I'm a bit confused by this, if the developers can disable purchases on a whim, but they can't adjust/fix price bugs on a whim as well?
Comment has been collapsed.
No I think Valve did, they are aware of the situation
Comment has been collapsed.
Idk, it was just a guess.
But maybe price bugs are related to some bug in the steam servers itself and not directly in the price set by the dev. But just a guess again. ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Posted in the wrong thread :3
"Being a pragmatist, it's baffling to me how a business can insult and deny their service to a good portion of potential customers based on their beliefs and lifestyle choices. Everybody spends money the same so why should it matter? What a horrible PR move. The company won't last though their first game once this catches fire.
They should take that time and energy spreading hate and channel it into making their game a better product for it's consumers. It's like the whole "I refuse to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, because it "conflicts" with my beliefs." It shouldn't matter. Well then, I'll walk down the street to the baker that will take my money and best of luck to you paying your rent with that attitude. The only person losing in this situation is the homophobic. WHY! WHY DO PEOPLE DO STUPID THINGS LIKE THIS??"
Comment has been collapsed.
If the other remarks of the devgroup are any indication?
Religion.
Man that almost sounds like a punchline.
Comment has been collapsed.
"A good portion?" I'm not sure what percentage of the population you think are denying services, but the LGBT group is not that large. The number of people who support the LGBT community, however, is significant.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the same thought applies, doesn't it?
If a business denies a service (say cake baking) to a set of individuals(Say the LGBT community) then that business has lost that set of individuals purchases. Even if we were being conservative and say that it was less that 1% of all potential customers, that's still a potential 1 % of money coming in through the door that they have now lost. No big deal for the business, right?
So, let's say now that there is another 49%(Say liberals) of potential customers that have realized now that you do not provide your service to that 1% and they are pretty angry about it. So angry in fact, that they will now choose to not do business with you now. So, it spirals into a complicated web of stickiness that shouldn't have existed in the first place, because a business exists for the sole purpose of generating money and doing everything above contradicts that very philosophy.
I'm not sure If I make any sense right now, as I cant really rely upon anything my brain generates past, like, 10PM. Hope you understand what I'm getting at though :D
As a side note too that's pretty funny to me right now at midnight: A customer that I had worked on a laptop for over a year ago just added me on Facebook to tell me it was working great and to say hey! #random
Comment has been collapsed.
I was correcting your wording, not your concept. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, bahaha sorry man! Like I said, brain doesn't work this late. I understand what you mean now :D
Probably should be getting to bed soon ;.;
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't agree with the publisher's actions, boycott the product. The reason that there is no longer a market for fur coats is because enough people disagreed with clubbing baby seals to death that it became "bad business" to do so.
There seems to be a lot of confusion, these days, about "discrimination." The fact is, everyone discriminates, and we do it all the time. It is part of being a social animal. What we like, we applaud, and what we don't like, we condemn. There is nothing wrong with discrimination per se, but societies decide as a group what boundaries to place upon discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws passed in some countries are an example of this. In the U.S.A., the majority of the population decided that a difference in skin color or sex was insufficient grounds to deny various services. As a result, they codified that point of view into law. Currently, there is much discussion about whether or not denial of services based upon sexual orientation should be allowed, and if so, to what extent. At this point, it is not clear what the position of the majority is, but there is a very vocal minority on each opposing side of the issue.
In general, I disagree with a minority imposing their will upon the majority. The function of any social group is to support commonality. Optimally, minority points of view are tolerated, but you can't expect the view of the minority to hold sway. They are outnumbered. This means that the minority generally have two choices: tolerate the view of the majority; or leave the group. Attempting to impose the will of the minority upon the majority, however, is injustice. First, because people have a right to their beliefs, and second because it negates the entire purpose of social grouping. The extent to which forcing a point of view upon a population which disagrees with it can cause trouble is amply demonstrated by various civil wars throughout history. To borrow a phrase, "It ain't good."
TL: DR: You have to change the minds of the people before you change their laws. Otherwise, you've got trouble.
Comment has been collapsed.
Changing people's mind is uber difficult task, though.
At least in my country, majority of people will continue to oppose anything related to LGBT acceptance movement. It's VERY small numbers and mostly LGBT people themselves that will try to change it. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Khalaq, maybe I did not understand exactly what you said in the last paragraph. (I know you said in general) But in this case, about LGBT (minority) never wanted to impose something on maiority (heterosexual), LGBT's do not want to straight turn gay or to have more rights. But there is equality, that LGBT's can get married, live together, adopt, have children and register them in their parents' names, visit the spouse if it is admitted to a hospital etc.
I do not see how it's impose something from the moment it's not changing your life, your life is the same, nothing will change, but change my if I have the same rights as you.
That is, at no time is taken any right that maiority already have, just shared. But maiority in this case, generally want to impose their "opinion" on the minority and depriving of rights, many want the LGBT's not there! They die or come straight, they are often driven by religious beliefs. LGBT's not say that someone can not have their belief, but who have should know that if YOU believe in something, that the "laws" of this belief are followed by you, being true to herself, it can not impose it to general people.
If I invent a religion, say that I believe in a green jumper gnome and it says that we should modify our ears and let them stretched like an elf ear ... well, if I want to do this is my problem, but I have no right to go behind you with a knife, and order you to do the same to respect my belief.
About your last phrase, I totally agree and it's why I did this topic, we need to talk about this kind of situation, we need to show that it is not correct to exclude someone by their skin color, sexuality or gender. Who think this is okay, maybe not now, but maybe in the future think "It does not change anything in my life, so why am I so worried about it?"
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's leave "marriage" outside the discussion, for now, as I don't believe the government should even be involved in that.
If I understand things properly, there are two opposing points of view. On the one hand, there are those who want the lifestyle(s) of the LGBT community to be part of the norm. On the other, there are those who see an LGBT lifestyle as out of the norm. Currently, the latter point of view is held by the majority. Meanwhile, there is a large minority of the population who either don't care or don't know what to think.
You, personally, may not be lobbying to change the laws of the land to integrate the LGBT lifestyle into what is considered the norm, but there are other people who are. That action is promoting hostilities within the society, the effect of which you can see for yourself. Under such circumstances, even those who don't participate in the argument are affected by it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I make a distinction between "being gay/bisexual/transgender" (a personal identity) and "the LGBT lifestyle" (which includes social interactions specific to one or more of those identities). To elaborate, societies determine which things people are (ordinarily) allowed to do (e.g. wearing clothes), and which things people are not (ordinarily) allowed to do (e.g. theft). This is considered the "average lifestyle" for that society. Individuals within the LGBT community may, to a greater or lesser extent, choose to pursue a lifestyle which differs from that in ways which are tied to their identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. If a gay man, for example, wants to buy a can of soda from a machine, nobody cares. That action is part of the "average lifestyle," and everyone does it. If, however, he wants to marry another man, this contradicts the "average lifestyle" which does not allow same-sex marriages. The social group wherein such a choice is considered "ordinary" would be the LGBT community, so it could be said to be part of the "LGBT lifestyle."
Keep in mind that we are speaking in gross generalities, here. Even the term "LGBT community" is problematic. Taking four, disparate groups of people and lumping them all into one category as if they were of one mind and practice does them a disservice. For expediency's sake, however, I am using the aforementioned terms.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except that's not really true. Getting married with whomever you love is the norm, the rest is just intolerance.
Btw in many country the majority is in favor of same-sex marriage (68% in France).
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh and I looked it up, that's also true in the US.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean civil marriage if its not clear ( I don't talk about religious marriage)
This means that the minority generally have two choices: tolerate the view of the majority; or leave the group.
So, if I undestand, LGBT have these 2 choices to not "promoting hostilities", or we accept pretend be straight or we kill ourselves (I think its the meaning of leave the humanity group). Remember that "promoting hostilities" is to love someone else and want to be able to walk hand in hand in the street like any other couple
Comment has been collapsed.
Your wording is confusing to me. I can say, however, that leaving a social group does not necessarily involve killing oneself. People move all the time.
Remember that "promoting hostilities" is to love someone else and want to be able to walk hand in hand in the street like any other couple
Not so. First, holding hands has nothing to do with being a couple or not. Second, there are a handful of societies where it is considered the norm for any couple (same sex or otherwise) to walk hand in hand down the street. Third, it is the push for that which is prohibited among the majority that is "promoting hostilities."
