EA Hosting Panel on Homophobia in Gaming

[chronobreak]

Thing is, your opinion is different from that of the people running XBL. I can even go and dress my avatar in a sports jersey that reflects my country.

So really, your criticism isn't of people who tell you their life story, it's of the people who run XBL.

No, I am directly critcizing people who come into a game with a mindset that conversation is why they are there, and gameplay is secondary. There is no need to take it any deeper than that. If the people who ran XBL came up into my game saying "I am an African American male!", "I am a Vietnamese woman!", or "I prefer to share sex with the same sex!", I'm going to tell them to shut up just the same.

There should not be a special sentence for KKK member who kills a black person vs a white man killing another white man. That just reeks of inequality.

The KKK is an organized terrorist organization that is encouraged to kill blacks. Of course they don't get treated the same. You should find another example.

 

[squid5580]

Unbelievable. This makes me sick! Why are we catering to certain groups of people? Just because they complain, then we have to make "special" rules for them? I'm not just talking about queers, I'm talking about anyone: Religions, nationalities, races, etc. No special treatment, and no conferences to discuss how we should cater to the needs of these groups who think that they are some-how more special than the rest of us.

I better end this rant before i get the moderators called on me, but it really pisses me off when ignorant stuff like this happens.

I think your missing the point. This panel is do disencourage a pointless hatred and to educate everyone on the importance of equality. I mean how would you feel if someone began irrationally hating you because, say, you had blue eyes or brown hair? It is something about yourself that is impossible to change, so you would want the hate to stop wouldnt you? It has nothing at all to do with groups of people believing they are ''more special'' but it is a way to help brings different groups of people together as equals.

Teh difference is that race and the color of my eyes/hair is not a choice. It is their chloice to be openly gay, and put that into their profiles. If you put it in your profile, then you need to deal with the consequences.

For example: Lets say that I have a 1/2 inch penis. I do not of course, but for the sake of this arguement, I'm going to use this as an example. If I put that into my profile, and then I get made fun of, then it is my fault. I put it in my profile, I deal with the consequences.

But being gay is not something that you should be made fun of! People should not have to deal with consequences of being honest about themselves!

People should also not be made fun of for:

Being short, being tall, being fat, being ugly, being bald, being black, being brown, being white, being multiracial, wearing name brand clothes, wearing ratty old clothes, being rich, being poor, being good at an online game, being bad at an online game, being a virgin, having a millimetre peter, being handicapped, being old and being young. And that is the short list.

Wow I think I just put an end to comedy

 

[squid5580]

Ok I am going to adress this as best I can without the ability to break up the quotes like you (and everyone else but me) seems to have the ability to do.

What you do is you put a {/quote} tag (in brackets of course, like [this]) at the end of the bit you want to address; then you put a {quote} tag in front of the next bit.

Of course I don't have a study. Why? Because such a study would be about as possible as walking on the sun. Are you really going to trust the word of a racist to give you an honest answer to why they did it? And we sure can't scan thier brains while they are in the act, can we?

Why do you require such extreme measures in figuring out the motives behind hate crimes? We don't have to go to those lengths to figure out the motive behind any other crime when you have to prove what the person was thinking, so why do we require it here?

It doesn't matter if they are prosecuted as it being a hate crime. It was in reference to the whole "oh we are targeted more than others because we are who we are" which I think is a load. Anyone of us could be the victim of a violent crime no matter age, race, sexual preference, rich or poor unless someone has absolute proof that this is not correct. And I am not talking in a town or even a country sense but in a worldwide study.

Why wouldn't a town or country be relevant if I live in that town or country?

Any violent crime is a hate crime. Doesn't matter to me if it white on white, black on black or homosexual on homosexual or it is all mixed up they are all hate crimes.

Not true--a cold-blooded hitman doesn't hate the victim. He might not even know anything about the victim before deciding to kill them.

There should not be a special sentence for KKK member who kills a black person vs a white man killing another white man. That just reeks of inequality.

