Support NeoGAF

[hey_it's_that_dog]

This game only included vaginas which I thought was reasonable given the point of the game was to teach women how to masturbate. It was pointed out to me that not all women have vaginas and I will admit right here in front of everyone that this came as a big shock to me. Some people called the game exclusionary because it did not take into account the existence of transexuals.

Is this really how this all started? That's unfortunate.

I actually agree with him on a certain facet of this particular point: The game was designed for "women" with "vaginas" to learn how to masturbate. Basically, an operational manual for the physical vagina. If you don't have one, no matter what you identify as, then this game is not aimed at helping you. Patricia Hernandez claims that's "exclusionary" which of course is the worst thing anything can be. But wait a minute, by that standard of "exclusion," literally everything in the world is exclusionary because everything in the world is not intended for everyone in the world. Any information, object, whatever, that targets a specific kind of person is exclusionary.

I get that gender issues are much more sensitive than, say, height issues (I feel excluded from certain fashions because I'm not tall enough!) but I can't see it as reasonable to take offense at what amounts to a vagina ownership manual. A trans woman who does not have a vagina does not need this manual because presumably they know how to operate their penis, if they still have it. Would a trans woman really be insulted that this game about vaginas exists? Is that a justifiable position?

If the issue is that this vagina ownership manual should be using state-of-the-art post-modern scholarship feminist approved language, then that too is completely unreasonable. The average person is not obligated to extensively educate themselves in the current lingo and theory of modern critical studies. They are merely obligated not to intentionally hurt people's feelings. I think this masturbation game meets that standard.

This is all pretty tangential to the Gabe issue, but I had these thoughts kicking around about this masturbation game and this seemed like a good place to dump them.

 

[Sqorgar]

I see now your definition of justice is if the person in the wrong doesn't perceive he's being wrong then he should be set off scot-free.

He's not WRONG. He's just ignorant. He's allowed to think whatever he wants to think, no matter how ill informed it is. Nothing he said was meant to be insulting. It was offensive only in how it went against the viewpoints of the trans community - but their viewpoints are not so fundamentally right that they can't be full of shit too. That's why the right to disagree is so important.

With that I've had enough arguing, if you think the last poster is the one that wins then good job dude.

It's not about "winning". You can win an argument and still be wrong. It's about creating an environment where people aren't terrified of engaging in a discussion for fear of reprisal.

 

[marrec]

They're probably planning a kickstarter to provide quality Gabe apologies.

At the $5,000 dollar level you can personally write Mike's next apology to a minority.

 

[OneEightZero]

Hitting wires.

Kotaku - Indie Developer Pulls Out Of PAX, Citing Penny Arcade Controversies

Eurogamer - Gone Home to stay home: The Fullbright Company boycotts PAX due to organisers' stance on "a number of issues."

 

[FStop7]

Their forum admin backed out on a promise he made for Child's Play until forum members started calling them on it.

Which admin? Cardboard Tube? That would be disappointing - Tube's always seemed a pretty OK guy to me. Given that both he and Bish are in the UK I've always imagined they secretly work together.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Well considering he isn't even really in the wrong here, I have no doubt he's not really sincere. He has no reason to be.

Then maybe he should double down on his ignorant views, which you apparently choose to share, instead of giving an insincere apology?

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

As someone signed up to do two panels at the upcoming PAX Prime (both about LGBTQ issues), I'm really torn on this. Part of me feels like I should pull myself from the event on that level, but on the other side, I think the best thing to do is to continue to use the chance that PAX provides me to help educate people on the issues that are important.

And, to be clear, my mixed emotions don't come from whatever Gabe/Mike has said on Twitter—it comes from the PAX AUS panel that has been approved and which—at least partially—goes directly against the panels I am a part of and greatly believe in. (Not to mention the other panels that have gone on at PAX which also talk about the importance of inclusiveness in the gaming community.)

Do your panel, let those guys do their panel. People can check both and form an educated opinion in their own. That's the great thing of having a variety and even opposing points of view, people can listen both and reach a conclusion on their own. If you think your arguments are more sound and reasonable you have nothing to fear.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

Hitting wires.

Kotaku - Indie Developer Pulls Out Of PAX, Citing Penny Arcade Controversies

Eurogamer - Gone Home to stay home: The Fullbright Company boycotts PAX due to organisers' stance on "a number of issues."