You are already "able to walk hand in hand in the street like any other couple." There is no law against it. What you object to is those around you not finding same-sex couples to be acceptable. You'll just have to deal with it like anyone else who bucks convention. The world does not revolve around any one of us.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Not so. First, holding hands has nothing to do with being a couple or not. Second, there are a handful of societies where it is considered the norm for any couple (same sex or otherwise) to walk hand in hand down the street. Third, it is the push for that which is prohibited among the majority that is "promoting hostilities.""
Defending the rights of the minority is not "promoting hostilities". If the majority tries to impose their moral code onto the minority then they initiated the hostility.
"You are already "able to walk hand in hand in the street like any other couple." There is no law against it. What you object to is those around you not finding same-sex couples to be acceptable. You'll just have to deal with it like anyone else who bucks convention. The world does not revolve around any one of us."
Your posts are very dismissive of an important issue. Telling a member of the LGBT community that they have to "deal with" the consequences of their decision to not hide who they are is incredibly condescending, and outright offensive. This kind of victim blaming attitude is abhorrent.
This is a point of view I expected to see in this thread, but to see it from a member of the support staff is unsettling.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your posts are very dismissive of an important issue. Telling a member of the LGBT community that they have to "deal with" the consequences of their decision to not hide who they are is incredibly condescending, and outright offensive. This kind of victim blaming attitude is abhorrent.
I am not "dismissing" anything, nor am I being condescending. I am speaking as a person who has to deal with the consequences of my decision not to hide who I am, all day, everyday. I am a practicing Muslim in a non-Muslim country, a country that openly bombs my Brothers and Sisters in various parts of the world because it's too ignorant to know any better. Someone who is gay (for example) only has to deal with their "difference" when he calls attention to it. As I am openly Muslim, I deal with it constantly. When people see me, or hear know my name, they react noticeably. I do not expect you to understand what that is like, (How could you?), but I do take exception to anyone who claims I don't understand what it' is to go against "the norm."
As for everything I wrote previously, it seems you have missed my point.
Comment has been collapsed.
You may not think you are being dismissive, but you are. You claim to understand what it's like to go against the norm, but then tell a minority group that they should be silent, and not shove their ideals down people's throats. How exactly is change supposed to come about if we all just shut up and and hope for the best?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nowhere do I tell any group of people (much less a minority) that "they should be silent." I defy you to give one example of my writing that anywhere on this site. If you really want to know "how change is supposed to come about," try reading what I've written. To change the thinking of a society, you need to do what everyone else has ever done throughout history. You talk to people, you educate them, and you interact with them. It's called "Outreach," and it works.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a point of view I expected to see in this thread, but to see it from a member of the support staff is unsettling.
Not sure why, they are people with opinions too.Personally I care about whether or not support members are effective, not what their personal beliefs are so long as they do not let it interfere with their tasks here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it's not illegal but I suffer insults (at least) and can be beaten if I do, then as you yourself said, beyond the law we have to change people's thinking. While they think this is wrong - even if not - THEY will commit something illegal, such as physical violence, but the consensus between right and wrong is not always so clear to some, or follow what the law says. In any case, laws are important for the protection of individuals.
Once here, a couple (men) was walking hand in hand and was beaten by a group of men, they went to the police station and were almost arrested because according to the police "they should not behave like that." Note that here there is no law against being gay, but is a crime commit physical violence. That is, the prejudice rises their heads and confuse about the standards of right and wrong and the law, even for figures of "authority"
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a little confused and have to echo Alpe here. How do they want the 'lifestyles' of the LGBT to be the norm? Any canned examples of exactly what a LGBT lifestyle is considered to even be? Even if not your own or even if passively offensive, just for conveniences sake? Because I really can't off the top of my head think of a single non-extremist case of non-heterosexuals trying to push their lifestyle other others, nor trying to somehow force them to consider their 'lifestyle' normal beyond not getting open mockery for minding their own business.
Now, if you were to say that social justice fringe groups were getting pushy, and that in turn was damaging the public perception of non-heterosexual folks? I can totally understand that. It's actually all part of something I coined as 'The Gender Wars', and wraps up in the collective subject of (now internet-based) feminism and modern mens rights interest groups. The advent of social media has done awful things since these people got ahold of it, and they have collectively caused a ton of hurdles in their respective groups progress. It's kind of depressing really.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now, if you were to say that social justice fringe groups were getting pushy, and that in turn was damaging the public perception of non-heterosexual folks...I can totally understand that.
That is what I was saying. As for the whole "LGBT" label, I mentioned that above.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah right. Well for reference it's better if you actually call them by name.
The Social Justice movement may latch onto race, gender and sexuality issues as it suits them, but they are not solely representative of any. They have a strangely high degree of people who can be called 'fringe', and they often try to forward their own political agendas even at the expense of the people they claim to be representing. To not draw the distinction is kinda like saying "animal rights" when really you mean PETA, the implications of combining the two so closely are... well, it's pretty poisonous for all concerned.
However I think you're grossly misunderstanding the situation.
By what you say here, wanting the lifestyles of the LGBT to become the norm implies that they want other people to engage in the same thing? That's not the case at all. What they want is the ability to live their own lives without excessive harassment and taunting. If you're trying to equate the desire to not get mocked in public while minding your own business as "getting accepted as the norm" then I'm going to have to straight out disagree here. That's more an issue of maturity in the populace. Even in a country where obesity is rare, giving random strangers shit just because they're overweight isn't a matter of 'norms' but of attitudes. As grown adults, we are capable of encountering other grown adults who don't align with our own lifestyles and interests without resorting to belittling.
Though at the same time, I don't know how law can really help that either. That's a cultural issue, and culture obeys very few factors. The best bet in those cases would be to study psychology and seed low-key social memes to counter the negative ones already in place, buuuut that's an entirely different subject. As far as law goes, they're only looking for assurance that the petty judgements of others won't spill over into actual things like exclusion of service or disfavored treatment (within business, commerce, law, etc, all within reason).
Comment has been collapsed.
" But in this case, about LGBT (minority) never wanted to impose something on maiority (heterosexual), "
I'm sorry but this is a lie. LGBT constantly demand special treatment and constantly play the victim card, even when they're at fault.
LGBT are people like anyone else, and that means they are as fallible as anyone else, and yet they are so damn self-righteous even Cpt. America looks like an uncertain kid next to them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for the TL;DR. I may have read a message from your post that was not intended, but your focal point was... strange
The emphasis seems to place the onus in an inappropriate place, and that rang sourly for me. Sorry if my tone is a little prickly!
I'll come back and try to edit the size down after I sleep, sorry again
While you're right that the discussion rages on about what qualifies as discrimination. I find your focal point interesting, given the situation at hand. And by interesting I mean baffling and borderline myopic. Am I missing context here? When the linked subject is a minority being denied in an abhorrent manner, the focus on 'minorities forcing the majority' seems incredibly strange. Certainly, dominating other people's lives through litigation where unnecessary is a bad thing, and I mean it's a valid line of thought, but it doesn't fit the situation in anything other than an aside. Care to tie it in better to the current situation?
It's made stranger because this bogeyman of impending minority repression is a theme I keep seeing crop up. Moreso when it was only very recently that legit gay marriage was finally won, when the main opposition for which was a logic of "We strangers have an opinion on your personal life, therefore it should be law". And all that on top of the fact it excluded them from the benefits/privileges marriage also entailed. It's a boggling contrast of subject scope. Related sure, but almost a total reversal, and I'm left wondering exactly why this is your central take on the subject? If you were veering towards the "equal opportunity vs equal outcome" subject, then that's kind of a totally different kettle of fish, and I'd likely agree with you far more on that. If not, colour me confused.
It actually seems almost comical when In one hand we had people who couldn't visit their loved ones when their health was in critical condition, simply because people 'had opinions' on their relationship and so lost out the visitation rights. Then in the other hand, we have people apparently afraid they might not be able to exclude people based on such opinions? It's like the outrage of blacks being able to drink from the same water-fountains, while simultaneously being afraid they might come after OTHER equal considerations under law.
