BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I think it's pretty easy to see what pub he's talking about. He didn't do a very good job blurring out the name lol.
-
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.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
I think it's pretty easy to see what pub he's talking about. He didn't do a very good job blurring out the name lol.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Not sure it's appropriate to post it in the thread because he wanted to keep it private, but if anyone is dying to know you can PM me.
P.H. Perinax
Neo Member
Nine times out of ten those are the type of games that get the most attention. I am looking at the aspect of games as a business, and can you say that bombast from AAA developers doesn't get most of the press?
I mean, I don't see how it really makes a difference, it's still a REAL dirty example of sexual harassment.
Absolutely agree. I wouldn't dare to question that.
This is incredibly disingenuous of you, Boogie. conspiracyfag didn't derive its etymology from the British use, it came from the constant use of calling everyone on Chan's fag. Newfags, oldfags, conspiracyfags, all rooted in the homophobic slur of fag. You don't seriously think they're talking about cigarettes, nor does anyone else. It's part of the various chan's willingness to call each other awful shit, in the same way that they routinely use nigger, fag, tranny, and trap. Defend it and use it all you want, but you aren't fooling anyone by making callbacks to British smoking slang.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I lived near Liverpool for a few years and had several smoking friends and, shockingly, no one went "conspiracyfag" or "newfag," as far as I had heard.
Dictator93
Member
I guess this goes into some meta discussion about when a word is appropriated, disappropreiated, reappropreiated, parodied, etc...
Its obvious that it doesnt have to do with cigs though. I have no idea what the connotations are behind the word's use on 4chan (where they orginated) and sometimes find its link to homosexuality questionable though (at other times, obviously offensive). I mean, it is nearly attached to every propernoun on the website by a lot of users. Does the noun lose its meaning/ have an entirely different understanding then in that community? Just like... well a lot of lingo.
Questions.
The "the word isn't as much of a slur in this one place means it's not offensive anywhere" line of reasoning usually doesn't gather much wings.
I'm sure people that have emotionally abused all their lives with that word take comfort in that you're referencing the alternate name for a cigarette in a country across the ocean from them.
Words have meaning and weight behind them for a reason.
I'm sure people that have emotionally abused all their lives with that word take comfort in that you're referencing the alternate name for a cigarette in a country across the ocean from them.
Words have meaning and weight behind them for a reason.
People form sub-cultures with their own rules so they can be freed from general morals and manners. 4chan is the fortress of manbabies who believe their civil rights include not giving a fuck about anyone or anything and being as offensive towards minorities as possible. I spit in their general dorection.
It's probably been posted but this is a fantastic post:
https://plus.google.com/+DavidHillJr/posts/fT3tNRVWL3o
https://plus.google.com/+DavidHillJr/posts/fT3tNRVWL3o
The "fag" argument reminds me of people saying "nigger" to talk about lazy people yet never using the term to describe non-blacks, context is important but just because you decide to go all "When in Rome" it doesnt mean that the rules of the broader society are not valid anymore, I honestly dont know what is worse Boogie, using a slur that offends and instantly brings memory of years of abuse that continues to this day to people, or saying in such a casual paternalistic way that they have no right feeling offended and are, in fact, lunatics for not understanding some new meaning you just pulled out of your ass.
Its part of the conversation but I think it deserves a new thread.
Its part of the conversation but I think it deserves a new thread.
Palette Swap
Member
OT but having a dick picture in the YouTube preview picture on my mobile browser is a bit unwelcome. I guess I should turn off YouTube previewing.
Agreed on both counts.
Also, very interesting to see when perusing this hashtag dedicated to ethics in the games industry (specifically the journalism that covers it). That there there seems to be no one talking about this incident. Wonder if that has anything to do with the genders involved? Surely that is not possible...
Yeah, I've heard a few stories from women I know in games media. One woman I know told me when she was younger and running a blog she usually got review copies sent from various publishers. One time, she was told to pick the game up at the home of one of the guys who handled sending out the games. A bit strange, but she kind of knew who he was and didn't think much about it. When she got there and picked up the game, he pushed her up against the wall in a threatening way, trying to block her way out, but she managed to get out of here.
