Hello everyone! Today I would like to ask you, how far can I go while creating a game, before getting kicked out of this great site. Is there any limitation for amount of sexual references, violence, racism, insults to Chris Jones, puns on disabled people, and any other stuff that can be offensive to someone? I mean, like if the limit is breached, my game is deleted from this great website and I'm banned from the forums or get some other kind of punishment? Please tell me if there is anything like that and if there is then, what are the punishments and what exactly is the limit.
"County library? Reference desk, please. Hello? Yes, I need a word definition. Well, that's the problem. I don't know how to spell it and I'm not allowed to say it. Could you just rattle off all the swear words you know, and I'll stop you when... Hello??"
-- Calvin & Hobbes
You're not going to be banned for making a game with AGS, it's nothing to do with CJ or the forums. Obviously your game could be removed from the adventuregamestudio.co.uk games database if it was likely to bring legal trouble or was specifically aimed at offending people. So far it has never been necessary to remove anything except spam, as far as I know.
Why would you want to how far you can go? I think of no mature and good reason.
If you're aiming for a P3N1S award, you should know that those were cancelled a couple of years ago. Keeping inside the limits of the law, according to CJ the only thing that will keep your game from being featured on the AGS games page is to have it feature a massive erect cock, so throw in plenty of those to be on the safe side.
As for punishments... let me get back to you on that, I'm sure we can come up with something appropriate.
Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 23/11/2007 16:33:36
If you're aiming for a P3N1S award, you should know that those were cancelled a couple of years ago.
No they weren't. (http://www.americangirlscouts.org/AGSAwards/awards.php?year=2006)
Oh my bad, I actually thought it was part of the FOREGOs, which were cancelled. But then he actually has more than a month to finish his epic masterpiece of obscenity. Go Lionmonkey!
Let's just say people making games about n***** & the KKK probably aren't winning the sympathy of the majority of forum users. But it's not like they'll be banned, unless it causes some kind of real upset. Why would you want to push the boundaries and limits of whats acceptable? It's not a particularly great hook for an adventure game. Personally I'd respect you more as a developer if you created a fun game with a good atmosphere, that wasn't trying to break rules. Still, it's up to you. This question though is a little worrying ::)
I can't name any successful adventure games that have tried to offend people or "cross the line". But I'm sure someone can name one..!
You know, this thread might make for an interesting MAGS topic...
Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 23/11/2007 17:37:23
You know, this thread might make for an interesting MAGS topic...
Why don't you win the MAGS and do this topic then? ;)
A controversial parody game would be quite good. But it'd really need a kick-ass writer, someone who can nail that kind of humour. And of all the "pushing limits" games I've seen so far, the writing has been shockingly awful. My own included ;) There are some very good "shocking" AGS games but I think they fall into a different category than to whats being suggested here..
You know, not that Lionmonkey has said this, so I'm guessing, but it's possible they just came to a point in game creation when they had something in mind, but wanted to ask us (well, you guys...my 2 cents are just my 2 cents) before including it in the game. And this IS a good way to ask something like this without deflating the shcok value, should it be added.
Or they're trying to push the boundries and I'm wrong. As usual. ;]
I wonder if "dead baby" has been suggested in the "things that haven't been inventory items" thread yet?
Quote from: Mr. Buckéthead on Fri 23/11/2007 17:40:20
Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 23/11/2007 17:37:23
You know, this thread might make for an interesting MAGS topic...
Why don't you win the MAGS and do this topic then? ;)
Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 23/11/2007 19:42:33
I wonder if "dead baby" has been suggested in the "things that haven't been inventory items" thread yet?
Quote from: m0ds on Fri 23/11/2007 17:45:37
And then be responsible for 30 games about rape, murder, peadophillia, the KKK and women with my **** in their mouth.. all the things this community loves... ;)
'The female kkk nigger rapist who shagged (via John wayne Bobbit's penis) my dead baby hermaphrodite- Part 30'
...can't wait for that game ::)
Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 23/11/2007 19:42:33
I wonder if "dead baby" has been suggested in the "things that haven't been inventory items" thread yet?
I must admit I laughed out loud after reading this.
Now I'll have to clean my brain.
