIAGE IN US
Posts
CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
View playlists
Closethis sounds drastically different from you liking subway
some people really misunderstood the five dollar footlong marketing campaign
author=emmy
By welcoming people with toxic views into spaces that are supposed to be inclusive, you make the space exclusive in a way that almost always favours bigots and pushes out the people who are being harmed.
But how are we supposed to resolve this? Just tell everyone with dissenting opinions to fuck off? Is it any better to dictate who can or can't civilly participate in a conversation? Like I said before, you can argue that it's not your impetus to convince a naysayer, sure, and I'd agree, but we're all adults here, and myself, a minority who's been on the receiving end of folks with discriminatory views, excluding people from the conversation entirely doesn't do much for anyone.
I've gotten far more people to critically examine their views, and even change them (which really, is a victory for everyone), with rational, civil discourse than I ever have with the sentiment of "FUCK YOU GUY GET OUT" which does nothing much, but make me 'feel better' I guess, and make the other person bitter and understanding even less.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
@emmych: I'm using your words to make a point you disagree with because you're being a hypocrite. You think the one situation doesn't apply to the other, but you're wrong. They're analogous.
For the record, I didn't find that quote by looking through your post history for quotes I could use against you or anything like that; I actually remembered it from when you said it. Even though you were talking about video game characters at the time, it was something that stuck with me with respect to real life as well. People aren't defined by a single trait, and it's perfectly possible to identify with someone, like them, or even love them despite hating one of the things they do. It's not fair to dismiss their value because of one little thing. Being gay is such a little thing. It doesn't really matter. Just like race and sex don't matter. They're not an identity, and suggesting that they are is exactly the source of racism and sexism and homophobia. You're a strong feminist so you can understand this: the idea that being a woman matters a lot and controls you and affects other aspects of your life besides your physical body is the source of sexism. Sexuality is the same way.
@slash: I never said it was okay to dislike someone for their preferences. I said it was okay to dislike their preferences. Disliking what someone does is not the same thing as disliking that person. You're allowed to dislike what someone does without disliking that person; that's my whole point. You can hate what someone does while still loving that person.
In the meat-banning analogy, I can't say I would be happy, but if the rest of society decided that eating meat was wrong, I would just deal with it. Without getting into specifics, I don't really have to imagine what it would be like if something I liked were banned by law and and also the subject of much public hatred. That's my reality, and I get by just fine by just not doing that thing.
For the record, I didn't find that quote by looking through your post history for quotes I could use against you or anything like that; I actually remembered it from when you said it. Even though you were talking about video game characters at the time, it was something that stuck with me with respect to real life as well. People aren't defined by a single trait, and it's perfectly possible to identify with someone, like them, or even love them despite hating one of the things they do. It's not fair to dismiss their value because of one little thing. Being gay is such a little thing. It doesn't really matter. Just like race and sex don't matter. They're not an identity, and suggesting that they are is exactly the source of racism and sexism and homophobia. You're a strong feminist so you can understand this: the idea that being a woman matters a lot and controls you and affects other aspects of your life besides your physical body is the source of sexism. Sexuality is the same way.
@slash: I never said it was okay to dislike someone for their preferences. I said it was okay to dislike their preferences. Disliking what someone does is not the same thing as disliking that person. You're allowed to dislike what someone does without disliking that person; that's my whole point. You can hate what someone does while still loving that person.
In the meat-banning analogy, I can't say I would be happy, but if the rest of society decided that eating meat was wrong, I would just deal with it. Without getting into specifics, I don't really have to imagine what it would be like if something I liked were banned by law and and also the subject of much public hatred. That's my reality, and I get by just fine by just not doing that thing.
author=CielI was talking about disapproving of actions, not being intolerant of people. And I was simply saying it's okay to have different opinions, not that it's okay to be intolerant of people whose opinions are opposed to yours. A lot of the pro-gay-rights rhetoric is based around this false strawman idea that disapproving of an action someone does is automatically somehow an attack on that person.
big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
someone whose intolerance for a particular group is so great that they are willing to petition the government to make their life style illegal, is not automatically some kind of bigot or anything
emmych
817
author=Feldschlacht IV
But how are we supposed to resolve this?
Honestly? I don't know. I am not well versed in the theory of safer spaces, and I'm sure you can look up stuff on that if you're interested.
I do know that it's a hard thing to reconcile, since yes you do end up in areas that go past "is this person a horrible bigot who's going to treat other people like dirt or hurt them, y/n" since yeah not everything is black and white. This is a thing that takes constant negotiation, but also a bit of forcefulness. It does no one any good to be wish-washy with bigotry except bigots, and do we really want to make our spaces safest for bigots? I feel like anyone with any kind of reason would agree that no, no that is a terrible idea.
