-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fullbright Company decides not to show Gone Home at PAX Indie Megabooth in protest
- Thread starter Archurro
- Start date
possible true reason?
I never put anything past anyone. This possibility has to be considered.
edit:
I'm not a fan of PA. After the whole taking down the Childs Play fundraiser money that Mass Effect 3 fans started during the ME3 ending fiasco I pretty much wrote them off.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Wait what? I must have missed this
If you are someone who equates my identity and personhood with someone who wants to be a fox or a dolphin, then sorry, you do hate me.
jim2point0
Banned
I never said I equated anyone's identity with anything. I simply said that I could see a guy being ganged up on and saying stupid things out of anger. Which I also said wasn't smart.
If he were transphobic, he wouldn't be friends with Sophie Prell.
wait sorry did you just use the "i can't be racist, see i have black friends" argument
ElectricBlue187
Member
Oh yeah I remember that now. Man PA has been fucking up these last few years. What happened to those guys
I doubt we'll see many others follow suit, sadly. Aside from one mention on Kotaku, this incident really isn't being brought up anywhere else, and it sounds like some of the Polygon folks that were uncomfortable with going are now totally comfortable with going. A friend and I were going to go to our fourth PAX this year, but after I told her about the incident, we just didn't feel cool with supporting that. Sure, they already have our money for passes, and they'll continue to sell out year after year, but they'll certainly never get any of our money again. Besides, PAX was about community, and that isn't the kind of community I want to associate with.
Not really, Sophie certainly turned out to be convenient for him to trot out the classic 'some of my best friends are ______'
Basically, but people are trotting out the "he said something we don't agree with, therefore he must be a hateful bigot" argument as well, so it all seems about even stevens to me.
Sorry to see Sqorgar go. Always good to read thoughtful arguments on all sides of an issue.
Its very similar to some christians feeling oppresed at people calling them out on their bigot comments, aparently they think they fail to understand the irony of comparing themselves to the likes of Clarence B. Cain or Martin Luther King without having some kind of empathy for the very group of people those guys represented.
And Cthulu banned guy, if you are reading this, im glad that you are aware that calling them tranny is not cool, but refusing to acknowledge the essense of their particular situation and forcibly putting them the label you think they deserve, even if you see them as equals, its way worst than that.
I'm not sure why this has to be stated. So, automatically anyone a part of the community is associated with something Mike said? And are we all just saying Mike is hateful without considering it just being an uninformed thought on the matter?
I think this issue is one that is still needs time to land on most ears, as there are still people coping with the idea of homosexuality. In Mike's instance, he made an opinion based on a lifestyle that is not a hot topic to most right now. Yes, it is within that community, but it's better to educate than to lay blame.
In the meantime we need to stop accusing of hate. This is how the tropes vs women come across and it's always wrong to lump a community under a hate umbrella.
You weren't getting thoughtful comments from him.
The Librarian
Banned
I don't think advocating the verbal harassment of an already beleaguered minority is insightful or thoughtful. Quite the opposite actually.
That must have been quite a difficult decision to make, but I'm glad they're sticking with it. Other companies should follow suit and think about going to PAX once more. Not saying they should boycut it (I would), but at least reflect on the things that have been said and take it into consideration.
fans raised ~80,000 dollars for Childs play in protest of the ME3 ending. PA shut it down because they said it wasn't right to raise the money that way -- using the ME3 ending as a catalyst for a cause.
$80,000 that could have gone to sick kids... gone.
He is a hateful bigot on this issue. That's how you become a hateful bigot in this one issue: you say the things he said.
He might be an amazing dad and wonderful philantropist and a cool artist and a million other good things.
Right here and now, talking about this one thing, hateful bigot is what I'll call him.
Trans people are one of the most marginalised and oppressed minorities in the world with way over national averages of homelessness, depression, unemployment, suicides (considered, attempted and succeeded), HIV and survival sex work...
Yet still some people on videogame forums and twitter are upset at having to reconsider the hurtful language they use in relation to trans people. All you have to do is listen when we speak up, that's it! There are also books and blogs out there if you want to know more.
The general population is fairly ignorant of trans issues and that's understandable but if you continue to use demeaning language despite having been told that it's hurtful and you continue to shout down anyone who challenges your narrow understanding of gender with stupid accusations ("over-sensitive" "militant") then that does make you a nasty transphobic bigot.
Look at the kind of people who oppose trans rights in parliaments worldwide; are those the kind of people you want to be associated with, those who in debates compare equal marriage to wanting to marry your dog or your sister? Because that's the level you're on.
