This, really. I get the idea behind Gaymer and I'm all for it, but spreading it out as panels in several cons would probably achieve the intended purpose more than the con itself.CriticalMiss said:
GaymerX2 Convention Will Be the Last
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
"Based on feedback that we?ve gotten"
Always confuses me how some people go to type and apostrophe and somehow manage to hit and umlaut-ed a, the euro sign and the trademark symbol.
OT: Shame, I guess. Though I'd imagine the fact they're having trouble staying afloat is an indication that people have either moved onto other cons, or there was never enough support for a full sized con specifically for the LGBT community. Attaching panels to other cons, as mentioned above, seems like a pretty legit call.
Always confuses me how some people go to type and apostrophe and somehow manage to hit and umlaut-ed a, the euro sign and the trademark symbol.
OT: Shame, I guess. Though I'd imagine the fact they're having trouble staying afloat is an indication that people have either moved onto other cons, or there was never enough support for a full sized con specifically for the LGBT community. Attaching panels to other cons, as mentioned above, seems like a pretty legit call.
I would rather see the community feel they can attend any con without concern of harassment or a negative experience, than the return of Gaymer in the future.
Unfortunately cons are a place with lots of teenage boys, and they're not exactly known for their warm personality and accepting nature, as a whole.
But I can dream.
Also to the people suggesting that it become a panel, which attends various cons, this is a great idea, but the idea of Gaymer was to make a safe space. I get the impression that if you simply had a panel at a regular con, it would simply act as a beacon to the intolerant trouble makers. You already see it with any brand/show/game that people are divided on at cons. Disparaging comments and harassment, for showing an interest in something.
Unfortunately cons are a place with lots of teenage boys, and they're not exactly known for their warm personality and accepting nature, as a whole.
But I can dream.
Also to the people suggesting that it become a panel, which attends various cons, this is a great idea, but the idea of Gaymer was to make a safe space. I get the impression that if you simply had a panel at a regular con, it would simply act as a beacon to the intolerant trouble makers. You already see it with any brand/show/game that people are divided on at cons. Disparaging comments and harassment, for showing an interest in something.
Bummer wish I had money so that I could go to the last one. I remember wanting to go to the last one but I was broker than a joke back then. Seemed like a good all accepting con with some interesting topics. I so want to meet the voice actor for Glados
I could say some things about them that have been said already, but here's one thing I especially hope for: I hope that the organisation somehow spreads itself throughout the existing, say traditional, con-scene to help make those and the gaming community in general become more LGBT+ friendly.
Compare the odds of a queer taking shit at PAX, and a straight taking shit at GaymerX, and maybe you'll catch a glimmer of why some people feel it's a necessary thing.
I completely agree. However, what does that have to do with GaymerX and the other "Gaymer" cons?Mumorpuger said:
Every single one I know of is open to everyone.
I'm pretty sure most pride parades are similar. Is this one of those dog whistle complaints?
Zachary Amaranth said:
I'm not familiar with a "dog whistle complaint," could you explain that for me?
But to expand on my thoughts a little bit, despite being open to all I feel like by singling out any one particular group as the central theme of anything only highlights the differences between them. I find this particularly problematic when it comes to identifiers that have historically been the subject of prejudice. I personally don't like defining anyone by race/creed/orientation, and generally prefer to know someone to be "X, who just happens to be Y." Using PAX and GaymerX as an example- the people who would attend only one con exclusively have one thing in common: they're gamers, but rather than bring the gaming community together, separating the events segregates the people into two categories: gamers or LBGT folk, who just happen to be gamers (instead of an inclusive event where everyone is a gamer, with some that happen to be LBGT).
It's not just sexual orientation I feel this way about though... similar events like Black History Month give me the same feeling. Morgan Freeman had an interview that pretty much sums up my thoughts on that though:
A complaint that is designed to aggravate certain people; one that uses particular language to sound innocuous to the average person, but which is loaded to the "right" people. Kind of like how "only dogs" can hear a dog whistle.Mumorpuger said:
I'm asking if this isn't a way of complaining about gays while making excuses about how what you're really against is something that they're not doing in the first place, but sounds far more reasonable (except for the fact that it's a completely false premise because they're not).
Yes, and let's talk about how poor an analogy that is. This is about gay people getting prominence in the community, and is more comparable to the "negro rights" movement (Which has been largely renamed "civil rights" or "black rights"). I doubt Freeman would have opposed it under any name. I should point out my very white father lent his support back when it was called the black rights movement, as did a lot of white people. Where does this myth of segregation come from? Thousands upon thousands of white folk supported Martin Luther King, even as they were actively harassed as "****** lovers" and the like. And you can't be on the side of a "gaymer" convention because....Ponies?
Again, this seems like a dog whistle complaint, if for no other reason than its utter speciousness when taken as a "legitimate" argument.
Oh, and while I love Freeman, the idea of getting rid of racism by not talking about it is completely idiotic and he should be ashamed. And again, I doubt he would have taken that tack when blacks were routinely getting assaulted by god Christian white folk in the South.
I wonder if he would have told King to "stop talking about it."
And I really wonder how my father would feel about the notion. I mean, he was jailed, spit on, assaulted, and called the previously-mentioned slur. And all he had to do was not talk about racial issues? That would have been especially easy for a white boy from Maine.