It doesn't matter if they don't really believe the -ism they're referencing, what it is is bullying behaviour. And I don't know if you've noticed, but there's been a lot of public discussion lately about the effects of bullying on civil society, how common it really is, and how crap we are at managing it.
I think it matters. It just doesn't make it any less bad and stupid.
Yeah it matters and I think that the reason we're so bad at managing it is because we don't seem to make a distinction.
Most "racist bigots" online aren't even really racist bigots. They just act that way online
I think the reverse is probably true. Lots of folks have prejudices, but feel like they can only voice them in an anonymous environment.
Well, I can't speak to everyone, but from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs. The only reason I used them was to get a rise out of people. I used them because people were offended. I don't have any problems whatsoever with gay people, and I never have. Yet I used the slurs quite often when I was younger. I simply did it to be hurtful and mean, probably because kids were mean to me in school so I took it out at home on others in the most hateful way I knew how because I was filled with a lot of anger. I never once though to myself that gay people are bad or evil etc.
I'm wondering if the basis of their research was taken from Twitter, since that seems to be one of the main places I saw really stupid comments.
There certainly wasn't any of that stuff in our forums.
Oh, there was a fair chunk of stupid shit here. But I agree, nothing like the vitriol that hit the blogs and Twitter. PA forums are pretty tolerable most of the time when it comes to issues like this, but lets not be pretending everyone here is Captain Progressive, Champion of the Social Minority.
Basically what The Cat said. There were a few people here who generally said to anyone raising a fuss (including me, for one) that "nothing should be off-limits, you're an oversensitive twat, etc etc etc" but I would be definitely be inclined to say that the majority of needless rage was not sourced from PA.
Most "racist bigots" online aren't even really racist bigots. They just act that way online
I think the reverse is probably true. Lots of folks have prejudices, but feel like they can only voice them in an anonymous environment.
Well, I can't speak to everyone, but from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs. The only reason I used them was to get a rise out of people. I used them because people were offended. I don't have any problems whatsoever with gay people, and I never have. Yet I used the slurs quite often when I was younger. I simply did it to be hurtful and mean, probably because kids were mean to me in school so I took it out at home on others in the most hateful way I knew how because I was filled with a lot of anger. I never once though to myself that gay people are bad or evil etc.
I know exactly what you mean. The summer before last, this happened on Vancouver Island, and it received worldwide attention. Big news for a sleepy BC town. Now, these guys ended up getting charged with hate crimes for their assault, which is as it should be, but not long after the incident happened, one of the accused said something to the media along the lines of "Yes, we said those words, but we're not racist." And I didn't admit it to anyone, but at the time I understand what they meant. I think there's a legitimate difference between saying something to provoke someone, and saying someone because you genuinely hold prejudiced beliefs about them.
That being said, that doesn't excuse making these kinds of comments for a second, and I hope you don't do any of that now as an adult.
edit: And I should say that I DO think what those guys in Courtney did was racist - driving by a black guy in the middle of the afternoon and yelling racial slurs at him, even if you're drunk, is pretty much hatespeech. Doesn't help when you threaten to kill him and his family when he gets angry.
from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs.
Do you think bigots think they're bigots? I think it depends how much reinforcement they have from their social environment. Sure, some will use epithets/slurs as youngsters and move on, but that's providing they move into wider social circles/areas. If they remain limited in their social or cultural exposure their initial youthful immaturity will form into a a more cohesive set of beliefs regarding others who are different.
*snip* Please do not let the actions of a vocal and reprehensible minority color your opinion of the community at large. I do not believe, personally, that Mike and Jerry are doing enough to discourage "fuckwad" behavior among their fanbase, as evidenced by their flippant and misdirected response to the Dickwolves controversy (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/13/). Despite that, I have personally found the Penny Arcade community to be more mature and mindful than other gamer communities across the Internet, which is why I'm proud to consider myself a part of it.
Keep in mind, you may be thinking about the retorts from the original G&T thread here, but what you are actually doing right now is linking the vocal minority of the PA community with the blog invasions against rape victims as that is what was talked about in the article.
In other words, you may want to clarify that point, because I refuse to believe that a bunch of G&Ters were involved in the more vicious trolling that happened. The Dickwolves debacle quickly got out of hand and many other sites, such as 4chan, Reddit, SA, etc, heard of the story. We all know how fast things spread on the internet, and I think it is unfair to imply PA is to blame for such atrocious behaviour when it fits the motif of 4channers.
Anyway, I think we should be careful and try to stay on topic. I don't know if the mods would want this to touch too much on the Dickwolves controversy even though it is related to a certain extent.
Edit: I don't know the history of the previous Dickwolf threads as I haven't been paying full attention (i.e., if they were locked or not, etc). I'm just assuming it has been argued to death already, and I don't want to incur the ire of our mods.
Well, it's too late to clarify the point. That said, the word "community" is a fuzzy term. Is the PA community everybody who goes to PAX? Everybody who reads the Penny Arcade comic strip? Everybody who posts on the forums? Everybody who posts on spinter treehouse forums?
I totally understand your point and this is something I thought about during the initial controversy. Are we in the right to disavow the trolls as not being part of our community? I'm not sure that we do, even if they don't post in the forums. We're not responsible for their actions, but they're clearly not completely disconnected from Penny Arcade - at the very least, they followed the strip and read Mike & Jerry's twitter accounts.
I really do sympathize with what you're saying. The core of the issue here is that we have to take some responsibility, not just as PA fans & forumers, but as gamers in general, to publicly discourage bullying and bigotry. We have to be wary of just throwing up our hands and say "Well, it wasn't me or my crew, so not my problem." There's a fine line between taking too much responsibility and taking too little, and I want to err on the side of taking too much.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs.
Do you think bigots think they're bigots? I think it depends how much reinforcement they have from their social environment. Sure, some will use epithets/slurs as youngsters and move on, but that's providing they move into wider social circles/areas. If they remain limited in their social or cultural exposure their initial youthful immaturity will form into a a more cohesive set of beliefs regarding others who are different.
Hence, the American South, Alberta Canada, etc.
Do I think that people who hate black people know they hate black people? Do I think that people who hate gays know they hate gays? Yes, Yes I do.
*snip* Please do not let the actions of a vocal and reprehensible minority color your opinion of the community at large. I do not believe, personally, that Mike and Jerry are doing enough to discourage "fuckwad" behavior among their fanbase, as evidenced by their flippant and misdirected response to the Dickwolves controversy (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/13/). Despite that, I have personally found the Penny Arcade community to be more mature and mindful than other gamer communities across the Internet, which is why I'm proud to consider myself a part of it.
Keep in mind, you may be thinking about the retorts from the original G&T thread here, but what you are actually doing right now is linking the vocal minority of the PA community with the blog invasions against rape victims as that is what was talked about in the article.
In other words, you may want to clarify that point, because I refuse to believe that a bunch of G&Ters were involved in the more vicious trolling that happened. The Dickwolves debacle quickly got out of hand and many other sites, such as 4chan, Reddit, SA, etc, heard of the story. We all know how fast things spread on the internet, and I think it is unfair to imply PA is to blame for such atrocious behaviour when it fits the motif of 4channers.
Anyway, I think we should be careful and try to stay on topic. I don't know if the mods would want this to touch too much on the Dickwolves controversy even though it is related to a certain extent.
Edit: I don't know the history of the previous Dickwolf threads as I haven't been paying full attention (i.e., if they were locked or not, etc). I'm just assuming it has been argued to death already, and I don't want to incur the ire of our mods.
In other words, you immediately exclude anyone who actually did the trolling from the "PA community." Is this a valid thing to do? How do we define the PA community exactly? What represents the community? This forum, alone? Just G&T, or the entire forum? Or does it include the people who read the comic, but don't post on these official forums, which may include people from 4chan, Reddit, SA, kirbybits and the like? I think it is worth noting that these forums represent a rather small percentage of PA's general readership, or so I was lead to believe.
I'm not making an argument in favor of a specific definition here because I'm not sure how I would define the boundaries of the "PA community" either, I'm just not sure we should take any particular definition for granted as being correct or definitive. I'm curious what you think.
