On Gaymers and Cons

[Vault101]

snip.

1.your [b/]never[/b] going to stop people being gay

2.you may as well say you have a problem with BDSM or Anal because thats what it comes down to ultimatly, having a personal issue with whos fucking who and how

 

[UniversalRonin]

Can I just say that this is entirely too ridiculous that the thread has gone on for as long as it has?

This entire discussion can boil down to the following:

Gay gamers want their own little sandbox, so they made one. With their own money. Who on Earth are you to say they can't have it?

When you boil it down like that it seems rather simple, doesn't it? If you don't like the idea of Gaymercon then don't go. But just because there exists a place on earth where you are not the target audience does not give you any rights over it. And if the outcomes of the discussion don't effect you, then you have NO PLACE in the discussion.

End of story.

Seriously this is getting ridiculous. This thread has over 460 replies and you wonder why we feel like we're sick of being controversial and want to be the normal ones for a change?

Let me make an analogy.

It's like if you have some siblings and between you and your siblings you own a toy. I'm your best friend from school and we often play with your toy, but sometimes your big brother is a massive jerk to me, and sometimes I just like to play with my brother instead so I buy myself a toy that's similar to your toy, but mine is a different colour that me and my little brother like more but you don't.

I don't stop coming 'round to play with you, I just play with my little brother as well. Then you come 'round to my house and start getting offended by me owning my own toy. "I always let you play with mine! What's wrong with my toy?" you ask. And the answer is nothing. Nothing is wrong with your toy. The fact that you always let me borrow/play with your toy doesn't mean I can't have my own. And if I buy my own, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with yours. I might like the colour of mine better, or not want to play with your jerk of a brother. You're still my best friend, and we'll still hang out. Me having other friends and other toys doesn't mean I'm going to stop being your best friend, and I find it stupid that you think we're going to segregate myself in my room just because I spend some time there.

This is a ridiculous argument to be having.

Just let me have my toy.

As I said somewhere back in the first 3/4 pages. These special interest groups form naturally in any society from a casual book club to a masonic lodge. They're perfectly normal and I don't understand how we ended up with 460ish posts worth about it. (That said The Redundancy Monster has been fairly active the whole way through this thread.)

EDIT- Apparently it's 490ish posts about it.

 

[Not Matt]

i kind of sort of agree with this guy. in the same why that i kind of sort of agree with the daleks that the doctor is dangerous. why? doesn't this just split the gay and the straight gaminig community even more?


EDIT: just came to think about something. what about bisexuals?

 

[wizzy555]

Has anyone pointed out in the thread that over 10 years ago the social justice warriors were calling for unisex bath rooms?

 

[mjc0961]

I don't care if gay gamers want their own convention. Have at it.

I just want to strangle kittens whenever I see the abomination of the English language that is the term "gaymer". Please, for the love of everything wonderful about gaming, stop using that. Have all the conventions you want, just please stop with that... "word".

Looking at the comic... did he just compare being gay to a religion? And then compare it to a gender?

*headdesk*

That's kind of funny I hadn't realized just how blatantly poor the comparisons are until you pointed it out.
The comparison isn't the point though, it's the portrayed half-wit who's being a dick, for the sake of it.
What the writer and artist fails to realize that this is a sign of progress and not blatant bigotry

I wrote this in my first response, the comic is bad in so many ways. This is definitely another point.

Yeah, the comic itself is pretty terrible. The point it's trying to make is a good one, but the way it's getting to that point... Just awful. It's so bad that it reminds me of people trying to compare everything to cars. Trying to make a point about used games? Do it horribly by comparing them to used cars. Trying to make a point about review scores? Do it horribly by comparing them to cars (yes, somebody did this, go read the comments of the recent Jimqusition episode on review scores). In fact, I'm surprised this comic didn't have a panel comparing being gay to having a car.

Again, yeah, the point is supposed to be how stupid the guy being a dick is, and it's a good point, but they way they got there is horrible.

 

[Whispering Death]

I'm just curious... did anyone in these 14 pages mention the annoyance of being an LGBT gamer from the other end, i.e. how painfully ungeeky LGBT groups often are? I've tried to connect with the LGBT community in my area, and it's mostly about the bar/club scene. If you're older, disabled, and can't/don't drink, that's incredibly boring. I asked the bi women's group once if they had events, other than the meetup itself, that weren't bar-centric, and the conversation went like this:

Yeah being gay is really strange experience altogether. In every other minority group you grow up around others like you; if you're African-American you likely have an African-American family and maybe live in a African-American part of town, if you're Mormon you probobly grew up going to a Mormon church.