Ha I don't need to break up the quotes for this one it's easy. T & C isn't relevant because it is a worldwide issue. If a person wants to use the whole "we are targeted more than any other special interest group" and that special interest group is spread farther than your T & C (which in this case it most definitely is) then you will need some kind of research t oback up your claims. Think about it. I could say town A is full of white people and 1 black person moves into town. And is the victim of a violent crime. Bam you got yourself some great research as to how bad racism is. It isn't unbiased or accurate and it may not have been a race crime. A worldwide study is the only way to get a full account of how bad this problem is.

The hitman is working for a guy who obviosly hates someone. Just because they don't have the stones to do it themselves doesn't diminish the hate behind the crime. It was just a simple matter of a 3rd party.

I don't think there is a special sentence for being a KKK member who kills a black person. There's a special sentence for killing someone because they're black, and being in the KKK might be relevant evidence, but don't confuse something being evidence of a fact the prosecution has to prove for something itself being illegal.

Ok the KKK thing was an example. It is the whole special sentence for killing someone who is different because they are different that I disagree with. The motivation behind the action should not make any difference when it comes to sentencing. That is like saying a guy catches his gal cheating and kills her is better than the same guy killing a black man because he is black. Sure it is easier for an average Joe to understand him killing her over him killing him but that doesn't make it any less right.

Fingers crossed I got this right

EDIT* I did thanks.

 

[squid5580]

Ha I don't need to break up the quotes for this one it's easy. T & C isn't relevant because it is a worldwide issue. If a person wants to use the whole "we are targeted more than any other special interest group"

What if a person uses "we are targeted more than any other special interest group in this town or country"?

That is a different arguement.

The hitman is working for a guy who obviosly hates someone. Just because they don't have the stones to do it themselves doesn't diminish the hate behind the crime. It was just a simple matter of a 3rd party.

But as long as 3rd party racial hate doesn't apply to hitmen differently than 3rd party regular hate, then everything is still equal.

Isn't that the ultimate goal here? Equality? Seems like equality is all fine and dandy when it works in your favor. Start lookin at the dark side of equality then people start backpedaling.

Ok the KKK thing was an example. It is the whole special sentence for killing someone who is different because they are different that I disagree with. The motivation behind the action should not make any difference when it comes to sentencing. That is like saying a guy catches his gal cheating and kills her is better than the same guy killing a black man because he is black.

Why isn't it like saying a guy catches his gal cheating and kills her is better than a guy killing a girl attempting to rape her? We do that when we call the former second degree murder and the latter first degree murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States

What about the death penalty? Plenty of jurisdictions have aggravating factors that make one eligible for the death penalty which include motive; going back to my hitman example, I count 32 states that have "The murder was committed for pecuniary gain or pursuant to an agreement that the defendant would receive something of value" as an aggravating factor:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/aggravating-factors-capital-punishment-state

Ok let me put this a different way. A man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is still guilty of theft right? No matter what motivated him he stole something and should be punished the same way as the next guy who steals a loaf of bread for kicks. I don't think there should be different degrees of murder or assault or anything like that. The bottom line in murder is you killed someone. No matter why or how the dead person isn't coming back. This is only refering to murder and not an accidental type death.

I am also not a fan of the death penalty. Frankly it is letting them off way to easy. They are going to die either way I don't see why they shouldn't pay with thier blood, sweat and tears first. Forget the chair and bring back the chain gang.

Fingers crossed I got this right

EDIT* I did thanks.

Yup--you did! :-D

 

[Soxafloppin]

Its easier to leave characters sexualities out of games rather than put them in and everyone be all like 'OMG i dont like they way they protrayed homosexuals!!!'

 

[Sparrow]

Spoken like a bunch of heterosexual white males.

Whoa whoa, Susan! Gender stereotypes are one thing, but racial is another. What's wrong with you recently? You seem a bit... aggravated.

Oh, snap. Forget I said anything.

 

[cobra_ky]

i'm pretty sure people hated gays long before GLAAD ever existed.

correct, but in that case its increased the hatred, in other cases its contributed to it

GLAAD was founded in 1985. in 1985, not a single country in the world allowed gay marriage and civil unions did not exist. sodomy was still illegal in half of the U.S. Gay rights have leapt forward in the past 20 years. if hatred seems to have increased at all its because homosexuals are far more visible than they have ever been in history.

