Post by: Shin Gallon on January 31, 2006, 07:45:03 PM
Jerks.
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 31, 2006, 08:08:34 PM
I declare the topic void for joystiq being f'ing retarded.
Post by: Shin Gallon on January 31, 2006, 08:10:53 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 31, 2006, 08:19:26 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on January 31, 2006, 08:24:43 PM
Post by: Artimus on January 31, 2006, 08:28:03 PM
I think this shows a much larger problem within games in general though, their incredible and disgusting sexism (booth babes, par exemple). This particular case is flat out descrimination, no other word for it.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on January 31, 2006, 08:32:05 PM
Post by: Shin Gallon on January 31, 2006, 08:34:09 PM
I just thought that Blizzard's blatant discrimination should be pointed out is all...
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on January 31, 2006, 08:38:01 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 31, 2006, 08:38:52 PM
...
;_;
Post by: Artimus on January 31, 2006, 08:59:18 PM
What if it was African Americans or women they were saying this about? 50 and 100 years ago it would've been.
Post by: Shin Gallon on January 31, 2006, 09:05:05 PM
Post by: Arbok on January 31, 2006, 10:38:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shin Gallon
See, that's pretty much a perfect parallel. Homophobia is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry, unfortunately.
Have to agree, and I'm getting very tired of seeing all of the Brokeback Mountains topics in most forums getting derailed thanks to someone having to come in and tell everyone that homosexuality isn't "right" or, most often, "moral". Thankfully, I doubt this will happen to this topic, or even here at all for that matter.
I'm fairly dissapointed in Blizzard in regards to this, although I also don't play WoW like most here. However, it's not because of a lack of interest, I loved Diablo and StarCraft, but more because I'm against paying monthly fees for games.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 31, 2006, 11:57:05 PM
Post by: wandering on February 01, 2006, 12:14:28 AM
It was the same situation with basketball before that one coach put a bunch of black people on his team (you know, disney made a movie about it?) Other coaches weren't racist (well, okay, I'm sure alot of them were), in fact, a lot of them put black players on their teams. But they didn't want to deal with the crap that ensue if they did the right thing and only looked at player-skill, so they didn't.
And the reason so much discrimination exists towards gay people is that people today wrap their own discrimination in morality. Of course, from a rational perspective, if you're a Christian, you should have the same attidudes towards gays that you do towards people who don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Of course, a lot people don't, because, while it's socially unaaceptable to discriminate against Jews, you can still turn on the news (well, fox news) and hear things like "Is Brokeback Mountain getting too much praise just because it's gay? Fox News investigates!"
...This isn't surprising. Homosexuality is scary! Most of us, in fact, have at least a little in the way of homosexual urges. And the most vile of hatreds often comes from hatred of oneself.
Oh, I thought this line (in the article) was brilliant:
Quote
Blizzard's argument in making this threat: bringing up such touchy subjects in the game world ultimately devolves into a nasty shouting match that creates a negative atmosphere for all players. By forbidding public discussion of such topics, Blizzard believes the game will be a more pleasant place for everyone. After all, who wants games to be invaded by bigots wielding incendiary placards? (No word on whether Blizzard also recommends that players who have created characters with darker skin tones immediately delete said characters and reroll as unpigmented characters. Darker skin tones invite racist remarks, after all, and we musn't create a negative game environment.)
Post by: KDR_11k on February 01, 2006, 12:47:43 AM
Post by: Pale on February 01, 2006, 04:11:30 AM
MMOs suck!
blargh
Post by: couchmonkey on February 01, 2006, 05:18:51 AM
I tend to agree that homophobia is the latest acceptable form of discrimination, but I don't know if it will be the last. This is a shame, anyway.
