i assume here that you're trying to say "removed from the context of IRL..."?
imo this kind of thing kinda follows a similar reasoning as to why the tomb raider rape/molestation scene was not ok. it kinda rubs up against real-world problems like abuse, and treats them as entertainment, or at least not really appropriately. in the case of harley quinn:
Unfortunately, I was also someone who did not have a problem with the rape scene in Tomb Raider. I don't in general have a problem with disturbing scenes in entertainment, especially when they're appropriate to the story and are dealt with with either some taste or at least some humour as appropriate. I thought, for example, the reference to rape in the Witcher 2 enhanced the story a great deal; indeed, it made me deal with a situation in a way I wouldn't have without it. Likewise the scene with Malik in Deus Ex:HR when she lands into the ambush.
Here's a question, though; if rape is such a terrific device for bringing forth emotions in the gamer, why don't more male protagonists get threatened with it? Or have it as part of their background story? Or perhaps we might have a scene where a male protagonist actually gets raped in game, and there's nothing the gamer could do about it. Do you think this is a great mechanic and are longing to see it enacted some time in the future?
There's actually a few games set with prison scenes (not saying that male rape = prison!), and it can be a great setup for making your character vulnerable and a victim, more so than just the generic beatings they generally do.
Edit: Especially something like that Shawshank redemption scene, where getting a beating was actually him "winning". Could make for an interesting narrative"I just got beaten to a pulp, yay I guess"
Curiousity time: can someone name me a game or two where the male protagonist is overtly threatened with rape? Not just that they're in a prison and so it's "the atmosphere", but specifically a villain character talking about how they're going to rape the protagonist. Are there any?
He doesn't speak, but I think its heavily implied that Pyramid Head of Silent Hill 2 will rape the shit out of you if you don't run the fuck away.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
Well, because it's silly.
I realize we're on the Penny Arcade forums, and video games are keen and great and all that.
But a guy implied that women aren't good at video games.
Why does that matter? It's a hobby...it's a leisure activity. He's not saying that women are terrible at actual, marketable skills, or that they can't do logic or math.
I mean, most of my female friends aren't good at video games. But that's because they spend their time doing worthwhile things.
I dunno. I just realized that this whole ruckus is being raised over someone claiming that a particular group of people isn't very good at something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
For some reason, that makes the whole thing kinda funny.
It'd be akin to someone claiming that women are terrible speed eaters. I'd take that to be a compliment, myself.
The thing is, _J_, I know you love triangulating shit but at this point it really isn't at all the issue.
This thing, this particular bit of fluff, it's nothing. It's just some PR person being slightly bad at what they do. The important part of it, the reaction to it, and the response to that reaction, is that it's a slight peek into the fact that the industry continues to be shocked that people who are not them and exactly them and only them ever see any of the shit they do or say.
You make it sound like game designers spend their days sequestered in windowless corporate basements, estranged from others and the external world, seeking desperately to sexualize the she-people who declined their prom invitations.
Now this quote has escaped their secure man-caves, and the public attention sparks screams of, "It burns us!" as the designers crawl deeper into their abyss.
I think the point is that's it's not like that though. If it was just isolated to "windowless corporate basements", then the response would be different. The problem is that it's pervasive, and everywhere.
_J_, you're attaching emotional content that simply is not there.
I am not being mean to the people in the industry. I'm observing their actions. Each and every time this occurs, we get the same sequence of events. And it always involves the hurried response of "oh no Mr. X isn't sexist no hahaha it's just a joke can't you take a joke oh goodness haha wow wow we didn't expect this!"
Which says to me that they consistently do not expect their voices to leave a very particular subset of the niche gaming press whom they imagine are enough like them to be in on the joke. People in many industries who expect their statements to be seen by the average person are much more guarded.
To be fair, their voices only reach a large audience when they fuck up.
_J_
They think their audience is "only those who get us, people like us, who share most of our general characteristics and will understand our colloquial joshing"
the audience that actually exists, the audience that enjoys games, is larger than that. The audience is more diverse than the people who are producing and talking about games.
That is why, SHOCK!, every time some shitty thing gets said, some people notice and get mad.
It's not because the real actual audience turns to their feminist friends and tells them about it.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
Well, because it's silly.
I realize we're on the Penny Arcade forums, and video games are keen and great and all that.
But a guy implied that women aren't good at video games.
Why does that matter? It's a hobby...it's a leisure activity. He's not saying that women are terrible at actual, marketable skills, or that they can't do logic or math.
I mean, most of my female friends aren't good at video games. But that's because they spend their time doing worthwhile things.
I dunno. I just realized that this whole ruckus is being raised over someone claiming that a particular group of people isn't very good at something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
For some reason, that makes the whole thing kinda funny.
It'd be akin to someone claiming that women are terrible speed eaters. I'd take that to be a compliment, myself.
My wife is standing here and she disagrees with you.
Since she's a girl, she wins at spotting shit that's anti-her-sex.
The problem here is that it is a sexist remark, in a sexist culture. It, alone, causes little harm* on varying scales. As part of a generations-old and society-wide problem, yes, it's important to continue to point out even the trivial shit, on the off chance that even a single person will look around and say, "hey, you know what... this IS a problem. Maybe I should stop perpetuating it."
Failure to acknowledge it for what it is makes it acceptable. It makes it OK. And it's not.
You're welcome to disagree. I've resigned that our generation is going to have to die off before the next big step can occur. So, thank you, you've turned us into the next Boomers.
*Harm, of course, is relative to the person being harmed. It's quite possible that some women will read that, say "Fuck Gearbox", and never be one of their customers, ever.
Houn on
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
Ignoring the the fact that you can try to change more than one thing at a time, the fact that there's worse things out there doesn't invalidate this etc.
I don't think that the place women hold in society and the narrative around women are all that separate though.
Put more women in the engineering field, and the narrative about how women can't be engineers will decrease (at least among engineers) based on personal experience.
