EA pledges backing for Gaymercon

[Lycanthrope]

This one is a bit different, though, as it endorses a very negative stereotype. It would be like saying you had a "gamer moment" to describe a dating failure with women.

Well, again, it would surely depend on the perspective and the intent behind the meaning.

For example, when I say, "Argh, I've just had such a blond moment" it's direct at myself and not with the image of a daft blonde woman in mind.

To me, a "gamer moment" would be something like recognising something in real-life that resonates with an experience you had in a game or feel particularly proud in a moment at a gaming convention.

I understand the negative connotation but I still think it's not strictly a negative stereotype--it seems far to disassociated from reality to be taken literally.

Nobody really thinks blondes are stupid.

Now, big-boobed bimbos with five-inch-long hip-curdling shorts, and knuckle-dragging biceps with twig-legs are entirely justified stereotypes.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Its just a word I prefer not being used in public or polite conversation, much like "nigger", "Faggot", "kaffer", "Dyke" etc. But if Jame is willing to allow it, its fine by me, which is why I left it in his hands & discussed it with Lycan via PM rather than make a big deal about in the thread. What can I say, the term urks me.

I've seen you frequently using the word twat.

twat/twät/
Noun:
vulgar. A woman's genitals.
vulgar. A person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.

/Claps Syco for being a twat.

While I Loved both AA and AC I would rather Rocksteady take their awesomeness to a broader spectrum.

I dont think its any different.

Double-standards, methinks?

 

[James]

All the words, people...

All of them...

=_=

 

[OmegaFenix]

I've seen you frequently using the word twat.


Double-standards, methinks?

Yep Like most people I to, contrary to popular believe, screw up. The use of that word is a bad habit I have tried to kick and have had moderate success in breaking.

 

[Tsar]

All the words, people...

All of them...

=_=

My emperor has spoken.

Bloody twats joking

 

[Azimuth]

For example, when I say, "Argh, I've just had such a blond moment" it's direct at myself and not with the image of a daft blonde woman in mind.

Nobody really thinks blondes are stupid.

Now, big-boobed bimbos with five-inch-long hip-curdling shorts, and knuckle-dragging biceps with twig-legs are entirely justified stereotypes.

You're contradicting yourself here. I mean, for starters, we wouldn't use expressions like "blonde moment" if blondes were already presumed to be stupid. The understanding of the phrase relies on that presumption, or it wouldn't mean anything.

I'd also disagree that people don't think blondes are stupid, especially if they're very attractive and/or dress provocatively, or the stereotype wouldn't exist. Your example reveals your own prejudice - you'll automatically assume that a "big-boobed bimbo" is stupid, when she might be a rocket scientist. TSK TSK.

 

[Azimuth]

Its just a word I prefer not being used in public or polite conversation, much like... "Dyke" etc.

Actually, that word has been somewhat reclaimed by the lesbian community. I wouldn't go around shouting it or anything, but it's not as offensive as you think.

 

[OmegaFenix]

Actually, that word has been somewhat reclaimed by the lesbian community. I wouldn't go around shouting it or anything, but it's not as offensive as you think.

So kind of like African-Americans have reclaimed "nigger".

You learn something new everyday.

 

[Lycanthrope]

You're contradicting yourself here. I mean, for starters, we wouldn't use expressions like "blonde moment" if blondes were already presumed to be stupid. The understanding of the phrase relies on that presumption, or it wouldn't mean anything.

The thing is that the understanding of that phrase is heavily influenced on the jokes which I grant you, is based on the stereotype. But like all jokes, they are hyperbole and largely fictious with a very loose grip on reality.

I'd also disagree that people don't think blondes are stupid, especially if they're very attractive and/or dress provocatively, or the stereotype wouldn't exist. Your example reveals your own prejudice - you'll automatically assume that a "big-boobed bimbo" is stupid, when she might be a rocket scientist. TSK TSK.

I said a big-boobed bimbo with a 5-inch-long pair of shorts. The fact that she's prepared to wear 5-inch-long pairs of shorts and be seen publicly displaying her hip fat tells me all I need to know about both her intellect and her self-image. This is one of those times where being prejudiced is right on the money.