Yet still some people on videogame forums and twitter are upset at having to reconsider the hurtful language they use in relation to trans people. All you have to do is listen when we speak up, that's it! There are also books and blogs out there if you want to know more.
The general population is fairly ignorant of trans issues and that's understandable but if you continue to use demeaning language despite having been told that it's hurtful and you continue to shout down anyone who challenges your narrow understanding of gender with stupid accusations ("over-sensitive" "militant") then that does make you a nasty transphobic bigot.
Look at the kind of people who oppose trans rights in parliaments worldwide; are those the kind of people you want to be associated with, those who in debates compare equal marriage to wanting to marry your dog or your sister? Because that's the level you're on.
eot
Banned
No, they took the money but they shut down further donations. Their reason was:
My issue with that statement was that Child's Play partially exists to give positive attention to the games business. It's saying "look! video game people aren't bad, we give all this money to help kids". Of course it does help kids in the end, so it's a net good, but I don't think it's much different from the ME3 thing in that it's not as altruistic as they want to pretend it is. If you just wanted to donate money you wouldn't have to do it in the name of something, in this case games.
Bang on.
I'm not familiar with the issues, politics, terminology and culture of the trans community. I don't know anyone (to my knowledge I guess) who is. But at the same time, I have no problem with the idea and I don't see why some people want to force black and white thinking onto them.
Life doesn't happen within nice and neat, perfectly cubed and defined little boxes. There are a million shades of grey and hues of colour and forcing people to live within a choice of two is not only absurd, but dangerous. It hurts people's mental and physical health when they are doing absolutely no harm to anyone else.
The world would just be nicer if everyone was left in peace to be what they are.
Except for fundamentalists of anything who want to impose their rules on others
Elaugaufein
Member
I can't agree with this. There are many different levels of these things. To use an example that I am more familiar with, there's a difference between people who want to kill all atheists and people who feel uncomfortable in the presence of atheists. Lumping all of these people into one basket as equally bad eliminates any possibility for discourse.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
Oppo
Member
I have to admit I am a bit shocked by Sqorgar's banning and EviLore's response.
Maybe that makes me an awful person or something, but I actually didn't think the guy was being a huge idiot or anything. I hesitate to even post that opinion because of the wrath he so obviously incurred. I've gone back and checked his posts and while he was definitely leaning on the issue, it's really hard for me to call that guy a bigoted asshole.
For whatever that's worth. It freaks me out because I immediately call into question my own judgement on such issues. I certainly don't consider myself a bigot or hateful. That said I am just slightly mystified by this entire trans community/PA/Gone Home thing.
Maybe that makes me an awful person or something, but I actually didn't think the guy was being a huge idiot or anything. I hesitate to even post that opinion because of the wrath he so obviously incurred. I've gone back and checked his posts and while he was definitely leaning on the issue, it's really hard for me to call that guy a bigoted asshole.
For whatever that's worth. It freaks me out because I immediately call into question my own judgement on such issues. I certainly don't consider myself a bigot or hateful. That said I am just slightly mystified by this entire trans community/PA/Gone Home thing.
You think it's okay to insult people for something they can't control? Bigot or not that's a shitty attitude.
Tummi Gummi
Member
After seeing Sporegar banned for that, versus the stuff other people have been getting away with in this and the original PAX thread, I'm done. Feel free to ban me or whatever, mods.
Oppo
Member
No I don't.
I do not think that. Let's be clear.
I just thought he had opened up a very touchy area. I saw this years ago with comedians making jokes at gay people's expense (Eddie Murphy most prominently at the time). I don't think there's anything wrong with trans people. And yes I do think they too can be poked fun at. I consider that part of true equality. Insults, that's another thing. That's just bad behaviour. But I sort of understood – or at least, in my own interpretation, I understood – what the point of that comment was. It wasn't phrased the most elegant way.
And I think EviLore could have made his point better than "Hey fucking asshole, don't be such a fucking asshole, you asshole." I'm paraphrasing of course. I get why he was perhaps exasperated but I do not think for a second Sqorgar was being purposefully insensitive or antagonistic, I really don't.
Anyways. Probably best to remove myself and stay on the gaming side.
Sacrifice would be pulling out without telling anyone or making a big deal. This feels half publicity to me, or at least a bit calculated. Hence why they provide a full ssummaryof gabes comments in their post.
You don't have to be purposefully insensitive to be insensitive. People often don't know how shitty or baseless their stances are.
