EA Hosting Panel on Homophobia in Gaming

[Ossum]

Gah, I get really mad when this topic is brought up. But, I'll be civilized about my response.

To me, the "gay rights" craze strikes me as one that is completely unfounded. It tries to be what the black civil rights movement was in America, but without an actual basis for the complaints.

The reason why RACISM is bad is that you simply can't choose your race. Therefore, it's unfair for people to discriminate against you based on that, since you had no control over it to begin with. That's why I completely support groups against racial discrimination. It's a good cause.

But, that just doesn't apply to gays. I'm sorry, but I just don't see an argument for a group of people that chooses to do something and then complains that people put them down for it. No one seems to care about discrimination against Christians or Jews, but as soon as someone says the word "******", you can rest assured that it'll be plastered all over the news as an atrocious act.

Simply put, we can't cater to specific groups of people just because of the choices they make. To you who say that homosexuality isn't a choice (though there's absolutely no hard data in either direction), I just don't understand your logic. No matter how much the inside of you feels homosexual tendencies, you can't honestly tell me that people are internally *forced* to act on those urges. I just hope that this whole craze dies down soon, so we can focus on infinitely more important issues in society.

EDIT: And, for the record, I have nothing against gay people. In fact, a few of my close friends are gay. It's the vehement campaigning that societal rejection of a CHOICE should be labeled as "discrimination" that just makes me mad. If you want to make fun of my religion, by all means go ahead. I might not like it, but you're certainly not discriminating against me; believing in it was my choice and I'm prepared to take all the insults you can throw at me as a result. That was part of the decision process in the first place. Why can't the gay and lesbian community learn to do the same?

While I'd be inclined to agree that we can't cater to people by their choices, I don't think you've really provided any strong argument against this debate. For example, you may be ridiculed for your religion, cursed at, etc; however, you are not in any fundamental way prohibited from doing certain things because of your religion, except as your faith dictates. You can go to movies, work a job, get a paycheck, marry your significant other, without any specific impediment. There are no laws preventing you access to something others enjoy.

The gay marriage question doesn't hinge on whether or not one believes homosexuality is a choice. The problem is, whether or not homosexuality is a choice, a specific institution, with specific connotations and rules of law, are denied a group of citizens. A similar situation would be to prevent all Christians from entering dance halls (with the attendant force of law) or everybody in red sneakers from attending football games. One's choices shouldn't affect access to a right, unless there is a dominating harm or risk associated. The arguments against gay marriage on harm or risk are, at least as I see them, largely untenable. Therefore, whether a choice or not, homosexuality should be no bar to marriage.

Finally, having gay friends does not necessarily legitimize or alter one's position on an issue. It's largely irrelevant to the debate.

 

[cobra_ky]

Also, civil rights battles in the US tend to focus on battleground states, where key legislation can be passed, which slowly filters to the other states and finally to federal policy. I and probably many others can only hope that once the US becomes a gay-marriage legal country, a similar influence might be felt elsewhere, as acceptance of gay marriage grows.

i'm not sure what you mean by battleground states. most of the states which have legalized gay marriage or civil unions are pretty solidly democratic, iowa being the biggest exception.

other than that, you're right on.

 

[lostclause]

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.

Not many people know this but leviticus is largely irrelevant to Christians. At some point in the new testament Christ says eat what you like, wear what you like and some other stuff along those lines. This makes large chunks of that chapter irrelevant. Yes some bits still apply but don't be too quick to quote it.

 

[Ossum]

Also, civil rights battles in the US tend to focus on battleground states, where key legislation can be passed, which slowly filters to the other states and finally to federal policy. I and probably many others can only hope that once the US becomes a gay-marriage legal country, a similar influence might be felt elsewhere, as acceptance of gay marriage grows.

i'm not sure what you mean by battleground states. most of the states which have legalized gay marriage or civil unions are pretty solidly democratic, iowa being the biggest exception.

other than that, you're right on.

I meant "battleground" in the larger context. The fight for equality is being waged in these states, often those with friendly attitudes, lenient laws and regulations, faster or simpler legislatures, and broad cultural impact. These are bellwether states.

 

[LadyZephyr]

This entire post is just depressing.

Yanno, I'm a lesbian and I have an XBL pre-paid account card for 13 months of Gold status. I've had it for months and have never used it. Because I don't want to get into the cesspit of homophobic and racist smack-talk that is online gaming.

