OF GAMES, REPRESENTATION, AND WOMEN'S CHEEKBONES

Posts

author=ElectricalKat
I've seen authors get called SJW literally just for including characters of minorities! The word is pretty much used like conservatives use "liberal media"--just to try to label and downplay the importance of anyone who wants to make a progressive change. Are you a feminist who thinks people should pay just a little more attention to representation and issues of marginalized people in media? You're an SJW! SJW SJW SJW SSJJWWWW (SSJ SJW?)

Yeah, I've heard people accuse developers of "making a statement" just for having a black lead character. Here's the statement - black people exist. It's just sad.

Also, I tried to find a photoshopped picture of a Super Saiyan Anita Sarkeesian to put in here, but no luck. Wish I was better at photoshop. :P
For one, I think this topic has run its course.

Not that I think the discussion shouldn't be discussed (quite the opposite, you guys know I'm usually the one defending topics like this that aren't 'why can't we just talk about gaems guys') but, this topic has gone 32 pages deep and every which way. At this point a lot of the conversation is just stirring a pot of bad sentiment.

I think we should leave this topic alone and certainly revisit it later (in a different actual forum topic) for a fresh start.

This was just said in a speech by USA President Obama. I think it's thought provoking and may be applicable to this topic.

author=Barack Obama
"It’s not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem. Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women.

I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either." - POTUS Barack Obama
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
Mog, I agree with you, and I agree with Obama, and I don't think you can hide from alternate opinions or pretend they don't exist. But that's not what the problem is here.

The problem isn't "some people can't handle that people have different opinions," it's "some people are here to be assholes under the guise of having differing opinions."

When someone says "I'd like to talk about trans issues' and other people say "this is bullshit,' 'go back to tumblr' 'why the fuck are you idiots talking about this lolololol' those aren't 'differences of opinion.'
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
It appears to me that some people have the logic bit down but missed the boat on the application side of things.
I take some issue with the framing used here.

Mostly because it conflates a liberal stance with others, more focused on groups' rights instead of individual rights, and specifically because it misundertands what has been raised.

Which, i feel, is the deepest issue with the way the thread progressed. For most part, be it willful or not, the thread was filled with strawmen, which i feel has more to do with particular kinds of ignorance than anything else. Misunderstanding each others' vocabulary, stances and starting points mean that, even when the intentions are good, most messages won't reach anywhere - and since we're already in conflict, the defensiveness is extra high.

Which brings me to the misunderstanding around the notion of safe spaces. Though i'd make a point about "safe space" being a misleading concept, the whole point is that stigmatized people have it bad, and we kinda expect it to get bad regardless. So, we're always defensive, because else, we'll get too vulnerable, and what consists in violence to us - microaggressions and invalidation comes to mind - for most people seem to be the result of "hypersensitivity", which makes it harder to negotiate spaces. Given the fact that the people who aren't exposed to this very specific, very contextual kinds of violence can't see how it works, everything we say tend to be interpreted as victimization, when for most part they're valid criticism to environments and social relationships.

So, in this context, "safe spaces" would be places where people can enter without defensiveness - which kinda betray the label, but i leave this discussion to people more qualified than me. The issue then lies on by which standards this will be judged, and here i'm very inflexible in saying that for us to reach anywhere, you folks will have to change your stance.

And this is an issue of stance. See, SnowOwl said something earlier that went like this:
author=SnowOwl
Please give a couple of examples outside of this thread that someone would attack you for being a trans woman

And, well, if he can't find any example of the sort, he hasn't been looking well enough. I live in the most dangerous city of the most dangerous country in the world to live as a trans woman. We're literally being killed in the streets, and a cursory glance at any trans woman personal blog anywhere will show you we're being targeted for violence at all moments and places. But the thing is, what we call violence is not understood as such by SnowOwl. So, for them it's really easy to say that they can't see examples of that, because even if they saw them, they wouldn't be able to recognize them.

