EA Hosting Panel on Homophobia in Gaming

[squid5580]

And Sony isn't by censoring the word gay when typed? At least MS is giving us a little credit by giving us our own policing instead of deciding for us what we can and can't talk about. There is nothing stopping anyone from announcing to every player in every match thier sexual preference if that is what matters to you. And if another finds that offensive then they have the option of muting you. And I could be wrong but I doubt MS would have gone the same route they did if the lesbian in question had put Jill loves Jane vs I am a lesbian.

i'm not sure exactly what you're referring to with Sony, but it sounds like they probably are too. i'm just explaining it in terms of microsoft because that's the story that was linked in the main post. i shouldn't have brought up hypothetical situations, but the point i was trying to make is that microsoft allows people to share all sorts of information about themselves, but sexual orientation is treated differently. it's an issue specific to the gay community, and therefore should have been at the forefront of this discussion. the prevalence of obscene language in voice chat, whether its racist, homophobic, or just plain swearing, is a much more general and much more difficult problem to solve.

I don't know how many times I can say this. You can't expect MS to moderate the voice chat. There is millions of people using it over 100 of games. What you expect them to do would cost billions at the very least. That is why they offered up the whole mute player option and allowed us to moderate ourselves. How were they to know most gamers would be to stunned to use such an easy option and instead blame them for something they have no control over? Or is it all the people bitching about it are to immature for such power? The bottom line on XBL is if you don't like it you don't have to listen to it. All the while listening to the people you do want to listen to. If you can come up with a better option to still allow voice chat I for one would love to hear it. Although I would suggest you send your idea to a patent office then to MS first.

Now for the whole sexual preference in your profile. If you can give me just one benefit to it that would benefit the entire community (not your own self worth or the fact that you think it is an important part of who you are) I have an open enough mind I would gladly listen. One that immediately comes to mind is "well then homosexuals could have thier own special little community. Unfortunately that destroys the whole we are equal. Remembering that the division such an issue causes in todays world is it really worth it? Sure in a perfect world one could openly say I'm here, I'm queer and that is that both in the real world and online without fear of consequence. I don't see the problem of not allowing people to use swear words or sexual orientation in thier profile as a way to try and maintain peace within the community so everyone can try and have a pleasant experience online. And not just reserve it to only sexual orientation but also politics and religion. There are probably some other hot topic controversial issues that people feel really passionate about that I can't think of off hand. That is afterall the goal. The point of the profile is not to be used as your personal soapbox. Come here for that (do I get a cookie for pluggin the Escapist?? lol).

 

[squid5580]

*snip*

You are correct that I did read it wrong. I read it (and I meant to bold the part after the comma) that you were saying that most staight people were homophobic but that is on the wane. After years of being demonized by the minority groups or demographic (because any HWM is of course the problem) it is sometimes hard to curb that defensive mechanism.

My apologies.

Honestly, I do think there is some demonization of HWMs, just as there is demonization of gays and feminists and community organizers of various flavors and colors. It flies every direction, not because that's human nature, IMO, but because we've never learned how to talk about all this stuff properly.

You've seen some hot thread topic explode on these forums, lots of people posts, many of them not reading first, elements derailing into spinoff arguments, quoting, misquoting, some people sticking to the point, others bursting into flames, the peppering of "who cares!" comments, etc., you know what I'm talking about right?

And you may have seen people on these threads you agree with but whose way of arguing is not, to put it nicely, doing your side any credit. You may have seen people who have a good point but don't know how to express it or haven't gotten it thought out. You many have seen people who have NO point and just keep making it, or who won't think it out and just keep expressing it over and over. And the thing is, they aren't doing it because they are bad, they aren't doing it because they are stupid, they are doing it because discussion of this sort is a skill you have to learn and they don't teach it in school. (They used to, you know. In Shakespeare's day, the schools taught reading, writing, arithmetic, and rhetoric--the method of making logically correct points.)

You've seen the animosity and the flames build in these threads. And it's not like anyone (well, maybe a few people) went in there with the intent to piss people off and offend them. It just happens. Well, in this massive, metaphorical forum of the United States (if you live elsewhere, then I can't speak to that), there is a very, very, very hot thread with millions of people posting to it, and the title of the thread is, "What does it mean to be equal?"

So this back-and-forth demonization is the flamey, pointless crap that every hot thread generates, and just like we have to do here, we have to recognize it for what it is and stick to the real point of the discussion. Not argument, mind you, discussion. People who want to argue don't want to learn, they want to win. If you are discussing something, you are listening to what the other person says in order to learn something. In American politics, we argue way to much and discuss almost nothing.

As far as your direct experience of being demonized, I have some thoughts about that. I didn't know what the word skid meant, but when Alex_P explained it to me, I recognized the epithet by a different name [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.125124?page=9#2627845]. I don't know anything about your economic standing, but there is a classist stereotype that assumes that, basically, the less money a white person has, the more likely they are to be racist, sexist, and homophobic. This is, of course, completely stupid, but if people perceive you as a "skid", they may very well just assume you are a bigot of some sort. Not just gay people or people of color, but just generally, you may be assumed to be a bigot unless you prove otherwise if you are perceived to be of a certain economic class. Also, the more small-town or rural a person is, the more they are assumed to be racist, sexist, and homophobic. This is what I'm talking about when I say nobody belongs to just one group. Oh, I've had some lovely conversations with other gay people about their use of the phrase, "white trash." *grinds teeth* You know how the arguments with your own family are the worst? Yeah, well, like I said, we spend so much time calling each other on shit like this, it's a miracle we get anything done. But if we don't call each other on it, then the big thread we are all posting to just bursts out into that many more flames.

You know it is funny but I have no clue what the word "skid " actually means other than it is used as an insult and the hate behind it. I would guess that it is probably along the same lines as "white trash". In another town where I used to live (I'm Canadian BTW I know we have a slightly different vocabulary than Americans) the term was "Rat". It didn't mean snitch to them it meant basically what you would call white trash. I may not look it but I am comfortable in the money situation. I just prefer to wear ripped jeans and T-shirts (not the wife beater shirts but fun T-shirts). I live in a good nieghborhood.