To everyone who thinks this is no big deal, you're wrong. To everyone who thinks this panel is counterproductive, you're also wrong. At least people are talking about this problem now.

Throwing "gay" around as an insult is prejudiced, as is the fact that I've been told one too many times that all I need is "a good dicking" to turn straight.

Rock on, EA. For once, I'm proud of you.

 

[cobra_ky]

I meant "battleground" in the larger context. The fight for equality is being waged in these states, often those with friendly attitudes, lenient laws and regulations, faster or simpler legislatures, and broad cultural impact. These are bellwether states.

ah. sorry, i watched way too much election coverage last year.

 

[squid5580]

And hey--maybe you do. However, you should be more accurate, and when you argue against the wisdom of hate crime laws, you should make it clear right up front that your reason for being against them is actually a pretty radical one.

I thought I had when I said

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. 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.

No, you didn't: because you were only talking about violent crime as all being motivated by hate. That's different than saying that you don't care about the motive, hate or other, behind any crime, violent or not.

Going on to the different degrees of murder I don't think it really matters to anyone but some outdated law that a person was killed spur of the moment or it was premeditated. I doubt it would make the family of the victim feel any better knowing that the victim was beat to death on a whim. Or make them feel worse that it was all planned out. And I know it doesn't matter to the victim.

Maybe, maybe not. That's not what you're arguing, though. You're arguing that motive shouldn't be a factor. You're arguing that it shouldn't make a difference to a family to know that their relative was killed as a result of an argument between friends that got heated and turned physical and tragic as opposed to knowing that their relative was murdered in the course of someone trying to rape them.

Motive is the factor. If I plan to murder someone I must have a motive. If I kill someone during and because of an arguement there is the motive.

And can you offer any other base reasoning behind a violent crime. It may not be some long growing hatred of a person or race and it could be a spur of the moment split second hatred. The only time it could be argued it isn't a hate crime is if FOR EXAMPLE (gotta be sure everyone sees that around here. Jeepers) is if during a robbery the gun accidentally goes off. And the shooter had no intentions of hurting anyone.

 

[squid5580]

Spoken like a bunch of teenage, mostly-suburban heterosexual white males.

Fixed that for ya.

wait, suburban? what does that have to do with it?

EDIT: also, as an ex-teenage, suburban, heterosexual white male, i can't help but feel slightly offended.

Being a hetrosexual white male means you aren't allowed to get offended when someone generalizes us like that. Sorry mate. Dem are da rules.

Maybe the fact that you are allowed to walk down the street holding hands with a white woman without fear of being attacked will compensate for the overwhelming bigotry you apparently face.

I really hate to be the reality check type person but I have never met anyone who didn't face some sort of bigotry at some point in thier lives for some stupid reason. i face it all the time due to the fact I have long hair.

Fair 'nuff. But I sure hear "fag" and "jew" being tossed around as insults in WoW (don't play xbl) a lot more than I hear "longhair" and "hippie." In fact, I never hear "longhair" or "hippie."

More to the point, it took me about 15seconds to find a recent report of a man who was beaten to death for being gay: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Gay_teen_beaten_to_death_with_book_in_homophobic_attack&in_article_id=517656&in_page_id=34 . I'm pretty sure that even during the anti-Vietnam protests, men weren't getting beaten to death for having long hair-unless somebody thought they were gay.

Stating that we all face bigotry is true, but it is also disingenuous. We do not all fear for our lives when we walk down the street. The problem of anti-gay hatred is real, and EA is taking a positive step by addressing it.

And my guess is if you spent those 15 seconds you could find a story about a HWM beaten to death walking down the street who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. And of course not everyone fears for thier lives walking down the street. Why? Because some of those people are the threats we fear. No minority has the market cornered on violence against them. Not today anyways. Although it is a much better story than your average white male getting killed by a thug while walkin home from work.

And I believe your article there is where the energy of these groups should be focused. Not on words that have dual meanings that some consider hurtful. Firt end the real violence then we can have a roundtable discussion about what can be done about the expression "that is so gay". Unless of coursew you believe that the stupid ad* was money well spent.

* The stupid ad I am refering to is a TV commercial I caught 1 Sat. morning during my weekly cartoon marathon. 3 females are in a store. 1 is a lesbian and she is playing the part of the cashier. 1 of the customers says "that is so gay". When they get to the cashier she says "that is so Emily".

