EA Hosting Panel on Homophobia in Gaming
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
SuperMse said:
In general I've remained fairly quiet (aside from my initial comments) because I am hardly pro-gay as many know from previous discussions on the subject of homosexuality here. Ultimatly a lot of it comes down to your thoughts on homosexuality and whether you accept homosexuality as being generally okay (and feel it is being discriminated against), or happen to be anti-gay and see it as a problem to be solved. Despite what many might think I am somewhere between the most extreme positions either way but generally get pushed into the "militantly anti-gay" crowd by the pro-gay crowd since I'm hardly of the 100% acceptance position which puts me at odds with anyone that is.
At any rate, the point here is not to argue about the specifics (which is why I am not going into them, and will ignore attempts to do so), but to point out that despite the best efforts of the media and the "political correctness" movement, the entire "gay rights" position hardly has massive mainstream inertia behind it. It's just that many people who are anti-gay are not given platforms, and tend not to be as vocal because of the politically correct gang banging they can receive for speaking their minds.
The point of this response (and why I write it here) is that I disagree with you about the nature of this panel and what is going on, and find it's very existance a problem. Right now the goverment does not have the abillity to actually censor content or excercise direct control over the media and what is said or done through mass communications other than in time of national crisis (ie if the goverment was to actually invoke and use it's war powers and effectively declare martial law).
Ultimatly, what you have is a bunch of companies that control personal media empires based around gaming getting together to coordinate a political statement on a matter that the people running them happen to agree on. If the goverment was to try and do something very similar to this it would be illegal. It raises interesting questions about freedom and maintaining the freedom of speech when private individuals (or groups) can ultimatly choose to set policy and control what is said and promoted above and beyond the abillity of elected officials. Yes it is "their" gaming companies, just like Ted Turner had "his" Networks, but honestly I rapidly begin to fear a lack of regulation on private media and what they can do at this level has the potential to create monsters far greater than the goverment we originally feared being able to control the spread of ideas.
A lot of people look at something like this, and if pro-gay see it as being a good thing. On the other hand if you disagree with the agenda set for their meeting the implications are fairly frightening, especially if unchecked it sets some very dangeorous precedents for private citizens to control information.
As time goes on, wait until you see this kind of coordination going on based on something you *DON'T* agree with and we'll see how you feel about it. Right now though I'd estimate your looking at what amounts to an attempt to a coordinated assault within the sphere of video game media against probably about 43% of the US population's belief structure on these grounds by ultimatly removing one of the channels used for under the table discussion/expression of non-PC beliefs.
I get the 43% figure off the top of my head by looking at some of the figures from the last Presidential election. According to a lot of what was said the pro-gay elements mostly went to Obama, the "log cabin republicans" being one of the "major" groups that went accross party lines to give him his 7% victory in what was a more or less polarized nation. So pretty much in taking most left wing issues you can break it down to like 57% for/43% against. Despite the media making it sound like the only ones who support anything non-left wing are rednecks chuggling moonshine out of broken ragu jars someplace in the generic deep south.
As far as an earlier response I got (and I guess I'll respond to somewhat) I will say that if "gays are so normal that you would never know they were gay" then why do we need to make an issue out of ensuring there is a giant "He's gay!!!! accept him!!!" over more characters in various games.
As far as relatively "normal" gays (there are many differant kinds, even I will admit, it's not just one stereotype) the bottom line is that the only way your going to know is if they do something to make their sexual orientation apparent. Okay granted, maybe they don't go running around in Vegas Flamingo feathers, but still we're dealing with a tiny minority group. The overwhelming majority of people do not want to see say Dom confessing his deep man-love for Marcus in an alien blood splattered trench in "Gears Of War" for example. No matter how serious it's presented... no... just no. Maybe members of that minority of gay players might appreciate that, but even without getting into my anti-gay sentiments, I'm pretty sure the majority of straight guys wouldn't. Playing it for laughs is one of the few things that can make it remotely tolerable even for the tolerant.
I mean face it, for a minority group there is plenty of stuff out there already for gay men. Heck Mercedes Lackey wrote that whole "Last Herald-Mage" book totally around a gay-love dynamic. Sure it's only one series I'm mentioning (there are others) but given that we're dealing with a minority, how many do you think we need?