Excellent. This is the kinda publicity that they needed to help make this point stick.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

He's not WRONG. He's just ignorant. He's allowed to think whatever he wants to think, no matter how ill informed it is. Nothing he said was meant to be insulting. It was offensive only in how it went against the viewpoints of the trans community - but their viewpoints are not so fundamentally right that they can't be full of shit too. That's why the right to disagree is so important.

I want to agree with this point with the explicit disclaimer that people should not assume I agree with everything else Sqorgar has said. I mean, I agree with the trans community's right to take offense, and I do think Gabe's thinking on the subject is insufficiently nuanced, but anyway...

A person on any side of a social issue is capable of overreaching, illogical thinking, selective perception, witch hunting, mischaracterizing their opponents, etc. For this reason, no one's stance should be treated as unassailable. Just because someone believes in equality (which I do, which I think most people do) does not mean every argument they make is sound, every viewpoint they hold is correct, and everyone they identify as an opponent is wrong/bigoted/evil.

 

[Treefrog]

Good on them. It takes a lot of guts for a small company to fight and sacrifice for what matters to them.

 

[StevePharma]

Is it Steve GAYnor who is the gay guy on the team?

Because if true that would be some serious nomen est omen type shit if true . It was there all along fellow Thumb readers! (obviously joking here)

Seems like a well thought out personal decision from the team. I couldn't care either way about PA's opinions on anything but if the team expresses discomfort at showing at the convention they shouldn't go.

 

[mollipen]

So you are offended that PAX has given someone a platform on which they can discuss conflicting ideas, or that PAX doesn't agree with you completely in all things and shut out all competition for discussing these ideas?

I'm trying to write a proper and well-reasoned response, but in the state of sickness that I'm currently in, I can't.

So, basically, my issue is this: on a personal level, it upsets me that a convention that has always talked about being accepting of all types of gamers would accept a panel with wording that directly contradicts the struggle to make sure the gaming community is accepting of all types of gamers. I'm sure I take this more personally than I should due to the fact that inclusiveness is a personal point of interest of mine.

There's already too many people out there proclaiming that the struggle for inclusiveness in the gaming community is nonsense—I don't think the organizers of PAX should be given those voices a platform. If you want to say that I'm being unfair, that's fine, because maybe I am. But when you've got a group of white guys making a panel to say that there's too much being made by women or minorities in the community, that's not a panel I think should be supported. Not just because I disagree, but because events like PAX should be about bringing people together, not making argument that those wanting to bring more people together are being annoying.

My plan, as of now, is to go to PAX, do my best at talking about the issues I care about, and let these guys do their thing. As I tweeted to Gabe, I don't feel like I'm in a place to tell the organizers of PAX not to allow this panel—but that won't stop be from being disappointed on a personal level that it's going to be on the PAX AUS roster.

 

[ArjanN]

I'd prefer it if they'd given an actual release date in protest.

 

[marrec]

Excellent. This is the kinda publicity that they needed to help make this point stick.

I hope it leads to others reconsidering their panels. At this point I think it's obvious that Mike will always be the same person he was 3 years ago and the same person he is today.

 

[OneEightZero]

Gamasutra - Gone Home devs pull out of PAX Indie Megabooth

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Jerry is probably pissed at Mike now.

I dunno, Jerry's said his own fair share of dumb stuff. Like "bisexuality isn't real."

 

[Jenga]

I dunno, Jerry's said his own fair share of dumb stuff. Like "bisexuality isn't real."

that's pretty funny

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Which admin? Cardboard Tube? That would be disappointing - Tube's always seemed a pretty OK guy to me. Given that both he and Bish are in the UK I've always imagined they secretly work together.

Tube is a Kiwi, IIRC. But yeah.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

I'm trying to write a proper and well-reasoned response, but in the state of sickness that I'm currently in, I can't.

So, basically, my issue is this: on a personal level, it upsets me that a convention that has always talked about being accepting of all types of gamers would accept a panel with wording that directly contradicts the struggle to make sure the gaming community is accepting of all types of gamers. I'm sure I take this more personally than I should due to the fact that inclusiveness is a personal point of interest of mine.

There's already too many people out there proclaiming that the struggle for inclusiveness in the gaming community is nonsense—I don't think the organizers of PAX should be given those voices a platform. If you want to say that I'm being unfair, that's fine, because maybe I am. Not just because I disagree, but because events like PAX should be about bringing people together, not making argument that those wanting to bring more people together are being annoying.