And since the standard reaction to most of our discourse and testimonies is dismissal, there will be never any possible negotiation, because you haven't ever been given the tools to even parse our realities. And i'm afraid this is not our responsability. There has been a lot of research being done on these social dynamics, some of them predating 20th century - regarding sexism, for example, we have been having studies since the 19th century. I'm not saying that acquiring this information is easy - for most part, you need to know what you're looking for, and no one knows what they're looking for at the beginning - but doing it is important.

Or at least, i think it is. Because if our objective is to create a space where all kinds of game makers can be well received and listened to, we need to level the field first, and that demands a different approach to it, because the current one very visibly don't work.
author=WetMattos
And this is an issue of stance. See, SnowOwl said something earlier that went like this:
author=SnowOwl
Please give a couple of examples outside of this thread that someone would attack you for being a trans woman

And, well, if he can't find any example of the sort, he hasn't been looking well enough. I live in the most dangerous city of the most dangerous country in the world to live as a trans woman. We're literally being killed in the streets, and a cursory glance at any trans woman personal blog anywhere will show you we're being targeted for violence at all moments and places. But the thing is, what we call violence is not understood as such by SnowOwl. So, for them it's really easy to say that they can't see examples of that, because even if they saw them, they wouldn't be able to recognize them.

Pretty sure SnowOwl was talking about examples outside of this thread, but still in RMN. Because Kat is going on about how RMN isn't a safe space.

It seems like that hypersensitivity is putting a different spin on everything that is being said. If someone doesn't fully agree, or be 100% clear that they fully support LGBT, then their opinion is perceived through the lens of your negative life experiences and they are grouped in with the people who are actually saying and doing those awful things. Even though they themselves didn't say or do anything directly hurtful.

He was simply asking for evidence of the claims that RMN is a shitty place. Not because he hasn't looked. Not because he thinks anyone is playing the victim card. Probably because this seems like a really accepting place to us regulars. Someone who hasn't posted in however long, says 'yup RMN is still the same old shithole'?... that bugs me too. Are people perceiving things that aren't there? Are they thinking this place isn't welcoming because there are no banners for LGBT content? If people on the other side don't see a problem and you do, enlighten us. Not because you have to prove yourself or that we are trying to minimize your struggles. Maybe we simply don't see it and if you point it out we can say "oh yeah, there it is" and help stop it.
Banners for LGBT content? How about the fact that there's a growing trend of lesbian and homosexual couples in games and people are actively excited about it? I'm Scared of Girls is about a trans teen and it was quite well received. Tristian: Lady of the Lion, is also one of the big names on the site over the last year and the main character is gay. And outside of topics like this everyone is treated equally no matter their gender. We allow you to write in your own gender in the indicator - you can be a banana if you want! - and we actively try to correct ourselves when talking about transpeople (I mean, I slip up a bit with bulma (sorry!) because I first knew her when she was going by male pronouns, but I'm trying my best, and I've had people correct me when I slip up, which is super awesome!).

Frankly, topics like this are the only places where such talk occurs and while part of me we gladly get rid of the damn things, the other part of me feels that there should be discussion about stuff like this. However, by discussion I do not, nor never meant, thinly disguised hate - one either side.

For example, someone made a post in this thread where they said they don't believe in homosexuality. It's against their religion and, hell, fair enough. He didn't go on to say they all deserved to burn in hell or that he hated them, just that his own belief was that it was a sin. And that's his right to believe that. He wasn't - as some people started screaming - shoving it in everyone's faces and screaming to repent and that we're all going to burn in the fires of hell. It was a polite post, and hey, fair enough. He shared his belief and I, personally, had no issue with that despite being flexi-sexual. (;p)

But when someone comes in and starts tossing around terms and words as deliberate insults just to 'not really' insult (despite the fact that everyone and their grandmother can tell that what they mean is less than polite) - that's when I don't like it. And they use certain words and terms (SJW and the like.) which become small catchphrases that they use to get around the whole 'no insulting people' rule.

Frankly, I'm gonna go by the rule "Don't be a fuckwit towards others." We should absolutely be able to have different opinions and discuss them with each other without resulting to jabs and insults and snide comments.
author=Liberty
I, personally, had no issue with that despite being flexi-sexual.


