Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
xnatex

Homophobia in gaming - and bigotry in homosexuals

Recommended Posts

When I was a kid "gay" meant having a fun time, and "fag" was a cigarette. I want our words back damn it :P

Quoted for truth, the origin of these names are harmless, now all of a sudden they are offensive and bleeding hearts like waltish reckons they "cause grievous emotional harm". What happened to sticks and stones will break my bones and names will never hurt me?

 

I would take offensive to being called a Homophobic, as a red blooded male i would find it an insult to my fearless manhood. Why 2 sets of rules? what happened to equality?

 

The playing field is not equal, It has never been against the law to be a heterosexual, before you say "its all good now right" in some countries they are still being executed for being Homosexuals.

 

Most kids if they told their family " Hey Mum Dad Brothers Sisters, I'm Hetro and I'm Proud, dad would pat you on the back mum would sit there beaming with joy, brothers and sister would likely be thinking meh so what.

 

This is not how its works out for many/most.

 

Homosexuals have a lot to deal with in to coming to terms with their sexual orientation, and finding acceptance, lots of stuff hetro folks just don't have to deal with at all.

 

yah hetro folks have their troubles too, but their Hetroness is no biggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but if its not and we all know lots of ppl that dont use it offensively, then its not. Lots of people can say cleaning the house is gay. That has nothing to do with homosexuals, its a slang for a dislike of a task. If a word changes meaning in the past, why cant it change its meaning again? is it limited to 1 change per generation?

 

This whole thing is twisting peoples words against them under the guise of being personally offended, even tho the said use of the word has nothing to do with you. Does anyone find that strange?

I'm pretty sure all this was addressed in the article - did you read it all the way through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but if its not and we all know lots of ppl that dont use it offensively, then its not. Lots of people can say cleaning the house is gay. That has nothing to do with homosexuals, its a slang for a dislike of a task. If a word changes meaning in the past, why cant it change its meaning again? is it limited to 1 change per generation?

 

This whole thing is twisting peoples words against them under the guise of being personally offended, even tho the said use of the word has nothing to do with you. Does anyone find that strange?

I'm pretty sure all this was addressed in the article - did you read it all the way through?

 

 

he probably thought it was too gay and stopped reading it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but if its not and we all know lots of ppl that dont use it offensively, then its not. Lots of people can say cleaning the house is gay. That has nothing to do with homosexuals, its a slang for a dislike of a task. If a word changes meaning in the past, why cant it change its meaning again? is it limited to 1 change per generation?

 

This whole thing is twisting peoples words against them under the guise of being personally offended, even tho the said use of the word has nothing to do with you. Does anyone find that strange?

I'm pretty sure all this was addressed in the article - did you read it all the way through?

 

 

he probably thought it was too gay and stopped reading it.....

 

And what do you mean by that? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but if its not and we all know lots of ppl that dont use it offensively, then its not. Lots of people can say cleaning the house is gay. That has nothing to do with homosexuals, its a slang for a dislike of a task. If a word changes meaning in the past, why cant it change its meaning again? is it limited to 1 change per generation?

 

This whole thing is twisting peoples words against them under the guise of being personally offended, even tho the said use of the word has nothing to do with you. Does anyone find that strange?

I'm pretty sure all this was addressed in the article - did you read it all the way through?

 

in case anyone didnt, its a good point :) very relevant to some of the posts here. But I have gone off topic with it tho

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use the word as an insult then yes it is offensive.

I agree, but if its not and we all know lots of ppl that dont use it offensively, then its not. Lots of people can say cleaning the house is gay. That has nothing to do with homosexuals, its a slang for a dislike of a task.

 

Does anyone find that strange? its very hard-line left wing

Would you find it strange if your first name started to be used as an insult? I'm sure to people that don't know you, it wouldn't be insulting you.

 

It's kind of like how you shouldn't call someone a retard as an insult. Just because you don't make a connection in your head, you're still saying that retard is an insult. It's not about insulting a specific person, it's using a self-identifying label as a slur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are getting 'american free speech' and what we have here as free speech confused.

Yes people don't seem to realize that free speech is not a constitionally protected right in Australia.

 

As to the OP, I think I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. Usage dictates meaning for a start, and this is also the gist of what David was saying in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are getting 'american free speech' and what we have here as free speech confused.

Yes people don't seem to realize that free speech is not a constitionally protected right in Australia.

 

As to the OP, I think I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. Usage dictates meaning for a start, and this is also the gist of what David was saying in the article.

 

yeah im getting at the homosexual community shouldn't call people homophobic all the time, kinda got a bit off topic

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are getting 'american free speech' and what we have here as free speech confused.

Yes people don't seem to realize that free speech is not a constitionally protected right in Australia.