Also heard of a girl working in media who played BF a lot, over time she made some contacts with people over at DICE and one guy from the dev team tried to hit on her repeatedly, kept bothering her about going out on a date, sent her shirtless pics etc. Not a dick pic, but still.
Opinionatedfish
Member
Are you referring to their privacy policies, terms of service, or licensing agreements?
Because those are different from a code of ethics, which should be in the About section, mission statement, a section all of it's own, or in an FAQ page. Often, these are on the bottom of the pages.
Example: Here is Kotaku's "code of ethics."
Giant Bomb doesn't have one. They have links to the CBSi guidelines, but those are legal disclaimers and not a mission statement/code of ethics. CBS does, however, have a set code of conduct and ethics that is clearly defined and available here. Go to Pages 7 and 8 of their ethics guidelines. There is an interesting subset in there on disclosure. For example: you must disclose (internally and sometimes publicly) if you are:
SiliconEra is owned by Curse. They have a mission statement but no defined code of ethics or conduct.
Anime News Network (the largest Anime related site) has an FAQ that defines their standard operation procedures (code of conduct) and even has a lexicon dictionary for their internal terms.
Cartoon Brew, a relatively large animation related site, has disclosures in their about page. But no clearly defined ethics stance.
The Escapist has a clearly defined ethics code now and it is available here.
IGN, owned by Ziff Davis, has no clear ethics policy available for view on their site. Nor does Ziff Davis provide one on their site. There is an internal code of conduct for some of their brands, but nothing available for public view. Ziff Davis has been at the forefront of scandals involving ads and frequently cited by the ASBPE as an example of "crossing ethical lines." However, Ziff Davis can be noted for backing off on some of their more unethical ad practices. For those wondering, here's the ASBPE.
Well, those are examples of the idea. It's murky. It is my opinion that individual employees should also disclose in their bios, which unions and standards they adhere to or are part of. Example: I am a member of the RTDNA and use their ethics code. I also hold a membership to the ESA. I was one of the minor shareholders who approved of the Ziff Davis sale. Although, I no longer hold any stock in IGN or it's parent companies.
So, there's a lot of interesting stuff to go through on that. However, #GamerGate was not made as a push for journalistic ethics. It's the name of the alleged "five guys" scandal and is attached to those allegations. It has been co-opted by people who do not want to be viewed as awful human beings though.
Given the nature of the hashtag, I would say that #YesGamer would be a more appropriate hashtag, but no one is going to use it.
CambriaRising
Member
This needs its own thread. Absolutely disgusting.
First thanks for considering my health, you are awesome. feeling a ton better than last week so lets see where this leads us.
I hope that you understand that the sentiment I am attempting to express here is not window dressing. It is as real to me as my own body is real to me. I would swear on anything you can name that I say this things with honesty and sincerity.
I am not saying you do not feel it is real. I am saying the impression is that it is a sort of defense mechanism you use in order to avoid direct confrontation, even when direct confrontation is sort of necessary.
I want to of course distinguish between negative confrontation and positive confrontation. I don't mean that you need to get into a fighting mode where you lash out at the offender. I simply mean a willingness to put yourself out on a limb, drop the pretense and simply say what you mean without having to couch it in saccharine rainbow language about how sweet and kind you hope the world is and how you'll continue preaching sweetness and kindness throughout eternity.
Saying "I will never stop preaching kindness" is not, for example, something that is particularly relevant to this discussion. Nobody has taken issue with expressions of kindness. Nobody has ever said that kindness is wrong, and certainly those against the #gamergate hashtag are not against sweet, kind and gentle individuals.
We understand you want this, as I take you post at face value. But this does not take away from the very serious issues now arising from your posts. While I continue, I want you to consider carefully that you are an internet personality who is in no way facing the magnitude of shite Zoe Quinn or Leigh Alexander is facing, and even you find it overwhelming. From the start, knowing #gamergate started on hateful misogynistic premises, it should already make you empathetic to their situation (which you said this topic has made you cognizant of), and it should allow you the start of a perspective on why this is as bad as it is.