I've never played an MMO, WoW looks okay to me, but I have plenty of games on my Nintendo systems to keep me busy.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 01, 2006, 05:38:19 AM
Quote
What Blizzard is doing isn't so much discriminating (well, I guess you can call it that, too) as it is bowing to discrimination. While immoral, this is, at least, understandable. Afterall, PGC has the exact same policy. If you created a thread in pgc titled "let's discuss issues affecting the gay/lesbian community" with a rainbow-flag avatar, as per PGC policy, the thread would be locked, and you might get banned.
The difference here is we aren't all pro-Christian stats game guild either
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 01, 2006, 05:48:18 AM
No, I don't play World of Warcraft and therefore am adopting a "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude.
My point is, the title of that article helps nothing. If anything, it makes things worse. Come back and talk to me when someone's going to be f*cking serious about it.
Post by: Shin Gallon on February 01, 2006, 06:38:30 AM
Trust me, I'm extremely serious where any form of discrimination against me might occur, as is the case here. Do I play WoW? No, I don't. Will it affect me directly? No, it won't. Does it still piss me off? You bet. And the fact that it's discrimination against any group of people anywhere SHOULD be enough to piss you off as well, but obviously the troubls of others aren't enough to concern you in your little sheltered world.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2006, 06:53:10 AM
Technically there's a difference. I'm not condoning anything but a person's sexuality is based on their thoughts and actions. It's like a part of their personality. Gender or skin colour is something that no one has any control over and it doesn't define you as a person. Your sexuality does define who you are. Discriminating someone because of their sexuality is like discriminating someone because of their religion or political views or moral views or their basic outlook on life. Now I don't think it's fair to make any blanket statements about people. Your opinion of someone should be on an individual basis. But I think anything to do with someone's opinions or actions or thoughts is open to moral debate and shouldn't be regarded in the same light as gender or skin colour or what country you're from. The fact that I'm white and male and have brown hair and am 5'10 and was born in Canada doesn't really have any bearing on who I am. But the fact that I'm hetrosexual and Catholic and I like videogames and play guitar does. You can judge me based on those things because those characteristics contribute to my opinions and beliefs and how I think and what I do.
I don't think Blizzard should discriminate but I think anyone should be free to do so if they want to provided they're willing to take any negative publicity that might bring them. If you don't like it don't play WoW or buy Blizzard products. It's a free country and you have to power to do that. As unfair as it might be I think any private enterprise should be free to discriminate. Why can't I hire whoever I want or allow whoever I want into my club or serve whoever I want? My reasons might seem unfair or even stupid but it's my decision. If I lose business or attract a bad reputation that's the risk I run.
The reason this is such a big issue is because homosexuality is big politically correct issue right now. If Blizzard said that no one could make a pro-religion guild (like how PGC doesn't allow religious discussion) there wouldn't be as big of a stink about it because religious rights isn't a politically correct issue right now. On the flip side if homosexuals discriminated against hetrosexuals no one would care.
One thing that's really funny about this is that people only freak out about stuff like this if it relates to some sort of organization or business. Yet an individual is allowed to pick their friends or who they date based on any criteria regardless of how superfiscial or illogical it might be. If you ever suggested that it be illegal for someone to not be friends with someone because of what you percieve to be discrimination people would say you're nuts. But if it's a faceless organization that sort of idea is widely accepted. The only group I think should not be allowed to discriminate is the government because they're supposed to look after the interests of the entire country. But anything else is free to do it even if they seem to be unfair about it. If you take things too far then no one is allowed to have an opinion about anything.
Post by: Cap on February 01, 2006, 06:55:01 AM
blizzard has put themselves in a bad position by essentially "picking sides".
of course....i dont play WOW, like most here it seems. a question to anyone who might know. does blizzard allow other pro-religious guilds to take place, or is it just christian?
