Is it not ok to use rape to vilify a perpetrator, and garner sympathy for a victim? I realize that the very concept of rape implies submission and defenselessness of the victim, but does that make it completely off limits as a storytelling device?
I don't think that Sarkeesian says, "Don't ever, ever use that!" That's not how her argument works. What she says is, "Look at this trope. Now think about what it implies, and especially what its prevalence - together with other tropes re: the depiction of women, and the relative scarcity of other depictions - implies in cultural and social terms. Also, think about there aren't better ways of achieving the same narrative goals without the problems that arguably accompany these tropes."
It's somewhat disingenuous to say "there aren't better ways to do this narratively" when we're talking about arguably the most heinous act a person can perform. Of course there aren't better ways to do "this".
It's meant to offend. It's meant to cause the viewer to recoil in horror.
It's also a very cheap and lazy narrative device as well. It's literally "This guy kills puppies, see how evil we've written him" and it is also very specifically gendered violence in the vast majority of games that do have it.
What gets me is that critics will then focus on how offensive the rape scene is to women while simultaneously ignoring the fact that you're murdering hundreds/thousands of men throughout that same game.
Which you're forgetting are very often active participants who are capable of defending themselves*. Meanwhile, rape is typically used as a way of making women specifically vulnerable and to show how evil/depraved a male villain is. They are actually not the same thing whatsoever and do not have the same meaning. With few exceptions, most people who play games have not mowed down hundreds of people or had someone genuinely try to murder them. There are a large number of women who have been sexually assaulted or raped, for whom seeing characters in a game being forced to live out the same experiences is very confronting.
Additionally when games have rapes in the storyline in some way, they often handle them extremely badly or poorly in the plot. It can almost feel like parody or just a casual "We felt we needed someone being raped here to make these guys REALLY evil" line.
*Not that I am inherently for games being all about mowing down hundreds of people either, for that matter.
One of Anita's main points is that women rarely have agency in games, and instead are either victims, props, or prizes. Hero gets the girl. Rescue the princess. Damsel in distress. Look what the bad guy does to women and children. Oh hey bewbs.
which, you know, is a reasonable criticism and gave me something to think about after watching that video
however
most video games are predicated on violence - in many, maybe most games, violence happens to most every character. if there are prominent female characters, violence can happen to them. it then seems like it's trying to have it both ways if this is then characterized as problematic "violence against women"
Violence in a violent game is fine when spread evenly and presented evenly. Nobody complains that you can kill Spartan women in a Halo match because they.are not treated any differently. The problem from a feminist view is that male and female characters get very different treatment in many games.
Don't be an asshole if you can't handle the fallout, no matter how shitty and unnecessary the fallout is.
This is nonsense.
Should Phil Fish have told someone to commit suicide? Absolutely not. Can we reasonably label Phil Fish "kind of an asshole"? Yes, probably.
But you are saying that Phil Fish should have expected that being an asshole would result in his personal financial information being published on the internet which is ridiculous.
Like, it is really hard to take your condemnation of harassment seriously when you include a statement like this that is all but saying "well, they probably deserved it."
No, what I'm saying is people are shit, and if you do something to antagonize them they will treat you like complete shit in return, to an insane degree. It's not a "you deserve it," it's a "you really should have expected this and prepared for it, and I'm sorry you have to deal with it now."
Literally my entire "argument" is people suck and you have to plan around that accordingly. Nothing will change or fix that, no matter how optimistic some of the intentions in this thread are. I'm sure this will simply be seen as placing the blame on the victims though.
+1
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Don't be an asshole if you can't handle the fallout, no matter how shitty and unnecessary the fallout is.
This is nonsense.
Should Phil Fish have told someone to commit suicide? Absolutely not. Can we reasonably label Phil Fish "kind of an asshole"? Yes, probably.
But you are saying that Phil Fish should have expected that being an asshole would result in his personal financial information being published on the internet which is ridiculous.
Like, it is really hard to take your condemnation of harassment seriously when you include a statement like this that is all but saying "well, they probably deserved it."
No, what I'm saying is people are shit, and if you do something to antagonize them they will treat you like complete shit in return, to an insane degree. It's not a "you deserve it," it's a "you really should have expected this and prepared for it, and I'm sorry you have to deal with it now."