So, to the heart of things:
You're delving into the deep end now perhaps, but that was an inconsistency with the posts we were discussing. Obviously if you disavow that statement and say you want to engage seriously, then it's not important to keep dredging up that element of your words. We're all human, we change our minds and our courses all the time. No harm, no foul.
But the second paragraph is where people keep sensing the deeper problems that go into your rationality here. From the second #gamergate existed as a "movement", it was used as a catalyst to bludgeon innocent females in the industry and post some of the most abhorrent, misogynistic shit ever seen in this industry. It would not be an overstatement to suggest it has frightened thousands of females in this industry, making it extremely clear just how dangerous it is to speak out or have an opinion that is in any way controversial.
So, let's take this element alone. It's not really disputable that this hashtag was started as a movement as a hatchet against ZOE Quinn. It is doubly no surprise, given its origins, that it has been used to profoundly damage indie developers, the very developers who most need our help and are almost certainly less able to corrupt mainstream game media by the very nature of their relative lack of influence. Further, it continually is used as a rallying cry to try to tell game journalists to quiet down on their social commentary, which is contrary to every bullshit creedo that the #gamergate people pretend their movement is about.
The second you start breaking down every element of this nonsense movement, you begin to see the problem. In nearly every way imaginable, it is being used as a force for horrific negativity and damaging attitudes toward every corner of this industry. Far from being inclusive, it demands exclusions of whole portions of perspectives. Far from being kind and sweet, it is dominated by people who insult and demean and hate. Far from being able to motivate real change, it has resulted in a veritable war between those who have misogynistic/hateful tendencies, and those who want change but refuse to hop on board any flaming train car that passes by just to say you did.
So, let's take it from the perspective of you, who says
In each of these categories, #gamergate fails. What utility therefore do you have being associated with it? What element of the movement are you latching onto? You may personally have motivations that have nothing to do with any of that, yet people are going to judge you by the fact that you willfully associate with that and have no problem being represented by that hashtag and what it has come to mean.
Put it another way. Let's say tomorrow you started using the ISIS flag as your twitter header and your header in your blog. Let's say you used it as the icon for your youtube videos. Now, you could make a very simple argument in support of it. You could say "I am just a very faithful individual, and all La ‘ilaha ‘illa-llah means is "There is no God but God." Harmless, right? But then you start considering the context from which people are now going to view that stance, when taken in light of the larger picture of world events. What happens then? Right, what happens is it dawns on you that association with such a tainted flag at this moment in time is counterproductive. It is currently representing hate and violence. It is not something a responsible person would do considering.
But, the most troubling aspect of your post is as follows:
Boogie, I don't think you realize how profoundly upsetting this is. Please, consider for a moment what it was like again to be that tormented child, suffering neglect and pain from people you love and people in school. Consider what it meant when people used heavy language that was personally extra hurtful to you individually - about your weight or whatever - and what that sort of language means in any specific context.
Now, consider what you just said again. You're telling people who are LGBT to simply accept that hateful language, despite all the negative flood of association that flies in their face the second they hear it, because it's convenient "popular" lingo in a place you go to. Do you realize how bad that sounds Boogie? That is as contrary to "doing the right thing even when it's hard" as it can be. That's trying to fit in just to fit in. Boogie, you're better than that. You're smarter than that. You have more empathy than that. You have got to step outside yourself and start considering the power of language and the right others have to claim offense when that language has so heavy a history.
You keep saying such extreme things like "to imply otherwise is lunacy" but, my friend, the real lunacy is trying to compare such usage with the UK use of "fag." Context is very important, and the heft a word has will variously be more or less negative depending on such context. It is literally impossible to divorce such a thing from context, and given how smart you are, I am sure you can suss this out on you own. These aren't complex scenarios.
More than anything you have said or done, boogie, this has genuinely disappointed me. It says you have a shade less empathy than you let on, and in fact have perhaps been corrupted in some way by the way you grew up. Maybe it's a desire to fit in, to always be as inoffensive as possible to any given group. Maybe it's a desire not to lose the character of the industry as it is, because it's part of your identity.