Much like how it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume a guy holding another guy's hand would be gay even though he may very well be bisexual, asexual or simply have difficulty seeing and in need of aid.

We are all prejudiced to some degree and we all make assumptions based on what is generally true and from that stereotypes are born.

There's nothing wrong with stereotypes apart from the fact that they are not always true and that nobody really takes them seriously. And anyone who does take a stereotype seriously... well, that tells you all you really need to know about them, wouldn't you say?

Not all gays are flaming queens, not all blondes are daft and not all 5-inch-long-shorts-wearing-women are bimbos.

But it's from the presumption that such stereotypes, however inane, are true that we discover the marvels of cheap, corny humour and a general kind of understanding about what the joke is all about.

There is no harm done by it, and that was my point--it's a turn of phrase and it's insane that it needs to be so heavily read into before we shrug our shoulders and accept that it has no real bearing on reality except by people who really shouldn't be given the time of day in the first place.

Otherwise we're back to toeing around sensibilities and fear of offending each other because of something so trivial and before long we'll be burning each other at the stake for being left-handed.

Edit: I think people need to learn to laugh more at themselves and take life much less seriously than they often do.

Lower blood-pressure and a much friendlier and happier world would be minutes away.

 

[Graal]

Can I just take this moment to say I like the word cunt? It just glides off the tongue, unlike dick or twat, or whatever else.

Although, Dan once gave me an infraction for calling another member a cunt and said it was 'one of the most disparaging words in the english language.' Couldn't quite understand the logic behind it. One profane word is much the same as another, as far as I'm concerned. At the time I felt the infraction was pretty unfair considering people around here often get away with calling each other morons or assholes or dicks or whatever. An insult is an insult no matter how it's worded.

 

[Azimuth]

The thing is that the understanding of that phrase is heavily influenced on the jokes which I grant you, is based on the stereotype. But like all jokes, they are hyperbole and largely fictious with a very loose grip on reality.

And they're also potentially hurtful. I know you feel that the burden of offence is on the offended, but I prefer to to err on the side of not offending people in the first place. I know that comes off somewhat sanctimonious, but that's not really my intention.

As a woman, I'm offended by the assumption that I know nothing about games, for example - an assumption that is still perpetuated by comments under my articles sometimes for no other reason than that I'm a woman. I remember once mentioning Planescape Torment in an article, and one commentator saying, "Oh, like you really played that." If I were a man, I wouldn't have to deal with that shit. Having dealt with it, though, I suppose I've developed some social sensitivity about it, which in turn has changed the way I speak to and about other people. I don't think that's a bad thing.

I said a big-boobed bimbo with a 5-inch-long pair of shorts. The fact that she's prepared to wear 5-inch-long pairs of shorts and be seen publicly displaying her hip fat tells me all I need to know about both her intellect and her self-image. This is one of those times where being prejudiced is right on the money.

I'm honestly quite shocked to read this coming from you, and I absolutely disagree. Making prejudiced assumptions about people's intelligence on the basis of the clothes they wear is horrible.

 

[Lycanthrope]

And they're also potentially hurtful. I know you feel that the burden of offence is on the offended, but I prefer to to err on the side of not offending people in the first place. I know that comes off somewhat sanctimonious, but that's not really my intention.

As a woman, I'm offended by the assumption that I know nothing about games, for example - an assumption that is still perpetuated by comments under my articles sometimes for no other reason than that I'm a woman. I remember once mentioning Planescape Torment in an article, and one commentator saying, "Oh, like you really played that." If I were a man, I wouldn't have to deal with that shit. Having dealt with it, though, I suppose I've developed some social sensitivity about it, which in turn has changed the way I speak to and about other people. I don't think that's a bad thing.

I understand and respect that.

We're going to have to disagree on this though--no-one has the "right" to be offended and yes, I feel that the burden of offence is on the offended.

Of course I believe that it is important to be kind and considerate to others who may not always understand that it's not your intention to offend or hurt them and that it's their choice to interpret your words/actions as such. But I also find it difficult to wrap my head around the fact that in many cases the people who don the self-righteous air of offence insist that their sensibilities are far more important than your freedom to express yourself and that is something I simply don't believe is justifiable.