Literally my entire "argument" is people suck and you have to plan around that accordingly. Nothing will change or fix that, no matter how optimistic some of the intentions in this thread are. I'm sure this will simply be seen as placing the blame on the victims though.
If this were true, we still wouldn't have interracial or gay marriages.
Social attitudes do change, and sometimes even for the better!
Don't be an asshole if you can't handle the fallout, no matter how shitty and unnecessary the fallout is.
This is nonsense.
Should Phil Fish have told someone to commit suicide? Absolutely not. Can we reasonably label Phil Fish "kind of an asshole"? Yes, probably.
But you are saying that Phil Fish should have expected that being an asshole would result in his personal financial information being published on the internet which is ridiculous.
Like, it is really hard to take your condemnation of harassment seriously when you include a statement like this that is all but saying "well, they probably deserved it."
No, what I'm saying is people are shit, and if you do something to antagonize them they will treat you like complete shit in return, to an insane degree. It's not a "you deserve it," it's a "you really should have expected this and prepared for it, and I'm sorry you have to deal with it now."
Literally my entire "argument" is people suck and you have to plan around that accordingly. Nothing will change or fix that, no matter how optimistic some of the intentions in this thread are. I'm sure this will simply be seen as placing the blame on the victims though.
Problem is this is a myopic view to take to try and excuse harassment.
Plenty of people are harassed daily without ever doing anything to provocate it other than simply existing.
And saying stuff like "suck it up" is not only unhelpful is a pretty apologist stance to have.
Another issue, is that dealing with abuse is something that is very doable.
Most people just try to make it seem like its impossible to protect their own interests whether social, financial, or otherwise.
Nothing will change or fix that, no matter how optimistic some of the intentions in this thread are.
This is simply not true at all. The way we behave towards others has varied wildly throughout time and cultures. Saying it can't ever be changed for the better is just defeatist and slows progress.
Gamergate was founded on tinfoil hat stuff by amateur propagandists at 4chan. It gave the SJW side an easy target and they overshot their weapons with all the 'gamers are dead articles'. Notyourshield was probably created by same amateur propagandists and picked up an injection of real people due to the overshooting the target by the other side. I don't even give points to the reverse harassment incidents of SJW people lashing out on the defensive since then. Harassment is wrong, and a really bad initiator in the first place. I cede all these points to the SJW side.
HOWEVER first off 4chan is a chaotic environment comprised of people that don't know each other just as SJWs are and no community that large can police the actions of every unknown member.
The harassment incident is just the spark at this point. It was bad, unfortunately justice won't get served as it should because anonymity. Now there is a cultural movement growing out of it in spite of any effort to marry the whole movement to the bad starting incident.
The cultural backlash from nerds is actually happening because bad webpages masquerading as games and other people without talent are being lauded on their social justice ideologies and not their talent. That is the true driver of frustration in those circles. If Zoe Quinn had made Crawl/Among The Sleep/5 Nights instead of receiving pats on the back for a text based non-adventure (I say this having beaten every Scott Adams and the Infocomm games from back in the day) this wouldn't have happened. Nerds would be trying to get her autograph at cons instead of what is happening.
Not that any of the personal abuse Zoe has received is in any way justified but in the cultural movement that has taken on a life of its own since there is a large segment of the population getting behind it that is fed up with social justice fed to us in every form of entertainment not for the sake of improving the art but instead at the expense of art. You can paint them with the worst brush possible, Neo-Cons, ISIS, My Soggy Knees, and it will only make the backlash stronger at this point because your brush is becoming broader and broader.
If a man had made Depression Quest I don't think it would have ever made it into national awareness because it plain sucks. It didn't deserve a place alongside real games and the people that several media outlets are now trying to say don't matter..gamers...know this. They know it in their bones. They also know anyone trying to say what a great game it is has a different agenda on their mind than games and what makes a good game.
It's very un-PC to say that but fortunately I'm autistic enough not to care. GG has made the mistake of picking the wrong narrative to fight with since nebulous corruption has been around in an industry that formed out of Nintendo power and has had everyone in bed together figuratively if not literally since the dawn of instruction booklets. However the backlash of nerds fed up with the increasing politicization of their lives and hobbies will continue. No talent hacks making a career out of seeking attention tend to burn out in any industry. They have more longevity in the nerd sphere due to the proliferation of white knights in that sphere in this case. They are in fact getting preferential treatment as women, not second class treatment (From the industry standpoint, not the lone wolf harassment standpoint). Cue fighting up arguments and stringing me up from the SJW side. Have at.
