Topic: Blizzard discrimination in WoW

[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.

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.

[Nephilim]

I just think its people being outraged by something that hasnt outraged the people concerned, much like the word "jap"
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*

[vudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: Shin Gallon
See, that's pretty much a perfect parallel. Homophobia is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry, unfortunately.

That's not true.  There's class discrimination, too.  And as far as I go, I don't like Aussies.  

Quote
(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.)

I think a master society in Wow is the last thing we need.

Quote
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.

That'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".

[Artimus]

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.

[ThePerm]

i think sexuality is nurtured, simply because in the case of twins, who share the exact  same genes,  sometimes  they  differ  in their  preferences,  so i t must  be nurture.

anyways,  DISCRIMINATION is  for  cocksuckers

[Ian Sane]

"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."

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.

[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.

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.

[PaLaDiN]

"The primary definition of homosexual is desire, not action."
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.

[Smash_Brother]

Speaking as a former WoW player, I find this comical. Not because people are being discriminated against, but because Bliz spends their time dismantling guilds instead of fixing their bugged up the ass game.

-SB

[King of Twitch]

Im Halophobic. I didn't choose to hate the generic guns and bland levels and enemies I was just born like that.

[Ian Sane]

"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?"

Probably the best point made here.

[Artimus]

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.

[Karl Castaneda #2]

My personal opinion on the matter is that homosexual guilds should be given a shot. If it doesn't work out, then shut 'em down and cite the problems as the reason. The same goes for any topic-specific guild, including religious, national, etc. To completely bar the creation of a guild based soley off of predictions seems wrong to me. Then again, I don't play WoW, so I can't vouch for how people behave. I know people were snippy at best and downright bigots at worst back when I was a Diablo II junky.

Also, props to you guys for keeping it civil.

[PaLaDiN]

"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."

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.

[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!

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.  

[Ian Sane]

"When I say the general consensus I mean medically and scientifically"

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.

[Artimus]

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.

[Ian Sane]

"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."

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.

[IceCold]

Quote
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

Don'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?

Quote
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.

Wow.. 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?

[mantidor]

I think Ian that not a single human being can say that they "chose" their sexuality, at some point in your life did you conciously decide to like women in a sexual way? not at all, it just happened, wether you like it or not, and is exactly the same with gay people,  so I think is fair to say its an intrinsic (sp?) charasteristic of people, just like race or nationality.

[S-U-P-E-R]

This has gotten too far into politics/sexuality/etc. The next post has to be about WoW or it's lock time

[ThePerm]

you make a choice to be a sony,ms,or  nintendo fan.

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.

[S-U-P-E-R]

[ThePerm]

because I wouldnt be stuck  playing an nes..therefore not a mario lover..and  therefore a crash bandicoot lover....it  goes

[S-U-P-E-R]

Perm, please be my valentine