Really it's important to remember that CashmereCat's values are low-level on the spectrum that goes all the way up to Westboro Baptist Chruch hatred, corrective rape and conversion therapy. Sure, it isn't thaaaat bad as is, since it's just one guy's opinion. CashmereCat can't stop me from living a life where I get Gay Married and operate outside my assigned gender roles, and they can't change the fact that no, I'm not going to hell for that, because that kind of hell isn't real. But the fact is, voicing bigoted opinions like that and having people be all "that's just an opinion with no weight whatsoever" opens the door to much, much more hateful opinions. I have literally been forced out of workplaces because of this sort of escalating attitude, and while the stakes aren't as high on a video game forum, they're still there!
I guess what I ask is that people be mindful of the kinds of things they're willing to let slide! Who's side are you taking when you take a stand? If you're taking the side of a bigot, why is that?
@LockeZ: bro we only know each other from talking in the forums here about rpg maker games. Are you really gonna try to checkmate my political views based on the few times I've said shit here? I don't have time for that, dude.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I wasn't trying to checkmate anything. Sorry if it seemed that way. In fact, I was mostly trying to do the exact opposite: imply that it's okay to disagree.
I mean FWIW I'm in favor of the supreme court decision. I'm just not in favor of the way you're treating people who aren't in favor of it.
I mean FWIW I'm in favor of the supreme court decision. I'm just not in favor of the way you're treating people who aren't in favor of it.
author=emmych
Honestly? I don't know. I am not well versed in the theory of safer spaces, and I'm sure you can look up stuff on that if you're interested.
I mean, you already pretty much said it but, to reiterate, creating safe spaces requires vigilant negotiation on a case by case basis. You don't want to shut people up, but you certainly don't want to let harmful opinions go unchecked in the name "freedom of speech" or whatever centrist ideology you want to use... cause that would defeat the purpose. So where do you draw the line? I believe that needs to be decided by the community with a huge emphasis on actually listening to the marginalized voices that the community is trying to create a safe space for. It means, for starters, saying things like "race, sex, and gender are not identities" is something that is just not okay. If those things are not identities, then why are there marginalized voices within society at all? They aren't identities in the sense of the individual arbitrarily prescribing the label to themselves, but the broader society placing it on them. It's about the negative effects said labels can have. As so far as people reclaim those identities in an act of defiance, a safe-space community needs to respect that. Denying that erases their history and pretends the discrepancy, the inequality, doesn't exist or it isn't as big a deal as marginalized identities claim it is.
So yeah... that's like, my opinion, man.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
So you're saying that it's not okay to say that racism and sexism are faulty ideologies that we should stop adhering to, because doing so is the same as pretending that they don't exist. Got it... I think.
No, wait. Perhaps it's possible that you're just reactively fighting against anyone who says anything at all as long as they disagree with you on at least one unrelated point, without stopping to think about the possibility that they're actually defending you. Could that be it? Hard to tell. I'm confused now.
No, wait. Perhaps it's possible that you're just reactively fighting against anyone who says anything at all as long as they disagree with you on at least one unrelated point, without stopping to think about the possibility that they're actually defending you. Could that be it? Hard to tell. I'm confused now.
It all depends what you think the root cause of these identities are. If you believe that these -ism's exist independent of society and are the result of individual bigotry, you would be correct. I don't believe that. I believe they are social constructs legitimized by institutions such as, but not limited to, government and organized religion.
author=LockeZ
@iddalai: The message has been sent, and in fact already responded to, and settled, and we had peace. You don't need to repeat it five additional times in an aggressive and inflammatory manner with bold underlined italic accusations.
I edited it to avoid further issues, but I'm not happy about how it was settled or responded to, nor do I believe we had peace.
Nor was I aggressive or inflammatory, I pointed out facts.
author=LockeZ
Geez. Something about the most controversial supreme court decision in most of our lifetimes really seems to get some people's blood pumping, for some odd reason.
Not really the court decision but the way people react to it gets my blood pumping.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Yeah, of course they're taught to us by society. Almost all beliefs are, at least if they're common enough to be worth giving a name to and arguing about. Everyone believes a few things that go against society, but most beliefs of most people are inherited from their parents, teachers, pastors, role models, and from movies and entertainment. Society starts to change when someone gets in a position of power to share their outlier belief. They become a teacher and it gets shared to their students, and some of the students become popular and influence their friends, and some of them grow up and teach more students, and it keeps propogating until eventually five of those people become supreme court justices and they affect the entire country's culture.