Sorry to be doing so much devil's advocacy for the "bad" side here. I assure you I am much more in line with the social justice side than the "it's annoying! it's just games!" side.

Are you sure the panel is about how "all these feminists are annoying and the thought police are ruining our fun, etc?" If you believe strongly in your side, which obviously you do, it's very easy to demonize the other side and assume the worst about their motives.

But unless you believe that there are some social agendas that literally cannot be taken too far, that are truly infallible, then you have to accept at least the idea of opposition in a debate.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

Which admin? Cardboard Tube? That would be disappointing - Tube's always seemed a pretty OK guy to me. Given that both he and Bish are in the UK I've always imagined they secretly work together.

He's paying for it all now.

 

[doublenagger]

I'm trying to write a proper and well-reasoned response, but in the state of sickness that I'm currently in, I can't.

So, basically, my issue is this: on a personal level, it upsets me that a convention that has always talked about being accepting of all types of gamers would accept a panel with wording that directly contradicts the struggle to make sure the gaming community is accepting of all types of gamers. I'm sure I take this more personally than I should due to the fact that inclusiveness is a personal point of interest of mine.

There's already too many people out there proclaiming that the struggle for inclusiveness in the gaming community is nonsense—I don't think the organizers of PAX should be given those voices a platform. If you want to say that I'm being unfair, that's fine, because maybe I am. But when you've got a group of white guys making a panel to say that there's too much being made by women or minorities in the community, that's not a panel I think should be supported. Not just because I disagree, but because events like PAX should be about bringing people together, not making argument that those wanting to bring more people together are being annoying.

My plan, as of now, is to go to PAX, do my best at talking about the issues I care about, and let these guys do their thing. As I tweeted to Gabe, I don't feel like I'm in a place to tell the organizers of PAX not to allow this panel—but that won't stop be from being disappointed on a personal level that it's going to be on the PAX AUS roster.

so you feel uncomfortable about people who have an opposite opinion, but instead of confronting them, you want to silence them

i want to make sure i understand this right

am i right or not?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Good more people need to not go to Pax

Spoiler

So I can buy a ticket

 

[thumb]

Good less people need to not go to Pax

Spoiler

So I can buy a ticket

Watch that double negative.

 

[Alec]

I hadn't even heard of Gone Home until they decided to pull out of PAX. Mission accomplished?

 

[marrec]

so you feel uncomfortable about people who have an opposite opinion, but instead of confronting them, you want to silence them

i want to make sure i understand this right

am i right or not?

Opinions are not all created equal.

I don't think we should equate LGBT issues with that other panel. It'd be like having a Science convention and allowing a panel on why homeopathy is great.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Watch that double negative.

My brain worked against me

 

[Marcel]

Excellent. This is the kinda publicity that they needed to help make this point stick.

Don't read the Kotaku comments, though. Business as usual.

 

[aeolist]

Opinions are not all created equal.

I don't think we should equate LGBT issues with that other panel. It'd be like having a Science convention and allowing a panel on why homeopathy is great.

cable news networks have unfortunately conditioned people into thinking that everyone deserves equal time to present their opinions and nobody should say that any one of them is more valid than another

 

[doublenagger]

cable news networks have unfortunately conditioned people into thinking that everyone deserves equal time to present their opinions and nobody should say that any one of them is more valid than another

so instead we shut down the opposite side

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Opinions are not all created equal.

I don't think we should equate LGBT issues with that other panel. It'd be like having a Science convention and allowing a panel on why homeopathy is great.

As much as I read the description of that panel I fail to see how bad it is. Yeah, is questionable but without hearing it's arguments people are equating to a nazi propaganda.

 

[thumb]

As much as I read the description of that panel I fail to see how bad it is. Yeah, is questionable but without hearing it's arguments people are equating to a nazi propaganda.

Then argue with those people directly.

 

[aeolist]

so instead we shut down the opposite side

are you trying to say that straight cis white dudes don't have any places to voice their opinions about minorities demanding equality?

 

[Marcel]

so instead we shut down the opposite side

The climate skeptics are as valid as the climate scientists, right? In this case, it's okay to espouse ignorance, misunderstanding, and marginalization of human beings as long as it's done politely. Yep.