Post by: Artimus on February 01, 2006, 07:12:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Technically there's a difference. I'm not condoning anything but a person's sexuality is based on their thoughts and actions. It's like a part of their personality. Gender or skin colour is something that no one has any control over and it doesn't define you as a person. Your sexuality does define who you are. Discriminating someone because of their sexuality is like discriminating someone because of their religion or political views or moral views or their basic outlook on life. Now I don't think it's fair to make any blanket statements about people. Your opinion of someone should be on an individual basis. But I think anything to do with someone's opinions or actions or thoughts is open to moral debate and shouldn't be regarded in the same light as gender or skin colour or what country you're from. The fact that I'm white and male and have brown hair and am 5'10 and was born in Canada doesn't really have any bearing on who I am. But the fact that I'm hetrosexual and Catholic and I like videogames and play guitar does. You can judge me based on those things because those characteristics contribute to my opinions and beliefs and how I think and what I do.
That just isn't scientific fact, though, Ian. Your point relies on the fact that sexual preference is totally nurtured, which is at the very least not agreed upon, and at the very worst wrong. Afterall, there are same sex relationships in the animal kingdom as well, a place where there is no logical enviromental factor for it to exist. Children feel their first physical (I won't say sexual) attraction long before they understand any concept of sexuality. Sexual attraction is a natural part of you, its not decided or developed. It is no different than eye colour, skin colour, tone of voice, dexterity or any of a hundred different physical traits you cannot change. The only difference is that it isn't outward.
Religion, politics and the like are belief systems and values, not part of your physical makeup. The discussion of those is naturally going to be heated and rough. The issue of 'properness' of homosexuality is also a political/religious issue, but actual homosexuality isn't in the slightly. Blizzard could in no way ban people from having 'African American friendly' guilds, because being African American isn't political. People might make racist issues from it, but being it isn't anything more than nature. Likewise with homosexuality. That there is a debate regarding its natural level, its legality and all those shades of descrimination doesn't change the natural state of being a homosexual.
What Blizzard is saying is that instead of punishing people for descrimination and hate mongering, they're going to punish the victim. Banning politics and religion (like here) is one thing, those are chosen values. It also makes sense to ban a thread or poll asking people their sexuality (or race and really gender too) as it is irrelevant. But to ban a group of people from being 'GBTL friendly' because people might descriminate against them for it, is punishing the victim. If Blizzard was serious about descrimination they would ban those who make the comments, not the ones being attacked.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 01, 2006, 07:20:40 AM
Don't hold me to your moral expectations, alright? Talk about bigotry.
My qualm is not with the title, stupid though it may be. It's working yourself up over something so trivial. Now, it's undoubtedly part of a bigger problem, but you've got to face that problem head on. It's no use worrying about a game when you have job discrimination and a controversy over same sex marriage. Even if this problem is fixed, that helps nothing. If the larger topics are dealt with directly, these insignificant details will follow along. You don't want to clean the stain in the carpet when you haven't got a roof.
Not saying it's not important. I'm just saying I really don't care about guilds and World of Warcraft.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 01, 2006, 07:30:25 AM
Shin Gallon, are you sure Blizzard allows Christian guilds? I can't find mention of it in the article. In fact:
"we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast. This includes openly advertising a guild friendly to players based on a particular political, sexual, or religious preference, to list a few examples"
It seems if you see any Christian guilds, you have every right to report them, and if you want a gay-friendly guild, you can start one on the forum thingy they linked. WoW is after all just a game, community or not... why drag the real world with all its bigotry into a game that people play to have fun? I think Blizzard is right for trying to keep the ugliness out, for the same reason I think PGC is right for keeping it out here... there are plenty of places to have heated discussion about topics that offend irrational people, and I'm glad this isn't one of them.
"to ban a group of people from being 'GBTL friendly' because people might descriminate against them for it, is punishing the victim."
Except that they're not banning a group of people from being 'GBTL friendly', they're banning them from advertising it in the game. Not the same thing.
Why is this being advertised in the first place? 'GBTL friendly' is nothing to boast about, it should be the norm. Talk about empty boasting.
Post by: Nephilim on February 01, 2006, 07:35:40 AM
Its okay for japanese ppl to put this on there own cd's and say the word, but say it online, and suddenly a bunch of american online kids think ur a nazi.
