Search forums

Forums

Export thread

I don't think PA's Gabe is a Transphobic Bigot.

Jun 21, 2013#1

GasBandit

Latest news blurb on PA:

http://penny-arcade.com/2013/06/21/well-that-escalated-quickly

The whole situation just strikes me as a very public figure being surrounded by social issue crusaders with axes to grind and no patience for nonbelievers.

I also roll my eyes whenever the term "cis" is bandied about as if it's supposed to be an epithet or disqualification.

Jun 21, 2013#2

Necronic

GasBandit said:
I also roll my eyes whenever the term "cis" is bandied about as if it's supposed to be an epithet or disqualification.

So much this. I support trans causes, and I understand that they may often be incredibly complex. I do not like the discussion starting and ending with what feels like a disqualifying slur thrown at me.

Jun 21, 2013#3

Espy

Well I missed that.

Huh. Sounds like someone got their undies in a wad over a pretty general and non-insulting discussion.

Jun 21, 2013#4

Necronic

There's something in that crowd that seems particularly prone to anger though, far more than any marginzalized group I have seen in a while. It's one of the groups of activists I find myself getting angry with regularly, even though I supprot their causes.

Jun 21, 2013#5

Charlie Don't Surf

Necronic said:
There's something in that crowd that seems particularly prone to anger though, far more than any marginzalized group I have seen in a while. It's one of the groups of activists I find myself getting angry with regularly, even though I supprot their causes.

They have a right / reason to be angry and are treated far worse than most of the rest of the GLBQT spectrum, including really poorly by a lot of people claiming to be their allies.

also Gabe is a piece of shit for everything he's said regarding this

Jun 21, 2013#6

DarkAudit

Whatever issues they may have, once the slurs and death threats started, their point became invalid.

Jun 21, 2013#7

Charlie Don't Surf

DarkAudit said:
Whatever issues they may have, once the slurs and death threats started, their point became invalid.

I don't support slurs or death threats, but this is a dumb statement. You can't dismiss a group of people because they have a shitty subgroup.

Jun 21, 2013#8

Necronic

I've only read his side of the story in this, and what it looks like to me is that, like most people, he's not trans-bigoted, he's just trans-ignorant. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the reaction he's gotten from these people read like some straight SRSter cis-bigotry, and self-righteous anger of the sake of anger.

Jun 21, 2013#9

DarkAudit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I don't support slurs or death threats, but this is a dumb statement. You can't dismiss a group of people because they have a shitty subgroup.

Did you stop to consider I was talking about the idiots trying to argue with him, and not everyone? Do I have to spell it out for you that explicitly?

Jun 21, 2013#10

Charlie Don't Surf

Necronic said:
I've only read his side of the story in this, and what it looks like to me is that, like most people, he's not trans-bigoted, he's just trans-ignorant. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the reaction he's gotten from these people read like some straight SRSter cis-bigotry, and self-righteous anger of the sake of anger.

He said straight up "you can only be a woman if you have a vagina", that's pretty bold faced anti-trans, as blatantly as you can get. I don't think I even paraphrased the quote there.

Jun 21, 2013#11

PatrThom

For the moment, let's all pretend that I don't know the comments/incident he is referring to (because let's be clear...I don't know about any of it), but the blurb that he wrote at the above linked page? I have absolutely no problem with it. It is rational and I completely understand where he is coming from. If anything, it sounds like he's the one being persecuted the most.

Charlie Don't Surf said:
He said straight up "you can only be a woman if you have a vagina", that's pretty bold faced anti-trans, as blatantly as you can get.

Completely depends on what you mean when you say, "woman." Some people identify as women, even though they are not female. Other people use the terms interchangeably not because they are hostile to the inter/trans community, but because they've really never had to deal with the distinction before. For them, it has just never been necessary.

--Patrick

Jun 21, 2013#12

Reverent-one

Charlie Don't Surf said:
He said straight up "you can only be a woman if you have a vagina", that's pretty bold faced anti-trans, as blatantly as you can get. I don't think I even paraphrased the quote there.

Yes, you did. What he said was he thought all woman had vaginas. Then:

Gabe said:
It was pointed out to me that not all women have vaginas and I will admit right here in front of everyone that this came as a big shock to me.

Sounds like ignorance and repeating the generalized facts about gender we learn as kids to me. Especially since he said he apologized for his comment when he realized this.

Jun 21, 2013#13

Charlie Don't Surf

I hadn't even heard anything about the "female masturbation game" thing, He's cherry picking the least-worst thing he said to make himself look good, because of course he is. Here's another side of the story with more stupid shitty things that stupid shitty man said:

http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=10995

good quote:

His constant reiteration of the fact that he feels all women have vaginas, and his disrespectful comparison of gender identity being the same as asking people to call him Batman is at complete odds with the sort of ‘compassion’ he is trying to show his ‘friend’ Sophie in her email. You don’t get to say that you don’t care about genitals and you don’t want to know about people’s body parts, but then use the presence or lack of genitalia to define what someone’s gender is and make sweeping statements about the qualifications that have to be satisfied before you’ll think someone is a woman.

Also, good on them:

http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013/06/21/why-we-are-not-showing-gone-home-at-pax/

Jun 21, 2013#14

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Also, good on them:

http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013/06/21/why-we-are-not-showing-gone-home-at-pax/

It's entirely their call and appropriate to decide not to appear at a venue that they don't think shares their beliefs.

But when I start reading passive, meek dreck like "we don't feel welcome or comfortable" in what is a business endeavor, you can fuck right the hell off, get hit by a train, drag for 30 miles and get fed to the crows. The right thing to say is "given their positions, we don't see it in our best interest to attend." Not "boo hoo you made our pretend vaginas hurt."

Playing the victim card is as odious as playing the race card. Say you're not going because you think what HE said is wrong, not because YOUR feelings are wounded.

Now before you start calling ME some kind of cis-whatever, bear in mind I've got nothing against transgenders. Someone deciding to live their lives as if they were a woman does not break my leg or pick my pocket, so go wild. But it's dumb to think that a program meant to depict female masturbation should involve yanking a dick in the name of the transgender cause.

Jun 21, 2013#15

Silent Bob

Jun 21, 2013#16

GasBandit

Silent Bob said:

Sweet, between this and the babyrape thread, we've got a trifecta in play.

Jun 21, 2013#17

Silent Bob

Necronic said:
There's something in that crowd that seems particularly prone to anger though, far more than any marginzalized group I have seen in a while. It's one of the groups of activists I find myself getting angry with regularly, even though I supprot their causes.

It's the violent clash of testosterone and estrogen.

:hide:

Jun 21, 2013#18

Charlie Don't Surf

also oh my god you fucking stupid crying babies (not specific to halforums, just the world), cisgender isn't an insult. It's literally just that you are the gender you were born as. It's the same as heterosexual to homosexual, etc. I'm aware that two wrongs don't make a right and throwing it around LIKE a slur is a little childish, but no one is going to call you "cissy" and beat you to death with a fire extinguisher (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7332066&page=1)

Jun 21, 2013#19

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also oh my god you fucking stupid crying babies (not specific to halforums, just the world), cisgender isn't an insult. It's literally just that you are the gender you were born as. It's the same as heterosexual to homosexual, etc. I'm aware that two wrongs don't make a right and throwing it around LIKE a slur is a little childish, but no one is going to call you "cissy" and beat you to death with a fire extinguisher (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7332066&page=1)

They're using it as an insult. "cis male garbage." It's a ridiculous non-term come up with the same people who invented the (also non-)term "heteronormative."

Jun 21, 2013#20

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also oh my god you fucking stupid crying babies (not specific to halforums, just the world), cisgender isn't an insult. It's literally just that you are the gender you were born as. It's the same as heterosexual to homosexual, etc. I'm aware that two wrongs don't make a right and throwing it around LIKE a slur is a little childish, but no one is going to call you "cissy" and beat you to death with a fire extinguisher (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7332066&page=1)

cis- male was very, very much used as a slur. Just so you know. The way it was used towards Gabe, as an example, has connotations that there's something wrong with him because of his gender.

They're singling out his gender as a means to ostracize him. The exact thing that most trans folks don't like being done to them. This is very much a case of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

Jun 21, 2013#21

Charlie Don't Surf

I know. I never said those people and the people calling death threats are in the right, did I? I mean you could argue they're doing it as some kind of showing him how they feel and are treated, but it's not comparable really and I also disagree with that, two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

Jun 21, 2013#22

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I know. I never said those people and the people calling death threats are in the right, did I? I mean you could argue they're doing it as some kind of showing him how they feel and are treated, but it's not comparable really and I also disagree with that, two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

YOU JUST SAID CISGENDER ISN'T AN INSULT!

God almighty, you are so fucking thick.

Jun 21, 2013#23

Charlie Don't Surf

Silent Bob said:
YOU JUST SAID CISGENDER ISN'T AN INSULT!

God almighty, you are so fucking thick.

Cisgendered is an insult the same way honky and male and breeder is an insult.

Jun 21, 2013#24

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Cisgendered is an insult the same way honky and male and breeder is an insult.

Because it's awesome being called a honky or a breeder.

Tell me, why does a gay person get a pass at calling me a breeder? What if my spouse and I can't have children or choose not to? Is that not insulting who I am as a person the same way as calling a gay person a flamer?

Jun 21, 2013#25

DarkAudit

Jun 21, 2013#26

Charlie Don't Surf

Silent Bob said:
Tell me, why does a gay person get a pass at calling me a breeder? What if my spouse and I can't have children or choose not to? Is that not insulting who I am as a person the same way as calling a gay person a flamer?

it is insulting you as a person, but the difference is: privilege

Jun 21, 2013#27

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
it is insulting you as a person, but the difference is: privilege

You're right. I'm so very sorry for being born white and straight and identify with my natural gender. I should become a slave to political correctness and be stepped on by everyone that didn't win the genetic lottery.

Jun 21, 2013#28

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
it is insulting you as a person, but the difference is: privilege

Accepting privilege as a reason to be insulted is just as bad as insulting someone because they do not have privilege. White men have feelings, too. Why should we be able to be trod upon just because you feel slighted by your current demographic standing?[DOUBLEPOST=1371855353][/DOUBLEPOST]Translation: Why can some people be terrible and mean and it's okay while it's bad for others?

Jun 21, 2013#29

DarkAudit

Dave said:
Translation: Why can some people be terrible and mean and it's okay while it's bad for others?

Because it's Charlie the special snowflake.

Jun 21, 2013#30

GasBandit

Dave said:
Accepting privilege as a reason to be insulted is just as bad as insulting someone because they do not have privilege. White men have feelings, too. Why should we be able to be trod upon just because you feel slighted by your current demographic standing?[DOUBLEPOST=1371855353][/DOUBLEPOST]Translation: Why can some people be terrible and mean and it's okay while it's bad for others?

Because persecuting the son for the sins of the fathers make humanity's dregs feel better about themselves.

Jun 21, 2013#31

Silent Bob

Dave said:
Accepting privilege as a reason to be insulted is just as bad as insulting someone because they do not have privilege. White men have feelings, too. Why should we be able to be trod upon just because you feel slighted by your current demographic standing?[DOUBLEPOST=1371855353][/DOUBLEPOST]Translation: Why can some people be terrible and mean and it's okay while it's bad for others?

Do all white, straight, "cis" , male people (wow that's a specific group) have privilege by this logic too? Or is it just the rich ones?

Jun 21, 2013#32

Dave

GasBandit said:
Because persecuting the son for the sins of the fathers make humanity's dregs feel better about themselves.

No people are the dregs, unless they choose to make themselves so. Like career criminals or that douche that raped the baby. And people who talk on cell phones during movies.

Jun 21, 2013#33

Charlie Don't Surf

Silent Bob said:
Do all white, straight, "cis" , male people (wow that's a specific group) have privilege by this logic too? Or is it just the rich ones?

People can have all kinds of different intersecting types of privilege. It's not a black and white issue (lol)

Jun 21, 2013#34

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
People can have all kinds of different intersecting types of privilege. It's not a black and white issue (lol)

So give me an example of why a gay man is has the right to call me a breeder and I can't call him a flamer in retort?

Jun 21, 2013#35

SpecialKO

I will point out that some parts of the trans community also have a regular tendency to self-cannibalize by attacking any member who dares make a point on the nature of the trans-identity that another member disagrees with (see arguments about pronouns). Group movements are rarely monolithic in practice, but the movement side of the trans community in particular is a bit fractious, and stating what "they" believe is a tad difficult.

While it's disappointing that Gabe is ignorant in this particular social respect, I've met some members of the trans community who would agree with PatrThom 's interpretation, indicating at least some potential level for a less black & white interpretation for at least some people. Gabe still utterly fails at approaching this point, but it's entirely due to an ignorance of mental vocabulary, not a willful intent to slur or debase. There's an opportunity to educate here.

