A professional, objective, apolitical future for The Escapist...

[Ncrdrg]

But the good thing is that this is a gaming site and The Escapist has made it pretty clear they want their content to be about games and not the politics surrounding them so you shouldn't be hearing about any of this stuff from either him or lizzy. Which is good because let's be honest, if you start pandering either way, you're going to start excluding a part of your audience on the basis of politics and I don't think that's a good move. Besides, most gamers don't care about any of that stuff, they just wanna play games.

I think it's quite easy to not alienate your audience based on political opinions.

1. Don't frigging insult them.
2. Don't talk down to them since the majority of the audience on The Escapist are thinking adults like any potential contributor.

I wouldn't speak for anyone but yourself as far as gamers caring about political subjects goes. Many people here are very passionate about political subjects. And there is a certain benefit to be had by discussing such subjects as one might believe they apply to a game or gaming. The problem is when people take that as an opportunity to personally insult others. Or freak the fuck out that someone has a different opinion (though I'd say getting rather upset at Morse's opinion is extremely justified).

Even if we haven't seen whatever Morse will be contributing yet, I can't blame parts of the audience for being heavily upset or wary based on his conduct. Especially when what he's been saying denies their identity, or insinuates that they totally chose to be gay.

Well, I didn't mean that gamers don't care about politics. Just that politics and gaming don't make a good mix. To me, it's like a refuge. When I play games, I can forget about political stuff, which can be pretty infuriating sometimes. The other day, I saw Roosh writing a blog post calling for the legalization of rape on private property to 'teach women to be more responsible'. When I game, I can stop caring about assholes like him.

But yes, it's quite understandable why people are angry and he seems to be abusing the political correctness excuse. Yes, there's a lot of it nowadays but there are indeed people acting like jerks and then calling the backslash political correctness. Though to be fair, he didn't strike me as the hateful type. He seems to lean libertarian and more along the lines of 'don't tell me what to do'. Still doesn't excuse his views though, what he's saying has been disproven and he doesn't seem to care about that. Which is an issue I have with politics because evidence < how I feel way too often.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

The crux of the whole issue is that words can hurt and no amount telling someone to grow a thicker skin, suck it up, or the like will stop those words from hurting. The other part is that it's not collective guilt that I'm really on about, and perhaps I didn't express myself well enough here. But if him saying he won't accept the existence of transfolk causes even one suicide then at the very least the blood for that death is on his hands, insofar as his words pushed someone over the edge. The other thing is I'll still stand on my point that when good people do nothing; evil wins. That's not collective guilt, that's an inability of good people to stand up against something wrong, and it's proven historically to be true. Just look at what the Nazis did and all of the good people who did nothing to stop them. While those good people aren't at fault, their lack of action also didn't stop the Nazis.

I don't disagree with that idea, but I do take issue with the words good and evil. This argument can be (and often is) completely turned against the trans community by people claiming "if good people like us don't do anything to preserve marriage, then the evil trans and gays will by default."

This is nothing against you specifically, but rather a broader problem I have with many advocates for social issues and ideas. It's not a problem exclusive to the pro-LGBT side, not by a long shot, but it does seem to crop up in these threads quite often.
I really wish people would stop labelling anyone with opposing ideas as "evil" or immoral. Demonising any and all dissent is so common that I can't help but mentally replace words like "misogynist" and "transphobe" with "heretic".

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

snip

Alright, you made your point on what I don't know about you, it's a fair point, I'll give you that.

The crux of the whole issue is that words can hurt and no amount telling someone to grow a thicker skin, suck it up, or the like will stop those words from hurting. The other part is that it's not collective guilt that I'm really on about, and perhaps I didn't express myself well enough here. But if him saying he won't accept the existence of transfolk causes even one suicide then at the very least the blood for that death is on his hands, insofar as his words pushed someone over the edge. The other thing is I'll still stand on my point that when good people do nothing; evil wins. That's not collective guilt, that's an inability of good people to stand up against something wrong, and it's proven historically to be true. Just look at what the Nazis did and all of the good people who did nothing to stop them. While those good people aren't at fault, their lack of action also didn't stop the Nazis.

No if this man says something that incites someone else into a violent act against a transperson. it's not his fault that happened. On the other hand he should at least have the common decency to not have said something so insensitive and hurtful.