When it comes to video games, you've also got plenty of gay innuendos other than the overt "Enchanted Arms" stuff. For example nobody can seriously tell me upon seeing Vaan from Final Fantasy XII that he doesn't just ooze "gay Aladdin".
Also in all seriousness (despite how many will react to it) if they want to portray homosexuality in games, they can always do it with hot lesbians which the male playerbase (which is the majority) will at least find tolerable despite the occasional comments.
The basic point is that this entire thing seems to be thinly discguised rallying for a politically correct media assault and censorship campaign. Whether it actually happens or not, it seems like they are aiming to try. I see that as being a bad thing overall.
Now on the other hand if they were having a seriously balanced discussion on the topic and made this a meeting on homosexuality (as opposed to homophobia) and actually had some serious anti-gay components to this balancing the pro-gay elements I might see it as being less alarming and take it as being more serious.
I'll also freely admit that given the current state of their big product (Second Life) I think Linden Labs being involved in anything like this is a joke nowadays. Back in the day I thought they had some serious potential for spreading freedom throughout the internet, as in their enviroment you could be as hateful or politically correct as you wanted to, it was up to the individual, and they were mostly neutral. Then they started becoming increasingly slanted, leading to groups like the Something Awful Goons terrorizing them and even running
a column on them. Given that their service (which I admittedly never used) mostly seems to have grown past producing anything useful, and now has a reputation mostly for being a haven for gay pedo-furs and similar pervs on the fringes of their community to slink onto and do whatever they are into while avoiding Linden's half hearted sweeps for "ageplay" and the like.
I am honestly in mortal terror of anything they could contribute on the subject. What started as online freedom, turned into a left wing police state, and then gradually
morphed into a cancer that not even it's creators could cure. They aren't the stuff of panel members, more along the lines of someone to point at and go "okay that is NOT what we want to see this turning into".
As "sick" as many people might find it, I thought the idea of Second Life was more or less okay when you could say have the pro-gay nightclub on one side of a street, and some guy building his own interactive gay concentration camp on the other side of the street. Balanced, every extremist got their chance. In reality most stuff was in the middle (of course). Once they started seriously putting rules into force it became a joke.
>>>----Therumancer--->
>>>----Therumancer--->
If I didn't make it clear in my post, I don't think running to the teacher is a solution. But I also don't think that ignoring bullies works. The gay community has been trying that approach for a couple centuries now and it hasn't worked. The third option, and the one I believe in, is standing up to the bully, sticking up for yourself. Will the bully hit you? Yes, he will. But bullies are most attracted to easy targets, and a person who is willing to defend themselves is not an easy target. It is possible, as a community, to learn to fight back.squid5580 said:
Now, when you fight back, you are escalating the conflict, there is no way around it, so you have to be prepared to take a beating and keep fighting. When the gay community escalates by organizing, the anti-gay community responds by organizing too. But the gay community is making progress and the anti-gay community isn't. We are slugging it out in the cultural playground and we are winning. The fact that the majority of people here say they don't care if you are gay is proof of that. It wasn't that long ago that would not have been the case.
When I see someone being abused, I don't physically intervene because I can't. I'm very small with a lot of spine damage, so I stay off to the side but I don't walk past. I call the police and stay there snapping pictures with my cell phone so that there will be evidence for prosecution. Sometimes all it it takes is knowing that you've called the cops to make them stop and run off.
I do believe that people are less likely to intervene if they perceive the victim to be gay. And I do know that men who have beaten up gay men have successfully defended themselves in court or gotten reduced sentences by claiming that the person they attacked made a pass at them and that's what sent them into a rage in which they beat the victim, and in at least case, beat the victim to death.
I didn't just insult you there, people who are insulted by it are failing to understand the nature of the argument. It is important to make a distinction between the individual and the group, and understand "societies problems" and you so disdainfully put it, are trends and tendencies within the society. It does not mean that I believe everyone within a societal group is more likely to act in a specific way, it means that within the societal group, there is an increased likelihood that there will be someone that acts in a specific way. I don't believe that every individual within a targeted group will be a victim of an attack because they are targeted, I believe that overall they are at increased risk of being attacked because of the target. We are talking odds, here, not individuals.
