The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Queer Geek Float in Seattle Pride Parade
zephsright
Seattle, WARegistered User regular
Seattle, WARegistered User regular
There is going to be a float for Queer Geeks and their allies in the Seattle Pride Parade this year. Apparently it will involve a giant d20 done up like a disco ball. What do you guys think?
zephsright on
0
Posts
(adding)
I think that's a great idea. I feel like gay pride parades have drifted pretty far from their declared mission (they're generally more about sex than about gayness). Despite that, exposure of gay gamers is important given the oft-identified problem of homophobia among gamers, so it seems like this works directly with the supposed purpose of gay pride.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't really think there are a lot of political victories left for gay people to win in Seattle, honestly. Washington and the U.S., absolutely, but Seattle? They've pretty much got us in the bag.
Is there even any compelling evidence that gamers are any more or less homophobic than the population at large? Most of the cited examples of homophobic gamers end up being cases where it turns out we're just talking about teenagers who use gay slurs on XBox Live all along, or cases where literally one person decided they weren't comfortable with it and posted about it on an internet forum, such as in the link posted above.
Like others, I'm inclined to agree that this would be more about raising awareness than about fighting for political rights.
I have no idea, honestly.
Even if it turned out that gamers are less homophobic on average, I still feel that there's a highly visible/vocal homophobic contingent that ruins things for everybody.
I don't consider that an exception from homophobia.
Sure, a kid who says "fag" habitually isn't remotely the same as somebody who drags a gay man from the back of a pickup truck and leaves him in the snow to die, but I still consider it a casual form of homophobia.
I completely reject the notion that casual, habitual use of words like "fag" and "gay" as general-purpose epithets is at all divorcable from homophobia. I've read the arguments and I just don't buy it. It strikes me as a big ball of special pleading.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Geek for Hire
I've pondered for years how awesome (imo) it'd be to have shirts with the WoW "Alliance" symbol done in a rainbow.
Similarly, the Mass Effect Alliance symbol, or maybe the N7, though I'm not sure either of those would have quite as wide a recognition.
:winky:
Seriously, though, while I'm not a fan of people referring to gamers (or gay people, for that matter) as a monolithic entity, as an expression of the variety of individuals you find who are lgbt I support that notion. There's no reason not to be like "We are gay, and also we are people! Here are some other things we like."
Have you seen parades?
It's people in goofy costumes doing goofy things on goofy machines covered in goofy decorations.
I don't want to derail the thread (impossible?) but I agree with you absolutely about casual homophobia. There's just no reason not to try to consciously modify your slang rather than continue using derogatory terms. Why do you need to call something "gay" when "lame" will suffice?
(Though suddenly I realize that the term lame could be construed as ableist...)
It is completely divorcable, and it's a shame you put so much focus on language rather than intent. I'm not saying it's good to run around saying "fag" or "that's gay" to everything, but to imply that anyone who says "that's gay" in an online gaming arena is automatically a homophobe is at best a stretch and at worse no better than the actual people who are homophobic. It's certainly good for us to bring awareness to hurtful language, but to assume and promote that everyone that uses hurtful language is automatically a hate monger, rather than just uncouth or uneducated, is literally no better than any other form of deduction through stereotyping.
Do you think every body that says "that's retarded" hate's mentally handicapped people and is promoting an fear mongering campaign against them? It's equally uncouth, but one we seem to get outraged about and the other we just let go. Neither is good, but neither implies hate mongering in the context we are talking about. It simply implies being immature or uneducated.
It is completely divorcable, and it's a shame you put so much focus on language rather than intent. I'm not saying it's good to run around saying "fag" or "that's gay" to everything, but to imply that anyone who says "that's gay" in an online gaming arena is automatically a homophobe is at best a stretch and at worse no better than the actual people who are homophobic. It's certainly good for us to bring awareness to hurtful language, but to assume and promote that everyone that uses hurtful language is automatically a hate monger, rather than just uncouth or uneducated, is literally no better than any other form of deduction through stereotyping.