Also, this particular round of twitter war has completely overshadowed the fact that that PAX panel is horrifically misogynistic and should never have been approved in the first place. The chances are pretty good now that nothing will be done about it. Did no one even think about trying to calmly contact Khoo? He has more to do with PAX than Mike or Jerry.

Jun 21, 2013#36

ThatNickGuy

Jun 21, 2013#37

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
Also, this particular round of twitter war has completely overshadowed the fact that that PAX panel is horrifically misogynistic and should never have been approved in the first place. The chances are pretty good now that nothing will be done about it. Did no one even think about trying to calmly contact Khoo? He has more to do with PAX than Mike or Jerry.

Yeah, that panel description (even the edited one) is just laughably awful. There's so much stupid and clueless PA shit, it's hard to pick which one to hold them in contempt over.

Jun 21, 2013#38

Silent Bob

please don't skirt my question.

Jun 21, 2013#39

Dave

Or mine.

Jun 21, 2013#40

SpecialKO

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Yeah, that panel description (even the edited one) is just laughably awful. There's so much stupid and clueless PA shit, it's hard to pick which one to hold them in contempt over.

The panel I'm actually a bit angry about. Someone (likely multiple someones) made a specific choice about that one.

Jun 21, 2013#41

Charlie Don't Surf

Silent Bob said:
So give me an example of why a gay man is has the right to call me a breeder and I can't call him a flamer in retort?

It's still dumb and exclusionary, but there isn't a history of people being hurt or discriminated against for having children really here or being insulted and made to feel like less of a human being, bla bla bla

Jun 21, 2013#42

DarkAudit

That's not an answer, it's a(nother) troll.

Jun 21, 2013#43

GasBandit

Dave said:
No people are the dregs, unless they choose to make themselves so. Like career criminals or that douche that raped the baby. And people who talk on cell phones during movies.

Yes, those are the dregs to which I refer. The human failures by choice.

Jun 21, 2013#44

ThatNickGuy

DarkAudit said:
That's not an answer, it's a(nother) troll.

Ba-dup-bup-bada-bup! CHARLIE!

*Jazz hands, which turn into a double deuce*

Jun 21, 2013#45

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It's still dumb and exclusionary, but there isn't a history of people being hurt or discriminated against for having children really here or being insulted and made to feel like less of a human being, bla bla bla

Oh so it's ok for gay people to do the same thing to me because my ancestors weren't subjected to it. Gotcha.

Jun 21, 2013#46

Charlie Don't Surf

Dave said:
Why should we be able to be trod upon just because you feel slighted by your current demographic standing?[DOUBLEPOST=1371855353][/DOUBLEPOST]Translation: Why can some people be terrible and mean and it's okay while it's bad for others?

It's not okay, but I dunno how to express this without sounding like a jerk. But I don't care? It's not a systemic thing that people are insulted and demeaned and discriminated against for being white or a dude. By all means on the individual level, it's not cool, but there isn't a huge swath of people thinking it's okay the same way there are several people that think it's cool to call women "bitches" and worse.[DOUBLEPOST=1371856651][/DOUBLEPOST]It's not ancestors, dudes. Racism isn't dead. We didn't defeat Bigotry when we elected Obama.

Jun 21, 2013#47

GasBandit

Translation: It's sort of like how only white people can be racist.

Jun 21, 2013#48

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It's not okay, but I dunno how to express this without sounding like a jerk. But I don't care? It's not a systemic thing that people are insulted and demeaned and discriminated against for being white or a dude. By all means on the individual level, it's not cool, but there isn't a huge swath of people thinking it's okay the same way there are several people that think it's cool to call women "bitches" and worse.[DOUBLEPOST=1371856651][/DOUBLEPOST]It's not ancestors, dudes. Racism isn't dead. We didn't defeat Bigotry when we elected Obama.

I am a man; not a cowboy. Get your facts straight, bigot.

Jun 21, 2013#49

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Translation: It's sort of like how only white people can be racist.

imagine a face of a thousand eyes rolling in unison

Actually, I started that as a flippant joke but then I imagined it and was utterly horrified

Jun 21, 2013#50

SpecialKO

Charlie, while I agree with you on the concept of privilege and impact, if using "cis" as an insult gets to be considered within the additional context that the user of that insult is a member of an oppressed group then Gabe's ignorance similarly gets to be considered within the context of his limited life experience affecting his vocabulary and rhetoric.

That both sides get the benefit of context does not equalize the offenses. Gabe remains an insensitive ignorant ass, but context speaks to intent. More importantly, context speaks to resolution. Understanding how everyone got where they were is important if you're going to figure out where to go from there.

Jun 21, 2013#51

Covar

Charlie Don't Surf said:
imagine a face of a thousand eyes rolling in unison

Actually, I started that as a flippant joke but then I imagined it and was utterly horrified

Now you understand what happens when your posts are read.

Jun 21, 2013#52

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
Gabe's ignorance similarly gets to be considered within the context of his limited life experience affecting his vocabulary and rhetoric.

That both sides get the benefit of context does not equalize the offenses. Gabe remains an insensitive ignorant ass, but context speaks to intent. More importantly, context speaks to resolution. Understanding how everyone got where they were is important if you're going to figure out where to go from there.

This isn't his first "being an ignorant ass" rodeo, though. And he also said his little story of his transgendered friend he met and exchanged emails with ("no guys, it's cool, I have a trans woman friend!")

Jun 21, 2013#53

DarkAudit

Covar said:
Now you understand what happens when your posts are read.

Nope. How many times have we been down this road before? How many times has Charlie gotten on that soapbox to call the rest of us bigots and racists?

Jun 21, 2013#54

Silent Bob

Isn't their a trans-gendered regular poster on Halforums? I'd love to get her opinion on this.[DOUBLEPOST=1371857107][/DOUBLEPOST]

DarkAudit said:
Nope. How many times have we been down this road before? How many times has Charlie gotten on that soapbox to call the rest of us bigots and racists?

To be fair, I'm pretty far left of center, but Charlie usually makes me want to be best friends with Ann Coulter.

Jun 21, 2013#55

PatrThom

I think what I find most interesting is exactly how meta this thread has become.

--Patrick
(FWIW, I had to Google this whole "cis" thing, since I'd never heard the term before. The answer failed to enrage me.)

Jun 21, 2013#56

Reverent-one

Charlie Don't Surf said:
This isn't his first "being an ignorant ass" rodeo, though. And he also said his little story of his transgendered friend he met and exchanged emails with ("no guys, it's cool, I have a trans woman friend!")

I love how any example of someone not being bigoted towards X automatically becomes proof of them being bigoted, since obviously only bigots would have any of those.

Jun 21, 2013#57

strawman

ThatNickGuy said:

Jun 21, 2013#58

SpecialKO

Not being his first rodeo, so to speak, is why I have no issues whatsoever with Fullbright wanting out. I completely understand it (even if their phrasing is a bit passive-aggressive).

But his comments here just make him ignorant and privileged, not "okay to insult and accuse of hate-incitement". I'd like to see him actually incite hate before we get to that point.

EDIT: Of course, I'd rather he not, period, but you know what I mean.

Jun 21, 2013#59

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
I'd like to see him actually incite hate before we get to that point.
.

Dickwolves, man

Jun 21, 2013#60

SpecialKO

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Dickwolves, man

That comic was really funny. Not even remotely PC and a bit tone deaf as a result, but really funny all the same.

Jun 21, 2013#61

Charlie Don't Surf

SpecialKO said:
That comic was really funny. Not even remotely PC and a bit tone deaf as a result, but really funny all the same.

It wasn't as much the initial comic as the response to the response. I remember that escalating to like. People on twitter talking about raping the female gamers / bloggers speaking about it / talking about coming to PAX or one of those conventions for daring to be offended.

Jun 21, 2013#62

PatrThom

I'm offended by collective stupidity in general, regardless of gender identity or sexual preference.

--Patrick

Jun 21, 2013#63

SpecialKO

I didn't realize Gabe told people to go rape his critics or tell them to go get raped. I was under the impression that individual assholes on twitter did that.

Jun 21, 2013#64

Ravenpoe

You know, just as an aside regarding the use of slurs against the majority; as a white heterosexual male, there's pretty much nothing you can call me that will offend me. Being a honky cis male breeder is pretty great. If given the choice, I'd always choose this.

Jun 21, 2013#65

figmentPez

stienman said:

Linkara _ Get the Popcorn Ready This Gonna Be Good.gif

Jun 21, 2013#66

SpecialKO

figmentPez said:
View attachment 11212

Jun 21, 2013#67

Hailey Knight

I blame Tumblr.

Jun 21, 2013#68

Charlie Don't Surf

Ravenpoe said:
You know, just as an aside regarding the use of slurs against the majority; as a white heterosexual male, there's pretty much nothing you can call me that will offend me. Being a honky cis male breeder is pretty great. If given the choice, I'd always choose this.

Just being able to post on the internet and living in the US puts you in a pretty high income bracket worldwide, so there's wealth privilege.

Jun 21, 2013#69

DarkAudit

Quotemander Prime said:
I blame Tumblr.

If you could monetize the daily outrage on tumblr, you could fund universal healthcare for the entire planet.[DOUBLEPOST=1371860552][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Just being able to post on the internet and living in the US puts you in a pretty high income bracket worldwide, so there's wealth privilege.

And YOU, jackass.

Jun 21, 2013#70

strawman

Twit: GABE YOUR PAX PANEL OFFENDS ME!!

Gabe: Email pax_questions@paxsite.com as Tycho and I do not review panel submissions.

DONE.

Jun 21, 2013#71

Bowielee

After watching PA the series, I can totally chalk this up to Gabe simply being ignorant to the issue. Dude is so sheltered.

I was going to hold my tongue about the issue of names and how not being part of a minority has no bearing on the effect of the insult, but to call the N-word equivalent to honky is beyond stupid. One holds the power of a history of descrimination and horror while the other is as innefectual as it is stupid. I can speak in particular to the breeder/"nice gay person" issue. I don't see many teenagers killing themselves because they're called breeders on a regular basis, but I sure as hell do see kids kill themselves because of the other word.

Jun 21, 2013#72

Hailey Knight

Charlie has penis size privilege.

'Cause he's being such a big dick about this.

That was funny, right? I did a thing. Everyone laughed. Yeah? I'm cool, right?

Jun 21, 2013#73

strawman

Bowielee said:
I sure as hell do see kids kill themselves because of the other word.

They aren't committing suicide because of the word, they are doing so because they are being actively shunned by society. And, as point of fact, kids are killing themselves because they are being seen as and called geek, nerd, stoner, otaku, and other words without the rich racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual history you and others seem to hold in special esteem. It's more the age than the word and the social class they've been assigned to. Past the age of 25 suicide drops significantly, which is part societal, and part just a matter of growing up.

Stop blaming the words, they are merely a symptom of the problem. Getting rid of the words does not actually solve the problem, any more than adding anti itch cream solves anaphylactic shock.

Also, you might as well take breeder off the table when you choose to compare insults, because its quite obvious you have no idea how society treats those with large families.

Jun 21, 2013#74

Bowielee

stienman said:
They aren't committing suicide because of the word, they are doing so because they are being actively shunned by society. And, as point of fact, kids are killing themselves because they are being seen as and called geek, nerd, stoner, otaku, and other words without the rich racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual history you and others seem to hold in special esteem. It's more the age than the word and the social class they've been assigned to. Past the age of 25 suicide drops significantly, which is part societal, and part just a matter of growing up.

Stop blaming the words, they are merely a symptom of the problem. Getting rid of the words does not actually solve the problem, any more than adding anti itch cream solves anaphylactic shock.

Also, you might as well take breeder off the table when you choose to compare insults, because its quite obvious you have no idea how society treats those with large families.

Actually, many of the labels you just mentioned do carry just as much of a history, particularly geek and nerd. I would put them on the same level of being emotionally destructive as any other insult. Breeder and honkey do not hold the same weight. They simply don't.

Jun 21, 2013#75

strawman

Nevermind, I don't actually care whether you remain ignorant or not.

Jun 21, 2013#76

Hailey Knight

I started typing up a post defending Bowie, but then I remembered that people with large families are more discriminated against that homosexuals, and I didn't want to come off as ignorant.

Jun 21, 2013#77

Bowielee

I would certainly like to hear about how constantly being called a breeder led to emotional damage for Steinman. I'm sure it was just as bad as when I was harrassed in high school for being gay. Yup, I'm sure it's completely equivalent.

I do have to add, that yes, in some situations, such as a white student being the only white student and constantly called a Honkey would be just as hurtful as the opposite. Same would be if there was some sort of alternate reality high school where everyone were gay.

Jun 22, 2013#78

strawman

Except I am not comparing the severity of discrimination between the two. If you read carefully you'll note I was discussing being called a geek, etc when I was discussing discrimination against large families.

I'm not attacking you, nor am I trying to dismiss your trauma or difficulties.

Why are you so dismissive of the discrimination others face?