But whatever it is, this is bad Boogie. There's a lot of problematic angles with your posts and most are just differences in perspective, as much as I disagree at times. This, however, is just... seriously messed up. In no way can I find a defense of this that makes any sense. This is just you trying to fit in man, at the expense of others. Think about that and how that makes you feel. But more importantly, think about how it makes others feel. Real empathy means understanding what it means to be someone else.
I just want to thank Amir0x for his most recent post. As a gay individual, it really bothers me when people throw around homophobic slurs, and it saddens me when they won't stop using them. It makes me feel unloved and less than human, because it should be a basic courtesy to stop using a term most often used for hate and violence.
So thanks, Amir0x, I appreciate you calling out the use of a homophobic slur. Makes me feel better.
So thanks, Amir0x, I appreciate you calling out the use of a homophobic slur. Makes me feel better.
I just want to thank Amir0x for his most recent post. As a gay individual, it really bothers me when people throw around homophobic slurs, and it saddens me when they won't stop using them. It makes me feel unloved and less than human, because it should be a basic courtesy to stop using a term most often used for hate and violence.
So thanks, Amir0x, I appreciate you calling out the use of a homophobic slur. Makes me feel better.
If I could, I'd take all that hate out of this world. Alas, we'll have to settle for just being good to each other here
Intheflorsh
Banned
It doesn't matter. 4chan isn't in a vacuum. Anyone on the internet can see what they post.
This. While it might not be a big deal to me because I am straight, to LGBT people, those words have caused a lot of suffering.
I hesitated in replying to this post because I don't want to add to the anxiety or stress that your involvement in #GamerGate has caused you.
But I don't recall anyone calling you a "bad person" for describing Sommer's views as logical. You were criticised by me and others. But there is a difference between being criticised and being called a "bad person".
For my own part, my criticism of your tweet could definitely have been more constructive and I was unnecessarily combative in my response. So I apologise for that.
But I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that you're a bad person. I also don't think that it's healthy to frame criticism in that way.
Don't call people fags please.
Anyway, I hope that you're less stressed than you were.
A weird thing I see a lot is that people get really annoyed when a group makes some term "off limits" because of its negative associated history. Arguments include "why can they say the term but not me" and "words have power only if you allow them to" and other such nonsense.
For some reason, when people point out that some words are offensive and people should refrain from using them in any context but an explanatory one (i.e. why NOT to use it), people think they're being punished or something. It's a really weird phenomenon.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I usually see it as people who have had freedom to literally do anything they want their whole life finally having to face reality where they have to be thoughtful and empathetic towards others.
Not to detract from the discussion, but Julian Assange is involved now.
oh lawd...
Damn man... sorry that you had to deal with that. I'm all for people being laid back and joking, but people have to understand that there are lines when interfacing with people and it's not the same as being on stage and doing a comedy bit.
It's really sad so many people are so intent on stubbornly refusing to "change" to anyone's advice that they will stick with something so negative just because. It compels people like Boogie to argue, seriously, that he's just using the "native language" of the website as if that makes it OK. There was another forum for people who got rejected from neoGAF - banned most of the time - and people there used the most vile language imaginable. Now one can say that's just a "ha ha" internet clique meme shit, but in reality it's simply an excuse for these folk to be able to say whatever colorful nonsense they like and face no repercussions. That's the way they like it. They think "social progress" is a net negative, and refute any attempts to move the need forward in the name of said progress.
To me it's no surprise 4chan is one of the places at the forefront of this so-called "movement", because it's a den of people who attempt to reject social conventions and hide behind the fact it's just message board noise to try to argue it's OK. They're just really sad individuals, most of the time.
As I said before, and I think you'd back me up on this, I have always been a super vocal critic of games journalism, and got into my active debates with journalists on this website and elsewhere. I am practically known for my all-encompassing industry criticism. And yet, I won't touch this hashtag and never will. I hope that for some people this alone is enough to show how bad associating with this tag is. It's so bad I can't even pretend the so-called "principles" that keep being claimed for it are worth the damage it is doing.