The failure to make this distinction is something an activist needs to learn to make if they want to be effective. I know some people, gay and straight who would have incorrectly labeled you as a homophobe and written you off. Why, because of that insulting attitude you just mentioned, that when you get right down to it, most straight people are homophobic. Luckily, it seems that attitude is on the wane. And I would have to stand up for you, in that case, because I don't believe you are a homophobe. I take you at your word that you would help me if some guys were beating me up in the parking lot of a gay bar. But they would write you off as a homophobe because they are making the same mistake you are, failing to distinguish between the individual and the group to which they belong.
There's another reason why it's important not to just care about "your group." That's because nobody belongs to just one group. I'm in the gay group, I'm also in the feminist group, and I'm also in the white group, among other things. This means that, within the activist community alone, I have to deal with sexism in the gay group (believe me, it's there), anti-gay crap in the feminist community, and the odds that someone who is white within the gay or feminist groups is going to say or do something racist to one of the people of color in either or both of the groups. Hell, I even get to deal with sexism inside the feminist community, delightful irony that it is. We spend so much time hashing out all this bullshit with each other, it's amazing that we get anything done outside the group.
So, a lovely flavor of classism. That's awesome. I hate classism, in part because it's so damn slippery as a subject. Upward mobility through the society, or at least the idea of it, and the conflation of race and class in the United States, means that it's really hard to untangle it as it's own phenomenon.Alex_P said:
We called them stoners in my day, based on the lovely assumption they were stoned all the time. Where I grew up in the suburbs, I avoided the skid label by getting the Freak and Nerd labels instead. I when I was young, we lived in what what overtly called the "White Ghetto" (to distinguish it from the black ghetto to the north) and yeah, we were all skids, but since we were all skids, we didn't notice. Then we moved to the suburbs, even though we really weren't any better off, and I was nearly a skid there but I missed it by literally the width of a creek. The creek ran through our back yard, and on the other side of it was the skid neighborhood. Of course, our neighborhood wasn't much better. My neighbors across the street were the classic cars-up-on-blocks-in-the-yard family. But our neighborhood had curbs and in their neighborhood, the yards just ran right into the street.
The majority of the neighborhoods around us, though, were well-to-do or just flat wealthy, which made high school hell for the skids and the near-skids like myself. There was this one wolf-pack of kids from a gated community who were just savage in their bullying. But they'd learned the art of taunting the skids into attacking them and then when someone came to stop the fight, they'd point at the skid who'd had the shit kicked out of him, because they were all on the football team together, and say he started it. Everyone, including the teachers, knew they were doing it, everyone knew they were targeting the poor kids, but they never got suspended or expelled, because if they did, their parents would make a fuss to the school board. The stoners got suspended all the time. After all, they were problem kids from bad families who were probably going to drop out anyway.
So tl;dr, I figured it was something like that, and god I wish I knew what to do about it. It's just that classism is like porn - I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I know it when I see it.
That statement is so full of bigotry it isn't funny. And that is the point the groups come to odds. You accuse us of being homophobes without knowing us. Sure you may have met some of us and talked with some of us but to make a baseless generalization like that is no better than what you feel we do to you.mshcherbatskaya said:
Here is what I think. I think the majority of the "straights" aren't homophobic as in the "we hate you" sense. I am sure if asked directly alot of the "homophobes" if answering honestly would tell you we don't understand how or why. How could you be attracted to your girlfriend? Why would you be attracted to a member of the same sex? I don't expect an answer since I can't tell you why I am attracted to my wife. Not in the general sense as the question is phrased. Now I can't deny the religious fanatical groups with thier anti-gay propaganda trying to shove thier beliefs down your throats (and we straight people suffer through the same BS for different reasons). Although even then they have good intentions. They believe they are acting out of love not fear or hate.
Hate is a huge drain on my time and energy. So if I don't know you personally I don't hate you. Don't care what demographic you fall into (except maybe the stupid demographic that kills my brain cells unnaturally). Other than that (and it was a joke ...sort of) I have no problems with any group.