I can even appreciate it from a religious point of view. If a religious figure is unwilling to perform a ceremony due to their religious beliefs, then they don't have to, at least sweet jesus I hope not, because that's then just the same thing but inflicted on a different party! One is a matter of private beliefs, and the other is a matter of reaching out with those beliefs to stonewall other people's entitlements 'just because'. These considerations should of course go both ways.
Law exists (in base) to serve as a backbone for our social structure. It works best by acting as a common sacrifice which we all adhere to, so that our differences cannot escalate to a point where people are either hurt or find it over-difficult to function or thrive. To legalise business exclusion only goes against that grain, and no amount of muddying the waters with the old "Morality is what society says it is, rape-murders might not be immoral in some other civilisation!" wiggling can detract from that. In the end, some laws should not be about 'minority' or 'majority' opinion, especially not when it comes down to almost creating a caste of second-class citizens, as was the case with the marriage ban and the withheld legal trimmings that went with it. Maybe I'm too idealistic, and expect too much civility even for 2016, but there are some basic considerations that should simply not be a matter of opinion.
"But if not a majority decision, they can just make up whatever they like!" is as much an intellectual cop-out as the "Morality is what the majority says it is". It's an equivalent to "If a tree falls and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". It oversimplifies and muddies things. Opinion is not the be all and end all of civilised society. Rationality is heavier than opinion, and we try to hold critical thinking higher than transient feelings. There is a reason we have a system and not 'absolute democracy' in all things.
If a majority decided that women shouldn't be able to vote any more, or that blacks should not be considered citizens, would that be allowed to pass? If not, why such emphasis on the opinion of strangers when even the half-blind can appreciate these are basic equal rights? Yes, the discussion rages on for the business side of things, but your choice of focus was seriously jarring to me Khalaq.
(Disclaimer : I don't consider SJW demands to reflect anything remotely representative of normal citizens)
(In case that was a key distinction here. They are an extreme subgroup after all.)
Comment has been collapsed.
You raised a lot of different issues in your post. I'll have to hold off responding until I'm awake. Even then, I don't want to write a book for each point, so I'll see if I can be concise without being confusing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't worry, I appreciate there is a ton of text there and I really don't expect you to reply to it all.
It was more the shift of focus (and maybe even onus) that really jarred me.
It'd be sort of like an alternate-world thread, where a dev gave someone a "fuck you" for being muslim rather than supporting LGBT, and then in the thread discussing that event, someone brought up "But Muslims are immigrating in large numbers and it's causing a lot of misgivings". It's a barely related subject and one that doesn't seem to serve any constructive purpose, just to somehow over-each to soften the trespass of the dev, y'know?
My whole spiel that used gay marriage as an example was to show the contrast between degrees of "'problem" with degrees of "they're pushing too hard".
If you would rather just drop the subject, that's fine. I've given up trying to prune my huge post to make it more articulate. I just can't not leave certain things in, after having gone over the subject a million times elsewhere, and have them deliberately misinterpret what I'm trying to say. Word padding, heh.
Comment has been collapsed.
This first part of my response starts with a gross oversimplification of my OP. To wit, ...
- Boycott the product
- The problem is one of acceptance, not discrimination.
- Trying to change the opinion of a society by forcing them to do the opposite is a bad idea.
I try to look at the root of a problem, not just its symptoms. There is a political agenda being crammed down people's throats, and that is causing a backlash. The OP is merely one symptom of that. Some of the "LGBT community" are involved in furthering that agenda because they believe (naively) that it leads toward their own goals. The irony of all this is that they are being used and will be discarded when no longer needed, like so much toilet paper. Sad, but who is resisting?
You talk about "basic human rights," but it seems you are not clear about what those are. We have the right to live. We have the right to liberty (as opposed to incarceration). We have the right to own property. We have the right to seek the improvement of our living conditions. We have the right to be treated fairly. Finally, we have the right to believe what we want to believe. That's about it. Everything else is a privilege, allowed and protected by whatever society we live in.
You talk about a "myopic" focal point. I think you actually meant "egocentric." I agree that most people argue from an egocentric point of view, which is why I try to point out when that happens (just like I've been doing in this thread). Mostly, my efforts are for naught; as it is difficult for people to see beyond their own perspective. However, I continue my efforts in the event that someone might benefit from it. Call me an optimist.
Comment has been collapsed.
What political agenda exactly?
And how is it being crammed down people's throats?
In what way are they trying to force people to 'do the opposite'?
Your mention of "LGBT lifestyle" was incredibly vague and still not tied to anything concrete, and you keep saying that they (as a whole group) are trying to force others to change their opinions. I can't for the life of me think of any group who is trying to force a change of opinion through policy change. The only groups I do know who are trying to change minds certainly aren't trying to thought police it through law or policy.
If you are going to assert these things, you need to outline exactly what is being 'forced down peoples throats' and what the 'agenda' and 'lifestyle' is, otherwise your generalisation is spread so thin that it has zero substance and cannot be approached with a critical eye, only swallowed whole or dismissed in it's entirety, which amounts to just a pointless pick-a-side behavior that orbits around nothing immediately real. If you reply to nothing else, please reply to what is written above.
Again, I would remind you to separate non-hetereosexual interest groups from Social Justice extremism when referring to this, before you reply. SJWs are a problem all to themselves and represent no central cause.
"Everything else is a privilege, allowed and protected by whatever society we live in."
And under western society's values, it is immoral to disallow citizens certain privileges based on the makeup of their individual. For instance, disallowing someone employment because of their gender, rather than their qualities as a worker. Or disallowing someone benefits because of their race, when race is not a factor in the critical decision-making of the benefit. Or, as I gave in example, disallowing government-bestowed privileges by proxy of denying marriage based on an individuals choice of partner, where there was no critical basis for it beyond religion or 'opinion'. 'Society' is no longer a simple majority consensus for good reason, because there are certain levels of 'privilege' that are to extend to all citizens, and to attempt to deny these through creative use of narrow exception or irrelevant external opinion is effectively a matter of equal rights. The fact of the matter was that gay marriage was being prevented without critical and rational basis, and was an exception that flew in the face of basic privilege enjoyed by every other group of citizen. It was no different from disallowing mixed race marriages. While this issue has been resolved (assuming they don't find a way to repeal it), it is still recent enough to stand as testament to the attitudes being tackled right down to an institutional level.
Now, moving onto other subjects? I'll admit, I'm not well informed of where other inequalities may reside. I'm not active in any rights movement, I live in the UK where gender and sexuality is less of a burning topic to my limited knowledge, and I'm able to tolerate whatever potential discrimination my gender / orientation / colour / whatever might get me (which I'll leave obscured for the sake of disarming future bias from others).
The mere act of discussing and pursuing these matters is not 'shoving it down peoples throats'. To preempt that any group is overstepping their bounds somehow by looking into their own interests is a strange assertion that seems to be made often. Unless you can bring up examples of exactly how things are being pushed on others, right now you don't seem to have a leg to stand on. And yes, I did call your focal point myopic, and I meant it. It is still completely out of focus with the situation at hand, and has yet to bring any matter to the forefront and into direct focus. I wouldn't call your approach egocentric until I can work out exactly what it is that motivates your view, but until you present the actual issue you want to tackle, I can't even do that. Right now, all you've offered is a nebulous notion of being pushed against without even anecdotal examples to begin building a discussion around.
Comment has been collapsed.
This second part of my response goes back to the reasons for my OP. To simplify things, I'll use just one example from the argument for same-sex marriage in the U.S. (Other milieus will differ, obviously.)
Advocates for same-sex marriage say they want to be "just like everyone else." What they demand, however, is exactly unlike everyone else. The U.S. government does not allow people to marry whomever they want. There are laws which restrict whom you can marry and under which circumstances. Any attempt by two heterosexual men, for example, is simply denied. Also, the heterosexual community itself does not allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates fail to understand that they are demanding that which is forbidden to everyone else. When people get upset about it, they are (falsely) accused of denying basic human rights. The kicker is that it has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with politics.
- If it were a matter of practice, same-sex couples have been around for years, already.
- If it were a matter of what the government permits, that is easily addressed within civil union law.
