Ironically, the worst personal attack towards a developer that I can recall in recent years was the intense harassment campaign that went on against Jennifer Hepler of Bioware, and this was at least in part because of her promotion of LGBT characters.
And the other, much more vocal and prevalent part was that the people attacking her thought she wasn't attractive. When you google her name, you don't get people saying she was looking to get LGBT characters in games, or more importantly how she wanted to make games you didn't have to have long drawn out combat sequences to get through to the next story bit. Instead you get people, and images, commenting on her appearance.
It's pretty well covered in this rather terribly named article. http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-writer-s-vagina-versus-the-internet-222206.phtml
The Jennifer Hepler thing is a great example of how people can say or imply certain things all the while claiming that what they're "really" talking about is something else.
This is the memetic image that passed like wildfire across the internet, and is still the thing that people post when they want to point out what a monster Jennifer Hepler is. Yes, the line about skipping gameplay is bolded. side note:
I don't know of anyone who wouldn't take a skip button in a game like DA:O in order to skip things like The Fade. In fact there is a popular mod to do just that. Skipping gameplay is something everyone has wanted to do at least once in a while. But that's a separate argument
The interesting, undiscussed part of this meme is in the bottom portion, where Hepler says that there's no particular reason why Shepard wouldn't be gay (also something about 4 - 6 gay relationships, which has to be something made up by the person who created the image, because there aren't 6 relationships for any one orientation in the entire game). Why do you think that was included? Why did someone think that was a good example of why Hepler is a "cancer", do you suppose?
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Because it describes reality. You're talking about how you're just starting to learn these things: that's great, learn them! Don't fight back against a word like "cisgendered" that describes (fairly accurately) a certain category of people. We use words and concepts to pick out things about the world so that we can talk about them. Before "cisgendered" was an accepted term, at least in the context of our current, modern society, it was very difficult to talk about a lot of transgender issues because the terminology was funky.
Well, I'd do a multi-quote thing, but that makes post just unreadable. Fyi. I'm not just starting to learn about these things, i'm just starting to learn that its actually a huge source of "debate" in a different part of the world, that considers itself modern apparently... The debate itself is what's strange to me, not the thing that's being debated.
thanks for some form of answer atleast, I reckon it then slightly comes down to a cultural thing, or maybe its just me, but I never had my word view blown away because there are other situations, heck i'm well aware of that. I just remember reading the news i think it was three years ago(maybe 2), where they changed the law in my country, where people could change their legal gender without actually getting an operation, and i was like: Yeah, that sounds damn reasonable, why didn't we have that before?
Sure, I can see the benefit in having a simple word for cis, when discussing it, but to then turn that word around and say: cis-scum, i,e you're scum because you're cis, and thus are a hater on trans, Is reducing people(I'm using this example because it is in the thread, and i'm making the same argument for every other character aspect people have that is used in this way). These words in these arguments are used to reduce people into a stereotypical argument, i dont know which one, since i've never met any of the actual stereotypes, and that just continues to baffle me. As I said maybe it is a cultural thing, maybe it is just me.
Apologies if you're not a nerd (I'm just assuming you are because I think pretty much 100% of us on these forums are nerds) but this whole "I am beyond prejudice and I become so confused when I see people acting in a prejudiced way because how could anyone ever think changing your gender required sexual reassignment surgery" thing is something that nerds love to pull. They're so smart and tolerant and logical that they just can't imagine why the law would ever have required someone to get an operation to change their legal gender. It's like Steven Colbert's "I don't see race" thing, except they're not joking.
The thing is, this sort of "oh, I just live in a world where everyone is equal and it's inconceivable to me that anyone would think differently" is an expression of a massive amount of privilege: you get to be "above" racism and sexism and stuff because you've used your powers of reason to wish it away. You've gone beyond racism and you're just chilling out in your tolerant bubble until the rest of the stupid, petty, evil world catches up with your enlightenment.
Then, when you look down from your beautiful perfect race-less, gender-less, class-less world where nobody is ever given a label or reduced to a characteristic or treated badly in any way shape or form, and you see people saying something like "cis-scum," alarms go off and you go after the transgendered person who has snapped after a lifetime of oppression, mistreatment, hostility, and misunderstanding, because you don't want to be looked down on for your cisgenderedness.