Are you arguing against my main point, that we need to attack the problem, and that the words are merely a symptom of the problem? Are you seriously trying to say that we can ignore the main problem, and that if we get people to stop using those words everything will be fine?

I don't understand what exactly, if anything, you are trying to communicate. As far as I can tell you are simply laughing at me.

Jun 22, 2013#79

Bowielee

The discussion is about how much weight insults hold.[DOUBLEPOST=1371877733][/DOUBLEPOST]The false equivalency I'm talking about is this:

Me calling you a breeder != you calling me a fag.[DOUBLEPOST=1371877778][/DOUBLEPOST]That doesn't make me more "right" to call you a name at all, but the two are not equal.

Jun 22, 2013#80

strawman

And I never said they were equal.

Jun 22, 2013#81

Shawn

This is really kind of ridiculous isn't it? Does the Trans-Gender community get their panties (or underpants as the case may be) in such a twist over anytime someone with a huge media presence assumes that a game about masturbation, that only features vaginas, is marketed towards women? My apologies if you're a once-a-dude with a vagina now. Please. Stop being a fucking dumb-ass and buy the game for yourself if you need an education how to work the thing. Yes you now qualify for the game. No one's judging. We all make assumptions based on what we perceive is "normal". He apologized for not considering every single possibility before he made his statement. And yet people are still on him. I've made plenty of unintentionally insensitive remarks in my day. I've called a trans-gender male "Sir" before because honestly I had no idea what to call him. It's pretty much a double-edged sword with people with pissy attitudes because they may take offense to anything you say. For all I know calling him "Mrs" would have been just as bad if he was completely fine with his sex, and just liked to dress in women's clothing. It's like asking someone in a wheelchair if they would like help with the doors. Most of them will be appreciative of the extra help, but then there are a few who are going to call you a bigot or something worse for telling them they aren't good enough to help themselves.

Grow... the... fuck... up. If you are of a minority group, please realize that most people are ignorant to how you would like to be treated. Give them a chance to fucking learn.

And my apologies. I just insulted every illiterate person in the world with this insensitively typed message. And also my apologies to those who don't read in English either, as I've completely screwed you guys over too.

Jun 22, 2013#82

phil

What does cis mean?

Jun 22, 2013#83

Bowielee

Cisgender. It's the opposite of Transgender.

I had to look it up, and I probably know ten times more transgendered people than most people in general.

Jun 22, 2013#84

Hailey Knight

The transgender people I've known don't get pissy about this small scale of stuff.

But their friends do. And people who don't know them, but insist on speaking out for them, loudly and abrasively, and insisting that language be vague.

stienman said:
And I never said they were equal.

Your big post implied they're equally irrelevant, because the problem is the ostracizing behind the words and not the words themselves. That's an oversimplification and ignoring how humans use words to communicate ideas. If someone called Bowie a batty man, odds are he's not going to give a shit, because that's not a hate word in our culture. In Jamaica, it's the equivalent to f*****. Now, if someone called him that, I'm guessing it would have an effect.

It doesn't just go away because you're over 25 and it does matter.

Why couldn't you guys sort this out for yourselves? I wanted to keep making snarky posts, but now I'm involved, so I can't use my bit about how we divide up the child-bearing people at my work into the hierarchy of breeders (who have children), bredders (who have had children but aren't having new ones), the bredless (those who don't have children, but want to), and the bredbashers (who are persecuting all the others by their choice of not having children and not wanting them). Then there's the bred (people who were the children of someone else but are unable to have children themselves for one reason or another and so will always be seen as those who were bred from someone else).

Jun 22, 2013#85

Silent Bob

Shawnacy said:
This is really kind of ridiculous isn't it? Does the Trans-Gender community get their panties (or underpants as the case may be) in such a huff over anytime someone with a huge media presence assumes that a game about masturbation, that only features vaginas, is marketed towards women? My apologies if you're a once-a-dude with a vagina now. Please. Stop being a fucking dumb-ass and buy the game for yourself if you need an education how to work the thing. Yes you now qualify for the game. No one's judging. We all make assumptions based on what we perceive is "normal". He apologized for not considering every single possibility before he made his statement. And yet people are still on him. I've made plenty of unintentionally insensitive remarks in my day. I've called a trans-gender male "Sir" before because honestly I had no idea what to call him. It's pretty much a double-edged sword with people with pissy attitudes because they may take offense to anything you say. For all I know calling him "Mrs" would have been just as bad if he was completely fine with his sex, and just liked to dress in women's clothing. It's like asking someone in a wheelchair if they would like help with the doors. Most of them will be appreciative of the extra help, but then there are a few who are going to call you a bigot or something worse for telling them they aren't good enough to help themselves.

Grow... the... fuck... up. If you are of a minority group, please realize that most people are ignorant to how you would like to be treated. Give them a chance to fucking learn.

And my apologies. I just insulted every illiterate person in the world with this insensitively typed message. And also my apologies to those who don't read in English either, as I've completely screwed you guys over too.

I think the issue is the whole woman vs female thing that Gabe was confused about. The thing people got pissed at him about was because in the trans community a woman isn't defined by having a vagina.[DOUBLEPOST=1371903655][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bowielee said:
The discussion is about how much weight insults hold.[DOUBLEPOST=1371877733][/DOUBLEPOST]The false equivalency I'm talking about is this:

Me calling you a breeder != you calling me a fag.[DOUBLEPOST=1371877778][/DOUBLEPOST]That doesn't make me more "right" to call you a name at all, but the two are not equal.

I don't think anyone ever said anything about the equality of insults; just that it's not ok for Gay people to call other people breeders on the pretense that "your group is discriminated" so it's ok.

Jun 22, 2013#86

Hailey Knight

Jun 22, 2013#87

GasBandit

Quotemander Prime said:
The transgender people I've known don't get pissy about this small scale of stuff.

But their friends do. And people who don't know them, but insist on speaking out for them, loudly and abrasively, and insisting that language be vague.

IE, the Brittas (and Charlies) of the world.

Jun 22, 2013#88

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
IE, the Brittas (and Charlies) of the world.

Bingo.

Jun 22, 2013#89

Shawn

Silent Bob said:
I think the issue is the whole woman vs female thing that Gabe was confused about. The thing people got pissed at him about was because in the trans community a woman isn't defined by having a vagina.

I'm sure he'll remember that next time he comes across another game that shows you how to properly self-titillate a vagina. At this point I'm sure he'll risk sounding stupidly redundant/imbecilic when he announces it as a "game for women OR men WITH vaginas.". Luckily for him those who are aware of why he's saying it that way probably won't laugh at his expense. Probably.

Jun 22, 2013#90

SpecialKO

Shawnacy said:
Luckily for him those who are aware of why he's saying it that way probably won't laugh at his expense. Probably.

His critics would have been much better off laughing at his expense instead of attacking him for his ignorance. He might have even joined in eventually.

Sometimes, that shit can actually work.

Jun 22, 2013#91

DarkAudit

Apropos of nothing, but I knew I was at the U of Michigan when I saw a "Gender Neutral Restroom" sign. You'd never see one of those at WVU or Marshall.

Jun 22, 2013#92

Hailey Knight

SpecialKO said:
His critics would have been much better off laughing at his expense instead of attacking him for his ignorance. He might have even joined in eventually.

Sometimes, that shit can actually work.

She makes an important note that is often missed:

many of the guys who are behind that stupid, constant crap are totally decent, open-minded human beings who just don’t realize they’re doing it.

It's better to see where a person is coming from first and foremost. Calling someone an asshole when they're actually ignorant is a good way to turn them into an asshole. Of course, there are pre-disposed assholes out there, but assuming a person is one of them right off the bat isn't a good method to improve things.[DOUBLEPOST=1371914538][/DOUBLEPOST]

DarkAudit said:
Apropos of nothing, but I knew I was at the U of Michigan when I saw a "Gender Neutral Restroom" sign. You'd never see one of those at WVU or Marshall.

We didn't have those at my college, but nobody seemed to care that girls came in the men's room if there was a line at the women's room. Or if they identified as male. Or if they knew a guy who was going in. Or if the men's room was closer.

Jun 22, 2013#93

Shawn

Can you imagine the fallout from the female readers if he had just said "people with vaginas"?

Jun 22, 2013#94

DarkAudit

Jun 22, 2013#95

Covar

DarkAudit said:
Apropos of nothing, but I knew I was at the U of Michigan when I saw a "Gender Neutral Restroom" sign. You'd never see one of those at WVU or Marshall.

I have to ask what the picture was. I assume it was something like this?

Jun 22, 2013#96

DarkAudit

Covar said:
I have to ask what the picture was. I assume it was something like this?

No. It's from Plastic Brick Automaton.

Jun 22, 2013#97

Zappit

Hey, yeah and all that. You wanna swap your bits, go ahead. No judgement here. But I just can't fault Gabe for assuming that a game about one specific set of bits would be marketed to folks with those certain bits. You don't have those bits but identify with them? Then you can get those bits, and you're golden with that game that nobody will probably ever play.

This group started a conversation with Gabe, who made a pretty fair assumption. It escalated into aggression pretty quickly, including a series of, "But how about..? Oh, but now what about..? And now what about..?" And put him in a frustating no-win situation, then came death threats and attacks on his business, and he was justifiably angry.

As for that panel, they didn't want to stifle free speech, but they certainly reserved the right to mock it (and themselves) after. They usually do that anyway.

It just feels like going after Don Rickles for being a racist. There was no malice in his original statements.

Jun 22, 2013#98

ScytheRexx

I am not going to get into the whole nature of insults discussion. I don't think any insult is a good one, and I find the idea that we need to spend so much time rating the insults to be a waste of time. Instead I will focus on Gabe and why I think he sometimes digs these holes for himself.

Gabe in many ways reminds me of myself. I am not very talkative around here, and one of the reasons why is because I can get overly defensive when people start calling me things that either don't line up with my outlooks or are just in general designed to inflame me. The problem is when you get caught up in the heat of just defending yourself or attempting to "get back" at the person that made you angry, you end up sometimes saying things you don't really mean.

The only example I can give is fighting with the spouse. There are some days once in a blue moon my wife and I would fight, usually over something trivial like the plot of a movie or the meaning of a scene (that is the problem with both of us going to school for film development). During these fights depending on how hard we want to "win" the argument we sort of start pulling the bottom of the barrel in terms of ammunition. She would be so bold as to call me a "Retard" and I would in turn called her a "Bitch". We would at some point reach where we can no longer continue the discussion because neither side will give in, instead get out our frustrations in other ways, calm, and apologize to each other. Then have some great sex.

Now imagine that problem magnified by a million and without any easy way to reconcile it. Gabe is one of two figures for a huge empire engrossed in gaming and it's culture. Anything he says will be scrutinized by every subsection of the culture. The problem is that instead of stepping back and attempting to gauge why it's an issue when these things appear, he feels like he is getting attacked, throws up the shield of cynicism, and loads the aggression canon full of anything he can to make the other side be the "wrong one", and once he fires the first shot the whole "kingdom of gaming" explodes into civil war.

I spent years understanding the nature of how I can turn into an asshole like flipping a switch, one minute being supportive of certain people and the next calling them things I couldn't even imagine five minutes before my blood started rising. I worked hard to learn how to take a breath, and realize when I am just going to dig my own grave. Gabe, with his mental issues and pressure from being such a big name, likely does not have that luxury. It will continue to hurt him until he realizes sometimes the best answer is just not to answer the flamers at all.

Jun 22, 2013#99

PatrThom

I would like to commend the general population of the Forum. We're 3+ pages in, and the (public) discussion is still remarkably civil and thoughtful.

--Patrick

Jun 22, 2013#100

Ravenpoe

PatrThom said:
I would like to commend the general population of the Forum. We're 3+ pages in, and the (public) discussion is still remarkably civil and thoughtful.

--Patrick

Oh yeah? Well fuck you!

Jun 22, 2013#101

DarkAudit

PatrThom said:
I would like to commend the general population of the Forum. We're 3+ pages in, and the (public) discussion is still remarkably civil and thoughtful.

--Patrick

Are you reading the same thread? Until Charlie ran away like he typically does, it was mostly him calling the rest of us bigots and racists. Like he typically does.

Jun 22, 2013#102

strawman

DarkAudit said:
calling the rest of us bigots and racists

But we are racists and bigots!

Jun 22, 2013#103

Covar

DarkAudit said:
No. It's from Plastic Brick Automaton.

Great link, but I actually meant the picture on the Gender Neutral Bathroom sign.

Jun 22, 2013#104

blotsfan

Looks like this is the standard.

Jun 22, 2013#105

Zappit

stienman said:
But we are racists and bigots!

No we're a combination of the two.

We're bracists. We hate orthodontists.

Jun 22, 2013#106

PatrThom

Ravenpoe said:
Oh yeah? Well fuck you!

Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will spawn a multi-page thread that inflames passions.

DarkAudit said:
Are you reading the same thread? Until Charlie ran away like he typically does, it was mostly him calling the rest of us bigots and racists. Like he typically does.

