Again, I'll reiterate... for the 6th time. No-one is segregating. Gaymers still go to regular cons, and straight people are welcome at Gaymercon. It's not segregation, it's having a home turf. You wouldn't accuse the Yankees of segregating themselves from the rest of the league just because Yankee Stadium exists, because the Yankees still play ball with the rest of the league, and have away games as well as home games. Likewise, Gaymers are just creating their own home turf. Chill.Thyunda said:
On Gaymers and Cons
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Sports was an awful example. A Manchester United supporter of course supports football. But don't call them Manchester City supporters, because they're not. If sports was your analogy, then Gaymers, though they play games, are not to be associated with Gamers, because there's a natural divide between the two.Guestyman said:
Actually, in this analogy, Man U fans would be straight gamers and City fans would be gay gamers. In which case the stadium argument still stands.Thyunda said:
No, the analogy holds. In my analogy straight gamers and gay gamers aren't the fans. They're the players. (see what I did there? A-hyuck...) They're both Football players (Gamers) and they're both into sports (pop-culture) and within these fields they play matches (go to cons) but sometimes they'll have home games, and sometimes they'll have away games. That way neither team exclusively gets the home team advantage. I mean sometimes they create a common shared space for everyone to come together when they have an Olympics (Create a utopian subculture where Gay gamers don't feel isolated, threatened and ostracised) but that only happens every 4 years (Hasn't happened yet ever.)Thyunda said:
So your Utopia for gay people is to create a mirror image of 'straight culture' and populate it with gay people...and this won't make them feel ostracised from normal society? Might I make a comparison to the apartheid? Blacks can use THOSE toilets. They won't be threatened or ostracised in there, because that's THEIR part. I mean really, why would they want to eat with white people anyway? Black people only like fried chicken, and white people like proper food...so we'll send all the black people to those carts there, and all the white people can stay in the cafés where they won't harass or assault the black people.Guestyman said:
No... where did I say that? My utopia/Olympics is the hypothetical future place where both groups can share a space together without one group feeling marginalised/threatened/ostracised. My point is that we're not there yet, and in the interim we're making our own sandbox to play in occasionally as well as going to normal cons. Gaymercon is only ever supposed to be a temporary solution, and most if not all LGBT gamers would very much like to see a future where it's not needed. But for now it is. Is it a perfect solution? Probably not. Is it far better than things continuing as they were? Definitely.Thyunda said:
How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea of a gay-centric convention to prevent homophobic abuse? It doesn't make SENSE. I mean, I get called a rape apologist worryingly frequently because I don't believe you can educate people not to rape. But homophobia can be removed, and giving people more reason to believe that other group are different and isolated is not a healthy idea. If homosexuals are normal people too, why do they have a separate convention? What's going on with that?Guestyman said:
Think about it. Stop doing shit to make people think that being gay is special, because people resent special. It's a problem with society, but all you're doing is telling the flu victim that pneumonia feels pretty similar.
They both have an interest in football, correct? But they have separate places to celebrate that interest. United fans like to be at their stadium, supporting their team, and City fans the same. There's nothing to stop them having one stadium they both can visit.Thyunda said:Yes...because of that football team the two share (!)Samantha Burt said:Actually, in this analogy, Man U fans would be straight gamers and City fans would be gay gamers. In which case the stadium argument still stands.Thyunda said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2033921/Manchester-United-fans-attempt-incite-violence-City-v-Napoli.htmlSamantha Burt said:They both have an interest in football, correct? But they have separate places to celebrate that interest. United fans like to be at their stadium, supporting their team, and City fans the same. There's nothing to stop them having one stadium they both can visit.Thyunda said:Yes...because of that football team the two share (!)Samantha Burt said:Actually, in this analogy, Man U fans would be straight gamers and City fans would be gay gamers. In which case the stadium argument still stands.Thyunda said:
Yes there is.