I'm not saying transgendered people, or any oppressed class, has a free pass to be a jerk to you - I'm just saying maybe you should have some empathy for people who have been driven to hatred by a society that reminds them literally every day that they don't exist, or that if they exist they don't matter, or that if they do matter it's only if they'll come to their senses and fit in the way society wants them to fit in, even though this goes against every atom of their being.
I'm also not really sure how your point about "cis-scum" fits in with the term "cisgendered." Certainly we can use the term "transgendered" without using the abbreviated, insulting version that has been banned from this thread. Surely we can do the same with "cisgendered."
Male/female is a culturally dichotomous category but it's really an axis with a whole spectrum in between. However, the vast majority falls near the ends of that axis. People break down perceived reality into concepts, organize them into confined categories and label them. It's how our cognitive system works and it's beyond right or wrong; it's suboptimal but it is the way it is. A "woman" means a "standard woman". We need a dedicated category and a word to use when referring to one half of the population. If you weren't born with secondary sexual characteristics of a female, don't expect people to call you a woman, regardless of your hormonal profile or what you may feel like inside. With that said, there's always been a soft spot in my heart for the underdogs and the deprived. I honestly wish transgender and gay people success in their fight for a better position in society. People who harbour traditional views are really not monsters, though, and when they get smacked on the head for expressing their views, it doesn't expedite their acceptance of those who are different. Instead, it generates silent resentment or even makes them assume extremist positions. The ony lesson of the Gabe incident is "Be PC. Or else!".
Gnarl on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited June 2013
Yes, we need a dedicated category to refer to things, that's the whole reason we have the term cis. Thank you for noticing.
"Standard" or "normal" versus "depraved" are descriptors with judgement values attached, which is why we don't use them when trying to discuss the topics.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
But even if it isn't, even if this is a complete sincere wish to discuss the way criticism is ruining the games industry: is that really a premise from which adults want to have a discussion? Criticism is necessary to real art. The wish for criticism to end is, at best, an immature one.
I didn't see that stated in the overview.
The overview literally says that there might too much scrutiny on the gaming industry and that too many people criticize writers, developers, and publishers.
There's only one word in the entire panel description that suggests this panel is anything other than a "please stop saying we do anything wrong" panel, and that word is "personally" - the panel notes developers and publishers are criticized not just professionally but personally.
Now, personally (hah) I think this is a funny issue to have about the game industry because the people who get the most "personal" shit aren't developers - it's women and minorities who speak out about how the gaming community is to them - and the shift the panel's description went through suggests it started life as a bunch of people who wanted to whine back at the women and gays and so on for ruining the fun. But, whatever. Let's disregard that and just talk about the (admittedly bad) personal criticism that developers and publishers get for making shitty games - harassment like the stuff this comic which says Microsoft has put an "evil camera" in their console and generally hates us, or this one which suggests Microsoft allows poisonous snakes into their press conferences, or this one which paints the developers of Titan as fucking idiots, or this one which calls someone both "Satan" and "a menace" that "must be stopped" and so on. Is all this bad? Well I'm inclined to say suck it up and deal with it but whatever. Let's have a whole panel about whether this stuff needs to stop and we all need to get along so gaming can enter a golden age.
But that's only if you imagine the entire panel is going to be about the "personal" stuff, which is reading a lot into that one word. As far as I can tell, the description of the panel looks like it says "we don't like people criticizing our work, even when it's shitty. Games should be fun, why can't review scores all be 10 out of 10?"
This seems like an extremely black and white interpretation. What happened to gray areas and middle grounds?
Anyway, wishing for this panel not to exist seems hypocritical. Like Dark_Side said, people could attend the panel and "right the wrongs" if it turns out there are a bunch of wrongs to right. Don't these panels have Q&A and audience participation? Or maybe there's a remote chance that the panel won't be the Klan rally that it's getting hyped up to be?
Shit. My English isn't bad but it's not my native tongue. I honestly thought depraved means "denied of rights". "Deprived" is what I meant. One letter makes a huge difference. And I used "standard" in the statistical sense, although I understand it can be perceived as judgmental.