Less attrition and locking than usual.

--Patrick

Jun 22, 2013#107

drifter

TIL stienman is an oppressed minority.

Well, until he has enough kids to become the majority.

Jun 22, 2013#108

strawman

drifter said:
TIL stienman is an oppressed minority.

Well, until he has enough kids to become the majority.

Hey now, world domination isn't easy even when people aren't giving away my plans.

Jun 22, 2013#109

Chad Sexington

I don't have much commentary to add to the conversation. I think this is good:
http://penny-arcade.com/2013/06/22/going-one-step-further

Jun 22, 2013#110

Silent Bob

stienman said:
But we are racists and bigots!

And damn proud!

Jun 22, 2013#111

Tress

Chad Sexington said:
I don't have much commentary to add to the conversation. I think this is good:
http://penny-arcade.com/2013/06/22/going-one-step-further

I would like to see some of his more vehement critics at least acknowledge he's trying to do the right thing. I think this shows it. He's just a guy ignorant to a lot of social issues trying to do the right thing.

Jun 22, 2013#112

PatrThom

I would also like to know the extent to which his critics contribute to their respective causes*, if not in money, then in time/support/activism/whatever.

--Patrick
*Edited

Jun 22, 2013#113

Tress

PatrThom said:
I would also like to know the extent to which his critics contribute, if not in money, then in time/support/activism/whatever.

--Patrick

They yell at people on Twitter and online forums. You know, important stuff.

Jun 22, 2013#114

PatrThom

Tress said:
They yell at people on Twitter and online forums. You know, important stuff.

I'm sure they've changed their Facebook avatar, too.

--Patrick

Jun 22, 2013#115

strawman

And now they know they can bully people into contributing to their cause, thus justifying their bullying.

Jun 22, 2013#116

Tinwhistler

Silent Bob said:
You're right. I'm so very sorry for being born white and straight and identify with my natural gender. I should become a slave to political correctness and be stepped on by everyone that didn't win the genetic lottery.

Jun 24, 2013#117

Necronic

Tress said:
I would like to see some of his more vehement critics at least acknowledge he's trying to do the right thing. I think this shows it. He's just a guy ignorant to a lot of social issues trying to do the right thing.

A lot of social justice warriors would never do this. There is no sense of superiority to be gained in acknowledging someone elses improvement. Only in showing their failures.

Jun 24, 2013#118

strawman

Necronic said:
A lot of social justice warriors would never do this. There is no sense of superiority to be gained in acknowledging someone elses improvement. Only in showing their failures.

Not only that but if they keep bugging him and calling him out on stupid stuff he says, he may end up regularly donating to their causes, and promoting them on his twitter and blog.

It's is a major win for them, all they did was push a few buttons for a few hours and both advertising and money came out.

And they got to insult him in the process.

Jun 24, 2013#119

Dave

I've been called transphobic and racist before. Doesn't mean that I'm either. Of course, I'm not saying some of the things which have been said on the topics. I get what Gabe is saying and if your world view is very black & white I assume that's the attitude you're going to have. I have met too many people with too many self identities to think that we are all just our naughty bits. Do I understand it? Nope. But neither do I understand people who like mushrooms or liver. Those things are fucking nasty. But if you are a mushroom-loving liver-eater, I'll treat you no differently than before.

Jun 24, 2013#120

GasBandit

Seems appropriate:

(I think this is the third time I've posted that video on this site somewhere)

Jun 24, 2013#121

Chad Sexington

Dave said:
But if you are a mushroom-loving liver-eater, I'll treat you no differently than before.

...with disdain?

Jun 24, 2013#122

Charlie Don't Surf

I get tired being the one person against a large group thing, plus my computer situation at home isn't great for posting, and plus I usually post here at work more than at home plus I just give up

Jun 24, 2013#123

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I get tired being the one person against a large group thing, plus my computer situation at home isn't great for posting, and plus I usually post here at work more than at home plus I just give up

As obnoxious as you can be at times, I would rather have you voice your opinion than disappear. I wouldn't be here if Halforums was an echo chamber.

Jun 24, 2013#124

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I get tired being the one person against a large group thing

Is it trolling to brofist this?

:megusta:

Jun 24, 2013#125

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I get tired being the one person against a large group thing

Ho ho ho mister, I have been there.

Jun 24, 2013#126

Charlie Don't Surf

Don't take that as I give up forever, just this fight. I have three laptops in various annoying states of disrepair and I can't decide what to do with them, and I hate typing more than a sentence on my phone, and by this morning I didn't really want to reply to 20 posts

I will pipe in and say that I'm happy Gabe donated to charity.
And also as an activist I don't have to "prove" to you and bust out my planned parenthood charitable donation receipts or show you my hours volunteered like you're my parole officer to justify my opinions.

Jun 24, 2013#127

Dave

I think for the most part here we can disagree without it coloring the person we are agreeing with. I mean, I'm alone in some of my opinions like the draft and corporal punishment in schools, but I'd like to think that doesn't mean anyone thinks less of me.

Jun 24, 2013#128

Necronic

Not in that case, but your comments on mushrooms and liver indiciate that you are a sub human monster.

Jun 24, 2013#129

Officer_Charon

Liver is nasty. You wanna eat that, go right ahead.

Mushrooms are fantastic. Sign me up.

One can make statements that are hurtful without meaning to be hurtful. This whole Paula Deen thing would be a more mainstream example. She's a stuck-up, ignorant bitch. Doesn't mean she's automatically racist, just that she probably should have taken more care with her words.

Gabe is no different, excepting that instead of food, he delivers artwork applied to someone else's script. The fact that he's become an internet icon through being a member of a team that originally just wanted to snark on games and gaming can occasionally get lost - he's human for chrissakes. He doesn't appear to have intended to be hurtful - merely made a comment that conflicted with some folk's worldview.

Cisgender is a phrase that I'm having to come to terms with as actually being a thing.

One can be too liberal, just as one can be too conservative.

And cracker is the usual term for us WASP-inclined individuals. Trust me - honky ain't in general circulation no more. At least not down here, it ain't.

Jun 24, 2013#130

GasBandit

Are you smarter than a ~~5th grader~~ Kindergartner?

Jun 24, 2013#131

figmentPez

Officer_Charon said:
And cracker is the usual term for us WASP-inclined individuals. Trust me - honky ain't in general circulation no more. At least not down here, it ain't.

Growing up I thought "cracker" meant a person was as white and bland as saltines. Then I learned it was short for whip-cracker, implying that the white person is slave owner. I can take being called bland, but if someone is going to knowingly call me a slave owner, and try to imply that I'm a worse person because I'm descended from a race of people that owned slaves (and I have no idea if my ancestors did or not), then that's a pretty hurtful thing to be called.

Jun 24, 2013#132

Bowielee

Officer_Charon said:
This whole Paula Deen thing would be a more mainstream example. She's a stuck-up, ignorant bitch. Doesn't mean she's automatically racist, just that she probably should have taken more care with her words.

I don't know if this was your intent, but it kind of sounds like you're saying that what she did wasn't wrong, it was that she got caught.

Jun 24, 2013#133

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
Growing up I thought "cracker" meant a person was as white and bland as saltines. Then I learned it was short for whip-cracker, implying that the white person is slave owner. I can take being called bland, but if someone is going to knowingly call me a slave owner, and try to imply that I'm a worse person because I'm descended from a race of people that owned slaves (and I have no idea if my ancestors did or not), then that's a pretty hurtful thing to be called.

Cracka please.

Jun 24, 2013#134

GasBandit

Fun fact: When Florida State was picking their team name/mascot (which was ultimately chosen to be Seminoles), one of the names in the running was "Crackers."

Jun 24, 2013#135

Officer_Charon

Bowielee said:
I don't know if this was your intent, but it kind of sounds like you're saying that what she did wasn't wrong, it was that she got caught.

What I'm saying is that she's ignorant. She's a public figure, and like it or not, public figures have to be circumspect in their language.

The word she used is indicative of a foul, ignorant, and cruel lifestyle, denigrating to a human being, and has no place in polite society.

But I have no more right to tell her what she can and can't THINK than she does.

She has alienated thousands with a poor choice of words, and revealed herself to be a narrow-minded individual whose credibility was never that high to begin with.

But whether atrocious or not, one can think whatever one desires. Just be careful what you say in public.

Jun 24, 2013#136

strawman

Bowielee said:
saying that what she did wasn't wrong

Can you define wrong in this case, as in "I believe she intentionally offended people with hurtful words" versus "I believe she was wrong to have said the things she did, but I don't believe she intended to hurt people with her words."

I haven't read up on it, but as Gabe found out people will pillory you for even the second instance, and it would be interesting to know if she intended to offend and that was the wrongdoing, or if the wrongdoing was unintentional.

Jun 24, 2013#137

Dave

I never knew that's what cracker meant.

Jun 24, 2013#138

Necronic

GasBandit said:
Fun fact: When Florida State was picking their team name/mascot (which was ultimately chosen to be Seminoles), one of the names in the running was "Crackers."

But then they realized that it would be to hard to find the mascot in the crowd.

Jun 24, 2013#139

Bowielee

stienman said:
Can you define wrong in this case, as in "I believe she intentionally offended people with hurtful words" versus "I believe she was wrong to have said the things she did, but I don't believe she intended to hurt people with her words."

I haven't read up on it, but as Gabe found out people will pillory you for even the second instance, and it would be interesting to know if she intended to offend and that was the wrongdoing, or if the wrongdoing was unintentional.

So, you're saying that in this day and age, using a racial slur is fine and dandy as long as the person isn't intending to hurt anyone?

In Gabe's case, he said what he said out of ignorance of an issue. In Paula Dean's case, quite frankly, if you aren't ware that the N-bomb is offensive to just about everyone, you're ether deluding yourself or are simply beyond stupid.

Jun 24, 2013#140

Officer_Charon

With her, I'm inclined to believe both, honestly. She is seriously that self-absorbed

Jun 24, 2013#141

strawman

Bowielee said:
So, you're saying that in this day and age, using a racial slur is fine and dandy as long as the person isn't intending to hurt anyone?

No, I'm not saying that.

At the moment I tend to assume the frequent misunderstandings you experience are because I'm not adequately expressing myself, but you're rapidly convincing me that it's because you are intentionally misreading them to fit the needs of your arguments.

I could go ahead and do the same thing to you, but I'm not a fan of bullying, and much prefer reasoned discussion to emotional accusations.

Jun 24, 2013#142

Charlie Don't Surf

also officer_charon, speaking of people using slurs and not realizing it- the word "bitch" in your post above

Jun 24, 2013#143

Bowielee

stienman said:
No, I'm not saying that.

At the moment I tend to assume the frequent mis.understandings you experience are because I'm not adequately expressing myself, but you're rapidly convincing me that it's because you are intentionally misreading them to fit the needs of your arguments.

I could go ahead and do the same thing to you, but I'm not a fan of bullying, and much prefer reasoned discussion to emotional accusations.

Lol, are you actually accusing me of bullying now?

As for our misunderstandings, they largely stem from your ability to be extremely vague and unclear about your points but doing so in as many words as possible.

I'd suggest trying to be a bit more concise in the future.

Jun 24, 2013#144

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also officer_charon, speaking of people using slurs and not realizing it- the word "bitch" in your post above

Is it strange I find it hard to take you seriously in this topic based on your music choices? You are glorifying a person - I refuse to call him an "artist" - who absolutely revels in misogyny and racism as well as violence. I just can't see how you can deride one while actively pushing the other.

Jun 24, 2013#145

strawman

Bowielee said:
concise

I DON'T KNOW THAT WORD.

Jun 24, 2013#146

Tress

stienman said:
HUH?

There. That's concise.

Jun 24, 2013#147

Officer_Charon

Charlie Don't Surf said:
also officer_charon, speaking of people using slurs and not realizing it- the word "bitch" in your post above

Oh no, she's emphatically a bitch. Alternately, see snob, arrogant, rude, condescending, self-centered, narcissistic, and false.

I use it to denigrate her personality, not the fact that she's a female.

Jun 24, 2013#148

blotsfan

Dave said:
Is it strange I find it hard to take you seriously in this topic based on your music choices? You are glorifying a person - I refuse to call him an "artist" - who absolutely revels in misogyny and racism as well as violence. I just can't see how you can deride one while actively pushing the other.

Wow, Taylor Swift isn't my favorite either, but you're harsh.

Jun 24, 2013#149

Silent Bob

Dave said:
Is it strange I find it hard to take you seriously in this topic based on your music choices? You are glorifying a person - I refuse to call him an "artist" - who absolutely revels in misogyny and racism as well as violence. I just can't see how you can deride one while actively pushing the other.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Jun 24, 2013#150

CrimsonSoul

blotsfan said:
Wow, Taylor Swift isn't my favorite either, but you're harsh.

You as well are dead to me.

Jun 24, 2013#151

strawman

CrimsonSoul said:
You as well are dead to me.

But... Where will we get our push button bacon from?