The fact that you learn them from other people doesn't make it okay to believe them. Believing that someone's race or sex affects their identity is racist/sexist. If you believe sexuality makes people more prone to certain behaviors that have nothing to do with sex or romance, like gay dude = better at fashion or straight dude = manlier, that's a prejudice. You're certainly allowed to be better at home decorating if you're a gay dude, and you're even allowed to acknowledge that it's statistically more common, but when you start calling the link between those two things part of your "core identity" you are treading on really dangerous ground that hurts people who aren't the same as you. Your core identity shouldn't be based on a prejudice or a stereotype or a label or anything that other people say about you. It's something you build yourself, uniquely. And other people won't necessarily see it - they might see the stereotype or some other fraction of your personality or whatever the hell they want to see. But you don't have to believe them when they tell you that's all you are. You're so much more. Your real identity is a combination of million billion things, and none of them are any less important than the others.
@iddalai: The message has been sent, and in fact already responded to, and settled, and we had peace. You don't need to repeat it five additional times in an aggressive and inflammatory manner with bold underlined italic accusations.
Geez. Something about the most controversial supreme court decision in most of our lifetimes really seems to get some people's blood pumping, for some odd reason.
The fact that you learn them from other people doesn't make it okay to believe them. Believing that someone's race or sex affects their identity is racist/sexist. If you believe sexuality makes people more prone to certain behaviors that have nothing to do with sex or romance, like gay dude = better at fashion or straight dude = manlier, that's a prejudice. You're certainly allowed to be better at home decorating if you're a gay dude, and you're even allowed to acknowledge that it's statistically more common, but when you start calling the link between those two things part of your "core identity" you are treading on really dangerous ground that hurts people who aren't the same as you. Your core identity shouldn't be based on a prejudice or a stereotype or a label or anything that other people say about you. It's something you build yourself, uniquely. And other people won't necessarily see it - they might see the stereotype or some other fraction of your personality or whatever the hell they want to see. But you don't have to believe them when they tell you that's all you are. You're so much more. Your real identity is a combination of million billion things, and none of them are any less important than the others.
@iddalai: The message has been sent, and in fact already responded to, and settled, and we had peace. You don't need to repeat it five additional times in an aggressive and inflammatory manner with bold underlined italic accusations.
Geez. Something about the most controversial supreme court decision in most of our lifetimes really seems to get some people's blood pumping, for some odd reason.
I'm not saying race/sex affects who they are. I'm merely saying it's a part of identity that some people embrace and others don't, but a part that society will most certainly not let you forget about. I used the word 'reclaim' specifically to denote taking the power away from society to define it and putting it in the hands of those who it's historically been used to oppress to redefine it.
People reclaiming identities don't do it because they believe in the stereotype. They're not putting themselves down. And obviously, the issue of identity is complicated and nuanced. I don't believe it would be healthy to let one identity consume you, but I certainly don't believe using gender/race/sex as an identity in the face of opposition make them racist/sexist. That's ludicrous.
People reclaiming identities don't do it because they believe in the stereotype. They're not putting themselves down. And obviously, the issue of identity is complicated and nuanced. I don't believe it would be healthy to let one identity consume you, but I certainly don't believe using gender/race/sex as an identity in the face of opposition make them racist/sexist. That's ludicrous.
author=LockeZ
The fact that you learn them from other people doesn't make it okay to believe them. Believing that someone's race or sex affects their identity is racist/sexist.
I'm not sure if it 100% makes them racist/sexist, but yeah, I think it's very important to recognise that some people do not want their race/sexuality to dominate their identity.
I'm a brown person but that I don't really aim to make it part of my core identity. I'm not a fan of my 'roots' or thinking about the 'homeland', and I certainly don't want to head back to my 'homeland' anytime soon.
Recently there's been a hashtag floating around about US Republican Bobby Jindal's attempt to distance himself from his 'roots', #BobbyJindallIsWhite. I went on a mini-Twitter rant about this yesterday, so I'll just copy-paste what I wrote:
say what you will about his anti-immigration policy, but #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite smacks of unfunny racism
It’s the same thing that some black people face on a daily basis: told they are ‘acting white’ as if there is a black or a white way to act.
“You don’t act your race” is the type of thing people told me before I left school. These dumbass stereotypes really need to go
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
@drenin: It becomes my business and my problem when I'm denouncing a behavior or an abstract idea, and someone comes up and tells me they're offended by me because that's their "core identity," and they are unable to separate themself from their behavior and so they now think I'm attacking them personally and start a fight over it.
I guess you can believe whatever you want about yourself, but please don't jump to the belief that I'm trying to attack you or that I think less of you just because I think one of the things you do isn't right. Hell, I think a lot of the things I myself do aren't right.
I guess you can believe whatever you want about yourself, but please don't jump to the belief that I'm trying to attack you or that I think less of you just because I think one of the things you do isn't right. Hell, I think a lot of the things I myself do aren't right.
I'm not sure if that's directed at me or about the general thread's response to you. Either way, when you raise an objection, someone may fire back. I don't know what to say about that. I mean, are you surprised? It was not my intent to start a fight but to respond to something you'd said. I didn't think I was being confrontational, even if I did use strong language. Maybe I should have listened to that voice in the back of my head that warned me about commenting in this thread.