- If it were a matter of social acceptance, that is accomplished more effectively with outreach and exposure.
Instead, we have a group which is pushing changes in the language, changes in the penal code, and changes in the social structure of the country. The goal of all of these changes is to dismantle the concept (and eventually structure) of "family" within the U.S. Is that the goal of the "LGBT community?" Of course not. It is, however, the goal of those manipulating them on a political level. Will the "LGBT community" ever wake up to that fact? I would hope so, but that remains to be seen.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know you're no longer replying to this subject, but I couldn't let certain things stand without their proper counterpoint.
Some of your stuff was long since debunked, like whoa.
Yes, the US government didn't allow people to marry whomever they want.
Just everyone but gay couples. That was the point. There was zero rational basis for that law, and the law was preventing equal distribution of associated privilege. How was changing that a remotely a bad thing? It was an exception specifically geared towards homosexual couples, in the same vein as laws that prevented interracial couples.
Also, the so-called 'heterosexual community' is not a government body. It's not an official lawmaking branch of society.
It's a group of people, with an opinion on something that doesn't concern them, that extends into other people's lives and prevents them from being granted the same privileges afforded to other citizens. Again, there is a reason mere majority alone does not make policy any more, and why we have placed emphasis on rationality and equality in western society. Opinion alone has zero value, and even where an opinion has vague merit it has to go through a process of scrutiny before it becomes anything remotely worth treating as policy. The opinions of total strangers with no authority or rational basis should have zero influence on the lives and wellbeing of others.
This is a good thing, because it wasn't long ago that the quote-unquote 'heterosexual community' thought that beating people for being gay was a passable thing to do, or the 'white community' thought that lynching even freed black people was pretty okay. Policy requires far more than public opinion. Yes, public opinion can sway decision-making even when it comes to matters of equality, but that is a flaw, not something to be championed. Can we please move past placing importance on the opinions of utterly unrelated strangers?
If the only rationale required to halt a change of law was "Well that's not what the law says is allowed", then law would never change and would remain totally static, and never adapt even where it finds gross oversights. At all. Ever.
"Because it's not what the law says".
I prefer the law being able to adapt where we find abhorrent values. Otherwise we'd still have women and blacks as second-class citizens unable to vote, own property, drink from public water fountains or even able to defend themselves when attacked.
When homosexuals say they want to be "just like everyone else", they mean they want to be able to get married. Just like everyone else. No, homosexual couples are not demanding something that is forbidden to everyone else, because everyone else is able to marry the consenting adults they are attracted to. This is a brazen example of false equivalence. You have tried to falsely conflate hetereosexuals not being able to marry the same sex (which they obviously have no interest in), with homosexuals somehow demanding an exception above and beyond what other people are allowed, when in fact the situation was the opposite : homosexuals were denied something that everyone else were automatically granted, and subsequently were denied the privileges that went along with it. Equal. Consideration. What is hard to understand about that? Until civil unions bestow the same privileges under law, or until the law allows willing religious institutions to marry same-sex couples, that is still a major disparity in afforded rights.
Trying to imply that they are asking for exception above and beyond other people, that they are asking for something other people can't have (as opposed to something they don't want) is a massive and transparent intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Khalaq, you seem like an intelligent person, but this is an oft-repeated fallacy, and even a brief moment of scrutiny can deconstruct it on the spot. I can only see this as a deliberate attempt to mislead, and it is not appreciated in the slightest.
I overestimated the quality of discourse to be found here.
Comment has been collapsed.
...because everyone else is able to marry the consenting adults they are attracted to.
No, you are wrong. While it is true that restrictions upon marriage vary from state to state, it is patently false for you to say there are none. You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty because you are unfamiliar with civil law, and I refuse to accept such libel. Also, I did not equate social practice with legal strictures. That may be your understanding, but it is certainly not mine. Why do you think I've been making a distinction between the two this entire time? If you don't understand what I wrote, that is one thing, but please don't put words in my mouth. I don't mind disagreement, but I have a serious problem with false accusations.
Beyond that, as I stated elsewhere, I am opposed to the idea that government should be dictating who can marry whom. I don't think it's any of their business. In my view, the government meddles far too much in people's affairs. We don't need Big Brother as a surrogate parent.
Comment has been collapsed.
"You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty"
Yes, because of blatant false equivocation and suggesting ad populum has any rational measure of importance in matters of government-bestowed equal rights. While you state that government should butt out of who can marry who, and I do appreciate that, but you still brought these things up as counterpoint, not as observation of other people's beliefs.
So let's review :
You said that homosexual couples seeking to marry were asking for something that nobody else had.
You tried to qualify this by reasoning because heterosexual couples cannot marry people of the same sex, that homosexuals are asking for exception above and beyond what other people can have. This deliberately overlooks the sexuality part of the equation, and how heterosexual couples are freely able to marry those within their sexual interests, whereas homosexuals are not. You disputed the claim that they wanted to be like everyone else, but then followed it with blindingly obvious false equivocation. That was not an impartial outsider observation Khalaq. Do you wish to dispute that?
You also addressed concerns at these groups supposedly 'shoving things down people's throats', and yet in the very same post you emphasise 'heterosexual society' as if the opinions of utter strangers are somehow sovereign or to be respected when they intrude upon the common 'privileges' they themselves enjoy with impunity? This implies that disagreement alone is enough to halt constructive change to an entire slice of the citizenship, regardless of whether those who are disagreeing have any right to influence or prevent others from having the same rights. It's a total non-factor and if you weren't asserting this to be a 'reason' against, why was it brought up alongside the false equivocation thing? And how do either of these things remotely explain the shift of focus that I originally questioned you about?
Then we have this remark which is so unsubstantiated that it goes straight into alarmist territory :
"The goal of all of these changes is to dismantle the concept (and eventually structure) of "family" within the U.S."
Serve that up with the nebulous notion that the 'LGBT lifestyle' is being pushed on others (despite having not outlined exactly what this entails in the slightest, even as an anecdote to build an argument or discussion on), and we have one hot mess of a post, Khalaq. Believing that giving homosexual couples the same privileges as heterosexual couples is something to be concerned about, like a flag of impending sabotage on the 'concept and structure of family', while simultaneously insisting that 'heterosexual society' has some stake in their private lives? And to top it all off, you say they as a group push things down everyone else's throats? Do you not see the huge double standard? How exactly this comes off in your assertions? Especially not until you give actual form to the nebulous concept of 'LGBT lifestyle' you mentioned in other posts, that you think they're trying to somehow enforce on others.
If for some crazy reason your tone drifted way off what you wanted to actually say, then by all means, please correct me so I can stop looking like an ass, because I desperately want to believe I have ahold of the wrong end of the stick here. But this sure as hell doesn't look like simple outside observation of social convention Khalaq. Trying to follow exactly where you're taking this (if somewhere other than rationalising why LGBT should be quiet and take whatever scraps they're 'allowed') is getting pretty hard to decipher.
Comment has been collapsed.
And you say you aren't being condescending. You are telling a minority group that they are being used, and that they need to "wake up".
Comment has been collapsed.
In what way is that condescending? It's an alarm call, and everyone should be waking up.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are calling out a specific group of people and essentially telling them that their beliefs and ideals are just a bunch of political propaganda. If that isn't condescending then I don't know what is.
Comment has been collapsed.
This third part of my response is an apology for not being able to continue with the discussion. I would love to be able to go on (and on, and on, and on...), but I shouldn't. This forum really isn't the place for long, drawn-out discussions, and there are other demands on my time. (Just look at those tickets piling up!)
So, I'll have to stop right here. Thank you for your patience and input. )
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah crap. I just got through re-re-re-re-editing a different reply.
Oh well. Nevermind!
Comment has been collapsed.
I dropped another big reply. I know you're moving on from this subject and not replying, but there were some major fallacies screaming to be addressed.
You don't have to reply, but I couldn't let them go by without debunking.
Comment has been collapsed.
There was no "fallacies" to "debunk." I suggest you re-read what I wrote and/or do some research. I have tangled with government restrictions multiple times and therefore know something about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
False equivocation does not require experience in government to be detected :P
Come one dude, you literally said that gay couples that wanted to be able to marry were asking for something that nobody else had, and also that LGBT are looking to eventually sabotage the concept and structure of 'family'. How are those not massive fallacies?
