Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsMAX MCGEE'S PROFILE
Close
I CAN'T NOT MAKE GAMES.
I have enough lockerspace to hold an episode of Friends.
"We'll make a toast to absent friends and better days,
To remembering and being remembered as brave
And not as a bunch of whining jerks!
Don't lose your nerve.
Do not go straight
You must testify
(or I'm going to come to your house and punch you in the mouth)
cause CLOWNS MUST STAND."
- TW/IFS, "All The World Is A Stage Dive"
I have enough lockerspace to hold an episode of Friends.
"We'll make a toast to absent friends and better days,
To remembering and being remembered as brave
And not as a bunch of whining jerks!
Don't lose your nerve.
Do not go straight
You must testify
(or I'm going to come to your house and punch you in the mouth)
cause CLOWNS MUST STAND."
- TW/IFS, "All The World Is A Stage Dive"
Iron Gaia
As the only human awake on board a space station controlled by an insane AI with delusions of deification, you must unravel the mystery of your own identity and discover: "What is the Iron Gaia?"
As the only human awake on board a space station controlled by an insane AI with delusions of deification, you must unravel the mystery of your own identity and discover: "What is the Iron Gaia?"
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
WetMattos, I happen to think that most of your opinions are just wrong too, and not even opinions. But I don't think that type of statement is actually productive to building dialogue.
Corfaisus is and has consistently been a total jerk (to me), so I can't really believe I am standing up for him here but: I don't think that this is AT ALL what he was saying. Like, at all. I cannot remotely see how you got from what he was saying to this.
This is off-topic, but:
What you are doing is redefining the established definition of racism to a definition that is completely unsupported by the word's historical usage and serves only to support your point. One way of describing this is "moving the goal posts".
Racism actually means:
Also:
That is the actual definition of the word. Like, Merriam-fucking-Webster definition. Let me quote the article you linked quoting John Oliver:
The definition of the word RACISM is an actual fact. Just because Social Justice Warriors want to redefine it to mean "institutional oppression of black people by a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" or whatever, that doesn't make it fucking so. By the actual definition of racism, black people who discriminate against white people are RACIST and that is RACISM.
I don't need to prove relationships of power and a history of disenfranchisement any more than I need to prove that owls exist or that there are hats because absolutely none of that is part of the ACTUAL, FACTUAL definition of racism as stated by Merriam-Webster above. Your assertion of YOUR personal idiosyncratic definition of racism is about as relevant as someone who "believes" climate change isn't real. As John Oliver said, who gives a shit? You don't need people's opinions on a fact.
Things I am explicitly not saying, to hopefully preempt any and all strawman arguments:
* That black-on-white racism is as serious of a problem in America as the inverse.
* That black-on-white racism is as prevalent as the inverse.
* That black-on-white racism is a more serious problem or more deserving of discussion or concern than the inverse.
And end tangent.
4) This goes mostly to Corfaisus, but the point stands for a lot of folks. If you really think that the social sciences have developed theories on social construction only to persecute and incriminate cis, heterosexual, men and white people, you might have either a very shallow understanding of it, or a hefty persecution complex. Possibly both.
Corfaisus is and has consistently been a total jerk (to me), so I can't really believe I am standing up for him here but: I don't think that this is AT ALL what he was saying. Like, at all. I cannot remotely see how you got from what he was saying to this.
Racism is a word with a very specific history and theory behind it. It denotes a relationship of power, and a past and present of disfranchisement and violence. It's meaning exists within these relationships, which were created historically, and thus determine it's use. Can you make a case for discrimination of white people? Yeah, you can, and i think it's really reasonable that you do. Can you equate this with the very complex concept of racism, and in extension white supremacy? No, you can't. Because you'd need to prove relationships of power and a history of disfranchisement that simply don't exist.
This is off-topic, but:
What you are doing is redefining the established definition of racism to a definition that is completely unsupported by the word's historical usage and serves only to support your point. One way of describing this is "moving the goal posts".
Racism actually means:
: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
: the belief that some races of people are better than others
Also:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination
That is the actual definition of the word. Like, Merriam-fucking-Webster definition. Let me quote the article you linked quoting John Oliver:
To quote John Oliver, who on his show Last Week Tonight referenced a Gallup poll showing one in four Americans believe climate change isn’t real:
Who gives a shit? You don’t need people’s opinion on a fact. You might as well have a poll asking: “Which number is bigger, 15 or 5?” or “Do owls exist?” or “Are there hats?”