A small group of people are upset, these are people for prorights but there not talking for the average person, atleast the few friend I have find it fine to hang out with "breeders" or straight ppl on online games, oh no, quick call a prostraight person to complain about what they call straight ppl.
*rant rant*
Post by: vudu on February 01, 2006, 08:13:19 AM
QuoteThat's not true. There's class discrimination, too. And as far as I go, I don't like Aussies.
Originally posted by: Shin Gallon
See, that's pretty much a perfect parallel. Homophobia is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry, unfortunately.
QuoteI think a master society in Wow is the last thing we need.
(No word on whether Blizzard also recommends that players who have created characters with darker skin tones immediately delete said characters and reroll as unpigmented characters. Darker skin tones invite racist remarks, after all, and we musn't create a negative game environment.)
QuoteThat's so wrong I'm not even sure where to begin. The general consensus is you can't choose to be homosexual or straight. You are either born with the tendency to find one gender attractive (or both) or it's affected by forces outside of your control. I just really hate the argument "stop being homosexual".
I'm not condoning anything but a person's sexuality is based on their thoughts and actions. It's like a part of their personality. Gender or skin colour is something that no one has any control over and it doesn't define you as a person. Your sexuality does define who you are.
Post by: Artimus on February 01, 2006, 08:28:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Artimus, let's distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual actions here. I'm pretty sure Ian's "thoughts" part is wrong, but then I'm also quite sure his "actions" part is right.
The primary definition of homosexual is desire, not action. And what is the difference? Your attraction causes your action when it comes to sexual relationships. If you are born attracted to men it makes no sense to say having male partners isn't natural. If you're going to seperate those two, then you're not straight unless the sexual interaction you had caused the female to become pregnant. Ridiculous.
Sexual orientation is a natural born-with thing that exists in both humans and animals. There's no difference in attraction and action, they are part of the same element of the natural order.
And I don't see why you should ignore something like this. I don't think anyone here is flying off the walls with anger. It is simply something that should be protested and hopefully changed. Why? Because its small battles that affect day to day life far more than the big ones.
Post by: ThePerm on February 01, 2006, 08:35:00 AM
anyways, DISCRIMINATION is for cocksuckers
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2006, 08:35:39 AM
That sort of "logic" can be applied to anything if you let it. I can justify anything about myself in that way if I try to. Then you can start to argue that nothing is anyone's fault at all and we all should accept everyone for who they are regardless of anything. My hetrosexuality affects how I think and what I do. Maybe that's just natural instinct and maybe it isn't but it doesn't matter. It still affects how I act and behave and thus is open to judgement. My skin colour or eye colour does not affect how I think or what I do. Nothing regarding my behaviour is affected by those things.
The whole reason why it became fashionable to group sexuality with eye colour is because it's a moral issue and a quick fix solution for dodging that is to treat it like a physical characteristic. "Oh you can't judge me anymore or have an opnion on my behaviour because it's just a natural part of me that I can't do anything about like my hair colour." Ironically it almost paints homosexuality as a mental illness because that's basically the only way a behaviour related characteristic could be determined as something that is completely beyond someone's control. And the same people using the "natural part of me" arguement would not want homosexuality to be considered a mental illness.
You could also probably justify religious dietary laws as discrimination. It is my natural instinct to eat isn't it? So if I naturally have a desire to eat pork then I can't be judged on it right? But no one cares about that issue. Jews and Muslims would consider me to be leading an immoral lifestyle because I eat pork. But I don't care. People judge me all the time for all sorts of stupid sh!t. But I don't whine like a baby about it.
Blizzard's not playing fair. Tough. Everyone gets treated unfairly sometimes. No one forces you to play WoW or buy Blizzard products and this sort of thing doesn't have to ruin your enjoyment of their products unless you get hung up on it. I'd rather live in a world where people can reject me for any sort of stupid reason they want then one where no one is allowed to have opinions or choices. Or they are but only if they follow a very specific opinion.