Comment has been collapsed.
- I was quite explicit in my explanation. Up until now, the government did not allow two people of the same sex to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone followed the same, exact rule. You may disagree with that rule, but you cannot deny that it applied to everyone equally. If you can't understand that concept, then I don't know how to explain it to you.
- I also explicitly stated, " Is [the deconstruction of the family unit] the goal of the 'LGBT community?' Of course not." This is a direct contradiction of what you claim I wrote. Twice, now, I have asked you to pay closer attention to what I have written, but you still fail to do so.
I actually take the time to read what you write and think about it, carefully. Since you are apparently unwilling to consider my responses, however, I don't see the point in continuing.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I was quite explicit in my explanation. Up until now, the government did not allow two people of the same sex to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone followed the exact same rule. You may disagree with that rule, but you cannot deny that it applied to everyone equally. If you can't understand that concept, then I don't know how to explain it to you."
This is a very insincere kind of logic. It's also a very tired cliche that has been used against the LGBT community for years. Since the fight for gay marriage began, people have been saying this exact same thing, trying to deny that there is any kind of inequality in the law.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I was quite explicit in my rebuttal, and yes I can absolutely deny that it applied to everyone equally, because heterosexual couples were not restricted from marrying their chosen partners.
Heterosexual people do not wish to marry the same sex, therefore that law explicitly did not effect heterosexual couples, and was a law directed specifically at same-sex couples. Again, your attempt to glaze over this is blatant intellectual dishonesty.
It's like saying that "No blacks can drink from public water fountains" was a rule that was equal and that everyone had to obide by in unison, because even whites were held to that rule. The fact that the white people just so happened to be white on every day they wanted to drink from the fountain just happened to be incidental, trifling small-print that totally doesn't effect the equality equation.
I just read back to check the wording tweaks you made, so let me address the family alarmism thing anew :
Who, exactly, is trying to supposedly dismantle the concept and structure of 'family', then? You say they are being politically manipulated to this end, but you also totally neglect to specify who, and what led you to this conclusion. You also brought this up without proper segue away from your previous point, so what exactly did you expect I would take take as your meaning, considering the overarching theme (and lack of explicit outline of key factors) of your posts? Especially given you still have still left the whole 'forcing people into their lifestyle' and 'forcing stuff down our throats' thing vague and undefined. All you did is append that while the LGBT are still doing it, they just happen to be doing it because they're being puppeteered by some mystery force.
Benefit of the doubt only goes so far, dude.
I kept telling you, if you're trying to make a point and these are somehow supposed to be observations separate to your own held beliefs, or trying to establish a basis for you to finally reveal your actual opinions on, then you need to tie this stuff together properly and with sufficient pause to set the tone. Otherwise you're just repeating old, fallacious tidbits to no real end, and they appear to be direct from yourself rather than as observation of social currents. Hence why I switched from concern about the OP, down to "Jesus man what the hell are you talking about?"
I'm all ears if you want to give me a lowdown in where I misinterpreted your posts, but there are some things that just don't wash. I too have asked you repeatedly to be more concise, and to be wary of mixing your misgivings towards the Social Justice activists simple LGBT people. Some serious shit is getting lost in translation here, but I'm getting the distinct impression this isn't just about writing and reading skills. If you cannot be more explicit in the contrast between where your actual opinion stands, and what you are merely observing (and then where you are drawing those conclusions from), then of course they will end up blurring together. It's a charged subject, and if we can't separate them, then this will go nowhere.
Though given you cannot even reconcile with the most basic counterpoint about the "Gay marriage ban was adhered to by straight people" garbage, then I'll agree to this much, there is nothing to be gained from continuing this farce of a discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
...yes I can absolutely deny that it applied to everyone equally because heterosexual couples were not restricted from marrying their chosen partners.
If only that were true. The U.S. government currently has legal restrictions upon a) what is required for people to be considered married, b) the number of people involved in the marriage, c) the sex of those involved in the marriage, d) the entry and exit of non-U.S. spouses from the country, e) the required documentation of any spouse not married within the U.S. to meet the demands of point "a," and that's just getting married. The legalities of separation or divorce are more numerous and complicated. In addition to all of the above, each state within the U.S. has *additional laws and by-laws" which restrict who can marry whom, mostly having to do with ages, sexes, and number of spouses. Try getting married in a foreign country and bringing your spouse to the U.S. if you wish to experience the reality of how much "freedom" people are given to marry whomever they please, straight, gay, or otherwise. Try entering as a Muslim and attempting to bring multiple wives here with you.
Multiple times, I have had to deal with crap from the U.S. government because they feel they have the right to tell me whom I can and cannot marry, yet you still contend that there are no such restrictions. I'm done with this.
Comment has been collapsed.
And yet none of those restrictions are a blanket "You cannot, under any circumstances get married, for the sole factor of your choice in partner". I never said that marriage was a free-for-all with no regulation, dude.
a) None of those restrictions or laws are anchored based on denomination, such as sexuality. While the law never explicitly said homosexuals couldn't marry, the effect was the same. When attempting to amend this, the opposition focused on the homosexual element, not a matter of gender, and they did so with 'opinion', religion, and thinly veiled prejudice. Not with fact or rationality. Ergo, it became a matter of prejudice, not just a remnant of a previous law.
b) While polygamy does have a long ways to go yet, being polygamous is not a relationship choice that prevents you from getting married outright, it only restricts you to marrying a single member of your group. Whereas homosexuality restricts individuals to specifically only finding the same sex attractive, and left no option. This isn't optimal, however it does allow at least limited access to polygamous groups. While polygamous groups do face the same kind or prejudices and 'opinions' in opposition, there is also something of a logistical issue here, because the benefits and privileges bestowed through marriage would need to be adjusted to properly fit and ensure a minimal chance of abuse. Even in this case, this is far from an argument to say that the ban on gay marriage wasn't a matter of prejudice, this is only an argument that there are other oversights in the marriage system that could use to be addressed, AND that prejudice is directed towards others. There is still MORE of a rational reason for this indefinite suspension of marriage than that what was shown towards same-sex couples. Insomuch that it had any rational basis in the slightest.
c) Yes, the central subject. This only effected same sex couples, and had no basis in rationality. Nobody was harmed or lost out by allowing same sex couples to marry, but same sex couples lost a substantial amount of privelege afforded to others. No other adjustments were necessary but the green light. Hence why I use gay marriage as an example of mentalities they try to ensure they have a proper legal protection against, and how very recent they still persist within authoritive bodies. Again, with this in mind, surely you can understand why I found your overarching original change of focus to seem entirely disingenuous, and why it only went downhill from there when you failed to properly outline the nebulous 'LGBT lifestyle' that is apparently being 'forced down peoples throats'? Surely you can understand this much? I'm not even saying that all efforts from LGBT supporters are even constructive, wise, or even moral. I'm saying that applying generalisations as you did, with such ill-defined accusations, is utterly wasteful and only serves to point a finger with no substance or immediately traceable reason behind it. Had you actually outlined what you were trying to say properly, we could have discussed that instead. But you didn't, so here we are.
d) Immigration and documentation has a rational basis and is not a blanket halt oriented around a persons race, age, gender or heritage. If someone was stopped at the border solely for being black, solely for being male, solely for being italian, etc, then there would be a righteous stink about it. Yes, immigration and gaining citizenship also has a lot of it's own issues to deal with, and yes they can be related to marriage issues, but again, these are a whole different shade of shit that doesn't come close to a blanket ban on marriage to natural born citizens in what is supposed to be a civilised and rational age. Even in the event of an awful event during immigration, it can be appealed, and those pre-existing parameters for immigration and marriage are ripe to be adjusted. Whereas previously, it was nothing but an entire 'full stop' on the subject of same sex couples. It doesn't compare. Similar subject, but vastly different degrees of gravity my friend. Vastly. If there was a discussion on immigration, and courts said "We don't want you to let in redheads, we hate redheads" they would be ignored as the notion has no merit. However same-sex marriages were heavily influenced by irrelevant opinion, and it created a disparity in the rights afforded to citizens.
So very much of this is apples and oranges.