The difference between a joke and an insult is if it's funny. Some people are really good at being funny. Others shouldn't even try otherwise they might offend people with their painfully unfunny and tasteless joke. Tone and an expectation to be funny makes it easier to make jokes so an anonymous, public, populous text-based forum is probably the worst place to make potentially offensive jokes.
If there is a lesson to take from this it's that in a extremely sensitive topic make sure your arguments are crystal clear, otherwise that's a banning.
Oppo
Member
"Funny" isn't measurable, though. Some of Shakespeare's most amusing (to many but not all!) work was actually in the form of insults between characters. Louis CK would be a more modern example where I could pull out dozens of his quotes, that taken out of context or without his delivery would be considered pretty fucking bad.
I do agree that it's of course possible to be insensitive unintentionally obviously but I think the person feeling insulted should consider the malice, or lack of, in the statement. Just consider it in reaction, not excuse or dismiss it.
I've been offended personally by people making dumb jokes at my expense, over things I could not control, and I did not enjoy that. But I weigh whether or not that person is just being a bit of a dolt vs purposefully attacking me verbally with intent to make me angry or upset. Some people think they are being funny. Some know they are being mean. I hope that makes sense.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
This is difficult as I know you aren't supposed to talk about some aspects of bans. I watched the Sqogar posts for all of these threads.
All I will say is - While offering a lot of information, and views explained in a way that seemed intellectual, I feel the take-away was too much: "and now because I have explained how extremely detached, fair, and objective I am, I can justly make a sweeping generalization that trans people as a whole suck. And it's OK to fight them by mocking them so they know their place."
I don't know if that was truly the intended subtext. But several posts read that way to me, and came across as someone being a plain asshole but in a very wordy way, to justify it.
I point this out only because it's a common tactic in Internet discussions, and won't discuss the ban further.
All I will say is - While offering a lot of information, and views explained in a way that seemed intellectual, I feel the take-away was too much: "and now because I have explained how extremely detached, fair, and objective I am, I can justly make a sweeping generalization that trans people as a whole suck. And it's OK to fight them by mocking them so they know their place."
I don't know if that was truly the intended subtext. But several posts read that way to me, and came across as someone being a plain asshole but in a very wordy way, to justify it.
I point this out only because it's a common tactic in Internet discussions, and won't discuss the ban further.
Indeed, a well spoken hater is still a hater. I find them far more insidious and dangerous than someone spamming slurs in all caps. Their passive aggressive behaviour and tone policing when called up on it is maddening.
It's a popular website, people do care what these kinds of figureheads say. You might not, but others will parrot their views and spread this shit. It's not okay to say this shit in the first place and if there are consequences, that's a good thing.
Being funny and discerning intent is far, far easier face-to-face, or in a position where you can gauge tone, intent, body language and character expectations. I would expect Louis CK to be funny in intent and expression, therefore see him through a non-offensive lens despite spewing offensive things.
Therefore when talking with people you don't personally know (like on Gaf), in a medium like text where tone and intent can be very easily misconstrued or unknown (like on Gaf), people should know to be extra careful making jokes that could be considered offensive, especially in regards to minorities (like on Gaf). Sometimes views and opinions can get so ridiculous that it's hard to separate the joke posts from the serious posts (like on Gaf).
No no no, you're thinking of Gaynor Peaches. Completely different company.
FlutterPuffs
Member
I don't think Gabe is transphobic. He definitely has some differing opinions about sexuality than most of you guys but it doesn't seem like it was something particularly negative and aggressive that was said.
He's a bastard, he admits this and he even said sorry for the statement he made. The fact that you guys are holding virtual pitchforks and asking for his head doesn't seem like it's the most progressive thing you can do too, really :/
You guys really need to be less of a bastard than this too.
He's a bastard, he admits this and he even said sorry for the statement he made. The fact that you guys are holding virtual pitchforks and asking for his head doesn't seem like it's the most progressive thing you can do too, really :/
You guys really need to be less of a bastard than this too.
As much as I can appreciate people standing up and not going to Pax I don't like it from a purely selfish standpoint. Pax (well Pax East) is really the only game conference I can attend and I wouldn't like it if too many people suddenly pull out. I'm pretty sure this will blow over before Pax East rolls around ( if not then maybe there wouldn't even be a Pax East if this becomes a big enough shit storm) but I'm still worried.
The Librarian
Banned
Mike issued a no-apology apology. He admits he's an asshole, but he doesn't apologize for it.