P.S.
When your slavish devotion to an ideology eclipses your appreciation of art and by extension has you thinking of your own natural sexuality as perverse things are rotten in Denmark.
Take it away Maddox:
ceres edit: NSFW
more and more i agree with TychoCelchuuu's stance that this has its roots in an attempt to gatekeep what can and can not be a game
woo
Although to be more specific, as I note in my first post in this thread, I actually think the fight about "what is a game" isn't where it starts - it starts with hostility towards minorities/people who care about them/marginalized artists/"SJWs."
TychoCelchuuu on
+4
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Don't be an asshole if you can't handle the fallout, no matter how shitty and unnecessary the fallout is.
This is nonsense.
Should Phil Fish have told someone to commit suicide? Absolutely not. Can we reasonably label Phil Fish "kind of an asshole"? Yes, probably.
But you are saying that Phil Fish should have expected that being an asshole would result in his personal financial information being published on the internet which is ridiculous.
Like, it is really hard to take your condemnation of harassment seriously when you include a statement like this that is all but saying "well, they probably deserved it."
No, what I'm saying is people are shit, and if you do something to antagonize them they will treat you like complete shit in return, to an insane degree. It's not a "you deserve it," it's a "you really should have expected this and prepared for it, and I'm sorry you have to deal with it now."
Literally my entire "argument" is people suck and you have to plan around that accordingly. Nothing will change or fix that, no matter how optimistic some of the intentions in this thread are. I'm sure this will simply be seen as placing the blame on the victims though.
I think the difference is that when Phil Fish acts like an asshole and let me make it clear here, he really really does like to do that on a regular basis (like his "All Japanese games are shit" controversy from 2012 as example), my response is to not harass him for it or give everyone his bank account details. My response is to critique what he's saying as being silly and then move on with my life.
And if he's being a really really really objectionable ass, then I just don't outright buy his game in the first place.
Don't be an asshole if you can't handle the fallout, no matter how shitty and unnecessary the fallout is.
This is nonsense.
Should Phil Fish have told someone to commit suicide? Absolutely not. Can we reasonably label Phil Fish "kind of an asshole"? Yes, probably.
But you are saying that Phil Fish should have expected that being an asshole would result in his personal financial information being published on the internet which is ridiculous.
Like, it is really hard to take your condemnation of harassment seriously when you include a statement like this that is all but saying "well, they probably deserved it."
No, what I'm saying is people are shit, and if you do something to antagonize them they will treat you like complete shit in return, to an insane degree. It's not a "you deserve it," it's a "you really should have expected this and prepared for it, and I'm sorry you have to deal with it now."
Literally my entire "argument" is people suck and you have to plan around that accordingly. Nothing will change or fix that, no matter how optimistic some of the intentions in this thread are. I'm sure this will simply be seen as placing the blame on the victims though.
Because that is literally blaming the victim
"Look, obviously I don't condone sexual assault, but you really shouldn't have had that much to drink. You should have expected something to happen."
(Please note, I am not equating sexual assault with harassment. If anyone is offended by the example, let me know).
You're paying lip service to the idea that harassment is bad, but are completely alleviating the responsibility of the harassers because the victims should have known better. That's a ridiculous policy. Should Anita quit releasing feminist critique videos? After all, she should be all too aware of the likely response. Should Zoe just leave the games industry? Obviously her continued presence is only going to invite more harassment.
You are saying that the people on the receiving end of threats and harassment should be responsible for changing their behavior to avoid those things, rather than making it the responsibility of those people issuing threats and harassment to not be terrible people
Re: my attitude slowing progress: The progress comes when these people, who are mostly lonely losers in some fashion, die without having ever had kids to share their (lack) of thought with.
I think the difference is that when Phil Fish acts like an asshole and let me make it clear here, he really really does like to do that on a regular basis (like his "All Japanese games are shit" controversy from 2012 as example), my response is to not harass him for it or give everyone his bank account details. My response is to critique what he's saying as being silly and then move on with my life.