But even if it isn't, even if this is a complete sincere wish to discuss the way criticism is ruining the games industry: is that really a premise from which adults want to have a discussion? Criticism is necessary to real art. The wish for criticism to end is, at best, an immature one.
I didn't see that stated in the overview.
The overview literally says that there might too much scrutiny on the gaming industry and that too many people criticize writers, developers, and publishers.
There's only one word in the entire panel description that suggests this panel is anything other than a "please stop saying we do anything wrong" panel, and that word is "personally" - the panel notes developers and publishers are criticized not just professionally but personally.
Now, personally (hah) I think this is a funny issue to have about the game industry because the people who get the most "personal" shit aren't developers - it's women and minorities who speak out about how the gaming community is to them - and the shift the panel's description went through suggests it started life as a bunch of people who wanted to whine back at the women and gays and so on for ruining the fun. But, whatever. Let's disregard that and just talk about the (admittedly bad) personal criticism that developers and publishers get for making shitty games - harassment like the stuff this comic which says Microsoft has put an "evil camera" in their console and generally hates us, or this one which suggests Microsoft allows poisonous snakes into their press conferences, or this one which paints the developers of Titan as fucking idiots, or this one which calls someone both "Satan" and "a menace" that "must be stopped" and so on. Is all this bad? Well I'm inclined to say suck it up and deal with it but whatever. Let's have a whole panel about whether this stuff needs to stop and we all need to get along so gaming can enter a golden age.
But that's only if you imagine the entire panel is going to be about the "personal" stuff, which is reading a lot into that one word. As far as I can tell, the description of the panel looks like it says "we don't like people criticizing our work, even when it's shitty. Games should be fun, why can't review scores all be 10 out of 10?"
This seems like an extremely black and white interpretation. What happened to gray areas and middle grounds?
Anyway, wishing for this panel not to exist seems hypocritical. Like Dark_Side said, people could attend the panel and "right the wrongs" if it turns out there are a bunch of wrongs to right. Don't these panels have Q&A and audience participation? Or maybe there's a remote chance that the panel won't be the Klan rally that it's getting hyped up to be?
Ah yes, the old "show up and coopt the panel to make it what you want it to be about by approaching a group of people mic'ed up on stage, there to talk about how oppressed they are, and ask a bunch of questions hostile to the premise of the panel." That will probably work super well. I'm not saying it's definitely going to be a Klan rally - I'm just saying that if I had to dress appropriately and I had lost my invitation which had the dress code, I'd probably iron my Grand Wizard robe for the occasion.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I'm not really sure how wishing the panel didn't exist could be considered hypocritcal in any way.
I also hope that PaxAus doesn't have a panel complaining about how there aren't enough grizzled space marines in video games. Because that would be a dumb thing to have a panel about.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Apologies if you're not a nerd (I'm just assuming you are because I think pretty much 100% of us on these forums are nerds) but this whole "I am beyond prejudice and I become so confused when I see people acting in a prejudiced way because how could anyone ever think changing your gender required sexual reassignment surgery" thing is something that nerds love to pull. They're so smart and tolerant and logical that they just can't imagine why the law would ever have required someone to get an operation to change their legal gender. It's like Steven Colbert's "I don't see race" thing, except they're not joking.
The thing is, this sort of "oh, I just live in a world where everyone is equal and it's inconceivable to me that anyone would think differently" is an expression of a massive amount of privilege: you get to be "above" racism and sexism and stuff because you've used your powers of reason to wish it away. You've gone beyond racism and you're just chilling out in your tolerant bubble until the rest of the stupid, petty, evil world catches up with your enlightenment.
I think you misunderstand me, Its not that i'm beyond bigotry, or that i'm beyond racism, or that i live in a bubble of enlightment. Its not that I'm not aware these discussions exist, or that these discussions are happening.
But what I don't comprehend, is the turn some of these discussions have taken, and where they lead, into a place that's basically not furthering anyone's stance.
the point isn't that I don't understand that people are discriminated, and it sucks, and they want to be accepted, and they want to live how they want to live without being judged for it, and that they get pissed of, and they get angry.
