Support NeoGAF

[Coffee Dog]

"Incorrect opinions" lol. Actually I think your post is quite a good example to show how the concept, which in general is not bad, can be perversed into shutting out whoever you don't like. You don't have the godgiven right to decide what is an "incorrect" or "harmful" opinion. Obviously there are certain types of hate speech that are generally agreed to fall under that but it's hardly ever so black or white.

I mean, the whole point of safe spaces is to shut out opinions. Full stop. Naturally, which opinions are shut out depends on those operating the safe space.

See this is the shit that makes me not want to even engage and try and learn whats being discussed.

Incorrect opinions? What?

Safe spaces are not environments for objective debate. They are spaces that are safe from ignorance and the harm that ignorance causes. In that context, the barring of opinions that cause that level of harm is justified.

 

[Alex Stroud]

Titty McRapefest 2016 is misogynist? Shit. I'll keep my 2015 copy then, thanks for the heads up OP.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I completely accept and understand why some would enjoy that. I'm just offering my opinion and questioning why the OP would label that as "toxic" or "garbage".

I like games as escapism as you said and like games media to be as politically neutral as possible. That's just my preference, I don't understand why someone would condemn it.

The OP doesn't label it as toxic or garbage in itself. You can prefer to consider games as escapism if you wish, and not consider the politics in them.

But if you (in general, not specifically you) try to stifle down discussion by saying "keep your politics out of gaming" and whine about SJWs (the 'and' was in the OP) when someone suggests maybe something is kinda misogynistic, then that is toxic and garbage.

 

[Karuto]

I understand that people use video games as a mechanism for escapism: sometimes I do as well, and I love to debate. It is indeed true that some people do not want to be a part of a debate at all times, especially when they are considered to be a part of the debate by default because of a trait such as "enjoys video games". I can understand that sometimes people just need a safe space to relax away from the constant societal pressure. Granted, this also does not mean that all video games should be treated as a safe space away from political messages. But that disclaimer does not mean it is okay to attempt to exclude people from video games, either: it is a call to maintain civil discourse in the public sphere.

You can also substitute other, more salient traits in for "enjoys video games" such as "is black" or "is homosexual".



The only person condemning you here is Jonathan Holmes.

Agreed. However, the other issue is that there are people who will use any excuse they can to assume they are being ridiculed or compartmentalized. Like, for example, saying that women are treated unfairly and misrepresented in video games - something I agree with. But then proceeding to write an article condemning those who enjoy those types of games is something Destructoid has done in the past.

They actually had an article blasting Atlus for having Morgana's face being moved on the box art for Persona 5 despite not reaching out to Atlus themselves for the reasoning behind this (which was to avoid Morgana's face from being blocked by the ESRB logo). With all due respect to Destructoid, I don't feel the presumptuous behavior of some of their writers could handle a "safe space".

 

[mp1990]

Opinions can per definition not be "incorrect". When something can be objectively proven right or wrong it's an assertion.

.

Spoiler

Danganronpa has a political message.

Right? It's always funny to see those "keep your politics away from my video games" apologists while they display a avatar of a game that carries a lot of politics in itself.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I used to love reading Jonathan Holmes for his opinions on Nintendo / niche japanese games, but in this case he's completely out of his element... This is painful to read.

I completely accept and understand why some would enjoy that. I'm just offering my opinion and questioning why the OP would label that as "toxic" or "garbage".

I like games as escapism as you said and like games media to be as politically neutral as possible. That's just my preference, I don't understand why someone would condemn it.

Spoiler

Danganronpa has a political message.

 

[J_Viper]

So did you just come and post this thread so people pat on your shoulder and agree with you, or what's up with the phrasing of the threads title? Not much constructive discussion to be expected when you come with things like "Titty McRapefest" amongst other highly hyperbolic statements(bleeding out of your eyes, seriously?).

Sure seems that way

It even comes complete with the signature "just....ugh"

 

[Jackpot]

One of the GAF admins made an excellent post on the necessity and purpose of safe spaces some years ago. Wish I could find it.