If you're a geeky white guy maybe you grow up playing videogames and, surprise, there's lots of other geeky white guys playing videogames. If you're African-American maybe you grow up listening to Jay-Z music because those around you listen to that artist and, surprise, you find there's lots of African-Americans that like Jay-Z too. You grow up with interests, hobbies, and personality traits that are shaped by the ethic/minority/religious identity.

By contrast, being gay is a very individual experience. When you're gay you likely do not experience significant numbers of other gay people until you're 16, 18, 20, 24, 28. Your interests, hobbies, and personality are well shaped by then. There are as many gay people that like Jay-Z as like Metallica. As many gay people that are geeky gamers as are jocks with no time for geeky nonsense.

The only commonality that all individuals of all backgrounds share in their sexuality. So, unsurprisingly, the gay-culture activities revolve around sex - clubs, dancing, drinking, AIDS support/treatment, marriage equality. But such a scene is not always appropriate for all individuals.

This is why I like the idea of the Gaymer-Con or whatever they're calling it. While I have no interest in participating I do like the idea of our community trying to do more to encourage social interaction among our members that are not well served through historical LGBT cultural outlets.

 

[Verlander]

The problem with gamer conventions is that the advertising and atmosphere is inescapably "straight"

AND

Gay people, while wishing equal treatment, don't want to have to conform to a personality/attitude/culture that is different to them just to get said treatment.

This is all fine, and understandable, but the truth is that making a segregated stand like this simply isn't the most positive way forward. A convention with the guts to openly support and cater to all would be the best way forward, and if there is a business case for an independent convention, there is one for an open minded convention. Seriously, be open about it in your press releases, let sponsors know what's happening, let those who don't like it not turn up, and get on with it. Would take a few tries to get it perfect, but would ultimately be worthwhile, cementing the industry as one of the few openly trying hard to promote equality. If I'm honest, I'd say a lot of the European conventions already offer this kind of support, although I've not visited every single one every single time.

As for the bigger issue, media/advertising etc being aimed at the larger audience, of which homosexual people aren't currently considered part of, well there's nothing that can be done about that. Creating a "gay specific" alternative to everything that exists isn't feasible, and definitely doesn't forward an agenda of equality. In some of the most important aspects of life, such as marriage, people have actively come out and demanded the same rights, and not just a "gay alternative". This attitude should remain consistent throughout.

A "Gaymercon" is a fake victory. If the problem exists in the community, or in the way in which conventions are ran, then that's what needs to be changed, not accepted and left alone. If they aren't willing to change, by all means start up a competitive convention, but don't make it a "Gaymercon", make it a "Better-than-your-ignorant-arse Con".

 

[Verlander]

Delete - Posted three times by mistake

 

[Verlander]

Delete - Posted three times by mistake

 

[Cory Rydell]

I don't care if gay gamers want their own convention. Have at it.

Looking at the comic... did he just compare being gay to a religion? And then compare it to a gender?

*headdesk*

That's kind of funny I hadn't realized just how blatantly poor the comparisons are until you pointed it out.
The comparison isn't the point though, it's the portrayed half-wit who's being a dick, for the sake of it.
What the writer and artist fails to realize that this is a sign of progress and not blatant bigotry

I wrote this in my first response, the comic is bad in so many ways. This is definitely another point.

Yeah, the comic itself is pretty terrible. The point it's trying to make is a good one, but the way it's getting to that point... Just awful. It's so bad that it reminds me of people trying to compare everything to cars. Trying to make a point about used games? Do it horribly by comparing them to used cars. Trying to make a point about review scores? Do it horribly by comparing them to cars (yes, somebody did this, go read the comments of the recent Jimqusition episode on review scores). In fact, I'm surprised this comic didn't have a panel comparing being gay to having a car.

Again, yeah, the point is supposed to be how stupid the guy being a dick is, and it's a good point, but they way they got there is horrible.