Well, okay then, Mike. Maybe just stop being an asshole?
FlutterPuffs
Member
There you go.
Look, you guys were right that what he said was insensitive, and he certainly had said and done some pretty stupid stuff in the past due to his Asshole Defense Stance™. This time he really has apologised about it.
It just isn't written very well because frankly, writing isn't really one of his strong points. I just feel that we should let it rest for this.
You don't get to decide what isn't transphobic any more so than a white person can decide that something isn't racist when the effected groups are insisting that the language in question is problematic.
If someone is serious about making an apology they don't use meme as the article title, put transphobic in quotation marks and then say at the end that they ultimately do not give a shit.
FlutterPuffs
Member
That's pushing it. Putting a meme as a title has nothing to do about not being serious about making an apology, nor is it in him putting transphobic in quotation marks (from what I can see in that article anyway).
He saying he doesn't give a shit about it says nothing that his apology wasn't serious too. Hell, I honestly had no idea what he wrote could be so offensive myself. I have absolutely no prior experience to this and I have no transgender friends, at all. Reading all this had got me thinking about it (which is something really interesting), and questioning my thoughts over the matter but I feel some of you are going too far with this.
It doesnt seem like some (SOME) of you want to burn for what he has said, and I really don't think that will be a good way to prove a point to him that he was wrong.
The Librarian
Banned
Unless Mike stops being an asshole, this'll crop up again. It's clear he thinks that just because he's an asshole it doesn't mean people can criticize him. Look at what else he's done!!! This keeps happening.
He's not addressing the core problem, so overall it's a none-apology apology.
I care a lot more about making people understand what is hurtful to trans people (and the why of it) than I do about making Gabe "suffer". I don't think anything I can do can impact his bottom line in any meaningful way; he is absolutely loaded and has enough sycophants to brush all this off.
If you think that apology was sincere you really make up for in privilege what you lack in empathy.
Instead of telling us what isn't transphobic or what constitutes a proper apology how about listening to whatever others who have far more knowledge and life experience on the issue have to say. Maybe go read a book too.
It's fairly obvious that there's nothing he could have said done or said short of groveling for mercy that would have appeased everyone who feels he's made an egregious offense. Like I've said before, while there are real issues here and mistakes made on both sides, the most vocal detractors don't really care to dwell on the issues and seem more inclined to point fingers and actively hate the man.
And in the end, I can't condone that either. A page or so ago someone made the claim that being called a bigot is small potatoes compared to marginalizing an already marginalized minority. I just don't understand that. People also continue to call Mike a bigot when that was the thing that set him off the in first place, labeling him as such. But the message I'm seeing is that it's OK to marginalize Mike because he misspoke and then continued to be obnoxious once antagonized. It's o-k to dehumanize him and call him a bigot and a monster and a terrible good for nothing who's apology doesn't matter in the least because it doesn't fit to your own standards exactly. Forget trying to see what he's actually saying, forget trying to empathize with someone who feels that they too have been hurt, and marginalized, and wronged, who has made a clear, but flawed and ultimately failed, attempt to to recognize his own mistakes. Forget all that because hating Mike, labeling him a bigot, and treating him like he's not even a person for the sake of a minority is more important than being civil and respectful and empathetic to all people. There are so many knee jerk responses in this thread, so many people who, once they show the slightest bit of empathy for Mike, are also questioned as being a bigot or hatemonger. It's always an "us or no one" mentality that dominates the the rational in these kinds of discussions where an oppressed group has been wronged.
And this isn't to say that Mike's feelings or humanity is somehow more important than the feelings of transgender people. Of course not. But acting like they don't matter is wrong. Respect is earned, right? No. I disagree. Because that just goes back to what everyone was jumping on Sqogar for, for saying that the transgender community needed to "earn" something. Respect comes in varying degrees. You don't always have to respect an opinion but I believe that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of humanity. But giving Mike that much would take away from the narrative at hand, that he's a monster who will continue to be a monster because he hasn't made a good enough apology. It's a narrative that strives to put aside the main question that his insensitive and poorly chosen words brought up, the idea that gender sexuality/identity is distinct from biologic gender/genetics, something that isn't a foreign idea at all for transgender people.