Reduce the narrative that women can't be engineers, and more women will probably become engineers.
Don't do one or the other, do both. At the same time.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
Well, because it's silly.
I realize we're on the Penny Arcade forums, and video games are keen and great and all that.
But a guy implied that women aren't good at video games.
Why does that matter? It's a hobby...it's a leisure activity. He's not saying that women are terrible at actual, marketable skills, or that they can't do logic or math.
I mean, most of my female friends aren't good at video games. But that's because they spend their time doing worthwhile things.
I dunno. I just realized that this whole ruckus is being raised over someone claiming that a particular group of people isn't very good at something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
For some reason, that makes the whole thing kinda funny.
It'd be akin to someone claiming that women are terrible speed eaters. I'd take that to be a compliment, myself.
My wife is standing here and she disagrees with you.
Since she's a girl, she wins at spotting shit that's anti-her-sex.
The problem here is that it is a sexist remark, in a sexist culture. It, alone, causes little harm* on varying scales. As part of a generations-old and society-wide problem, yes, it's important to continue to point out even the trivial shit, on the off chance that even a single person will look around and say, "hey, you know what... this IS a problem. Maybe I should stop perpetuating it."
Failure to acknowledge it for what it is makes it acceptable. It makes it OK. And it's not.
You're welcome to disagree. I've resigned that our generation is going to have to die off before the next big step can occur. So, thank you, you've turned us into the next Boomers.
*Harm, of course, is relative to the person being harmed. It's quite possible that some women will read that, say "Fuck Gearbox", and never be one of their customers, ever.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the comment is not sexist.
Rather, I'm saying that it was the most innocuous, vapid sort of sexism one could imagine.
I understand absolutist mentalities, where we commit with 100% to one extreme over the other and fail to recognize any grey area.
But I also understand that maintaining such a position makes one look quite silly, most of the time.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
Well, because it's silly.
I realize we're on the Penny Arcade forums, and video games are keen and great and all that.
But a guy implied that women aren't good at video games.
Why does that matter? It's a hobby...it's a leisure activity. He's not saying that women are terrible at actual, marketable skills, or that they can't do logic or math.
I mean, most of my female friends aren't good at video games. But that's because they spend their time doing worthwhile things.
I dunno. I just realized that this whole ruckus is being raised over someone claiming that a particular group of people isn't very good at something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
For some reason, that makes the whole thing kinda funny.
It'd be akin to someone claiming that women are terrible speed eaters. I'd take that to be a compliment, myself.
My wife is standing here and she disagrees with you.
Since she's a girl, she wins at spotting shit that's anti-her-sex.
Ignoring the the fact that you can try to change more than one thing at a time, the fact that there's worse things out there doesn't invalidate this etc.
I don't think that the place women hold in society and the narrative around women are all that separate though.
Put more women in the engineering field, and the narrative about how women can't be engineers will decrease (at least among engineers) based on personal experience.
Reduce the narrative that women can't be engineers, and more women will probably become engineers.
Don't do one or the other, do both. At the same time.
We have a finite amount of time on this planet, and a limited number of things we can do in that time.
We could yell at some guy who named a difficulty level in a game something sexist.
Or we could yell at Paul Ryan, who wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
I realize that in a perfect world we could yell at everyone...but maybe, just maybe, Paul Ryan's defunding Planned Parenthood is more detrimental to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
Ignoring the the fact that you can try to change more than one thing at a time, the fact that there's worse things out there doesn't invalidate this etc.
I don't think that the place women hold in society and the narrative around women are all that separate though.
Put more women in the engineering field, and the narrative about how women can't be engineers will decrease (at least among engineers) based on personal experience.
Reduce the narrative that women can't be engineers, and more women will probably become engineers.
Don't do one or the other, do both. At the same time.
We have a finite amount of time on this planet, and a limited number of things we can do in that time.
We could yell at some guy who named a difficulty level in a game something sexist.
Or we could yell at Paul Ryan, who wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
I realize that in a perfect world we could yell at everyone...but maybe, just maybe, Paul Ryan's defunding Planned Parenthood is more detrimental to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
Your argument really comes down to "This doesn't matter, there's bigger problems with the world"? Seriously?
Ignoring the the fact that you can try to change more than one thing at a time, the fact that there's worse things out there doesn't invalidate this etc.
I don't think that the place women hold in society and the narrative around women are all that separate though.
Put more women in the engineering field, and the narrative about how women can't be engineers will decrease (at least among engineers) based on personal experience.
Reduce the narrative that women can't be engineers, and more women will probably become engineers.
Don't do one or the other, do both. At the same time.
We have a finite amount of time on this planet, and a limited number of things we can do in that time.
We could yell at some guy who named a difficulty level in a game something sexist.
Or we could yell at Paul Ryan, who wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
I realize that in a perfect world we could yell at everyone...but maybe, just maybe, Paul Ryan's defunding Planned Parenthood is more detrimental to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
Your argument really comes down to "This doesn't matter, there's bigger problems with the world"? Seriously?
I'm not saying that it does not matter.
I'm saying that it matters less than other things.
Those are different.
And I'm pretty sure that I am correct...unless you maintain that defunding Planned Parenthood is less harmful to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
_J_ on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
Well, because it's silly.
I realize we're on the Penny Arcade forums, and video games are keen and great and all that.
But a guy implied that women aren't good at video games.
Why does that matter? It's a hobby...it's a leisure activity. He's not saying that women are terrible at actual, marketable skills, or that they can't do logic or math.
I mean, most of my female friends aren't good at video games. But that's because they spend their time doing worthwhile things.
I dunno. I just realized that this whole ruckus is being raised over someone claiming that a particular group of people isn't very good at something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
For some reason, that makes the whole thing kinda funny.
It'd be akin to someone claiming that women are terrible speed eaters. I'd take that to be a compliment, myself.