 

[Dalibor68]

I mean, the whole point of safe spaces is to shut out opinions. Full stop. Naturally, which opinions are shut out depends on those operating the safe space.

Safe spaces are not environments for objective debate. They are spaces that are safe from ignorance and the harm that ignorance causes. In that context, the barring of opinions that cause that level of harm is justified.

So when things move out of the private sector, who decides which opinions are ok and which are not?

 

[MarkusRJR]

As a gay person having a safe space at university helps me get away from people who'll judge me and tell me I'm going to hell (or call me a fag) is something that I really appreciate. I assume it works with a lot of other minorities. A safe space isn't an echo chamber of opinions, but rather a place you can go to relax and be guaranteed safety from verbal or physical abuse.

Apart from my brother, my family kind of homophobic. I'm blessed to have a few friends that don't judge me on my orientation, but some gay or trans people don't have that support system in their lives. Safe spaces can provide LGBTQ a means to make accepting friends and not be alone. Considering the high suicide rates of LGBTQ+ youth, it's hard to not see the importance of such a support system.

 

[Jebusman]

This doesn't happen within the University though. But the point is, if people need to be in safe spaces, then that makes sense that there's a problem -- it's just that, this problem isn't rectified by separating people. Unacceptable behaviour should be determined and as long as no one breaks that, all's good right?

Unless America is the sort of place where harassing someone or calling them slurs isn't good enough reason for disciplinary action.

In a perfect world, safe spaces shouldn't have to exist.

In our world, I can see why in some places it's done as a last resort.

You definitely do run the risk of shielding yourself from dissenting opinions, and that can cause problems later in life when you're placed in a situation where you have no choice but to confront an opposing opinion, and don't know how to correctly handle that situation, but safe spaces as they are used right now are a "we don't have any other option" situation where getting the culture of hate to stop isn't going to happen any time soon, and not everyone has the strength to withstand it day after day in the hopes that one day it'll get better.

As a gay person having a safe space at university helps me get away from people who'll judge me and tell me I'm going to hell (or call me a fag) is something that I really appreciate. I assume it works with a lot of other minorities. A safe space isn't an echo chamber of opinions, but rather a place you can go to relax and be guaranteed safety from verbal or physical abuse.

I think the problem people have with safe spaces, even if they do not intend to be, is that they do infact form an echo chamber of opinions. And you may see that these opinions as things that are universally true (aka, you're not going to hell for being gay). But there are still going to be some parts of the world that don't see it that way.

And once you leave the wonder and protection of university, where will your safe space be? How prepared are the people who regularly turn to safe spaces to deal with those who disagree with them, even if it's something as insane as thinking you're go to hell just for being yourself?

I get why safe spaces exist, and I lament the reason why they have to exist in the first place, but I wonder long term how well it prepares people to deal with the outside world.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Ignorance distilled to its purest from, holy shit.

Incidentally, I consider GAF to be a pretty good safe space as far as public forums go; overt sexism, homophobia, racism, transphobia, etc. is most often switly dealt with. It's also the one place, by far, that containts the best quality discussion for games. I consider both facts to be positively reinforcedly, not negatively as people like the author of the article would have you believe. There is no intellectually meaningful discussion lost by having hate speech banned.

 

[EmiPrime]

Those threads aren't "safe spaces", the entirely of GAF is.

Umm, no it isn't.

Safe spaces are places for marginalised people to gather amongst themselves. People outside the group may be welcome at the discretion of the in-group with the understanding that they are guests and might be asked to leave particularly if they are just there to concern troll or start an argument.

 

[Sianos]

Opinions can per definition not be "incorrect". When something can be objectively proven right or wrong it's an assertion.

Oh cool, we're arguing by definition.

Before we get into the wall of text on semantics, let's see what the dictionary has to say. Appeal to authority!

First definition under "full definition", because we're being precise here:

Opinion: "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"

An "incorrect opinion" would be a view, judgment, or appraisal based on information that is either incorrect or incorrectly interpreted or generalized. The validity of opinions are determined through discussion and debate.