Yeah, I agree insomuch that they're both still fruit, but the comparisons are weak at best, and do not actually run counter to my usage of gay marriage as an example.
I never contended that restrictions weren't in place on marriages. Ever. I contended that no other such restriction of such a blanket ban was based on such basic discrimination. Not in recent times. Not in public view. And not without being rapidly tackled and resolved if ever discovered. Gay marriage has been an issue since the year I was born, dude. It only just got overturned in 2015, and with no rational basis for it to stay. That's a LONG ass time for something with zero merit to stay in action when it influences rights afforded to citizens. Again, this is why I use it as such a stand-out example. Even though this issue is finally resolved, the mentalities that allowed it to persist didn't just vanish along with the ban.
If you're going to keep saying "You're not listening", please be kind enough to pay attention to the overarching message that I have been consistently repeating. Communication is a two part effort, a bridge that has to be built from both sides. I have done my best to give you opportunity to explain the bizarre shifts in focus and give actual form to the vague LGBT bogeyman stuff you brought up, but this got so hung up on my usage of gay marriage as an example that the original discussion has all but been buried.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't commented on this thread until now, but I've been reading it as comments are posted, primarily because I like to understand all sides of a discussion even if I don't agree with all of them. My primary observation, though, is that there's entirely too much hate on this thread from both sides of the fence.
I believe that if there is anything to be learned from this situation with this particular developer, it's that hate and intolerance don't change minds, don't break down social barriers, and don't help anyone understand the other perspective. Negativity begets nothing but negativity, and even in the face of the unreasonable and illogical, a little understanding, patience, and tolerance can go a long way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe, but tolerating intolerence is also the wrong way to go about things.
Challenge impropriety where you find it, but always try to show empathy where at all possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that opinions should be openly discussed as that is a path opening one's view of world. The problem being that way too often people aren't actually discussing, just throwing insults to each other. There can be no understanding if neither party listens what the others say. Empathy is good but hard method.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for expressing my sentiments in much better words. I've been trying to do that in a couple of my earlier posts but I don't think I managed to convey my point properly.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can certainly understand that. I'm not particularly good at conveying my thoughts at times, either, especially when it comes to such sensitive subject matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye. I wish we could stick to topics regarding gaming here. I see enough drama on other sites. Is that unfair to hope for?
Comment has been collapsed.
i dont really have anything to contribute so i will just leave some music
https://youtu.be/mOMI-eeNs-E
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm going to sleep (here is almost 2 am -_-) but if anyone has any doubt about the importance of the issue. Not support the cause and retaliate against someone who does, boot you in the other end, the homophobic side (If he did not care about it, so my profile would make no difference and all this discussion does not exist). Being of prejudice side is to support:
1 death of homosexual daily
80% of all murders (general public) are black people
13 women die daily victims of domestic violence (machismo results)
These data are from my country, there are over 200 around the world, how many people you think suffer violence and death by prejudice daily?
Oh yes... Today were reported:
0 deaths by people simply for being heterosexual
0 deaths for being white
0 deaths simply by being a man
Comment has been collapsed.
just to clarify, not argument with you
sources?
80% are victims or villains?
there is always problem of calculating 'hate' crimes - was someone mugged because was black/white/lgbt or just because was having stuff bad guy wanted and the rest was 'accidental'?
statistics are not all there is
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 Sources and context would be nice as I know at least one of them is taken completely out of context. Just noticed the OP is from Brazil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.[38][39][40]
EDIT: Obviously this is in the USA, and it may vary in the OP's country of residence.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's actually a really important thing I keep forgetting to mention :
Gender, sexuality and race issues tend to vary majorly between country.
This always trips me up. What we assume as norms can be wildly different depending on where the other people are coming from.
Hell, I had a few bumps in a past relationship that was kept alive through the internet because, well, she lived in the bible belt. What I took for obvious self-depreciating humour would sometimes be heard seriously, given she had to put up with certain sexist attitudes on almost a daily basis (though that may have been more a family exposure issue). Sure that's a bit of a distant example, but it goes to show the hidden undercurrents running through this.
Comment has been collapsed.
I could have emphasized my point a bit better by stating something along the lines of "the victim rate for murder among blacks in the USA is 6 times higher than for whites" and then posting the quote.
Ah well, a missed opportunity.
Comment has been collapsed.
All of my posts in this thread have been from the standpoint of someone who has visited various parts of the world, but the responses I've been getting are....apparently not so.
Comment has been collapsed.
Data needs citation, especially serious ones like you wrote above.
Comment has been collapsed.
http://pragmatismopolitico.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/125585153/numero-de-negros-assassinados-aumenta-e-de-brancos-diminui-no-brasil
From 2012 (it's late and I'm not going to search for more current data now): 41.127 (73,4%) black 14.928 (26,6%) white.
http://noticias.uol.com.br/cotidiano/ultimas-noticias/2013/01/10/brasil-e-pais-com-maior-numero-de-assassinatos-de-homossexuais-uma-morte-a-cada-26-horas-diz-estudo.htm
2012 too. One murder every 26 hours.
http://www.compromissoeatitude.org.br/dados-nacionais-sobre-violencia-contra-a-mulher/
4.762 woman died in 2013 victims of domestic violence (13/day).
But of course, there's more that need to be taken into account.
Comment has been collapsed.
just went lightly through the sites you quoted, yeah Brazil is one of the worst countries to be living in accroding to statistics.
And yeah, one murder of lgbt every 26 hours sounds bad for ohter countries, but according to them, there are one murder every 9 MINUTES, so it makes it less than 1%. Not significant at all considering only statistics. But every one of that lives counted!
In Brazil, whites are less than 50%, probably most of them are kinda rich, not living in infamous favelas..
Still nameing by OP 'Today reported' 0 deaths, taking in mind we are speaking of Brazil, do not seem legit, just 'clickbait' sort of
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not think the other less important deaths, we can not accept that someone be killed for any reason, but the point is, the other deaths are deaths by drug trafficking (drug addicts indebted for example) in exchange of fire between police and bandits ( both sides die), assaults, crimes of passion, among other situations, but the murders of homosexuals are only hate crime, that is, they do not die during a robbery or because they were in debt with a dug dealer, simply die for being gay - One per day ! ONE person dies every day simply for being gay (In my country, as I said before, have more 200 around the world)
Comment has been collapsed.
Um I get a ton of death threats for my views by the so called "tolerant left" all the time. In fact I actually gotten attacked in more than one occasion because of it. No I wasn't being a butt head to anyone but a friend of a friend caught wind of my views and then I start getting berated then others start treating me badly long story short I got scars and my left hand is slightly crippled because I didn't conform to the "tolerant left"'s agenda. And to this day I still get threats online from all sorts of places by them because my views are not popular. Nevermind I have gay friends and minority friends and friends from religious backgrounds different from me. So I call bs on that.
You come off as the in your face trend hopper that follows the "in thing" that will scream insults at anyone that doesn't conform and then cry victim at a drop of the hate when someone so much gives you a dirty look. I find it impossible to even respect people like you at a social level due how unwillingly you are to stray from that cult-like mentality. Oh go ahead and call me all sorts of evil nasty names, I get them daily from other cultists like you and even the occasional death threat. It had to take a whole group of your "tolerant" kind to gang up on me to create the scars I now have. Meaningless over used words don't even hurt me. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
They only come off as that, because they resorted to the same convenient stat quoting that every other group does. Please be careful of confirmation bias.
Also, what you mention as the "tolerant left" is actually "the extremists embedded within the tolerant left". All groups have extremists and rotten eggs, even progressives. This is why I find these discussions depressing. All sides believe themselves to be the absolute truth and clean from association to their worst elements, and yet all sides inevitably end up indulging in the same tactics at some point. We have to remember that no group is a hivemind, and nobody should be expected to inherit the sins of the worst of their own group.
I mean, I certainly don't want to shoulder the accusation of sending death threats or sending swat teams to streamers, and if you regularly play videogames like me, then you stand to inherit that same unflattering association ;P
Comment has been collapsed.
That's like looking at two yards, one is well maintain but has a turd or two on it. The other yard has tall weeds and dry spots and 100 or so turds on it and then say "both yards are bad because they have turds on it".