The definition of the word RACISM is an actual fact. Just because Social Justice Warriors want to redefine it to mean "institutional oppression of black people by a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" or whatever, that doesn't make it fucking so. By the actual definition of racism, black people who discriminate against white people are RACIST and that is RACISM.
I don't need to prove relationships of power and a history of disenfranchisement any more than I need to prove that owls exist or that there are hats because absolutely none of that is part of the ACTUAL, FACTUAL definition of racism as stated by Merriam-Webster above. Your assertion of YOUR personal idiosyncratic definition of racism is about as relevant as someone who "believes" climate change isn't real. As John Oliver said, who gives a shit? You don't need people's opinions on a fact.
Things I am explicitly not saying, to hopefully preempt any and all strawman arguments:
* That black-on-white racism is as serious of a problem in America as the inverse.
* That black-on-white racism is as prevalent as the inverse.
* That black-on-white racism is a more serious problem or more deserving of discussion or concern than the inverse.
And end tangent.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
To state the really fucking obvious:
I never said "violence against trans people is justified". Nor did I imply that. I said that it is a common result of misrepresenting your gender for reasons that are from a human perspective fundamentally comprehensible (see the part of the previous post where I used the word "abhorrent"). And this is part of why misrepresenting your gender is a really bad idea.
I did say that "misrepresenting your gender is morally and ethically wrong" and that "violent reactions are understandable" but bridging the gap from that to "violent reactions are justified because the other person did something wrong" requires a very uncharitable reading of my post. I could see how you could get there, sure, but only if you were inclined to read my post in a very uncharitable way and if you did not fundamentally understand the basic, unstated premise that two wrongs don't make a right.
To review:
Concealing your gender from your partner for any length of time is a morally wrong thing to do...that probably arises from understandable human motivations and feelings. It's also a really bad fucking idea because violence against trans people is a reality and while I don't have data or statistics, I would imagine that it often happens under these circumstances.
Violently beating a transexual because they represented themselves as a woman and you find out the hard way that they're not really is a morally wrong thing to do...that probably arises from understandable human motivations and feelings. (And obviously it's also a bad idea because jail.)
Maybe you are familiar with the expression "two wrongs do not make a right". That's the basic precept that underlines my words, unstated. A trans person concealing their gender is doing something wrong and stupid. Violence against that person for any reason is still wrong and illegal.
There are two false premises here:
1) That my saying that concealing your gender is wrong automatically indicates that I think a violent reaction is justified or deserved.
2) That my saying that a violent reaction is "understandable" is remotely the same as saying that it is "okay". "Understandable" does not mean anything beyond "I can understand why a person would react that badly". Understand != condone.
Solitayre, to state the obvious: I don't give a fig what you think it's okay for me to say, because I don't respect your authority as the arbiter of my speech one iota. To be honest, we are very close to the point where when you tell me it is "definitely not okay" to say something, it makes me feel 100% better about having said it.
This is the same "there is no such thing as racism against white people" bullshit I always see from Social Justice maniacs neatly repackaged. I'm not buying it there and I'm not buying it here. These doors swing both ways and it's stupid to pretend they don't.
I never said "violence against trans people is justified". Nor did I imply that. I said that it is a common result of misrepresenting your gender for reasons that are from a human perspective fundamentally comprehensible (see the part of the previous post where I used the word "abhorrent"). And this is part of why misrepresenting your gender is a really bad idea.
I did say that "misrepresenting your gender is morally and ethically wrong" and that "violent reactions are understandable" but bridging the gap from that to "violent reactions are justified because the other person did something wrong" requires a very uncharitable reading of my post. I could see how you could get there, sure, but only if you were inclined to read my post in a very uncharitable way and if you did not fundamentally understand the basic, unstated premise that two wrongs don't make a right.
To review:
Concealing your gender from your partner for any length of time is a morally wrong thing to do...that probably arises from understandable human motivations and feelings. It's also a really bad fucking idea because violence against trans people is a reality and while I don't have data or statistics, I would imagine that it often happens under these circumstances.