The world was a lot more fun before it became fashionable to act like a victim.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2006, 08:52:16 AM
Oh no! The general consencus. Hey didn't the Church's views used to be the general consencus? No one seems to use that arguement anymore. It used to be the consensus that slavery was acceptable. Just because something is widely accepted (and I would argue about how widely accepted this view is in the first) doesn't make it factual. I'm not "wrong" because a lot of people disagree with me.
Plus even if you argue that attraction is natural how you behave as a result is still up to you. I'm attracted to women but I still have control over how I react to that attraction. Case in point I don't just f*ck random women or cheat on girlfriends or have anything to do with women involved in another relationship or do anything with female blood relatives. I have a lot of control over how I behave based on my attraction. So thus my behaviour and opinions are still open to judgement. You might take it to an extreme and suggest that me having any sexual relations whatsoever with females is immoral. It would be a pretty unpopular opinion but you're free to have it.
In this case the issue regards people who want to start a pro-homosexual guild. Well they choose to make that guild. They don't have to if they don't want to. So anyone is free to have an opinion regarding starting such a guild. It may seem like a silly thing to care about and I certainly think it is but I think anyone, including Blizzard, is free to have that opinion. Any action is open to moral discussion or judgment or opinion even if it seems idiotic to do so. I say let Blizzard do what they want with their own game and if it hurts sales tough luck to them.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 01, 2006, 09:06:20 AM
I'll give you that one.
"what is the difference? Your attraction causes your action when it comes to sexual relationships. If you are born attracted to men it makes no sense to say having male partners isn't natural. If you're going to seperate those two, then you're not straight unless the sexual interaction you had caused the female to become pregnant. Ridiculous."
Wait, what? Even if you're born attracted to men, you still have to consciously make a decision in order to act on that desire. Hence, both homosexual and heterosexual actions are something you choose to do. I wasn't defining homosexuality, just objecting to this mentality that we're puppets acting out our primal urges and we have no control or responsibility over our actions. Actions and attraction are in fact very different... hence I disagree with the "thought" part and agree with the "action" part of Ian's post. The "action" part of his post does not rely on sexual preference being nurtured, but I'm right there with you on everything else.
I'm not sure what the whole female pregnant thing means. Could you clarify?
"It is simply something that should be protested and hopefully changed. Why? Because its small battles that affect day to day life far more than the big ones."
Is it worth winning a small meaningless battle if it means that the big ones become a part of the game? Is it worth lifting PGC's ban on topics about political, religious or sexual preference if it means the forums will just get mired down in a mess of ugly and hateful rhetoric? I don't come here to talk about politics or religion or sexuality, and I'm assuming people don't play WoW to do that either. Why make them an issue, why drag them into the game just to "win" something that petty? Why is it so important to advertise "GBTL friendliness" inside a game? It's not even something worth advertising in real life in the first place. Call me a naive optimist, but I'd like to believe that GBTL friendliness should be expected of people, and boasting about it annoys me because that's acting like it's something special.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 01, 2006, 09:19:48 AM
-SB
Post by: King of Twitch on February 01, 2006, 09:22:31 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2006, 09:42:51 AM
Probably the best point made here.
Post by: Artimus on February 01, 2006, 09:59:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"The general consensus is you can't choose to be homosexual or straight."
Oh no! The general consencus. Hey didn't the Church's views used to be the general consencus? No one seems to use that arguement anymore. It used to be the consensus that slavery was acceptable. Just because something is widely accepted (and I would argue about how widely accepted this view is in the first) doesn't make it factual. I'm not "wrong" because a lot of people disagree with me.