A funny little story. On Canada day (July 1st) I had to run downtown of the small city where I live to grab nothing less than baby formula. 2 blocks away from the store a cop pulls up beside me and starts playing the 20 question game. When Iam done answering he asks how long I have been around so I answered about 7 years. He didn't believe me since he had never seen me around before. I responded with "well that could be because I don't cause trouble and that I just look like I should". He got all red in the face and drove away.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

*snip*

You are correct that I did read it wrong. I read it (and I meant to bold the part after the comma) that you were saying that most staight people were homophobic but that is on the wane. After years of being demonized by the minority groups or demographic (because any HWM is of course the problem) it is sometimes hard to curb that defensive mechanism.

My apologies.

Honestly, I do think there is some demonization of HWMs, just as there is demonization of gays and feminists and community organizers of various flavors and colors. It flies every direction, not because that's human nature, IMO, but because we've never learned how to talk about all this stuff properly.

You've seen some hot thread topic explode on these forums, lots of people posts, many of them not reading first, elements derailing into spinoff arguments, quoting, misquoting, some people sticking to the point, others bursting into flames, the peppering of "who cares!" comments, etc., you know what I'm talking about right?

And you may have seen people on these threads you agree with but whose way of arguing is not, to put it nicely, doing your side any credit. You may have seen people who have a good point but don't know how to express it or haven't gotten it thought out. You many have seen people who have NO point and just keep making it, or who won't think it out and just keep expressing it over and over. And the thing is, they aren't doing it because they are bad, they aren't doing it because they are stupid, they are doing it because discussion of this sort is a skill you have to learn and they don't teach it in school. (They used to, you know. In Shakespeare's day, the schools taught reading, writing, arithmetic, and rhetoric--the method of making logically correct points.)

You've seen the animosity and the flames build in these threads. And it's not like anyone (well, maybe a few people) went in there with the intent to piss people off and offend them. It just happens. Well, in this massive, metaphorical forum of the United States (if you live elsewhere, then I can't speak to that), there is a very, very, very hot thread with millions of people posting to it, and the title of the thread is, "What does it mean to be equal?"

So this back-and-forth demonization is the flamey, pointless crap that every hot thread generates, and just like we have to do here, we have to recognize it for what it is and stick to the real point of the discussion. Not argument, mind you, discussion. People who want to argue don't want to learn, they want to win. If you are discussing something, you are listening to what the other person says in order to learn something. In American politics, we argue way to much and discuss almost nothing.

As far as your direct experience of being demonized, I have some thoughts about that. I didn't know what the word skid meant, but when Alex_P explained it to me, I recognized the epithet by a different name [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.125124?page=9#2627845]. I don't know anything about your economic standing, but there is a classist stereotype that assumes that, basically, the less money a white person has, the more likely they are to be racist, sexist, and homophobic. This is, of course, completely stupid, but if people perceive you as a "skid", they may very well just assume you are a bigot of some sort. Not just gay people or people of color, but just generally, you may be assumed to be a bigot unless you prove otherwise if you are perceived to be of a certain economic class. Also, the more small-town or rural a person is, the more they are assumed to be racist, sexist, and homophobic. This is what I'm talking about when I say nobody belongs to just one group. Oh, I've had some lovely conversations with other gay people about their use of the phrase, "white trash." *grinds teeth* You know how the arguments with your own family are the worst? Yeah, well, like I said, we spend so much time calling each other on shit like this, it's a miracle we get anything done. But if we don't call each other on it, then the big thread we are all posting to just bursts out into that many more flames.

You know it is funny but I have no clue what the word "skid " actually means other than it is used as an insult and the hate behind it. I would guess that it is probably along the same lines as "white trash". In another town where I used to live (I'm Canadian BTW I know we have a slightly different vocabulary than Americans) the term was "Rat". It didn't mean snitch to them it meant basically what you would call white trash. I may not look it but I am comfortable in the money situation. I just prefer to wear ripped jeans and T-shirts (not the wife beater shirts but fun T-shirts). I live in a good nieghborhood.

A funny little story. On Canada day (July 1st) I had to run downtown of the small city where I live to grab nothing less than baby formula. 2 blocks away from the store a cop pulls up beside me and starts playing the 20 question game. When Iam done answering he asks how long I have been around so I answered about 7 years. He didn't believe me since he had never seen me around before. I responded with "well that could be because I don't cause trouble and that I just look like I should". He got all red in the face and drove away.

That's why I say "perceived to be [targeted group here]." The thing about bigotry, ironically, is that you don't have to be in the targeted group to be hit with it. You can be well-off and perceived as a "Rat." You can be straight and perceived as gay. I had a friend who was the constant victim of anti-Semitism in school because everyone interpreted her appearance as "Jewish-lookikng" - even the people who went to Catholic church with her! But somehow the word got around school that she was Jewish and so she had all sorts of anti-Semitic crap thrown at her (literally!)

That's another reason why, in the big picture, you do have to work against general violence. It's just that general violence and prejudice is too big to handle as a whole. So you break it up into manageable pieces. It's not that I work against bigotry against gay people because I don't care about anyone else. I focus on anti-gay behavior and attitudes because that's the part I understand best. But if someone else wants help with their cause, you bet I have their back as best I can. A lot of times, the easiest place for me to start that is back in my own community, and the hardest place to finish is in my own attitudes. You know one of the reasons I gave up my (I admit it) hostility to HWM is because, honestly, I have more in common with most gamer boys than I do with what are supposedly my own groups.

 

[Therumancer]

Why does the person who you are playing in Halo 3 really need to know what you prefer. It comes across as rude and pushy. That's why no one should be talking about it in the first place and thus make events like these completely unnessecary.

The difference is I can say "I'll be back in a second, my girlfriend wants me to put the trash out" over the mic with little bother.

There would be plenty of abuse if I said "I'll be back in a second, my boyfriend wants me to put the trash out". Neither comment is intrusive but would be recieved very differently over XBL.

Race should not be an issue in gaming. A lot of ethnic minorities still have to sit through comments like "******" and "Jew". Either you sit quietly through it or you make it known that you are black etc. and then its an issue. If youre gay you have to sit through plenty of gay bashing if you game online. Do you challenge it? At that point you are "outing yourself". Its still not intrusive.

This conference is a positive step, though I doubt we will see any change for years to come.

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.

Working in criminal justice I have seen far too many sex offenders and predominantly paedophiles are hetrosexual males. Being gay does not make you more likely to be a paedophile so its not really a good argument to dislike someone.