I readily agree the guy seems to be an ass and is quite wrong about trans people. That said, I think he is ignorant, nor malicious and as such the protest of him on the site because of his ignorance without even seeing what he would be doing here seems premature to me. All the more so when the use of his tweets have been pointed to to the point of near absurdity in what they are responsible for.

Now, you do touch on what seems to be a core argument here, that of what is a person responsible for with regards to what they say. You are right, on the one hand, what he says is not kind and the emotional pain can be disastrous. Yet on the other, we can only control our own actions and as the panicked morality police of the past have showed us with D&D and rock music, blaming others for actions they didn't commit is incorrect too.

To me, I draw the line on intent and maliciousness. If they are actively trying to remove human rights, calling for violence, encouraging death or detrimental treatment, then I will call it out. What I have seen here though, it doesn't do that. It is flawed and factually dead, but there is no maliciousness in it. And there is a logical consistency that explains the motivation, even if I know the logic is based on flawed information. At the end of the day, I can't feel justified calling for the guy to not be on the site for that alone. I dislike him, but his opinions being based on bullshit is not enough for me to go beyond that.

Does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense. I also am willing to point way back to some of my earlier posts in this thread that he at least deserves a chance to show weather or not his bigotry will show in his content. I'm interested to say what he said. The whole thing that started irritating me was this line of argument. Also it feels like a personal right has been taken from you if someone actively denies how you identify.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Many others though seem to be boosting the difference of opinion as something more then it really comes off as.

Actually, I think you are short-selling it, Runic.

It's arguable that there is not a more marginalized group in society than trans-people. When they aren't able to transition to their preferred gender, incidence of suicide or crippling depressing is shockingly high. When they are able to transition, they better hope it goes seamlessly, because being identifiable as "trans" generally results in a high degree of social shunning. They lose friends, family, can struggle to find employment, and are not infrequently the targets of violence. They even face ostracization in some facets of the LGB community and the "highly progressive" left. People who would loudly champion gay rights might recoil in disgust or confusion when faced with a Trans individual.

So piling onto transgendered people and using social media to ridicule them or deny their identity is potentially significantly more harmful than just venting unpopular political opinions. It is analogous to taking to the airwaves in 1920's America to talk about the bestial black man and how comical you find the concept that they should enjoy the same liberties as caucasians. He is stepping on the throat of people who are often flailing. Why? Apparently because it amuses him, and because he is filled with anathema at thought of amending his language in a way that is considerate to the feelings of others.

He's not doing anything illegal, but he absolutely is doing something hateful. Remember in the other thread, when I said the "no politics" stance ACTUALLY meant "different politics", and people were all NAH NAH WON'T BE NO POLITICS HERE, BRO. Remember that? This is the kind of individual they've identified as appealing to the new normal. A highly politicized, virulently bigoted individual with virtually zero background in the subjects he is ostensibly being hired to write about. So why hire him? No other people experienced in the industry available? What was the deciding factor in this guy being selected, I wonder.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Well, I didn't mean that gamers don't care about politics. Just that politics and gaming don't make a good mix. To me, it's like a refuge. When I play games, I can forget about political stuff, which can be pretty infuriating sometimes. The other day, I saw Roosh writing a blog post calling for the legalization of rape on private property to 'teach women to be more responsible'. When I game, I can stop caring about assholes like him.

But yes, it's quite understandable why people are angry and he seems to be abusing the political correctness excuse. Yes, there's a lot of it nowadays but there are indeed people acting like jerks and then calling the backslash political correctness. Though to be fair, he didn't strike me as the hateful type. He seems to lean libertarian and more along the lines of 'don't tell me what to do'.

Yeah, but what I personally would want as far as this site's content goes is stuff that both goes for an "escapism" angle while not sacrificing politically challenging or interesting articles. Or a chance for a good discussion. Just the best of both worlds.