The argument that anyone can be beaten to death for being in the wrong place and the wrong time doesn't work. Of course anyone can be beaten to death on the street, but gay people have that risk and then have the problem of gay-targeted violence added on top of that. If you are gay, there are a lot more wrong places and wrong times than there are if you are straight.

As for the "That's so gay," I think you have no idea how corrosive that phrase is to gay people. I'm no wilting flower, I don't go to bed torn with the heartache of it, but every time I hear it I grind my teeth a little, and believe me, my teeth are starting to get kinda worn down after all these years. It's a little thing but its a little thing that happens all. the. fucking. time. I am so, so done with it, and with the inherent idiocy of the usage. Allow me to translate this into what the person is actually saying: "This is something that displeases me in ways I lack the emotional awareness or vocabulary to actually express with any precision or meaning."

Though come to think of it, in a lot of cases, gayness is also something that displeases them in ways they lack the emotional awareness or vocabulary to actually express with any precision or meaning. So maybe it really is "totally gay" after all

I'm also wondering, how was the cashier identified as lesbian? Did she dress a particular way or have a pink triangle button on? I mean, if they all looked the same, how do you know. You seem to think that only gay people object to anti-gay language or discrimination. Or, y'know, just idiotic, vague expressions of generalized disapproval.

You are right. That was my bad in assuming that she was a lesbian. My apologies.

This whole we are a target is a media knee jerk reaction tool. Like I said it is a far more interesting news article to say they were the target of gay bashing without knowing all the facts. That news article said nothing about what lead up to the attack. I am sorry but the attack was "allegedly launched after Alker discovered Mr Causer was gay" is not fact but it makes a much better news story, which gets more hits which equals more money. Anything could have happened before the attack. If the homosexual community was the only group targeted by violent crimes you would have a point. Are there any studies to prove that they are more likely to be targeted? No. Why? Because what the actual motivation behind these crimes may not be homosexual hate. A straight man beats and kills a homosexual male in an alley. Does that automatically make it a hate crime? No. The killer may not have even known the victim was gay. Could be a simple mugging gone bad. And you think it is only gay people who could become the target of a hate crime??? Seriously that is not an arguement. A white person can be the target of a black group who hate white people. Or vice versa. Or how about the terrorist who hate Americans? Nazis and Jewish people. And this kind of human behaviour is not something that just popped up when the homosexual community formed and collectively came out of the closet. Look in any history book. Anyone who is different than another group they try and kill each other. Sorry but a group of people not liking the group of people you are a part of doesn't make you special. It makes you human.

Usually, the hate crime is readily identifiable by the repeated shouting of anti-gay epithets. I know this because I've been there. I've been followed down the street with my girlfriend by a pack of guys threatening to kick my lezzie dyke ass and had to go stand in a store waiting for them to get bored and leave. We were lucky we were on a busy streets with too many witnesses for them to attack us there. There was such a frequent problem with gay-bashing in the gay neighborhood in my city, we had to form a community patrol to walk people safely to their cars and to stand watch over the bus stops. I suppose you could argue that the attackers didn't know their victims were gay, but the fact that they saw their victims coming out of gay bars and the fact that they were yelling, "You fucking fag! I'm going to kill you!" would indicate otherwise.

And you are right, it didn't just start happening when gay people started coming out of the closet. It's been going on for a very long time. There have been overt anti-gay campaigns in Victorian Britain, pre-WWI Germany, Nazi Germany of course, where homosexuals were put in the concentration camps with pink triangles on their sleeves to indicate that they were imprisoned for being gay.

If the homosexual community was the only group targeted by violent crimes you would have a point. Are there any studies to prove that they are more likely to be targeted?

We don't have to be the only targeted group to be a targeted group. Just because black people are targeted doesn't mean that gay people and Jewish people can't be targeted too. The point is the targeting itself.

Look in any history book. Anyone who is different than another group they try and kill each other. Sorry but a group of people not liking the group of people you are a part of doesn't make you special. It makes you human.

Each other? That would suggest that the violence is somehow mutual. Have you been reading the history books? Gay people aren't waiting outside of straight bars to beat up straight people. Say what you want about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, there has never been a group along the lines of the KKK that conducted a century-long campaign of murder and terror against white people just because they were white. I've not heard of any Jews systematically killing Germans. If you are simply going to deny the existence of targeted violence toward specific demographic groups, I don't think there's any point in further conversation on this matter.