All I can say is that my experiences are entirely differant, as was the training I received for security where we were warned about groups like NAMBLA and the like and basically told to treat molesters with kid gloves. The biggest problem being men trying to lure young boys away in arcades and the like. That is also incidently most of what I wound up acting on and trying to deter.

Like many people I have this discussion with I think your viewpoint is intentionally scewed. See, your working from the assumption that those you argue with have no reason for thinking like they do, and their dislike comes from a Vacuum. In most cases, like mine, it comes from experience. Basically I dislike gays because of things I have personally run into and seen, along with a breadth of experience (I have waffled on the issue in the past, which many may not believe, but is true). It is not a situation where I am trying to justify a pre-existing predjudice.

This is also incidently what is going to prevent much actual progress on the issue. We've gotten to a point where you have a pro-gay movement that is so convinced of the purity of it's cause that it's not willing to look at itself and admit when the opposite side has valid points. As those valid points will not be addressed your going to see the conflict end even if it's driven further underground.

Now of course, when your dealing with humans the question oftentime arises as to how one goes about dealing with problems inherant in a condition, and well... that goes into entirely differant arguements and beyond the context of this discussion. The basic crux of the issue is that if the problem is not acknowledged and put forward to be solved, nobody is ever going to find an effective way of solving it.

The bottom line is, my experiences have shown gay men to be very predisposed towards pedophillia. By this I do not mean an interest in teens/jailbait but presexual humans. This has gone so far as to having been assaulted myself, and later in life to have been specifically warned about these tendencies (even when such was not PC) and also warned about the difficulties of dealing with the problem due to political groups like NAMBLA.

The continued existance of NAMBLA, it's funding, and the pressure it has been able to bring to bear also does a lot to make my point. Sure, the more "politically correct" face of the gay rights movement that wants gays to be viewed as harmless and relatively normal will speak against (sort of creating their own villain to try and show how progressive they are and fight their own stereotype as being freaks). In the end however what your looking at is a situation where it appears the same people are pushing both "groups" and the idea is that once the door is wedged open (putting the genie back in the bottle is nearly impossible when it comes to social issue) NAMBLA and groups like it will have the abillity to push their agenda, after all in our system it doesn't matter if they lose once, twice, or even a hundred times, they can keep trying once that door is open, and all it takes is for them to succeed once.

I notice a lot of pro-gay speakers either avoid the issue of NAMBLA entirely, don't know it exists, or at least downplay it (if not attacking it verbally, but not meaningfully). Some people on this forum have actually said they never heard of it before I mentioned it. Oddly they even run their own websites and such.

At any rate when you have organizations like that which can intimidate the security departments of world class casinos (operating on an Indian Reservation where a lot of the usual rules aren't nessicarly going to apply to begin with), you know you've got a problem.

So really, we can argue back and forth about what we've personally seen, and whether gay men are molestors or not, but in general with NAMBLA out there pretty much all I have to do is point a finger at it when asked why I have a beef with gays and say "basically that".

 

[Therumancer]

Well again we will have to agree to disagree. Simply put I do not believe that there are 2 people who are pro gay for every 1 that is anti-gay,

That's not what I said, I said "For every customer this turns away, it'll draw in at least two." There's a difference between 'people' and 'potential customer'.

despite the image the liberal media would like to present. It's simply that the media gives one side an effective platform, and does not give one to the other side, strives to create a certain illusion, and hopes that like most propaganda it will take.

I think you consider it propaganda because you allow your own biases to cloud your understanding of that media like you're doing with me, confusing 'people' with 'customer'.

Your typical gamer will get pretty bloody upset if there is any suggestion that they are seriously gay,

Red Herring--we're talking here about how people will respond to what you call 'a gay agenda' being pushed:

"Our focus group research started to prove after about six months that we were really attracting women," says Nancy Smith, president of Sims Label, a division of Electronic Arts. "And it was women around the core gamers. So it was maybe the girlfriend, the sister, the mother, the friend of the core gamer, who started seeing this game and asking, 'Who are these people?' and 'How did you design that house that they're living in?' and 'How are you dressing them? Where are you getting that fashion?'"

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2008/04/16/2008-04-16_women_really_click_with_the_sims.html

You really think any of those women are going to be driven away by EA having a pro-gay agenda?

My talk about an agenda is more along the lines of me doubting that the panel is simply to discuss

Like I said, the article states: "a conversation about combating homophobia online." Why do you keep saying things as if the article did not state that? "simply to discuss" =/= "conversation about combating"

You're using rhetoric and misinformation to try and make people think of this as some sort of cabal with a *secret* agenda, when they're telling you right there in the open this is about COMBAT.

Generally speaking, even if I wasn't as anti-gay as I was I'd have an issue with this. The last thing I need is to see the industry agreeing to tack extraneous gay characters into everything despite their existance as a minority.

Why? Why is that the last thing you need? I'd gladly deal with an extraneous gay character rather than a broken inventory system. Heck, I'll watch a male Shepard get it on with Wrex in the next Mass Effect if I don't have to keep scrolling back and forth to make sure I'm not selling the last of my tungsten rounds!

Affirmitive action tends to ruin anything and everything it touches and I protest it on principle even when it's for a cause I do agree with.

I disagree completely. I think Affirmative Action for war veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces has not ruined anything:

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1468

Cheese, to be honest I started to write another small TLR type book to go over this with you point by point, but then deleted it because not only was it likely to derail the thread or at least cause massive walls of text only read by the two of us that would accomplish nothing until one of us got bored (probably me).

The basic problem is the root of your arguements, you approach the entire thing from the perspective that I hate in a vaccuum and try and justify myself after the fact, rather than the truth which is that things are exactly the opposite. What's more as someone whose waffled over the years, I know more or less where you are now, and that is why I can unequivocably believe that you are wrong.

Honestly though, the biggest reason that I'm not going to bother to say more on the subject is really that once it gets to the point of semantics games there ceases to be a point to the arguement. Your basically trying to justify a statement you made that somehow they can double their customer base by embracing a pro-gay agenda. They have already done as much as possible to draw in as many people (in general) as they can. There aren't twice as many people out there figuring "Gee, I'd really like to play video games, but I don't think there are enough gay characters and I don't like the way people talk on services like XBL".