I do agree that people in this thread have been insufficiently politically correct: would the phrase "opinions with poor epistemic justification" be less offensive?

 

[Messofanego]

The owner of Destructoid said this:

“I think overall… GamerGate is positive."

Take that as you will. I'm not going to link to sources because most sources are pro gamer gate sites circle jerking about this, but you can google it and find out yourself.

I don't know anything about that quote but I know Jonathan Holmes doesn't have a high opinion of gamergate's reputation.
https://twitter.com/tronknotts/status/520755770259148800

 

[Opa-Pa]

Wow that's pretty damn stupid. I'm kinda disappointed since Dtoid sometimes shows they're better than this when it comes to social awareness.

And why not have Jed manage this? Lol. I guess it'd still be pointless because dtoid comments are often full of garbage anyways.

Also I'm not surprised it was Holmes. I used to like the guy until I realized he has no idea whar he's talking about 90% of the time.

By the way it's kind of ironic I'm seeing people here mock the idea of safe spaces considering that, unless I'm missing something, this very forum aims to be one more or less? Harmful, ignorant behavior and opinions are usually (rightfully) punished at the very least.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Who decides which opinions are ok and which are not?

Those who have decided the safe space is necessary. It's a space that is safe from whatever the group deems necessary.

 

[Izuna]

In a perfect world, safe spaces shouldn't have to exist.

In our world, I can see why in some places it's done as a last resort.

You definitely do run the risk of shielding yourself from dissenting opinions, and that can cause problems later in life when you're placed in a situation where you have no choice but to confront an opposing opinion, and don't know how to correctly handle that situation, but safe spaces as they are used right now are a "we don't have any other option" situation where getting the culture of hate to stop isn't going to happen any time soon, and not everyone has the strength to withstand it day after day in the hopes that one day it'll get better.

Okay but that's accepting that it can never get better. I'm not a Dean, so I won't be doing any social experiments on this, but I don't agree with this reason for safe spaces no more than I think males and females should be separated in primary and secondary education. The University can try to agree on social policies and find any student in breach of them to have committed an offense. At least, this is how society has been built up until this point. Segregation will mean that when these students go out of the University and into the world, one side won't be ready to face life without safe spaces, and the other wouldn't have learned how not to treat people.

Anyway those are my two cents. I don't know how bad things are supposed to get in the US, but yeah, it sounds like a very strange requirement for something that it's likely to make worse.

 

[rackham]

There was someone yesterday or who was upset about a five year old angry joe video over a very dumb joke

 

[Ranger X]

Just to talk about "a safe space" is utopia. It doesn't exist.
If you create a space where there's no challenge, no opinions (because that's what people expresses), no criticism, no nothing, you get exactly that: nothing. That place doesn't exist in itself.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Johnathan Holmes is also the guy who started an article about Metroid discussing Trump and his stance on Muslims and then when people called him out on it he tweeted "wow why am i not surprised that people are taking my Trump/Nintendo story seriously"

Even if you are a Destructoid reader I would avoid that guy as hard as you can

 

[ShironRedshift]

So did you just come and post this thread so people pat on your shoulder and agree with you, or what's up with the phrasing of the threads title? Not much constructive discussion to be expected when you come with things like "Titty McRapefest" amongst other highly hyperbolic statements(bleeding out of your eyes, seriously?).

Interesting you bring this up. What constructive criticism could have been expected from Holmes' original article, which frames the concept in a negative light numerous times instead of in any way trying to understand the issue at all or present in anything resembling a neutral fashion to truly try and grasp what their readers think, instead if starting the discussion on a terribly bad foot and thus predisposing the discussion to continue in such a fashion since too many don't feel comfortable talking about this period due to the type of reactionist gets, nevermind when an article starts off by invoking negative reactions itself... and hence the purpose of the thread.