*snip* Please do not let the actions of a vocal and reprehensible minority color your opinion of the community at large. I do not believe, personally, that Mike and Jerry are doing enough to discourage "fuckwad" behavior among their fanbase, as evidenced by their flippant and misdirected response to the Dickwolves controversy (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/13/). Despite that, I have personally found the Penny Arcade community to be more mature and mindful than other gamer communities across the Internet, which is why I'm proud to consider myself a part of it.
Keep in mind, you may be thinking about the retorts from the original G&T thread here, but what you are actually doing right now is linking the vocal minority of the PA community with the blog invasions against rape victims as that is what was talked about in the article.
In other words, you may want to clarify that point, because I refuse to believe that a bunch of G&Ters were involved in the more vicious trolling that happened. The Dickwolves debacle quickly got out of hand and many other sites, such as 4chan, Reddit, SA, etc, heard of the story. We all know how fast things spread on the internet, and I think it is unfair to imply PA is to blame for such atrocious behaviour when it fits the motif of 4channers.
Anyway, I think we should be careful and try to stay on topic. I don't know if the mods would want this to touch too much on the Dickwolves controversy even though it is related to a certain extent.
Edit: I don't know the history of the previous Dickwolf threads as I haven't been paying full attention (i.e., if they were locked or not, etc). I'm just assuming it has been argued to death already, and I don't want to incur the ire of our mods.
Well, it's too late to clarify the point. That said, the word "community" is a fuzzy term. Is the PA community everybody who goes to PAX? Everybody who reads the Penny Arcade comic strip? Everybody who posts on the forums? Everybody who posts on spinter treehouse forums?
I totally understand your point and this is something I thought about during the initial controversy. Are we in the right to disavow the trolls as not being part of our community? I'm not sure that we do, even if they don't post in the forums. We're not responsible for their actions, but they're clearly not completely disconnected from Penny Arcade - at the very least, they followed the strip and read Mike & Jerry's twitter accounts.
I really do sympathize with what you're saying. The core of the issue here is that we have to take some responsibility, not just as PA fans & forumers, but as gamers in general, to publicly discourage bullying and bigotry. We have to be wary of just throwing up our hands and say "Well, it wasn't me or my crew, so not my problem." There's a fine line between taking too much responsibility and taking too little, and I want to err on the side of taking too much.
I should have read your post before I posted mine, but yeah, I'm not sure it is valid to simply exclude people from the community out of convenience. Then again, I'm not entirely sure what comprises the "PA community" in the first place.
In other words, you immediately exclude anyone who actually did the trolling from the "PA community." Is this a valid thing to do? How do we define the PA community exactly? What represents the community? This forum, alone? Just G&T, or the entire forum? Or does it include the people who read the comic, but don't post on these official forums, which may include people from 4chan, Reddit, SA, kirbybits and the like? I think it is worth noting that these forums represent a rather small percentage of PA's general readership, or so I was lead to believe.
I'm not making an argument in favor of a specific definition here because I'm not sure how I would define the boundaries of the "PA community" either, I'm just not sure we should take any particular definition for granted as being correct or definitive. I'm curious what you think.
Well, the forums do represent a rather small percentage of PA's general readership, but within this group the vast majority of people agree that bigotry and bullying is absolutely not kosher—with a few exceptions that I wish the community were better on, such as against furries and anime fans.
I would say that the people who read PA fall under the "PA readership" while the forum is the "PA community"—with the subforums having their own little communities. You will obviously find somewhat differing views in the various subforums, but overall the forums themselves are fairly progressive compared to a lot of other places I've visited.
In any case, I am not saying no one from the PA readership or forums trolled the blogs, but I think the number is too small for us to be called out on this when the forums universally condemned the invasions. Maybe I am being overly optimistic on that; I don't know.
I really do sympathize with what you're saying. The core of the issue here is that we have to take some responsibility, not just as PA fans & forumers, but as gamers in general, to publicly discourage bullying and bigotry. We have to be wary of just throwing up our hands and say "Well, it wasn't me or my crew, so not my problem." There's a fine line between taking too much responsibility and taking too little, and I want to err on the side of taking too much.
Well, assuming a fair amount of people from PA actually did participate, how much more we can do besides the condemning I just mentioned? It seems to me this ultimately falls into the lap of Mike and Jerry, and they did release a statement basically saying "don't troll rape victims for crying out loud!"
In other words, you immediately exclude anyone who actually did the trolling from the "PA community." Is this a valid thing to do? How do we define the PA community exactly? What represents the community? This forum, alone? Just G&T, or the entire forum? Or does it include the people who read the comic, but don't post on these official forums, which may include people from 4chan, Reddit, SA, kirbybits and the like? I think it is worth noting that these forums represent a rather small percentage of PA's general readership, or so I was lead to believe.
I'm not making an argument in favor of a specific definition here because I'm not sure how I would define the boundaries of the "PA community" either, I'm just not sure we should take any particular definition for granted as being correct or definitive. I'm curious what you think.
Well, the forums do represent a rather small percentage of PA's general readership, but within this group the vast majority of people agree that bigotry and bullying is absolutely not kosher—with a few exceptions that I wish the community were better on, such as against furries and anime fans.
I would say that the people who read PA fall under the "PA readership" while the forum is the "PA community"—with the subforums having their own little communities. You will obviously find somewhat differing views in the various subforums, but overall the forums themselves are fairly progressive compared to a lot of other places I've visited.
In any case, I am not saying no one from the PA readership or forums trolled the blogs, but I think the number is too small for us to be called out on this when the forums universally condemned the invasions. Maybe I am being overly optimistic on that; I don't know.
I really do sympathize with what you're saying. The core of the issue here is that we have to take some responsibility, not just as PA fans & forumers, but as gamers in general, to publicly discourage bullying and bigotry. We have to be wary of just throwing up our hands and say "Well, it wasn't me or my crew, so not my problem." There's a fine line between taking too much responsibility and taking too little, and I want to err on the side of taking too much.
Well, assuming a fair amount of people from PA actually did participate, how much more we can do besides the condemning I just mentioned? It seems to me this ultimately falls into the lap of Mike and Jerry, and they did release a statement basically saying "don't troll rape victims for crying out loud!"
There's a very, very big difference between condemning and excluding. "They aren't a part of MY community" is different than "those individuals don't represent my opinion, nor do I believe they represent the opinion of the community at large," which, to me, is what Feral's quote - the one you seemed to take issue with - represented. You would rather dismiss out of hand that anyone within our community was even responsible for some of the vitriol, which I don't think is appropriate or accurate. Very likely, some people in this community, forumers or not, were involved.
In other words, and this is a much larger topic, a community isn't comprised solely of its best members and while it is convenient to pretend that undesirable individuals aren't a part of said community, it isn't really true. Better to just accept that and tackle the situation as it is.
If you want to be very broad about it (since you included non-forumers), then yes gamers did this. I'm just not sure what exactly you are proposing we do. I am well aware that there are silly geese within any community. It's a bit of a hyperbole, but 1.3 billion Muslims don't like being called out on what al-Qaida does, so I don't like being called out on what other gamers do just because I fall in under the same auxiliary (or master, for some people) status.
I'm not pulling a No True Scotsman, I am saying I personally believe the number of geese that came from our community is probably not significant because I think we have a fairly good community here at PA.
Do you believe a significant amount of PA forumers contributed to the invasions? If so, we'll just have to disagree. I also think that's the end of that discussion, then, because I am already agreeing with you and Feral on the other things.
from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs.
Do you think bigots think they're bigots? I think it depends how much reinforcement they have from their social environment. Sure, some will use epithets/slurs as youngsters and move on, but that's providing they move into wider social circles/areas. If they remain limited in their social or cultural exposure their initial youthful immaturity will form into a a more cohesive set of beliefs regarding others who are different.
Hence, the American South, Alberta Canada, etc.
Do I think that people who hate black people know they hate black people? Do I think that people who hate gays know they hate gays? Yes, Yes I do.
That's a little bit of an oversimplification of bigotry. It's not just about hating some one. People justify or even feel confident in their bigoted beliefs in many instances. It's certainly progressed in the last century, however there are still segments of our society where bigotry is passable to an extent. A bigot may realize he hates someone but obfuscates the implications and connections it involves in regards to his outer social context.