I play games to escape from everyday woes too, but I think Josh should have clarified exactly what he meant when he said no focus would be given to "industry woes" or "politics." As it is now it's just created a continuously confusing shitstorm for the past few days.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

The crux of the whole issue is that words can hurt and no amount telling someone to grow a thicker skin, suck it up, or the like will stop those words from hurting. The other part is that it's not collective guilt that I'm really on about, and perhaps I didn't express myself well enough here. But if him saying he won't accept the existence of transfolk causes even one suicide then at the very least the blood for that death is on his hands, insofar as his words pushed someone over the edge. The other thing is I'll still stand on my point that when good people do nothing; evil wins. That's not collective guilt, that's an inability of good people to stand up against something wrong, and it's proven historically to be true. Just look at what the Nazis did and all of the good people who did nothing to stop them. While those good people aren't at fault, their lack of action also didn't stop the Nazis.

I don't disagree with that idea, but I do take issue with the words good and evil. This argument can be (and often is) completely turned against the trans community by people claiming "if good people like us don't do anything to preserve marriage, then the evil trans and gays will by default."

This is nothing against you specifically, but rather a broader problem I have with many advocates for social issues and ideas. It's not a problem exclusive to the pro-LGBT side, not by a long shot, but it does seem to crop up in these threads quite often.
I really wish people would stop labelling anyone with opposing ideas as "evil" or immoral. Demonising any and all dissent is so common that I can't help but mentally replace words like "misogynist" and "transphobe" with "heretic".

That's very valid complaint. But part of the demonizing from social minority side is that we tend to get persecuted a lot, so we see the persecutors as evil.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Can someone actually explain to me what this Brandon Morse guy actually did?

As far as I can tell, he's guilty of having a very unpopular opinion about transexuality and normative biology that, as far as I know, science hasn't actually settled yet. Calling someone a "bigot" is pretty strong language. Has anyone demonstrated that he's advocated people do things to transexuals like amounts to harassment?

Honestly, I don't share this guys opinions. Hell, I have a very close family member who is a transexual and even I don't think about it very much because it's really not that important (hint: it doesn't, or at least shouldn't define someone as a person).

That being said, all I see really is a bunch of people here actually being bigotted as in, trying to preemptively deride someones employment chances over a personal opinion, that while unpopular, isn't factually incorrect.

Obviously, if someone can point out to me where this person has advocated actual bigotry against people, I'll take that assessment back, but I feel that I need to remind people that the mere fact that someone says something that you don't agree with doesn't mean you get to ascribe motivations to them that they don't actually hold.

 

[Ncrdrg]

Well, I didn't mean that gamers don't care about politics. Just that politics and gaming don't make a good mix. To me, it's like a refuge. When I play games, I can forget about political stuff, which can be pretty infuriating sometimes. The other day, I saw Roosh writing a blog post calling for the legalization of rape on private property to 'teach women to be more responsible'. When I game, I can stop caring about assholes like him.

But yes, it's quite understandable why people are angry and he seems to be abusing the political correctness excuse. Yes, there's a lot of it nowadays but there are indeed people acting like jerks and then calling the backslash political correctness. Though to be fair, he didn't strike me as the hateful type. He seems to lean libertarian and more along the lines of 'don't tell me what to do'.

Yeah, but what I personally would want as far as this site's content goes is stuff that both goes for an "escapism" angle while not sacrificing politically challenging or interesting articles. Or a chance for a good discussion. Just the best of both worlds.

I play games to escape from everyday woes too, but I think Josh should have clarified exactly what he meant when he said no focus would be given to "industry woes" or "politics." As it is now it's just created a continuously confusing shitstorm for the past few days.

Fair enough. Though I feel it's a response to the major shitstorm the past 6-7 months have been. Can't blame someone for wanting to stay the hell away from politics after all that.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Can someone actually explain to me what this Brandon Morse guy actually did?

As far as I can tell, he's guilty of having a very unpopular opinion about transexuality and normative biology that, as far as I know, science hasn't actually settled yet. Calling someone a "bigot" is pretty strong language. Has anyone demonstrated that he's advocated people do things to transexuals like amounts to harassment?

Honestly, I don't share this guys opinions. Hell, I have a very close family member who is a transexual and even I don't think about it very much because it's really not that important (hint: it doesn't, or at least shouldn't define someone as a person).

That being said, all I see really is a bunch of people here actually being bigotted as in, trying to preemptively deride someones employment chances over a personal opinion, that while unpopular, isn't factually incorrect.

Obviously, if someone can point out to me where this person has advocated actual bigotry against people, I'll take that assessment back, but I feel that I need to remind people that the mere fact that someone says something that you don't agree with doesn't mean you get to ascribe motivations to them that they don't actually hold.