I do plenty of worthwhile activities, including at my job, but I am still pretty decent at video games. But then we get into a discussion for what counts as "worthwhile." Isn't it worthwhile to escape and relax and distract yourself from anxieties/stress/etc? Isn't it worthwhile to enjoy an artform, or to laugh with friends while you play?
But that's not the point, which is what you're missing. It's not video games in a vacuum. It's the implication that women are dumber are men, or that they need special treatment or babying in order to achieve the same as men do.
That's the problem. Video games is part of the discussion, and because it is so pervasive in an area that is quickly coming into the mainstream (if it isn't already), that makes it a valid discussion. The idea is that sexism is everywhere and forcing conversation about it in each individual instance where it is trickled into the mainstream without critique is precisely what needs to be done to elevate awareness across all spectra.
You seem to tend to take things very literally.
Plus, I would iterate that I argue this with not very much "fervor" at all. Maybe I use caps a lot but that's kinda just how I talk.
I would defend anyone's right to be offended. It's how far you take that offense. Maybe you shrug your shoulders and let it slide. Maybe your voice your disgust to your partner sitting next to you. Maybe you jump on a forum and post about it ceaselessly. Everyone has a RIGHT to be offended.
And to some extent, yes, being offended is a choice. Given all the information and context I have been given thus far, do I still choose to be offended? Yes, I do.
Do I choose to be offended when a friend of mine makes a racist or sexist joke? Probably not - the context is different. The key here is that this is visible. It's not a micro-exchange anymore, it's been brought to the public eye and can be freely discussed.
I don't "have a right to tell people to stop doing things I disapprove of." I have no idea where you got that and would love for you to point it out.
Technically, maybe I DO have a right to TELL people to stop... but I certainly don't have a right to EXPECT them to stop.
Reading your posts in this thread and responses to others, it's almost like you're taking what I'm saying and pummeling it through a literal-interpretation meat grinder and forgetting that we are not computer programs or dictionaries, but people. With nuance and connotation and empathy. Well, most of us.
Ignoring the the fact that you can try to change more than one thing at a time, the fact that there's worse things out there doesn't invalidate this etc.
I don't think that the place women hold in society and the narrative around women are all that separate though.
Put more women in the engineering field, and the narrative about how women can't be engineers will decrease (at least among engineers) based on personal experience.
Reduce the narrative that women can't be engineers, and more women will probably become engineers.
Don't do one or the other, do both. At the same time.
We have a finite amount of time on this planet, and a limited number of things we can do in that time.
We could yell at some guy who named a difficulty level in a game something sexist.
Or we could yell at Paul Ryan, who wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
I realize that in a perfect world we could yell at everyone...but maybe, just maybe, Paul Ryan's defunding Planned Parenthood is more detrimental to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
The hilarious thing here is that you managed to do both those things in one post. Congratulations!
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Ignoring the the fact that you can try to change more than one thing at a time, the fact that there's worse things out there doesn't invalidate this etc.
I don't think that the place women hold in society and the narrative around women are all that separate though.
Put more women in the engineering field, and the narrative about how women can't be engineers will decrease (at least among engineers) based on personal experience.
Reduce the narrative that women can't be engineers, and more women will probably become engineers.
Don't do one or the other, do both. At the same time.
We have a finite amount of time on this planet, and a limited number of things we can do in that time.
We could yell at some guy who named a difficulty level in a game something sexist.
Or we could yell at Paul Ryan, who wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
I realize that in a perfect world we could yell at everyone...but maybe, just maybe, Paul Ryan's defunding Planned Parenthood is more detrimental to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
I agree with the assertion defunding planned parenthood is more detrimental, but that doesn't make this discussion invalid or not important. You can do more things at once. I can help suicidal teenagers and coach volleyball and play video games and write articles for journals or websites. I can do all of that.
To me, all those things are important. Some more important and others are less important, but I want to do all of them, and so I will find a way to do them.
You realize that engaging in this discussion is not taking very much out of my day at all, right? In between and amongst responding to posts and posting views, I am still able to continue with the other things.
To say THIS IS ALL I CAN DO BECAUSE IT IS MOST IMPORTANT is a very... immature way of looking at the world and the way it functions. We have priorities, yes. They differ from person to person. Managing them is part of life.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
Well, because it's silly.
I realize we're on the Penny Arcade forums, and video games are keen and great and all that.
But a guy implied that women aren't good at video games.
Why does that matter? It's a hobby...it's a leisure activity. He's not saying that women are terrible at actual, marketable skills, or that they can't do logic or math.
I mean, most of my female friends aren't good at video games. But that's because they spend their time doing worthwhile things.
I dunno. I just realized that this whole ruckus is being raised over someone claiming that a particular group of people isn't very good at something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
For some reason, that makes the whole thing kinda funny.
It'd be akin to someone claiming that women are terrible speed eaters. I'd take that to be a compliment, myself.
My wife is standing here and she disagrees with you.
Since she's a girl, she wins at spotting shit that's anti-her-sex.
Oops, you're sexist.
Again, this seems to be of primary concern exclusively as a method of making it easier to dismiss rather localized arguments.
"You", whether it be you you or this whoeverthefuck at Gearbox being sexist or not is really at best a thousand levels down on the concern ladder. Actions, right at the moment, that's the issue.
Acting as though the phrase "shit, what you just said was pretty fucking sexist" is an accusation of inbuilt permanent evil is a way of absolving your guilt by pretending no legitimate criticism of your actions exist.
Here, let's use me since that's easier. I say "retard" and "retarded" to refer to people I think are being dumb. Less often now that I'm making an effort to curtail it, but I still do. It hurts people I like! I know it does, they've said so. I grew up with a person who has Down's and she is not a fan of people using that term as a general derogatory slur. I used to only watch it around her, but then I figured eh fuck it I can let it drop from the lexicon without hurting anyone and who knows other folks might have friends or relations that have similar issues and not appreciate it you know, let's drop it.
When I say "That's retarded!" I am not being a person who hates people with Down's, but I am being a bit of a shit. So I avoid it, and I'm successfully not really using it when I formerly used it as a catch-all.