A lot of bigots don't even understand they hate. I've encountered and I'm sure many others have encountered bigoted people who talk of those in a different group hatefully but as if they think that's okay and you're weird for questioning or calling them on it. There's a lot of people in my city for instance that are bigoted to native americans(large population here). They think it's just the way people of the first nations are; drunks, welfare people, etc. That's their reality, one of hatefulness but they don't see it that way.
If you want to be very broad about it (since you included non-forumers), then yes gamers did this. I'm just not sure what exactly you are proposing we do. I am well aware that there are silly geese within any community. It's a bit of a hyperbole, but 1.3 billion Muslims don't like being called out on what al-Qaida does, so I don't like being called out on what other gamers do just because I fall in under the same auxiliary (or master, for some people) status.
I'm not pulling a No True Scotsman, I am saying I personally believe the number of geese that came from our community is probably not significant because I think we have a fairly good community here at PA.
Do you believe a significant amount of PA forumers contributed to the invasions? If so, we'll just have to disagree. I also think that's the end of that discussion, then, because I am already agreeing with you and Feral on the other things.
I don't want to continue this either, but what I'm saying is that neither you nor I actually have any data to indicate how many PA forumers contributed to the invasions. My point is that the PA community is broader than these forums. These forums are not the beginning and the end of the PA community, at least not in my definition. And it's not as broad as "all gamers" either. I'm not sure where the line is, but it is somewhere between "active PA forumers" and "all gamers," but probably a lot closer to PA forumers. Anyway, regardless of where we draw the boundaries for the "PA community," neither of us really know how many community members actually contributed to the invasion and how many were, um, outliers.
I'm sorry, but when people say "I personally believe X" with no data, it kind of bugs me. I hope you are right, but it isn't an opinion based on anything but bias and what you wish were true. I'd rather we focus on the problem instead of attempting to dismiss it by labeling the participants of said invasions as non-members or exiles.
I'm sorry, but when people say "I personally believe X" with no data, it kind of bugs me. I hope you are right, but it isn't an opinion based on anything but bias and what you wish were true. I'd rather we focus on the problem instead of attempting to dismiss it by labeling the participants of said invasions as non-members or exiles.
Yes, I said that exactly because I don't have any data. I'm not dismissing anything; you are jumping to the conclusion that I am trying to push the problem under a rug simply because I don't hold the forums responsible for the invasions. That is a false conclusion. Regardless of anything, I will continue to voice my opinion every time a fellow gamer, PA forumer, or what-have-you acts bigoted or bullies someone.
There's no way to really know who the trolls on those weblogs were one way or the other. Maybe we all simultaneously went over there to post dreck for our own amusement, or maybe we didn't, or maybe like two people from this forum did.
The only ways to measure "the PA community" we actually know of don't really support fit what the researchers are saying, though
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs.
Do you think bigots think they're bigots? I think it depends how much reinforcement they have from their social environment. Sure, some will use epithets/slurs as youngsters and move on, but that's providing they move into wider social circles/areas. If they remain limited in their social or cultural exposure their initial youthful immaturity will form into a a more cohesive set of beliefs regarding others who are different.
Hence, the American South, Alberta Canada, etc.
Do I think that people who hate black people know they hate black people? Do I think that people who hate gays know they hate gays? Yes, Yes I do.
That's a little bit of an oversimplification of bigotry. It's not just about hating some one. People justify or even feel confident in their bigoted beliefs in many instances. It's certainly progressed in the last century, however there are still segments of our society where bigotry is passable to an extent. A bigot may realize he hates someone but obfuscates the implications and connections it involves in regards to his outer social context.
A lot of bigots don't even understand they hate. I've encountered and I'm sure many others have encountered bigoted people who talk of those in a different group hatefully but as if they think that's okay and you're weird for questioning or calling them on it. There's a lot of people in my city for instance that are bigoted to native americans(large population here). They think it's just the way people of the first nations are; drunks, welfare people, etc. That's their reality, one of hatefulness but they don't see it that way.
This is kind of the point I was trying to get at before. People hear "bigot" or "hatred" or whatever word and relate it to really hardcore prejudiced groups, neo-nazis and fred phelps et al and so on. Then they think (rightly), well, I'm not like those guys, so obviously I'm not a bigot!
Well, not really. The only way people come to be comfortable repeating slurs is by having a lack of regard for members of whatever group they're referring to; this doesn't have to be a conscious "man, I want to kill all gay people" kind of thing to be prejudice.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
There's no way to really know who the trolls on those weblogs were one way or the other. Maybe we all simultaneously went over there to post dreck for our own amusement, or maybe we didn't, or maybe like two people from this forum did.
The only ways to measure "the PA community" we actually know of don't really support fit what the researchers are saying, though
There were most definitely people that regularly post here in D&D posting idiotic, bigoted things here in D&D in threads discussing the controversy. Like the thread where multiple posters agreed that anyone who had any sort of issue with any part of the Tycho and Gabe side of the Dickwolves controversy shouldn't be on the forums.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs.
Do you think bigots think they're bigots? I think it depends how much reinforcement they have from their social environment. Sure, some will use epithets/slurs as youngsters and move on, but that's providing they move into wider social circles/areas. If they remain limited in their social or cultural exposure their initial youthful immaturity will form into a a more cohesive set of beliefs regarding others who are different.
Hence, the American South, Alberta Canada, etc.
Do I think that people who hate black people know they hate black people? Do I think that people who hate gays know they hate gays? Yes, Yes I do.
That's a little bit of an oversimplification of bigotry. It's not just about hating some one. People justify or even feel confident in their bigoted beliefs in many instances. It's certainly progressed in the last century, however there are still segments of our society where bigotry is passable to an extent. A bigot may realize he hates someone but obfuscates the implications and connections it involves in regards to his outer social context.
A lot of bigots don't even understand they hate. I've encountered and I'm sure many others have encountered bigoted people who talk of those in a different group hatefully but as if they think that's okay and you're weird for questioning or calling them on it. There's a lot of people in my city for instance that are bigoted to native americans(large population here). They think it's just the way people of the first nations are; drunks, welfare people, etc. That's their reality, one of hatefulness but they don't see it that way.
This is kind of the point I was trying to get at before. People hear "bigot" or "hatred" or whatever word and relate it to really hardcore prejudiced groups, neo-nazis and fred phelps et al and so on. Then they think (rightly), well, I'm not like those guys, so obviously I'm not a bigot!
Well, not really. The only way people come to be comfortable repeating slurs is by having a lack of regard for members of whatever group they're referring to; this doesn't have to be a conscious "man, I want to kill all gay people" kind of thing to be prejudice.
I am pretty sure you are expanding the definition of bigot here. A person doesn't have to be nice to every single group to not be considered a bigot. Using a homophobic slur towards someone who isn't even gay doesn't seem bigotted to me. I mean how is using that slur being intolerant of gays?
You want the word bigot to mean that we don't all live in perfect peace and harmony. You want it to mean we are all the best of pals ( Yes I am exaggerating.)
I am pretty sure you are expanding the definition of bigot here. A person doesn't have to be nice to every single group to not be considered a bigot. Using a homophobic slur towards someone who isn't even gay doesn't seem bigotted to me. I mean how is using that slur being intolerant of gays?
You want the word bigot to mean that we don't all live in perfect peace and harmony. You want it to mean we are all the best of pals ( Yes I am exaggerating.)
Woah, no that's not too hard a concept.
Using a word that is currently synonymous with a group of people (let's say 'mom') as your go-to word for calling other people 'bad' is the kind of behavior that while not requiring you be actively against say, rights for moms, certainly undermines them. It pretty much suggests "you, while normally being considered a good person for not being a mom, are actually a bad person and share the same traits/are a mom, which is bad". It's not really a complex construction. I mean you wouldn't say calling someone a "fucking moron" was somehow not actually intended to be of any offense to people who are really stupid, would you?
Also, people get far too caught up in whether or not they personally are good during these sorts of discussions, and stop thinking about how to create the most desirable environment. I mean, I use the word "retarded" pretty often. It's not something that makes me a bad person, I don't believe. But that doesn't remove from me the responsibility to tone that shit down. I know some kids with mental troubles, I don't like making them uncomfortable, and using a certain insult isn't really worth that.
That sort of personal reaction is the reason that, for instance, my time in the GSA at a pretty-much-tolerant school got pretty frustrating. People weren't getting beaten up for being gay, so everyone sort of felt that if you asked for any other concessions you were accusing them of secretly planning to beat up gay people.