This is about expressing yourself with something as simple as the word "cunt" or as complex as expressing fondness for your partner who may be the same gender as you with a hug or a gentle nudge.

I would never want to hurt someone's feelings intentionally and certainly not without being back-handed first. So I hope that's not what you think of me.

I'm also aware of what you deal with and I know that it's difficult as well as incredibly infuriating. However, I am not a cretinous oaf without a moral compass or sense of compassion and sensitivity to others.

I simply don't see the point of toeing around other people's sensibilities. I learnt long ago that people have a choice to read and to respond to what you've written (such is the blessed advantage of the written medium). If someone begins trailing off on absolute nonsense or they irritate me, I switch off and get on with my life.

I don't expect anything less should someone read something I've written and feel that it's a waste of their time or that it's offensive. Stop reading it and get on with your life.

Should I ever, by some fluke, cross the line and resort to hate speech then by all means, put me out of my misery (because that would be a bloody sad day for me).

Until then, whatever faux offence anyone takes at something I've written is precisely that: an elaborate excuse to get onto their high horses and wet themselves in the name of self-righteous autofellatio.

If gays can laugh at themselves, if blonde women (and men) can poke fun at themselves when they do something goofy then I don't see a reason for it to be the end of the world when someone cracks a stereotypical joke.

Otherwise how much longer until the old racial stereotypes like "white men can't jump" become offensive too? Of course, I'm sure it already is by some nutjob out there with a chip on their shoulder.

I'm honestly quite shocked to read this coming from you, and I absolutely disagree. Making prejudiced assumptions about people's intelligence on the basis of the clothes they wear is horrible.

I seem to be on a roll today.

It's not just their intelligence I make prejudiced assumptions about but their lifestyles, personalities, hygiene, self-esteem, history, manners and demeanour amongst other things as well.

This, for example, is something I will wholeheartedly be prejudiced toward. I don't care if she's a rocket scientist, a chemical engineer, a lawyer, a doctor or a prostitute. She looks awful, dresses badly and I wouldn't dare be seen in the company of someone like that.

You may think of me what you will but would you be happy to be in the company of this fine gentleman?:

I don't believe you would. It's embarrassing and frankly, anyone who cannot take care of themselves immediately sets off a fair number of warnings.

Again, I will never be mean to such people and they're welcome to dress and manage themselves in whatever way they wish. Everyone has one life to live and by all means, live it in whatever way you see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Oh, and one thing about you just to get it out there: you are a woman, yes and that's great and all that, but you're also a fantastic writer and you've earned your fame, your fans and your brownie points over the years. You did that on your own merits despite being having a particular arrangement of genitalia and despite the heavily sexist bigotry that you've had to endure.

I've never understood the need you seem to have to prove yourself. At least, that's what I understand from being offended by the assumptions of other people. I find it bizarre. You know you're a prestigious writer, you know that you've been a gamer since you were wee high and you are one of the most confident and self-certain people I've ever come across.

But you allow yourself to be offended by know-nothing jerks who have no say, no influence and no bearing on your life? You just give them power by allowing yourself to be offended by such naivete.

This is why I find offence such a silly thing.

If I had to allow myself to be offended by every homophobic prick I've come across in my life, or every time somebody said something nasty about me or had the audacity to run to teacher because I wouldn't scratch out the big scary word I wrote, I would have fallen apart a long time ago.

Offence is something I have no use for. I am too tired of being angry and upset because of OTHER people.

Unless someone is actively doing the, "You should be fucking killed you fucking faggot" thing at me, I really couldn't care less. And even then, if it's online, I take it with a bucket of salt and simply report it if possible.

I'm tempted to say that you should stop feeling sorry for yourself for being judged as a woman first and a gamer second (by what I'm sure is a exceptionally vocal minority). If you weren't getting all sorts of crap, you'd have to worry about whether or not anyone was actually paying attention to you. They are, you're successful, KICK ASS, damnit and ride that wave home.

Keep doing what you do best and letting OTHER people be offended because you are everything they're not and because you have the balls to do it well and without letting them offend YOU.