 

[megalowho]

Respect to Fullbright, that was a well written statement. Putting personal values over business partnerships that stand to compromise said values for members of the team is commendable.

 

[jooey]

Sqorgar, you and your oh-so-conveniently conditional arguments sound like part of the biggest problem I have with everything related to PA: the people who watch this crap happen, then ultimately shrug it off. Even when they're people who have "been on the business end of Gabe's wrath," they still basically enter the discussion with "yeah, he's a dick, but the other guys are cool! Plus they do this and this and this, so how can you get on their case like this?!" Because they keep letting the same guy fuck up. I have seen this same sentiment from other people burned by them and I just think, come on, what do they have on you? How can you construct basically intelligent arguments about this yet come off so tone-deaf about it?

You may argue that people ganging up on Mike won't change his mind, yet you simultaneously admit he has the mind of a child, which I agree with, and suggests that he's a hopeless case. (And he is, divorced of everything else.) And you may say that doesn't go unchecked internally because sometimes Jerry tries to clear things up, but I'm sure there's a part of you that understands why that rapidly stops being acceptable after multiple offenses. Two wrongs don't make a right, and neither do 900 of them from the same source.

So yeah, in this particular case, with this particular mountain of evidence, I think it's okay for a bunch of people to call out and attempt to hurt someone who says stupid things in public and rally other people to join them, especially when that someone has done very similar things since day one of them being famous. So he doesn't learn; fine, fuck him. The end goal shouldn't even be educating him, but educating those around him. For me it's not boycotting to try and keep money from them; I could give less than a shit about how much money they make. I just don't want to say any word or make any action that shows I like, support, or otherwise tolerate people I find to be consistently top-shelf annoying fucking assholes. Why do you?

 

[jordisok]

so instead we shut down the opposite side

The right to express your opinion doesn't deny people their right to criticise it.

 

[MYeager]

cable news networks have unfortunately conditioned people into thinking that everyone deserves equal time to present their opinions and nobody should say that any one of them is more valid than another

It's sort of hard to present an argument on if someone's opinion is valid or not if we aren't willing to allow them to even attempt to present that opinion. There are threads on Neogaf about topics that, to me, aren't really worth discussing. However I can choose not to participate in those discussions instead of going into the thread and telling everyone in there to be quiet (and not just because the latter is a bannable offense).

I don't see the problem with the panel, based on the title alone I wouldn't attend, however without knowing what they're discussing I can't just dismiss it as stupid either. Maybe they do have a compelling argument that I haven't thought of, or maybe they don't. There are multiple panels at various conventions where I've wondered the point of them, but never suggested that they be shut down.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

Don't read the Kotaku comments, though. Business as usual.

Of course, that goes without saying.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

The right to express your opinion doesn't deny people their right to criticise it.

People aren't just criticizing it, they are asking it that panel to be removed and those guys to be forbidden to express an opinion.

 

[The Blackrose]

so you feel uncomfortable about people who have an opposite opinion, but instead of confronting them, you want to silence them

i want to make sure i understand this right

am i right or not?

Where did she say this? In fact, she explicitly wrote that she was not in a position to do so.

Just as much as certain people feel they have a right that the AUS panel exists, she has just as much a right to personally feel disappointed that such a panel exists. However, she is not advocating what you are leading/implying.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

As much as I read the description of that panel I fail to see how bad it is. Yeah, is questionable but without hearing it's arguments people are equating to a nazi propaganda.

I agree. I'll admit I don't know too much about that panel, but from what I've read it seems like a very important one given the knee-jerk reaction, context-ignoring attitude some people have adopted these days. And some of the criticism I'm seeing of that panel in this very thread is only more proof of it.

 

[aeolist]

It's sort of hard to present an argument on if someone's opinion is valid or not if we aren't willing to allow them to even attempt to present that opinion. There are threads on Neogaf about topics that, to me, aren't really worth discussing. However I can choose not to participate in those discussions instead of going into the thread and telling everyone in there to be quiet (and not just because the latter is a bannable offense).