Jun 24, 2013#152

Covar

Dave said:
Is it strange I find it hard to take you seriously in this topic based on your music choices? You are glorifying a person - I refuse to call him an "artist" - who absolutely revels in misogyny and racism as well as violence. I just can't see how you can deride one while actively pushing the other.

Kanye isn't white.

Jun 24, 2013#153

CrimsonSoul

Covar said:
Kanye isn't white.

Lawl

Jun 24, 2013#154

GasBandit

Silent Bob said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Or its subtle cousin, Cognitive Dissonance.

Jun 25, 2013#155

Tinwhistler

Dave said:
I never knew that's what cracker meant.

That's only one theory.

Jun 26, 2013#156

PatrThom

Dave said:
I'm alone in some of my opinions like the draft and corporal punishment in schools

At first glance read that as capital punishment in schools, and was going to say, "No wonder you're alone in your ideas!"

--Patrick

Jun 26, 2013#157

Chad Sexington

PatrThom said:
At first glance read that as capital punishment in schools, and was going to say, "No wonder you're alone in your ideas!"

--Patrick

I would have paid a lot more attention in science classes about electricity, though.

Jun 26, 2013#158

strawman

i thoUght CaPITaL puNiSHmENT wAs whEN kIdS tyPE LIKe tHIs. I dON't KNOW wHY thEY do IT, BUt it's cERTainlY PUniSHING To Me.

Jun 26, 2013#159

Chad Sexington

stienman said:
i thoUght CaPITaL puNiSHmENT wAs whEN kIdS tyPE LIKe tHIs. I dON't KNOW wHY thEY do IT, BUt it's cERTainlY PUniSHING To Me.

ragehate

Jun 29, 2013#160

T

The_Khan

Bowielee said:
I would certainly like to hear about how constantly being called a breeder led to emotional damage for Steinman. I'm sure it was just as bad as when I was harrassed in high school for being gay. Yup, I'm sure it's completely equivalent.

I do have to add, that yes, in some situations, such as a white student being the only white student and constantly called a Honkey would be just as hurtful as the opposite. Same would be if there was some sort of alternate reality high school where everyone were gay.

You really don't need to go to an alternate reality. Half White, Half Japanese kids get horribly bullied in japan some of them to the point of suicide.

Jun 29, 2013#161

Bowielee

The_Khan said:
You really don't need to go to an alternate reality. Half White, Half Japanese kids get horribly bullied in japan some of them to the point of suicide.

Bowielee said:
I do have to add, that yes, in some situations, such as a white student being the only white student and constantly called a Honkey would be just as hurtful as the opposite.

Jun 30, 2013#162

T

TheGuy

I'm surprised no one has been blunt about what's going on here.

Gabe didn't mean any ill will, because the "concerns" of the trans community are so insignificant that people (like Gabe) don't know they exist. Seriously. Do people actually think that 99.99% of the population is going to be aware of a about a 0.001% minority that they never interact with at all? And even if they were aware, do people actually think that their existence is enough to make everyone change their naming conventions so they don't offend an extremely small minority? Give me a break.

There's a distinct limit to what perceived prejudices people can give a shit about. When you get into the microscopic numbers that compose the trans community, you've crossed that line. Expecting people to drastically change their use of language to fit such a small minority is idiotic. Sucks for the people who are in that group, but at some point you can't fucking expect the whole of society to change themselves for such a small part of the whole.

Jun 30, 2013#163

Adam

Trans Ams for some, Cis Camaros for others

Jun 30, 2013#164

Silent Bob

TheGuy said:
I'm surprised no one has been blunt about what's going on here.

Gabe didn't mean any ill will, because the "concerns" of the trans community are so insignificant that people (like Gabe) don't know they exist. Seriously. Do people actually think that 99.99% of the population is going to be aware of a about a 0.001% minority that they never interact with at all? And even if they were aware, do people actually think that their existence is enough to make everyone change their naming conventions so they don't offend an extremely small minority? Give me a break.

There's a distinct limit to what perceived prejudices people can give a shit about. When you get into the microscopic numbers that compose the trans community, you've crossed that line. Expecting people to drastically change their use of language to fit such a small minority is idiotic. Sucks for the people who are in that group, but at some point you can't fucking expect the whole of society to change themselves for such a small part of the whole.

you. I like you.

Jun 30, 2013#165

Bowielee

To be clear, I don't think Gabe intended or even caused any harm. All my posts are about larger issues than the inciting incident.

Jun 30, 2013#166

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
To be clear, I don't think Gabe intended or even caused any harm. All my posts are about larger issues than the inciting incident.

Oh no you don't. You know this is actually about celebrities and how much attention we should pay to them, getting into everything they do and dissecting every nuance of their lives. I've seen the News.

--Patrick

Jul 1, 2013#167

Charlie Don't Surf

TheGuy said:
I'm surprised no one has been blunt about what's going on here.

Gabe didn't mean any ill will, because the "concerns" of the trans community are so insignificant that people (like Gabe) don't know they exist. Seriously. Do people actually think that 99.99% of the population is going to be aware of a about a 0.001% minority that they never interact with at all? And even if they were aware, do people actually think that their existence is enough to make everyone change their naming conventions so they don't offend an extremely small minority? Give me a break.

There's a distinct limit to what perceived prejudices people can give a shit about. When you get into the microscopic numbers that compose the trans community, you've crossed that line. Expecting people to drastically change their use of language to fit such a small minority is idiotic. Sucks for the people who are in that group, but at some point you can't fucking expect the whole of society to change themselves for such a small part of the whole.

wow

Jul 1, 2013#168

Bowielee

Charlie Don't Surf said:
wow

yeah... I'm not even gonna bother.

Jul 1, 2013#169

strawman

Whew! That means I don't have to bother responding to your response!

You two have saved us all sorts of time.

Jul 1, 2013#170

Bowielee

stienman said:
Whew! That means I don't have to bother responding to your response!

You two have saved us all sorts of time.

And about 3 pages of tedious reading for everyone.

Jul 1, 2013#171

Covar

Bowielee said:
And about 3 pages of tedious reading for everyone.

DAMN YOU, NOW I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME ACTUAL WORK!

Jul 1, 2013#172

T

TheGuy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
wow

Ah yes. The obligatory, "I can't believe that person said that" in response to someone who actually stands up and bluntly states the truth of the matter. God forbid someone bring up the obvious in that there's a distinct limit to how many minority concerns the average person can bring themselves to care about. And this is without getting into the painfully obvious facts where the minority is basically militant and demanding "feel-good" changes to terminology that's 100% accurate in its current form.

I actually have a problem when people start trying to change accurate biological terminology because it makes some remarkably small portion of society feel uncomfortable. Case in point on where this rabbit hole eventually goes:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/197...cumentary-on-people-who-think-theyre-animals/

People who think they're animals are in fact a smaller minority than people who think they're a gender that they're not. Yet, it wouldn't surprise me if at some point down the line we hit a scenario in where the introductory greeting of, "Ladies and Gentlemen" becomes painted as some sort of privileged phrase used by those lucky fortunate people who identify themselves as human beings. Guess what? Just because you think you're a god damn tiger doesn't mean you're a tiger. You're still a human being.

I have no problems with people doing whatever they want with themselves or identifying however they feel like. I do however have a problem when extreme minority groups act like they have a right to take offense at conventional terminology because it doesn't pander specifically to them. The term "Ladies and Gentlemen" is an acceptable term for general use because 99.99% of people identify as human beings (and in fact, they are human beings). The term "boys have penises, girls have vaginas" is an acceptable term for general use because it's biologically accurate for 100% of people.

Jul 1, 2013#173

Ravenpoe

TheGuy said:
*snip*

I think I know this guy.

Jul 1, 2013#174

GasBandit

Seems appropriate:

Jul 1, 2013#175

Charlie Don't Surf

nice slippery slope argument, do you also think bestiality is legal now because of DOMA going down?

Jul 1, 2013#176

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
nice slippery slope argument, do you also think bestiality is legal now because of DOMA going down?

Wait wait, legal NOW? When was it...

You know what, never mind. Nothing to see here, carry on. Right. Off you go.

Jul 1, 2013#177

Fun Size

GasBandit said:
Wait wait, legal NOW? When was it...

You know what, never mind. Nothing to see here, carry on. Right. Off you go.

So when you said that we were all sheep, that was a come on wasn't it?

Jul 1, 2013#178

Silent Bob

Charlie Don't Surf said:
nice slippery slope argument, do you also think bestiality is legal now because of DOMA going down?

Jul 1, 2013#179

strawman

[Removed voluntarily due to offensive content. Sorry!]

Jul 1, 2013#180

Ravenpoe

stienman said:
It should be obvious to you that our society is becoming more sexually permissive as time goes on. Do you honestly believe there's a line that we'll suddenly see and stop, as a society, at what you now consider "ok"?

Dismissing a slippery slope argument isn't as easy as simply calling it out. You should at least show that there exists a limit, natural or unnatural, that will halt progression.

Bestiality is legal in at least Belgium, Germany, and Russia - and you can't call those countries backwater third world societies. What, exactly, is stopping the 37 US states where it is illegal from reversing course? There are fewer states with anti-zoophilia laws on the books than there are with anti-homosexual laws on the books.

Human sexuality is complex. There are over over 500 different types of atypical sexual attraction observed in homo sapiens. Only recently were LGBT attractions considered typical, previously they too were placed in the same list with bestiality and others you might scoff at.

There's no question that we're on a slope and starting to accept, as a society, all types of human sexuality.

I also find it quite entertaining that you would put forth bestiality as a "Well, at least it's not as bad as" comparison for sexual behaviors you now accept as ok. I'm pretty sure if you did that on twitter and you were a celebrity you'd be treated just as harshly as Gabe was.

I think he used bestiality because this is the go to argument put forth by Fox News. It's like a common kneejerk reaction. "Gays can marry now, people will be fucking animals in the street within the week!"

Jul 1, 2013#181

Tress

stienman said:
What, exactly, is stopping the 37 US states where it is illegal from reversing course?

The simple concept of consent. And that's why it is, and always will be, ridiculous and insulting to compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia.

Jul 1, 2013#182

sixpackshaker

Tress said:
The simple concept of consent. And that's why it is, and always will be, ridiculous and insulting to compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia.

That is why Fox News folks continue to use that concept.

Jul 1, 2013#183

Hailey Knight

I think it's funny that Charlie got that multi-paragraph response out of one word.

I wonder who TheGuy's main account is.

Jul 1, 2013#184

Ravenpoe

Quotemander Prime said:
I think it's funny that Charlie got that multi-paragraph response out of one word.

I wonder who TheGuy's main account is.

I'd say who I think he is, but I don't want him banned again.

Jul 1, 2013#185

strawman

[Removed voluntarily due to offensive content. Sorry!]

Jul 1, 2013#186

GasBandit

To say nothing of those who consider gay marriage to be tantamount to opening the doors to marrying inanimate objects.

"Mr McMillan, what is your position on gay marriage?"
"The Rent Is Too Damn High Party feels, if you wanna marry a shoe, I'll marry you."

Jul 1, 2013#187

Tress

stienman said:
It's actually much more complex than that - animals can and do initiate sexual activity with humans. Don't even bring up pedophilia - age of consent is arbitrary, varies wildly worldwide, and, like animals, children below the age of consent also initiate sexual activity - and some of them understand as well as any teen above the age of consent.

As far as I'm concerned, none of these are acceptable foundations for family.

Animals cannot give legal consent. This is not up for rational debate.

Children cannot give legal consent. This is not up for rational debate.

I believe your attempts to argue semantics in order to twist and equate these two things with homosexuality are disingenuous.

Jul 1, 2013#188

Hailey Knight

So at what point does this get moved to the politics subforum?[DOUBLEPOST=1372718403][/DOUBLEPOST]

Tress said:
I believe your attempts to argue semantics in order to twist and equate these two things with homosexuality are disingenuous.

Next post will be that he wasn't equating; just discussing.[DOUBLEPOST=1372718458][/DOUBLEPOST]

Jul 1, 2013#189

GasBandit

Tress said:
Animals cannot give legal consent. This is not up for rational debate.

So if a dolphin drags you underwater and humps you to death, have you, in fact, raped the dolphin?

Jul 1, 2013#190

blotsfan

When did Charlie become the reasonable one?

Jul 1, 2013#191

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
So if a dolphin drags you underwater and humps you to death, have you, in fact, raped the dolphin?

Well, we already blame the victim when it's between humans, so ...

Jul 1, 2013#192

strawman

[Removed voluntarily due to offensive content. Sorry!]

Jul 1, 2013#193

Frank

Eye opening bigotry there.

Jul 1, 2013#194

Tress

stienman said:
Of course not. Rational debate has long since left the stage. There is no rational reason for society to encourage homosexual marriage by providing the same benefits they use to encourage heterosexual marriage.

... and this is the part where I realize I've wasted my time talking to you at all on this subject.