But keep the self serving pseudo-intellectual stuff. That never gets old /sarc
Comment has been collapsed.
Is that really the stance you want to take when the "right" has uniformly opposed gender and sexuality equality / issues for only god knows how long? Generalisations are so easy, but very often off-mark.
There isn't a single group that gets to pretend their own shit doesn't stink. Nobody's lawn is clean, if you consider the fringe groups to represent the whole. Also consider that because the OP quoted some (likely lopsided or badly interpreted) stats, you immediately likened them to violent slogan-shouting thugs despite their presence in the thread showing them to be almost entirely calm despite the sentiments they face.
If you're going to criticise yards, it might be a good idea to clean your own first.
Like I said, please be careful of confirmation bias.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please don't take it in that direction.
There is a lot of unnecessary 'reverse profiling' that has been started by the SJW groups, where they will specify white / heterosexual / male where it serves to demean, even where it is irrelevent to the issue. Not to mention that statistics without context are very misleading. For example, how many of those black murder statistics were also perpetrated by other blacks? Do the statistics consider the lack of proper profiling for white heterosexual males (for instance, where someone is killed for being white, it isn't logged as a race crime but just as a murder)? Or that a murdered male may have in fact been the accidental result of domestic violence from a spouse? While you can argue proportions and statistics, these things touch on other cultural issues that are underreported.
I get your passion for the subject, I really do, but please don't lower yourself to statistics of convenience. Your extrapolations are a stretch. Please be wary of confirmation bias, it can creep up on you, and on the internet there is a wellspring of data that is conveniently clipped to fit in with any narrative. Be careful of your sources, and how you read them.
And above all, please don't let your passion turn to poison. Just a friendly caution. All the slogan-spitting borderline violent activists you see all started out with good intents, and the road towards it always starts with small allowances for these kinds of lines in the sand, y'know?
I'm not saying you're like that, but... be careful, y'know? :P
(Disclaimer : I have nothing against even Social Justice advocates, provided they are civil. I specified "SJW" for a reason, that W is important. The 'warrior' implies a preference for conflict and fighting. There's a reason it is exclusively used as a slur, because the SJW prefers to force, to demean, and to use underhanded tactics rather than engage in honest, constructive discussion, and ultimately it actually HURTS rights movements by association to their behaviour. Any rights movement that values rational, civil discourse is great. Any movement that almost exclusively uses pressure and mob tactics, not so much)
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly the "publisher" acted like a bunch of assholes, regardless of whether or not they have the right to refuse giving keys for whatever reasons, thats beside the point
There are ways to be polite about it and theres also ways to be a complete dick.
The devs are basically pulling the rug under their own feet, coupling with the fact that their so called game is a broken pile of mess.
number one rule when running a business of any sort: never EVER go bad mouthing your customers, because bad reputation spreads faster
than the good one.Dev should have just kept his mouth shut and keep his opinion to himself.
Once again:homophobism and discrimination of any kind is not right,it never was and never will be. Regardless of what one stance may be about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ignore the idiots. The are racists, homophobes and other stupid people which are not worth wasting our time to argue. The best reaction would be ignore their games, do not give them attention because even a bad attention can be as an advartisment for them. They're unhappy people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Never even heard of these guys. This is so bad that it's almost funny. As it is, they're extremely rude people who made a terrible game and poor business decisions. If they get banned from Steam (which I personally hope they do), it's their own darn fault for being so blatantly immature.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't even know what to say to this thread, it's shocking!
Some of the comments have shocked me even more. it's shameful that the human race still contains such bigoted scumbags. I personally hope every single one of them gets exactly what they deserve.
Comment has been collapsed.
the internet anonimity tend to bring out the worst of some people, sadly
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
No mention of the developers putting radical Islamic texts in the game's files? Oh, I forgot, religions must be protected even more so than genetic traits such as race or homosexuality because...
Comment has been collapsed.
"(Before you ask, I've also inquired about this review, which seems too weird and like way too racist to be true.)"
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no words for this. I mean how stupid can one be, not only that his opinion is narrow-minded and stupid but also the person is digging his own grave and ruins everything he worked for (the beautiful game, ofc). one minute of silence for stupid humanity. won't help but at least it's silent and we all can calm down ^_^
edit + 1 3 BL's because of this comment. grabs popcorn let's see how many homophobias bl me this time lol
Comment has been collapsed.
I got over 20 BL's after posting in this thread. It's really sad how many homophobes and other intolerant types are part of this community. I always thought SG's community is very nice and open minded, but in the last week or so I'm starting to realize how naive and stupid I was for thinking that.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't say "this community", it's like in every other community as well. people have different believes, people are different and some are not as smart as others ;) I don't want to discuss about human rights or anything, the topic is exploded already :O [more than 900 responses! wow] mainly I wanted to point out that the behaviour of the publisher is not very professional. I think games developer / publisher have a prototypical function somehow and he's acting like a 12yr old. we can't change others or the attitudes of them, we can just change ourselfes and be great on our own :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Holy cow that topic exploded .
Tbh i find that abit of an overreaction , but hey just my 2 cents :)
Comment has been collapsed.
It is nice read .
Some bullshit arguments have been made that ware a fun read tbh :P
But yeah , that thing ... Exploded lol
Comment has been collapsed.
at first wanted just to post popcorn gif, but hey, why they should have all the fun? Making few statements not about original content, but t he bullshit arguments, for both sides - as usual in flames
Comment has been collapsed.
I fully support gay rights. Good to see this discussed.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the next helpful review the publishers are extremistic moslems (or trolling in beeing so). So their game is going to become removed anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they have time to get offended by a couple of humans loving each other, they have a lot of free time or their life is so empty.....
Comment has been collapsed.
honestly i hate how eveyone is just choosing sides in here, we can hate or approve LGBT but in my opinion there is nothing to hate or approve, some people choose to live differently and (most of the times) they will be aware of the consequences like friends and family denial, we are not the ones putting ourselves in the fire, as i see it the devs did just that but for a different reason the only thing they failed was to be respectful about it
if someone close to us even tried to say "i'm gay" most of us would try to deny it first and yet most people are here to "approve" because it sounds right but some years ago it sounded wrong and everyone went with the flow, if someone (not LGBT) was trying to jump of a bridge there would (most likely) be someone in the background laughing and yelling "JUMP!", would that guy on the background care if the person about to jump is LGBT or not? of course not!
the point is, no one fully supports LGBT rights unless if they are part of it and most people will just go with opinions of people close to them, and that's fine because at the end we are all that guy yelling at the background and not saints as we all try to show, maybe the people saying that they "approve" LGBT rights just noticed that on the internet it sounds right, maybe the developers were not fully honest when they refused to give out a key, they just used someone else's opinion because they didn't know how to react and now that everyone is hating them for what they did they can't stop to show a real opinion, maybe it was a real opinion, and once again we are just yelling at the background
after reading Tincup's review it becomes pretty obvious that the devs are just people with someone else's opinion that got rejected (probably on the internet) for their beliefs and now they don't know why they have such opinion and started to doubt so they probably decided to do something showing that they are right
Comment has been collapsed.
Their opinions didn't get rejected. How they chose to manifest and express those opinions got rejected.
We are all entitled to our own beliefs and opinions, yes, even racism and sexism. HOWEVER the moment prejudice manifests outside of your head as words and actions, they are subject to observation and subsequent judgement. When you decide to treat someone disfavourably and insult them explicitly because of your prejudice, and you do so when acting on behalf of a commercial group, then you will receive backlash of a suiting degree.
This person did not attempt any form of discussion, they did not just politely decline and opt not to say why, they simply wanted to give someone a 'fuck you' and point out it was because of something the other party couldn't help; sexuality.
They are not an innocent party here.
There is no shame in choosing a side, when one of the sides is just a random consumer trying to take part in a giveaway, and the other is someone who couldn't contain prejudice enough to even say "I'm sorry, we are unable to offer a key at this time".
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, i was aware of everything that you said and no i'm not in the devs "side"
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were.
It's just that while I'm all for a more peaceful and understanding approach, I also find it a little difficult to swallow the idea of treating such people over-gently either.