Liberty only dates yoga instructors and gymnasts.
author=Liberty
For example, someone made a post in this thread where they said they don't believe in homosexuality. It's against their religion and, hell, fair enough. He didn't go on to say they all deserved to burn in hell or that he hated them, just that his own belief was that it was a sin. And that's his right to believe that. He wasn't - as some people started screaming - shoving it in everyone's faces and screaming to repent and that we're all going to burn in the fires of hell. It was a polite post, and hey, fair enough. He shared his belief and I, personally, had no issue with that despite being flexi-sexual. (;p)

But when someone comes in and starts tossing around terms and words as deliberate insults just to 'not really' insult (despite the fact that everyone and their grandmother can tell that what they mean is less than polite) - that's when I don't like it. And they use certain words and terms (SJW and the like.) which become small catchphrases that they use to get around the whole 'no insulting people' rule.


Honestly? I'd take "I don't believe in homosexuality / it is a sin to me." to be quite aggressive, too, on the same level as your second paragraph. Because, seriously, in a topic of LGBT circumstances, why are beliefs against our existence to the point of banning our right to marry, have health care, keep a job, etcetera somehow allowed? It serves no purpose at all but to start a fight because LGBT people caught in the middle of all those circumstances (myself included) will definitely not react well upon seeing that.

People are allowed to have opinions, I'm not going to deny them that. But this is akin to intentionally trolling.
author=Link_2112
author=WetMattos
And this is an issue of stance. See, SnowOwl said something earlier that went like this:
author=SnowOwl
Please give a couple of examples outside of this thread that someone would attack you for being a trans woman

And, well, if he can't find any example of the sort, he hasn't been looking well enough. I live in the most dangerous city of the most dangerous country in the world to live as a trans woman. We're literally being killed in the streets, and a cursory glance at any trans woman personal blog anywhere will show you we're being targeted for violence at all moments and places. But the thing is, what we call violence is not understood as such by SnowOwl. So, for them it's really easy to say that they can't see examples of that, because even if they saw them, they wouldn't be able to recognize them.
Pretty sure SnowOwl was talking about examples outside of this thread, but still in RMN. Because Kat is going on about how RMN isn't a safe space.

It seems like that hypersensitivity is putting a different spin on everything that is being said. If someone doesn't fully agree, or be 100% clear that they fully support LGBT, then their opinion is perceived through the lens of your negative life experiences and they are grouped in with the people who are actually saying and doing those awful things. Even though they themselves didn't say or do anything directly hurtful.

He was simply asking for evidence of the claims that RMN is a shitty place. Not because he hasn't looked. Not because he thinks anyone is playing the victim card. Probably because this seems like a really accepting place to us regulars. Someone who hasn't posted in however long, says 'yup RMN is still the same old shithole'?... that bugs me too. Are people perceiving things that aren't there? Are they thinking this place isn't welcoming because there are no banners for LGBT content? If people on the other side don't see a problem and you do, enlighten us. Not because you have to prove yourself or that we are trying to minimize your struggles. Maybe we simply don't see it and if you point it out we can say "oh yeah, there it is" and help stop it.


Possibly, and the weight is on me for the misunderstanding, and i apologize for it.
But, if that was what was implied, i'm very anxious to be in a community where there are people who will argue for their right to use tranny. And given this thread progression, i am already feeling threatened of going in other conversations and not being able to point out what to me is visibly hostile behavior and be sure that some repercution will happen. Does that count? Does the feeling of mounting dread and the subtle anxiety increase i get when thinking of the community serves to prove a point, or does it only serve to make me look 'hypersensitive'?

Because, as far as i understand it, the label of hypersensitivity is absolutely charged. It enables us to criticize people for feeling, period, and to avoid critical questioning of why feels are being felt, and what responsability the group has for that - which, i understand, goes against the brand of individualism normally used as lens to perceive this issue. Enforcing detachment as the standard behavior on debates also means that we are losing an incredible opportunity to listen to people, and to learn from that, and it prioritizes people who don't have stakes on the issues - because, trust me, if i'm debating something i am passionate for, i'll get heated, and this mustn't be perceived as a bad thing by default.