Hey, Lionmonkey. According to threads I've read in the past, the only thing that can keep your game from being featured on the website is if it qualifies as hard-core pornography (meaning it features, as GarageGothic so elegantly put it, a "massive erect cock"). Anything else should be fair game as long as you warn downloaders if it contains sex, violence, potty mouth, etc.
Of course, we're all going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're including possibly offensive material (rape, incest, etc.) as part of a serious and dramatic storyline, and that the material will be treated with maturity and intelligence.
Because doing otherwise would be a major waste of our time.
Quote from: Oddysseus on Fri 23/11/2007 21:02:39
Hey, Lionmonkey. According to threads I've read in the past, the only thing that can keep your game from being featured on the website is if it qualifies as hard-core pornography (meaning it features, as GarageGothic so elegantly put it, a "massive erect cock"). Anything else should be fair game as long as you warn downloaders if it contains sex, violence, potty mouth, etc.
Of course, we're all going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're including possibly offensive material (rape, incest, etc.) as part of a serious and dramatic storyline, and that the material will be treated with maturity and intelligence.
Because doing otherwise would be a major waste of our time.
Thanks, Oddysseus for FINALLY answering my question.
mouthuvmine: You are right, that's the reason, why I started this thread.
Also, It's not like I'm going to add something offensive just, so my game has something offensive, but I've noticed a
strange normal fact: Controversial games are popular. Think GTA (Especially San Andreas) and Postal1+2. But, as mods has already stated, there are no successfull controversial adventure games yet. So this is something new to dig into.
Quote from: Lionmonkey on Sat 24/11/2007 08:48:07
I've noticed a strange fact: Controversial games are popular.
That's not strange, that's human nature. Forbidden things are exciting. That, and many people want to find out what everybody else is so excited about. This has been going on for ages. For instance, any story by De Sade. Or the faux-novel Naked Came The Stranger. Or basically any film by Tarentino.
And, while we might not have any controversial adventure games per se, there's a number of them that focus heavily on sex and are popular mainly for that reason. It probably explains why Leisure Suit Larry was so popular - they're poorly written, but OMG boobies! The proven fact is that you make a book, adventure game, or whatever with "sex" in the title, people will download or buy it, regardless of its actual quality.
Would quality actually count in an overtly pornographic game? I mean in the initial download phase.
There must be such a thing as a good, depending on the criteria used, pornographic game.
Like I said in another thread, if a pornographic game is intended to arouse the player, is eliciting a desire in the player to masturbate to it/over it/whatever - the seal of quality?
If a pornographic game fails to achieve such a result, is it a bad pornographic game?
This isn't a "masturbating to video game/anime/manga characters is sad!" question (indeed, in my humble opinion, there is little true difference between fantasizing over a picture of a "fake" woman/man and a picture of a "real" woman/man; the viewer detachment and sexualization of the object is more or less the same) but rather a clarification of the intended "goal" of the creators of such games.
This is just my opinion, which I concider to be just plain healthy open-mindedness...
I think you can put basically anything into your game, as long as it's within the law of wherever the server hosting the file is located, and you can put it on the Games page as long as it's not crossing any rules CJ has defined for adding the game to the page. It's the players call wether to play it or not.
If I come across offending contents, I don't play the game if said offending contents repulses me from it with other elements failing to keep me hooked on. And if reviewing, I'd state it as my personal opinion that the game has contents I do not like.
The only offending contents I can right now think of actually finding offending is putting down visually impaired or otherwise handicapped people, or any other often attacked minority in an humiliating manner while attacking the minority. They're all human beings after all, and have equal rights to everything just like "normal" people. Sure, you can have a laugh at them, as long as you keep them as humans.
Personally, the Leisure Suit Larry games were the only "controversial" games I've found entertaining. I really liked Al Lowe's corny humor and his hapless protagonist. But, as has already been pointed out here, too often "controversy" often amounts to nothing more than boobies or shooting at cops or the like.
Since a freeware game is a purely personal effort, if you have something to say, then by all means say it. I'm not a big fan of censorship, but no one is entitled to an audience. If whatever you release is so offensive that Chris decides he doesn't want it on his site, then you'll have to host it somewhere else.