So you know, if you're around me and I say it, feel free to say "hey! that's a fucking shitty thing to say, don't be mean to people with developmental issues you goose" I will say "ah, fuck, you know what? good point, thanks." I'll adjust my actions because yeah, kind of a good point.
It is possible to be accused of doing a thing that is not good, and yet not be accused of being a person who is not good. Being a person who is good doesn't absolve you from your bad action.
But that's not the point, which is what you're missing. It's not video games in a vacuum. It's the implication that women are dumber are men, or that they need special treatment or babying in order to achieve the same as men do.
I think you are correct that this innocuous situation is evidence of a larger problem.
One of my points is that some persons are attacking this innocuous situation as if it were the larger problem.
The idea is that sexism is everywhere and forcing conversation about it in each individual instance where it is trickled into the mainstream without critique is precisely what needs to be done to elevate awareness across all spectra.
Would you agree that, perhaps, this is inefficient? Or are you someone who wants to try and repair lose screws on the Titanic?
I would defend anyone's right to be offended. It's how far you take that offense. Maybe you shrug your shoulders and let it slide. Maybe your voice your disgust to your partner sitting next to you. Maybe you jump on a forum and post about it ceaselessly. Everyone has a RIGHT to be offended.
And to some extent, yes, being offended is a choice. Given all the information and context I have been given thus far, do I still choose to be offended? Yes, I do.
Do I choose to be offended when a friend of mine makes a racist or sexist joke? Probably not - the context is different. The key here is that this is visible. It's not a micro-exchange anymore, it's been brought to the public eye and can be freely discussed.
In another thread I'd be interested to talk about this. It seems like some people take there to be a virtue to being offended. I don't get that. A world in which persons do not get offended seems like a good world.
Reading your posts in this thread and responses to others, it's almost like you're taking what I'm saying and pummeling it through a literal-interpretation meat grinder and forgetting that we are not computer programs or dictionaries, but people. With nuance and connotation and empathy. Well, most of us.
Literal interpretations tend to be more clear and precise.
Ignoring the the fact that you can try to change more than one thing at a time, the fact that there's worse things out there doesn't invalidate this etc.
I don't think that the place women hold in society and the narrative around women are all that separate though.
Put more women in the engineering field, and the narrative about how women can't be engineers will decrease (at least among engineers) based on personal experience.
Reduce the narrative that women can't be engineers, and more women will probably become engineers.
Don't do one or the other, do both. At the same time.
We have a finite amount of time on this planet, and a limited number of things we can do in that time.
We could yell at some guy who named a difficulty level in a game something sexist.
Or we could yell at Paul Ryan, who wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
I realize that in a perfect world we could yell at everyone...but maybe, just maybe, Paul Ryan's defunding Planned Parenthood is more detrimental to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
I agree with the assertion defunding planned parenthood is more detrimental, but that doesn't make this discussion invalid or not important. You can do more things at once. I can help suicidal teenagers and coach volleyball and play video games and write articles for journals or websites. I can do all of that.
To me, all those things are important. Some more important and others are less important, but I want to do all of them, and so I will find a way to do them.
You realize that engaging in this discussion is not taking very much out of my day at all, right? In between and amongst responding to posts and posting views, I am still able to continue with the other things.
To say THIS IS ALL I CAN DO BECAUSE IT IS MOST IMPORTANT is a very... immature way of looking at the world and the way it functions. We have priorities, yes. They differ from person to person. Managing them is part of life.
I didn't mean to imply that your entire being is consumed with this issue, and you are incapable of doing anything other than post in this thread, since you post in this thread.
My point is that during the time slice within which you are crafting this post you are not writing a journal article.
In the same sense that while I'm typing this reply I am not studying Kant's 2nd Critique.
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
Persons do not "talk" on forums. Talking is verbal. This is typing.
I have to ask, are you somewhere on the autistic spectrum? Because I am, and take it from experience, shit like this, while technically correct (the best kind of correct!), will only make people mad at you.
Persons do not "talk" on forums. Talking is verbal. This is typing.
I have to ask, are you somewhere on the autistic spectrum? Because I am, and take it from experience, shit like this, while technically correct (the best kind of correct!), will only make people mad at you.
The idea is that sexism is everywhere and forcing conversation about it in each individual instance where it is trickled into the mainstream without critique is precisely what needs to be done to elevate awareness across all spectra.
Would you agree that, perhaps, this is inefficient? Or are you someone who wants to try and repair lose screws on the Titanic?
Good luck living an efficient life. Especially while reading Kant.
+1
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
Persons do not "talk" on forums. Talking is verbal. This is typing.
I have to ask, are you somewhere on the autistic spectrum? Because I am, and take it from experience, shit like this, while technically correct (the best kind of correct!), will only make people mad at you.
Persons do not "talk" on forums. Talking is verbal. This is typing.
I have to ask, are you somewhere on the autistic spectrum? Because I am, and take it from experience, shit like this, while technically correct (the best kind of correct!), will only make people mad at you.
I will not lie - this crossed my mind, too. It kinda fits with a lot of other things he has said.
The narrow, literal definition of "talk" as opposed to it being an expression of "mode of communication" (even as a joke, it's a "heh" one)... the idea that being literal is good because it is clear and precise and that there is no room to be vague - even though we as humans (and by extension, human communication) are anything BUT clear and precise. And it's not literal versus "vague"... it's more narrow definition of a word or phrase or term versus the implied complexities of communication (in ANY form, in ANY language) in general.
Also the comparison of a mechanical object with clear faults with the ambiguity of abstract discussion.
But that's not the point, which is what you're missing. It's not video games in a vacuum. It's the implication that women are dumber are men, or that they need special treatment or babying in order to achieve the same as men do.
I think you are correct that this innocuous situation is evidence of a larger problem.
One of my points is that some persons are attacking this innocuous situation as if it were the larger problem.