See...this is the problem. I'm not talking about morals, I'm not talking about the church. I'm talking about scientific research. When I say the general consensus I mean medically and scientifically, not morally. You're ascribing moral and religious value to something that isn't. If a person is homosexual, that isn't a moral issue. They are attracted to their own gender, plain and simple. You cannot argue they're not attracted, you cannot argue it's unnatural. And to argue that acting on that attraction is to argue that any sexual encounter is wrong. There is no choice or moral in being homosexual, and having relations with people you are attracted to is how relationships work. Don't even start on things like rape and predators. Homosexuals are not predators, they are adults who have adult relationships just the same as you. They have those relationships with the people they are attracted to. It's just not a moral issue.
As for actions being open to moral judgement, I agree. You can morally judge any action. But being homosexual isn't an action. You can judge a person for having sex, but the guild wasn't having sex. There was no action that the guild executed for there to be judgement. The problem is that people simply hate homosexuals for a bunch of reasons that have no legal, social or scientific base.
The reason sexuality is ascribed with physical traits is because it is a natural trait. It isn't moral, Ian, except to religion. Religion varies across the world. You deem it a moral issue solely because of your religion, and your religion has no place in the natural world. The twin example is not valid either, because twins have different voices, physical capabilities, intelligences, etc. Identical twins aren't identical...
What this all comes down to is forcing your religion onto someone else. You are perfectly fine if you believe being homosexual is wrong. But when you start insulting , descriminating, attacking, preaching or acting out against other people you are no longer right. You do not have the right to do any of those things in the name of any religion, Christian or otherwise.
"Call me a naive optimist, but I'd like to believe that GBTL friendliness should be expected of people, and boasting about it annoys me because that's acting like it's something special."
Surely the responses of people in this thread and regarding this issue (see some of those JoyStiq comments) prove this isn't even slightly true. A large portion of people hate homosexuals and will do anything they can to bash or attack them.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on February 01, 2006, 10:12:13 AM
Also, props to you guys for keeping it civil.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 01, 2006, 10:14:48 AM
No, actually, these are just anynomous verbal responses. I believe these and in fact most people would be friends with homosexuals if they met them in person in real life. It's easy to be an ass over the internet, but when dealing with other people in real life at least a rudimentary level of humanity comes into play. There's also a difference between hating people and hating the actions they perform that I won't get into here.
I think we're at the level as a society that people who hate homosexuals outright are an irrational albeit vocal minority. These people are what we should be focusing on... it makes more sense to punish people who attack homosexuals than to praise people who show them a basic level of respect. This is not something that should be special or praiseworthy, it should be expected from everybody.
Post by: bustin98 on February 01, 2006, 10:24:08 AM
Look, people are people and deserve equal treatment. If one adult can make a decision about an aspect of their life, then all adults can make the same decision. Yes, there should be g@y marriages and g@y divorces and g@y adoptions and g@y artificial insemination and whatever else. Because the word 'g@y' shouldn't even play into it. I could care less if my neighbor is g@y. It doesn't affect my life. He just needs to be a good neighbor, meaning no stealing, no loud parties that I'm not invited to, clean yard, ect...
Oh, if anyone is familiar with PBS, there's a show that is hosted by Alan Alda. Scientific America or something. One show dealt with people's perceptions of homosexuals. The cameras were at a college where a study covering the subject was going on. The people were interviewed on their feelings about things sexual, then shown images of a sexual nature in a closed environment. Arousal reactions were measured. By the end, it was found that those peoples that expressed a hatred torwards homosexuality had more reaction to the homosexual images than those who were straight and had expressed no hatred. They concluded that the hatred stemmed from supressed feelings and the person's inability to accept their own sexuality. While the subject had been covered before, it was interesting to see an actual study on the subject.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2006, 10:29:50 AM
Sexuality is largely a psychological issue though which is entirely theoretical. Some scientists claim to have proof that God doesn't exist but that doesn't make it fact either. Scientific fact is like the universal law of gravity.
"What this all comes down to is forcing your religion onto someone else."
