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)
OF GAMES, REPRESENTATION, AND WOMEN'S CHEEKBONES
Posts
bulmabriefs144
View playlists
CloseIt varies. There are people who are agender, and prefer to be called "it". "Their" is sometimes accepted (the grammar nazi in me balks at this), and some people like me who have a preference based on how I'm trying to present ("she" if I'm presenting as female, "he" if I'm male, though I will always accept "she"). He/she is only appropriate if the person is genuinely presenting in a confusing way. Also, when in doubt, just ask. You won't offend someone by asking them. You might offend people by misgendering them.
SnowOwl
5188
Being offended when someone calls you the wrong gender on the internet when there is no way of knowing (and most people probably don't care either) is a bit over the top. And in real life, you usually call someone like you see them, asking everyone you meet if they're really female/male/whatever is probably more offensive than getting it wrong once in 100.
Great way to start a meeting: "Hey, are you really female?"
It's one thing if they tell you their gender, but otherwise, come on.
Great way to start a meeting: "Hey, are you really female?"
It's one thing if they tell you their gender, but otherwise, come on.
author=Solitayre
This is an argument I'm super not-interested in having because arguing the definition of a word is pretty pointless, but 'racism' when brought up in a historical, sociological or academic context means something different than its everyday basic language use. The notion of 'racism is prejudice plus power' is a school of sociological thought and not something made up by 'SJWs' trying to win an argument. Not an attempt to redefine the word but to give it context.
From WikipediaIn sociology and psychology, some definitions include only consciously malignant forms of discrimination. Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes. One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.
This is exactly the bullshit factually unsupported definition made up by SJWs that I'm talking about. 'Racism = prejudice plus power' is not the actual definition of racism! It is not a valid definition of racism. It is not a recognized definition of racism. Outside of "social justice" circles.
Whereas this is the actual definition of the word.
In spite of a massive effort to the contrary by subversive forces: words still have meanings.
When SJWs and everyone else can no longer agree on the meaning of a word it is really, really hard to have a meaningful conversation.
To put this a little more gently, in case that's more helpful?
'racism' when brought up in a historical, sociological or academic context means something different than its everyday basic language use
To use a favorite word of SJWs, this is
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Problematic.
Anyhow...I don't really give much of a shit about people's preferred pronouns. Perhaps I would prefer to be referred to as batman whenever not referred to by name. I'm not going to get offended if someone fails to refer to me as batman.
@bulmabriefs:
I met a creature (if 'it' is someone's preferred pronoun, then presumably 'creature' is their preferred descriptor, rather than man, woman, or person?) online once that wanted to be referred to as "it". It felt SUPER WRONG to me but I tried to go along with it's wishes. I kept feeling like I was doing something wrong because referring to anyone as it just feels so rude to me.
Anyway it and I are no longer acquainted. It was actually kind of an asshole.
hey max
you pm'd this to me when i called you out for calling the staff fags or something childish like that. so whatever.
is there a term for people who are just as radical as "SJWs" but on the opposite end? i hestitate to say "shitlord" because lol that's just as childish as max is.
also max, why do you keep kvetching at this community like you're gonna make us realize how awful we are for accepting people as they are? i don't know why this topic even exists. is it just a showcase for how warped and nutty legion has become over the years? if so i don't think we really need this around anymore. i remember when you just made bad games. that was more fun.
max's original text in case he changes it:
This is exactly the bullshit factually unsupported definition made up by SJWs that I'm talking about. 'Racism = prejudice plus power' is not the actual definition of racism! It is not a valid definition of racism. It is not a recognized definition of racism. Outside of "social justice" circles.
Whereas this is the actual definition of the word.
In spite of a massive effort to the contrary by subversive forces: words still have meanings.
When SJWs and everyone else can no longer agree on the meaning of a word it is really, really hard to have a meaningful conversation.
To put this a little more gently, in case that's more helpful?
'racism' when brought up in a historical, sociological or academic context means something different than its everyday basic language use
To use a favorite word of SJWs, this is
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Problematic.
Anyhow...I don't really give much of a shit about people's preferred pronouns. Perhaps I would prefer to be referred to as batman whenever not referred to by name. I'm not going to get offended if someone fails to refer to me as batman.
@bulmabriefs:
I met a creature (if 'it' is someone's preferred pronoun, then presumably 'creature' is their preferred descriptor, rather than man, woman, or person?) online once that wanted to be referred to as "it". It felt SUPER WRONG to me but I tried to go along with it's wishes. I kept feeling like I was doing something wrong because referring to anyone as it just feels so rude to me.