Yes, because it is both a cause and a byproduct of that larger problem. It is PART of the larger problem and by existing it perpetuates the larger problem while also being fueled BY the larger problem. The wonderful thing about human complexity is that we aren't flowcharts - action can be taken at every level.
The idea is that sexism is everywhere and forcing conversation about it in each individual instance where it is trickled into the mainstream without critique is precisely what needs to be done to elevate awareness across all spectra.
Would you agree that, perhaps, this is inefficient? Or are you someone who wants to try and repair lose screws on the Titanic?
Your linking to "efficiency" when it comes to a broad human issue is confounding. You can argue that efficiency is related to the fact that we have a finite amount of time on this earth, but the rub is that we don't know just how much time that actually IS, nor do we each contribute to every cause the same way or degree. You spending an hour doing one thing may produce much more than me spending an hour doing the same thing. The issue is that there is no concrete, tangible, "fair" measure of that. So your analogy is therefore irrelevant - the problem of sexism (and other broad cultural problems) is not a machine, where if it breaks you can say, ah, this and that are wrong, I will go in and fix this while you fix that. The human condition is far more complex than that.
A world in which persons do not get offended seems like a good world.
Wouldn't it then stand to reason that you should not go out of your way to offend someone if they have told you that something you do or say offends them?
I don't "have a right to tell people to stop doing things I disapprove of." I have no idea where you got that and would love for you to point it out.
This was your previous posts about getting people to not be lazy, and getting people to not be sexist.
You do not approve of sexism.
They are being sexist.
You take yourself to have a right to tell them to stop being sexist.
Unless I misunderstood you.
You misunderstood me completely. I, at no point, expressed any belief that I had a "right" to do something. What I WAS doing was passing a judgment, where I myself link indifference to laziness (and I understand that is a personal perspective).
Plus, I am not telling them not to be sexist because I think I have a "right" to. I'm asking them not to be sexist because a) it contributes to a larger systemic problem and b) put simply, it hurts people's feelings and I like to think that out of human decency, we shouldn't go out of our way to hurt other people's feelings if they have specifically said that what we have done has hurt them.
The motivation you asked for earlier in the thread? The "why should people care?" Because caring is motivation enough. I have a feeling that you - your ideals, values, belief systems - do not classify being a caring human being as being a motivator to do something.
Also something to consider: Perhaps video games are not an instrument of social change.
Video Games are a form of media. They replicate/create/reinforce/spread/etc ideas and themes and cliches and symbols and all that shit that makes up "culture".
As such, they are as legitimate place as any to examine for the KIND of ideas or themes or whatever that are being spread or created or replicated or anything else.
Video games are, in essence, already a part of social change because they are a part of society.
Also something to consider: Perhaps video games are not an instrument of social change.
Video Games are a form of media. They replicate/create/reinforce/spread/etc ideas and themes and cliches and symbols and all that shit that makes up "culture".
As such, they are as legitimate place as any to examine for the KIND of ideas or themes or whatever that are being spread.
Video games are, in essence, already a part of social change because they are a part of society.
Look, man.
Look.
Consider this: maybe video games, motion pictures, novels, portraiture, landscapes, sculpture, poetry, advertising, television shows, speeches, conversations in general, and the concept of forward motion itself aren't really instruments of social change.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Nothing is an instrument of social change.
Everything stays the same until the turtle that the world sits upon decides things should be different, and then suddenly there's pandemonium and everyone is wearing shoes for hats.
God I hate that turtle.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Everything stays the same until the turtle that the world sits upon decides things should be different, and then suddenly there's pandemonium and everyone is wearing shoes for hats.
God I hate that turtle.
Listen the turtle has a lot of shit going on okay.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game desighner implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
I hate this argument because it cuts both ways.
"why are you choosing to get SO offended over this comment?"
Well why are you choosing to get so bothered over what other people are offended by?
If ignoring this silly issue is so easy, then why don't you start? You're the one who supposedly has less at stake in any case.
That's the thing. A bit of humor is okay. A joke is fine!
But then you also have to accept that people won't find it funny for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I am personally against the overzealous PC-ness you see in mainstream media. It feels sterile and artificial. But at the same time, there are invisible lines in the sand that people don't want to cross. The tricky thing is that these lines are different for every individual person.
So the challenge is how to remain creative and explorative without triggering offense. The truth is that this is impossible. You will always run the risk of offending somebody... but you have to accept that risk. You can't go OH WE DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY or GET OVER IT or GOSH YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR - yes, there are people who do not have the strongest justifications for taking offense. But more and more, especially in this context, the people who ARE voicing their offense are citing legitimate concerns.
With every "dark" joke (the Helen Kellers are a good example), part of the humour is the shock factor. Half of the reason you're laughing is you can't believe someone could say that. The OTHER half is the nature of humour itself - there is an element of truth to it. She WOULD, for instance, struggle if you rearranged the furniture. It's just funny because you didn't think of it before, it was told in a funny way, or it was framed/repackaged to be shared in a humourous environment.
But you also know what you are hearing is "wrong." That's why you laugh.
In THIS context, where the "girlfriend mode" has been called "just a joke, get over it" - well, okay, even if it WAS a joke, that doesn't mean everyone has to find it funny. And even if you DID find it funny or you DO see how it can be funny, maybe you've heard the joke a billion times. And then it just stops being funny and it begins to become an issue with why the same type of joke is being told over and over again, even though fewer and fewer people are laughing.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
Well, because it's silly.
I realize we're on the Penny Arcade forums, and video games are keen and great and all that.
But a guy implied that women aren't good at video games.
Why does that matter? It's a hobby...it's a leisure activity. He's not saying that women are terrible at actual, marketable skills, or that they can't do logic or math.
I mean, most of my female friends aren't good at video games. But that's because they spend their time doing worthwhile things.
I dunno. I just realized that this whole ruckus is being raised over someone claiming that a particular group of people isn't very good at something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
For some reason, that makes the whole thing kinda funny.