The biggest part is that I don't understand the fact, that I apparantly need to validate myself as something to have a certain amount of credibility in a certain discussion. You can disagree with my ideas, you can call me bigot ( I might be) you can determine that I don't know what the fuck i'm talking about (I might be) But what shouldn't be happening, is that your regard for my argument will be completely different once I tell you i'm a black, gay, male immigrant from one of my countries former colonies(The Netherlands) (and a nerd :P ), who'se one set of grand-parents is muslim.
That has nothing to do with empathy, that has to do with putting value on something that I am. And in the same vein, calling someone Cisgendered, when discussing trials and tribulations of Transgendered, puts a value judgement on that person. That is simply the case. You're not simply curious or asking about the gender of the person, where the usage of cis, is more than fine. You're putting a value on that person's opinion on a subject based on what he is. not who he is. And I don't understand the point in doing so.
Lack of empathy is actually the cause of pretty much everything that sucks about society. Without it, we are reduced to our animal component and act accordingly. We have a concept of human rights but no group is granted those rights without having to fight for it.
I'm not really sure how wishing the panel didn't exist could be considered hypocritcal in any way.
I also hope that PaxAus doesn't have a panel complaining about how there aren't enough grizzled space marines in video games. Because that would be a dumb thing to have a panel about.
Wishing that people who want to say something don't have the ability to say it, or are obstructed in saying it how they want to say it. Hypocrisy nests down that path. Don't agree with what they have to say but give my life to defend their ability to say it, and all that jazz.
Also, and I really just want to squeak this one in there but I know it's going to cause me no end of trouble, but Gabe's twit about "women have vaginas" really wasn't wrong. "Male" and "Female", "Men" and "Women" are terms used to describe physiological sex. Masculine and Feminine are terms used to describe Gender and gender identity. Heterosexual, Transexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, ect are terms used to describe sexual orientation. Now, those are the common uses and scientific uses of the terms. I'm wholly for freeform over dictionary definitions of words, so I'm not saying you can't be a woman and not have the physiological characteristics of a woman or visa versa or any combination of the above, you're just as much a person who deserves all the rights of everyone else. However, if you're going to go outside the common usage of the words or try to introduce your own definitions on the words you're going to have to accept that someone else is going to keep using the dictionary definition of the terms, and that shouting them down doesn't help the situation when the answer should be educating them to your opinion.
I'm not really sure how wishing the panel didn't exist could be considered hypocritcal in any way.
I also hope that PaxAus doesn't have a panel complaining about how there aren't enough grizzled space marines in video games. Because that would be a dumb thing to have a panel about.
Wishing that people who want to say something don't have the ability to say it, or are obstructed in saying it how they want to say it. Hypocrisy nests down that path. Don't agree with what they have to say but give my life to defend their ability to say it, and all that jazz.
You're conflating, "That thing you said is fucking stupid and you really shouldn't say, because it's stupid" and, "I am going to stop you from saying what you're saying."
Because it describes reality. You're talking about how you're just starting to learn these things: that's great, learn them! Don't fight back against a word like "cisgendered" that describes (fairly accurately) a certain category of people. We use words and concepts to pick out things about the world so that we can talk about them. Before "cisgendered" was an accepted term, at least in the context of our current, modern society, it was very difficult to talk about a lot of transgender issues because the terminology was funky.
Well, I'd do a multi-quote thing, but that makes post just unreadable. Fyi. I'm not just starting to learn about these things, i'm just starting to learn that its actually a huge source of "debate" in a different part of the world, that considers itself modern apparently... The debate itself is what's strange to me, not the thing that's being debated.
thanks for some form of answer atleast, I reckon it then slightly comes down to a cultural thing, or maybe its just me, but I never had my word view blown away because there are other situations, heck i'm well aware of that. I just remember reading the news i think it was three years ago(maybe 2), where they changed the law in my country, where people could change their legal gender without actually getting an operation, and i was like: Yeah, that sounds damn reasonable, why didn't we have that before?