*mumble* *mumble* What the fuck am I on about...

For the record, I haven't slept in far too long.

GO AWAY. DON'T LOOK AT ME.

 

[Azimuth]

We're going to have to disagree on this though--no-one has the "right" to be offended and yes, I feel that the burden of offence is on the offended.

We definitely disagree on this. I think everybody absolutely has the right to be offended. Whether or not to actually be offended about something is another matter, but it's not as simple as choosing. Emotions are not governed by logic and rationality, and something can be offensive because it's hurtful, for example.

I'm generalising, but in my experience, I've found that many men have a peculiar contempt for emotional responses, which may even be subconscious. Generalising again, but women are usually assumed to be more emotional than men, and I do feel that some of this contempt for emotion is a result of entrenched cultural sexism. It's not just against women, either. Men who are more emotional, for example, are often seen as weak - both by other men and women.

Of course I believe that it is important to be kind and considerate to others who may not always understand that it's not your intention to offend or hurt them and that it's their choice to interpret your words/actions as such. But I also find it difficult to wrap my head around the fact that in many cases the people who don the self-righteous air of offence insist that their sensibilities are far more important than your freedom to express yourself and that is something I simply don't believe is justifiable.

Why is your freedom to express yourself more important than other people's feelings, though? I think you're using this assumed attitude of self-righteousness to rationalise that, which isn't really fair.

I suspect we're talking about two different aspects of this, though. I'm arguing the principle over specific examples. I mean, people being offended about gay marriage, for example, can fuck off. Social equality for oppressed demographics is more important than some spurious religious dogma prescribed 2000 years ago.

The point is, it's more complicated than you might realise, and - at best - even I'm in a somewhat paradoxical position about it. I'm offended by sexism but I also have absolutely no sympathy for people offended by homosexuals.

Until then, whatever faux offence anyone takes at something I've written is precisely that: an elaborate excuse to get onto their high horses and wet themselves in the name of self-righteous autofellatio.

But if offence always so artificial? Fundamentally, the entire feminist movement was precipitated by offence at the sociocultural status quo. If women in the 50s and 60s weren't offended by the expectation that they stay at home baking biscuits and squeezing out babies, I wouldn't be working today.

If gays can laugh at themselves, if blonde women (and men) can poke fun at themselves when they do something goofy then I don't see a reason for it to be the end of the world when someone cracks a stereotypical joke.

So if a black guy calls his buddy a nigger, it's okay for everybody else to call black people niggers? The problem with stereotypical jokes is that they perpetuate stereotypes, and that's potentially harmful. An article I wrote about the Duke Nukem Capture the Babe controversy addresses this:

It’s satire. I get it. Wait no, I don’t. Isn’t satire supposed to make a point or something? So what point, exactly, is Duke Nukem Forever trying to make? If anything, it’s just an uncomfortable reminder that I’m actually related to one or two people who think it’s okay to treat women like a conveniently-arranged assembly of meat and orifices, and nothing much else.

Can satire really be considered successful – or anything even remotely worth doing, for that matter – when a substantial percentage of its target market demographic doesn’t even realise it’s supposed to be satire?* Is sexist satire even funny?

It’s kinda like somebody who thinks poop jokes are funny. Is it because the concept of a poop joke is so base, so absurd, so consummately inane that it’s funny, or is it because poop jokes are about as sophisticated as jokes get? If there’s any preponderating parity among those people I’ve seen promoting the Duke’s more prurient predilections, it’s overbearing ****ing stupidity. Basically, the kind of knuckle-lugging troglodyte who can’t see more than two or three centimetres ahead of himself, because his hirsute, precariously protruding brow keeps getting in the way. That’s also a metaphor.

Besides, isn’t it possible that calling it satire is an easy free pass to intellectual credibility, when it’s maybe just a sly excuse to push otherwise objectionable content without objection?

It's not that I think jokes that rely on stereotypes are never funny. But it doesn't hurt to be conscientious about the potential ramifications of making them. The fact is, those jokes can be offensive.