The problem with trying to deal with racist and bigoted speech in voice chat for an online game is that there is no viable way to enforce punishment for bad behavior. In a forum like PA, there is a record of any comments that violate forum rules. But, how are you going to prove that a particular gamer said something racist? The owner of the forum would need to record all on-line conversations and have staff available to review any complaints. That's probably economically unfeasible.
Yeah, online voice chat for most games is an utter sewer. But I don't see any real way to solve the problem in-game. Any solution has to come from the outside, but good luck getting 14 year-olds to stop acting douchey.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I am pretty sure you are expanding the definition of bigot here. A person doesn't have to be nice to every single group to not be considered a bigot. Using a homophobic slur towards someone who isn't even gay doesn't seem bigotted to me. I mean how is using that slur being intolerant of gays?
You want the word bigot to mean that we don't all live in perfect peace and harmony. You want it to mean we are all the best of pals ( Yes I am exaggerating.)
Woah, no that's not too hard a concept.
Using a word that is currently synonymous with a group of people (let's say 'mom') as your go-to word for calling other people 'bad' is the kind of behavior that while not requiring you be actively against say, rights for moms, certainly undermines them. It pretty much suggests "you, while normally being considered a good person for not being a mom, are actually a bad person and share the same traits/are a mom, which is bad". It's not really a complex construction. I mean you wouldn't say calling someone a "fucking moron" was somehow not actually intended to be of any offense to people who are really stupid, would you?
Also, people get far too caught up in whether or not they personally are good during these sorts of discussions, and stop thinking about how to create the most desirable environment. I mean, I use the word "retarded" pretty often. It's not something that makes me a bad person, I don't believe. But that doesn't remove from me the responsibility to tone that shit down. I know some kids with mental troubles, I don't like making them uncomfortable, and using a certain insult isn't really worth that.
That sort of personal reaction is the reason that, for instance, my time in the GSA at a pretty-much-tolerant school got pretty frustrating. People weren't getting beaten up for being gay, so everyone sort of felt that if you asked for any other concessions you were accusing them of secretly planning to beat up gay people.
Except I am talking about intention to some extent. What really goes on in most 12 year old minds is more like, "People are offended if I call them a mom, so I am going to call them a mom!" The goal is to offend, not to discriminate. The go to words for these 12 year olds are simply the most offensive words, which happen to also be used by bigots. The 12 year olds are in no way intolerant of gays, they are simply trying to rile people up.
I do agree with you that a better environment would be created if people chose not to say these things, which is why I have stopped. The thing is as long as people are offended by these words, the 12 year olds will use them. I think we need to be less sensitive to the usage of the words, not more so. It is the offended who give power to the words. The offended are in control of the words, but they let the words walk all over them. When we live in a country where the most offensive type of speech (I am looking at you westboro baptist) is ruled legal by the supreme court, we need to do something to be less offended. If the westboro protests were completely ignored by everyone, they would stop. They only do them because they get acknowledgement, in much the same way a 12 year old does on xbox live.
I am pretty sure you are expanding the definition of bigot here. A person doesn't have to be nice to every single group to not be considered a bigot. Using a homophobic slur towards someone who isn't even gay doesn't seem bigotted to me. I mean how is using that slur being intolerant of gays?
You want the word bigot to mean that we don't all live in perfect peace and harmony. You want it to mean we are all the best of pals ( Yes I am exaggerating.)
Woah, no that's not too hard a concept.
Using a word that is currently synonymous with a group of people (let's say 'mom') as your go-to word for calling other people 'bad' is the kind of behavior that while not requiring you be actively against say, rights for moms, certainly undermines them. It pretty much suggests "you, while normally being considered a good person for not being a mom, are actually a bad person and share the same traits/are a mom, which is bad". It's not really a complex construction. I mean you wouldn't say calling someone a "fucking moron" was somehow not actually intended to be of any offense to people who are really stupid, would you?
Also, people get far too caught up in whether or not they personally are good during these sorts of discussions, and stop thinking about how to create the most desirable environment. I mean, I use the word "retarded" pretty often. It's not something that makes me a bad person, I don't believe. But that doesn't remove from me the responsibility to tone that shit down. I know some kids with mental troubles, I don't like making them uncomfortable, and using a certain insult isn't really worth that.
That sort of personal reaction is the reason that, for instance, my time in the GSA at a pretty-much-tolerant school got pretty frustrating. People weren't getting beaten up for being gay, so everyone sort of felt that if you asked for any other concessions you were accusing them of secretly planning to beat up gay people.
Except I am talking about intention to some extent. What really goes on in most 12 year old minds is more like, "People are offended if I call them a mom, so I am going to call them a mom!" The goal is to offend, not to discriminate. The go to words for these 12 year olds are simply the most offensive words, which happen to also be used by bigots. The 12 year olds are in no way intolerant of gays, they are simply trying to rile people up.
I do agree with you that a better environment would be created if people chose not to say these things, which is why I have stopped. The thing is as long as people are offended by these words, the 12 year olds will use them. I think we need to be less sensitive to the usage of the words, not more so. It is the offended who give power to the words. The offended are in control of the words, but they let the words walk all over them. When we live in a country where the most offensive type of speech (I am looking at you westboro baptist) is ruled legal by the supreme court, we need to do something to be less offended. If the westboro protests were completely ignored by everyone, they would stop. They only do them because they get acknowledgement, in much the same way a 12 year old does on xbox live.
It's true that most slurs said by adolescents aren't said with the specific intent to cause harm to whatever group the slur refers to. But that excuse lasts until the moment they find out that it refers to a group of actual people who actually feel out of sorts due to the prevalence of their ethnic/social/whatever group being used as an insult.
The fact that after they find this out, they continue to use slurs, means that they are in fact deciding "yes, that does make this group uncomfortable, but I don't care because I figure them being uncomfortable is a small price to pay for me not having to alter my behavior at all."
That's not exactly 10 steps above actively disliking a certain group. It's at best apathy, and at worst derision.
And the idea that the solution is to just never be offended is insipid. I mean, if someone hits you to get a reaction, is the solution to just stop caring whether or not you get slapped? There's a minimum respect you want from strangers, and not having your ethnic/social group used as a synonym for "just the worst type of person" is definitely part of that.
And the assumption that the only reason for using those slurs is to get a reaction is also silly. Most kids who use the word "gay" as a slur never get called on it in any context by any person. They simply grow up knowing that "gay" means "bad". Which while meaning they aren't necessarily hateful toward gay people, certainly doesn't make it any more comfortable to be gay. I definitely don't use the word "retarded" just so I can see the shock on people's faces when I say it.
And I mean, to take it to another place, is the solution to the fact that calling people "retarded" makes the kid with Down Syndrome feel bad just to explain to him that he should stop being a pussy? I don't understand why it's a massive imposition to suggest that, if you care about the well-being of another group of people, you don't use a word/set of words that makes them uncomfortable.
Like how I don't say "I'm going to murder you right after I rob you, and I mean that in the most literal sense because I fucking hate you" to my boss anymore. The guy could just take a joke better, but at the same time I feel like it's easier to alter my speech patterns around him.
One of these issues that these studies are going to gloss over is that the online community has a very small ability to affect the behavior of these people. It's the parents, other family, friends, and coworkers of these individuals who actually have some ability to affect their behavior in a meaningful way.
You think that parents and friends have the ability to affect anonymous online behavior? Odds are the parents/friends/family/whoever don't even know that shit is going on. Most "racist bigots" online aren't even really racist bigots. They just act that way online. So how would a person from real life have any clue what was going on?
From a guy who used to participate in such behavior to some extent when I was younger, I can tell you that most of the time when a 12 year old says a slur against homosexuals or blacks, it has literally nothing to do with homosexuals or blacks.
It does, it makes that type of speech commonplace and accepted, and the type of speech that's commonplace and accepted affects what people that hear it view as acceptable behavior.
I find casual homophobia to be way more common than casual racism. There are at least two online games I like that I don't play because all you ever hear/read when playing them is faggot this, faggot that.
As a note, one of the biggest reasons I like the PA community is that you generally don't see that here (though there are exceptions).