Have fun being on the wrong side of history.

Jul 1, 2013#195

strawman

[Removed voluntarily due to offensive content. Sorry!]

Jul 1, 2013#196

Frank

I'm not playing some dumb numbers game where you equate giving people equal rights to irrationality. It's fucking ridiculous.

You're being fucking ridiculous.

Jul 1, 2013#197

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
I'm not playing some dumb numbers game where you equate giving people equal rights to irrationality. It's fucking ridiculous.

You're being fucking ridiculous.

Stienman is usually a very rational guy, but I feel this is one issue in which his personal religious beliefs overpower any ability to have a conversation.

Jul 1, 2013#198

SpecialKO

I'd have thought that increasing the number of financially-stable parental units available to adopt foster children by itself would have been a fairly large incentive to legalize it.

Let alone, you know, the equal rights thing.

Jul 1, 2013#199

strawman

[Removed voluntarily due to offensive content. Sorry!]

Jul 1, 2013#200

Cog

Is this gay marriage one of those things that are completely right and everyone who thinks otherwise is an intolerant bigot?

Jul 1, 2013#201

Ravenpoe

stienman said:
Is my perspective invalid simply because equal rights trumps it? Is it not worth consideration?

Is my perspective so morally bankrupt that dismissal is the correct response?

Yes.

Jul 1, 2013#202

Hailey Knight

SpecialKO said:
I'd have thought that increasing the number of financially-stable parental units available to adopt foster children by itself would have been a fairly large incentive to legalize it.

From what I gathered from a previous thread in the politics subforum, Steinman feels the jury's still out on whether homosexual couples should be adopting kids at all.

Jul 1, 2013#203

Charlie Don't Surf

i'm glad that this thread can reveal what it's like to me when steinman replies to any other thread

Jul 1, 2013#204

Hailey Knight

Charlie Don't Surf said:
i'm glad that this thread can reveal what it's like to me when steinman replies to any other thread

Do you have Steinman blocked?

Jul 1, 2013#205

strawman

He's just glad that you all now see me for the horrible person he always knew me to be.

Jul 2, 2013#206

PatrThom

stienman said:
There is no rational reason for society to encourage homosexual marriage by providing the same benefits they use to encourage heterosexual marriage.

I took this statement completely at face value, and I agree with it, as it is stated. Encouraging homosexuality is a lot like encouraging celibacy. The net result is that births per capita will go down, and this means that the society in question will shrink. Ergo, it is harmful (and therefore irrational) for society to promote homosexuality. Look at what has happened to the Shakers, for instance. You would think that a society which values men and women equally would automatically flourish and prosper, would you not? Well, turns out it's apparently not that simple, and their tenets of Faith were not structured well for long-term survival.

I don't say this because I have some kind of man crush on stienman , either. I say it because it is logically correct. I believe a number of forumites may have colored in his black-and-whites with the colors they thought were appropriate and then been displeased with what they saw, but I believe the statement was meant to be regarded as colorless.

--Patrick
(I am frequently misunderstood for what I believe to be similar reasons, so it's possible I could be projecting a little)

Jul 2, 2013#207

ScytheRexx

Hey guys what's going on in...

Jul 2, 2013#208

Frank

PatrThom said:
I took this statement completely at face value, and I agree with it, as it is stated. Encouraging homosexuality is a lot like encouraging celibacy. The net result is that births per capita will go down, and this means that the society in question will shrink. Ergo, it is harmful (and therefore irrational) for society to promote homosexuality. Look at what has happened to the Shakers, for instance. You would think that a society which values men and women equally would automatically flourish and prosper, would you not? Well, turns out it's apparently not that simple, and their tenets of Faith were not structured well for long-term survival.

I don't say this because I have some kind of man crush on stienman , either. I say it because it is logically correct. I believe a number of forumites may have colored in his black-and-whites with the colors they thought were appropriate and then been displeased with what they saw, but I believe the statement was meant to be regarded as colorless.

--Patrick
(I am frequently misunderstood for what I believe to be similar reasons, so it's possible I could be projecting a little)

Alright, what about this?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boo...es-maybe-thats-why-theyre-still-among-us.html

Homosexuality directly contributing to the continuation of the species.

It isn't so cut and dry as that. You say he means it colourless when it's obvious his predisposition colours his opinions on the matter.

Jul 2, 2013#209

PatrThom

Frank said:
Alright, what about this [article about gay uncles]?

I've had a gay uncle for 30+ years. It's great. Everyone should have one*. I even forwarded the article to him when I first found it. He'd already read it.

Frank said:
it's obvious his predisposition colours his opinions on the matter.

My dear fellow, everyone's predisposition colours their opinions about everything. At this very moment, my predisposition is actively colouring your** opinions even as I read them! That tiny deflection of meaning is why people get divorced, nations go to war, and popular television shows get canned. How confident are you that what you are hearing matches what is being said?

If you follow my posts in other threads, you'll see I was called a "monster" for stating that I thought there were people who deserved to die. To that I can only respond that, if you laugh while reading the Darwin Awards, or can't wait to see the next episode of "Dexter", well...let's just say that this colours my opinion of you** a little bit.

--Patrick
*gay or not, uncle or otherwise, everyone should have at least one non-family member who supports you and loves you unconditionally despite not being a blood relative. It's wonderful. Helps you learn how to deal with people who are different, too.
**3rd person plural

Jul 2, 2013#210

Bowielee

For the record, with the resources of the planet being strained as much as they are, homosexuals are doing more for humanity than people who are pumping out multiple drains on the world resources.[DOUBLEPOST=1372755458][/DOUBLEPOST]That being said, I think I'll be putting steinman on ignore for a while so one or both of us don't end up getting banned.

Jul 2, 2013#211

tegid

I think rational discussion can be had on almost any topic. It's too bad so many people do not agree... Even if there's a big argument that trumps all (e.g. 'equal rights') discussing from other points of view can reinforce, undermine or, most times, nuance our own views on a topic, allowing us to come to better conclusions.

I do think that equal rights trump other considerations regarding same sex marriage, but I also agree with Bowie's last point, which is how I would have answered to Stienman's question about promoting same sex couples, although perhaps with a different tone.

Jul 2, 2013#212

Bowielee

I already see the semantics shell game that's going on, and I'm just not going to play. I'm also not putting anyone on ignore, because I realize that's childish.

I'd like to remind people, however, that we are dealing with issues that are very close to home for some people here and aren't just theoretical issues to some of us.

Jul 2, 2013#213

tegid

I'm sorry if my post was out of place in content or form or tone. I trealize it is perfectly reasonable to not want to discuss or even read a cold discussion about something that generates a strong emotional response, hits close to home, etc. Also, my first paragraph was NOT directed at you, Bowie. In any case, I apologize.

Also, sorry for coming to a discussion that was already muddied with something that may be read as dismissive of previous posts.

Jul 2, 2013#214

Bowielee

Well, it's obvious I will not in any way be able to have a calm rational discussion about people equating me to pedophiles or practitioners of beastiality or about how me being granted civil rights is a bad thing, so I'll just leave it to other people.[DOUBLEPOST=1372759923][/DOUBLEPOST]Parting shot, though.

Reminder, In the bible, marriage wasn't between a man and a woman.

It was between a man and his multiple women.

Things change.

Jul 2, 2013#215

T

The_Khan

Bowielee said:
Reminder, In the bible, marriage wasn't between a man and a woman.

It was between a man and his multiple women.

Whoah, there's a lake in China that would make polygamists heads explode.

(A marriageless society where the women control everything and nobody knows who their father is.)

Jul 2, 2013#216

Hailey Knight

I agree with Bowie--considering the resource-draining explosion of the human population, jumping by a billion in not many years, we could really use a lot more gay people.

Jul 2, 2013#217

Bubble181

So why not argue that instead of just shut Stieny out?
Yes, stienman opposes gay marriage on religious reasons. Last I checked, that was one of the freedoms you guys liked about your country so much.
He's also trying to have a rational debate about it. He believes God's One Message is more important than the rights of homosexuals (or not - I've heard Stienman state he's opposed to gay marriage, but not that he thinks it should be made illegal - I can be against allowing alcohol but that doesn't mean I must be in favour of prohibition). Most others here would say equal rights trump any other concerns about the matter. I agree with that second group, for that matter.

However, Stienman seems to want to put those concerns aside to have an open discussion about other reasons/benefits/etc about gay marriage. Purely economicall-logically, what are the benefits of gay marriage as recognised by law for a society? Mind you, you can have all the Vegas wedding chapel marriages in the world and they don't change anything (except getting some people's moral undies in a wad). A legal marriage has specific benefits and reasons. The state supports marriage as a means of stabilizing society, allowing children safe environments to grow up in, and so on. Other benefits of marriage are, for example, trying to keep people from ditching their SO when they get ill or grow old. It's also a way of supporting procreation.
I think a rational argument can be made that most of these benefits still apply when you look at gay marriage - and in fact, most of those reasons are stronger as counterarguments to legalizing divorce.

As Tegid said, I thinkthese days "suppressing procreation" may be in society's best interest more than supporting it - for more on this, go read Endless War, SF where due to overpopulation it's straight sex that ends up being looked at as a weird fetish, with all babies bottle-grown. It could happen, given a couple of hundred years.

As for the slippery slope, as stated by someone further up, it's not enough to call it out - you have to prove there's a stopping point somewhere on the slope. Consent is what most people seem to accept as the logical stopping point these days (and I personally agree), however, this most certainly wasn't always the case. It also opens a bit of a can of worms. Defining when one can consent isn't a simple matter. A 14 y/o and an 18 y/o having sex is legal in one country, illegal and rape in the next. Crossing a border does not suddenly make someone smarter or more responsible. Date rape is another example where the lines can get pretty blurred - one can't be expected to carry a breathalyzer to every party, so excluding both ends of the scale (stone cold sober and utterly wasted and incapable of standing up), how do you determine whether or not the other can still properly consent? Some animals, as has been pointed out, can try to engage in sexual activities with humans. Obviously this is about biological wires getting crossed (that dog does not really think your leg's a good partner), but good luck figuring that out. Some biologists can and do equate that to other instances of sexuality we have come to accept as normal, since our own sexual drives are "intended" to lead to procreation (note that I personally think the whole sex-for-procreation argument is complete BS, I'm just acknowledging its existence - I hope to still be having fun with my girlfriend when she's 75 and I'm pretty sure we won't be at risk of pregnancy by that time)

As for the original point - I actually have heard people complain about "Ladies and Gentlemen", as they felt they belonged to neither. I really do think there's a huge difference between being a bigot about something, being simply uninformed about it, or following societal customs which are at the moment perhaps not inclusive enough.

Closing addendum: despite it being bandied around on the internet a lot, bestiality is not legal in Belgium. There's no specific law about "having sex with animals", it's taken as part of the animal cruelty law and rape law, since animals can't consent.

Jul 2, 2013#218

strawman

Bowielee said:
Well, it's obvious I will not in any way be able to have a calm rational discussion about people equating me to pedophiles or practitioners of beastiality or about how me being granted civil rights is a bad thing, so I'll just leave it to other people.

I am sorry. I will reread my posts later today and delete or modify them. I should not attack you, make you feel unwelcome or unloved by me or anyone else here for any reason.

Jul 2, 2013#219

figmentPez

The best argument I've heard in favor of gay marriage was one I heard from my sociology professor last semester: People should be able to declare themselves family to whomever they want. Right now the only ways to have all the rights of being made family are marriage and adoption, and that leaves out a lot of people from being able to get all the rights and benefits of being family. The counter to this right now is "being gay is a sin", which is a pretty stupid counter argument, even though I believe it to be a true statement. It's not my business to tell people they're sinning (unless they're in my church and we have an established relationship, in which case they know I'm supposed to do that according to our faith).

The only real counter argument I can think of is "there are too many benefits to marriage/family to just let anyone have it". Which is true, our society has just thrown bonuses at married people with abandon, because we've idolized marriage. However, the answer is not to deny people the ability to say "this person is now my family" but to tack on "and I will take care of them and see to all the responsibilities that come with being family". If people want insurance coverage, hospital visitation, inheritance rights, etc. and society can't provide that, then tack on some requirements that will balance it out. Heterosexual couples don't need the blanket bonuses they currently get over singles and other people in relationships.

Jul 2, 2013#220

Adam

I support gay marriage in that I fully believe everyone should have the opportunity to have a boat anchor tied around their neck

Jul 2, 2013#221

T

The_Khan

Adam said:
I support gay marriage in that I fully believe everyone should have the opportunity to have a boat anchor tied around their neck

Don't know if I should bro fist you or hug you....

Jul 2, 2013#222

BErt

The_Khan said:
Don't know if I should bro fist you or hug you....

Jul 2, 2013#223

fade

What's the metric for "benefit to society"? Reproduction? Why? Why does that win over other benign effects on society?

Jul 2, 2013#224

DarkAudit

As a member of the hospitality industry, the potential profit in multiple sectors is enormous.