And if he's being a really really really objectionable ass, then I just don't outright buy his game in the first place.
Oh I'm right there with you. I scoff that he's an asshole and then immediately stop thinking about him. There's really no reason to take it any further than that.
Re: my attitude slowing progress: The progress comes when these people, who are mostly lonely losers in some fashion, die without having ever had kids to share their (lack) of thought with.
What? Why do you think it works that way? There are plenty of examples to the contrary, from civil rights advancements in the US to entire revolutions in India and South Africa.
"Waiting for the bad people to die" is a losing strategy because we're always making more of them. And even if we weren't, we'd end up dead around the same time.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
Re: my attitude slowing progress: The progress comes when these people, who are mostly lonely losers in some fashion, die without having ever had kids to share their (lack) of thought with.
What? Why do you think it works that way? There are plenty of examples to the contrary, from civil rights advancements in the US to entire revolutions in India and South Africa.
"Waiting for the bad people to die" is a losing strategy because we're always making more of them. And even if we weren't, we'd end up dead around the same time.
Not to mention it's not even the really bad people who need to change, it's the people who go along with them or stand by and say nothing.
Hardcore bigots rarely change their minds. It's the misguided/ignorant/apathetic people surrounding them that do.
Re: my attitude slowing progress: The progress comes when these people, who are mostly lonely losers in some fashion, die without having ever had kids to share their (lack) of thought with.
What? Why do you think it works that way? There are plenty of examples to the contrary, from civil rights advancements in the US to entire revolutions in India and South Africa.
"Waiting for the bad people to die" is a losing strategy because we're always making more of them. And even if we weren't, we'd end up dead around the same time.
Not to mention it's not even the really bad people who need to change, it's the people who go along with them or stand by and say nothing.
Hardcore bigots rarely change their minds. It's the misguided/ignorant/apathetic people surrounding them that do.
Anyone can change their mind. But if we never get them to try they almost certainly won't.
+2
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Is it not ok to use rape to vilify a perpetrator, and garner sympathy for a victim? I realize that the very concept of rape implies submission and defenselessness of the victim, but does that make it completely off limits as a storytelling device?
I don't think that Sarkeesian says, "Don't ever, ever use that!" That's not how her argument works. What she says is, "Look at this trope. Now think about what it implies, and especially what its prevalence - together with other tropes re: the depiction of women, and the relative scarcity of other depictions - implies in cultural and social terms. Also, think about there aren't better ways of achieving the same narrative goals without the problems that arguably accompany these tropes."
It's somewhat disingenuous to say "there aren't better ways to do this narratively" when we're talking about arguably the most heinous act a person can perform. Of course there aren't better ways to do "this".
It's meant to offend. It's meant to cause the viewer to recoil in horror.
It's also a very cheap and lazy narrative device as well. It's literally "This guy kills puppies, see how evil we've written him" and it is also very specifically gendered violence in the vast majority of games that do have it.
What gets me is that critics will then focus on how offensive the rape scene is to women while simultaneously ignoring the fact that you're murdering hundreds/thousands of men throughout that same game.
Which you're forgetting are very often active participants who are capable of defending themselves*. Meanwhile, rape is typically used as a way of making women specifically vulnerable and to show how evil/depraved a male villain is. They are actually not the same thing whatsoever and do not have the same meaning. With few exceptions, most people who play games have not mowed down hundreds of people or had someone genuinely try to murder them. There are a large number of women who have been sexually assaulted or raped, for whom seeing characters in a game being forced to live out the same experiences is very confronting.
Additionally when games have rapes in the storyline in some way, they often handle them extremely badly or poorly in the plot. It can almost feel like parody or just a casual "We felt we needed someone being raped here to make these guys REALLY evil" line.
*Not that I am inherently for games being all about mowing down hundreds of people either, for that matter.
I really dislike encountering sexual violence in games. It's hard for me to get past, where other people including my husband can encounter it and barely notice. At this point I have friends who, if I express interest in a game, will let me know if something in it will be a problem for me, in which case I don't buy it. It's the sort of thing I honestly wish they'd put on the label. It would be easy for a publisher to do, and it would let me know they have some awareness of their content and the people who might consume it. I wouldn't buy that game, but I would actually be more likely to buy others from that publisher because I appreciate that sort of consideration very much.