As far as my opinion goes, shocking for the sake of shocking is rarely of any real merit (anyone else here old enough to remember Andrew Dice Clay?). And, in the case of adventure games, since they require more story telling on the part of the creator (and immersion on the part of the player), anything that requires me to carry a dead baby around to solve puzzles most likely isn't the sort of game I'm going to spend much of my precious free time playing.
However, I'm deeply ashamed to say that GarageGothic got a deep belly laugh out of my because of the sheer unexpectedness of it. Maybe it's the sort of thing that works as an out-of-the-blue punchline rather than an actual inventory item. Good show, man!
Ooh! That could be a new popular thread!
I'll start here! (Because such a thread will never exist)
Inventory items that should NEVER be in a game:
Dead baby ;D
Used Condom
Used Tissue
Puke in a bag
A dictionary of racist words
Character's appendix
The old xbox console with the old large joypad (The character would be anchored to the ground with that thing! Ooh that would actually be a funny puzzle)
Okay so my attempts at humour have probably failed... :-\
Oh damn it! One of the listed items was present from the stupid webgame on my homepage.
Just for fun... (because it's 7:00 in the morning and I haven't slept yet)
Inventory items that should NEVER be in a game:
-Infected ingrown toe nail
-Cat bile with some hair
-Al-Quaida strap-on bomb
-An umbilical cord connected to placenta
-A dead three-headed monkey's brain
-World of Warcraft game copy
-Tickle me Elmo
To stay on target of this thread, I just wanted to mention that pretty much anything can go unless you bring in stuff like dead babies, child abuse, pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, or any sick perverted deviation (for example, the main character is a pedophile and his quest is to abuse as many kids as he/she can before the game ends). Those things, in my mind, are unacceptable for a game.
So it's perfectly acceptable to have gratuitous scenes of rape and sexual violence, racism, the subject of paedophilia and antisemitism WITHOUT being banned from the forum and STILL being able to have your game displayed on the front page?
Someone mentioned earlier in the topic that it would be questionable if someone made a game about niggers and the KKK but they probably wouldn't be banned for it? Why the hell not? That shit is called RACISM and it is offensive and it is serious business. I know this is LOL the internet but that doesn't make things like racism more acceptable just because you can't see the consequences of the people you are offending.
Now don't get me wrong there's a difference between adding a racist element to your game, for instance a character who is racist because that is part of your storytelling and it happens in movies and books and I get that. But if someone was to make something like "KKK: Kill the Niggers Adventure" you think that would be acceptable? Because if someone was stupid enough to do that just for the sake of pushing the boundaries I would call for an outright ban and I think that not doing so is saying YEAH RACISM IS COOL WITH ME to put it bluntly.
In another Gaming Community I frequent there is a person there who makes his shitty little rm games and he fills them with hentai and violence and swearing and all this other pointless disgusting crap that he can throw in for shock value and I'm pretty disgusted every time he posts one of his new games at the replies he gets, "Yeah hey this is pretty Good." Why would you ever want to make a game just for shock value? Do you think it's funny or something to push the boundaries?
I'm sure most people here would prefer it if you devoted your creative time to actually outputting something good, with a story, rather than just COCK JOKES, SEX, VIOLENCE AND ANY OTHER SHIT.
Now if you have a story to tell, about a man who falls in love with an underage child, and kidnaps her, and keeps her in a cage, and beats her. It's PROBABLY not going to get a great response but that's your story and it doesn't represent your own views. My main problem was the response of "Yeah Racism wont get you banned."
EDIT:
I'd also like to bring up SUPER COLUMBINE ADVENTURE or whatever it is called in this thread. It's the most distasteful game I've probably ever bothered to play, but this kid has shot to superstar fame after making it (God only knows why it is the worst game ever.) And he is now having a film made about him and is actually working on pro games (About columbine of all things.)
I'm not going to link to the actual game because I don't think anyone should play it but you pretty much played out the columbine massacre in badly drawn 2D graphics. It had some stuff about Marilyn Manson and then you ended it up fighting Zombies in hell or something.
SHOCK VALUE. Do you think the guy really knew anything about Columbine whatsoever of the effects on the lives of these people that he might be bringing back traumatic memories and things. (Probably not, the game was pretty unrealistic.)
I'm not PRO-CENSORSHIP or anything but I don't think we've come to a point in life where it's acceptable to just brush off racism and things just yet.