Do you think every body that says "that's retarded" hate's mentally handicapped people and is promoting an fear mongering campaign against them? It's equally uncouth, but one we seem to get outraged about and the other we just let go. Neither is good, but neither implies hate mongering in the context we are talking about. It simply implies being immature or uneducated.[/quote]
You are correct that not everyone who says "that's gay" is a raging homophobe...but that doesn't make the words any less hurtful or alienating. It's not about labeling people as homophobes, bigots, or whatever, it's about not alienating or bullying people...regardless of whether that was the intent. It's like if women felt uncomfortable around a group of people known for using the word "bitch" or "c-nt" to refer to everything. Even if the speakers of those words are not "misogynists" their speech is still hurting/alienating someone in their midst...even if they don't intend to do it.
It's my hope that things like this float increase the awareness of people in the gaming AND gay communities to who their peers are and foster a little more tolerance all around.
Geek for Hire
I am disappoint
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
You know how you have an annoying sibling who used to say your name over and over until it drove you nuts? Anti-queer language does the same thing and I don't want to hear it from a bunch of people while I'm gaming. It is offputting and not really fun to hear all the time. And yes, when you spew anti-queer expletives to berate your opponent it perpetuates homophobia, whether you meant it or not. We don't use those words in the workplace, so there is already precedence. Pretending that this is an issue of political correctness is a red herring. Those words hurt and kids hear them in school at one of the most vulnerable times in their early LGBT lives and it does mean a whole bunch of things to them.
Now I'm not so sure he isn't a homophobe and I definitely don't like playing games with him at all. Ever.
It's always confused me a little.
I'm pretty uncomfortable when people I don't know very well do use them around me, because I can't tell, and I know that they should know that I can't tell. Which to me says that they either are genuinely racist/homophobic, or they don't care if they appear to be racist/homophobic. While one is worse than the other, they're both some level of disturbing.
All communities and cultures have self deprecating slang/words/humor that they can use with each other because, since they know they are with others who they identify with, it's a safe space to play with language that would otherwise be offensive if used by someone who you do not identify as part of your group.
Geek for Hire
Honestly, I feel like its just _lazy_ as well. 90% of the insults I see/hear when I'm playing games online are either 'gay' or 'fag' or some combination or permutation of either. I'm only part joking when I suggest that it shows the final death of english as a vibrant language when we are so lazy with epithets.
Ha, I made that mistake too.
Maybe next year they'll have a Queer Greek Geek float.
nobody cares what, if any, prejudice you do or do not hold in your heart toward gay people. People care what you do and say, and using 'gay' or 'fag' as generic synonyms for 'bad' or 'disgusting' is a pretty homophobic thing to do.
that being said I doubt if gamers are significantly worse in this regard than the general population (and might be better just because they skew younger), but the anonymous environment in which people frequently play videogames lowers peoples' filters.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Are people that use "fag" and "gay" using homophobic language? Absolutely.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Whether or not he is a homophobe, he's pretty clearly a colossal douchejack. "They're just words"? Well then, he can use other words interchangeably, since the words themselves don't mean anything, right? Oh, wait, they do.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The intent is to use the word gay to mean something bad. Literally, gay = bad.
That is the intent there. It's not particularly good intent.
Maybe this will finally get me up over the mountains
But parades are outside.
There are bears outside.
Best post.
BTW, I'm glad to see people responding to GnomeTank. Saves me the trouble.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I love you
Yeah, that shit is weird.
And when I say something sucks, I am pretty obviously saying blowjobs are bad.
8->
See the problem with telling if this is sarcasm or not is those are akin to actual arguments regularly used.
See, most people misidentify this as a matter of intent on the part of the speaker. Then everyone gets into a kerfuffle because one side thinks that by using it you're tacitly intending it, and the other thinks impugning malign intent, to nick a phrase, is pants-on-head retarded (see, there's another verboten word).
It's actually all about whether you can be confused with someone who does endorse the bigotry the word can be used to imply.