The gay rights movement isn't powerful/numerous enough to generate those kinds of numbers, especially seeing as the majority of people who care probably already play (there isn't a latent market). Even if one argued that there were some gays out there that would be drawn into gaming by this, your dealing with a minority group. The number of people pushed out would greatly outnumber them. See, there are plenty of people who ARE fairly supportive of gay rights, who still don't want their kids/teens playing games with strong homosexual elements, and plenty of straights who might not care one way or another, but don't want to deal with a member of the same gender as a game's protaganist declaring their unrequited
love for them as a growing stereotype. Basically plenty of people don't care if it's out there as long as they don't have to deal with it (like it or not).

Agree or not, my fundemental point is that irregardless of the terminology of people/customers/whatever your not going to double any base this way. If anything this comes down to lowering profits to push a political message they believe in, in hopes that they make it up later if the message succeeds in the long term.


Well, this is longer that I intended (but shorter than it could have been). Ultimatly I don't really think we have much to continue to discuss on this subject as I doubt either of us are going to be going anywhere with our opinions in the near future.

 

[essieteric]

Even if one argued that there were some gays out there that would be drawn into gaming by this, your dealing with a minority group. The number of people pushed out would greatly outnumber them.

Could I just come in on this point right here?

I've never hidden the fact that I am a lesbian. And I am happy to deal with the fact that there are movies, and TV shows, and music, and countless types of entertainment that are pro-heterosexual. It doesn't dissuade me from watching or listening or playing. Sure, I like the occassional femslash fic, but I also read general books as well. These books contain heterosexual relationships. See, I don't think it's about the players in the relationship - it is about reflecting the nature of how to act in a healthy relationship.

I bet you a million bucks that there are quite a few people here on the forums who feel the same. I find it a bit depressing that, when the shoe is on the other foot, people are so threatened by gay representation in entertainment.

It's entertainment. It's not a convent!!! We're not looking to convert the masses to the "gay lifestyle". Seriously. Enjoy your heterosexuality! It's a gift! I would never ask you to part with it because it is what makes you YOU!

I really feel sorry for those who are trying to make this into a seperatist issue, when it really doesn't need to be. And it is the nature of this segregation that has driven people to have a meeting/discussion about the issue. It's about how people are being treated. Treat everyone on an equal playing field, with the same respect with which you would like to be treated. Doesn't that seem fair?

 

[squid5580]

Why does the person who you are playing in Halo 3 really need to know what you prefer. It comes across as rude and pushy. That's why no one should be talking about it in the first place and thus make events like these completely unnessecary.

The difference is I can say "I'll be back in a second, my girlfriend wants me to put the trash out" over the mic with little bother.

There would be plenty of abuse if I said "I'll be back in a second, my boyfriend wants me to put the trash out". Neither comment is intrusive but would be recieved very differently over XBL.

Race should not be an issue in gaming. A lot of ethnic minorities still have to sit through comments like "******" and "Jew". Either you sit quietly through it or you make it known that you are black etc. and then its an issue. If youre gay you have to sit through plenty of gay bashing if you game online. Do you challenge it? At that point you are "outing yourself". Its still not intrusive.

This conference is a positive step, though I doubt we will see any change for years to come.

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.

Working in criminal justice I have seen far too many sex offenders and predominantly paedophiles are hetrosexual males. Being gay does not make you more likely to be a paedophile so its not really a good argument to dislike someone.

All I can say is that my experiences are entirely differant, as was the training I received for security where we were warned about groups like NAMBLA and the like and basically told to treat molesters with kid gloves. The biggest problem being men trying to lure young boys away in arcades and the like. That is also incidently most of what I wound up acting on and trying to deter.

Like many people I have this discussion with I think your viewpoint is intentionally scewed. See, your working from the assumption that those you argue with have no reason for thinking like they do, and their dislike comes from a Vacuum. In most cases, like mine, it comes from experience. Basically I dislike gays because of things I have personally run into and seen, along with a breadth of experience (I have waffled on the issue in the past, which many may not believe, but is true). It is not a situation where I am trying to justify a pre-existing predjudice.

This is also incidently what is going to prevent much actual progress on the issue. We've gotten to a point where you have a pro-gay movement that is so convinced of the purity of it's cause that it's not willing to look at itself and admit when the opposite side has valid points. As those valid points will not be addressed your going to see the conflict end even if it's driven further underground.

Now of course, when your dealing with humans the question oftentime arises as to how one goes about dealing with problems inherant in a condition, and well... that goes into entirely differant arguements and beyond the context of this discussion. The basic crux of the issue is that if the problem is not acknowledged and put forward to be solved, nobody is ever going to find an effective way of solving it.

The bottom line is, my experiences have shown gay men to be very predisposed towards pedophillia. By this I do not mean an interest in teens/jailbait but presexual humans. This has gone so far as to having been assaulted myself, and later in life to have been specifically warned about these tendencies (even when such was not PC) and also warned about the difficulties of dealing with the problem due to political groups like NAMBLA.

The continued existance of NAMBLA, it's funding, and the pressure it has been able to bring to bear also does a lot to make my point. Sure, the more "politically correct" face of the gay rights movement that wants gays to be viewed as harmless and relatively normal will speak against (sort of creating their own villain to try and show how progressive they are and fight their own stereotype as being freaks). In the end however what your looking at is a situation where it appears the same people are pushing both "groups" and the idea is that once the door is wedged open (putting the genie back in the bottle is nearly impossible when it comes to social issue) NAMBLA and groups like it will have the abillity to push their agenda, after all in our system it doesn't matter if they lose once, twice, or even a hundred times, they can keep trying once that door is open, and all it takes is for them to succeed once.

I notice a lot of pro-gay speakers either avoid the issue of NAMBLA entirely, don't know it exists, or at least downplay it (if not attacking it verbally, but not meaningfully). Some people on this forum have actually said they never heard of it before I mentioned it. Oddly they even run their own websites and such.

At any rate when you have organizations like that which can intimidate the security departments of world class casinos (operating on an Indian Reservation where a lot of the usual rules aren't nessicarly going to apply to begin with), you know you've got a problem.

So really, we can argue back and forth about what we've personally seen, and whether gay men are molestors or not, but in general with NAMBLA out there pretty much all I have to do is point a finger at it when asked why I have a beef with gays and say "basically that".