It's a relatively grown up community, so I'd like to think that we're above shock games. It wouldn't work in people's favour to start posting them here. But, if someone released "KKK: Kill the Niggers Adventure" it would get removed from the games database because in practice it'd be a troll game, almost nobody would find it worthwhile so its only purpose would be to cause an argument. Chances are the game would have been created specifially to troll, and if they kept posting it, the person could be banned from here too. It's all about the intent.
On the other hand, if the racist game developer was respectful, didn't repeatedly post offensive things on the forums and didn't repost their games on the DB then they probably wouldn't be banned. Moderation isn't here to punish people's personal views when they're not causing problems. There are people on the forum that have expressed views I find idotic or disgusting, but as long as they are civil and respect the forum rules I would feel like some sort of thought policeman if I banned them.
I don't think that's close to the same thing as saying their beliefs are cool.
Quote from: ambientcoffeecup on Tue 27/11/2007 10:03:56
And he is now having a film made about him
A small correction, I believe he's making a film about himself. So...
Well damn that's actually worse!
AGS to me is a tool, what you do with it is your own business. Ethicly I don't think you should make an unethical game, but its your game, your dream. IF your just trying to bug people, then ya, thats my limit. Wether you should be banned is at the discretion of the moderators.
If a game has a protagonist who performs reprehensible actions then the player will likely not be able to identify with the character and would then not find the game enjoyable. Each person has their own limits to consider. A game that is poorly written will probably not get played even if the subject matter is controversal. The "Grand Theft Auto" games did well because they were well written and fun to play, (or so I've heard) not just because they were controversal. Games where the goal is to rape people or kill inocents are best avoided in my opinion, likewise I would find playing a racist to be objectionable. If such content as murder, rape, and racism are present in a game then they should not be glamorized and probably shouldn't be made light of either (Though making fun of such things has been done before in shows like South Park)
In the end, what actually is racism and who are the people getting offended for it? I don't remember the source nor exact content so don't quote me on this, but I've read something about the people targetted by racism very often being much less offended by it than the people watching by. Okay, KKK might be a bit off the top, but generally the context effects the situation a lot, especially after the society has racismised certain terms that were not racist at all to begin with. It's also a matter of open-mindedness, which seems to be in rather short stock these days.
As said, if you can't identify with the character you're supposed to portray in the game the game probably isn't much fun the play, but there are cases when you don't need to.
Say, in two almost recent FPS games, Rainbow Six: Vegas and Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. the player is lined up against hordes of terrorists, who all, without exception, are Mexican. Were they of any other bigger non-caucasian origin the games would have probably gotten banned from the market.
My 2c worth...
The world is too serious a place now-a-days, particularly with everyone sueing everyone for sueing everyone.
So pushing limits (think South Park) is not necessarily a bad thing, the world could do with a bit less political correctness rubbish.
Having said that though, I can understanding pushing limits (within reason) for humour for example, but pushing them purposely to offend is _NOT_ something to be applauded.
Before you start potentially offending people, just remember that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something.
Quote from: hockings on Wed 05/12/2007 01:10:04
The world is too serious a place now-a-days, particularly with everyone sueing everyone for sueing everyone.
That's not the World, that's just the USA.
This is an interesting thread. I'm inclined to agree with the majority of people who've posted: If it's part of a mature and intelligent story, anything is fine with me, really.
Personally, as a writer, I'm a realist. I stay as true to life as I possibly can, and life isn't always pleasant, or nice, or fair.
I like to give a dark side to my character. A side that people might dislike, but I feel it must be there nonetheless. I think the greatest writers are those who can take a character who is extremely racist (or whatever) and make the audience love them regardless. Because it's true - racists aren't necessarily bad people. Sometimes they're very good people, who are just misguided.
Hey, remember the game "A Nigga's Revenge"?
Which Vince XII remade as "A Gentleman of African Descent Seeks Reprisal"?
Says it all, really, doesn't it?
Well, if the source files get released so that an easy parody is possible, then I'm all for it. ;)
To be honest, I'm not tolerant towards intolerance. It would weaken tolerance.
There are controversial topics you could make a game about, without being racist, homophobic,...