Another example is the NAACP. since its founding 100 years ago, African-americans were guaranteed equality under the law and America elected a black president. civil rights aren't just going to fall into your lap. if you want them you have to work for them, and to do that effectively you need to organize.

Words aren't the problem with this or any other racial issue. It is the hate within the heart of Man that is the problem. And getting all worked up over the words without addressing the real issue is not going to solve anything.

which is why the panel in that article is discussing a lot more than just words.

iv never noticed any of the games i have played to be homophobic or to have any sexual preference at all, but then maybe im not playing the games their talking about or maybe their making something out of nothing; i cant say. on a side note it does piss me off that the gay community keeps attributing homosexuality to sexless things like for instance the rainbow, or Spongebob Squarepants. Spongebob is not gay dammit; hes a cartoon he doesn't even have a penis. and don't bother telling me he is gay this subject isn't open for discussion with me.

you're confused. the people who attributed homosexuality to children's characters are generally social conservatives who accuse the media of trying to "indoctrinate" children with the "gay agenda".

<a href=http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/2005-01-22-kids-video_x.htm>This article explains where the "Spongebob is Gay" accusation came from.

As for rainbows, they're a symbol of diversity. the GLBT community doesn't think rainbows are gay any more than republicans think elephants share their political views.

REFERENCES TO LEVITICUS WILL RESULT IN GLARING. Leviticus is more or less irrelevant to Christianity, they're old Jewish laws. It's more of a reference to New Testament- erm, references, or an interesting history lesson. Leviticus also states that we can't wear more than one clothing material at a time (looking for reference), but we don't give that a second glance, do we?

i did a whole bunch of reasearch on this and then no one really argued the point. but in the catholic tradition, thomas aquinas seperated the laws of the old testament in three types of precepts: judicial, ceremonial, and moral. Ceremonial precepts dictated how man should act towards god; judicial precepts regarded actions toward other men. According to Aquinas, both ceremonial and judicial precepts only applied until the coming of christ. moral precepts, however, are akin to the law of nature and still apply to this day. So while homosexual acts may be prohibited by Leviticus, nothing in the Old Testament regarding how one should treat other homosexuals applies.

at least that's how i understand it. i'm jewish so really i have no idea. here's the <a href=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2104.htm#article3>relevant parts of <a href=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2099.htm#article2>Summa Theologica. it's kind of off-topic but feel free to PM me if i'm off-base on this.

 

[cobra_ky]

No, I am directly critcizing people who come into a game with a mindset that conversation is why they are there, and gameplay is secondary. There is no need to take it any deeper than that. If the people who ran XBL came up into my game saying "I am an African American male!", "I am a Vietnamese woman!", or "I prefer to share sex with the same sex!", I'm going to tell them to shut up just the same.

in principle i don't disagree with you, but that's pretty much irrelevant to the matter at hand. this issue goes much, much deeper than what people say in voice chat. at the moment, xbox live allows you to identify yourself in your gamertag or profile as black, asian, jewish, swiss, british, male, female, whatever you happen to be. it does not allow you to identify yourself as gay. microsoft obviously can't control what everyone on Live says and no one's asking them to try. what people are asking for is a change in policy that treats homosexuals like any other social group.

 

[hagaya]

I will find my salvation, but we'll see who is burning in Hell at the end of it all.

All right, you hooked me.
That better not be a religious remark about the reasoning behind your hateful attitude for homosexuals. As a Christian, and layman theologian, I'll totally throw hands as to how you're way off.

Unless you aren't Christian, in which case you just like to write terrible cliche lines of imagery at the end of ignorant posts.
Kinda emo.

No, that isn't why I hate gays. While I am Christian, our beliefs do not tell us to hate the gays.

Yeah, they do. There are multiple Bible verses.
Leviticus 18:22 explains my point perfectly.