Jul 2, 2013#225

Cog

Gay marriage could become a new Valentine's day

Jul 2, 2013#226

GasBandit

Bear in mind with all the below arguments, I am in favor of the legalization of gay marriage.

Everybody said:
Equal rights equal rights whaaaargarbl

I just want to point out that, semantically, they always had equal rights. Gay people had the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexual people. Straight people also were not allowed to same-sex marry. Marriage law has nothing to do with love, technically. So the "equal rights" bit is incorrect.

Bowielee said:
For the record, with the resources of the planet being strained as much as they are, homosexuals are doing more for humanity than people who are pumping out multiple drains on the world resources.

Actually, this is inaccurate. The countries with the most open acceptance of homosexuality are also those that tend toward the lowest birth rates on the planet. Until homosexual acceptance/numbers has made huge strides in China, India and Africa, saying homosexuality is helping to curb overpopulation is like saying a shot glass helps bail out a sinking boat.

Jul 2, 2013#227

Bowielee

I'm not taking your bait, GB.

Jul 2, 2013#228

Frank

GasBandit said:
I just want to point out that, semantically, they always had equal rights. Gay people had the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexual people. Straight people also were not allowed to same-sex marry. Marriage law has nothing to do with love, technically. So the "equal rights" bit is incorrect.

As always, every time this is brought up, it makes us all dumber people for having read it. Every time.

Jul 2, 2013#229

GasBandit

All I'm trying to say is that there's plenty of really good reasons to support gay marriage, and thus we don't need to rely on flawed or inaccurate arguments in its favor.

It should be enough for anyone that homosexuality is not an aberration but just another way human beings "are," and the purpose of marriage is to create stability and economic benefit to family units which in turn strengthens society as a whole, and the gender configuration of that family is irrelevant to the beneficial effects everyone receives as a result of the strengthening of familial support systems in that society.

Jul 2, 2013#230

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
It should be enough for anyone that homosexuality is not an aberration but just another way human beings "are," and the purpose of marriage is to create stability and economic benefit to family units which in turn strengthens society as a whole, and the gender configuration of that family is irrelevant to the beneficial effects everyone receives as a result of the strengthening of familial support systems in that society.

And who decided marriage is only between *two* people? A polygamous marriage could/would give all the same benefits of a gay (or heterosexual) two-polar marriage. It's also all consenting adults, etc.

Jul 2, 2013#231

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
I just want to point out that, semantically, they always had equal rights. Gay people had the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexual people. Straight people also were not allowed to same-sex marry. Marriage law has nothing to do with love, technically. So the "equal rights" bit is incorrect.

Yeah but it's denying rights on gender. A man isn't allowed to marry a man but a woman is.

Jul 2, 2013#232

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Yeah but it's denying rights on gender. A man isn't allowed to marry a man but a woman is.

She was allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, same as a man. It's an unsatisfying, technicality-dependent sort of equality but it is equality, which is why a different argument needs to be made. The fact of the matter is we are "redefining" marriage (from both a legal and cultural/societal standpoint) but that shouldn't be a sticking point because, as Bowielee and others point out we have repeatedly redefined marriage over the course of human history and even today some societies don't define it the same way US law does. It isn't rational to insist that the national, legal definition of marriage has to conform to the contemporary judeo-christian one.

Jul 2, 2013#233

fade

Seems to me like this pedantic issue is usually bypassed, because they (media, protesters, politicians) usually refer explicitly to couple's right, not the individual's.

Jul 2, 2013#234

PatrThom

fade said:
they (media, protesters, politicians) usually refer explicitly to couple's right, not the individual's.

This might sound a little far-fetched, but it seems obvious to me there's no inherent reason that access to "couples" and "families" rights should hinge on needing to be "married," if this is ultimately a question about the rights and privileges granted thereto. If that is truly the real issue, then the people who are so dead-set against Teh Gays polluting the sanctity of "Marriage" should've probably worked harder to draft some sort of it's-like-they're-married-but-not-really-please-don't-use-that-word legislation and get it passed, and then said legislation can go down in flames sixty years later, and the progression will be complete.

--Patrick

Jul 2, 2013#235

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
This might sound a little far-fetched, but it seems obvious to me there's no inherent reason that access to "couples" and "families" rights should hinge on needing to be "married," if this is ultimately a question about the rights and privileges granted thereto. If that is truly the real issue, then the people who are so dead-set against Teh Gays polluting the sanctity of "Marriage" should've probably worked harder to draft some sort of it's-like-they're-married-but-not-really-please-don't-use-that-word legislation and get it passed, and then said legislation can go down in flames sixty years later, and the progression will be complete.

--Patrick

The problem is there's too much desire for socio-political vengeance among the "wronged" in this case. They kinda-sorta started going down that path with "civil unions" but it got poo-pooh'd practically just as it got started because the militants put their foot down and said "NO, we're gonna be (irony alert) by-god MARRIED and there's nothing you can do to stop us!"

Jul 2, 2013#236

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
The problem is there's too much desire for socio-political vengeance among the "wronged" in this case. They kinda-sorta started going down that path with "civil unions" but it got poo-pooh'd practically just as it got started because the militants put their foot down and said "NO, we're gonna be (irony alert) by-god MARRIED and there's nothing you can do to stop us!"

I always suggested that all marriage be banned as a legal status, and that all unions be civil unions. If people want 'marriage' as a religious bonding or what have you, fine, churches can still do them, but they have no legal grounding without also obtaining a civil union.

Jul 2, 2013#237

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
I always suggested that all marriage be banned as a legal status, and that all unions be civil unions. If people want 'marriage' as a religious bonding or what have you, fine, churches can still do them, but they have no legal grounding without also obtaining a civil union.

I would absolutely get behind that.

It'll never happen. The turbochristians would riot.

Jul 2, 2013#238

fade

Again, I think that's the whole point. It's the difference more than the actual term chosen. It seems minor to someone not in the in-group. Just like being taxed without representation seems pretty whiny and uppity to someone not experiencing it.

Jul 2, 2013#239

Silent Bob

Cog said:
Is this gay marriage one of those things that are completely right and everyone who thinks otherwise is an intolerant bigot?

Civil equal rights? get the fuck outta here.

Jul 2, 2013#240

Cog

Silent Bob said:
Civil equal rights? get the fuck outta here.

Is that a yes? I don't have anything against gay marriage but I also don't believe that anyone who doesn't think the same is some kind of monster.

Jul 2, 2013#241

Silent Bob

Cog said:
Is that a yes? I don't have anything against gay marriage but I also don't believe that anyone who doesn't think the same is some kind of monster.

monster no. bigot, yes.

Jul 2, 2013#242

Cog

Well, I disagree. It sounds much like a generalization.

Jul 4, 2013#243

tegid

Hey, I was in a lab meeting yesterday and the thought came to my mind: The boss from the lab we work with (I'm a theorist) is a woman married to another woman. Aaaand... they have had two children together. Apparently, even if we accept more children=good, the argument about encouraging couples that won't have children doesn't seem to work.

Jul 4, 2013#244

Ravenpoe

tegid said:
Hey, I was in a lab meeting yesterday and the thought came to my mind: The boss from the lab we work with (I'm a theorist) is a woman married to another woman. Aaaand... they have had two children together. Apparently, even if we accept more children=good, the argument about encouraging couples that won't have children doesn't seem to work.

Yes, but -clearly- those children are growing up in a broken home, just like any child that's raised by a single parent, or grandparents, or any variation that isn't a one man one woman configuration.

Jul 4, 2013#245

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
[...] grandparents, or any variation that isn't a one man one woman configuration.

...You had gay grandparents? That explains it all!

Jul 4, 2013#246

Hailey Knight

My grandparents were gay, but they still had sex for the propagation of the species.

PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!

Jul 4, 2013#247

Chad Sexington

Quotemander Prime said:
PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!

New battle cry?

Jul 4, 2013#248

Ravenpoe

Chad Sexington said:
New battle cry?

I've tried that battle cry... it gets you maced.

Jul 4, 2013#249

Chad Sexington

Ravenpoe said:
I've tried that battle cry... it gets you maced.

Well, we'll workshop it.

Jul 4, 2013#250

PatrThom

It's simple, really.

Homosexual relations can't possibly result in progeny, which therefore makes it an unnatural abomination and they should be actively discouraged and persecuted.
Rape, on the other hand...

--Patrick
(Countdown to Charlie in 3...2...1......)

Jul 4, 2013#251

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
It's simple, really.

Homosexual relations can't possibly result in progeny, which therefore makes it an unnatural abomination and they should be actively discouraged and persecuted.
Rape, on the other hand...

... Has precedent in nature?

/bedbugs
/dolphins
/etc

Jul 4, 2013#252

blotsfan

Jul 23, 2013#253

T

TheGuy

Look out. They're taking aim at the Royal Family now. What fucking idiots.

Jul 23, 2013#254

GasBandit

/facepalm

Jul 23, 2013#255

Tress

Fuck off.

Jul 23, 2013#256

Espy

Uuuuuuuuuuuh... what the hell?

Jul 23, 2013#257

Charlie Don't Surf

all those tweets rule

Jul 23, 2013#258

PatrThom

Charlie Don't Surf said:
all those tweets rule

Well duh, they're all royal tweets.

--Patrick

Jul 23, 2013#259

SpecialKO

What a bunch of fucking idiots...

Jul 23, 2013#260

Silent Bob

TheGuy said:
Look out. They're taking aim at the Royal Family now. What fucking idiots.

How do you live like this? You have to nitpick and PC analyze everything!

Jul 23, 2013#261

strawman

Silent Bob said:
How do you live like this? You have to nitpick and PC analyze everything!

When you are fanatically promoting your cause, then you link your cause to every major news story in the hopes that someone else latches onto it as well.

It's the same reason the WBC gets so much press.

Jul 23, 2013#262

Silent Bob

stienman said:
When you are fanatically promoting your cause, then you link your cause to every major news story in the hopes that someone else latches onto it as well.

It's the same reason the WBC gets so much press.

I simply think it over complicates a relatively simple issue. It's sort of like "that guy" mentioned before, it's a specific sub group of people forcing their definitions down the mainstream's throat.

I'm sorry, this may sound harsh, but the majority of the time for most people their sex at birth reflects their gender. "Boy" will always define males. "Girl" will females. If they didn't, then why do most transsexuals desire gender reassignment surgery? Shouldn't being a girl with male parts suffice under the definition of these tweets?

Jul 23, 2013#263

T

TheGuy

stienman said:
When you are fanatically promoting your cause, then you link your cause to every major news story in the hopes that someone else latches onto it as well.

It's the same reason the WBC gets so much press.

WBC is probably an example of why groups like the trans community shouldn't be trying to shame public figures and brand them with career destroying labels. Because using those tactics when your minority group is that small is more likely to blow up in your face than it is to cause any real change.

Jul 24, 2013#264

GasBandit

Those people really are completely delusional. And frankly, overindulged.

Jul 24, 2013#265

DarkAudit

"Identify as" is such a weak sounding phrase. Lacks conviction and commitment. Be decisive! Be forceful! I don't "identify as," I AM!

Jul 24, 2013#266

Dave

I'd like to talk to these same people in about 20 years and watch how hard they facepalm about their own youthful stupidity.

Jul 24, 2013#267

Bubble181

There's one tweet in there that doesn't have anything to do with trans-anything, though - it almost seems to have slipped in there by mistake.
"Way to let feminism down - it's a boy again".

I want to critizise that one. I know, it's probably the least idiotic of the bunch, but still. See, I've been hearing that sort of thing a lot lately (in different circumstances), and to me, it seems that's just silly. Saying it should've been a woman (physically

) isn't feminist. On the contrary - it's quite sexist.
My alma mater just handed out this year's honorary doctorates, and they were all given to women. Now, I don't mind, at all, that they give'm to men, women, transgodknowswhats, for all I care they can givethem to a dog if that dog made a contribution to science.
However, they made a big to-do about it that all five were given to women because they were women.
I can understand women wanting more women than men to get the honors because it's been pretty badly skewed the other way in the past, but naming anyone anything because of their gender is still discrimination. More specifically, 4 of the 5 seemed to me to be perfectly good choices, all h aving done remarkable things in their field of study, one way or another. the fifth, though....Kim Clijsters (retired tennis player) got a doctorate for medical sciences. How? What? Why? Nobody knows, really. Making tennis popular is apparently a reason to get a degree these days.

Here the same: if you care about the gender of the baby, you're being sexist. It's the next third-in-line, period. Male, female, doesn't matter.

And also, all the feminists can comehere - we've got women in spot 2, 3, 5 and 6 of our royal succession

Jul 24, 2013#268

Covar

I want to say some of those tweets are parody, but I honestly can't tell which.

Jul 24, 2013#269

DarkAudit

Covar said:
I want to say some of those tweets are parody, but I honestly can't tell which.

All of them... and none of them.