It's impossible to criticize the OP for thus without first criticizing Holmes for the same as their irrevocably linked in how articles such as Holmes, whether they're honest or jokes or what have you, they nonetheless reinforce negative stereotypes of safe zones and discourage people from having those honest discussions you want to have, because minorities have better things to do than to use every bit of their energy to explain this type of thing to everyone who asks, especially when the discussion shows no attempt to have even been done in good faith or to even attempt to understand their position at all without pre-judging them.

Even discussions actually started in good faith unfortunately often don't result in anything productive and minorities have lived to live and stuff to do and can't possibly even respond to all of those, and yet it's in them and their allies to not only do that, but also make sure that a "reasonable discussion" is held in situations like THIS as well, when the people who STARTED the discussion in the first place, such as Holmes, didn't even put in one IOTA of that effort or show any sign of being receptive to it?

Nah, fam. Just nah. Want that respect? Show it yourself first. Otherwise don't be surprised if people just throw the shit you spew right back at you and show you the door, because nobody has the time to be thoroughly disrespected and disregarded at the start but still expected to have the burden to be "reasonable" place on them and them alone, when the've got life to live and things to do like anyone else.

You want respect? You gotta show you're willing to give it first and ain't just yanking people's chains, because that's a two way street. Otherwise, there's the door, which you'll be shown whether you like it or not.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

So when things move out of the private sector, who decides which opinions are ok and which are not?

This is the problem.

I find, as a pure example, homophobia to be unacceptable, but I also find freedom to express opinions to be important and a fundamental right.

I would much rather than opinions I disagree with are kept in the open, because everyone is entitled to their opinion....

But that's where their entitlement ends. If someone is bashing someone for being gay, that seem freedom of expression allows me to call them what they are and they can't be offended by that because I'm just expressing my right for freedom of opinion.

What I tend to find is that a lot of people who, how can I put this, "fringe opinions" tend to love freedom of opinons when its their turn, but feel their rights are being infringed when they're called on it.

So, to answer your question, we either accept all opinions, because freedom of speech doesn't just apply to those opinions you agree with, or you reject them all and ensure no one is allowed to freely express themselves in any capacity. You can police it to a degree, but then, who gets to decide that a pro-LGBT parade is fine, but not an anti-LGBT.

I'm sort of waffling, but I've tried to point this out to so many people that I do tend to rant on it...

 

[Dalibor68]

Those who have decided the safe space is necessary. It's a space that is safe from whatever the group deems necessary.

And that in my opinion opens it up for abuse / the concept being perverted into a "shutting out any dissenting opinions (and not just the blatantly racist/sexist ones)". The one (good) thing to me is having a "safe retreat" if you are a target of constant abuse, the other (bad) thing is totally shutting yourself into an echo-chamberish environment of people with only the same opinions and same political standings as you.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

This is the problem.

I find, as a pure example, homophobia to be unacceptable, but I also find freedom to express opinions to be important and a fundamental right.

I would much rather than opinions I disagree with are kept in the open, because everyone is entitled to their opinion....

But that's where their entitlement ends. If someone is bashing someone for being gay, that seem freedom of expression allows me to call them what they are and they can't be offended by that because I'm just expressing my right for freedom of opinion.

What I tend to find is that a lot of people who, how can I put this, "fringe opinions" tend to love freedom of opinons when its their turn, but feel their rights are being infringed when they're called on it.

So, to answer your question, we either accept all opinions, because freedom of speech doesn't just apply to those opinions you agree with, or you reject them all and ensure no one is allowed to freely express themselves in any capacity. You can police it to a degree, but then, who gets to decide that a pro-LGBT parade is fine, but not an anti-LGBT.

I'm sort of waffling, but I've tried to point this out to so many people that I do tend to rant on it...

Being anti human rights is not an opinion anyone should entertain tho.

 

[Zeyphersan]

What's wrong with not wanting political messages in your games or games journalism?