This post sums it up really well: (Also I'm not really on the side of not employing him, though in the last page or so I might have come off that way. I'm just very alienated by his stance on transgenderism.)

Many others though seem to be boosting the difference of opinion as something more then it really comes off as.

Actually, I think you are short-selling it, Runic.

It's arguable that there is not a more marginalized group in society than trans-people. When they aren't able to transition to their preferred gender, incidence of suicide or crippling depressing is shockingly high. When they are able to transition, they better hope it goes seamlessly, because being identifiable as "trans" generally results in a high degree of social shunning. They lose friends, family, can struggle to find employment, and are not infrequently the targets of violence. They even face ostracization in some facets of the LGB community and the "highly progressive" left. People who would loudly champion gay rights might recoil in disgust or confusion when faced with a Trans individual.

So piling onto transgendered people and using social media to ridicule them or deny their identity is potentially significantly more harmful than just venting unpopular political opinions. It is analogous to taking to the airwaves in 1920's America to talk about the bestial black man and how comical you find the concept that they should enjoy the same liberties as caucasians. He is stepping on the throat of people who are often flailing. Why? Apparently because it amuses him, and because he is filled with anathema at thought of amending his language in a way that is considerate to the feelings of others.

He's not doing anything illegal, but he absolutely is doing something hateful. Remember in the other thread, when I said the "no politics" stance ACTUALLY meant "different politics", and people were all NAH NAH WON'T BE NO POLITICS HERE, BRO. Remember that? This is the kind of individual they've identified as appealing to the new normal. A highly politicized, virulently bigoted individual with virtually zero background in the subjects he is ostensibly being hired to write about. So why hire him? No other people experienced in the industry available? What was the deciding factor in this guy being selected, I wonder.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

He is, as you put it, a fuckwit, I never protested that. And he is wrong, never protested that one either. In fact, I think I said he was as such on both accounts before. You know, I have to ask, have you been following along with the entire point of this argument or just reacting to the latest posts? Because I get the impression it is the second one.
The point of my argument was a counter-point to reasons to kick him off the site. Namely, that regardless the factual validity of his opinions, nor him being a fuckwit or not, the reaction to kicking him off the site is motivated by the difference of his opinion alone, and not from added weight such as the various appeals to trans suicides, violence rates and so forth.

If your opinion is "I dislike him and therefor don't want him on the site" then fine, I respect that and got no argument with that. Many others though seem to be boosting the difference of opinion as something more then it really comes off as. Ignorant and stupidly stubborn, yes. Contributing to the culture of trans oppression and suicides and therefore shouldn't be allowed because it will lead to increased violence against them, not quite. Believe the initial start of this line was the idea that ignorance equals malice to which I oppose.

I would accept all of this (as indeed all people must accept, though not without protest) but this idea runs perpendicular to Archon's proposed goals of apolitcal gaming news and consumer advocacy. This is far and beyond the politicisation of even the most dreaded of people that GG would have heralded as the guilty political parties within games journalism.

If the website wants apoliticisation, then they should accept that it should aim for people that will likely promote the greatest good of all gamers. And yes, that means advocating whether products will be offensive or generally bad for trans or gay consumers. That should have been a fundamental thing. If we're looking for an apolitcal environment to promote gaming, then we must accept that the messages games carry does, indeed, impact on whether people will enjoy them. And yes, that requires notice whether a game will include elements deleterious to their enjoyment by various gamers.

This is not merely good in the long run, but it helps people make consumer choices. you know ... like how a gaming site should be, something that helps consumers make choices about their products.

So it strikes me as all the more malicious that Archon should do this under the guise of 'not politicising gaming' ... I would be all for the deconstruction of politics in gaming reviews ... in that there were more reviewers talking about the products and how they might influence consumer uptake. Surely this is both good from a consumer advocacy point of view, as well as good for gamers who will be consuming games.

Isn't that the best way to de-politicise gaming? Dare I say this is what most people in GG would want and dare I say (I hate speaking for others, as it runs parallel to my beliefs in the first place ... I wave that libertarian flag high) is wanted. Why is this a bad thing?