Yet forcing a non religious opinion on everyone else is acceptable. That's the trend I notice from everyone who uses this arguement. "You can't use your religious beleifs to tell me anything is wrong yet I can use my beliefs to tell you that you're wrong." Religion doesn't change anything. You're telling me my opinion is wrong. That's the same thing as forcing religious beliefs on someone only without the religious part. If you don't believe in God how is a religion any different then a political party or any group of people with similar ideas?
"You are perfectly fine if you believe being homosexual is wrong. But when you start insulting , descriminating, attacking, preaching or acting out against other people you are no longer right. You do not have the right to do any of those things in the name of any religion, Christian or otherwise."
If you believe something is morally wrong why don't you have the right to preach it? What sort of person are you if you feel something is wrong and know that people are doing it but you make no effort to stop it? You have to stand up for what you believe in. That's what you're doing right now. You feel that's it's wrong for anyone to discriminate against homosexuals and are "attacking" religion because of your opinion. And you have to right to do that just like everyone has to right to do that. A religion that doesn't preach and just lives in it's own world is a waste of time. The very nature of a religion is to share it's beliefs with the rest of the world and often to "save" non-believers. To say otherwise is anti-religious which would be discrimination.
"There was no action that the guild executed for there to be judgement."
Yes there is. They wanted to make a guild promoting homosexuality. That's an action. It's open to judgement regardless if you agree with it or not.
I think we're missing the point overall though. Blizzard isn't discriminating because they hate homosexuals or anything like that. They're trying to cut down on controversy because it hurts the enjoyment of people playing the game. It starts discussions, well, like this one. In the end they probably made a poor judgement call on what they deemed to be controversial or not. We'll see how that works out for them.
Post by: Artimus on February 01, 2006, 10:33:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
For me, having a group of people create a guild for one type of sexual preference makes as much sense as having a guild of all sexual preferences. We'll have straights over here and 'g@ys' over there, and so on (I won't mention any more). But where do you draw the line? Its great that people who are g@y are proud and willing to share with the world, but thats like me walking down the street yelling 'I'm Straight!' Let's have a straight parade!
The problem with that logic is that straight is the majority, not the minority. Minorities are at risk of being diluted, so they express their culture more openly. Straight parades exist everywhere in advterising and film and hundreds of other social arenas. One pride parade barely even compares.
And the group wasn't GBTL only, it was for anyone who wanted to join. Probably so people could have a safe place to socialize in the game without the type of descrimination that's becoming evident.
"I think we're missing the point overall though. Blizzard isn't discriminating because they hate homosexuals or anything like that. They're trying to cut down on controversy because it hurts the enjoyment of people playing the game. It starts discussions, well, like this one. In the end they probably made a poor judgement call on what they deemed to be controversial or not. We'll see how that works out for them."
But if you want to cut down on controversy, then forbid discussions and arguments. Don't forbid people from being who they are.
I won't respond to much of the rest other than to say that preaching Christianity means telling people about heaven and Jesus. The main message of Christianity is not homos suck, it's that you can find salvation in Christ. In fact, Christ didn't mention homosexuals once. If you want to save people then tell them about being saved. The hate and negativity can come later, surely. And I'm not pushing my beliefs on you. I'm not telling you homosexuals are good, or that it isn't morally wrong. I'm telling you that you don't have the right to harrass someone for disagree with your religion, because you dont'. I don't have the right to descriminate against you for being Christian, or white, or a man. Descrimination is not ok, religious or otherwise.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 01, 2006, 10:46:45 AM
I understand the logic in that and I understand that's why minorities express their culture more openly. But I've always found it to attract more discrimination. I don't care about stuff like that and I don't notice things like that until people point it out. Sometimes I think drawing attention to something makes it more obvious that it's different. That then attracts more discrimination because people are often scared about what's different. I think it would be better for minorities to just do their thing and not intentionally draw attention to it. I find in anything it's much easier to get along with someone if you learn things about them as you get to know them. This goes for anything really. But people who make a big deal about certain things about them that are in your face are a lot harder to get along with if you don't really fit in or agree with what they're drawing attention to. Because that difference is in your face the whole time and it's hard to see past it to get to know the person. In a way you assume that's all their about because they make it out to be such a big deal.