Everything is political. Everything. There's no such thing as being apolitical, even in video games

 

[The_Kid]

I find criticism of safe spaces weird because typically its not something that encompasses all of university or some other overlapping community. It's some subsection that exists for those who seek it out and need it. So it existing shouldn't affect you? So are you mad it exists for people who need it because it doesn't allign with your worldview of how people should hold their own?

 

[Coffee Dog]

And that in my opinion opens it up for abuse / the concept being perverted into a "shutting out any dissenting opinions (and not just the blatantly racist/sexist ones)". The one (good) thing to me is having a "safe retreat" if you are a target of constant abuse, the other (bad) thing is totally shutting yourself into an echo-chamberish environment of people with only the same opinions and same political standings as you.

Those are the same thing though. If that ignorance and those harmful opinions are abuse, the only way to escape from that would be to surround yourself with those who agree with you.

What makes that safe retreat safe in the first place is that the people within feel the same way as you.

 

[Delusibeta]

So when things move out of the private sector, who decides which opinions are ok and which are not?

As a general rule of thumb, whoever owns the house. Or, in this case, the website.

 

[EmiPrime]

Just to talk about "a safe space" is utopia. It doesn't exist.
If you create a space where there's no challenge, no opinions (because that's what people expresses), no criticism, no nothing, you get exactly that: nothing. That place doesn't exist in itself.

Yes they do exist.

An example of a safe space is a group for LGBT parents who can talk amongst themselves about their experiences without some piece of human excrement going "YES BUT WHAT ABOUT A MALE/FEMALE ROLE MODEL FOR THE CHILD??" or being told they're all going to hell. You might call that shutting down dissent, we call it not getting into the same stupid arguments with homophobic idiots looking for a fight over and over.

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

I just wanna talk about videogames...

 

[MarkusRJR]

I think the problem people have with safe spaces, even if they do not intend to be, is that they do infact form an echo chamber of opinions. And you may see that these opinions as things that are universally true (aka, you're not going to hell for being gay). But there are still going to be some parts of the world that don't see it that way.

And once you leave the wonder and protection of university, where will your safe space be? How prepared are the people who regularly turn to safe spaces to deal with those who disagree with them, even if it's something as insane as thinking you're go to hell just for being yourself?

I get why safe spaces exist, and I lament the reason why they have to exist in the first place, but I wonder long term how well it prepares people to deal with the outside world.

People who go to safe spaces go there because they know how other parts of the world work. No one spends every moment in a safe space. They may experience verbal or potentially physical abuse or torment in daily life, so they turn to safe spaces to get an occasional reprieve.

A safe space can allow a trans person to get a support system they can turn to, instead of say, committing suicide to escape abuse or torment. Something that a lot of the LGBTQ community turn to.

 

[RM8]

who gets to decide that a pro-LGBT parade is fine, but not an anti-LGBT.

This is super easy - the parade that is an attack on a group of people is not fine. There are no "two sides" to this particular issue.

 

[sonicmj1]

This is still a very difficult concept for me to grasp. No matter how much I read I can't figure out the necessity of a safe space...

Is it just to protect people from violence?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting as an example of a safe space.

Not in the sense of needing help or anything like that, but in the sense of being a space where people who share the same issues can go and share their problems without being judged for who they are. Their other friends or family might not understand what being a recovering addict is like, and might judge them for talking about things that they don't understand. But around a group of like-minded people, they can be open with themselves, and see that they aren't alone in the battles they fight.

So to take this outside of the realm of addiction (which is certainly not a perfect comparison), if you're a woman and you face problems specific to your gender (anything from day-to-day romantic troubles to sexual harassment to dealing with the aftermath of rape), a safe space would give you a place to go talk about those problems without worrying about someone who doesn't understand intruding and being actively unhelpful (intentionally or not).

You can't make the whole world a safe space, because all kinds of people have to share it. But I think it's valuable to have spaces like that available, and there are broader principles of respectful communication contained within this idea which should be encouraged everywhere. No matter where you are, you should be respectful of the people around you, of their experiences and their feelings. That doesn't mean running from disagreement, it just means being fair. I think that's what NeoGAF moderation tries to enforce.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Opinions can per definition not be "incorrect". When something can be objectively proven right or wrong it's an assertion.