This is why I am staunchly against this arsewipe from being on the team. You know what I would love? Why not have a gay or transgender reviewer talk about games coming out over the week from the perspective of what gay and transgender gamers want? Benefits:

1: Promotes consumer advocacy.

2: Promotes discussions by gay and trans Escapists.

3: Helps to make us support those developers we want to support.

4: Gives an apolitical voice about a group of gamers often overlooked about what they'd like in a game.

Instead, we get a transphobe who will likely hinder our means of representation through active deconstruction of the progression of market diversity. That's not 'apolitical gaming news' ... it's bullshit masquerading as bullshit, under the guise of bullshit reasons ...

 

[Elvis Starburst]

I will only say this to you lot, the whole lot of you, look exactly like Gamergaters when it first started, digging through people's twitter feed to find something incriminating, accusing them of things. The only difference is, you feel you are morally correct and therefore have no shame in doing so, you feel you are correct so what does it matter if you go down to your oppositions level, hey I'm right, they are wrong fuck em.

If I had any doubts that you are the new moral panic like that of the Christians in the 90s it was erased when there was a Crusade to get that Mozilla founder to step down, it's nice to see you all following the trend though. Have fun being the man you used to fight against.

I think the difference is because one of the views was one that sprouted from some issue in the gaming industry that spiraled into a massive cluster fuck. The other is a view that has been felt for many, many years, and only in the more recent past (Give or take some time, I dunno the whole trans argument's history) has been really kicking up steam. It wasn't all that long ago we used to force women to sit at home, not allowed to vote, not be prosecuted for beating them, or have basic women rights. Those views have been ever changing, but some still think that. They're probably a minority at this point. It's kind of like how people refuse to accept gay people, which has slowly become less of an issue. Places like the States are finally allowing these people the rights they deserve, because it's not someone else's right to judge a couple to the point they are not legally entitled to their feelings.

The situation is the same with trans people. Some don't understand it, refuse to understand it, or simply hate it cause of how they feel. But trans people don't personally affect these types, until it ACTUALLY does, like people trying to burn the person's house down, or actively hate them in a way that threatens their lives. That's when people would be going too far to fight back at those who refuse to understand or accept. But, it's been something that's existed for a much longer time than GG, and again, only somewhat recently has been brought to the fore-front. GG will fade in no time. But homophobes and transpobes will continue to hurt others for a very long time.

Now, that being said... Does that make anyone's behavior here right? Absolutely not. Because that's judging someone on their views, just like how Moores judges trans people with his views. The only difference is that it's become fuel to burn some self righteous fire. I'm all for trans rights, and I give all the power in the world to make them be accepted, cause they're human too; But it isn't perfectly ok to call him a dick at this point, when he hasn't even gotten started with anything. I'm also the type who will wait to see how his content turns out. I'm certainly not pleased with his views, and I can't deny I already have a less than stellar view of the guy. But I'm not gonna actively despise him and call him out for it. At least, not unless he starts bringing that shit here and actively hating the forum users. THEN that's when he's going too far.

(Sorry for the massive wall, by the way. There is already too many of those, but I felt I needed to get some piece in here somewhere. Thanks for bearing with me~)

Edit: At no point am I trying to imply that GG did not affect people to the point that they never felt threatened. GG fucked with a LOT of people. The only point I was trying to make between the comparison is that GG is probably gonna die out soon-ish, like any big thing spurred on by the internet. homo and trans phobias have existed for a much longer time, so I feel there's a bit of a distinct difference here.

My heart goes out to anyone negatively affected by any and all of the above!

 

[runic knight]

Many others though seem to be boosting the difference of opinion as something more then it really comes off as.

Actually, I think you are short-selling it, Runic.

It's arguable that there is not a more marginalized group in society than trans-people. When they aren't able to transition to their preferred gender, incidence of suicide or crippling depressing is shockingly high. When they are able to transition, they better hope it goes seamlessly, because being identifiable as "trans" generally results in a high degree of social shunning. They lose friends, family, can struggle to find employment, and are not infrequently the targets of violence. They even face ostracization in some facets of the LGB community and the "highly progressive" left. People who would loudly champion gay rights might recoil in disgust or confusion when faced with a Trans individual.