"I'm telling you that you don't have the right to harrass someone for disagree with your religion, because you don't."
I agree with you. And I don't harrass people though I do know people that do and it bothers me. That doesn't mean I won't tell someone what I think if they ask for it or if they're someone close to me and I feel a responsibility to tell them what I think. But that's not harrassment. The problem is some people have the attitude that to make any religious opinion public is harrassment. It's not.
Post by: IceCold on February 01, 2006, 04:17:31 PM
QuoteDon't you see, Ian? To look after the interests of the entire country, the government has to make laws that protect against discrimination.. I don't understand your point at all. That's why we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; to protect minorities. What the hell sort of country would we be living in if you ruled it?
Originally posted by: Ian Sane<brThe only group I think should not be allowed to discriminate is the government because they're supposed to look after the interests of the entire country. But anything else is free to do it even if they seem to be unfair about it
QuoteWow.. did it ever occur to you that you consider it as a "mental illness", and not others? A "mental illness"? Did you ever think that maybe nothing is wrong with them, they're just different?
it almost paints homosexuality as a mental illness because that's basically the only way a behaviour related characteristic could be determined as something that is completely beyond someone's control. And the same people using the "natural part of me" arguement would not want homosexuality to be considered a mental illness.
Post by: mantidor on February 01, 2006, 04:41:31 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 01, 2006, 05:06:34 PM
Post by: ThePerm on February 01, 2006, 05:33:52 PM
I think if I hadn't played mario 64..i might be playing Halo with some friends right now
you also make a choice whether you play wow, eq, or ff11
nurture has a big effect on people, lemme go further into the mario 64 thing. When I was a kid on till about 6th grade I had no Video Game company preference. I just liked to play video games, in fact I never beat any games. None at all.It wasn't till 7th grade that I beat any. My brother had all of the systems growing up , we jointly shared then es...but of course he was the big brother and itwas on his tv. Therefore he contolled it. He went from NES to Sega Genesis. He liked Genesis because his friend Brad had a Genesis..because his friend had it so he thought it was cool.
Anyways I liked Sega just because my brother had one as well. Anywyas at about 7th grade I moved to Yuma AZ. We had three channels and no cable. My brothers genesis was in storage, but somehow we managed t o grab the NES. I had never beat any games so, I decided to try. We had castlevania, mario bros, mario bros 3, we also had a pc with mario is missing, and a bunch of MUDs. So, because we h ad nothing better to do then play video games I got hooked on nes..when at t he t ime it was outdated by years. At the same time playstaiton is already out and I'm not even aware of it. Anyways I grew a fanship of Mario. Then i saw Mario 64...and it was all Nintnedo after that. I bought my first system it was an n64. Now I'm in a school so i can be a game designer. Had we had the Sega Genesis out of storage, i'm sure I would have been a stud with the girls, be playign halo all the time. And never b eaten a game. In fact I'd probably be a Nintendo hater.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 01, 2006, 06:08:12 PM
???
Post by: ThePerm on February 01, 2006, 06:21:03 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 01, 2006, 06:23:40 PM
Post by: Shin Gallon on February 01, 2006, 06:27:22 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 01, 2006, 06:32:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shin Gallon
No offense, Ian, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Sexuality is genetic, it's pretty much been as proven as anything is ever proven scientifically. I certainly didn't wake up one day and decide I liked other guys, and given the staggering amount of propoganda and hatred we face, no one in their right mind would ever choose to be homosexual. I certainly didn't choose to be, but frankly I wouldn't want to change. I'm perfectly happy with that aspect of myself, and if you feel the need to judge that as being "wrong", kindly address all comments to what was once known as "the hand".
Good job