It's not just their intelligence I make prejudiced assumptions about but their lifestyles, personalities, hygiene, self-esteem, history, manners and demeanour amongst other things as well.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wjd75rD-T...cL7PyOY/s1600/epic-fail-short-shorts-fail.jpg

This, for example, is something I will wholeheartedly be prejudiced toward. I don't care if she's a rocket scientist, a chemical engineer, a lawyer, a doctor or a prostitute. She looks awful, dresses badly and I wouldn't dare be seen in the company of someone like that.

That's pretty shallow, don't you think? Women (and men, increasingly) are under tremendous social pressure to look perfect in other people's eyes. Everything is wrong with that.

You may think of me what you will but would you be happy to be in the company of this fine gentleman?:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zLznuQOQgo4/S2MDJjMAfaI/AAAAAAAAErU/pi7d8TNzowA/image[3].png

That man could be somebody's much loved dad or husband. Your attitude amounts to body policing, and it's exactly the same attitude that prints sensationalist tabloid headlines about macro-lensed celebrity cellulite.

I don't believe you would. It's embarrassing and frankly, anyone who cannot take care of themselves immediately sets off a fair number of warnings.

Don't make assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do. I have some friends who are, let's say, not conventionally attractive. Hell, I've struggled with my own weight most of my adult life, partly as a result of an endocrine disorder that's extremely common among women.

I've never understood the need you seem to have to prove yourself. At least, that's what I understand from being offended by the assumptions of other people. I find it bizarre. You know you're a prestigious writer, you know that you've been a gamer since you were wee high and you are one of the most confident and self-certain people I've ever come across.

But you allow yourself to be offended by know-nothing jerks who have no say, no influence and no bearing on your life? You just give them power by allowing yourself to be offended by such naivete.

But it's not about proving myself. It's simply calling out shitty attitudes that should be called out. People who say sexist, racist, and other bigoted stuff online are bullies, and bullies just keep on doing their thing when there isn't a real response to it. Quite contrary to the idea that feeding the troll enables it, I think that ignoring a problem only invests that troll with an attitude of invulnerability. I think we should stand up to shitty behaviour when we see it.

 

[Lycanthrope]

We definitely disagree on this. I think everybody absolutely has the right to be offended. Whether or not to actually be offended about something is another matter, but it's not as simple as choosing. Emotions are not governed by logic and rationality, and something can be offensive because it's hurtful, for example.

I feel that Stephen Fry says this best:

You are right, emotions are not governed by logic and rationality but it's certainly time that people learn to change that.

I'm generalising, but in my experience, I've found that many men have a peculiar contempt for emotional responses, which may even be subconscious. Generalising again, but women are usually assumed to be more emotional than men, and I do feel that some of this contempt for emotion is a result of entrenched cultural sexism. It's not just against women, either. Men who are more emotional, for example, are often seen as weak - both by other men and women.

Hmmm... You are right, of course. But this is also something that is changing--lack of emotion, compassion or consideration for each other is definitely frowned upon more often and our societies are definitely becoming far more sensitive to each other. A good thing when it doesn't get taken to ridiculous extremes and people begin to feel "offended" by anything under the sun that they simply disagree with or just don't like.

Again, homosexuality "offends" so many conservative nutjobs in the world, and they offend me. The difference between my offence and theirs is that mine doesn't seek to take away their right to express themselves and it instead protects my right to BE myself.

Why is your freedom to express yourself more important than other people's feelings, though? I think you're using this assumed attitude of self-righteousness to rationalise that, which isn't really fair.

Because other people's feelings should have no bearing over my freedom to express myself. Again, my freedom of expression isn't "in your face" abuse, harassment or an attack on anyone without provocation. It is an expression via a medium that provides people the luxury of ignoring it. It is also not at all inflammatory; whereas it can easily be argued that crying offence whenever something is said that you just don't like falls into that category--it sets out to create an issue where none exists.

I suspect we're talking about two different aspects of this, though. I'm arguing the principle over specific examples. I mean, people being offended about gay marriage, for example, can fuck off. Social equality for oppressed demographics is more important than some spurious religious dogma prescribed 2000 years ago.

Of course I agree and I feel the same way. The difference is that I take it one step further--people who are offended about a silly stereotypical joke, for example, can fuck off. Are we really that thin-skinned?