And this idea that outsiders can't decide what is and isn't transphobic? Ok, fair enough, but that's a one way street ripe for abuse. Being offended does not automatically make you righteous. Of course that should be avoided and of course people should be sensitive to what is and isn't offensive to people, particularly subsets of people that have been marginalized in the past. But even in this thread, there are plenty of people marginalizing others for the sake of their own causes. To say that I or anyone else is outright required to find offensive the same things you find offensive? This is tiptoeing awfully close to saying, once again, that if you're not with me, you're the enemy, a monster, a bigot. It is possible to be oversensitive to an issue. It is possible to take offense when unnecessary. It is possible for a marginalized group of people to be wrong about the intentions of others. And again, having a history of being oppressed does not allow any group of people to dictate what is and is not considered right and wrong. Oppression should not be fought with oppression. Bigotry should not be met with more bigotry. Unfortunately that's all I'm really seeing here.
Of course I'm expecting a lot of negative reactions to what I'm saying because yes, I'm making a roundabout accusation of bigotry. Ironically though, the anger that you might be feeling right now over that fact puts you in the same shoes as Mike. So hey, maybe some people finally will be able to empathize with how he felt. The point though is that oppressed, abused, and marginalized groups are not somehow incapable of propagating more hate.
And in the end, I can't condone that either. A page or so ago someone made the claim that being called a bigot is small potatoes compared to marginalizing an already marginalized minority. I just don't understand that. People also continue to call Mike a bigot when that was the thing that set him off the in first place, labeling him as such. But the message I'm seeing is that it's OK to marginalize Mike because he misspoke and then continued to be obnoxious once antagonized. It's o-k to dehumanize him and call him a bigot and a monster and a terrible good for nothing who's apology doesn't matter in the least because it doesn't fit to your own standards exactly. Forget trying to see what he's actually saying, forget trying to empathize with someone who feels that they too have been hurt, and marginalized, and wronged, who has made a clear, but flawed and ultimately failed, attempt to to recognize his own mistakes. Forget all that because hating Mike, labeling him a bigot, and treating him like he's not even a person for the sake of a minority is more important than being civil and respectful and empathetic to all people. There are so many knee jerk responses in this thread, so many people who, once they show the slightest bit of empathy for Mike, are also questioned as being a bigot or hatemonger. It's always an "us or no one" mentality that dominates the the rational in these kinds of discussions where an oppressed group has been wronged.
And this isn't to say that Mike's feelings or humanity is somehow more important than the feelings of transgender people. Of course not. But acting like they don't matter is wrong. Respect is earned, right? No. I disagree. Because that just goes back to what everyone was jumping on Sqogar for, for saying that the transgender community needed to "earn" something. Respect comes in varying degrees. You don't always have to respect an opinion but I believe that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of humanity. But giving Mike that much would take away from the narrative at hand, that he's a monster who will continue to be a monster because he hasn't made a good enough apology. It's a narrative that strives to put aside the main question that his insensitive and poorly chosen words brought up, the idea that gender sexuality/identity is distinct from biologic gender/genetics, something that isn't a foreign idea at all for transgender people.
And this idea that outsiders can't decide what is and isn't transphobic? Ok, fair enough, but that's a one way street ripe for abuse. Being offended does not automatically make you righteous. Of course that should be avoided and of course people should be sensitive to what is and isn't offensive to people, particularly subsets of people that have been marginalized in the past. But even in this thread, there are plenty of people marginalizing others for the sake of their own causes. To say that I or anyone else is outright required to find offensive the same things you find offensive? This is tiptoeing awfully close to saying, once again, that if you're not with me, you're the enemy, a monster, a bigot. It is possible to be oversensitive to an issue. It is possible to take offense when unnecessary. It is possible for a marginalized group of people to be wrong about the intentions of others. And again, having a history of being oppressed does not allow any group of people to dictate what is and is not considered right and wrong. Oppression should not be fought with oppression. Bigotry should not be met with more bigotry. Unfortunately that's all I'm really seeing here.
Of course I'm expecting a lot of negative reactions to what I'm saying because yes, I'm making a roundabout accusation of bigotry. Ironically though, the anger that you might be feeling right now over that fact puts you in the same shoes as Mike. So hey, maybe some people finally will be able to empathize with how he felt. The point though is that oppressed, abused, and marginalized groups are not somehow incapable of propagating more hate.
First, I think you've made some good points in these threads, and I appreciate your participation. But I think the person you're responding to is capable of being mistaken without lacking empathy or speaking with privilege. Note that he or she also talks about the discussion prompting deeper thoughts on an issue that he/she is very unfamiliar with. Mike's apology was a grab bag of mixed messages, and is problematic, but reasonable people can disagree about its intent and sincerity.