Utterly wrong, opinions can be and are wrong all the time. This is the definition of "opinion" by Merriam-Wester:

a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing

Basically everything you think, from whether your shoelaces are tied to how life came to be on Earth, is an opinion. Some may be easier to verify than others, but the virtual majority of them either are true or not. I think the word you are looking for is not "opinion", but "preference".

In any case, you should always avoid using "per definition" as an argument.

 

[Dalibor68]

This is super easy - the parade that is an attack on a group of people is not fine. There are no "two sides" to this particular issue.

What constitutes an "attack"? Unless they do something that's against the law (like registering a protest called "Kill the Gays!"), they have every right to protest. And you have every right to counter-protest in a positive way, which is usually what happens here at least.

 

[Bl@de]

i cant take this shit any more. safe spaces for what?
who is taking shelter from whom?
the whole internet culture is going batshit for last 6 years.

Beats me. Let's protect everyone from everything or someone somewhere might end up offended.

 

[Cartman86]

The thing I find most difficult with all this is the conflating of all progressive "SJW" ideas together. As if safe spaces fall into the same camp as the banning of controversial speakers, or protesting in the middle of a classroom when another student answers a question with something you disagree with (can even be objectively harmful or wrong). All of these ideas and actions are not equal to each other. The specific targeting of safe spaces seems to strange to me.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I just wanna talk about videogames...

Congratulations. You're completely free to do it.

You didn't even have to come to this thread you know. There are plenty of threads where you can only discuss about videogames.

Not trying to be snarky or anything, but seriously.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I just wanna talk about videogames...

Who is stopping you?

 

[Izuna]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting as an example of a safe space.

Not in the sense of needing help or anything like that, but in the sense of being a space where people who share the same issues can go and share their problems without being judged for who they are. Their other friends or family might not understand what being a recovering addict is like, and might judge them for talking about things that they don't understand. But around a group of like-minded people, they can be open with themselves, and see that they aren't alone in the battles they fight.

So to take this outside of the realm of addiction (which is certainly not a perfect comparison), if you're a woman and you face problems specific to your gender (anything from day-to-day romantic troubles to sexual harassment to dealing with the aftermath of rape), a safe space would give you a place to go talk about those problems without worrying about someone who doesn't understand intruding and being actively unhelpful (intentionally or not).

You can't make the whole world a safe space, because all kinds of people have to share it. But I think it's valuable to have spaces like that available, and there are broader principles of respectful communication contained within this idea which should be encouraged everywhere. No matter where you are, you should be respectful of the people around you, of their experiences and their feelings. That doesn't mean running from disagreement, it just means being fair. I think that's what NeoGAF moderation tries to enforce.

See this is where I get confused. A community or place of healing as such is a great thing. No one can walk into an AA meeting and act like a prat, because they will be excused, nor should they want to.

But at the same time, if someone acts that same way which is unacceptable outside of the AA meeting, they should still be (in a University environment) punished.

Clubs etc. are already exclusive. I think of the typical US high school movie where people sit down in different groups. As if there was an LGBT table. If someone harasses that table then they should get in trouble. Anything that isn't against school policy or just common morality, wouldn't fly anywhere.

I think I need to see an example of someone triggering or harassing and yet somehow won't face disciplinary action. I can't really think of much.

 

[RM8]

What constitutes an "attack"? Unless they do something that's against the law (like registering a protest called "Kill the Gays!"), they have every right to protest. And you have every right to counter-protest in a positive way, which is usually what happens here at least.

One group wants equal rights and treatment, the other group wants the other group to not get equal rights and treatment. It's pretty transparent, really. This is one of those things where "two sides" absolutely don't apply. No one will ever protest straight marriage, straight adoption, straight media, etc.

 

[voodoopanda]

The article is asking if Destructoid should be a safe space and censor their editorials/cater to their audience so "you do not have to run the risk of feeling challenged, criticized, or potentially made to feel less than perfect." It doesn't say anything about comment sections.