Anyway it and I are no longer acquainted. It was actually kind of an asshole.
max mcgee
When I use the words "gay and retarded" to describe something negative it is not meant to and in fact does not (here is the really important part: in my opinion) negatively reflect on homosexuals or disabled people AT ALL. The reason for this is that put simply language is dynamic and colloquial and language is constantly changing. When I use the word "gay" to describe something it really has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is just the word I have used to describe things that are lame since I was, to be honest, much too young to "know better". Now that I am old enough to "know better", I am still not interested in adjusting my language to placate offense-seekers. This has nothing to do with homophobia, one way or the other. It has everything to do with the fact that language is a living, dynamic thing that metamorphoses over time with colloquial use. If the word "straight" had somehow morphed to mean "fucking lame and stupid" over the years, my position on this would be EXACTLY THE SAME.
you pm'd this to me when i called you out for calling the staff fags or something childish like that. so whatever.
is there a term for people who are just as radical as "SJWs" but on the opposite end? i hestitate to say "shitlord" because lol that's just as childish as max is.
also max, why do you keep kvetching at this community like you're gonna make us realize how awful we are for accepting people as they are? i don't know why this topic even exists. is it just a showcase for how warped and nutty legion has become over the years? if so i don't think we really need this around anymore. i remember when you just made bad games. that was more fun.
max's original text in case he changes it:
This is exactly the bullshit factually unsupported definition made up by SJWs that I'm talking about. 'Racism = prejudice plus power' is not the actual definition of racism! It is not a valid definition of racism. It is not a recognized definition of racism. Outside of "social justice" circles.
Whereas this is the actual definition of the word.
In spite of a massive effort to the contrary by subversive forces: words still have meanings.
When SJWs and everyone else can no longer agree on the meaning of a word it is really, really hard to have a meaningful conversation.
To put this a little more gently, in case that's more helpful?
'racism' when brought up in a historical, sociological or academic context means something different than its everyday basic language use
To use a favorite word of SJWs, this is
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Highly
Problematic.
Anyhow...I don't really give much of a shit about people's preferred pronouns. Perhaps I would prefer to be referred to as batman whenever not referred to by name. I'm not going to get offended if someone fails to refer to me as batman.
@bulmabriefs:
I met a creature (if 'it' is someone's preferred pronoun, then presumably 'creature' is their preferred descriptor, rather than man, woman, or person?) online once that wanted to be referred to as "it". It felt SUPER WRONG to me but I tried to go along with it's wishes. I kept feeling like I was doing something wrong because referring to anyone as it just feels so rude to me.
Anyway it and I are no longer acquainted. It was actually kind of an asshole.
Max
This is exactly the bullshit factually unsupported definition made up by SJWs that I'm talking about. 'Racism = prejudice plus power' is not the actual definition of racism! It is not a valid definition of racism. It is not a recognized definition of racism. Outside of "social justice" circles.
Okay, I'm not going to argue what the definition of the word is, we can all read. But say you're a teacher at some point in the far future where 'racism' as we understand it no longer is a major force in society and maybe only exists in isolated pockets. Now say you need to teach your class about what 'racism' that existed in the distant past was.
You could say 'racism was where anyone hated or felt superior to someone because they belong to another race. It was a super bad thing that we hope doesn't happen as much anymore!" And sure, that would be factually correct, but don't you think that would be a little...misleading? Maybe a little too convenient for the people who instituted and benefited from racism for centuries? When you're talking about racism, in the United States, at least, in about 99.8% of circumstances you're talking about white people oppressing pretty much every other race. Including other whites sometimes! As was alluded to earlier in this thread, there was a point in U.S. history where it really sucked to be Irish. Is this racism, even though the oppressors were mostly other whites? That's probably a hard question to answer, though I'd say 'probably, yeah.' Is it possible to be racist against white people? Again, 'probably, yeah' even though in a historical context it almost never happens, and when it does it's probably still white people doing the oppressing. The racism here, where the Irish were marginalized, happened because of a difference in power between the two groups.
The point is when talking about racism in the historical context of how it has been used and applied throughout history you need to talk about how it was primarily used by whites to marginalize and exploit other cultures in the Western world. If you fail to take that into account when talking about racism and let it seem like it's a thing that just everyone did, I'd say you're not doing your due diligence as an educator. I'm not saying the definition is wrong but when you talk about something as complex as racism with a ton of baggage and ramifications, context is important. Trying to just break it down to its literal definition and getting irritated when people try to talk about the history feels kind of white-washy? Like the kind of thing ultra-conservative school boards might do to try to cover up the fact that whites were kind of dicks during the Civil Rights era, etc.
Also, Craze's point about the definitions of words changing over time (which I guess is actually your point? Ha!) is relevant.
Edit: Oh hey, this is locked now? It wasn't me.