>>>----Therumancer--->

That is like blaming all Germans for what happened in WW2 though. Sure some of them were responsible but not all of them. I am sure you could dredge up a diddler from each race and nationality as well as from the gay and straight community. Just because some Jewish guy got caught diddling a kid doesn't mean all Jewish people are molesters. A community or demographic shouldn't have to defend themselves because a few went off and did something sick and twisted.

Off topic slightly what happened. I remember back 25 years ago child molestation was a hot topic. Different Strokes (Gary Coleman's major role for you young uns) did an episode on it. There was a commercial where a guy dressed like Spiderman would tell kids to tell an adult if someone touched them in places thier bathing suit covered. And nowadays with groups like NAMBLA floating around, the internet where anyone can pose as a 6 yr old and you never hear about how kids should protect themselves from the mainstream media. Was it because of Stranger Danger that they just stepped away?

 

[Therumancer]

Even if one argued that there were some gays out there that would be drawn into gaming by this, your dealing with a minority group. The number of people pushed out would greatly outnumber them.

Could I just come in on this point right here?

I've never hidden the fact that I am a lesbian. And I am happy to deal with the fact that there are movies, and TV shows, and music, and countless types of entertainment that are pro-heterosexual. It doesn't dissuade me from watching or listening or playing. Sure, I like the occassional femslash fic, but I also read general books as well. These books contain heterosexual relationships. See, I don't think it's about the players in the relationship - it is about reflecting the nature of how to act in a healthy relationship.

I bet you a million bucks that there are quite a few people here on the forums who feel the same. I find it a bit depressing that, when the shoe is on the other foot, people are so threatened by gay representation in entertainment.

It's entertainment. It's not a convent!!! We're not looking to convert the masses to the "gay lifestyle". Seriously. Enjoy your heterosexuality! It's a gift! I would never ask you to part with it because it is what makes you YOU!

I really feel sorry for those who are trying to make this into a seperatist issue, when it really doesn't need to be. And it is the nature of this segregation that has driven people to have a meeting/discussion about the issue. It's about how people are being treated. Treat everyone on an equal playing field, with the same respect with which you would like to be treated. Doesn't that seem fair?

No problem at all with jumping in, this is a public forum after all.

I will say this much though, one of the reasons why me and Cheeze Pavilion are going at it is because among other things I believe in seperating gays and lesbians into two entirely seperate groups. Not because I'm a pervo (though unlike many I won't deny it) but simply because I believe that gay men are far more likely to be child molestors than either straight men or lesbians. Indeed outside of porn (fantasy generally made for, and consumed by other men actually) I would be hard pressed to find many examples of lesbian child molestors. I'm not saying that they do not exist (I'm sure they do) simply that it is far easier to find examples of gay men.

What's more when working security and such our primary concern and what I wound up actually deterring the most is actually guys going after little boys. You see far less in an arcade full of unattended children with little girls being lured away by men, and frankly I never once ran into a suspected situation (I acted mostly as a deterrant) with a lesbian.

On the rare occasions we called Code Adam, again *IF* it wasn't just something routine (kid just wandered off and got lost) the suspected culprit we found talking with the kid was usually a dude talking to a little boy.

-

At any rate, you probably won't like this any more than what I've said above, but I'll also be blunt in saying that part of this also comes down to the fact that homosexuals are a minority. The overwhelming majority of people are straight and have no real interest in running into this kind of stuff in a game. They don't mind if it's out there, but they don't want to have to deal with gay innuendos being tossed into a game for the benefit of a relatively small minority of people. After all when catering to a minority people tend to forget it's not just the minority that winds up being on the receiving end when it comes to things like the mass media.

Speaking for you specifically, being a Lesbian your in a somewhat differant position from gay men in both terms of my arguement (for reasons I explained above which you admittedly probably won't agree with), and also in of the fact that the majority of gamers (who are straight men) are going to have little if no problems with the idea of lesbian relationships where they have issues with male on male relationships. Unfair? Jaded? Hypocritical? Makes no sense from your perspective? Perhaps, but that's simply how things are.

As a result I could very much see you getting your "femslash" without many people batting an eye. I for one would generally not care since I'm a confessed perv.

Now yes, I have been around enough where I know that there is oftentimes a fairly signifigant differance between lesbian material created to amuse perverted guys, and that primarly directed at actual lesbians. Oftentimes a matter of tone if nothing else. But even so I think you could see things along those lines without a problem.

For example few really cared and mostly screamed about foolish censors when it came to the lesbian "Asari" option for Mass Effect. Heck, the very fact that this existed probably helped sell the game to perverted gamers. On the other hand had someone actually included a potential guy on guy sex scene with say Wrex (as opposed to it being a recurring joke) I don't think it would have gone over anywhere NEAR as well.

The point of all this rambling is that as much as you'll probably dislike what I have to say, your a bit "out of context" when it comes to this discussion. Part of the problem being that me and Cheeze have been at it on this general subject a few times already. Typically I stop responding at a point when it gets repetitive and he starts screaming "Strawmen" (like now) to avoid too much giga-post spam. But I can also virtually guarantee we'll probably be at it again in another thread within a month for another few rounds.

 

[cobra_ky]

I don't know how many times I can say this. You can't expect MS to moderate the voice chat. There is millions of people using it over 100 of games. What you expect them to do would cost billions at the very least. That is why they offered up the whole mute player option and allowed us to moderate ourselves. How were they to know most gamers would be to stunned to use such an easy option and instead blame them for something they have no control over? Or is it all the people bitching about it are to immature for such power? The bottom line on XBL is if you don't like it you don't have to listen to it. All the while listening to the people you do want to listen to. If you can come up with a better option to still allow voice chat I for one would love to hear it. Although I would suggest you send your idea to a patent office then to MS first.

i'm not sure how many times i have to explain this. GAME COMPANIES CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT CENSOR VOICE CHAT. even if it was technologically feasible, which it absolutely isn't, it's still a terrible idea, for all the reasons you're describing.

<a href=http://kotaku.com/5311939/guest-oped-the-impact-of-homophobia-in-virtual-communities>the director of digital media for GLAAD wrote on an op-ed over on Kotaku about this meeting, and he described in detail the problem with the current policies:

While most companies do have some sort of policy in place that prohibits threats, advocating violence or death, and hate speech, there are major concerns with the effectiveness of those policies. Those concerns including the policies themselves, which in some cases ban self-identifying your orientation or using words like "gay" or "lesbian" altogether. They also include the mechanisms in place to report violations of the policies, many which don't allow you to submit evidence (i.e. recordings of in game audio/video). Then there is the lack of transparency once a user has been reported, leaving the harassed often feeling as if nothing has been done.