Right and no gay person has ever commited an act of violence. How do you know there aren't homosexuals out there doing exactly that? When the rest of the world becomes pacificistic except for gay bashing then you will have a valid arguement. Until then you are a target just like every other human being on the planet. That is the problem VIOLENCE. Not some demographic targeted violence but violence altogether. Why not try to end that instead of the violence just directed at your group? Oh right because that doesn't affect you. It only affects you when it is directed at your group. That is some of the most selfish bullshit I have ever had the mispleasure of reading here.

 

[squid5580]

And can you offer any other base reasoning behind a violent crime.

Greed--a person wants the watch you are wearing. If you put your watch down and they could take it without doing violence to you, they would. However, they can't--you keep the watch on, so they take your watch off you using physical violence.

It's not that they hate you, it's that they are indifferent to your suffering, while their only motive is greed.

Or it could be argued that they hate you because you have something they want that lead to the greed.

 

[Alarid]

Hilariously enough, it is the lack of special treatment that makes things like this come up. I would rather have another option than to shy away in fear from someones sexuality, religion, etc. I really would like to openly discuss this stuff, but it really makes people uncomfortable.

 

[squid5580]

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?

Not necessarily: if the only way to feed his family is to take bread without paying for it, he's not guilty of theft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity

Now, that defense is never available because if your family is on the verge of starvation you can always take them to a hospital for medical treatment so that stealing a loaf of bread is never the lesser-of-all-evils. However, if it came down to your family starving or you stealing a loaf of bread by some crazy circumstance, you're perfectly within your rights to take the loaf of bread.

As long as that was your motive--if your family is starving and you steal a loaf of bread and then you sell it and spend the money on yourself, well, then you are guilty of theft.

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.

Well, that changes everything.

See, you're not against hate crimes--you're against any system where motive is taken into consideration in distinguishing between crimes. You don't just want to overturn the laws that gay rights activists have gotten passed, you want to overturn centuries of Anglo-American legal tradition.

And hey--maybe you do. However, you should be more accurate, and when you argue against the wisdom of hate crime laws, you should make it clear right up front that your reason for being against them is actually a pretty radical one.

I thought I had when I said

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. 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.

Even though I used the KKK example which seems to have been taken out of context.

Going on to the different degrees of murder I don't think it really matters to anyone but some outdated law that a person was killed spur of the moment or it was premeditated. I doubt it would make the family of the victim feel any better knowing that the victim was beat to death on a whim. Or make them feel worse that it was all planned out. And I know it doesn't matter to the victim.

It's strictly a judgement on the criminal - and society judges that crimes committed in a planned manner (1st degree murder) are more heinous than crimes of passion (2nd degree murder) and that criminals of the first group who planned the crime, are more cold-blooded, and cruel, and that the sentence should be stricter. The same logic is applied to hate crimes...we are judging the criminal not just on their actions, but on their intent. A group of college kids who get into a bar fight and beat someone can be charged with assault, but a group of guys in the KKK who beat a black guy are more morally repugnant. It's nothing to do with the action they did being "worse" for the victim, it's the values they are upholding that go against society, and that those values deserve extra punishment.

The assualt scenario is a diffent bag here. Sure there will be different factors and you are going to want different sentences based on the severity of the crime. IMHO a murderer should face life inprisonment plain and simple. No parole. You rot in a tiny cell eating tastless gruel for the rest of your days inbetween being put to intense physical labor (the chaingang). No matter if it was a crime of passion or premeditated murder.

 

[squid5580]

And can you offer any other base reasoning behind a violent crime.

Greed--a person wants the watch you are wearing. If you put your watch down and they could take it without doing violence to you, they would. However, they can't--you keep the watch on, so they take your watch off you using physical violence.

It's not that they hate you, it's that they are indifferent to your suffering, while their only motive is greed.

Or it could be argued that they hate you because you have something they want that lead to the greed.

But then, aren't we really just calling any negative emotion "hate"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they are 'jealous' or 'envious' of you?

Again it could be argued all those negative emotions stem from hate. Although at the end of the day we would be just arguing wordplay and what those words mean to each individual. Especially words that are used to label emotions.

 

[thisismyonlypost]

I can't see any situation in which online communities will have reform forced upon them by their respective companies. Discrimination is rampant in these communities and companies (like EA) will be very reluctant to try and change that if it is likely to put a damper on their patronage. And as a few people have noted, there are few places more suited to anonymity then the internet. The person insulting you is nobody to you and you are nobody to them, so why must we fret about what they are saying about us? Personally I think those that let themselves get offended by that kid on the internet should be a little thicker skinned.