Violently beating a transexual because they represented themselves as a woman and you find out the hard way that they're not really is a morally wrong thing to do...that probably arises from understandable human motivations and feelings. (And obviously it's also a bad idea because jail.)
Maybe you are familiar with the expression "two wrongs do not make a right". That's the basic precept that underlines my words, unstated. A trans person concealing their gender is doing something wrong and stupid. Violence against that person for any reason is still wrong and illegal.
There are two false premises here:
1) That my saying that concealing your gender is wrong automatically indicates that I think a violent reaction is justified or deserved.
2) That my saying that a violent reaction is "understandable" is remotely the same as saying that it is "okay". "Understandable" does not mean anything beyond "I can understand why a person would react that badly". Understand != condone.
Solitayre, to state the obvious: I don't give a fig what you think it's okay for me to say, because I don't respect your authority as the arbiter of my speech one iota. To be honest, we are very close to the point where when you tell me it is "definitely not okay" to say something, it makes me feel 100% better about having said it.
ALSO POSTSCRIPT: people continue bringing up the "BUT THEN GAY PEOPLE COULD BE STRAIGHT" thing, and idk if I mentioned it in my previous posts: bein' LGB is to be something "abnormal" in our current society. LGB identities are NOT taken for granted, because for a person so arrive at the conclusion they're not straight is to engage in the exact kinds of self-reflection I'm advocating here.
This is the same "there is no such thing as racism against white people" bullshit I always see from Social Justice maniacs neatly repackaged. I'm not buying it there and I'm not buying it here. These doors swing both ways and it's stupid to pretend they don't.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
It is extremely unethical and in fact immoral to withhold any information about your gender from your partner from minute one. This includes your actual biological sex and whatever-the-hell gender you currently identify as and everything in between.
It is a terrible idea to deceive a partner about something as basic as your gender/sex from minute one: a lot of violence happens against transexual people because of exactly this. "Transexuality" is obviously something that it's really difficult for people to get their heads around. What really doesn't help people do so is having it be a "SURPRISE!" moment. Surprise dick is not something I would imagine that anyone who was not looking for dick in the first place is going to appreciate. Reacting violently is pretty understandable (although not as understandable as just running away from that person at top speed and never looking at or touching them again).
As Liberty suggested, homosexual people can actually find the idea of personally engaging heterosexual activity abhorrent. Likewise, heterosexual people can find the idea of personally engaging in homosexual activity abhorrent. It is not as simple as not liking chocolate ice cream. It is a form of violation.
...as has been mentioned by a few people a few times in a few ways, this seems to fly in the entire face of the long-standing liberal talking point that being gay is not a choice.
I feel like I should state for the record that I strongly disagree with the assertions about the fluid, socially constructed nature of sex, sexual preference and gender put forward by WetMattos, emmych, and others. I was exposed to these ideas in college and I reject them entirely. This is not based on any kind of religious bias, because I am not a religious person. They just fly directly in the face of all observable reality for me, and therefore don't hold any water.
In other words, exactly this. I am a straight cisgender man, and no amount of wild, surging acceptance of homosexuality and transexuality and no amount of bigotry against and repression of being cisgender and heterosexual would alter this. I am a dude who just likes chicks. Like a sizable segment of the population, I was born that way. It is not a socially constructed identity. It's basic biology.
It is a terrible idea to deceive a partner about something as basic as your gender/sex from minute one: a lot of violence happens against transexual people because of exactly this. "Transexuality" is obviously something that it's really difficult for people to get their heads around. What really doesn't help people do so is having it be a "SURPRISE!" moment. Surprise dick is not something I would imagine that anyone who was not looking for dick in the first place is going to appreciate. Reacting violently is pretty understandable (although not as understandable as just running away from that person at top speed and never looking at or touching them again).
As Liberty suggested, homosexual people can actually find the idea of personally engaging heterosexual activity abhorrent. Likewise, heterosexual people can find the idea of personally engaging in homosexual activity abhorrent. It is not as simple as not liking chocolate ice cream. It is a form of violation.
People's genders and sexualities are very real things, but often times they are influenced by societal expectations.
...as has been mentioned by a few people a few times in a few ways, this seems to fly in the entire face of the long-standing liberal talking point that being gay is not a choice.