As someone who grew up in London I'm glad you pointed out the context is extremely important. It's true the word is used for cigs right across the UK and Ireland but it's most common in London, however given it's used by smokers in person there's no confusing the context of it's use. Gay Londoners are as likely to say "giz a fag" as any straight Londoner would but the context is blindingly obvious. It annoys me no end when I see people say "well they say fag in the UK" because it's a stupid way of justifying a very hateful slur.
And in UK, I'm sure if someone went to a gay individual and called him the word in the other context, people would understand that was wrong and hurtful. Similarly, whether on 4chan or on any other dirty underbelly of this internet, if you have to compromise your values to 'fit in' with the group, then it's wrong. Boogie says he uses the language simply because that's the popular lingo on 4chan. It is difficult to convey just how fucked up that reasoning is. That shows the dark underside of always trying to be non-confrontational: sometimes, in order to do that, you have to do morally reprehensible things. You have to compromise yourself. Boogie wants to fit in on 4chan and he's willing to compromise himself to do that.
I want to continue believing Boogie means well and that he is as worthy of my previous positive comments about him as an individual I made on neoGAF in the past. Previously, I suggested I admired the way he overcame the persecution of his childhood. When you watch this video of his, one gets the sense of an incredibly sensitive individual who genuinely has dealt with a ton of horrible shit and has found his way to overcome it through the gaming community. I really admired him for this. This is the type of thing we as gamers could gather around and support each other for. So many of us have suffered when we were young for being who we are.
This should inspire mass empathy, and we should be as inclusive as possible. If Boogie can watch this video and see the pain in his own voice, for being hurt by those who loves and being excluded by his peers, I hope he can then apply those very real very raw feelings to the way other people might feel when they have to hear this sort of language like "conspiracyfags." How can one as sensitive as Boogie seemingly is not be aware of that being the same thing by another name that made him such a tortured individual as a child?
conspiracy nutters will also do
It's confusing when someone says they're spreading love and acceptance and then insists on using the most hurtful phrase they can for a situation.
"Love!". So instead of "Can I have a cigarette", "Borrow a light?" "Got a cig? I'll pay you back.", you choose option D, "Can I have a fag?" because.. why? Any other reason than the reaction/attention it gets?
"Love!". So instead of "Can I have a cigarette", "Borrow a light?" "Got a cig? I'll pay you back.", you choose option D, "Can I have a fag?" because.. why? Any other reason than the reaction/attention it gets?
MHWilliams
Member
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
The word fag is rooted in a history of oppression. It was used to dehumanize people to justify extremely violent and inhuman acts against them. That is the context of the word when used to describe another person.
I understand the case for re-appropriation, but I find 4chan's use of it is more along the lines of "everyone sucks as much as fags" more than a term of endearment. 4chan isn't exactly known for its positiveness, so when they use such a word as a meme, it is hard to take it as a positive use of the word.
But even if it was a positive use of the word, I don't think the LGBT community as a whole has settled on how to re-appropriate that word, or even if they should. Just like the n-word, it's pretty much left up to to the people oppressed by the word to decide the word's fate. It's not really 4chan's or your place to deem when the word is offensive and when it's not.
Even with re-appropriated words, the use of them is always more limited than 4chan's use of the word "fag". For instance a feminist referring to a room of feminist as "bitches" is generally ok if used in a celebratory way and it's ok for a feminist to call another woman a "bitch" if you know she's up for it, but even a feminist should probably not ever use it in a negative way, or use it without knowing the other person is probably ok with it.
Personally, the word "fag" has been used against me in a negative way growing up, and it has greatly affected me. I don't ever want anyone to use that word to personally refer to me ever again. Period. The negative context is just rooted in my brain in a way that will never change. I have no problem with other gay people using it between each other, and using it in a generalized fashion can be ok along those same lines with enough care given to how it's done, but if a gay person personally called me that, I'd strongly let him or her know to never do that again for me personally, and we'd continue on.
With the anonymity of 4chan there is no way to keep track of who is OK with being called a fag, and who is not. There is no way for me to opt out of it like I might in personal conversation.