It'd be akin to someone claiming that women are terrible speed eaters. I'd take that to be a compliment, myself.
My wife is standing here and she disagrees with you.
Since she's a girl, she wins at spotting shit that's anti-her-sex.
The problem here is that it is a sexist remark, in a sexist culture. It, alone, causes little harm* on varying scales. As part of a generations-old and society-wide problem, yes, it's important to continue to point out even the trivial shit, on the off chance that even a single person will look around and say, "hey, you know what... this IS a problem. Maybe I should stop perpetuating it."
Failure to acknowledge it for what it is makes it acceptable. It makes it OK. And it's not.
You're welcome to disagree. I've resigned that our generation is going to have to die off before the next big step can occur. So, thank you, you've turned us into the next Boomers.
*Harm, of course, is relative to the person being harmed. It's quite possible that some women will read that, say "Fuck Gearbox", and never be one of their customers, ever.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the comment is not sexist.
Rather, I'm saying that it was the most innocuous, vapid sort of sexism one could imagine.
I understand absolutist mentalities, where we commit with 100% to one extreme over the other and fail to recognize any grey area.
But I also understand that maintaining such a position makes one look quite silly, most of the time.
I've said this already earlier in the thread, but the reasons these discussions always circle back to the dumbest, most trivial shit is not because some developers offhanded comment is the most pressing issue facing womyn, but because they're the things that detractors of feminism are most inclined to want to argue about.
You are part of the cycle perpetuating the argument, without people saying "but I don't understand, how are sexist jokes bad?" or playing devils advocate or whatever it is you're doing I think most people would have just gone "huh, a dumb quasi sexist joke" and the discussion would have dropped off without much comment.
Jeedan on
+5
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Everything stays the same until the turtle that the world sits upon decides things should be different, and then suddenly there's pandemonium and everyone is wearing shoes for hats.
God I hate that turtle.
man I am going to have too many hats and like, no shoes when this is all over
"Wouldn't it then stand to reason that you should not go out of your way to offend someone if they have told you that something you do or say offends them?"
And what if you saying that to them offends them? Does your offense trump their's? If never offending anyone is such a lofty goal, the end result is silence. If the goal is to silence only some things that some people say, then who the hell gets to decide what those things are? It would seem that a better system would be for everyone to say what they want, and let the feelings fall where they may.
On the topic of how female characters are designed, I am just going to C&P it because I don't want to self-promote, but I've also already written the article on mediumdifficulty so whatevs.
I would be super curious to hear what everyone's thoughts are; @anjinanhut in particular.
Am currently busy with work, but will check your article later and reply. Please give me a couple of hours.
Cheers.
Posts
He doesn't speak, but I think its heavily implied that Pyramid Head of Silent Hill 2 will rape the shit out of you if you don't run the fuck away.
The strange aspect of this post is the fervor with which you defend your right to be offended.
Which translates into your right to tell other people to stop doing things you disapprove of.
That's interesting.
In undergrad I had a friend who was incredibly religious, but he continued to be my friend despite the shit I would say. One day I asked him if he was ever offended. He replied that he was not. I asked him why not, and this was his response:
"Being offended is a choice. I choose to not be offended."
I wish the world was full of people like him.
Well, not the religious part...but the not being offended part.
I can understand getting up in arms about actual, legitimate repression. Quashing a woman's right to vote, or paying her less, or refusing to hire her? Yes, obviously problematic.
But when a guy says a dickish joke about one video game, and suggests that maybe women aren't as good as men at a leisure activity...
There are legitimate problems in the world that cause immense suffering.
This is not one of those problems.
This is the first worldiest of first world problems.
"Some game designer implied that women aren't as good as men are at video games."
Maybe there are other things that merit our effort first.
So, because it's not a big deal in the Grand Scheme, it's not even worth talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure all anyone is doing is talking about it. You know. That whole "awareness raising" thing.
Well, because it's silly.
I realize we're on the Penny Arcade forums, and video games are keen and great and all that.
But a guy implied that women aren't good at video games.
Why does that matter? It's a hobby...it's a leisure activity. He's not saying that women are terrible at actual, marketable skills, or that they can't do logic or math.
I mean, most of my female friends aren't good at video games. But that's because they spend their time doing worthwhile things.
I dunno. I just realized that this whole ruckus is being raised over someone claiming that a particular group of people isn't very good at something that fundamentally doesn't matter.
For some reason, that makes the whole thing kinda funny.
It'd be akin to someone claiming that women are terrible speed eaters. I'd take that to be a compliment, myself.
_J_
They think their audience is "only those who get us, people like us, who share most of our general characteristics and will understand our colloquial joshing"
the audience that actually exists, the audience that enjoys games, is larger than that. The audience is more diverse than the people who are producing and talking about games.
That is why, SHOCK!, every time some shitty thing gets said, some people notice and get mad.
It's not because the real actual audience turns to their feminist friends and tells them about it.
My wife is standing here and she disagrees with you.
Since she's a girl, she wins at spotting shit that's anti-her-sex.
The problem here is that it is a sexist remark, in a sexist culture. It, alone, causes little harm* on varying scales. As part of a generations-old and society-wide problem, yes, it's important to continue to point out even the trivial shit, on the off chance that even a single person will look around and say, "hey, you know what... this IS a problem. Maybe I should stop perpetuating it."
Failure to acknowledge it for what it is makes it acceptable. It makes it OK. And it's not.
You're welcome to disagree. I've resigned that our generation is going to have to die off before the next big step can occur. So, thank you, you've turned us into the next Boomers.
*Harm, of course, is relative to the person being harmed. It's quite possible that some women will read that, say "Fuck Gearbox", and never be one of their customers, ever.
Ignoring the the fact that you can try to change more than one thing at a time, the fact that there's worse things out there doesn't invalidate this etc.
I don't think that the place women hold in society and the narrative around women are all that separate though.
