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)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsWETMATTOS'S PROFILE
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
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.
That's a way to put it, and honestly here i won't be arguing with you. If, in your perspective, all positions have equal weight and important in all matters, well, who am i to disagree? You have already convinced yourself of what my point is, so there is very little for me to add.
author=slash
They're differing opinions, but one is actively harmful and disrespectful, even if it's presented as politely as possible.
That said... I don't think we should just ban everyone who disagrees, because I think a peaceful discourse is the best way for people to learn why their ideas are harmful. There's a huge difference in potential between someone who is stubborn and someone who is just naive.
But I don't believe we need to keep space for people who aggressively and close-mindedly fight for harmful ideals - homophobia, transphobia, transmisogyny - because we gain nothing from it. They drive other people out of the community by treating them with disrespect.
We don't treat a nine-year-old's opinion on art as equal to the advice of someone who's painted for twenty years. We don't take career suggestions from someone who was just fired for sleeping in the back room. Please don't believe that all opinions should be treated with equal amounts of validity.
Reason why i've been arguing, ever since i came back, about debating starting points and rethinking both rules and from where they steem. I've shared twice now something i believe to be a good framework for situation, but i feel that some people just don't want to know about it.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
author=Yellow Magicauthor=SolitayreWith all due respect, whether you believe it's okay or not shouldn't be a factor in your moderation/admin duties, because on the other hand, the ones whose beliefs you're calling toxic and abhorrent probably find the very idea of homosexuality toxic and abhorrent. This doesn't mean that they should be, in essence, protected from opposing views, does it? All goes back to what Liberty and FG have been saying, really.
It's still saying "I don't think gay people or their rights should be respected or recognized.' Dressing up an ugly viewpoint in non-aggressive language doesn't make it okay. I realize a lot of people are essentially raised to think this way from the time they're born and they'd have a hard time letting go of those beliefs, but it doesn't make those beliefs okay, or not toxic, or abhorrent.
*posts Voltaire quote*
*gets shot*
That, or both me and Solitayre are pointing out that the Liberal approach to this conundrum probably won't do us any good, for it does not aim to correct preexisting power imbalances in favour of the stigmatized - which is a central point in most Social Justice thinking - and that we might have to take sides if Social Justice is what we want to debate.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
author=Sated
I'm not saying that people's horrible viewpoints deserve to be respected. There's a massive difference between letting someone talk shit and respecting the shit that they spew. It should be abundantly obvious that I don't have any respect whatsoever for opinions born from religion; that doesn't mean I want people who have those views to stop posting.
Which kinda misses my point, then. Though the notion of respect is somewhat muddy, and up to debate, we need to understand that most awful positions come from places of disrespect of someone else's humanity - ergo why we insist on the seemingly hyperbolic "people who don't think we deserve to exist".
Giving these positions platform without very good tools of mediation and means of comeback implies in, to some degree, supporting them by virtue of allowing them to be put as valid. In the absense of amazingly well done moderation, not allowing them at all is perceived as a better option, and it tends to be on the principle that it allows for other, usually marginalized opinions, to be brought to light.
Again, i argue that mayhap "safe space" isn't the best choice for a forum that intends to confront such questions, but in the absence of a very good groundwork, that might be for the best.
author=Liberty
Except he wasn't saying he hated gay people at all. Nor was he disparaging towards gay people at all. That's what I'm annoyed at - that the fact someone who shared their viewpoint got shat on despite being polite about it and not being an ass. Just because it wasn't 'the right' opinion. He wasn't doing it to throw hate and he wasn't acting as though he should be excused because of it or that he was essentially right because of it. Religion or not. He was just stating 'this is what I believe and why, but hey, I'm not hating you or acting like an asshole about it, nor am I better.'
Again, you're conflating 'acting like an ass' to 'being violent'. That will, in all situations, make you misunderstand the point being made. Violence is not restricted to a way of saying things. Violence exists within viewpoints, at the level of the discourse. Solitayre did lampshadow it earlier, people are being technically not asses - by being polite - while still being allowed to maintain bigoted positions and to spew them without challenge.
In the absence of mediation who understands this kind of nuance and subtlety, i still advocate for the silencing. Else we'll get amazingly unbalanced conversations - since it's always easier for the unnaffected to be detached from their views - where polite bigoted people will go on about their 'opinions' and marginalized folks will be understood as hypersensitive and unkind.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
author=ElectricalKatSoli, right? Well, admins are, as far as i can parse, a mixed bag, but you know me, i'm a hopeless hoper :Pauthor=WetMattosThat's fine. I won't be coming back anyway. I wanted to reply to Liberty because another administrator PMed me giving me confidence, but seeing that equal weight is apparently being given here and I just heard "both sides are just as bad" from an admin I think I'm done now.
Also, Kat, i'm loving the cats, but would you please hold them back a bit? I have a feeling we might be reaching somewhere :D
I have better things to do than beat a dying horse. The kittens were because I grew tired of responding to people who were just ignoring what I was typing anyway.
May you be well in your parting, and 'till next time?
author=SatedHm,there might be a mistake in your interpretation here, Sated. What i think Kat is alluding to is that, for people who are personally involved with an issue, there is no choice of not caring or engaging with harmful things. As the text i linked to before wisefully said,I'm not even remotely contradicting myself. If you're too dumb to understand the difference between "letting someone speak their mind" and "feeling obligated to respond to them" then that's not my fault.Like I've already said on multiple occasions, "there is a big difference between being allowed to speak your mind, and people actually respecting or caring about what you have to say", so I completely agree with you when you say that people aren't entitled to have anyone engage with them; but that's very different to stopping people from speaking their mind!you are literally contradicting yourself here
although we have some choice in how we respond to or express our emotions, we do not have control over which ones we experience at any given time and to what degree.The article in question is specifically mentioning how the rule of 'not making it personal' is actually counter productive to mindful discussions about social justice, so i think the quote stands well. Which in turn makes the responsability of the sayer to care for their peers, specially if there's any desire of making a conversation about social justice work.
In this context, your approach is contradictory, because it relies on a very different idea than the one i had when i made my point. Does it make sense?
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
author=SatedWhich is something that, to some degree, i agree with. That is, in a place where there are no efficient rules of engagement that are able to balance the forces, bigotry shouldn't have a place at all. Though, as somewhat of a community organizer myself, i feel we can go in a different way.
ElectricalKat is trying to say that such opinions shouldn't even be allowed to be voiced, which I think is abhorrent in the extreme. I find the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind far more offensive than people saying that they think homosexuality is a sin (and I find both awful before anyone think that I don't), because without free speech we wouldn't have a society were people are even open to discuss their sexuality and find out more about themselves cf. Russia were you literally can't even speak about homosexuality to minors because it's illegal.
author=Sated'k, i'm not that into liberal politics to believe that free speech is the panacea for our societies. But i feel that might a bit of a contentious point, so i won't pursue it further. I will, however, make clear that without very clear rules of engagement, and amazing mediation, this perspective can't be done. And, currently, i feel we might lack both.
Freedom of speech is really fucking important if you want a progressive society. It's what a progressive society is built on. If you let people with abhorrent viewpoints speak their mind then you can engage and educate them; if you ban the speaking their minds then their opinion will go untested and their attitudes won't change.
Also, Kat, i'm loving the cats, but would you please hold them back a bit? I have a feeling we might be reaching somewhere :D
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
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.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
author=Satedlol 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 boddyI 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.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
author=Link_2112author=WetMattosPretty 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.
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.
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.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
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:
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.
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.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