Now, I know just because you used the word doesn't mean you're homophobic, and it's fair to make a mistake and do something you didn't know was inappropriate. I just ask you learn from it and try not to do it again.
Heh, no man. "Fag" is the actual word people in UK use for cigarettes, it's no negative connotation when used in that context. But I don't think Boogie is British nor is the use of the term here - "conspiracyfag" - the appropriate context for that sort of use.
The more I read boogie on this, the more confused I get as to where his defense is. I am trying to see it, find some way to give him the benefit of the doubt. I really hope he comes here and tries to explain it one last time, despite the fact that it seems boogie is not really enjoying all this heat. I think it is important that he really considers the power his words has as a sort of important figure in this industry. We need to have people in such a position represent the best of us. We need to expect better
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
oops, meant to edit, somehow reposted.
Interfectum
Member
This thread is making me want to smoke a conspiracycigarette.
Moon_frogger
Member
you're well liked on here man. This is a hot topic issue that you stuck yourself squarely in the middle of, of course you're going to see some crossfire. I've never even seen any of your videos outside of one francis video and I think you're a great person, although I'm not surprised you've taken so much shit for supporting gamergate. Obviously you're very broken up by all the negative attention you've received and I can't even imagine the pressure from that. Try to think about how some of these industry woman are being ceaselessly harassed by people flashing the gamergate and notyourshield tag though. it's disgusting to watch and really, how badly do you feel the need to associate with this hashtag? You have a lot of followers. Preach your message and people will hear it either way.
boogie2988
Banned
In the hopes that we can stop discussing whether or not a word is usable in proper context and return to the proper topic of this thread I'll concede this;
You guys make a very strong case that using that word, even in proper context, is harmful and I should sincerely reconsider doing so going forward. I'll do exactly that. It is dismissive of me to not realize that some people can be offended by that word even when used in a context I feel is proper and I sincerely should be careful about such things.
My most sincere apologies to anyone who was actually hurt by that statement. It certainly was not my intent, but that doesn't prevent it from actually causing pain. In the case that it did I am truly remorseful. I don't know why I'd have to say that, because it should be very obvious I would feel that way, but I've said it none the less.
Is it possible now to get back on topic?
You guys make a very strong case that using that word, even in proper context, is harmful and I should sincerely reconsider doing so going forward. I'll do exactly that. It is dismissive of me to not realize that some people can be offended by that word even when used in a context I feel is proper and I sincerely should be careful about such things.
My most sincere apologies to anyone who was actually hurt by that statement. It certainly was not my intent, but that doesn't prevent it from actually causing pain. In the case that it did I am truly remorseful. I don't know why I'd have to say that, because it should be very obvious I would feel that way, but I've said it none the less.
Is it possible now to get back on topic?
boogie2988
Banned
Point considered and digested. I'll try to be more careful with my words going forward. While I understood that the majority of people would understand its contextual use, it is dismissive of me to not consider the ones who would not as a public figure. I would never mean to do any harm to anyone and I hope that goes without saying.
Many of the words you've used in your post I would never use for that reason and I see no reason I can't add the F word to that list, if it would prevent someone from being harmed in the future.
boogie2988
Banned
Just in case those last few posts seem insincere let me say this instead.
My entire goal for my role in media continues to be preaching inclusivity, kindness, and love. I am not perfect, but that is my intent.
There are periods of time that I will make huge mistakes, some that are harmful to the people who watch me. I try my best to learn from those and to compensate for any damage done.
I genuinely so no harm in using the term "conspiracyfag" on 4chan at the time and until you guys have convinced me there is a chance that someone would genuinely be harmed by it, I had no remorse.
Now that I realize that its entirely possible that someone could be harmed by it obviously I have changed my mind. I would not want to cause harm, accidently or otherwise, to anyone. I think that's pretty obvious but maybe not.
I have been picked on my entire life and I know what its like to be ostracized, mocked, dismissed, and even directly attacked. The thought that someone could feel I was doing that to them makes me sick to my stomach.
So yes, I'll be very careful with such triggering language going forward. I see no real harm in it and if it can do some good, all the better.