The whole notion of just not getting offended is stupid. Even if this was somehow the solution, it's not going to happen - ever. It's best to let go of bizarre idealism like that. In other words you want it to be one way, but it's the other way.
People will get offended at things, always. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to change to one's own desire, so an individual kind of has to adapt. Preferably by not remaining ignorant or hateful, like in the case of bigotry.
The whole notion of just not getting offended is stupid. Even if this was somehow the solution, it's not going to happen - ever. It's best to let go of bizarre idealism like that. In other words you want it to be one way, but it's the other way.
People will get offended at things, always. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to change to one's own desire, so an individual kind of has to adapt. Preferably by not remaining ignorant or hateful, like in the case of bigotry.
Yes and people will say offensive things always. So let go of your "bizarre" idealism of everyone living in harmony.
Nobody's talking about living in harmony. That is a straw man that you have constructed (and even admitted.)
At best you are drawing the distinction between active dislike and conscious apathy. And even if you personally find that distinction meaningful, it doesn't change the fact that you're visiting discomfort on other people that you presumably wouldn't want visited on yourself. At it's core, that's what prejudice is.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The whole notion of just not getting offended is stupid. Even if this was somehow the solution, it's not going to happen - ever. It's best to let go of bizarre idealism like that. In other words you want it to be one way, but it's the other way.
People will get offended at things, always. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to change to one's own desire, so an individual kind of has to adapt. Preferably by not remaining ignorant or hateful, like in the case of bigotry.
Yes and people will say offensive things always. So let go of your "bizarre" idealism of everyone living in harmony.
A: People will always think I'm being a goose about something
B: So that's ok
One of these issues that these studies are going to gloss over is that the online community has a very small ability to affect the behavior of these people. It's the parents, other family, friends, and coworkers of these individuals who actually have some ability to affect their behavior in a meaningful way.
You think that parents and friends have the ability to affect anonymous online behavior? Odds are the parents/friends/family/whoever don't even know that shit is going on. Most "racist bigots" online aren't even really racist bigots. They just act that way online. So how would a person from real life have any clue what was going on?
From a guy who used to participate in such behavior to some extent when I was younger, I can tell you that most of the time when a 12 year old says a slur against homosexuals or blacks, it has literally nothing to do with homosexuals or blacks.
It does, it makes that type of speech commonplace and accepted, and the type of speech that's commonplace and accepted affects what people that hear it view as acceptable behavior.
I find casual homophobia to be way more common than casual racism. There are at least two online games I like that I don't play because all you ever hear/read when playing them is faggot this, faggot that.
As a note, one of the biggest reasons I like the PA community is that you generally don't see that here (though there are exceptions).
He's saying in his mind it had nothing to do with those groups, not that it's ok or good. The fact that it does what I bolded is a seperate issue from the reason he was using the terms.
His contention isn't that using the terms is considered bad. It's the idea that everyone who uses them is bigoted towards the group(s) the term(s) are supposed to refer to.
One of these issues that these studies are going to gloss over is that the online community has a very small ability to affect the behavior of these people. It's the parents, other family, friends, and coworkers of these individuals who actually have some ability to affect their behavior in a meaningful way.
You think that parents and friends have the ability to affect anonymous online behavior? Odds are the parents/friends/family/whoever don't even know that shit is going on. Most "racist bigots" online aren't even really racist bigots. They just act that way online. So how would a person from real life have any clue what was going on?
From a guy who used to participate in such behavior to some extent when I was younger, I can tell you that most of the time when a 12 year old says a slur against homosexuals or blacks, it has literally nothing to do with homosexuals or blacks.
It does, it makes that type of speech commonplace and accepted, and the type of speech that's commonplace and accepted affects what people that hear it view as acceptable behavior.
I find casual homophobia to be way more common than casual racism. There are at least two online games I like that I don't play because all you ever hear/read when playing them is faggot this, faggot that.
As a note, one of the biggest reasons I like the PA community is that you generally don't see that here (though there are exceptions).
He's saying in his mind it had nothing to do with those groups, not that it's ok or good. The fact that it does what I bolded is a seperate issue from the reason he was using the terms.
His contention isn't that using the terms is considered bad. It's the idea that everyone who uses them is bigoted towards the group(s) the term(s) are supposed to refer to.
That's true but if that's the case then it would right to say "they don't use the terms because they're bigoted," not "it has literally nothing to do with homosexuals or blacks," which were his exact words. It does have something to do with homosexuals and blacks, as it affects both them and how people view them.
It's splitting hairs but in this case I'm gonna go ahead and split the hair.
The problem with trying to deal with racist and bigoted speech in voice chat for an online game is that there is no viable way to enforce punishment for bad behavior. In a forum like PA, there is a record of any comments that violate forum rules. But, how are you going to prove that a particular gamer said something racist? The owner of the forum would need to record all on-line conversations and have staff available to review any complaints. That's probably economically unfeasible.
Yeah, online voice chat for most games is an utter sewer. But I don't see any real way to solve the problem in-game. Any solution has to come from the outside, but good luck getting 14 year-olds to stop acting douchey.
Is it really?
Why couldn't chatbox conversations be logged? If it's all typed into the game it must pass through the game server at some point. If it's logged in a giant text file it shouldn't take too much time or effort to do quick searches for specific slurs. You'd still miss all the code words and censor bypasses, but I guess it's better than nothing.
One of these issues that these studies are going to gloss over is that the online community has a very small ability to affect the behavior of these people. It's the parents, other family, friends, and coworkers of these individuals who actually have some ability to affect their behavior in a meaningful way.
You think that parents and friends have the ability to affect anonymous online behavior? Odds are the parents/friends/family/whoever don't even know that shit is going on. Most "racist bigots" online aren't even really racist bigots. They just act that way online. So how would a person from real life have any clue what was going on?
From a guy who used to participate in such behavior to some extent when I was younger, I can tell you that most of the time when a 12 year old says a slur against homosexuals or blacks, it has literally nothing to do with homosexuals or blacks.
It does, it makes that type of speech commonplace and accepted, and the type of speech that's commonplace and accepted affects what people that hear it view as acceptable behavior.
At the same time, it's because that type of speech is not commonplace that leads to its increased use. You can't get a rise out of someone just by calling them an "ass" anymore, even people on network TV use that words. It's "safe". The bar of offensiveness keeps getting higher and higher, so you have to go to more and more extremes to offend the sensibilities of the general public.
Obviously it would be great if people weren't so dead-set on offending people in the first place, but hey, that's adolescence for you.
The problem with trying to deal with racist and bigoted speech in voice chat for an online game is that there is no viable way to enforce punishment for bad behavior. In a forum like PA, there is a record of any comments that violate forum rules. But, how are you going to prove that a particular gamer said something racist? The owner of the forum would need to record all on-line conversations and have staff available to review any complaints. That's probably economically unfeasible.
Yeah, online voice chat for most games is an utter sewer. But I don't see any real way to solve the problem in-game. Any solution has to come from the outside, but good luck getting 14 year-olds to stop acting douchey.
Is it really?
Why couldn't chatbox conversations be logged? If it's all typed into the game it must pass through the game server at some point. If it's logged in a giant text file it shouldn't take too much time or effort to do quick searches for specific slurs. You'd still miss all the code words and censor bypasses, but I guess it's better than nothing.
I'm pretty sure Modern Man was talking about voice chat and I have to agree it would probably be excessively onerous to require a provider to keep a log of every bit of sound that's ever passed over their service.
Xaev on
Steam - Lysus || XBL - Veax || PSN - Lysus || WoW - Lysus (Korgath - US) || Guild Wars - Lysus Yjirkar || Starcraft II - Lysus.781 || League of Legends - Lysus Feel free to add me on whatever network, it's always more fun to play with people than alone
"Gamer" is no longer a blanket group of people, it's a hobby.
You certainly don't have to be an anonymous gamer to act like an asshole, try IRC sometime. They're not playing anything, some people just sit around being assholes.
So this study basically says, "People who are anonymous and have no fear of reprisal can act like assholes and use racial and homophobic language as taunts to get a rise out of people."
Big surprise? People have been doing this shit in cars as long as there's been driving, and that's not even very anonymous.
One of these issues that these studies are going to gloss over is that the online community has a very small ability to affect the behavior of these people. It's the parents, other family, friends, and coworkers of these individuals who actually have some ability to affect their behavior in a meaningful way.