...

For those who say this is bigger than just being about homophobia - that there are also issues like racism and sexism to be addressed - you are right. But keep in mind; while the work being done here is focused around fighting homophobia its implications will affect many other groups. If we work to help implement better reporting mechanisms, it helps everyone. If we work to provide better policies and safe spaces for LGBT people, those policies and spaces can be replicated for other groups as well.

notice that there's absolutely no mention of increasing censorship. in fact he's advocating the exact opposite.

Now for the whole sexual preference in your profile. If you can give me just one benefit to it that would benefit the entire community (not your own self worth or the fact that you think it is an important part of who you are) I have an open enough mind I would gladly listen. One that immediately comes to mind is "well then homosexuals could have thier own special little community. Unfortunately that destroys the whole we are equal. Remembering that the division such an issue causes in todays world is it really worth it? Sure in a perfect world one could openly say I'm here, I'm queer and that is that both in the real world and online without fear of consequence. I don't see the problem of not allowing people to use swear words or sexual orientation in thier profile as a way to try and maintain peace within the community so everyone can try and have a pleasant experience online. And not just reserve it to only sexual orientation but also politics and religion. There are probably some other hot topic controversial issues that people feel really passionate about that I can't think of off hand. That is afterall the goal. The point of the profile is not to be used as your personal soapbox. Come here for that (do I get a cookie for pluggin the Escapist?? lol).

if they want to ban politics, religion and and anything else that might be controversial, they're welcome to try but that's probably a stupid idea. but why let people mention race, or gender, or anything else in their profile that might be divisive? why is sexual orientation treated differently than any other social group that might possibly be discriminated against?

 

[Therumancer]

Why does the person who you are playing in Halo 3 really need to know what you prefer. It comes across as rude and pushy. That's why no one should be talking about it in the first place and thus make events like these completely unnessecary.

The difference is I can say "I'll be back in a second, my girlfriend wants me to put the trash out" over the mic with little bother.

There would be plenty of abuse if I said "I'll be back in a second, my boyfriend wants me to put the trash out". Neither comment is intrusive but would be recieved very differently over XBL.

Race should not be an issue in gaming. A lot of ethnic minorities still have to sit through comments like "******" and "Jew". Either you sit quietly through it or you make it known that you are black etc. and then its an issue. If youre gay you have to sit through plenty of gay bashing if you game online. Do you challenge it? At that point you are "outing yourself". Its still not intrusive.

This conference is a positive step, though I doubt we will see any change for years to come.

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.

Working in criminal justice I have seen far too many sex offenders and predominantly paedophiles are hetrosexual males. Being gay does not make you more likely to be a paedophile so its not really a good argument to dislike someone.

All I can say is that my experiences are entirely differant, as was the training I received for security where we were warned about groups like NAMBLA and the like and basically told to treat molesters with kid gloves. The biggest problem being men trying to lure young boys away in arcades and the like. That is also incidently most of what I wound up acting on and trying to deter.

Like many people I have this discussion with I think your viewpoint is intentionally scewed. See, your working from the assumption that those you argue with have no reason for thinking like they do, and their dislike comes from a Vacuum. In most cases, like mine, it comes from experience. Basically I dislike gays because of things I have personally run into and seen, along with a breadth of experience (I have waffled on the issue in the past, which many may not believe, but is true). It is not a situation where I am trying to justify a pre-existing predjudice.

This is also incidently what is going to prevent much actual progress on the issue. We've gotten to a point where you have a pro-gay movement that is so convinced of the purity of it's cause that it's not willing to look at itself and admit when the opposite side has valid points. As those valid points will not be addressed your going to see the conflict end even if it's driven further underground.

Now of course, when your dealing with humans the question oftentime arises as to how one goes about dealing with problems inherant in a condition, and well... that goes into entirely differant arguements and beyond the context of this discussion. The basic crux of the issue is that if the problem is not acknowledged and put forward to be solved, nobody is ever going to find an effective way of solving it.

The bottom line is, my experiences have shown gay men to be very predisposed towards pedophillia. By this I do not mean an interest in teens/jailbait but presexual humans. This has gone so far as to having been assaulted myself, and later in life to have been specifically warned about these tendencies (even when such was not PC) and also warned about the difficulties of dealing with the problem due to political groups like NAMBLA.

The continued existance of NAMBLA, it's funding, and the pressure it has been able to bring to bear also does a lot to make my point. Sure, the more "politically correct" face of the gay rights movement that wants gays to be viewed as harmless and relatively normal will speak against (sort of creating their own villain to try and show how progressive they are and fight their own stereotype as being freaks). In the end however what your looking at is a situation where it appears the same people are pushing both "groups" and the idea is that once the door is wedged open (putting the genie back in the bottle is nearly impossible when it comes to social issue) NAMBLA and groups like it will have the abillity to push their agenda, after all in our system it doesn't matter if they lose once, twice, or even a hundred times, they can keep trying once that door is open, and all it takes is for them to succeed once.

I notice a lot of pro-gay speakers either avoid the issue of NAMBLA entirely, don't know it exists, or at least downplay it (if not attacking it verbally, but not meaningfully). Some people on this forum have actually said they never heard of it before I mentioned it. Oddly they even run their own websites and such.

At any rate when you have organizations like that which can intimidate the security departments of world class casinos (operating on an Indian Reservation where a lot of the usual rules aren't nessicarly going to apply to begin with), you know you've got a problem.

So really, we can argue back and forth about what we've personally seen, and whether gay men are molestors or not, but in general with NAMBLA out there pretty much all I have to do is point a finger at it when asked why I have a beef with gays and say "basically that".







>>>----Therumancer--->

That is like blaming all Germans for what happened in WW2 though. Sure some of them were responsible but not all of them. I am sure you could dredge up a diddler from each race and nationality as well as from the gay and straight community. Just because some Jewish guy got caught diddling a kid doesn't mean all Jewish people are molesters. A community or demographic shouldn't have to defend themselves because a few went off and did something sick and twisted.