Sure, I can see the benefit in having a simple word for cis, when discussing it, but to then turn that word around and say: cis-scum, i,e you're scum because you're cis, and thus are a hater on trans, Is reducing people(I'm using this example because it is in the thread, and i'm making the same argument for every other character aspect people have that is used in this way). These words in these arguments are used to reduce people into a stereotypical argument, i dont know which one, since i've never met any of the actual stereotypes, and that just continues to baffle me. As I said maybe it is a cultural thing, maybe it is just me.
Apologies if you're not a nerd (I'm just assuming you are because I think pretty much 100% of us on these forums are nerds) but this whole "I am beyond prejudice and I become so confused when I see people acting in a prejudiced way because how could anyone ever think changing your gender required sexual reassignment surgery" thing is something that nerds love to pull. They're so smart and tolerant and logical that they just can't imagine why the law would ever have required someone to get an operation to change their legal gender. It's like Steven Colbert's "I don't see race" thing, except they're not joking.
The thing is, this sort of "oh, I just live in a world where everyone is equal and it's inconceivable to me that anyone would think differently" is an expression of a massive amount of privilege: you get to be "above" racism and sexism and stuff because you've used your powers of reason to wish it away. You've gone beyond racism and you're just chilling out in your tolerant bubble until the rest of the stupid, petty, evil world catches up with your enlightenment.
Then, when you look down from your beautiful perfect race-less, gender-less, class-less world where nobody is ever given a label or reduced to a characteristic or treated badly in any way shape or form, and you see people saying something like "cis-scum," alarms go off and you go after the transgendered person who has snapped after a lifetime of oppression, mistreatment, hostility, and misunderstanding, because you don't want to be looked down on for your cisgenderedness.
I'm not saying transgendered people, or any oppressed class, has a free pass to be a jerk to you - I'm just saying maybe you should have some empathy for people who have been driven to hatred by a society that reminds them literally every day that they don't exist, or that if they exist they don't matter, or that if they do matter it's only if they'll come to their senses and fit in the way society wants them to fit in, even though this goes against every atom of their being.
I'm also not really sure how your point about "cis-scum" fits in with the term "cisgendered." Certainly we can use the term "transgendered" without using the abbreviated, insulting version that has been banned from this thread. Surely we can do the same with "cisgendered."
Well said. I've certainly been guilty of this, exactly this, myself.
I think Microsoft will probably drop the always-on camera before release as well unless they're okay with their console being banned in multiple countries.
I'm not really sure how wishing the panel didn't exist could be considered hypocritcal in any way.
I also hope that PaxAus doesn't have a panel complaining about how there aren't enough grizzled space marines in video games. Because that would be a dumb thing to have a panel about.
Wishing that people who want to say something don't have the ability to say it, or are obstructed in saying it how they want to say it. Hypocrisy nests down that path. Don't agree with what they have to say but give my life to defend their ability to say it, and all that jazz.
You're conflating, "That thing you said is fucking stupid and you really shouldn't say, because it's stupid" and, "I am going to stop you from saying what you're saying."
Is he? The Twitter madness literally began with people calling for Gabe/Tycho to shut that panel down.
Posts
The Jennifer Hepler thing is a great example of how people can say or imply certain things all the while claiming that what they're "really" talking about is something else.
This is the memetic image that passed like wildfire across the internet, and is still the thing that people post when they want to point out what a monster Jennifer Hepler is. Yes, the line about skipping gameplay is bolded. side note:
The interesting, undiscussed part of this meme is in the bottom portion, where Hepler says that there's no particular reason why Shepard wouldn't be gay (also something about 4 - 6 gay relationships, which has to be something made up by the person who created the image, because there aren't 6 relationships for any one orientation in the entire game). Why do you think that was included? Why did someone think that was a good example of why Hepler is a "cancer", do you suppose?
The thing is, this sort of "oh, I just live in a world where everyone is equal and it's inconceivable to me that anyone would think differently" is an expression of a massive amount of privilege: you get to be "above" racism and sexism and stuff because you've used your powers of reason to wish it away. You've gone beyond racism and you're just chilling out in your tolerant bubble until the rest of the stupid, petty, evil world catches up with your enlightenment.