The subject (and some people's responses) have been pushing my buttons, I really didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you or attacking you. Sorry. |3
Comment has been collapsed.
that was exactly why i left my first comment here, your opinion is not wrong because it's your opinion and no one else's, it may differ from someone else's and that's fine so there's no need to discuss it with everyone unless if your opinion is not set yet (which i don't believe to be the case :P)
I just dislike the idea of sides in here, the devs did something wrong for many reasons, there are no sides, there are devs mad at the world and there's people aware of what they did, none of us is making a difference, we are all yelling at the background so i will make my opinion about the devs very clear
the devs are probably muslim extremists and are either trying to recruit or scare players of their religion
the devs noticed the game is not selling as much as they wanted or maybe they just wanted more attention to their game so they started giving it out for free to random people across the globe (except people they dislike, not by the actual person but by profile pic)
if they wanted to scare everyone they saved people with LGBT related profile pics, if they wanted to recruit with so much hate for the world they saved people with LGBT related profile pics, also whatever their opinion is i'm sure that some LGBT got the game anyway because their profile pic was probably just a photo or a cat pic
news got shared, now not only the people with LGBT related profile pics know about what they are trying to do
unlike the devs i don't judge them for their profile pic but by their actions, doesn't matter if it's logical that they can refuse to give someone a key, it's rude and they knew it
would love to see someone asking for a key, they give the key and then saying right after something like "thank you so much, LGBT rights love ya mate!" just for the devs reaction (gonna add that to my christmas wish list)
what scares me now it's not this game but the fact that a "extra file" can come with a steam game, can you imagine if a "extra file" comes with a game i just got for free and when i try to play that game and get to an "x" level a certain "extra file" opens? maybe it could be intriguing and make the game more interesting or maybe the "extra file" was a virus and makes me wonder if purchasing games legally with steam is still safe, there are so many games from greenlight from doubtful developers like the ones from slaughtering grounds that even use multiple accounts to publish their games and any of those games could probably get an update with that same extra file and steam would probably not even check
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, i won't support their game, f**k them too. :|
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think anyone has supported them (by purchasing their products) or only an extremely small number of people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can we all (as mankind) drop the word homophobia? Fear has little to do with hate and discrimination.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think so. Hostility towards the other often has roots in fear of the unknown, true. But with a few "American Beauty" exceptions, hate towards the homosexuals comes from ignorance, moral grounds and a certain vision of what "a man" should be.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to play with words until you find a way to define everything as fear, we can do that. :)
I'll just say that a homosexual-hater is a homophobic, while a woman-hater is a misogynist (which actually means woman-hater). Do you see a difference between these two stances which justifies labeling one as fear and the other as hate? I don't.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, no we can't. It's a perfectly functional word and operates as intended.
The same way that hydrophobic material isn't 'afraid' of water, but 'is averse to'.
It's strange how many people use this of all things as a talking point.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's functional and operates as intended just as "fshdfukdsgf" would. Actually, it operates worse than random characters, because it infers a message that's wrong, that of fear. We could all agree that "lovely" means salty, but it would be a tad confusing, wouldn't it?
Hydrophobic, while imperfect for my taste, means repulsed by water. Repulsion is less distant from fear than hate.
The -phobic suffix was lazily chosen because miso- doesn't work well with many words, but I'm still strongly against it.
And nothing else in this story felt like a worthy talking point, frankly. Apart from the concept of religious messages being "illegal", which I pointed out elsewhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
Make up your mind. Does phobia exclusively mean fear, or can it (like many words) have different connotations, such as repulsion? :P
The construction of the word may not be perfect, but unless a better replacement can be found, expecting people to disown a word that has already found common use is a bit of a stretch. Language mutates all the time, and lacking a better word, this is where it has landed.
It's also worth mentioning that bringing it up in the face of the OP's subject is sorta like correcting someone's pronunciation in the middle of a heated discussion, hence why the reception of the pedantry is less than warm-
Comment has been collapsed.
My mind is made, thanks. :) Phobia means fear, but in the context of constucting composite words, it's common and absolutely acceptable to extend its meaning to a range of related ideas, such as repulsion. Extending it to hate is too much and, like I said, conveys a confusing message by inducing people to mix the two concepts (I am assuming people know what phobia means, maybe I shouldn't). Language affects the message and in the long run, the thought patterns of those using it.
Dogs bark in fear, but it's useful to be able to tell it apart from a threat of aggression. :)
I agree there's a lack of a better word, but I would rather settle for a worse one that's less wrong. Misohomist or gay-hater would work.
I didn't really think of the OP when I posted and I wouldn't start a thread to discuss this specific matter, so... that's how it went. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
More blacklists please. It makes it easier for me to find who the bigoted people are. :D In other news, what made some people hate homosexual people? The lack of education? The lack of love from their parents? Please tell me. :B
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait, do people blacklist for not being homophobic? o.O
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep. Many of them. :B But it makes it easier for me to find them. :P I made a comment against bigoted people and they started blacklisting me. That's what stupidity does to their brain. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
I see deleted posts here and there in this thread, so I think some are covering their tracks.
Comment has been collapsed.
yea the lizard part.
reacting to the blacklists they get.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, what's next then? You'll end up telling me that they've even finished the elementary school. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
now that's a little far fetched.
probably stuck in 3rd grade.
or 4th depending on their country's educational standards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok then, let's check it out. Hear me, bigots, because this is a tricky question. The question is:
1+1 = ?
What's the result of this equation?
You're not allowed to google it, bigots. :B
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually I've got 2 BL-s for asking that question I did. Thanks, SG community!
Comment has been collapsed.
I've got removed from 4 whitelists and they've put me in 10 blacklists. :B But isn't that proving that bigoted people are full of hatred? In their life, they've only learned to hate the other people. And the other people hate them back. I'm straight, but I feel it's my "duty" to support homosexuals and other people in general, even if they're "different" from me. We're all equal. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
yes they do already got 10 more by pointing out what is wrong with love
Already found 3 of them
Comment has been collapsed.
I somehow managed to acquire 2 more without saying much of anything. I'm sure I'm not missing much, though. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
you didnt say anything strange or bl worthy
strange
Comment has been collapsed.
Anything can be perceived as an attack by someone.
They could also be "revenge" blacklists from people I found particularly rude or offensive. ;)
I'm a bit more surprised at your 10, though. You're always so kind-hearted.
Comment has been collapsed.
thanks but I got 39 already (maybe even more I didnt look again)
but from this post 10 I dont know why but ok
I use the bl only to bl back Found 15 already :)
But really to get bl by this thread doesnt hurt me at all, I will never change my opinion about such an important subject
For me all people are equal and I get really sad when people hate someone for being different
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I have far more than you.
While not a hateful person by nature (I find hate a consuming, worthless and weakening emotion born of fear and ignorance), I do tend to be outspoken, and like you, I won't change that for anything. I do have very strong feelings about this subject, but don't feel like being dragged into what had become a "hate-fest" for a while there. I much prefer reason and compassion over force and negativity. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
indeed me too, I prefer love over hatred. Thats why I asked what could be wrong with 2 people that love eachother. I would never take this back
But why do people bl you, you are very nice and polite to everyone
Comment has been collapsed.
I have got +6bl and -1 wl for my input, nothing agaist lgbt or the other side :) well that's sg i guess :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh my god this made the news:
https://www.destructoid.com/steam-key-giveaway-turns-ugly-as-dev-bashes-lgbt-people-and-america-365044.phtml
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah you didn't miss anything of value, just the old pot callin' the kettle black.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi everyone, I always participate in sweepstakes of games that the own developers offers, as many of you.
This week the publishing Dream Games distributes keys to the game Operation Caucasus pre-released on May 23 this year.
The scheme was to go to their facebook page and ask for a key, that's what I did ...
The answer was negative, because I use the colors of the rainbow on my profile picture and they said they did not support LGBT and "kindly" asked me to go f*ck myself. Then they blocked me, preventing me from posting the print on their facebook page.
Follows the print: http://imgur.com/tru0YgE
Anyone who wants to help, can mark as a useful analysis to stay on top.
Link the publishing page on Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/search/?developer=Dream%20Games
Link of the game on Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/442180
I had already warned that in the post on the given keys https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/JMwgGKR but with a own topic, the message reaches more people
Comment has been collapsed.