The point is, it's more complicated than you might realise, and - at best - even I'm in a somewhat paradoxical position about it. I'm offended by sexism but I also have absolutely no sympathy for people offended by homosexuals.

And here I quote Fry again, "[offence is] no more than a whine." It's just an expression of something that you just don't like and that's fine, but please don't try to take away my freedom to express what you don't like otherwise I'm quite sure the same can be applied to you and something that you like but that I don't.

Arguably, where do we draw the line. Sexism is an unfortunate part of many societies; in fact it's entrenched in our laws where a man may, through customary marriage, marry many women. And I consider that completely backwards: either it's equal for all; or be gone with it.

But I find it incredibly difficult to put any serious thought into taking away someone's freedom to be a sexist prick. Just like I wouldn't want to take away someone's freedom to be a homophobe, a racist or a ginger-hating Nazi. As long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone else, then I could care less what people believe or feel.

And yes, I understand that in many ways that does affect people: in the workplace, in small communities and in families. But you don't change people by criminalising them or censoring them. That's not how you make a better world: you teach them, you allow them to see for themselves that their actions and beliefs are imbecilic. Sometimes they want to learn and other times they don't.

But they have every right to feel and believe whatever they want.

Just as I say, you are welcome to be offended and express that, but when your "offence" trumps my freedom to express myself, then there is something wrong with the world.

But if offence always so artificial? Fundamentally, the entire feminist movement was precipitated by offence at the sociocultural status quo. If women in the 50s and 60s weren't offended by the expectation that they stay at home baking biscuits and squeezing out babies, I wouldn't be working today.

I agree, again. But again, you don't change people by silencing them. You do so by arguing with them and proving to them that they are wrong.

So if a black guy calls his buddy a nigger, it's okay for everybody else to call black people niggers? The problem with stereotypical jokes is that they perpetuate stereotypes, and that's potentially harmful. An article I wrote about the Duke Nukem Capture the Babe controversy addresses this:

Yes, why not? If you call a person a "nigger" as a friendly joke instead of directing it as hate-speech then by all means, why should someone get assaulted for it? I'm reminded of that story where a white kid and a black kid who were good friends would call each other racial slurs.

It's a word: words are meaningless without intent.

I don't care of people call each other faggot, I don't care if someone says, "Hey faggot " to me either, as long as it isn't directed at me in a hateful way. Why should a WORD affect me? I'm not a child any more and I really wish that someone taught me that when I was.

It's not that I think jokes that rely on stereotypes are never funny. But it doesn't hurt to be conscientious about the potential ramifications of making them. The fact is, those jokes can be offensive.

And now you know how I feel about the concept of "offence" and we disagree.

That's pretty shallow, don't you think? Women (and men, increasingly) are under tremendous social pressure to look perfect in other people's eyes. Everything is wrong with that.

Why? Should we all go back to wearing hessian bags, avoid washing our hair and stop brushing our teeth as well? If people stink, they stink. If people look atrocious then they look atrocious.

People are welcome to wear whatever hey like and care for themselves in whatever way that they like. That doesn't mean I want them in my personal space or in my life.

Again, just because I feel this way doesn't mean I will attack these people or wilfully hurt their feelings. It simply means that I don't like it and, dare I say, find it offensive but again: I could care less about whatever makes them happy, as long as it isn't a part of my life.

That man could be somebody's much loved dad or husband. Your attitude amounts to body policing, and it's exactly the same attitude that prints sensationalist tabloid headlines about macro-lensed celebrity cellulite.

What does the fact that he could be somebody's much loved father or husband have to do with anything? He's certainly someone's son, possibly a brother and rather likely a friend. That doesn't make his appearance or consideration for himself any less repulsive.

I am also not saying that everyone has to be "perfect." There is no such thing. But even a hag can try and look civilised.

<...To be continued..>

 

[Lycanthrope]

<...Continued...>

Don't make assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do. I have some friends who are, let's say, not conventionally attractive. Hell, I've struggled with my own weight most of my adult life, partly as a result of an endocrine disorder that's extremely common among women.