I don't see the problem with the panel, based on the title alone I wouldn't attend, however without knowing what they're discussing I can't just dismiss it as stupid either. Maybe they do have a compelling argument that I haven't thought of, or maybe they don't. There are multiple panels at various conventions where I've wondered the point of them, but never suggested that they be shut down.

i think shidoshi put it really well, having a panel which is basically entirely about denigrating the efforts of minority viewpoints to get some kind of equal representation in games isn't appropriate at a place that supposedly celebrates inclusiveness for a culture that has itself largely been ostracized and excluded

looking at the panel title, previous description, and composition i honestly don't understand how you could think it's anything other than that, and it's entirely inappropriate. end of story.

 

[aeolist]

People aren't just criticizing it, they are asking it that panel to be removed and those guys to be forbidden to express an opinion.

no, people are asking for it to be removed FROM A PRIVATE EVENT

they can still express their ridiculous views elsewhere, but they should not be at PAX. pressuring PA to do away with this kind of thing is no more censorial than boycotting companies that advertise on fox news, or boycotting chick-fil-a for supporting hate groups

 

[doublenagger]

The climate skeptics are as valid as the climate scientists, right? In this case, it's okay to espouse ignorance, misunderstanding, and marginalization of human beings as long as it's done politely. Yep.

debating with people doesn't mean you "espouse" them

are you trying to say that straight cis white dudes don't have any places to voice their opinions about minorities demanding equality?

that's not relevant though

The right to express your opinion doesn't deny people their right to criticise it.

you've got to be able to express yourself in the first place

 

[The Librarian]

Much respect for Fullbright. Hopefully others follow suit.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Personally I think that is kind of lame. Who gives a shit what Gabe says. I don't. I mean if proceeds from PAX went to fund anti-transgender legislation, sure boycott it. But someone says something offensive on twitter. Chill out.

It's true that most people don't (and probably shouldn't) boycott everyone who disagrees with them on anything. But I don't understand why you think someone should pay money to a small business run by a guy who you think is rude and says hurtful things to you. If you are a racial minority, should you patronize a small business run by a racist just because the proceeds from the business don't go to race-related issues? If you're not a racial minority, should you patronize a small business run by a racist just because the proceeds from the business don't go to race-related issues? The same goes across the board. In this case, this is a small business--really, it's two guys who are the owners and public faces of their business--and as the letter notes, this is like the 3rd or 4th time that they're saying something to make this dev team uncomfortable and like they don't want to do business with them.

I don't personally think that Gabe is hateful. I think that he is unaware of how he comes off and has a poor temper that he loses when he is challenged. He seems to want to respect others. So I don't think he's hateful, and I don't think he's transphobic. But if someone gets to the point where their temper and public behaviour constantly puts them in positions where they come off as bad... There's only so many times you get to say "I'm sorry I lost my temper." before it's time for people to require you to learn some self-control. This goes for any human. Most people aren't bad or hateful. Most people are at their worst when they get defensive and get in over their head. Which is why most people need to learn to be more temperate and cope better. Pointing fingers at the person who says "Look, I'm sure you're a good guy, but you've got a temper problem and I don't want to deal with it anymore" is blaming the wrong person.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

no, people are asking for it to be removed FROM A PRIVATE EVENT

they can still express their ridiculous views elsewhere, but they should not be at PAX. pressuring PA to do away with this kind of thing is no more censorial than boycotting companies that advertise on fox news, or boycotting chick-fil-a for supporting hate groups

But:

1.- Is PA decision for better or worse.

2.'I doubt they were a Hate group (probably just overly defensive nerds) and giving and compere them some sort of political power is also disengenious

 

[MYeager]

i think shidoshi put it really well, having a panel which is basically entirely about denigrating the efforts of minority viewpoints to get some kind of equal representation in games isn't appropriate at a place that supposedly celebrates inclusiveness for a culture that has itself largely been ostracized and excluded

looking at the panel title, previous description, and composition i honestly don't understand how you could think it's anything other than that, and it's entirely inappropriate. end of story.

The description I read of the panel appeared to question if some attacks, specifically the of the personal and professional nature, made against reviewers, developers and publishers had maybe gone too far and what is needed to collectively work towards a new gaming age.

Considering that Gabe has received death threats, I don't think that it's uncalled for to have a discussion about what need to be done to create a better environment of providing constructive feedback about the problems within the gaming industry that doesn't marginalize the frustration of minority viewpoints.

 

[marrec]

Can we all stop equating asking PAX to remove a panel to censorship. That's incorrect.

 

[MYeager]

Also to add, I don't know if there is a previous description that I'm unaware of that makes the panel sound worse than the current description.