 

As to the OP, I think I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. Usage dictates meaning for a start, and this is also the gist of what David was saying in the article.

 

yeah im getting at the homosexual community shouldn't call people homophobic all the time

 

Yah its a bit like being called a racist at the drop of a hat, though its not a big jump to see it from the other side, and grok why some folks are a bit defensive, time will sort that as long as society can make the move to a less bigoted mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

yeah im getting at the homosexual community shouldn't call people homophobic all the time

Yah its a bit like being called a racist at the drop of a hat, though its not a big jump to see it from the other side, and grok why some folks are a bit defensive, time will sort that as long as society can make the move to a less bigoted mindset.

 

Which is why I said I understand where you are coming from. But as I said in English, usage dictates meaning. I know phobia means an irrational fear but the vast majority don't and, use the term incorrectly and hence change it's meaning.

 

My favourite example being the word discrimination. Anyone want to play with that one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is homophobic really the wrong word, tho'? A lot of it seems pretty irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

yeah im getting at the homosexual community shouldn't call people homophobic all the time

Yah its a bit like being called a racist at the drop of a hat, though its not a big jump to see it from the other side, and grok why some folks are a bit defensive, time will sort that as long as society can make the move to a less bigoted mindset.

 

Which is why I said I understand where you are coming from. But as I said in English, usage dictates meaning. I know phobia means an irrational fear but the vast majority don't and, use the term incorrectly and hence change it's meaning.

 

My favourite example being the word discrimination. Anyone want to play with that one :)

 

OK

 

Australia is dis crimi nation where der poms sent dere crims {:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

yeah im getting at the homosexual community shouldn't call people homophobic all the time

Yah its a bit like being called a racist at the drop of a hat, though its not a big jump to see it from the other side, and grok why some folks are a bit defensive, time will sort that as long as society can make the move to a less bigoted mindset.

 

Which is why I said I understand where you are coming from. But as I said in English, usage dictates meaning. I know phobia means an irrational fear but the vast majority don't and, use the term incorrectly and hence change it's meaning.

 

My favourite example being the word discrimination. Anyone want to play with that one :)

 

OK

 

Australia is dis crimi nation where der poms sent dere crims {:-)

 

That, right there, hands down POTM.

 

Have a cookie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you find it strange if your first name started to be used as an insult?

This pretty much sums up the argument for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you find it strange if your first name started to be used as an insult?

This pretty much sums up the argument for me.

 

this pretty much sums it up for me

 

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you find it strange if your first name started to be used as an insult?

This pretty much sums up the argument for me.

 

this pretty much sums it up for me

 

Posted Image

 

What is it that you want to trivialise , your position? , the counter-position? , or both?

 

EDIT changed "the responses" to "the counter-position"

Edited by Waltish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...you've gotten offended at the opinion piece because you use the words 'gay' and 'fag' when gaming and the article labelled you a homophobe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alow me to summarize the op.

 

"how dare they make me feel uncomfortable for using inappropriate language. If they really cared about other people they would support and nurture my right to say whatever I want and NEVER EVER have to think about my words"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...you've gotten offended at the opinion piece because you use the words 'gay' and 'fag' when gaming and the article labelled you a homophobe?

Nah i never said i use those words and i didnt say i was offended at the article. I was just pointing out that when 2 parties are sitting there calling each other names be it homophobic or gay that it will solve nothing, by involving yourself in the name calling process you are generating the bigotry that generated this problem in the first place.

 

Waltish, just having a moment to reflect on what the actual problem is. Lets have a look at what actual homophobia looks like... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the bigot? Well, that's fascinating.

 

Thanks for the insight :)

No, but you are using your editorial position to push a personal agenda. I think that might be inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the bigot? Well, that's fascinating.

 

Thanks for the insight :)

No, but you are using your editorial position to push a personal agenda. I think that might be inappropriate.

 

nah I don't buy into that, your saying that having a stake in the substance of an article discounts someone from writing about it.

 

Bullshit dude the internet would go dead if that was applied universally.

 

Edit: spelling

Edited by Waltish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the bigot? Well, that's fascinating.

 

Thanks for the insight :)

No, but you are using your editorial position to push a personal agenda. I think that might be inappropriate.

 

Its called an opinion piece for a reason dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the bigot? Well, that's fascinating.

 

Thanks for the insight :)

No, but you are using your editorial position to push a personal agenda. I think that might be inappropriate.

 

And whats the problem with that? Its an editorial after all.

 

Either way, I back Dave 150% on this. I'll happily put my support behind a guy who highlights peoples behaviours and attempts to educate them on the power of their words over a guy who brings attention to people missing the underscore in his nickname.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×