When Larry came out sex in games was a controversial topic (and still is in the USA, see Hot Coffee...).
Or you could broach the issue of incest, paedophilia...
But in a mature manner, not in the way "fuck as many school kids before time runs out" or something like this...
And macabre, dark humor is always welcome! :)
Hell, Agatha Cristie's world-famous classic novel, "Ten Little Indians" was originally called "Ten Little Niggers"
Quote from: Ozzie on Sun 10/02/2008 10:15:01
To be honest, I'm not tolerant towards intolerance.
That's a paradox. If you're not tolerant towards intolerance, that makes you intolerant, which means if I was to follow your sentiment I shouldn't be tolerating your intolerance towards intolerance. And you shouldn't be tolerating my intolerance for your intolerance for intolerance. If that makes sense. So, basically, everyone should kill each other.
We all have our little intolerances. It's natural. My uncle's lactose intolerant... I'm not all up-in-arms about that...
Actually, it is now called "And then there were none", after originally being called "Ten Little Niggers"- Because of the poem. There is even an adventure game of it!
EDIT: Oddness. It was called both "Ten Little Niggers", and "Ten Little Indians", now being generally called "And Then There Were None".
That Agatha Christie thing is something that really gets on my nerves, by the way. If the rhyme goes Ten Little Niggers, then why not use Ten Little Niggers! Politically incorrectnes my derriere, to me the book, films, play and game will always be Ten Little Niggers, because it's what the author originally intended.
With the risk of coming across like a grumpy old man:
What I find odd is that violence&gore in games is almost gratuitous while love is always kept on a Disney level.
actually, I can't remember a single game in which someone was married... whereas almost every puzzle where you have to press your thumb against a scanner to open a lock involves you sawing off someone's hand.
maybe I play the wrong games, but it feels a little out of balance.
Quote from: Emerald on Sun 10/02/2008 16:02:11
Hell, Agatha Cristie's world-famous classic novel, "Ten Little Indians" was originally called "Ten Little Niggers"
Quote from: Ozzie on Sun 10/02/2008 10:15:01
To be honest, I'm not tolerant towards intolerance.
That's a paradox. If you're not tolerant towards intolerance, that makes you intolerant, which means if I was to follow your sentiment I shouldn't be tolerating your intolerance towards intolerance. And you shouldn't be tolerating my intolerance for your intolerance for intolerance. If that makes sense. So, basically, everyone should kill each other.
We all have our little intolerances. It's natural. My uncle's lactose intolerant... I'm not all up-in-arms about that...
Yeah, I'm sure the world would be a much better place if we would be all tolerant towards racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, misogyny...
Sure.
Quote from: Twin Moon on Mon 11/02/2008 12:08:59
actually, I can't remember a single game in which someone was married...
King Graham is married. So are Guybrush Threepwood and, Sonny Bonds. Even Larry Laffer is married at least twice, albeit not for very long, and Roger Wilco will apparently marry Beatrice in SQXII.
Quote from: Ozzie on Mon 11/02/2008 12:11:10
Yeah, I'm sure the world would be a much better place if we would be all tolerant towards racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, misogyny...
Sure.
I'm sure it would. Do you really think you're solving anything by censoring/attacking people who think that way?
I know a guy who's the nicest, gentlest person you'll ever meet. He's thoughtful, optimistic and a pleasure to be around, but he is deathly homophobic. Like, he can't stand to be in the same room as someone who's acting gay. Once, he went in for a haircut, and upon discovering the barber was gay, ran out without looking back.
It's a completely irrational fear, but he can't help it. Should he be punished for that?
This whole 'politically correct' thing is an exercise in hypocrisy.
Hence the term 'homophobia'.
You should lock your friend in a room full of gay chaps for 24 hours so that he can overcome his fear... a similar thing was done with tarantulas for a girl who had been arachnophobic... but she was cured, and now they call her the 'Black Widow'... which upset more people so she was forced to use the term 'Ethnic Unmarried Lady', but anti-sexism groups lobbied to have her change 'Lady' to 'Person'.
she killed herself yesterday... which upset even more people.
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 11/02/2008 17:00:12
Quote from: Twin Moon on Mon 11/02/2008 12:08:59
actually, I can't remember a single game in which someone was married...