A non-black person using n~ is easily confused to someone who doesn't know them (or even someone who does) as a racist by using that word. A black person isn't.
A Roma using the word 'gypsy' is unlikely to be part of a group that hates Roma; a gadjo/gadji, on the other hand, using gypsy is not likely to be well received by Roma, as the ethnicity remembers when the (inaccurate, btw) term was used as a term of hatred by the Nazis.
Someone who's gay can quite freely use 'fag' or 'gay' to insult a concept or person; it's obvious they don't have anything against gays. And the converse remains the same for heterosexuals.
Repeat for 'lame', 'retarded', etc. and at the extremes 'dick'.
Also consider how this holds true for 'cunt'. A woman can call someone a cunt, but a lot of women hold that a man calling someone a cunt constitutes extreme misogyny. Ever heard of how cunt is 'the worst curse'?
If someone who was alert to homosexual slurs, and to whom you were not well known (as a person who is okay with homosexuality), heard you call something 'gay', they might well confuse you with a homophobe, and then ascribe your intent to be to condemn homosexuality; now that they think you're a homophobe, your use of 'gay' was obviously chosen to offend. That's where intent comes into it. And this, incidentally, does not make it the 'fault' of that person that they confused you with a homophobe; the onus is on everyone to control what comes out of their mouth according to the people around them.
There are also just plain old people who dislike the words themselves. Again, the onus is on the speaker not to use that word if they do not intend to cause offence.
If you want to go down the "intent because you make it seem it's bad", then you have to discard every form of criticism. Even something as simple as calling someone stupid, or even a goose, is contrary. After all, are we saying that it's someone's fault they're stupid (not ignorant, but stupid)? Is it a goose's fault that it's a goose?
Not really, no. "Stupid" is not not analogous to "gay" or "n----".
How do you think these words entered the cultural lexicon? Arguing anything other than "as slurs against a specific group of people, intended to draw negative connotations and the one being insulted" is ridiculous.
If you want to go down the route and argue that "Well, language evolves!" I would like to remind you that guided artificial selection is still evolution.
I'm not sure what your point is, given that you seem to agree with the general theme of "Hey! Let's not use 'gay' as a negative rejoinder!"
Do you, or do you not agree that the pejorative can be used as a slur? If so, then why defend even the intent of the speaker behind the word?
Your argument seems to be "but gay people can call bad things gay!"
My response to that is "they can, but they shouldn't because then they are perpetuating their own negative social status."
There are reasons why it's not analogous in the big picture, but not in the context of the argument he presented.
Odd that you call it ridiculous when the etymology of both is offence-neutral at point of entry. Oh welp!
I'm completely unconcerned with reclaiming, evolution and whatnot. They've always been irrelevant to the debate of intent and will continue to be. It's enough to accept that the word has several definitions, from both a descriptivist and prescriptivist point of view. It doesn't mean anything that gay used to offence-neutral, as did n~, or for example that Jew isn't even an exonym but can still be used as a slur.
Actually, my point isn't really that at all. It's that - so long as you are not actually a bigot of the particular language in question - your use of the word should be appropriate to the comfort of those you are using it around. So long as they are confident you are not intending offence with your choice of vocabulary, you're free to do as you please.
In other words, don't be a dick.
Any time anybody wants to come up with a nice concrete definition of slur, and of offence, I will happily weigh in one way or the other on this.
As for why I defend the intent of the speaker, that's self-explanatory. Because I think it matters.
No, it's "but gay people do call bad things gay." My 'argument' is descriptive of how language is used, rather than a moral assertion about why it's used.
Dubious, as once again, this argument is quickly refuted by women using the word 'cunt' as offensive, and men, 'dick'.
Using gay or fag as pejoratives can make people feel bad, especially the latter. Nobody feels bad if someone uses the word "dick" as a pejorative. It is impossible to distinguish between a person using the terms out of crudity or malice. so, if you dont want to SOUND like a bigot, don't use those slurs. If you don't want to hurt gay people you're speaking to, intentionally or not, don't use it.