First off, we aren't comparing these things as directly as you assume. Our first draft of the strip had the guy asking what place a transgender bar would have in the second panel, with the first and third primarily remaining the same. This would have made the direct comparison you are assuming, but ultimately redundant (as far as the 1st and 2nd panel's points are considered) and a little off as a cultural argument. So we decided to change the second panel to something with a larger scope, originally thinking of portraying a Chinese soldier beating a monk in the background. But that's not exactly as funny as it is just dark and awful, so we opted to just put him in a shirt with the Chinese flag and have him standing on a completely over-dramatic cliff with a ridiculous representation of a mountaintop temple.

As for the argument of the comic, we are arguing that this person feels contentiously on the issue but feigns naivete (in a smug fashion) so as to not immediately call his opinion out. He isn't looking so much for a discussion as he is looking to act smug and elite, if he was actually looking for a discussion he would act genuinely and drop the attitude to talk over the issue with more civility. We point out there are proper questions on the issue, but just sitting there pretending you don't understand doesn't move the discussion forward, you need to bring up an actual criticism. I'm just not sure how you think that this dick is an example of progress.

There were some last minute tweaks and I admit we were a little inflammatory with this particular strip but as two white heterosexual males we can feel much stronger about the opinions of those with similar broadly-defined upbringings. Its an upbringing that we can claim at least some degree of knowledge about.

 

[Darken12]

Fair enough, and again we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this issue. If you're willing to let a selfish sense of pride take precedence over real and tangible benefits that's your prerogative, but I honestly hope you DON'T speak for the entire community because I think you'd be a horrendous spokesperson.

Also, I really don't think your doctor-patient analogy holds up, as affecting someone's body against their will is WILDLY different to suggesting a better alternative. I would say you have an obligation as a healthcare professional to educate the patient about different treatments and make strong, firm recommendations where possible. It's ridiculously irresponsible to just do whatever stupid quack treatment the ignorant patient read about on the internet. YOU are the doctor, YOU are responsible for their health, YOU have an obligation to do what it takes to heal them (excluding breaking the law, obviously).

I wouldn't call it pride, more like a sense of identity. Like I said, it's decisions that define who you are, and once they're made, they're indelible moments in time that cannot be changed. Everything else changes and passes (which is the problem with wanting to reach an objectively better outcome. Even if we assume such a thing exists, it's temporary), but the decisions you made are what define your identity (quoting Bioshock here, "A man chooses, a slave obeys"). But yes, obviously, I very much don't speak for the entire community. I prefer to let more enlightened people take that role.

As for the rest, I firmly insist that it's a doctor's duty to inform the patient of their situation so that they can choose what outcome they prefer. In oncology, specially, there is quite the chasm between those who are in favour of "pushing" (pressuring, coercing, manipulating the patient or their family) for life-prolonging treatments and those who accept a patient's decision to seek only symptom-relief treatments. But you're right, it's probably not the best analogy.

I think what Jerram means is that the idea of there being a flat choice of 1. Be told what to do, or 2. Be left to your own devices, is a dangerous way of filtering potential advice.

Without even considering the discussion in this topic, I certainly know if I was about to hurt myself and a student could tell me to stop because of concern I'd hear them out. Even if it turned out the concern they had was ignorant/irrelevant for whatever reason I'd certainly hear them out, simply out of mutual respect.
As much as people need to be able to make their own choices, they also need to be able to hear others. This is key to almost all positive human interaction.

This isn't to say you just lay down and let others trample you though, just to accept the possibility that those whom you believe you deserve respect from deserve some back.

I consider myself an ally to the existance of this con, and to the ideas it represents and the steps forward it's trying to make. These are all positive things. And while I'd like to support you aswell, I can't do so knowing that there is little chance of mutual respect. I'm not of the idea that someone can be infallible, regardless on their 'areas of expertise'.

I am most certainly for the idea of respect amongst peers, allies, friends and everywhere inbetween. However I'd find it to be of poor character if a friend felt the need to hold their tongue because they were afraid of offending me.

I agree with the general idea of what you're saying, but like I said before, the threat of dilution is real. Straight people are always going to outnumber us (unless it turns out that the old "we're all bisexual deep down" theory is true), so we can't let them make those decisions for us. Listening to different viewpoints is good, sure, but the decision needs to be ultimately in the hands of the LGBT community and straight allies need to at least not hamper their efforts (nobody forces them to support something they disagree with). And like I said before, to me, it's far more important that the LGBT community is allowed to make its own decisions, run its own risks and endeavours, and learn from its own mistakes, than end up always doing what well-meaning straight people think it's best.