King Graham is married. So are Guybrush Threepwood and Sonny Bonds.
the deletion of a comma begins a descent into horribly awesome slash fiction...
Quote from: Stupot on Tue 12/02/2008 15:15:42
Which upset more people so she was forced to use the term 'Ethnic Unmarried Lady', but anti-sexism groups lobbied to have her change 'Lady' to 'Person'.
That's another thing that pisses me off. All this 'Happy Holidays', and 'African American' crap.
It's 'Christmas' and 'Black'.
I have a friend (yes, another one) who's from Africa. We call him 'AJ' because even he can't pronounce his own name (Azerhaji-something...). It's hilarious, because he's got a strong Dublin accent - he's never even
been to America (in fact, he's only ever been to Africa like once or twice), and people call him 'African American'.
And the whole 'Happy Holidays' and 'Holiday Tree' and all that other bullshit is a total double-standard. You go to Israel, you expect synagogues and menorahs. You don't say "Ehh, how about we call it a 'Holiday Candlestick'?"
Quote from: Emerald on Tue 12/02/2008 19:16:20
That's another thing that pisses me off. All this 'Happy Holidays', and 'African American' crap.
It's 'Christmas' and 'Black'.
And don't even get me started on "S.O."
Quote from: Emerald on Tue 12/02/2008 13:56:02
Quote from: Ozzie on Mon 11/02/2008 12:11:10
Yeah, I'm sure the world would be a much better place if we would be all tolerant towards racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, misogyny...
Sure.
I'm sure it would. Do you really think you're solving anything by censoring/attacking people who think that way?
I know a guy who's the nicest, gentlest person you'll ever meet. He's thoughtful, optimistic and a pleasure to be around, but he is deathly homophobic. Like, he can't stand to be in the same room as someone who's acting gay. Once, he went in for a haircut, and upon discovering the barber was gay, ran out without looking back.
It's a completely irrational fear, but he can't help it. Should he be punished for that?
This whole 'politically correct' thing is an exercise in hypocrisy.
Yeah and I know this person, he's the best, kindest, most lovable creature God ever conceived, and he can't be in the same room as women, coloured people, gypsies, homosexuals, dwarves or Irishmen. He actually starts throwing stones at them. But he can't help it, and can we blame him? I mean, we have to be tolerant towards his abnormality.
Quote from: Emerald on Tue 12/02/2008 13:56:02
I know a guy who's the nicest, gentlest person you'll ever meet.
...
Once, he went in for a haircut, and upon discovering the barber was gay, ran out without looking back.
Actually, if this is the nicest person whom you'll ever met, I wonder what kind of person you normally meet. This would rank among the nastiest people I know, and I know quite a lot of people.
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 11/02/2008 17:00:12
King Graham is married. So are Guybrush Threepwood and Sonny Bonds. Even Larry Laffer is married at least twice, albeit not for very long, and Roger Wilco will apparently marry Beatrice in SQXII.
Police Quest 2, that's indeed an example of good writing. But what I meant was that most games feel empty, i.e. without a character background. Then again, people play adventure games for the puzzles, so it's not always that important.
On topic: my father is a rascist and he makes 'African American' sound like an offensive term. (I translated since we're not americans, but you get the point.) That's my two cents on the whole P.C. thing.
@Radiant: S.O.? Sexual organs?
That raises an interesting question. Maybe he truly is homophobic in the clinical sense. Maybe his reaction, psychologically, is the same as an arachnophobe discovering that the barber is actually a giant spider.
Okay, that was silly. But do you get my point? Maybe he wasn't issuing a judgement on the barber at a personal level, just acting out of a crippling fear. True terror vs. utter dislike.
Some people are afraid of milk. Some people juggle geese.
Quote from: Candall on Tue 12/02/2008 20:40:00
That raises an interesting question. Maybe he truly is homophobic in the clinical sense. Maybe his reaction, psychologically, is the same as an arachnophobe discovering that the barber is actually a giant spider.
You can be conditioned to be homophobic, just like you can be conditioned to be afraid of spiders.
Still, you're responsible for what you do with it.
Quote from: Radiant on Tue 12/02/2008 20:22:24
Actually, if this is the nicest person whom you'll ever met, I wonder what kind of person you normally meet. This would rank among the nastiest people I know, and I know quite a lot of people.