Dude, it's even *worse* for lesbians! Sure, they have a lot of eyecandy that they indirectly benefit from, but it's not for them. It's like sitting in a restaurant and seeing waiters passing by you with all these delicious dishes, and you never get a single one. And the few cases where they get girl-on-girl, they end up wondering if it's really aimed at them in an effort to be inclusive, or if it's like straight porn, where all the girl-on-girl is there to please straight men.matthew_lane said:
Oh honey. That's not looking at a man's ass. You're looking at his entire body, tilted to the side, and the camera isn't even focusing on him.matthew_lane said:
This is looking at a man's ass:
We're angry because you are not listening. You are some sort of pretentious self-importance elemental who is completely blind to the arrogance of patronising and straightsplaining[footnote]borrowing this term from the feminists' "mansplaining", which is basically "men telling women why they're wrong about sexism and misogyny", in this case, it means "straight people telling LGBT people why they're wrong about discrimination and homophobia"[/footnote] why we're wrong. You are exactly the type of straight person the comic makes fun of. You know full well that even if you disagree with us, this isn't any of your concern and you should stay out of it, but nope, you have to butt in and tell us how wrong you think we are.matthew_lane said:
I answered this about 7 or 9 times already. Read pages 7 to 11, that's where we all spent most of our energy writing comprehensive posts. So you get the short answer. If you want further explanation, go to page 7 and start looking for posts made by me, Guestyman, Spot1990 and others.CriticKitten said:
The entertainment industry (and by extension, the gaming industry) aims its products at straight white males. The gamer community is, in turn, populated by a majority of straight white males. If we want the industry to take notice of us and start catering to us as well, we need to do something to let them know we're a significant demographic. And finally, the LGBT community might just want a safe place where they don't have to face the casual homophobia of the gamer community.
All of this is perfectly reasonable and has nothing to do with straight people (it won't affect them in any way).
That wasn't an ass shot. That was a back shot. But I see how you can be confused, as the gaming industry has yet to do a proper man ass shot outside porn/erotic games.matthew_lane said:
First of all, games made specifically for girls are A) Incredibly stereotyped (Cooking Mama, Barbie anything, etc) and B) a hilarious minority, which are instantly negated by, say, sports games where you only have male players (because girls don't play sports, silly!), or shooters with only/mostly male protagonists (because girls don't like shooters, silly!), and so on.matthew_lane said:
Second of all, you para-elemental of disingenuity, because you found one game where gender is more or less irrelevant doesn't negate the myriad of examples where that is not the case.
Let me try to be as clear as possible: That's not the problem! The problem is that ****** is a way to cause offence! Why is ****** an offensive word, if not homophobia? If sexuality was no big deal, being gay would carry the same insult weight as 'water-drinker'!secretsantaone said:
Bastard had an extra meaning, it was specifically about being disavowed by your (almost always male) parent. I would never use the word bastard near someone I knew had been walked out on by a parent.secretsantaone said:
Oh, also, bastards weren't prone to hate speech or hate crimes. Being picked on? Sure. But I don't recall a single instance of hate speech or hate crimes against bastards.
Oh my goodness, I didn't know that on top of being an expert on equality and LGBT issues, you were also an expert in economics, finance and the gaming industry! Since I can't very well just laugh at your post and leave it at that, I'll attempt to explain: it's not up to you to decide! You're not the gaming industry, so your opinion is meaningless! If we fail at our attempt, let us fail and try again. You're not part of our group, so our failures will have no repercussions on you. If you're so assured about how doomed our efforts are, then shut up, sit back and watch it happen.secretsantaone said:
Uh. Okay. Remember that post I quoted? The one I wrote myself, back in page 7? Yeah, there I cited a lot of cases where, not only in RPGs, games were aimed at a straight male audience. Just look at any game with female characters and see how they're all dressed in titillating, revealing outfits, just for the pleasure of the straight male gaze. Getting the same treatment with men (putting Nathan Drake in tight hot-pants, for example) would be a step in the right direction. And then we have games where main characters have established relationships. Why can't they be of the same gender? Why can't the protagonist of Alan Wake be a woman (who has a wife)? Why can't Dante flirt with guys too (and get guys falling into his arms and almost-kiss situations with men)? Why can't the protagonist of Catherine be a woman (oh, because it would undermine the game's awful message regarding gender)?
The list goes on forever. Inclusion isn't a gay option in RPGs. It's a complete overhaul of how the gaming industry approaches character relationships, outfits, titillation and protagonists.
Oh, forgive us for thinking that we, as people of different sexualities, were directly linked to the portrayal of sexuality in games. Whatever were we thinking.secretsantaone said:
Also, the 'too much of a niche market' nonsense is exactly the sort of thing the con is setting out to disprove.
I don't think you're processing the words you're typing. You are saying that you acknowledge that the whole "gay = not manly" is a completely arbitrary social construct (that can change, obviously), then you admit that people take offence at it (let me repeat it, straight people take offence at being called gay), think it's perfectly okay, and then go right back to wondering why we want our own con. There's some place in the logical chain where you get lost, I think.secretsantaone said:
It's like you're incapable of putting yourself in another person's shoes. You have absolutely no idea what it's like to be non-straight, and brazenly spew the same nonsense we have to contend with every day, and then you still wonder why we want our own con. It's astonishing, really.secretsantaone said:
I think there's a difference between saying "Fuck you, you rampant dickweasel" and not saying that.secretsantaone said:
As a gay I feel I should probably throw my two cents into this one. To everyone calling this some some of gaming convention with a "sexual orientation segregation," you're just wrong. There's nothing exclusionary about the convention, it's (from my understanding) going to be a convention focusing on the aspects of gaming culture more relevant to the gay gamer, where said gamers know they will be in a welcoming environment. I've been to plenty of cons where there was a fair degree of homophobia on display; why shouldn't gay gamers have a place to meet like minded people where they know they won't have to put up with bigotry and weird looks? Even things like hitting on people can be a mind field at normal conventions for a gay man. Who knows if that guy you just hit on is going to be a psychotic homophobe and beat the shit out of you just for being who you are?