I was attacked for being different. Isn't that what this whole discussion has been about? Does it really matter what sets one apart from any other when talking about something like this? Or do I need to belong to some specific media encouraged group with a fancy name before it applies to my situation.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I believe I have already expressed my feelings about "hate crimes" which would be considered racist crimes. Unless of course you want to see people thrown in jail for saying a derogatory remark which I do believe would be unconstitutional. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I may not like what a raging racist pig has to say but be damned if they don't have the right to say it.
I would love to live in a world where we all held hands and sang campfire songs. Where we could simply use our words to resolve our differences. Sure it would mean games and movies would be pretty boring but that is a small sacrifice. And whenever someone figures out what causes our violent urges and whatever else that causes this crap to happen, develops a drug and makes everyone in the world take it well we got to make the best with what we have. And so far the only thing we have is punishment.
that's a fascinating point, and you're probably right, private media does in fact have too much control over information in this country. obviously an entirely state-run media isn't the answer, but maybe some other option that keeps media relatively free of both government and corporate influence.Therumancer said:
well, off the top of my head, i'd say something similar is happening with the RIAA. i'm strongly opposed to the way the recording industry has banded together to stifle new technology and maintain control over music distribution. that said, it's legal and there's not much i can do to stop it.Therumancer said:
that's pretty funny, since obama is fairly conservative on gay issues, at least for a democrat.Therumancer said:
quite frankly, we don't. it never even really has to come up. the best example is dumbledore in harry potter. earlier in this thread, i think someone said they wouldn't have read it if they knew dumbledore was gay. frankly, that's idiotic. sure j.k. rowling thought of him as gay, and wrote his character with that fact in mind, but if the book didn't bring it up, there's no reason to let your knowledge of his sexuality ruin it after the fact.Therumancer said:
as far as video games are concerned, the best example i can think of is Guilty Gear. GGXX has both a gay and a transgendered character, but unless you pay very close attention to their backstories it never really comes up. now, the gay guy is fairly evil and the transgender kid is an irritating prick, but these traits are independent of their sexuality, and as relatable LGBT characters they work fairly well.
a more familiar example is probably Axel in KH2. his
final speech
basically, all it really takes is a brief little mention here or there. the GLBT community can appreciate it and everyone else can easily ignore it if they so choose.
don't think of it in terms of retrofitting homosexuality onto existing characters. that'd be just as ridiculous as making Dom a woman and having them declare their love for each other in a trench.Therumancer said:
much in the same way that game developers try to expand their audiences by creating believable, relatable female or minority characters, they can expand their audiences by designing games in ways that homosexuals can relate to. mind you, this doesn't mean games that ONLY homosexuals will like; obviously that makes no financial sense and it'd be bound to fail. but maybe run the game past some gay focus testers, and see if there's some changes to make that will make it more appealing to them without turning off the mainstream audience, i.e. you.
honestly, i have no idea why they don't do this more often. GET IT TOGETHER GAME INDUSTRY.Therumancer said:
i don't think we need to worry about anything extreme coming out of this, for the simple reason that it won't make economic sense. these companies are beholden to their shareholders and no one else. they're not stupid; they've seen the results of the Prop. 8 vote and they know that they'll lose a lot of their core audience if they think they're having homosexuality shoved down their throat. ultimately they won't do anything that will hurt their bottom line. but they see an opportunity to expand their market and they'd be stupid not to try and capitalize on it.Therumancer said:
EDIT:
keep the bad blood to PM please, and let's keep this thread reasonable and on-topic.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Hmmm, actually Cheeze, this is the first time I've actually seen you lie in order to try and make a point. I'm a bit disappointed. Perhaps you simply have a poor memory.
At any rate, in with those dozens of lines of text I have included a number of reasons in support of my beliefs. Granted none that you agree with, or have convinced you, but reasons none the less.
Namely I have explained that *I* believe gay men are far more interested in pre-sexual humans and more likely to attack little boys and such than say lesbians are likely to engage in sexual assault of pre-sexual girls.