Put more women in the engineering field, and the narrative about how women can't be engineers will decrease (at least among engineers) based on personal experience.
Reduce the narrative that women can't be engineers, and more women will probably become engineers.
Don't do one or the other, do both. At the same time.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
To be clear, I'm not saying that the comment is not sexist.
Rather, I'm saying that it was the most innocuous, vapid sort of sexism one could imagine.
I understand absolutist mentalities, where we commit with 100% to one extreme over the other and fail to recognize any grey area.
But I also understand that maintaining such a position makes one look quite silly, most of the time.
Oops, you're sexist.
We have a finite amount of time on this planet, and a limited number of things we can do in that time.
We could yell at some guy who named a difficulty level in a game something sexist.
Or we could yell at Paul Ryan, who wants to defund Planned Parenthood.
I realize that in a perfect world we could yell at everyone...but maybe, just maybe, Paul Ryan's defunding Planned Parenthood is more detrimental to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
Your argument really comes down to "This doesn't matter, there's bigger problems with the world"? Seriously?
I'm not saying that it does not matter.
I'm saying that it matters less than other things.
Those are different.
And I'm pretty sure that I am correct...unless you maintain that defunding Planned Parenthood is less harmful to women than "Girlfriend Mode".
I do plenty of worthwhile activities, including at my job, but I am still pretty decent at video games. But then we get into a discussion for what counts as "worthwhile." Isn't it worthwhile to escape and relax and distract yourself from anxieties/stress/etc? Isn't it worthwhile to enjoy an artform, or to laugh with friends while you play?
But that's not the point, which is what you're missing. It's not video games in a vacuum. It's the implication that women are dumber are men, or that they need special treatment or babying in order to achieve the same as men do.
That's the problem. Video games is part of the discussion, and because it is so pervasive in an area that is quickly coming into the mainstream (if it isn't already), that makes it a valid discussion. The idea is that sexism is everywhere and forcing conversation about it in each individual instance where it is trickled into the mainstream without critique is precisely what needs to be done to elevate awareness across all spectra.
You seem to tend to take things very literally.
Plus, I would iterate that I argue this with not very much "fervor" at all. Maybe I use caps a lot but that's kinda just how I talk.
I would defend anyone's right to be offended. It's how far you take that offense. Maybe you shrug your shoulders and let it slide. Maybe your voice your disgust to your partner sitting next to you. Maybe you jump on a forum and post about it ceaselessly. Everyone has a RIGHT to be offended.
And to some extent, yes, being offended is a choice. Given all the information and context I have been given thus far, do I still choose to be offended? Yes, I do.
Do I choose to be offended when a friend of mine makes a racist or sexist joke? Probably not - the context is different. The key here is that this is visible. It's not a micro-exchange anymore, it's been brought to the public eye and can be freely discussed.
I don't "have a right to tell people to stop doing things I disapprove of." I have no idea where you got that and would love for you to point it out.
Technically, maybe I DO have a right to TELL people to stop... but I certainly don't have a right to EXPECT them to stop.
Reading your posts in this thread and responses to others, it's almost like you're taking what I'm saying and pummeling it through a literal-interpretation meat grinder and forgetting that we are not computer programs or dictionaries, but people. With nuance and connotation and empathy. Well, most of us.
The hilarious thing here is that you managed to do both those things in one post. Congratulations!
I agree with the assertion defunding planned parenthood is more detrimental, but that doesn't make this discussion invalid or not important. You can do more things at once. I can help suicidal teenagers and coach volleyball and play video games and write articles for journals or websites. I can do all of that.
To me, all those things are important. Some more important and others are less important, but I want to do all of them, and so I will find a way to do them.
You realize that engaging in this discussion is not taking very much out of my day at all, right? In between and amongst responding to posts and posting views, I am still able to continue with the other things.
To say THIS IS ALL I CAN DO BECAUSE IT IS MOST IMPORTANT is a very... immature way of looking at the world and the way it functions. We have priorities, yes. They differ from person to person. Managing them is part of life.
fuuuuck it would be incredible! I could fight off dogs and witches.
Again, this seems to be of primary concern exclusively as a method of making it easier to dismiss rather localized arguments.
"You", whether it be you you or this whoeverthefuck at Gearbox being sexist or not is really at best a thousand levels down on the concern ladder. Actions, right at the moment, that's the issue.
Acting as though the phrase "shit, what you just said was pretty fucking sexist" is an accusation of inbuilt permanent evil is a way of absolving your guilt by pretending no legitimate criticism of your actions exist.
Here, let's use me since that's easier. I say "retard" and "retarded" to refer to people I think are being dumb. Less often now that I'm making an effort to curtail it, but I still do. It hurts people I like! I know it does, they've said so. I grew up with a person who has Down's and she is not a fan of people using that term as a general derogatory slur. I used to only watch it around her, but then I figured eh fuck it I can let it drop from the lexicon without hurting anyone and who knows other folks might have friends or relations that have similar issues and not appreciate it you know, let's drop it.
When I say "That's retarded!" I am not being a person who hates people with Down's, but I am being a bit of a shit. So I avoid it, and I'm successfully not really using it when I formerly used it as a catch-all.
So you know, if you're around me and I say it, feel free to say "hey! that's a fucking shitty thing to say, don't be mean to people with developmental issues you goose" I will say "ah, fuck, you know what? good point, thanks." I'll adjust my actions because yeah, kind of a good point.
It is possible to be accused of doing a thing that is not good, and yet not be accused of being a person who is not good. Being a person who is good doesn't absolve you from your bad action.
I think you are correct that this innocuous situation is evidence of a larger problem.
One of my points is that some persons are attacking this innocuous situation as if it were the larger problem.
Would you agree that, perhaps, this is inefficient? Or are you someone who wants to try and repair lose screws on the Titanic?
Persons do not "talk" on forums. Talking is verbal. This is typing.