The most important part of the whole debate though is that conventions are places where members of a specific subculture can gather to meet likeminded people with similar interests. Gay people who play videogames, while they may be a small part of gaming culture as a whole, are a subculture just as deserving of having their own conventions, in the same way Star Trek fans are allowed conventions even though science-fiction conventions already exist.
The most important part of the whole debate though is that conventions are places where members of a specific subculture can gather to meet likeminded people with similar interests. Gay people who play videogames, while they may be a small part of gaming culture as a whole, are a subculture just as deserving of having their own conventions, in the same way Star Trek fans are allowed conventions even though science-fiction conventions already exist.
There's nothing from stopping ManU and Mancity people from both supporting the *England* team. The analogy stands. Actually it's reinforced by your link to that article. If Man City supporters are harassed and threatened with violence by a small, but vocal and dangerous subset of ManU supporters, whose interests are served by forcing them to associate 100% of the time and taking away Man City's home turf?Thyunda said:
Can you please read some of the 18 pages that came before you so I'm not having to endlessly repeat myself? We're not doing it to feel special. We're doing it to feel normal for once.Thyunda said:
How can, in a society of intelligent people, somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence? It doesn't make sense. At all.
Think about that. Stop accusing me of trying to feel special, because I resent me feeling safe and normal being called special treatment, because all you're doing is telling the pneumonia victim that taking his medicine is selfish.
That right there is your problem. You are incapable of knowing how much homophobia there is at any place unless you ask someone who suffers from it. This is like trying to figure out the intensity of a solar beam when you're in the shade. The only way you can figure out how intense the solar beam is is by seeing the effect it has on things that are actually exposed to it. You have no exposure to the solar beam, so you are not qualified to determine the intensity of the solar beam on your own.matthew_lane said:
Repeat after me: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you haven't witnessed any instances of homophobia doesn't mean they don't exist. I am sure that there are plenty of animals and plants in the world that you haven't seen and still very much exist.
That right there is something so fundamentally wrong with you that I honestly have no idea how to even begin to tackle it.matthew_lane said:
You are not an objective source of information! This is a binary state, either you are affected by homophobia, or you aren't! If you aren't affected by it, you're just as biased to say that it doesn't exist as the person affected by it is biased to say that it does! There is no objective position here! There is no objective truth in this matter, because it's all subjective perception! If we perceive homophobia and you don't, we have to construct a situation where we don't suffer it and you guys get the least inconvenienced possible. That's the proper way to solve these issues, not by pretending objectivity exists in such an inherently subjective matter and then passing ludicrous decrees.
You are not objective! You cannot be objective! There is no objectivity to be found in this matter! This is not science! This is emotions, social interaction and flawed human perceptions!matthew_lane said:
Stop giving yourself a position of superiority over the rest of us. You are not some enlightened sage that sees what the rest of us blind masses do not. If that's what you tell yourself in order to justify your existence and stave off depression, that's your business, but it will actively undermine your own efforts to get your point across.
When you step down from the rickety second-hand stool you brought in an attempt to be "that guy" (you know the guy, the one that sees a long conversation and thinks it's absolutely ridiculous that it has gone on for so long when he has the answer), we'll be ready to engage you in an actual intelligent conversation. Before that happens, we will keep on treating you like an arrogant quasi-elemental of ignorance.
Mostly because I don't want a guy like this
Coming up to me and being the umpteenth guy to ask me the dumbest lesbian questions that I keep hearing.
I don't go to cons, but I can see the logic. Maybe I just want to play some goddamn demos, not be an educator for how two females have sex.
Coming up to me and being the umpteenth guy to ask me the dumbest lesbian questions that I keep hearing.
I don't go to cons, but I can see the logic. Maybe I just want to play some goddamn demos, not be an educator for how two females have sex.
Why shouldn't he? He had a VERY valid point.Thyunda said:
Let me point out this part:
How can, - Snip - somebody pitch the idea that the way for me to feel "Normal" is to go to a place where I'm subject to whispers and stares, slurs and sometimes outright confrontation and threats of violence?