Sep 3, 2013#270

GasBandit

Hey guys, wasn't that whole "Dickwolves" thing lots of fun and don't you wish you could relive all the screeching vitriol all over again? Great! Cause here it comes again. /facepalm

Apparently Gabe said on stage at PAX that it was a mistake to pull the dickwolves merchandise, to uproarious applause.

One! More! Tiiiiiime!

Sep 3, 2013#271

SpecialKO

...really?

EDIT: That guy really needs to learn to keep his crap to himself.

Sep 3, 2013#272

strawman

It was a mistake. Clearly. They are paying way too much attention to a vocal minority, and if they decided to ignore them and move forward with their own brand of tasteless and offensive humor they wouldn't be giving these groups such a big spotlight.

I don't see these groups profitably attacking southpark. The don't get the audience and attention there.

But they are making hay out of tycho and gabe's inability to ignore them.

Sep 3, 2013#273

Shakey

stienman said:
It was a mistake. Clearly. They are paying way too much attention to a vocal minority, and if they decided to ignore them and move forward with their own brand of tasteless and offensive humor they wouldn't be giving these groups such a big spotlight.

I think it's more that they seem to live in their own little world and can't understand why people would not find what they say funny. You can see it in the audience reaction. It's like they're so insulated with yes men they can't fathom the thought that possibly their shit stinks.

stienman said:
I don't see these groups profitably attacking southpark. The don't get the audience and attention there.

South Park is a whole different beast. When they made fun of George Lucas raping Indiana Jones, it was more about pointing out the absurdity of using rape as a description of the film. It's the complete opposite of what PA did.

Sep 3, 2013#274

LordRendar

Gabe really needs to run things by his PR guy before he posts them.

Sep 3, 2013#275

GasBandit

LordRendar said:
Gabe really needs to run things by his PR guy before he posts them.

It wasn't a post, it was an unscripted moment that his PR guy actually prodded him into. You can see it happen in the link I provided. Khoo is talking about how well the three of them get along, and then makes the mistake of asking Mike (Gabe) if he (Khoo) ever did anything that really ticked him (Mike) off, and Captain Bilateral Lisp spittled his way through the aforementioned grenade-toss.

Added Bonus: Khoo goes on to immediately say "we should have just ignored it and let the whole thing blow over/go away, and that's our policy now."

You know. Except for where you just lit it on fire again onstage.

Sep 3, 2013#276

Necronic

stienman said:
It was a mistake. Clearly. They are paying way too much attention to a vocal minority, and if they decided to ignore them and move forward with their own brand of tasteless and offensive humor they wouldn't be giving these groups such a big spotlight.

I don't see these groups profitably attacking southpark. The don't get the audience and attention there.

But they are making hay out of tycho and gabe's inability to ignore them.

Southpark. Exactly what I was thinking.

Sep 3, 2013#277

Ravenpoe

I did kinda want a dickwolves hat...

..........

I'll show myself out.

Sep 4, 2013#278

Tress

Anyone else getting sick of this shit altogether? Both sides. All of it. Self-righteous pricks abound.

I'm just tired of it.

Sep 4, 2013#279

Frank

Tress said:
Anyone else getting sick of this shit altogether? Both sides. All of it. Self-righteous pricks abound.

I'm just tired of it.

Hear hear, this may be one of the dumbest internet drama things ever escalated for the silliest of reasons. Both sides are loaded with shit-eating degenerates.

Sep 4, 2013#280

Bowielee

Shakey said:
South Park is a whole different beast. When they made fun of George Lucas raping Indiana Jones, it was more about pointing out the absurdity of using rape as a description of the film. It's the complete opposite of what PA did.

The point of bringing up South Park is that they constantly and consistently put out stuff that's ten times more offensive than anything Gabe and Tycho could think up in their wildest dreams. The reason they get away with it and the PA crew can't seem to is that the PA crew feed the PC trolls, often making the situation worse.. Parker and Stone just move on, ignore it, and keep doing what they do.

Sep 4, 2013#281

Shawn

I liked the Sixth Slave comic.
Obviously there are going to be people who are offended. And if Gabe had singled out a real person and said he was going to rape her, I would be offended too. But he didn't. He has an imaginary character being raped to sleep by dickwolves. I get that this is like the whole Spoony thing again, but even Lupa was more concerned about the Spoony joke because he told an actual person that he would rape her. If you are actually the sixth slave in a video game... well... I'm sure the similarity was a coincidence.[DOUBLEPOST=1378314595,1378314343][/DOUBLEPOST]I just think that if people find the concept of "murder" funny, so long as it's not the actual murder of a real person, then it's not a far cry from rape. I get that there are survivors of rape. I get that. I get that it's a hard concept for them to joke about. But to tell other people that we can't make jokes, to an audience that likes those jokes, is a bit dick-ish. If you don't like the comic, don't read. If you don't like the Con, don't go. It's that simple.

Edit: I just asked my wife her thoughts. I showed her the original comic, and the follow up comic. She laughed very hard both times. Her response when she did stop laughing "Well I'm a rape victim, and I find that funny. I think it's the lack of sincerity behind it that makes a joke like that funny. If you knew they were being serious, you wouldn't want to laugh."

Sep 4, 2013#282

Frank

Shawn Elliott wrote a decent thing about the situation based on some arguments on twitter.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rm9dp9

Sep 5, 2013#283

Espy

Link isn't working?

Sep 5, 2013#284

strawman

Espy said:
Link isn't working?

Still working for me, but in case you don't have access for whatever reason, here's the post:

ShawnElliott @ShawnElliott

5th September 2013 from TwitLonger

@aeolist @JMan240 @jaredr @mudron @patrickklepek

To clarify, rape is a terrible crime and no civilized society should think it trivial let alone condone it under any circumstance. In addition, PTSD is real and no one should wave away it and its terrible impacts as though they're simply moral indignation. I don't believe in belittling survivors. But nor do I believe that there are topics a truly talented comedian can't touch purely on principle.

On one tour, Chappelle told a joke that involved a "terrorist" holding a train hostage with his penis. I laughed hard at it then, and I find the thought of it funny now. Somewhere, every day, some sick fuck exposes himself or sexually assaults people on public transportation. That isn't funny at all. And I understand that there's likely no levity in the joke for anyone who's been victimized by such behavior. I also completely understand if they ask for advance warning when material that touches on the subject is included in any media they might consume. But for those who aren't affected, I see no danger that Chappelle's set will coarsen them to the seriousness of sexual harassment. Nor do I believe that violent videogames cheapen our appreciation of life or nudge us closer toward looking at murder as anything other than a deeply depraved capital offensive.

Any talented comedian who tries to tell jokes that involve homicide, rape, racism, sexism, homophobia, drug abuse, and the like understands the challenge they've accepted in attempting to find humor in the vicinity of the truly terrible. Few are up to the task. Those who are up to the task aren't the idiots on Xbox Live who laugh, "You got raped." It's a shame that the aftermath of the Dickwolves fiasco went were it did. PA's mistakes in the matter have been thoroughly documented, but I believe that it was also a mistake (although of much lesser magnitude) to insist that on principle some topics are always untouchable. When a media critic argues that any violent act in any videogame is always inappropriate, s/he enlists uncritical children for opposition on the other side who in turn argue that no violent act in any videogame ever merits scrutiny. I suspect we enlist that same opposition with blanket bans on categories of comedy, and predictably that childish opposition then frames the argument as censorious political correctness and the problem of humorless people. So we wind up with two sides shouting so loud that they can't be heard, and at times resorting to obscenities, name-calling, and/or threats. As collateral damage, more important public discourse is reduced to a dumb binary. Then additional young and/or naive observers see these arbitrary battle lines and uncritically take sides against the "censors."

Sep 5, 2013#285

SpecialKO

Frank said:
Shawn Elliott wrote a decent thing about the situation based on some arguments on twitter.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rm9dp9

Pretty much that. PA's mistake was in how they handled it, not the original comic itself.

Sep 5, 2013#286

Espy

Yeah, they really did a terrible job.

Sep 5, 2013#287

ScytheRexx

Mike just always forgets basic rules of the internet 12-15 and possibly 20.

Instead of letting something go he just adds fuel to the fire. I think it's a pride issue due to how big Penny-Arcade has gotten.

Sep 5, 2013#288

SpecialKO

ScytheRexx said:
Mike just always forgets basic rules of the internet 12-15 and possibly 20.

Instead of letting something go he just adds fuel to the fire. I think it's a pride issue due to how big Penny-Arcade has gotten.

I think that's part of it, but (at least going by some of the stuff Mike has posted in the past) I don't think Mike is used to seeing himself as having (for lack of a better term) privileged advantages over anyone. He (and Jerry) has talked about high school bullying before during the Casey Heynes thing, and the difficulty of seeing nerd culture hit mainstream acceptance without a concurrent understanding of what it was like to be a nerd when he was a kid. I'm guessing that being addressed as if he were the victimizer instead of the victim struck a nerve.

Sep 5, 2013#289

strawman

Part of the problem is that he is still a victim of bullying, and still desperate to appease people who are taking advantage of him.

Sep 5, 2013#290

GasBandit

He hasn't learned. Just when things were starting to die off, Mike posts about it.

Sep 5, 2013#291

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
He hasn't learned. Just when things were starting to die off, Mike posts about it.

It's a decent apology, I think. But now he needs to clam up and stop talking about it. Period.

Sep 5, 2013#292

Frank

Nothing wrong with most of his post EXCEPT for the whole "What I meant when I said I regretted not selling the mean spirited merchandise was I actually regretted everything around the not selling the mean spirited merchandise."

That was fucking weird.

Sep 5, 2013#293

Bowielee

Mike should just leave all the PR stuff to Khoo. As was pointed out earlier, the South Park guys get away with this stuff all the time because they largely ignore these kinds of backlashes and don't take them seriously.

Sep 5, 2013#294

SpecialKO

Bowielee said:
Mike should just leave all the PR stuff to Khoo. As was pointed out earlier, the South Park guys get away with this stuff all the time because they largely ignore these kinds of backlashes and don't take them seriously.

When Mike brought up the dickwolves when Khoo asked him that question, Khoo was smiling on the outside but internally he was probably all

Sep 6, 2013#295

Hailey Knight

From his post:

the comic itself obviously points out the absurd morality of the average MMO where you are actually forced to help some people and ignore others in the same situation.

This is all I thought of the comic until the backlash. In no way does it endorse enslaving anyone or raping them or ignoring rape victims; it's pointing out what goes on when you're given a quest and how it's ridiculous, amped up by the slaves begging for help, which they do in some MMOs and don't in others. I can't remember the gnomes talking in WoW, but then, I played Horde.

I agree with the shutting up thing. Anyone involved in PA in the slightest needs to drop it and let people think what they think and feel what they feel, and accept that people are entitled to their own opinions and reactions. As the artists, they need to move on.

Sep 15, 2013#296

Bowielee

For the record, the thing that pisses me off the most about this is that the next episode of Table Top was supposed to be them playing at PAX, but thanks to this whole new mess, it looks like Wil Wheaton is going the safe route and not releasing the episode.

Sep 15, 2013#297

Tress

I can't say that I blame him. This is a stupid controversy, but it's not worth the fight.

Sep 15, 2013#298

Hailey Knight

Bowielee said:
For the record, the thing that pisses me off the most about this is that the next episode of Table Top was supposed to be them playing at PAX, but thanks to this whole new mess, it looks like Wil Wheaton is going the safe route and not releasing the episode.

Disagree is for Wil Wheaton, not you.

Sep 15, 2013#299

Charlie Don't Surf

Bowielee said:
For the record, the thing that pisses me off the most about this is that the next episode of Table Top was supposed to be them playing at PAX, but thanks to this whole new mess, it looks like Wil Wheaton is going the safe route and not releasing the episode.

good

Sep 17, 2013#300

AshburnerX

Is this why Wheaton ditched the Acquisitions Inc. celebrity group for the game at PAX?

Sep 17, 2013#301

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Is this why Wheaton ditched the Acquisitions Inc. celebrity group for the game at PAX?

I don't think so... it was known well in advance that he wouldn't be attending PAX this year, giving them time to get Patrick Rothfuss to swap in, so what happened at PAX probably wasn't a factor.

Sep 17, 2013#302

SpecialKO

AshburnerX said:
Is this why Wheaton ditched the Acquisitions Inc. celebrity group for the game at PAX?

Huh, I hadn't realized he'd done that (haven't watched the AI vid from this year yet). That's kind of interesting.

Oct 3, 2013#303

Bowielee

Looks like Wil Wheaton was just waiting for the smoke to clear.

Yay, new Table Top makes me happy.

Also, check out Day [9]'s Magic the Gathering series.

Oct 3, 2013#304

Frank

Shadows Over Camelot is fucking impossible to win.

It is fun.

Oct 3, 2013#305

Gurpel

Bowielee said:
Also, check out Day [9]'s Magic the Gathering series.

i love day[9] so much, but it's just weird as hell seeing him in this kind of... "overproduced reality show" format.

Forums