Off topic slightly what happened. I remember back 25 years ago child molestation was a hot topic. Different Strokes (Gary Coleman's major role for you young uns) did an episode on it. There was a commercial where a guy dressed like Spiderman would tell kids to tell an adult if someone touched them in places thier bathing suit covered. And nowadays with groups like NAMBLA floating around, the internet where anyone can pose as a 6 yr old and you never hear about how kids should protect themselves from the mainstream media. Was it because of Stranger Danger that they just stepped away?

-

Generally speaking I usually try to avoid responding to ridiculous analogies. I find going out of context like trying to compare a very differant situation to the Nazis or (in Cheez's case) the KKK to be ridiculous and usually not worth the effort of a response if someone is groping to the point of needing to try and counter with absurdity.

However, I am going to respond here simply to point out that we ultimatly DID blame all of the Germans for World War II. Don't let modern political correctness and propaganda screw your views. Germany was almost 100% behind Hitler, a good portion of the world was, it wasn't a global bloodbath because it was him and a tiny collection of followers terrorizing everyone. Nor was germany really this police state of people running around fearing their neighbors due to a minority of nazi informers potentially being everywhere. They couldn't have maintained this kind of global operation elsewhere if that was true, though it does paint a cheery picture for the history books.

Let me be honest, in the end when we invaded Germany their last ditch was something called "The Volkssturm" this was an uprising of all the german people to literally thrown themselves at the advancing allies in a last ditch effort to repel us. Groups like "The Hitler Youth" didn't just disappear because they were inconveinent. They engaged troops and died. German patriotism was an an extreme high, as was a sense of national destiny. Even those who did not support the Nazis (who were in no way numerous) were suddenly in a position of having to defend their homes, and indeed our troops were fighting building to building in places and literally killing EVERYONE we ran into. That is what a real war is like. We were very much out to break Germany. People today have no conception, but then again I suppose that is understandable because of the propaganda and information control in place. It can be hard to find pictures of allied troops standing over giant corpse piles of civilians, but they do exist. It's just we didn't let people spam the media with "American Baby Killers" and serious anti-war sentiments while we were fighting that paticular war. We pumped up our own side to super-heroism, and demonized the enemy. Since we won, WE got to write the history books saying how wonderful and clean we were.

Consider also we were also there with the Russians who were being called the "Ivans" (after Ivan the terrible). History likes to paint their halting of the Nazi advance as a laughfest, but honestly? They took horrendous losses and despite the stupidity of the entire endeavor it's positively terrifying how well the Nazis did during that campaign. It's one of those situations where with a few changes or differant desicians it still could have ended differantly.

At any rate the Russians were out for blood due to their own horrendous losses and if anything they actually were worse than we were (that bit isn't just propaganda since we wound up facing them as the big bad afterwards).

When World War II was over, what wonderful thing did we do to Germany? Well we decided to split the bloody country in half as permanant punishment and to make sure that they never got another chance to build up like that again. This being their SECOND bid for world conquest and global bloodbath. Some of us think that taking down that wall was the dumbest thing Reagan ever did (and I otherwise supported Reagan, even if I was quite young during his presidency).

The point of this response being both that I like to ramble about World War II (duh, I wind up doing it all the time) and ummm... that despite the intent, that analogy isn't quite what you intended it to be since we did blame Germany. The Berlin Wall was not exactly a gift to the german people born of trust and love.

As far as the Nazis go, well between us and the Russians we decimated the german populance so badly that there really wasn't many people to keep it going. Yes there were surviving Nazis and sympathizers, but we really did an incredible job on the whole of Germany. We didn't exactly come in and try and remove Hitler and his elite in some kind of ridiculous modern "antiseptic police action". Our plan was "level the place, make sure it can't get back up again". So we leveled the place and put up one heck of a bloody wall.

-

As far as the rest goes, I'm not entirely sure what your trying to say.

If I understand it correctly, I don't think anyone is suggesting that this panel is going to lead to child molestation being added to video games.

Cutting out the mess this turned into, basically I'm saying that I don't think we need to have homosexual affirmitive action and a gay political agenda officially brought into video games.

This turned more or less into the point that some people don't like gays, and have the right to dislike gays without people crawling all over them for it. This of course involved me admitting I don't care for gays, and then discussions as to why I don't like gays.

The reasons I don't like gays of course having very little to do with the central point that even though people disagree with me and might absolutly love gays without being gay themselves, I still think tyring to effectively go after people like me as "homophobes" through our escapism, or include more of a pro-gay agenda/message in the products to head off people who don't like gays, is fundementally wrong.

Really, even if I wasn't fairly anti-gay, I wouldn't exactly be supportive of what seems like an attempted movement where every video game will suddenly feature an extraneous gay sidekick/side character simply for the sake of having one, whether it fits or not... or something a lot like that.

Simply by being "gay" it's a loaded issue, especially given the opinions I currently hold. But I'd be of the same opinion if they for example decided that they needed to push a "Fluffy Kitten Agenda" since they felt there weren't enough Fluffy Kittens doing cute kitten things and being loved, and the industry got together to coordinate it. You know so like in say "Dead Space" they'd have to work in a way for Issac to cuddle and love a kitten (by definition nothing negative can happen to it or be associated with it! this is kitten luv propaganda!) as a part of the game. I'm sure the God Of War III fans would love this also given the six month delay that would be inevitably called to try and find some bloody way to fit this in with the intended vibe for Kratos as well. Or better yet... Silent Hill, you go walking along in a paticularly grim moment and then MC hammer pops out and goes "STOP! Kitten Time" and music plays while you get stuck in the kitten mini-games from
"No More Heroes".

Not saying that's an exact analogy to what I'd expect to see here, just that it could be as jarringly inappropriate in it's own mind. It's not JUST that it's gay (which is what makes this discussion what it is) but simply that they are adding some kind of overt agenda. Whether it's "Confronting Homophobia" or "Fluffy Kitten Propaganda" I think they should focus on you know... making the games good, not on what kind of messages they can promote.

Games are about entertainment.


... and let's be honest, it's not like there aren't any games with strong homosexual themes in them. I very much doubt anyone who really needs a dose of gay gaming would have any problems finding Yaoi titles translated into english. Yes, fairly obscure, but you ARE dealing with a minority group. I doubt it's any more difficult than finding things aimed entirely at other minorities.