I feel like I should state for the record that I strongly disagree with the assertions about the fluid, socially constructed nature of sex, sexual preference and gender put forward by WetMattos, emmych, and others. I was exposed to these ideas in college and I reject them entirely. This is not based on any kind of religious bias, because I am not a religious person. They just fly directly in the face of all observable reality for me, and therefore don't hold any water.
Fair enough, if they're unsure about what they want thinking it over and looking at it from that point of view can help solidify why you feel so conflicted, but if you know where your attraction lies, then you know where your attraction lies, no matter what society has to say about it. The only thing that matters then is whether you choose to buckle or rebel. But very often when they say 'I don't like x/y/z' it's because they don't like x/y/z, not because society tells them not to.
In other words, exactly this. I am a straight cisgender man, and no amount of wild, surging acceptance of homosexuality and transexuality and no amount of bigotry against and repression of being cisgender and heterosexual would alter this. I am a dude who just likes chicks. Like a sizable segment of the population, I was born that way. It is not a socially constructed identity. It's basic biology.
What’s Your All-Time Favorite Chocolate Bar?
Probably go Mound's (it's hard to find). Andes mints are right up there, and Kit-Kats and Reeses' cups are runners up. Peppermint Patties and Junior Mints are honorable mentions.
That's without getting into the ultra-rare gourmet shit.
That's without getting into the ultra-rare gourmet shit.
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
I was in Toronto this weekend. First time I've ever visited Canada, actually.
I pretty strongly agree with what Liberty has to say here.
Slash, the problem is in the absence of an objective, always-correct governing authority to adjudicate which opinions are "harmful" and which aren't. That's why we have the governing principles of liberalism, like freedom of speech and freedom of thought. No one is asking you to agree with the statement that "homosexuality is a sin" or to give it equal credence to what you view as a more intelligent, more informed statement. The problem with silencing "wrong" opinions is that it's a bad precedent to set, because the same censorship can later be used against opinions you don't think are wrong. Power, especially the power to censor, is a huge dumb bludgeon, not a precise scalpel-like tool.
Neil Gaiman on this.
author=Liberty
If a person doesn't believe in something you don't jump on them in a dogpile of hate. You gently open their eyes. And they have the right to their own personal beliefs as long as they aren't shoving them down others' throats. Like you are doing, demanding that others must believe as you do. People don't have to believe in the moon landing, they don't have to believe in cheese, they don't have to believe in alternate sexuality.
That they're wrong or not isn't the issue in question. The issue is that they aren't harming you by not believing as long as they aren't trying to force you to believe (or disbelieve). Fair enough, if they're being assholes and going all "I don't believe in x and thus you don't matter." This was not the case. He stated his own personal opinion, as part of the discussion. There was no implied hate there, no looking down on people, just a difference of opinion.
Not every single differing opinion is an attack, ffs. If the only people you talk to are those who believe exactly as you do, a shallow world it would be. There's a fucking huge difference between mentioning your own belief - without judgement or any secondary meaning - and deliberately trying to insult or demean people by using 'code'.
Him saying that he considered it a sin, that it wasn't something he believed in was not him shitting on others opinion - quite the opposite in fact. He was sharing his own belief. When people do that, try to change their minds if you want, but don't just dismiss them because of that. Educate them. Integrate them. Teach them the truth and open their eyes. Instead of driving them away, encourage them to learn and grow as people - and maybe learn from them in return.
Rabid attacking is pathetic on both sides. You are basically acting just like those you condemn for their hate.
I pretty strongly agree with what Liberty has to say here.
author=slashauthor=SnowOwlThey're differing opinions, but one is actively harmful and disrespectful, even if it's presented as politely as possible.
You can put it any way you want, but what I read is that you want your opinions and your right to talk about whatever you want to be favored over others, and that people with a differing opinion should be silenced.
Slash, the problem is in the absence of an objective, always-correct governing authority to adjudicate which opinions are "harmful" and which aren't. That's why we have the governing principles of liberalism, like freedom of speech and freedom of thought. No one is asking you to agree with the statement that "homosexuality is a sin" or to give it equal credence to what you view as a more intelligent, more informed statement. The problem with silencing "wrong" opinions is that it's a bad precedent to set, because the same censorship can later be used against opinions you don't think are wrong. Power, especially the power to censor, is a huge dumb bludgeon, not a precise scalpel-like tool.