Does that mean that your friends would be happy to be in public wearing a G-string or would they have some semblance of personal decency?

Again, I am not saying that there is something repulsive about fat people or that fat people should go hide away in some darkened basement somewhere. I am saying that people dress appropriately (read: not have bits of themselves dangling outside their clothing).

I don't have anything against fat people and the same applies to everyone.

Would it make more sense to you if I said that by all means, let it loose at the beach? Or at a spa?

But it's not about proving myself. It's simply calling out shitty attitudes that should be called out. People who say sexist, racist, and other bigoted stuff online are bullies, and bullies just keep on doing their thing when there isn't a real response to it. Quite contrary to the idea that feeding the troll enables it, I think that ignoring a problem only invests that troll with an attitude of invulnerability. I think we should stand up to shitty behaviour when we see it.

I agree, I just don't think that it's that simple. Some people make stupid jokes, should they be placed on the same level as men who beat their girlfriends? Or should it just be seen as puerile behaviour and ignored as such?

I figure it's up to the individual, really. Again, I believe that if it isn't an outright attack, harassment or abusive then it's just stupid commentary. Hell, pick a YouTube video at random--does anyone read more than the first three or four comments, if even?

YouTube is the least moderated/policed site I can think of and yet the (experienced) community tends to filter out and ignore the rubbish because they realise it's futile, a waste of effort and simply just not worth it.

Yes, we should be more sensitive toward each other but I'm sorry, that doesn't mean we should allow inane sensibilities to determine what jokes we may and may not make, what things we may or may not say or how we may or may not express ourselves. That's one small step away from complete and utter batshittery.

But maybe you and I are crossing our lines a bit. I've never been particularly good at explaining my feelings and I can only hope you read beyond what I've been able to squeeze into [-]a post[/-] two posts.

Edit: WAI STRIKETHROUGH NO WORK?!

 

[Azimuth]

As much as I adore Stephen Fry, I don't agree with everything he says, and I definitely don't agree with what he said about offence.

Sure, what he's said does apply from time to time. But as a rule, it's one that I simply wouldn't endorse, ever. Offence can most certainly have real meaning and purpose - refer to what I said previously about the feminist movement, for example.

I think you also misunderstand something about my position in this argument. I am vehemently opposed to censorship. One thing that comes immediately to mind is the Japanese game, RapeLay. It's an unremittingly and unambiguously abhorrent "game" that offends me (and many other people, I'm sure) immensely. But banning it? No, removing something offensive is not the solution at all, because that effectively removes it from constructive, meaningful debate too.

 

[Lycanthrope]

As much as I adore Stephen Fry, I don't agree with everything he says, and I definitely don't agree with what he said about offence.

Sure, what he's said does apply from time to time. But as a rule, it's one that I simply wouldn't endorse, ever. Offence can most certainly have real meaning and purpose - refer to what I said previously about the feminist movement, for example.

I think you also misunderstand something about my position in this argument. I am vehemently opposed to censorship. One thing that comes immediately to mind is the Japanese game, RapeLay. It's an unremittingly and unambiguously abhorrent "game" that offends me (and many other people, I'm sure) immensely. But banning it? No, removing something offensive is not the solution at all, because that effectively removes it from constructive, meaningful debate too.

That RapeLay game just opens up another avenue of argument entirely. My first thoughts jump to the old porn debate: does access to porn increase or reduce sexual crime, especially that of a violent nature? I believe that it does and as such games like RapeLay may well give people with (for lack of a better description) fucked up turn-ons a safe and harmless outlet.

There are both men and women who get off on rape fantasies and you certainly don't need to look hard to find fan-fiction about it by people who have never been sexually assaulted or raped in their (often ridiculously normal) lives.

Do I consider it abhorrent? I actually don't care. What two (or more) consenting adults do in their private lives doesn't concern me. But I do believe that there is a market for that media.

And you don't need to look far *cough* Catholic priests *cough* to see what happens when there isn't an outlet for batshittery.

However, I think this is heading off topic a bit now

I think you and I are talking past each other and are aiming at different feelings/experiences we've had.

While I hate the phrase, I think we should agree to disagree.

Except on censorship. Bros for life!