In another thread I'd be interested to talk about this. It seems like some people take there to be a virtue to being offended. I don't get that. A world in which persons do not get offended seems like a good world.
This was your previous posts about getting people to not be lazy, and getting people to not be sexist.
You do not approve of sexism.
They are being sexist.
You take yourself to have a right to tell them to stop being sexist.
Unless I misunderstood you.
Agreed.
Literal interpretations tend to be more clear and precise.
It seems strange to think vagueness a good thing.
I didn't mean to imply that your entire being is consumed with this issue, and you are incapable of doing anything other than post in this thread, since you post in this thread.
My point is that during the time slice within which you are crafting this post you are not writing a journal article.
In the same sense that while I'm typing this reply I am not studying Kant's 2nd Critique.
I have to ask, are you somewhere on the autistic spectrum? Because I am, and take it from experience, shit like this, while technically correct (the best kind of correct!), will only make people mad at you.
The joke is that I said that in reply to:
Good luck living an efficient life. Especially while reading Kant.
Poe's Law analogue at work. To me, your joke seemed more ridiculously literal than many other things you say by only a very small margin.
there's workout clothes and then there's THERE ARE BUGS EVERYWHERE FUCK WILDLIFE clothes
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I will not lie - this crossed my mind, too. It kinda fits with a lot of other things he has said.
The narrow, literal definition of "talk" as opposed to it being an expression of "mode of communication" (even as a joke, it's a "heh" one)... the idea that being literal is good because it is clear and precise and that there is no room to be vague - even though we as humans (and by extension, human communication) are anything BUT clear and precise. And it's not literal versus "vague"... it's more narrow definition of a word or phrase or term versus the implied complexities of communication (in ANY form, in ANY language) in general.
Also the comparison of a mechanical object with clear faults with the ambiguity of abstract discussion.
Yes, because it is both a cause and a byproduct of that larger problem. It is PART of the larger problem and by existing it perpetuates the larger problem while also being fueled BY the larger problem. The wonderful thing about human complexity is that we aren't flowcharts - action can be taken at every level.
Your linking to "efficiency" when it comes to a broad human issue is confounding. You can argue that efficiency is related to the fact that we have a finite amount of time on this earth, but the rub is that we don't know just how much time that actually IS, nor do we each contribute to every cause the same way or degree. You spending an hour doing one thing may produce much more than me spending an hour doing the same thing. The issue is that there is no concrete, tangible, "fair" measure of that. So your analogy is therefore irrelevant - the problem of sexism (and other broad cultural problems) is not a machine, where if it breaks you can say, ah, this and that are wrong, I will go in and fix this while you fix that. The human condition is far more complex than that.
Wouldn't it then stand to reason that you should not go out of your way to offend someone if they have told you that something you do or say offends them?
You misunderstood me completely. I, at no point, expressed any belief that I had a "right" to do something. What I WAS doing was passing a judgment, where I myself link indifference to laziness (and I understand that is a personal perspective).
Plus, I am not telling them not to be sexist because I think I have a "right" to. I'm asking them not to be sexist because a) it contributes to a larger systemic problem and b) put simply, it hurts people's feelings and I like to think that out of human decency, we shouldn't go out of our way to hurt other people's feelings if they have specifically said that what we have done has hurt them.
The motivation you asked for earlier in the thread? The "why should people care?" Because caring is motivation enough. I have a feeling that you - your ideals, values, belief systems - do not classify being a caring human being as being a motivator to do something.
I would! Now you do know someone!
Kind of.
Hi, I'm Viv. I believe we have met before elsewhere on these boards.
you would if you lived in Australia
with insect repellant and sunscreen, sure
but it'd be too freakin' hot to not wear a tank top
well i live in america
where hiking is for people in the chilly state of colorado who like to pose on the cover of healthy living magazines
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Video Games are a form of media. They replicate/create/reinforce/spread/etc ideas and themes and cliches and symbols and all that shit that makes up "culture".
As such, they are as legitimate place as any to examine for the KIND of ideas or themes or whatever that are being spread or created or replicated or anything else.
Video games are, in essence, already a part of social change because they are a part of society.
Look, man.
Look.
Consider this: maybe video games, motion pictures, novels, portraiture, landscapes, sculpture, poetry, advertising, television shows, speeches, conversations in general, and the concept of forward motion itself aren't really instruments of social change.
I mean
Wouldn't that make things pretty easy for us?
beats paper anyway
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Everything stays the same until the turtle that the world sits upon decides things should be different, and then suddenly there's pandemonium and everyone is wearing shoes for hats.
God I hate that turtle.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Also beats window and head and occasionally even riot shield.
Listen the turtle has a lot of shit going on okay.
I hate this argument because it cuts both ways.
"why are you choosing to get SO offended over this comment?"
Well why are you choosing to get so bothered over what other people are offended by?
If ignoring this silly issue is so easy, then why don't you start? You're the one who supposedly has less at stake in any case.
Also:
I've said this already earlier in the thread, but the reasons these discussions always circle back to the dumbest, most trivial shit is not because some developers offhanded comment is the most pressing issue facing womyn, but because they're the things that detractors of feminism are most inclined to want to argue about.
You are part of the cycle perpetuating the argument, without people saying "but I don't understand, how are sexist jokes bad?" or playing devils advocate or whatever it is you're doing I think most people would have just gone "huh, a dumb quasi sexist joke" and the discussion would have dropped off without much comment.
man I am going to have too many hats and like, no shoes when this is all over
"Wouldn't it then stand to reason that you should not go out of your way to offend someone if they have told you that something you do or say offends them?"
And what if you saying that to them offends them? Does your offense trump their's? If never offending anyone is such a lofty goal, the end result is silence. If the goal is to silence only some things that some people say, then who the hell gets to decide what those things are? It would seem that a better system would be for everyone to say what they want, and let the feelings fall where they may.
Edit: I suck at quoting.
Am currently busy with work, but will check your article later and reply. Please give me a couple of hours.
Cheers.