Nasty? Since when does avoiding a certain type of person make you Hitler-cum-Stalin?
He obviously didn't wait all the way through his haircut, and
then run out on the bill...
Quote from: Emerald on Wed 13/02/2008 22:53:50
Nasty? Since when does avoiding a certain type of person make you Hitler-cum-Stalin?
I said "nastiest people
I know". I'm happy to inform you that I don't know any Hitler-cum-Stalin people.
It's interesting to point out that a lot of people are unfairly classed as homophobes because they disagree with that behavior and lifestyle for moral/religious reasons. I'm rather against forcing people under threat of labels to adhere to current trends towards what is and is not acceptable.
It's just as easy to discriminate against those who are against something as it is to discriminate against those who are for it.
Quote from: Andail on Tue 12/02/2008 20:18:55
Yeah and I know this person, he's the best, kindest, most lovable creature God ever conceived, and he can't be in the same room as women, coloured people, gypsies, homosexuals, dwarves or Irishmen. He actually starts throwing stones at them. But he can't help it, and can we blame him? I mean, we have to be tolerant towards his abnormality.
Quote from: Radiant on Wed 13/02/2008 23:47:27
I said "nastiest people I know". I'm happy to inform you that I don't know any Hitler-cum-Stalin people.
I think walking away and throwing stones are two different things. And if you can say that a person is "nasty" for not being able to cope with certain types of people then I think you're pretty judgemental yourself. We don't all have to sing cumbayaa hand in hand to get along. Let people be people and chill with the P.C. stuff.
Quote from: PixelPerfect on Thu 14/02/2008 06:05:32
I think walking away and throwing stones are two different things. And if you can say that a person is "nasty" for not being able to cope with certain types of people then I think you're pretty judgemental yourself. We don't all have to sing cumbayaa hand in hand to get along. Let people be people and chill with the P.C. stuff.
Just like Emerald, you're putting words in my mouth and not listening to what I'm actually saying. In a wonderful stroke of irony, that makes you judgmental, since because of cognitive laziness you're pigeonholing people based on a hasty first impression, rather than actually trying to comprehend them. In other words, if you think I'm PC by any stretch of the word, you really don't know who I am.
Oh come on, running out from a barber shop just because you notice the barber might be homosexual is a very provocative act.
It's a loooong way from holding hands and singing cumbayaa to making public displays of resentment.
Let me draw up a chart for you:
1. Not coping with a certain type of people, like rather not be friends with them = ok, but it doesn't make sense.
2. Making public statements, like choosing to sit as far away as a black person on a bus or leaving a room because there's a gay person in it = narrow-minded and stupid.
I dunno, I'm just allergic to the claim "you're intolerant because you don't tolerate intolerant people!!" It's just silly. This has nothing to do with political correctness, it's about understanding that everyone deserves to be treated like a freaking human being, regardless of colour or sexual preferences. If you didn't learn this in school, it's your loss. Try to change.
Quote from: Andail on Thu 14/02/2008 12:29:32
This has nothing to do with political correctness, it's about understanding that everyone deserves to be treated like a freaking human being, regardless of colour or sexual preferences. If you didn't learn this in school, it's your loss. Try to change.
But
they can't help it. It's
not a choice. Just like gays can't help being attracted to men, homophobes can't help being afraid of homosexuals. It's usually deeply ingrained in their psyches by poor relations with their fathers - just like any other irrational fear.
If someone had a fear of Irish people, I'd be fine with them sitting on the other side of the bus - I certainly wouldn't want to make them uncomfortable.
QuoteIt's just as easy to discriminate against those who are against something as it is to discriminate against those who are for it.
That's exactly my point. The only difference is what's "socially acceptable" and what isn't.
A hundred years ago, being a 'nigger-lover' was politically incorrect, and I bet it would be people like you guys taking to the streets during Nelson Mandela's speeches, because that's what was 'taught in school', as you say...
Quote from: Andail on Thu 14/02/2008 12:29:32
Oh come on, running out from a barber shop just because you notice the barber might be homosexual is a very provocative act.