It's a pipe dream, though.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
+4
Options
FelgrafGraduate School (HELP I'M TRAPPED)Registered Userregular
When I say Violence Against Women I’m primarily referring to images of women being victimized or when violence is specifically linked to a character’s gender or sexuality. Female characters who happen to be involved in violent or combat situations on relatively equal footing with their opponents are typically be exempt them(sic) from this category because they are usually not framed as victims.
When violence against women is used as a plot device to get the ball rolling, or to show how Awful and Bad the villain is, or suffer to further a male protagonist's development, that's when there's a problem.
But then doesn't she complain about New Vegas? In which most of the women you *CAN* kill are A) Armed to the Teeth, and a majority of which are (like EVERYTHING ELSE in the wastes) already trying to kill you.
I will need to go back and check up on that, though. (And if I am wrong, feel free to call me out on that).
New Vegas just always seemed like it was pretty equal opportunity in the whole "All things seek to murder you. Especially the Cazadores."
I really dislike encountering sexual violence in games. It's hard for me to get past, where other people including my husband can encounter it and barely notice. At this point I have friends who, if I express interest in a game, will let me know if something in it will be a problem for me, in which case I don't buy it. It's the sort of thing I honestly wish they'd put on the label. It would be easy for a publisher to do, and it would let me know they have some awareness of their content and the people who might consume it. I wouldn't buy that game, but I would actually be more likely to buy others from that publisher because I appreciate that sort of consideration very much.
Is it not ok to use rape to vilify a perpetrator, and garner sympathy for a victim? I realize that the very concept of rape implies submission and defenselessness of the victim, but does that make it completely off limits as a storytelling device?
If you can replace a rape scene with your villain crushing a kitten and still achieve the same effect (he's a bad guy!), you should probably not have the rape scene.
Victim blaming? I'm pointing out obvious hazards in our species. Those of you that think the solution is awareness and education, with regards to THIS SPECIFIC incident only, are kidding yourselves. In a perfect world anyone can do anything they want (that doesn't affect others negatively), but that will NEVER be our world.
To clarify, I think anyone who intentionally hurts another person like what's happening here deserves death. Quite literally. The vocal ones are the "extreme bigots" that won't change, so why tolerate them at all? Because they have a basic right to live? Why? They're just lowering the quality of life for everyone around them. Not every human is created equal.
Anyway, I don't dredge this up because it's not really for this topic. I'm not apathetic, my attitude just isn't normal or accepted generally so there isn't much more I can say. I would absolutely enjoy watching these people die, knowing everything was juuuuuuust slightly better.
Re: rape in games: I imagine its kind of like if half the population was arachnophobic but game creators kept making spiders a major part of visual design because they belong to the half to the population that isn't arachnophobic.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
+2
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
What gets me is that critics will then focus on how offensive the rape scene is to women while simultaneously ignoring the fact that you're murdering hundreds/thousands of men throughout that same game.
Its almost as if one of those is a thing that a depressingly significant amount of people have personally experienced.
Posts
It's also a very cheap and lazy narrative device as well. It's literally "This guy kills puppies, see how evil we've written him" and it is also very specifically gendered violence in the vast majority of games that do have it.
Which you're forgetting are very often active participants who are capable of defending themselves*. Meanwhile, rape is typically used as a way of making women specifically vulnerable and to show how evil/depraved a male villain is. They are actually not the same thing whatsoever and do not have the same meaning. With few exceptions, most people who play games have not mowed down hundreds of people or had someone genuinely try to murder them. There are a large number of women who have been sexually assaulted or raped, for whom seeing characters in a game being forced to live out the same experiences is very confronting.
Additionally when games have rapes in the storyline in some way, they often handle them extremely badly or poorly in the plot. It can almost feel like parody or just a casual "We felt we needed someone being raped here to make these guys REALLY evil" line.
*Not that I am inherently for games being all about mowing down hundreds of people either, for that matter.
Violence in a violent game is fine when spread evenly and presented evenly. Nobody complains that you can kill Spartan women in a Halo match because they.are not treated any differently. The problem from a feminist view is that male and female characters get very different treatment in many games.
No, what I'm saying is people are shit, and if you do something to antagonize them they will treat you like complete shit in return, to an insane degree. It's not a "you deserve it," it's a "you really should have expected this and prepared for it, and I'm sorry you have to deal with it now."