I wouldn't be surprised if the comment section fills up with people saying Destructoid shouldn't be a safe space, don't coddle us, we're adults etc. Vast majority votes no on being a safe space.

Then Destructoid announces it isn't a safe space, so posts a ton of articles all criticizing video games on sexist/racist/social justice issues. Articles that challenge and criticize video games & their audience.

It makes more sense then them announcing "we're not a safe space, so we'll only publish fluff pieces about video games and avoid all serious subjects" ?

 

[Garrett Hawke]

What constitutes an "attack"? Unless they do something that's against the law (like registering a protest called "Kill the Gays!"), they have every right to protest. And you have every right to counter-protest in a positive way, which is usually what happens here at least.

Homophobia kills people every single year. Just because you're not throwing punches doesn't mean you're not contributing to violence. Hateful rhetoric is violence.

 

[Dalibor68]

One group wants equal rights and treatment, the other group wants the other group to not get equal rights and treatment. It's pretty transparent, really. This is one of those things where "two sides" absolutely don't apply. No one will ever protest straight marriage, straight adoption, straight media, etc.

Sure, you're not wrong, but that does not remove their right to protest, as long as they don't go against the law.

Homophobia kills people every single year. Just because you're not throwing punches doesn't mean you're not contributing to violence. Hateful rhetoric is violence.

There is a why reason western civlization got rid of natural law.

 

[Coffee Dog]

One group wants equal rights and treatment, the other group wants the other group to not get equal rights and treatment. It's pretty transparent, really. This is one of those things where "two sides" absolutely don't apply. No one will ever protest straight marriage, straight adoption, straight media, etc.

He isn't saying that the side is valid, he's saying what makes a protest an act of violence.

 

[Sianos]

Agreed. However, the other issue is that there are people who will use any excuse they can to assume they are being ridiculed or compartmentalized. Like, for example, saying that women are treated unfairly and misrepresented in video games - something I agree with. But then proceeding to write an article condemning those who enjoy those types of games is something Destructoid has done in the past.

They actually had an article blasting Atlus for having Morgana's face being moved on the box art for Persona 5 despite not reaching out to Atlus themselves for the reasoning behind this (which was to avoid Morgana's face from being blocked by the ESRB logo). With all due respect to Destructoid, I don't feel the presumptuous behavior of some of their writers could handle a "safe space".

I agree with you. It is important for the health of a movement that members ensure that rhetoric remains focused and doesn't fall into clickbait nonsense that disingenuous detractors will attempt to use to frame the entire movement in a negative light. It is also important to recognize that all criticism is not an attempt to publicly humiliate and stifle people based on their tastes or opinions, as Jonathan Holmes has failed to do.

I personally look at the intent and goals of a movement: for example, just because there a few self-proclaimed feminists who hate transgendered people does not mean that feminism as a whole can be delegitimized by pointing at those few extremists. Likewise, for Gamergate a few people who genuinely do care about ethics in game journalism and claim to be aligned with them cannot be used as a shield to justify the behavior of their rampant harassment campaigns.

 

[makingmusic476]

So tell me, do you want Destructoid to become a "safe space", where you do not have to run the risk of feeling challenged, criticized, or potentially made to feel less than perfect?

This is supposed to be sarcasm, but it seems that the author is the one having problems with being challenged, criticized, or potentially made to feel less than perfect.

People didn't like what I had to say. Waaaaah.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Sure, you're not wrong, but that does not remove their right to protest, as long as they don't go against the law.



There is a why reason western civlization got rid of natural law.

There is also a reason why some western countries have hate speech laws.

 

[RM8]

Sure, you're not wrong, but that does not remove their right to protest, as long as they don't go against the law.

I'm just saying it's not difficult at all to see which kind of parade is okay and which one is not. Maybe you have the right to protest against black people, but that wouldn't mean it's fine, and it'd be odd to treat this as a conflict with two sides since only one side is being hateful.