So piling onto transgendered people and using social media to ridicule them or deny their identity is potentially significantly more harmful than just venting unpopular political opinions. It is analogous to taking to the airwaves in 1920's America to talk about the bestial black man and how comical you find the concept that they should enjoy the same liberties as caucasians. He is stepping on the throat of people who are often flailing. Why? Apparently because it amuses him, and because he is filled with anathema at thought of amending his language in a way that is considerate to the feelings of others.

He's not doing anything illegal, but he absolutely is doing something hateful. Remember in the other thread, when I said the "no politics" stance ACTUALLY meant "different politics", and people were all NAH NAH WON'T BE NO POLITICS HERE, BRO. Remember that? This is the kind of individual they've identified as appealing to the new normal. A highly politicized, virulently bigoted individual with virtually zero background in the subjects he is ostensibly being hired to write about. So why hire him? No other people experienced in the industry available? What was the deciding factor in this guy being selected, I wonder.

Once again, I am no stranger to to the knowledge of the issues transfolk face. And again, I readily agree he is an idiot for his stances. The problem is I can't call something "hate" unless it is actually motivated by hate, and regardless how ignorant the guy is, I don't get "hate" in what he says. His posts are not stepping on anyone's throat and his opinions are not the cause of the plight of various marginalized groups. Your presumption of his motivation though I have to call into question, as I didn't get that off the tweets there. If you have some I haven't seen though, please, I am more then happy to check them out.
As it is, I see an ignorant fool with opinions rooted in historical biology about what defines gender. Hatred, throat-stepping, his posts are not.

As for that last comment, considering he hasn't made a post here yet, I do have to wonder how well you understood the majority of those posts concerned with politics there. Didn't most everyone reply with "I am not saying they can't have political views, just not soapboxing from the position" or something to that effect? So unless I missed a debut article, your concerns there seem a bit premature. As for picking a better candidate, damned right they could have. Personally, heard some talk of getting boogie a while back and hoped he might get a nod, he seems a pretty nice guy and hell of a lot less political history there. Still, since this guy was picked for a comedy/gaming column, I guess we see what he does with it to see if people need to call him out for being political or not.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

At least, not unless he starts bringing that shit here and actively hating the forum users. THEN that's when he's going too far.

I find this to be a curious sentiment, I've heard it repeated in this thread a few times now.

Does Morse just spring into existence the moment he starts writing for this site? If, I dunno, Chipman had jumped on social media and posted "LOL @ FAGGOTS" would it really MATTER how well behaved he was as a content creator? Do we just break our mind in two and hold two Chipmans inside it, at that point? The idiot on social media and the one calmly making content for the Escapist?

The fuck guys. If I went Mein Kampf on Twitter, I'm not sure my employer would care greatly about my behavior in the office. I'm the SAME GUY. If you're a public figure making public content for public consumption, then the shit you say in public is part of your image.

 

[runic knight]

That makes perfect sense. I also am willing to point way back to some of my earlier posts in this thread that he at least deserves a chance to show weather or not his bigotry will show in his content. I'm interested to say what he said. The whole thing that started irritating me was this line of argument. Also it feels like a personal right has been taken from you if someone actively denies how you identify.

Well, seems we agree relatively on the primary part. As to the followup, I don't know. How you identify is a personal thing, and no one can take that away from you, but should they have to accept your identity and treat you as you want to be seen as? Civility would demand you be treated as you wish to be considered as, of course, but in terms of right? I don't know. I'd say forced to pick, I'd say that no, it doesn't sound like a right in its own. People do not have to accept another's opinion, even of themselves after all. Gender identity would have to be looked at with regards to legal and social aspects I think. Legality, that is a damn mess last I heard so no clear answer there. Socially? Is it a right to be socially considered a gender you identify with instead of a biological one? I don't know. As an extension of how people treat you in general, outside of obeying laws, there is no right to how you are treated or talked to. Seems a complex issue and I will admit, I don't have a clear answer on that one, will need to mull it over more and hear more arguments.

 

[Fappy]

At least, not unless he starts bringing that shit here and actively hating the forum users. THEN that's when he's going too far.

I find this to be a curious sentiment, I've heard it repeated in this thread a few times now.

Does Morse just spring into existence the moment he starts writing for this site? If, I dunno, Chipman had jumped on social media and posted "LOL @ FAGGOTS" would it really MATTER how well behaved he was as a content creator? Do we just break our mind in two and hold two Chipmans inside it, at that point? The idiot on social media and the one calmly making content for the Escapist?