This has even gone so far as to turn into lengthy debates about the existance and purpose of groups like NAMBLA, and how powerful they may or may not be compared to when I had to deal with their existance, and similar things.
Like most such disagreements over the internet everyone involved ultimatly had to agree to disagree, and nothing was ultimatly achieved to convert either side, but reasons WERE given and debated even if you (and others from the pro-gay camp) didn't agree.
I didn't just "clam up" rather, after a certain point I just make it clear that I will no longer be responding. Usually when it becomes clear that all we're going to see is a lot of re-stated unchanging opinions combined with increasing levels of anger and frustration on both sides.
Trust me, if I started giving reasons why I am anti-gay, it would just retread the same previous arguements, they would turn out the same way, and not only would we fail to accomplish anything but we'd derail a thread and might even get a mod involved since things have a chance to get fairly nasty. Hence why I glossed over the specifics here except to point out that I am one of those on the less popular side. I referanced previous discussions purely to avoid any accusations that I was taking that tone just to get attention here.
At any rate as long as this response is, perhaps you might want to read some of the rest of that essay and perhaps there are some points you'd care to debate that won't immediatly turn into a re-hash of previous irresolvable differances?
Homophobia in games? lolwut?
I can't think of many RPGs these days that either don't have delicious lesbian sex or strong hints of it. They're a bit behind on the man/man sex, although some games also let you do that. And the games that don't, certainly have modders that'll make sure it happens (I'm looking at YOU, Morrowind and Oblivion). Some even have incest to boot (Imoen Romance mod, why were you made?). It just sounds like it's an "I'm a special snowflake because I enjoy sexual relations with the same gender"-panel that'll lead exactly nowhere.
I just think that these guys forget that even though they're not always intended to, the various games are often bought for kids (just do a quick "how old were you when you played Doom?" poll). Game developers often leave real sexual content out for this reason and it shouldn't really come as a surprise that especially homosexuality will be left out, considering how many soccer moms react to it in regular media.
Personally, I don't care if the game will let you fuck the dog as well, people just need to remember that games need to make money before anything else.
I can't think of many RPGs these days that either don't have delicious lesbian sex or strong hints of it. They're a bit behind on the man/man sex, although some games also let you do that. And the games that don't, certainly have modders that'll make sure it happens (I'm looking at YOU, Morrowind and Oblivion). Some even have incest to boot (Imoen Romance mod, why were you made?). It just sounds like it's an "I'm a special snowflake because I enjoy sexual relations with the same gender"-panel that'll lead exactly nowhere.
I just think that these guys forget that even though they're not always intended to, the various games are often bought for kids (just do a quick "how old were you when you played Doom?" poll). Game developers often leave real sexual content out for this reason and it shouldn't really come as a surprise that especially homosexuality will be left out, considering how many soccer moms react to it in regular media.
Personally, I don't care if the game will let you fuck the dog as well, people just need to remember that games need to make money before anything else.
cobra_ky said:that's a fascinating point, and you're probably right, private media does in fact have too much control over information in this country. obviously an entirely state-run media isn't the answer, but maybe some other option that keeps media relatively free of both government and corporate influence.Therumancer said:
Okay to try and remember all of this:
#1: My concern about "something major coming from this" is simply because I figure why bother otherwise? Assuming that nothing truely outrageous could happen because of the bottom line makes sense, until you look at the fact that the meeting *IS* apparently happening, someone is spending money to make it happen, and attendance implies that there is at least some interest in putting politics before pure profit.
Arguably a lot of left wing ideas (not all of which have been bad) have gotten spread the same way, when those who believe the philsophy have taken personal hits to spread the message above and beyond simply promoting their own bottom line. I think a lot of baby boomers got into the media (and became successful at it) with the specific purpose of doing this.
While not related to video games, I look at guys like Ted Turner as a sort of poster child for it. I don't agree with a lot of what he does, but he does deserve some kudos for sticking to his guns. But then again this IS the same guy who married Hanoi Jane (Jane Fonda). Even a lot of people who are anti-vietnam have a hard time supporting what she did.