My entire goal for my role in media continues to be preaching inclusivity, kindness, and love. I am not perfect, but that is my intent.
There are periods of time that I will make huge mistakes, some that are harmful to the people who watch me. I try my best to learn from those and to compensate for any damage done.
I genuinely so no harm in using the term "conspiracyfag" on 4chan at the time and until you guys have convinced me there is a chance that someone would genuinely be harmed by it, I had no remorse.
Now that I realize that its entirely possible that someone could be harmed by it obviously I have changed my mind. I would not want to cause harm, accidently or otherwise, to anyone. I think that's pretty obvious but maybe not.
I have been picked on my entire life and I know what its like to be ostracized, mocked, dismissed, and even directly attacked. The thought that someone could feel I was doing that to them makes me sick to my stomach.
So yes, I'll be very careful with such triggering language going forward. I see no real harm in it and if it can do some good, all the better.
i don't know where we can go from here Boogie. To be honest, it's all a bit sour taste right now. It just sort of feels more that you are placating people left and right now. You say you're being genuine, and I want to take you at face value... but I've never considered myself a gullible person and to be honest it's a bit hard of a pill to swallow right now. I want to be clear that I'm just a bit conflicted, because I want to be optimistic about your change of heart here. It's just as with anything one has to see the behavior change so only time will tell. I'd treat anybody that way, you understand.
I'll keep reading your posts and try to get a sense of your perspectives. I hope you genuinely had a chance of heart on that word though - and behavior like that - and that you can take a stand against such language on the future unreservedly. It'd be nice to have you on the team against that language in the future.
I hope you understand Boogie that I think you are a decent person deep down, which is why I keep spending this time to discuss these real world issues with you. I don't think you're irredeemable, and we are all humans and we make mistakes (for example when I first came to neoGAF I used the word "JAP" a lot - like this... NEED FOR SPEED (JAP/NA/EUR) announced - before I learned that it's not an appropriate shortening of the word in any context. So now I use JPN).
But the important first step is to really desire to change. Not change because other people are browbeating you into submission. But to really change because you know it'll make you a better person to do so. And I don't say this from some high and mighty perch, Boogie. If you know my neoGAF history, you know it's besotted by bad behavior. I abused drugs, I was excessively argumentative and crude and sometimes very rude to people. I was young during a lot of this, as well as massively depressed and with tons of anxiety. Drugs+depression+anxiety = bad mix. But neoGAF showed me I was wrong. It continually told me how I was wrong. I didn't want to hear it, for a long time. Eventually I did. And it changed my life. I've been drug clean for two years now, my depression is under control, my anxiety relatively constrained. I went from 265lbs to 185lbs. I followed neoGAF's advice because eventually I realized they were right, and that I was just refusing to change because I was stubborn and my pride was hurt. I have a big ego sometimes, and I wasn't very self-aware even when it's obvious I should have been.
I do not think you're even half as bad of a place as I was when I was at my lowest point fighting this stuff, so I know you can self analyze yourself and really internalize the advice people are giving you. I know you can be the person that deserves the enlarged voice you have
I'll keep reading your posts and try to get a sense of your perspectives. I hope you genuinely had a chance of heart on that word though - and behavior like that - and that you can take a stand against such language on the future unreservedly. It'd be nice to have you on the team against that language in the future.
I hope you understand Boogie that I think you are a decent person deep down, which is why I keep spending this time to discuss these real world issues with you. I don't think you're irredeemable, and we are all humans and we make mistakes (for example when I first came to neoGAF I used the word "JAP" a lot - like this... NEED FOR SPEED (JAP/NA/EUR) announced - before I learned that it's not an appropriate shortening of the word in any context. So now I use JPN).