Neil Gaiman on this.
[RM2K3] Looking for a writer
Tales of a Queue Keeper
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
It's not so much the words themselves as how they're used - context is everything - and in the case that a word is being used on the site in a negative way, such as someone calling someone else a racial or sexual slur, then yes, in that context the word is 'banned'. By which I mean, very likely to see you get warned over and highly discouraged to be used in a negative manner again.
I am actually relatively okay with that, as long as it's a word like "nigger" or "faggot" that has a lot of cultural baggage associated with a history of oppression and abuse and someone is taking issue with it being used in an obviously negative and abusive way. Is this censorship? Yeah, probably but in this case...whatever. This is after all a public space. Reasonable restrictions on conduct are to be expected. I have no real objection to this!
It is unbelievably stupid and completely fucking laughable to ban the term 'SJW' which is a perfectly accurate way of describing self-identified (I mean all of the people who I most object to do literally and unironically describe themselves as Social Justice Warriors) radical zealots/extremists who are a part of that repellent group entirely by choice. In other words, treating African Americans or homosexuals as a protected group is acceptable. Treating Republicans or SJWs or whatever, any political faction, as a protected group is ridiculous on its face.
Do you mean the word 'Nigger' or the word 'Nigga'? To many white people there's not a difference, but contextually, there's a massive difference between someone saying 'Joe's a nigger' and 'Joe's my nigga'. Because the latter isn't an Australian thing, it's an African American thing, right where it started, here, in America. Once again, 'nigger' and 'nigga' are so contextually different they're almost two entirely separate words.
Out of curiosity, in your opinion is either one ever acceptable for white people to say? Not really a part of my vernacular, personally, but I've seen SJW types get angry at white people for singing along the word 'nigga' at rap concerts because they were into the music because that was somehow "racist", which seems like a bit much to me personally.
It's easy to dismiss a question of 'yeah I agree with feminism but what about those crazy SJWs' as sidestepping bullshit, but let's not forget that 1. An extreme representative of a view isn't always an ignorable minority factor (see, Malcolm X of the Civil Rights movement, extraordinarily influential and important, while his motives aren't in doubt, but his ideas could be pretty extreme and probably not practically great) 2. To someone unfamiliar with your struggle, all representatives of your struggle appear as if they have equal value within your struggle.
I agree with what you are saying here. To go just a little further:
First wave feminism and second wave feminism were good and necessary movements for social justice. Modern third wave+ feminism is extremely toxic, poisoned by radical elements that are overwhelmingly loud and far-reaching. Personally, I prefer egalitarianism which is a humanist project as opposed to a radical project. Basically, what I am saying is being anti-feminist is not the same as being basically opposed to women's rights.
I'd like to make a thread about this some day actually, like along the lines of "why I am an anti-feminist and how that doesn't actually make me some kind of misogynist terrorist". I just don't have the time/energy right now (and there is the obvious fear that it would be clusterfuck of misunderstanding and abuse from the word go). Basically, I am for women's rights, but extremist SJWs have poisoned and hijacked modern feminism.
McBacon Jam #2
of games, representation, and women's cheekbones
author=Yellow Magic
The problem is everyone's gone so far off-topic its ridiculous.
Like I could waltz in here and make a shitty advertising post and no-one called me out on it.
Hey, I did!
kind of, anyway
author=Solitayre
This is coming closer to making me want to lock the topic than anything that came beforehand.
Hahahaha this brings back memories. Solitayre, the teetotaler who is afraid of swear words. Don't ever change (not that I think you could).
***
I've said this before, but I don't think there was ever that much fundamental disagreement about this topic to begin with. Some benighted League of Legends fans said a redesigned character looked like a tranny. No one particularly thought that she actually looked like a tranny, or old, or ugly for that matter. And no one thought that calling her new look a tranny was a particularly cool or insightful thing to say. Within two posts, we had people making the incredibly valid observations that a) people on the internet are weird and creepy and b) people in general just hate it when things change.
As to whether this thread continues to exist, I have no dog in that hunt.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