I guess the big question comes down to whether EA (and other companies) believe they will still make profits by getting political, even if the profits are less than normal. What's more if they get in on the winning side of a political movement (as much of a gamble as it might be), that can give them cred they can sell for decades to say "hey we're not souless capitolists" while exploiting the fanboys with their past glories.
I mean seriously, they might think they can turn EA sponsorship into the equivilent of sticking "Palooza" on the end of something (which works better than many might want to admit).
Honestly I wouldn't care that much, because I'm not so homophobic that I can't deal with anything with overt homosexuality in it (apologies to those who might think that). I just see it as being a truely horrendous direction for the game industry, since I use video games to get away from real world issues. I'm just as enthusiastic about the whole idea of big game companies taking on homophobia, as I was with Marvel Comics doing a whole company wide crossover event (Civil War) to express the political opinions of their management. In Marvel's case they produced a decent product, but all of the real world analogies and intentional political slants left a bad taste in my mouth. If Marvel can do this for a year or two to make a statement, I'd imagine a coalition of game companies can do something similar with other issues.
#2: When it comes to Dumbledore, to be honest with you I don't believe JK Rowling ever said he was gay. Unless I missed a more definate statement I think what she said was basically that none of her characters were gay, but if any of them were it would have been Dumbledore due to his close relationship with Grindlewald (which is integral to the later plotline, as it sort of explains what happened with Dumbledore and the previous Dark Lord before Voldemorte, and how close Dumbledore came to actually becoming something as bad as Voldemorte).
Again, unless I missed it, she never said that he and Grindlewald were an item, or anything of the sort. Merely that it was the closest thing to it.
Of course then again I will also say that I think JK Rowling is a very differant person today than when her books first became successful. Today she strikes me as the sort who will do anything to squeeze a few more bucks out of the franchise despite already being obnoxiously rich. If she can dredge up contreversy without hurting the existing sales or fan base she is going to.
I have no doubt that if she thought there would be money in releasing porno spinoffs (of whatever orientation) in excess of what she is making from the current "totally clean" version she would be all over it. 20 years from now I half expect her to defile her own works as much as possible for another major cash windfall to try and sell the current fanbase more product based on the same source, sort of like what Adult Swim has done with the Hanna Barbara cartoon library and baby boomers.
Right now I think people are reading into the statement I remember her making, but on the other hand if there is a percentage in "The Erotic Adventures Of Albus Dumbledore" I can almost guarantee she'll be there as soon as she can exploit the market without ruining her current one.
Hey, maybe I misjudge her, but right now it seems like she's gone from being a nice lady who got lucky making a fortune enchanting us all with her children's tales, to a bipedal cash register.
#3: When it comes to Obama, you have to also consider who he was running against. Mccain is a very old guy and started his political career before there was even really any noise about gay rights. During the campaign there was a lot of question about whether he could keep the gay (Log Cabin) Republican base in support of him, in a race that was hotly contested enough where every fraction of a percentage point counted.
In the end Obama managed to pull over a lot of the moderates, fence walkers, gays, and minorities for a lot of reasons including his relative youth which was seen as making him a lot more liberal on social issues than anything he said. He did a lot by not saying a lot so he could play both the "I'm more moderate than most liberals" card while letting his youth speak for the "I'm extremely liberal because I got into all of this when these issues existed like they do now, and what I think is obvious by my party affiliation".
All of that only counted for about 7% though, which is a lot less than many people try and act like it is when it comes to the media. To hear the way a lot of people present things nowadays you'd think like 70 or 80% of the population agree with Obama or lean heavily to the left wing. That's just not true.
Though arguably I think a lot of companies look at things like Marvel (which is an increasingly multi-media empire) and stuff like their Civil War (which I commented on above) and think they can be both political and profitable at the same time. Given all the tie ins, the video game coming out in September (which I am actually looking forward to despite everything), etc... I think to an extent companies like EA are thinking they can make Homosexuality into an ongoing issue and use it the same way to both promote an agenda and make money. I could of course be wrong, but that is sort of what this whole meeting sounds like. I don't follow the music industry to the extent you do apparently, but I guess it would fit in with the entire trend, and simply make what this EA meeting is about simply a part of something going on overall.