You think that parents and friends have the ability to affect anonymous online behavior? Odds are the parents/friends/family/whoever don't even know that shit is going on. Most "racist bigots" online aren't even really racist bigots. They just act that way online. So how would a person from real life have any clue what was going on?
From a guy who used to participate in such behavior to some extent when I was younger, I can tell you that most of the time when a 12 year old says a slur against homosexuals or blacks, it has literally nothing to do with homosexuals or blacks.
It does, it makes that type of speech commonplace and accepted, and the type of speech that's commonplace and accepted affects what people that hear it view as acceptable behavior.
I find casual homophobia to be way more common than casual racism. There are at least two online games I like that I don't play because all you ever hear/read when playing them is faggot this, faggot that.
As a note, one of the biggest reasons I like the PA community is that you generally don't see that here (though there are exceptions).
He's saying in his mind it had nothing to do with those groups, not that it's ok or good. The fact that it does what I bolded is a seperate issue from the reason he was using the terms.
His contention isn't that using the terms is considered bad. It's the idea that everyone who uses them is bigoted towards the group(s) the term(s) are supposed to refer to.
That's true but if that's the case then it would right to say "they don't use the terms because they're bigoted," not "it has literally nothing to do with homosexuals or blacks," which were his exact words. It does have something to do with homosexuals and blacks, as it affects both them and how people view them.
It's splitting hairs but in this case I'm gonna go ahead and split the hair.
Ok but taken in context with this post by him earlier in the thread-
Well, I can't speak to everyone, but from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs. The only reason I used them was to get a rise out of people. I used them because people were offended. I don't have any problems whatsoever with gay people, and I never have. Yet I used the slurs quite often when I was younger. I simply did it to be hurtful and mean, probably because kids were mean to me in school so I took it out at home on others in the most hateful way I knew how because I was filled with a lot of anger. I never once though to myself that gay people are bad or evil etc.
Well yeah, I could see you pointing out that he forgot to tag the phrase "in their minds" at the end of the red'd stuff but taking his posts as a whole it's fairly clear what his intent was (which you don't seem to disagree with I think?) and in that case why start an unrelated tanget to the point he's trying to make?
I guess my point is I'm not seeing where he claimed that casual use of bigoted words doesn't contribute to their general acceptance in society or that their use is a good thing. His stance, from what I'm reading, is along the lines of "using bigoted words does not automatically imply the person using said words is doing so for bigoted reasons and thus may not actually hold bigoted views" which strikes me as a pretty solid stance.
The problem with trying to deal with racist and bigoted speech in voice chat for an online game is that there is no viable way to enforce punishment for bad behavior. In a forum like PA, there is a record of any comments that violate forum rules. But, how are you going to prove that a particular gamer said something racist? The owner of the forum would need to record all on-line conversations and have staff available to review any complaints. That's probably economically unfeasible.
Yeah, online voice chat for most games is an utter sewer. But I don't see any real way to solve the problem in-game. Any solution has to come from the outside, but good luck getting 14 year-olds to stop acting douchey.
Is it really?
Why couldn't chatbox conversations be logged? If it's all typed into the game it must pass through the game server at some point. If it's logged in a giant text file it shouldn't take too much time or effort to do quick searches for specific slurs. You'd still miss all the code words and censor bypasses, but I guess it's better than nothing.
Like someone else said, Modern Man was talking about voice chat. But let us imagine for a moment that voice chat didn't exist and this were all over text, or that voice was as easy to store as text. There are significant concerns beyond feasibility involved with capturing and storing chat records. When you start saving chat logs - especially if they're linked to any kind of identifying information, like your gamertag - you're effectively opening a huge can of legal worms. Who owns the records of your chats? What are they allowed to do with them? Can they be subpoenaed? Is the provider legally required to maintain them for a certain period of time?
Beyond that, you'd either need a draconian policy or a more significant moderation commitment than 'quick searches'. 2.6 million people were playing Call of Duty: Black Ops on launch day. Pretending that voice chat were text chat, consider that. If each person played for, say, 2 hours on average (which is probably a significant underestimate of launch day play) that's 5.2 million person-hours of chat history. Even if they were only chatting ten minutes out of an hour that's close to 100 person-years of speech generated in one day. Now let's say that, despite evidence to the contrary, only 1 person in 100 is a douchebag and let's say that only 1 in 10 people complained to official channels in the effort to Stop the Douchebags. That's 2600 complaints registered in a day. Now, do you just do a query to your chat log and see if gamertag X used the N word and, if so, ban them? Or do you need someone sitting there reading through their chat log, at least for a few lines, to see whether they used the N word pejoratively or, say, by telling someone else "Hey, quit saying 'N word', you racist dick"? The former is ridiculous. The latter requires a minimum of several seconds, more likely upwards of a minute, of effort from someone. Assuming that only legitimate complaints were filed and ignoring the likely meta-griefing and trolling of the system that would occur, that's still on the order of 43 hours of effort just in adjudicating complaints generated on launch day.
Now adjust all my wildly conservative estimates to match reality and add the fact that storing audio is ridiculously expensive compared to text, searching audio for keywords is resource intensive and not very accurate, and that audio can't be listened to much faster than real-time (when adjudicating a complaint) and it very rapidly because a hopelessly outlandish prospect for publishers to monitor and enforce decency policies on in-game chatter.
A much better solution would be to appoint some sort of decency police for online gaming. You apply, go through a screening process, and get the ability to flag people who are dickwads in voice chat as you go about playing games. Maybe these people get some sort of compensation for carrying out their duties, maybe they just do it for the good of the community. Once some number of independent decency monitors flag a user as having engaged in behavior violated clearly stated community guidelines (presumably presented when you go to log on to a public server or whatever), that person gets voice chat disabled or their account deactivated for some period of time. Keep doing it, eventually you get banned. Just like a moderated forum. Provided that everyone knows that the decency monitors exist but have no way of knowing whether a given user is one or not, presumably the fear of getting flagged will keep them from spewing as much shit.
Posts
Yeah it matters and I think that the reason we're so bad at managing it is because we don't seem to make a distinction.
Well, I can't speak to everyone, but from my personal experience I never felt like I was a bigot when I used homophobic slurs. The only reason I used them was to get a rise out of people. I used them because people were offended. I don't have any problems whatsoever with gay people, and I never have. Yet I used the slurs quite often when I was younger. I simply did it to be hurtful and mean, probably because kids were mean to me in school so I took it out at home on others in the most hateful way I knew how because I was filled with a lot of anger. I never once though to myself that gay people are bad or evil etc.
Basically what The Cat said. There were a few people here who generally said to anyone raising a fuss (including me, for one) that "nothing should be off-limits, you're an oversensitive twat, etc etc etc" but I would be definitely be inclined to say that the majority of needless rage was not sourced from PA.
I know exactly what you mean. The summer before last, this happened on Vancouver Island, and it received worldwide attention. Big news for a sleepy BC town. Now, these guys ended up getting charged with hate crimes for their assault, which is as it should be, but not long after the incident happened, one of the accused said something to the media along the lines of "Yes, we said those words, but we're not racist." And I didn't admit it to anyone, but at the time I understand what they meant. I think there's a legitimate difference between saying something to provoke someone, and saying someone because you genuinely hold prejudiced beliefs about them.
That being said, that doesn't excuse making these kinds of comments for a second, and I hope you don't do any of that now as an adult.
edit: And I should say that I DO think what those guys in Courtney did was racist - driving by a black guy in the middle of the afternoon and yelling racial slurs at him, even if you're drunk, is pretty much hatespeech. Doesn't help when you threaten to kill him and his family when he gets angry.
Hence, the American South, Alberta Canada, etc.
My favorite troll move is jazz hands.
Well, it's too late to clarify the point. That said, the word "community" is a fuzzy term. Is the PA community everybody who goes to PAX? Everybody who reads the Penny Arcade comic strip? Everybody who posts on the forums? Everybody who posts on spinter treehouse forums?
I totally understand your point and this is something I thought about during the initial controversy. Are we in the right to disavow the trolls as not being part of our community? I'm not sure that we do, even if they don't post in the forums. We're not responsible for their actions, but they're clearly not completely disconnected from Penny Arcade - at the very least, they followed the strip and read Mike & Jerry's twitter accounts.