But of course, I never listen to that voice in the back of my head. Certainly one of the many things I myself do all the time that isn't right.
But of course, I never listen to that voice in the back of my head. Certainly one of the many things I myself do all the time that isn't right.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
No, it wasn't about you. I'm totally fine with people firing back and arguing. I welcome it! Though maybe wait a few months if you want to do it in an open forum, heh. Everyone's blood is running a little hot right now and rational discourse is unlikely to occur.
As far as this thread goes I only really have a problem with the person who was saying things like "you're calling my entire existance a sin" and "you're not welcome in this thread, get out" to the people saying that they didn't support the supreme court's decision and/or don't approve of homosexuality. It paints an incorrect picture of the conservative viewpoints on this issue, instantly replaces all arguments with ad hominem attacks which then become the center of the new "debate," and creates a hostile and unproductive environment that doesn't make anyone happy on either side of the argument.
As far as this thread goes I only really have a problem with the person who was saying things like "you're calling my entire existance a sin" and "you're not welcome in this thread, get out" to the people saying that they didn't support the supreme court's decision and/or don't approve of homosexuality. It paints an incorrect picture of the conservative viewpoints on this issue, instantly replaces all arguments with ad hominem attacks which then become the center of the new "debate," and creates a hostile and unproductive environment that doesn't make anyone happy on either side of the argument.
@LockeZ, you don't have the personal authority to tell how big or how small being queer is a part of someone's identity and person. It is a varying constant. And it can't be measured. A person isn't a pizza, divided by slices, nor a lego sculpture divided by blocks. A person isn't 3D. All their defining traits occupy the same spot in space, a person is an 1D space. You can't refer to a "part" of it because every part is a whole.
Besides, I can pretty much understand from what you say that you're not a relationships fellow? I mean, pretty much? But I and some other people, yeah, we do abide by the notions of finding a someone and share their life -- and that includes kids, sex, marriage and whatnot -- with them. And well, saying that that isn't right is dismissing our entire existance as a sin? Some people have a louder sexuality, some people have an almost silent sexuality (which reminds me that, yes, people don't have different preferences but different needs, and I mean literal, even physical needs as one's body needs more nutrient X than nutrient Y because it's naturally more capable of absorbing Y than X) but that doesn't matter, nobody has the right to stick their finger and say "hey, they're not dismissing your whole being, they're just dismissing an aspect of your person which I have absolutely no right to measure" xD
Anyway
:I
I like @InfectionFiles.
Besides, I can pretty much understand from what you say that you're not a relationships fellow? I mean, pretty much? But I and some other people, yeah, we do abide by the notions of finding a someone and share their life -- and that includes kids, sex, marriage and whatnot -- with them. And well, saying that that isn't right is dismissing our entire existance as a sin? Some people have a louder sexuality, some people have an almost silent sexuality (which reminds me that, yes, people don't have different preferences but different needs, and I mean literal, even physical needs as one's body needs more nutrient X than nutrient Y because it's naturally more capable of absorbing Y than X) but that doesn't matter, nobody has the right to stick their finger and say "hey, they're not dismissing your whole being, they're just dismissing an aspect of your person which I have absolutely no right to measure" xD
Anyway
:I
I like @InfectionFiles.
author=emmychauthor=Feldschlacht IVHonestly? I don't know.
But how are we supposed to resolve this?
And it's totally fine that you don't know. I'm just saying that you have to examine these situations in context when you're discussing them. Is an opinion like CashmereCat's an opinion that can lead down a much darker, road? Sure. But I'd wager that Cash is several steps (if not the whole staircase) away from say, the Westboro Baptist Church or worse, and he's probably an otherwise decent guy with a bigoted opinion based off a background of ignorance and unfamiliarity.
People think 'bigot' and automatically think 'horrible person', but like you said, nothing's that black and white. People's acceptance comes in all shades, and a lot of an individual's inherent prejudices are stubbornly built in and have to be unlearned. My favorite type are the coffee shop warriors up here in Seattle who talk about rights for all and total acceptance all day long (and mean it, I'm sure), but still get slightly uncomfortable at the sight of a group of black people. Man, great!
You don't have to be wishy washy with your convictions to you know, not to be a dick, which people forget is entirely possible even when you're right. All that does is create a hostile environment where no discourse happens and everyone walks away a little angrier.
Besides, this isn't inherently a 'safe space'. If Cash walked into a pride rally and said 'YEAH YOU GAYS' sure yeah GTFO, but this a an open forum for discussing a subject that was/is implied that all people can take part in, yes, even people with dissenting opinions. If any one of us isn't down with an opinion, we attack the opinion, not the person, and we keep it moving.