For exmaple, white supremicists are a minority themselves. There are indeed games made JUST for white supremiscists and based around their interests. Do a search for the game "Ethnic Cleansing" for example. They aren't common as the general base of interest isn't actually that large (despite being a popular boogie man).

Indeed I'd argue that you'd probably find it much easier to find 100% gay themed games than ones based around white supremacy. Never compared it point by point, but generally what I'm saying is that there is no real need to confront homophobia or bring more homosexuality into gaming. The homosexual minority seems fairly well represented within gaming in keeping with their numbers (irregardless of my overall opinion).

Of course mainstream gaming is much larger, and sees higher production values, but then again it's the mainstream (the opposite of minority interests, or niche audiences).

Basically, this seems like someone's political axe to grind which is why it annoys me. The very panel seems set to try and make an issue where there really isn't much of one.

 

[Alex_P]

Consider also we were also there with the Russians who were being called the "Ivans" (after Ivan the terrible).

"Ivan" is the canonical generic Russian name. Like "Joe".

Cutting out the mess this turned into, basically I'm saying that I don't think we need to have homosexual affirmitive action and a gay political agenda officially brought into video games.

The article talks about a panel on removing homophobia from online spaces -- in other words, figuring out ways to curtail harassment. Why are y'all talking about the inclusion of gay-targeted romantic content in games?

-- Alex

 

[Therumancer]

Consider also we were also there with the Russians who were being called the "Ivans" (after Ivan the terrible).

"Ivan" is the canonical generic Russian name. Like "Joe".

Cutting out the mess this turned into, basically I'm saying that I don't think we need to have homosexual affirmitive action and a gay political agenda officially brought into video games.

The article talks about a panel on removing homophobia from online spaces -- in other words, figuring out ways to curtail harassment. Why are y'all talking about the inclusion of gay-targeted romantic content in games?

-- Alex

The discussion has largely gotten off kilter as it has gone on due to the arguements themselves.

Simply put it kind of started there with me talking about how part of freedom is more or less to be able to dislike someone or a group and express that opinion, and that I felt it was pretty much wrong for private individuals (companies, etc...) to be able to wield such power when the goverment itself does not.

I also did mention that I felt with a panel like this, I didn't think such was going to be the only intent of a panel convened for that purpose, especially given (as I believe someone else pointed out) the lack of practicality of censoring anything in the current enviroment.

I also mentioned (at some point) that the abillity for someone to censor things they didn't want to hear (such as a gay person not wanting to listen to someone else's anti-gay rhetoric if they run into it) already existed through things like MMORPG profanity filters, and /ignore features.

However the discussion became increasingly hypothetical, and when Cheeze got involved it got derailed rather rapidly. I admit I got played to some extent since that is more or less what I didn't want to see happen.

Simply put it more or less turned into arguements and justifications based on possibilities of where this might be going, and of course given that Cheeze and I have been here before in other threads on similar subjects things DID move a bit out of context which is admittedly partially my fault.

At any rate, anything that can be said here really has been said. My apologies for getting your attention, It was about time for me to withdraw from this anyway as it had been going on for a while and chances are it could become endless.

You are not incorrect in observing that things have moved well away from the intended topic. I shall be more careful in the future (as I guess I'm the one getting called here, since you responded to/quoted my message).

 

[lostclause]

The point of this response being both that I like to ramble about World War II (duh, I wind up doing it all the time) and ummm... that despite the intent, that analogy isn't quite what you intended it to be since we did blame Germany. The Berlin Wall was not exactly a gift to the german people born of trust and love.

Ramble incoherently--there's a lot of junk in what you said, but this one, well, the Soviets built the Berlin Wall to keep East Germans from fleeing--we didn't even DO the thing you're saying we did out of 'suspicion and hate'.

This is correct. Whilst we were suspicious of Germany for a time (can you blame them after 2 wars?) the Berlin wall had nothing to do with WW2. Also reading the post this came from, you have some homework to do. For example the division of Germany was never intended to be permanent. Britain and the US merged there zones a few years later. A majore reason the Soviets initiated the Berlin bloackade was in protest that the allies were encouraging a divided Germany by introducing a new currency.
OT: I'm fairly supportive of the conference. I have my doubts as to how effective it'll be but it seems like a step in the right direction (i.e. getting rid of some of the online hostility).

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I support the panel, personally. I know the terms "gay" and "fag" don't seem hurtful by the people using it, but that doesn't mean they aren't. If it's between friends, that's one thing. For example, my brother-in-law calls me a "fag" in jest sometimes, and I'm not insulted by it, because I know he isn't serious about it. But when you go into any gaming lobby and hear people call everyone a "fag" because they disagree with you, it gets a mite uncomfortable, and maybe this will help change that. Not likely, but I'm an optimist.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

E.A. will end up just shooting there own foot... Again....

 

[scotth266]

Spoken like a bunch of heterosexual white males.

Snip.

As for not declaring that you're straight, you don't have to. It's automatically assumed that you are.

Heterosexual white male speaking here: I hate generalizations. Especially when they're made towards categories that I fit in. Sure, some of them can hold a grain (or a granary) of truth, but it's still something that I don't like, no matter what group it's aimed towards, because there are HUGE exceptions to them.

Take for example that I'm also mildly religious. It seems to be the common thought these days that having any sort of religious association automatically makes you a homophobe and a "queer-beater." Being placed in the same category as people who picket funerals of gay community members is abhorrent and unfair to me, yet people do it all the time.

(That line of thought is especially amusing/irksome to me, having come from a Catholic school that was totally willing to accept gay and lesbian students, who quickly found friends everywhere.)

I also don't try to reason a person's sexuality at all: unless, of course, I'm attempting to drop my bachelor status. I don't "assume" that anyone is straight: in fact, I don't really assume anything about anyone. For all I know the man across the street dressed in red leather just really likes the stuff, and can juggle chainsaws with his feet.

Then again, I've grown up in a tolerant family around tolerant people. Others might not be so blessed.

Now, to my own response.

The real issue is the people saying the words, and not the words themselves. This panel is aiming for the right thing: bringing attention to, and trying to correct the homophobic form of the ever-infamous "Dickwad Theory."

Whether or not it will work is entirely up in the air. It's going to be a long battle, that's for sure.