The fuck guys. If I went Mein Kampf on Twitter, I'm not sure my employer would care greatly about my behavior in the office. I'm the SAME GUY. If you're a public figure making public content for public consumption, then the shit you say in public is part of your image.

It really makes me wonder how much of this the Escapist was aware of before they struck a deal with him. Even if I agreed with the man, if I were running this outlet and I saw those tweets I'd fucking drop his ass right then and there.

It doesn't take a PR degree to figure this out.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

You're basically saying you're perfectly okay with his views and behaviors as long as it isn't in stuff you end up reading here on this site. He's transphobic. He's going too far now. Jesus fucking Christ, are you serious? Of course he's going to be called a dick when he's done basically nothing with his internet career but act like a dick. Let's let a KKK Grand Dragon write articles and see how they turn out, maybe he won't talk about his bad beliefs and that'll make it okay.

Did I at any point say I called his views ok? No? Right, cause I didn't. His views are shitty and I don't like him for it. I'm just not gonna sit here and call him a dick who should never have the right to speech like some people have, cause then I'd be doing the exact same thing he's doing. I don't care who he is. I don't like him as is. If he makes good content, fine. I don't like MovieBob either, but I still splurged on his content cause it entertained me.

I find this to be a curious sentiment, I've heard it repeated in this thread a few times now.

Does Morse just spring into existence the moment he starts writing for this site? If, I dunno, Chipman had jumped on social media and posted "LOL @ FAGGOTS" would it really MATTER how well behaved he was as a content creator? Do we just break our mind in two and hold two Chipmans inside it, at that point? The idiot on social media and the one calmly making content for the Escapist?

The fuck guys. If I went Mein Kampf on Twitter, I'm not sure my employer would care greatly about my behavior in the office. I'm the SAME GUY. If you're a public figure making public content for public consumption, then the shit you say in public is part of your image.

He existed for awhile I'm sure, but it was when his views and such came into the spotlight when we found out he was being hired. Doesn't make him any less wrong or right for it beforehand. It's just a matter that we suddenly know who he is now, so we forum users feel like making it a big thing. But, of course, when you work for a place, you represent that place. It's not like I can call out crappy customers on Yelp or something if I worked at said place. That'd be liable to getting me fired. I dunno where his views lead to him being hired here, but that's why I'm reserving some form of judgement.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Once again, I am no stranger to to the knowledge of the issues transfolk face. And again, I readily agree he is an idiot for his stances. The problem is I can't call something "hate" unless it is actually motivated by hate, and regardless how ignorant the guy is, I don't get "hate" in what he says. His posts are not stepping on anyone's throat and his opinions are not the cause of the plight of various marginalized groups. Your presumption of his motivation though I have to call into question, as I didn't get that off the tweets there. If you have some I haven't seen though, please, I am more then happy to check them out.

As it is, I see an ignorant fool with opinions rooted in historical biology about what defines gender. Hatred, throat-stepping, his posts are not.

1) Person makes comment. Perhaps born of thoughtlessness, or ignorance. Who can say?
2) People say "Hey, that's potentially very harmful...have you considered these possible ramifications?"
3) Person responds with "STFU you can't tell me how to talk".

So...are we still arguing ignorance, here? He's just NOT AWARE? The people responding to him went in one ear and out the other? The last 30-50 years of social growth just passed him by, he was watching Miami Vice?

He gives the overwhelming impression of absolutely not giving a single shit, and prioritizing his freedom of expression over any kind of social grace, or consideration of the marginalized group he is cheerfully engaged in mocking.

I'm not sure what the disconnect is here, Runic. You're clearly not a stupid guy. You concur that transgendered people are marginalized. You concur they face tremendous stigma from society. You're aware the suicide rate is off the charts alarming. This is what social stigma looks like. This is it in action. Is there a 1:1 correlation between this guy's tweet and some transgendered person killing themselves? Fuck if I know. Is he contributing to the problem? YEP. Is he aware of that? YEP? Does he give a shit? NOPE.

How much evidence do you need to establish malice?