REFERENCES TO LEVITICUS WILL RESULT IN GLARING. Leviticus is more or less irrelevant to Christianity, they're old Jewish laws. It's more of a reference to New Testament- erm, references, or an interesting history lesson. Leviticus also states that we can't wear more than one clothing material at a time (looking for reference), but we don't give that a second glance, do we?

I'm aware that Leviticus is the bastard child of the New Testament. It's in the Bible, and it is part of the system of beliefs, no matter how little people believe in it. I was making a point is all.

 

[Versago]

I... really don't get it. Either I'm blind to blatant homophobia in games or it's so little it's pratically not there. The gamers themselves I can see because, well, every other word I hear is a gay slur.

I agree, what is all this about?
I haven't seen or heard anti-gay slander online at all. Is this about the insults that are used by the more ranty and angry gamers. Because words such as 'Fag' are commonly accepted insults, even though personally i find the word annoying and distateful.

The main problem with complaints filed about language is that people need to GET OVER IT, yes some players can be infuriating, recently on L4D someone sent me a heavly abusive email about my playing style, i reviewed him badly and left him at that.

Unbelievable. This makes me sick! Why are we catering to certain groups of people? Just because they complain, then we have to make "special" rules for them?

Agreed. I'm actually gay and i don't want any special treatment, its pointless and kinda condecending; i have the balls to take insults and not go crying to EA.

In Short: People should have some pride and show manners toward their fellow players, quit crying to the admins and get on with your lives.

 

[RobCoxxy]

Even us straight guys experience homophobia from prepubescent Yanks screaming down mic...

"OMG YOU KILLED ME. YOU MUST BE HACKIN', FAGGET"

et cetera

et cetera

et cetera

ad nauseam

 

[lacktheknack]

I will find my salvation, but we'll see who is burning in Hell at the end of it all.

All right, you hooked me.
That better not be a religious remark about the reasoning behind your hateful attitude for homosexuals. As a Christian, and layman theologian, I'll totally throw hands as to how you're way off.

Unless you aren't Christian, in which case you just like to write terrible cliche lines of imagery at the end of ignorant posts.
Kinda emo.

No, that isn't why I hate gays. While I am Christian, our beliefs do not tell us to hate the gays.

Yeah, they do. There are multiple Bible verses.
Leviticus 18:22 explains my point perfectly.

REFERENCES TO LEVITICUS WILL RESULT IN GLARING. Leviticus is more or less irrelevant to Christianity, they're old Jewish laws. It's more of a reference to New Testament- erm, references, or an interesting history lesson. Leviticus also states that we can't wear more than one clothing material at a time (looking for reference), but we don't give that a second glance, do we?

I'm aware that Leviticus is the bastard child of the New Testament. It's in the Bible, and it is part of the system of beliefs, no matter how little people believe in it. I was making a point is all.

Well, I think your point is invalid. "Bastard child of the NT"? What does that mean? The old testament laws have been superseded by new testament laws due to (blathers on). The point is, Leviticus is irrelevant, and is NOT part of the Christian belief sys-

DAMNIT, it's turned into a religious argument. I'm gonna shut up now.

 

[lacktheknack]

Ok, you are officially my hero. Well done.

 

[Baby Tea]

Ok, you are officially my hero. Well done.

Haha, well thanks!
If the guy wants to be an ignorant bigot and hate homosexuals, then fine. That's his right, like it or not.
But if he's saying that it's because he's a 'Christian', then that's when I jump in.
Such misrepresentation is a bad thing.

 

[Baby Tea]

...in the catholic tradition, thomas aquinas seperated the laws of the old testament in three types of precepts: judicial, ceremonial, and moral. Ceremonial precepts dictated how man should act towards god; judicial precepts regarded actions toward other men. According to Aquinas, both ceremonial and judicial precepts only applied until the coming of christ. moral precepts, however, are akin to the law of nature and still apply to this day. So while homosexual acts may be prohibited by Leviticus, nothing in the Old Testament regarding how one should treat other homosexuals applies.

I would say this is absolutely true.

The Old Testament defines sin, but the New Testament guides our response to it.
And that response is always, according to the teaching of Christ, one of love and grace.

EDIT: Pardon the double post! My bad!