I really do sympathize with what you're saying. The core of the issue here is that we have to take some responsibility, not just as PA fans & forumers, but as gamers in general, to publicly discourage bullying and bigotry. We have to be wary of just throwing up our hands and say "Well, it wasn't me or my crew, so not my problem." There's a fine line between taking too much responsibility and taking too little, and I want to err on the side of taking too much.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Do I think that people who hate black people know they hate black people? Do I think that people who hate gays know they hate gays? Yes, Yes I do.
In other words, you immediately exclude anyone who actually did the trolling from the "PA community." Is this a valid thing to do? How do we define the PA community exactly? What represents the community? This forum, alone? Just G&T, or the entire forum? Or does it include the people who read the comic, but don't post on these official forums, which may include people from 4chan, Reddit, SA, kirbybits and the like? I think it is worth noting that these forums represent a rather small percentage of PA's general readership, or so I was lead to believe.
I'm not making an argument in favor of a specific definition here because I'm not sure how I would define the boundaries of the "PA community" either, I'm just not sure we should take any particular definition for granted as being correct or definitive. I'm curious what you think.
I should have read your post before I posted mine, but yeah, I'm not sure it is valid to simply exclude people from the community out of convenience. Then again, I'm not entirely sure what comprises the "PA community" in the first place.
Well, the forums do represent a rather small percentage of PA's general readership, but within this group the vast majority of people agree that bigotry and bullying is absolutely not kosher—with a few exceptions that I wish the community were better on, such as against furries and anime fans.
I would say that the people who read PA fall under the "PA readership" while the forum is the "PA community"—with the subforums having their own little communities. You will obviously find somewhat differing views in the various subforums, but overall the forums themselves are fairly progressive compared to a lot of other places I've visited.
In any case, I am not saying no one from the PA readership or forums trolled the blogs, but I think the number is too small for us to be called out on this when the forums universally condemned the invasions. Maybe I am being overly optimistic on that; I don't know.
Well, assuming a fair amount of people from PA actually did participate, how much more we can do besides the condemning I just mentioned? It seems to me this ultimately falls into the lap of Mike and Jerry, and they did release a statement basically saying "don't troll rape victims for crying out loud!"
There's a very, very big difference between condemning and excluding. "They aren't a part of MY community" is different than "those individuals don't represent my opinion, nor do I believe they represent the opinion of the community at large," which, to me, is what Feral's quote - the one you seemed to take issue with - represented. You would rather dismiss out of hand that anyone within our community was even responsible for some of the vitriol, which I don't think is appropriate or accurate. Very likely, some people in this community, forumers or not, were involved.
In other words, and this is a much larger topic, a community isn't comprised solely of its best members and while it is convenient to pretend that undesirable individuals aren't a part of said community, it isn't really true. Better to just accept that and tackle the situation as it is.
If you want to be very broad about it (since you included non-forumers), then yes gamers did this. I'm just not sure what exactly you are proposing we do. I am well aware that there are silly geese within any community. It's a bit of a hyperbole, but 1.3 billion Muslims don't like being called out on what al-Qaida does, so I don't like being called out on what other gamers do just because I fall in under the same auxiliary (or master, for some people) status.
I'm not pulling a No True Scotsman, I am saying I personally believe the number of geese that came from our community is probably not significant because I think we have a fairly good community here at PA.
Do you believe a significant amount of PA forumers contributed to the invasions? If so, we'll just have to disagree. I also think that's the end of that discussion, then, because I am already agreeing with you and Feral on the other things.
A lot of bigots don't even understand they hate. I've encountered and I'm sure many others have encountered bigoted people who talk of those in a different group hatefully but as if they think that's okay and you're weird for questioning or calling them on it. There's a lot of people in my city for instance that are bigoted to native americans(large population here). They think it's just the way people of the first nations are; drunks, welfare people, etc. That's their reality, one of hatefulness but they don't see it that way.
I don't want to continue this either, but what I'm saying is that neither you nor I actually have any data to indicate how many PA forumers contributed to the invasions. My point is that the PA community is broader than these forums. These forums are not the beginning and the end of the PA community, at least not in my definition. And it's not as broad as "all gamers" either. I'm not sure where the line is, but it is somewhere between "active PA forumers" and "all gamers," but probably a lot closer to PA forumers. Anyway, regardless of where we draw the boundaries for the "PA community," neither of us really know how many community members actually contributed to the invasion and how many were, um, outliers.
I'm sorry, but when people say "I personally believe X" with no data, it kind of bugs me. I hope you are right, but it isn't an opinion based on anything but bias and what you wish were true. I'd rather we focus on the problem instead of attempting to dismiss it by labeling the participants of said invasions as non-members or exiles.
Yes, I said that exactly because I don't have any data. I'm not dismissing anything; you are jumping to the conclusion that I am trying to push the problem under a rug simply because I don't hold the forums responsible for the invasions. That is a false conclusion. Regardless of anything, I will continue to voice my opinion every time a fellow gamer, PA forumer, or what-have-you acts bigoted or bullies someone.
Which would be a worthy cause.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
The only ways to measure "the PA community" we actually know of don't really support fit what the researchers are saying, though
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
This is kind of the point I was trying to get at before. People hear "bigot" or "hatred" or whatever word and relate it to really hardcore prejudiced groups, neo-nazis and fred phelps et al and so on. Then they think (rightly), well, I'm not like those guys, so obviously I'm not a bigot!
Well, not really. The only way people come to be comfortable repeating slurs is by having a lack of regard for members of whatever group they're referring to; this doesn't have to be a conscious "man, I want to kill all gay people" kind of thing to be prejudice.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
There were most definitely people that regularly post here in D&D posting idiotic, bigoted things here in D&D in threads discussing the controversy. Like the thread where multiple posters agreed that anyone who had any sort of issue with any part of the Tycho and Gabe side of the Dickwolves controversy shouldn't be on the forums.
they were inspired to research hate speech because of the behavior of a forum where "silly goose" is now the single insult allowable?
Gotta say, think we might be a pretty tame place compared to every other place.
I am pretty sure you are expanding the definition of bigot here. A person doesn't have to be nice to every single group to not be considered a bigot. Using a homophobic slur towards someone who isn't even gay doesn't seem bigotted to me. I mean how is using that slur being intolerant of gays?
You want the word bigot to mean that we don't all live in perfect peace and harmony. You want it to mean we are all the best of pals ( Yes I am exaggerating.)
Using a word that is currently synonymous with a group of people (let's say 'mom') as your go-to word for calling other people 'bad' is the kind of behavior that while not requiring you be actively against say, rights for moms, certainly undermines them. It pretty much suggests "you, while normally being considered a good person for not being a mom, are actually a bad person and share the same traits/are a mom, which is bad". It's not really a complex construction. I mean you wouldn't say calling someone a "fucking moron" was somehow not actually intended to be of any offense to people who are really stupid, would you?
Also, people get far too caught up in whether or not they personally are good during these sorts of discussions, and stop thinking about how to create the most desirable environment. I mean, I use the word "retarded" pretty often. It's not something that makes me a bad person, I don't believe. But that doesn't remove from me the responsibility to tone that shit down. I know some kids with mental troubles, I don't like making them uncomfortable, and using a certain insult isn't really worth that.
That sort of personal reaction is the reason that, for instance, my time in the GSA at a pretty-much-tolerant school got pretty frustrating. People weren't getting beaten up for being gay, so everyone sort of felt that if you asked for any other concessions you were accusing them of secretly planning to beat up gay people.
Yeah, online voice chat for most games is an utter sewer. But I don't see any real way to solve the problem in-game. Any solution has to come from the outside, but good luck getting 14 year-olds to stop acting douchey.
Rigorous Scholarship
Except I am talking about intention to some extent. What really goes on in most 12 year old minds is more like, "People are offended if I call them a mom, so I am going to call them a mom!" The goal is to offend, not to discriminate. The go to words for these 12 year olds are simply the most offensive words, which happen to also be used by bigots. The 12 year olds are in no way intolerant of gays, they are simply trying to rile people up.