Literally my entire "argument" is people suck and you have to plan around that accordingly. Nothing will change or fix that, no matter how optimistic some of the intentions in this thread are. I'm sure this will simply be seen as placing the blame on the victims though.
Social attitudes do change, and sometimes even for the better!
Problem is this is a myopic view to take to try and excuse harassment.
Plenty of people are harassed daily without ever doing anything to provocate it other than simply existing.
And saying stuff like "suck it up" is not only unhelpful is a pretty apologist stance to have.
Another issue, is that dealing with abuse is something that is very doable.
Most people just try to make it seem like its impossible to protect their own interests whether social, financial, or otherwise.
This is simply not true at all. The way we behave towards others has varied wildly throughout time and cultures. Saying it can't ever be changed for the better is just defeatist and slows progress.
Although to be more specific, as I note in my first post in this thread, I actually think the fight about "what is a game" isn't where it starts - it starts with hostility towards minorities/people who care about them/marginalized artists/"SJWs."
I think the difference is that when Phil Fish acts like an asshole and let me make it clear here, he really really does like to do that on a regular basis (like his "All Japanese games are shit" controversy from 2012 as example), my response is to not harass him for it or give everyone his bank account details. My response is to critique what he's saying as being silly and then move on with my life.
And if he's being a really really really objectionable ass, then I just don't outright buy his game in the first place.
Because that is literally blaming the victim
"Look, obviously I don't condone sexual assault, but you really shouldn't have had that much to drink. You should have expected something to happen."
(Please note, I am not equating sexual assault with harassment. If anyone is offended by the example, let me know).
You're paying lip service to the idea that harassment is bad, but are completely alleviating the responsibility of the harassers because the victims should have known better. That's a ridiculous policy. Should Anita quit releasing feminist critique videos? After all, she should be all too aware of the likely response. Should Zoe just leave the games industry? Obviously her continued presence is only going to invite more harassment.
You are saying that the people on the receiving end of threats and harassment should be responsible for changing their behavior to avoid those things, rather than making it the responsibility of those people issuing threats and harassment to not be terrible people
My Steam
Oh I'm right there with you. I scoff that he's an asshole and then immediately stop thinking about him. There's really no reason to take it any further than that.
"Waiting for the bad people to die" is a losing strategy because we're always making more of them. And even if we weren't, we'd end up dead around the same time.
Hardcore bigots rarely change their minds. It's the misguided/ignorant/apathetic people surrounding them that do.
Anyone can change their mind. But if we never get them to try they almost certainly won't.
I really dislike encountering sexual violence in games. It's hard for me to get past, where other people including my husband can encounter it and barely notice. At this point I have friends who, if I express interest in a game, will let me know if something in it will be a problem for me, in which case I don't buy it. It's the sort of thing I honestly wish they'd put on the label. It would be easy for a publisher to do, and it would let me know they have some awareness of their content and the people who might consume it. I wouldn't buy that game, but I would actually be more likely to buy others from that publisher because I appreciate that sort of consideration very much.
It's a pipe dream, though.
But then doesn't she complain about New Vegas? In which most of the women you *CAN* kill are A) Armed to the Teeth, and a majority of which are (like EVERYTHING ELSE in the wastes) already trying to kill you.
I will need to go back and check up on that, though. (And if I am wrong, feel free to call me out on that).
New Vegas just always seemed like it was pretty equal opportunity in the whole "All things seek to murder you. Especially the Cazadores."
People get really weird about warning labels too.
If you can replace a rape scene with your villain crushing a kitten and still achieve the same effect (he's a bad guy!), you should probably not have the rape scene.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
To clarify, I think anyone who intentionally hurts another person like what's happening here deserves death. Quite literally. The vocal ones are the "extreme bigots" that won't change, so why tolerate them at all? Because they have a basic right to live? Why? They're just lowering the quality of life for everyone around them. Not every human is created equal.
Anyway, I don't dredge this up because it's not really for this topic. I'm not apathetic, my attitude just isn't normal or accepted generally so there isn't much more I can say. I would absolutely enjoy watching these people die, knowing everything was juuuuuuust slightly better.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Its almost as if one of those is a thing that a depressingly significant amount of people have personally experienced.