As for that last comment, considering he hasn't made a post here yet, I do have to wonder how well you understood the majority of those posts concerned with politics there. Didn't most everyone reply with "I am not saying they can't have political views, just not soapboxing from the position" or something to that effect? So unless I missed a debut article, your concerns there seem a bit premature. As for picking a better candidate, damned right they could have. Personally, heard some talk of getting boogie a while back and hoped he might get a nod, he seems a pretty nice guy and hell of a lot less political history there. Still, since this guy was picked for a comedy/gaming column, I guess we see what he does with it to see if people need to call him out for being political or not.

This guy is a political writer. It is what he does. If I said "we're trying to cut down on religion here at the Escapist" and then hired a lifelong priest to write the new gaming column, what would your perspective on that decision be? How can he NOT be religious? It's going to influence everything he thinks and writes. It's part of who he is. It's also why "taking the politics out of it" is such a stupid thing to suggest, because humans are innately political.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It really makes me wonder how much of this the Escapist was aware of before they struck a deal with him. Even if I agreed with the man, if I were running this outlet and I saw those tweets I'd fucking drop his ass right then and there.

It doesn't take a PR degree to figure this out.

A cynical person would say this is exactly why they hired him. Filmbart or whatever his name is suggested that characterizing Escapist management as "pro-GG" would be unfair, though, and he should know better than us.

So, stupidity then? Why else do you hire a political writer to do gaming pieces on the site you just promoted as "cutting out the politics"? It's like one of those buzzfeed articles.

"THIS SITE SAID IT WAS BECOMING LESS POLITICAL...YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT"

 

[wulf3n]

Does Morse just spring into existence the moment he starts writing for this site? If, I dunno, Chipman had jumped on social media and posted "LOL @ FAGGOTS" would it really MATTER how well behaved he was as a content creator? Do we just break our mind in two and hold two Chipmans inside it, at that point? The idiot on social media and the one calmly making content for the Escapist?

Didn't we? Bob was always pretty open about how much he hates certain groups (re: FPS fans, sports fans etc). I quess most just didn't notice because they felt the same way.

If I went Mein Kampf on Twitter, I'm not sure my employer would care greatly about my behavior in the office.

Your boss would fire you for speaking German?

I'm the SAME GUY. If you're a public figure making public content for public consumption, then the shit you say in public is part of your image.

Sure it's a part of your image, it's a question of whether or not your image should be taken into account regarding the services you provide.

Take your boss/employee example above. Say a person was incredibly racist, and I'm talking full blown "they're less than human" racism, and says as much on say twitter. But when said person goes to work, they're completely professional, they are friendly and respectful to all other employees/customers regardless of their ethnicity, even more so than other employees that aren't racist. Would it still be ok to fire them?

What about it if was about religion? Say the employee was a follower of Anton LaVey's writings. Would it still be ok?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

That makes perfect sense. I also am willing to point way back to some of my earlier posts in this thread that he at least deserves a chance to show weather or not his bigotry will show in his content. I'm interested to say what he said. The whole thing that started irritating me was this line of argument. Also it feels like a personal right has been taken from you if someone actively denies how you identify.

Well, seems we agree relatively on the primary part. As to the followup, I don't know. How you identify is a personal thing, and no one can take that away from you, but should they have to accept your identity and treat you as you want to be seen as? Civility would demand you be treated as you wish to be considered as, of course, but in terms of right? I don't know. I'd say forced to pick, I'd say that no, it doesn't sound like a right in its own. People do not have to accept another's opinion, even of themselves after all. Gender identity would have to be looked at with regards to legal and social aspects I think. Legality, that is a damn mess last I heard so no clear answer there. Socially? Is it a right to be socially considered a gender you identify with instead of a biological one? I don't know. As an extension of how people treat you in general, outside of obeying laws, there is no right to how you are treated or talked to. Seems a complex issue and I will admit, I don't have a clear answer on that one, will need to mull it over more and hear more arguments.

This is exactly why I'm glad I have the ability to pass as female, generally if people don't have any idea then they treat me as the gender I identify with, rather than the biological sex I was born as. On the legal side it is a damn mess, socially to some people I instantly become a pariah. At least the legal side is starting to slowly clear up, the social side is generally more advanced as more people are becoming able to rationally accept transgenderism. But that's largely thanks to the fact the transgenderism is becoming more and more visible and more understood by people, which means they're more likely to accept it.