Again, the patterns of violence to stigmatized people are mostly contextual and absolutely strange to most people who aren't in those situations. Unless we enter in a broader conversation about how that works, and how we can accept such idiosyncracies within our own debates, we will be getting nowhere.

Also, @liberty, i'll echo EK point here. When someone say "i don't believe in homosexuality" or whatever, the implied point is that i am a farse, and a affront to God, and that i'm immoral and should be punished for this perceived moral fault. Sorry, but that's a very big aggression, specially when framed this way. While i don't think people should be prevented to saying that, there should be scripts for when that happen, because feels will be felt, and they're not intrinsically invalid because they are feels.
author=Sated
They're allowed simply because they exist. Such viewpoints are strongly propagated by some pretty powerful people on the world stage, so refusing to engage with people who hold such beliefs isn't exactly a brilliant plan. So I don't see a problem with people voicing those opinions as long as they're not using aggressive language whilst doing so.

As much as I think homophobic viewpoints are abhorrent, it doesn't mean those people don't have a right to speak their mind. Remember, there is a big difference between being allowed to speak your mind, and people actually respecting or caring about what you have to say.

lol so because they're held by a significant amount of people in the Real World® and because politicians in power also hold them we should allow them on a game dev forum ok boddy

for your troubles, have a kitten



edit: let's also not forget the irony of Sated using vladimir fucking putin as an example, given putin's homophobia literal sparks things like these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-dDd4dtOFM&t=8m44s [MASSIVE CONTENT WARNINGS]
from now on if anyone who is not part of the rmn administration posts something like that in any form i am just going to reply with pictures of kittens. trust me i've got a lot of them. because things like that don't deserve a proper response.
author=Sated
I thought the, "Why are we talking about this? This is a game-dev forum!" argument was one of the things people were complaining about when it came to people derailing these threads? I guess you're not that much better than the people you've been condemning?

Cuntish as I may be, at least I'm consistent in my beliefs. To repeat what I said before, the idea that certain opinions can't be voiced is infinitely more offensive to me than anything anyone has posted in this thread.


author=Sated
lol so because they're held by a significant amount of people in the Real World® and because politicians in power also hold them we should allow them on a game dev forum ok boddy
I thought the, "Why are we talking about this? This is a game-dev forum!" argument was one of the things people were complaining about when it came to people derailing these threads? I guess you're not that much better than the people you've been condemning?

Cuntish as I may be, at least I'm consistent in my beliefs. To repeat what I said before, the idea that certain opinions can't be voiced is infinitely more offensive to me than anything anyone has posted in this thread.

This demands us to believe that every single opinion has the same weight and value, and that not necessarily is true. Specially when some opinions have been systematically disproved for decades, and have been proved to have very hazardous consequences to certain demographic groups.

If you have these opinions, at the very least you should own the outrage against them, and understand that you're not entitled to have anyone engage with them, mostly because they have been engaged before.

I see no contradiction, here.
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.
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'.

We disagree here, pretty hard. As in, "all and every sociological evidence we possess goes against this position" disagreement.

Framing it as attack might be an issue. It's not being actively attacked. It's about things being violent on the level of discourse. Even because, trust me, i don't think people are actively going at us here. I think actually most people who came here have good intentions, really. But impact and intention have no relation whatsoever, and here's me saying that, yes, there are circunstances that stating your opinion - any opinion, matter of fact - will be violent to one or other group.
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.

Again, why do you think allowing someone to say "I don't believe in homosexuality / it is a sin." in a topic discussing matters of LGBT concern is in any form productive? Why are they allowed to spew something like that but I'm not allowed to defend my own right to exist? Because what you're saying is seriously coming off as this. Apparently this poster was "dogpiled"--and yet, I don't see this same concern being applied to people who are literally using a politician who inspires homophobic hunting parties as an example.

author=Liberty
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.

I don't think you understand what LGBT people experience if you really think saying what that poster said isn't supposed to construe as outright insulting.

author=Liberty
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'.

This isn't the same and that you're weighing LGBT existence to someone who is trolling a topic with "I think you existing is a sin." we have a definite incompatibility.

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

Oh, "both sides". I suppose we do have an incompatibility, then.