I do agree with you that a better environment would be created if people chose not to say these things, which is why I have stopped. The thing is as long as people are offended by these words, the 12 year olds will use them. I think we need to be less sensitive to the usage of the words, not more so. It is the offended who give power to the words. The offended are in control of the words, but they let the words walk all over them. When we live in a country where the most offensive type of speech (I am looking at you westboro baptist) is ruled legal by the supreme court, we need to do something to be less offended. If the westboro protests were completely ignored by everyone, they would stop. They only do them because they get acknowledgement, in much the same way a 12 year old does on xbox live.
It's true that most slurs said by adolescents aren't said with the specific intent to cause harm to whatever group the slur refers to. But that excuse lasts until the moment they find out that it refers to a group of actual people who actually feel out of sorts due to the prevalence of their ethnic/social/whatever group being used as an insult.
The fact that after they find this out, they continue to use slurs, means that they are in fact deciding "yes, that does make this group uncomfortable, but I don't care because I figure them being uncomfortable is a small price to pay for me not having to alter my behavior at all."
That's not exactly 10 steps above actively disliking a certain group. It's at best apathy, and at worst derision.
And the idea that the solution is to just never be offended is insipid. I mean, if someone hits you to get a reaction, is the solution to just stop caring whether or not you get slapped? There's a minimum respect you want from strangers, and not having your ethnic/social group used as a synonym for "just the worst type of person" is definitely part of that.
And the assumption that the only reason for using those slurs is to get a reaction is also silly. Most kids who use the word "gay" as a slur never get called on it in any context by any person. They simply grow up knowing that "gay" means "bad". Which while meaning they aren't necessarily hateful toward gay people, certainly doesn't make it any more comfortable to be gay. I definitely don't use the word "retarded" just so I can see the shock on people's faces when I say it.
And I mean, to take it to another place, is the solution to the fact that calling people "retarded" makes the kid with Down Syndrome feel bad just to explain to him that he should stop being a pussy? I don't understand why it's a massive imposition to suggest that, if you care about the well-being of another group of people, you don't use a word/set of words that makes them uncomfortable.
Like how I don't say "I'm going to murder you right after I rob you, and I mean that in the most literal sense because I fucking hate you" to my boss anymore. The guy could just take a joke better, but at the same time I feel like it's easier to alter my speech patterns around him.
It does, it makes that type of speech commonplace and accepted, and the type of speech that's commonplace and accepted affects what people that hear it view as acceptable behavior.
I find casual homophobia to be way more common than casual racism. There are at least two online games I like that I don't play because all you ever hear/read when playing them is faggot this, faggot that.
As a note, one of the biggest reasons I like the PA community is that you generally don't see that here (though there are exceptions).
People will get offended at things, always. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to change to one's own desire, so an individual kind of has to adapt. Preferably by not remaining ignorant or hateful, like in the case of bigotry.
Yes and people will say offensive things always. So let go of your "bizarre" idealism of everyone living in harmony.
At best you are drawing the distinction between active dislike and conscious apathy. And even if you personally find that distinction meaningful, it doesn't change the fact that you're visiting discomfort on other people that you presumably wouldn't want visited on yourself. At it's core, that's what prejudice is.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
A: People will always think I'm being a goose about something
B: So that's ok
He's saying in his mind it had nothing to do with those groups, not that it's ok or good. The fact that it does what I bolded is a seperate issue from the reason he was using the terms.
His contention isn't that using the terms is considered bad. It's the idea that everyone who uses them is bigoted towards the group(s) the term(s) are supposed to refer to.
That's true but if that's the case then it would right to say "they don't use the terms because they're bigoted," not "it has literally nothing to do with homosexuals or blacks," which were his exact words. It does have something to do with homosexuals and blacks, as it affects both them and how people view them.
It's splitting hairs but in this case I'm gonna go ahead and split the hair.
Is it really?
Why couldn't chatbox conversations be logged? If it's all typed into the game it must pass through the game server at some point. If it's logged in a giant text file it shouldn't take too much time or effort to do quick searches for specific slurs. You'd still miss all the code words and censor bypasses, but I guess it's better than nothing.
At the same time, it's because that type of speech is not commonplace that leads to its increased use. You can't get a rise out of someone just by calling them an "ass" anymore, even people on network TV use that words. It's "safe". The bar of offensiveness keeps getting higher and higher, so you have to go to more and more extremes to offend the sensibilities of the general public.
Obviously it would be great if people weren't so dead-set on offending people in the first place, but hey, that's adolescence for you.
I'm pretty sure Modern Man was talking about voice chat and I have to agree it would probably be excessively onerous to require a provider to keep a log of every bit of sound that's ever passed over their service.
Feel free to add me on whatever network, it's always more fun to play with people than alone
"Gamer" is no longer a blanket group of people, it's a hobby.
You certainly don't have to be an anonymous gamer to act like an asshole, try IRC sometime. They're not playing anything, some people just sit around being assholes.
So this study basically says, "People who are anonymous and have no fear of reprisal can act like assholes and use racial and homophobic language as taunts to get a rise out of people."
Big surprise? People have been doing this shit in cars as long as there's been driving, and that's not even very anonymous.
Ok but taken in context with this post by him earlier in the thread-
Well yeah, I could see you pointing out that he forgot to tag the phrase "in their minds" at the end of the red'd stuff but taking his posts as a whole it's fairly clear what his intent was (which you don't seem to disagree with I think?) and in that case why start an unrelated tanget to the point he's trying to make?
I guess my point is I'm not seeing where he claimed that casual use of bigoted words doesn't contribute to their general acceptance in society or that their use is a good thing. His stance, from what I'm reading, is along the lines of "using bigoted words does not automatically imply the person using said words is doing so for bigoted reasons and thus may not actually hold bigoted views" which strikes me as a pretty solid stance.
Like someone else said, Modern Man was talking about voice chat. But let us imagine for a moment that voice chat didn't exist and this were all over text, or that voice was as easy to store as text. There are significant concerns beyond feasibility involved with capturing and storing chat records. When you start saving chat logs - especially if they're linked to any kind of identifying information, like your gamertag - you're effectively opening a huge can of legal worms. Who owns the records of your chats? What are they allowed to do with them? Can they be subpoenaed? Is the provider legally required to maintain them for a certain period of time?
Beyond that, you'd either need a draconian policy or a more significant moderation commitment than 'quick searches'. 2.6 million people were playing Call of Duty: Black Ops on launch day. Pretending that voice chat were text chat, consider that. If each person played for, say, 2 hours on average (which is probably a significant underestimate of launch day play) that's 5.2 million person-hours of chat history. Even if they were only chatting ten minutes out of an hour that's close to 100 person-years of speech generated in one day. Now let's say that, despite evidence to the contrary, only 1 person in 100 is a douchebag and let's say that only 1 in 10 people complained to official channels in the effort to Stop the Douchebags. That's 2600 complaints registered in a day. Now, do you just do a query to your chat log and see if gamertag X used the N word and, if so, ban them? Or do you need someone sitting there reading through their chat log, at least for a few lines, to see whether they used the N word pejoratively or, say, by telling someone else "Hey, quit saying 'N word', you racist dick"? The former is ridiculous. The latter requires a minimum of several seconds, more likely upwards of a minute, of effort from someone. Assuming that only legitimate complaints were filed and ignoring the likely meta-griefing and trolling of the system that would occur, that's still on the order of 43 hours of effort just in adjudicating complaints generated on launch day.
Now adjust all my wildly conservative estimates to match reality and add the fact that storing audio is ridiculously expensive compared to text, searching audio for keywords is resource intensive and not very accurate, and that audio can't be listened to much faster than real-time (when adjudicating a complaint) and it very rapidly because a hopelessly outlandish prospect for publishers to monitor and enforce decency policies on in-game chatter.
A much better solution would be to appoint some sort of decency police for online gaming. You apply, go through a screening process, and get the ability to flag people who are dickwads in voice chat as you go about playing games. Maybe these people get some sort of compensation for carrying out their duties, maybe they just do it for the good of the community. Once some number of independent decency monitors flag a user as having engaged in behavior violated clearly stated community guidelines (presumably presented when you go to log on to a public server or whatever), that person gets voice chat disabled or their account deactivated for some period of time. Keep doing it, eventually you get banned. Just like a moderated forum. Provided that everyone knows that the decency monitors exist but have no way of knowing whether a given user is one or not, presumably the fear of getting flagged will keep them from spewing as much shit.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Some people just want to play where there aren't any rules. A social wild west online.