Okay, say someone has pogonophobia (the fear of beards). Whenever they see someone with a beard they turn around and walk the other way. If they enter a shop and someone with a beard also enters they leave. Are they being provocative towards bearded people? What about someone with vertigo. They refuse to take a look at the view from your 23rd floor apartment. Are they doing it because they don't like you, because they hate the view? People in these positions are fully aware that any problems are their own, they avoid people or situations because they themselves have a problem, not because there is something wrong with the people or situation. You're only saying that because its about homosexuals, and they're part of a big messy patchwork of political correctness.
Then again, I've never understood the use of 'homophobia' as an equivalent to, say, racism and sexism.
You may not choose to have an irrational fear, but you can choose to control how much you let it affect your behaviour.
That may be true, but what I'm saying is that you shouldn't condem someone with a fear of something. Someone who is actually racist/sexist etc is a different matter.
Quote from: Becky on Thu 14/02/2008 14:05:49
You may not choose to have an irrational fear, but you can choose to control how much you let it affect your behaviour.
Not really. That's what
irrational means - it's not grounded in any logical thought process. It's a simple knee-jerk reaction, like having a spider crawling down the back of your neck, or getting hit in with one of those little hammers.
I mean, I'm sure it's possible to overcome with a lot of psychotherapy in a gradual process, but that's a lot of money and effort to spend just to be politically correct...
Edit
Quote
That may be true, but what I'm saying is that you shouldn't condem someone with a fear of something. Someone who is actually racist/sexist etc is a different matter.
I don't think anybody should be condemned for their beliefs, no matter what they may be. Now, if they try to force their beliefs on others, or act on them, that's different - but just because someone says something that most people don't agree with, I don't see why it's such a crime.
Why is it that 'freedom of speech' only seems to apply if what you're saying is popular?
Yeah, I'm also a friggin' lazy bum.
I mean, can I change it? I was born that way, raised that way, what should I do?
Well, of course I can! I kick myself in the ass everyday to do something, though I don't want to really. I also had to learn to be more nice and social to people.
With your same line of argumentation you could also excuse the behaviour of murderer, paedophile,...
I mean, they feel this way, they can't help themselves, but they have to kill people or molest small children.
All human beings are different. For some it's harder to behave in a social manner than for others. We might help those, but I at least won't accept recklessness and intolerance.
Quote from: Radiant on Thu 14/02/2008 10:33:49
Just like Emerald, you're putting words in my mouth and not listening to what I'm actually saying. In a wonderful stroke of irony, that makes you judgmental, since because of cognitive laziness you're pigeonholing people based on a hasty first impression, rather than actually trying to comprehend them. In other words, if you think I'm PC by any stretch of the word, you really don't know who I am.
I don't really know you so I can't be saying anything about you, that's true. But if you can say that a person is "nasty" when all you know is that he walked out of a barber once in his life is kinda odd. Don't you agree?
Quote from: Andail on Thu 14/02/2008 12:29:32
Oh come on, running out from a barber shop just because you notice the barber might be homosexual is a very provocative act.
....
I dunno, I'm just allergic to the claim "you're intolerant because you don't tolerate intolerant people!!" It's just silly. This has nothing to do with political correctness, it's about understanding that everyone deserves to be treated like a freaking human being, regardless of colour or sexual preferences. If you didn't learn this in school, it's your loss. Try to change.
It's funny that this "act" would've been probably more tolerable if the barber would've been a non gay person. "So you just didn't like the guy, okay". I think we have a right to choose as customers where we'll get our haircut, whatever the reason may be, and in this case the guy clearly has issues with openly gay people so why wouldn't he leave?
And I'm with you on that notion that everybody should be treated the same, but you're on pretty thin ice if you start saying that leaving a store because of uncomfort, maybe even fear, is a provocative act. Especially when you don't know the circumstances. I wouldn't want to get a haircut from a crossdresser/transgender in full party gear, because it wouldn't be comfortable. I'd rather go to a "normal" place. I guess I'm being intolerant to crossdressers/transgenders for not wanting them express their sexual preference at the same time when cutting my hair?
Quote from: Ozzie on Thu 14/02/2008 16:50:39
With your same line of argumentation you could also excuse the behaviour of murderer, paedophile,...
Has society really degenerated to the point that being un-PC is the equivalent of being a child-raping-murderer?