Then, when you look down from your beautiful perfect race-less, gender-less, class-less world where nobody is ever given a label or reduced to a characteristic or treated badly in any way shape or form, and you see people saying something like "cis-scum," alarms go off and you go after the transgendered person who has snapped after a lifetime of oppression, mistreatment, hostility, and misunderstanding, because you don't want to be looked down on for your cisgenderedness.
I'm not saying transgendered people, or any oppressed class, has a free pass to be a jerk to you - I'm just saying maybe you should have some empathy for people who have been driven to hatred by a society that reminds them literally every day that they don't exist, or that if they exist they don't matter, or that if they do matter it's only if they'll come to their senses and fit in the way society wants them to fit in, even though this goes against every atom of their being.
I'm also not really sure how your point about "cis-scum" fits in with the term "cisgendered." Certainly we can use the term "transgendered" without using the abbreviated, insulting version that has been banned from this thread. Surely we can do the same with "cisgendered."
"Standard" or "normal" versus "depraved" are descriptors with judgement values attached, which is why we don't use them when trying to discuss the topics.
Anyway, wishing for this panel not to exist seems hypocritical. Like Dark_Side said, people could attend the panel and "right the wrongs" if it turns out there are a bunch of wrongs to right. Don't these panels have Q&A and audience participation? Or maybe there's a remote chance that the panel won't be the Klan rally that it's getting hyped up to be?
I also hope that PaxAus doesn't have a panel complaining about how there aren't enough grizzled space marines in video games. Because that would be a dumb thing to have a panel about.
I think you misunderstand me, Its not that i'm beyond bigotry, or that i'm beyond racism, or that i live in a bubble of enlightment. Its not that I'm not aware these discussions exist, or that these discussions are happening.
But what I don't comprehend, is the turn some of these discussions have taken, and where they lead, into a place that's basically not furthering anyone's stance.
the point isn't that I don't understand that people are discriminated, and it sucks, and they want to be accepted, and they want to live how they want to live without being judged for it, and that they get pissed of, and they get angry.
The biggest part is that I don't understand the fact, that I apparantly need to validate myself as something to have a certain amount of credibility in a certain discussion. You can disagree with my ideas, you can call me bigot ( I might be) you can determine that I don't know what the fuck i'm talking about (I might be) But what shouldn't be happening, is that your regard for my argument will be completely different once I tell you i'm a black, gay, male immigrant from one of my countries former colonies(The Netherlands) (and a nerd :P ), who'se one set of grand-parents is muslim.
That has nothing to do with empathy, that has to do with putting value on something that I am. And in the same vein, calling someone Cisgendered, when discussing trials and tribulations of Transgendered, puts a value judgement on that person. That is simply the case. You're not simply curious or asking about the gender of the person, where the usage of cis, is more than fine. You're putting a value on that person's opinion on a subject based on what he is. not who he is. And I don't understand the point in doing so.
Wishing that people who want to say something don't have the ability to say it, or are obstructed in saying it how they want to say it. Hypocrisy nests down that path. Don't agree with what they have to say but give my life to defend their ability to say it, and all that jazz.
Also, and I really just want to squeak this one in there but I know it's going to cause me no end of trouble, but Gabe's twit about "women have vaginas" really wasn't wrong. "Male" and "Female", "Men" and "Women" are terms used to describe physiological sex. Masculine and Feminine are terms used to describe Gender and gender identity. Heterosexual, Transexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, ect are terms used to describe sexual orientation. Now, those are the common uses and scientific uses of the terms. I'm wholly for freeform over dictionary definitions of words, so I'm not saying you can't be a woman and not have the physiological characteristics of a woman or visa versa or any combination of the above, you're just as much a person who deserves all the rights of everyone else. However, if you're going to go outside the common usage of the words or try to introduce your own definitions on the words you're going to have to accept that someone else is going to keep using the dictionary definition of the terms, and that shouting them down doesn't help the situation when the answer should be educating them to your opinion.
You're conflating, "That thing you said is fucking stupid and you really shouldn't say, because it's stupid" and, "I am going to stop you from saying what you're saying."
Well said. I've certainly been guilty of this, exactly this, myself.