But the important first step is to really desire to change. Not change because other people are browbeating you into submission. But to really change because you know it'll make you a better person to do so. And I don't say this from some high and mighty perch, Boogie. If you know my neoGAF history, you know it's besotted by bad behavior. I abused drugs, I was excessively argumentative and crude and sometimes very rude to people. I was young during a lot of this, as well as massively depressed and with tons of anxiety. Drugs+depression+anxiety = bad mix. But neoGAF showed me I was wrong. It continually told me how I was wrong. I didn't want to hear it, for a long time. Eventually I did. And it changed my life. I've been drug clean for two years now, my depression is under control, my anxiety relatively constrained. I went from 265lbs to 185lbs. I followed neoGAF's advice because eventually I realized they were right, and that I was just refusing to change because I was stubborn and my pride was hurt. I have a big ego sometimes, and I wasn't very self-aware even when it's obvious I should have been.
I do not think you're even half as bad of a place as I was when I was at my lowest point fighting this stuff, so I know you can self analyze yourself and really internalize the advice people are giving you. I know you can be the person that deserves the enlarged voice you have
Not to detract from the discussion, but Julian Assange is involved now.
Damn son, that takes balls. Like, holy shit.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Eh, you're doing "sorry if I offended you" instead of just "sorry," which is its own can of worms. I appreciate what you're doing now, though!
Just to throw in my two cents on the general discussion...the casual use of homophobic slurs like "fag" isn't something I particularly like either. I do understand the rebuttal that is commonly brought up to justify its usage - namely, that if it is used as frequently as possible the word is meant to lose its power as an insult. However, prejudice against LGBT people is still very common, and a word like "faggot" still frequently used in a very derogatory way towards gay people even in many of the spaces that are supposedly rebranding it as an affectionate term. Certainly not everyone who throws around "fag" all the time actually believes they're on a crusade for equality to make the word lose its power. So many people have grown up with that word being used as a weapon against them, and making it common parlance online isn't automatically going to erase that hurt - it can have the effect of making an environment in which the word is commonplace feel increasingly unwelcome, alienating and hostile to anyone who still feels the sting of the slur, even if not everyone's using it with hostile intentions. Sure, there are some LGBT people who aren't bothered by it, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect that this is going to be true of everyone.
To be sure though, it's definitely possible that a slur can be reclaimed and transformed into something positive, because language changes. However, it usually takes the minority communities themselves to make that change. This was the case for the word "queer," which began as a pejorative but slowly began to be transformed into a positive affirmation, beginning in the late 1980s. The group Queer Nation was one of the earliest communities to do this - they distributed this flyer in 1990 to attendees of the New York Gay Pride Parade:
It's a thorny issue though, fraught with difficulties when words can hold such power as a pejorative term of oppression. "Queer" was used as a tool to fight oppression precisely because it highlights prejudice (the word, after all, fundamentally means "strange, different").
Anyway, moving back on topic...
Apparently this is incorrect. The user in question had already been banned for a while, and their question was approved (or "unbanned").
To be sure though, it's definitely possible that a slur can be reclaimed and transformed into something positive, because language changes. However, it usually takes the minority communities themselves to make that change. This was the case for the word "queer," which began as a pejorative but slowly began to be transformed into a positive affirmation, beginning in the late 1980s. The group Queer Nation was one of the earliest communities to do this - they distributed this flyer in 1990 to attendees of the New York Gay Pride Parade:
"Ah, do we really have to use that word? It's trouble. Every gay person has his or her own take on it. For some it means strange and eccentric and kind of mysterious.... And for others "queer" conjures up those awful memories of adolescent suffering... Well, yes, "gay" is great. It has its place. But when a lot of lesbians and gay men wake up in the morning we feel angry and disgusted, not gay. So we've chosen to call ourselves queer. Using "queer" is a way of reminding us how we are perceived by the rest of the world."
It's a thorny issue though, fraught with difficulties when words can hold such power as a pejorative term of oppression. "Queer" was used as a tool to fight oppression precisely because it highlights prejudice (the word, after all, fundamentally means "strange, different").
Anyway, moving back on topic...
Not to detract from the discussion, but Julian Assange is involved now.
Apparently this is incorrect. The user in question had already been banned for a while, and their question was approved (or "unbanned").
QuickSilverD
Member
Not to detract from the discussion, but Julian Assange is involved now.
Damn son, that takes balls. Like, holy shit.
Apparently not
- Status