Well said. To all of it, I mean.

I have nothing further, but thanks for putting time and effort in your response, it's a pleasure to read

Thanks and likewise.

 

[Darken12]

This time, the slight difference is that it's not someone threatening with rape, lawsuits or outright doing a hatecrime, it's just a run of the mill dude being snarky and dumb. If that's the worst you can come up with, the biggest response you'll get out of an LGBT is "Meh. At least he isn't with a group beating the shit out of us."

I don't know, escalation is a thing that happens. It starts with douchebags being snarky and dumb, then they start feeding off each other with more outrageous examples of "why does this LGBT happen?" and "why do we let LGBT people do this or that?" and then actual anger starts to seep through, and before you know it, you have bona fide hate speech. And from then on, it's just a matter of letting that anger simmer for a while and providing a window of opportunity and congrats, you have a hate crime. Which are on the rise, as demonstrated by a fellow poster in this thread.

I don't know, maybe we are being too defensive and cautious, but I'd rather be that way than put on my naivete blinders and pretend nobody wants to cause us real harm and everything is roses.

 

[Cory Rydell]

I'm just not sure how you think that this dick is an example of progress.

Because as smug as he is, he's not being, what I'd call, discriminating. Obviously he's not a model citizen, but that's besides the point.
People are asking why LGBTs are distancing themselves instead of just accepting who we are, ignoring us or protesting our group gathering.

This is a positive thing, because it shows that people are more prone to accept us or even enquire, even if some are being dicks about it.

The hate is largely kept to a minimum in this instance, it's mostly innocence mixed with ignorance, pretty basic day to day stuff that most LGBTs deal with - in other words, the outspoken select few that ask with snarky intentions are not people that deserve attention, which by the way, you're giving them

Just like you did with the rabid Mass effect 3 fans who took it overboard.
Just like you did with the haters on fake girl nerds.
Just like you did with the people threatening that feminist kickstarter girl.

All discussions, that had more valid points to them than just the usual outspoken douchebags.

"Hey! Look at these guys! What a great bunch of people they are, huh? The internet sure is a fun and great place! Boy oh boy!"

My brilliant writing aside, the dripping sarcasm is really tired and not that clever. Following that you get hundreds of pages of people arguing(which they would anyway) but with nothing to go on. Every time I'm pissed off, not entertained, wondering why half the internet is writing about these people and putting the worst of them on the frontpage, while ignoring everyone else.

This time, the slight difference is that its not someone threatening with rape, lawsuits or outright doing a hatecrime, it's just a run of the mill dude being snarky and dumb. If that's the worst you can come up with, the biggest response you'll get out of an LGBT is "Meh. At least he isn't with a group beating the shit out of us."

Fair enough, I was looking at progress as synonymous with good (as the silly liberal I am), but I guess it is an example of people not going straight for their lynching sticks so that's at least a thing. But just because he isn't the worst out there isn't exactly a reason to free him of criticism. I disagree with your point that it is innocence mixed with ignorance, some people may be innocently ignorant ,and that is fine, but we dislike those who use ignorance as a tactic to show a smug sense of superiority. Like they understand more of the issue that affect people they aren't.

It seems like you dislike the attention to the negative but we are "Critical Miss" and we try to be critical of things from time to time. Being aware of negative entities is an important aspect of change and being positive, though I agree it would be nice to be more positive generally. But when we do jokes with a positive light they don't get as many responses and that's fine and all, but it generally isn't something under our control.

Also, we aren't looking for a reaction from the LGBT community, we are looking for a response from people who avoid arguments with non-participatory actions like opting for ignorance and "agreeing to disagree", all while being a bit of a dick. I'm glad that LGBT identified individuals have grown a thick enough skin to not care about d-bags on the internet but that doesn't mean they should have to, especially on this issue.

 

[Harbinger_]

I disagree that fitting in is 'one of those numerous luxuries that comes with being straight'. I know plenty of people that are gay that have no problem fitting in and people are fine with the fact that their sexual persuasion is different.

On the same hand I know a ton of people that are straight and are outsiders even to outsiders of social circles, conventions, etc.