Clues in the title; Just wondering what people find offensive in games/game content and what they would/wouldn't play.
(Because my game idea is a little 'riskay')
The more 'offensive' the content, the more I'll want to play it :D
...although that might be because I'm 15.
Serious answer, I'm pretty much never genuinely offended by games/movies/etc.
What's your idea?
Look I don't believe anything should be taken as offensive in a game. It is not real. So I believe anybody who says that it is too offensive is too sensitive ( That rhymes ;D ) .. More offensive the better to me. That is the only reason I bought Manhunt 1 and 2. The only 2 out of 5 games banned in the UK. ;D Well least the 2nd. Nothing is offensive in other words. Look at south park. That is the most offensive show in the world and everybody loves it.
I mean once you say it is no under 18. You cant offend anybody. and if you do well too bad. ;)
Edit: Well once you have a look at your Profile's avatar. I don't see what is more offensive then that. ;D
Beastiality.
'nuff said.
Poor spelling or grammar.
To be honest, pretty much any game is bound to offend someone here or there.
Of course it's often context just as much as content with these things.
Quote from: Snarky on Thu 18/03/2010 14:22:49
Poor spelling or grammar.
Heh, yeah. ;D
"Offensive" is not word I'd use, "offputting" may be more correct, I wouldn't get offended at stuff but maybe not want to play a game that as mentioned, stuff like bestiallity (though this also depends on the extreme it's in, technically I felt like I was watching bestiallity while seeing Avatar but not many people would agree), grammar and spelling as well (but that too would vary from a simple mistake to just simply not reading the text twice to check for errors).
You'll always offend someone, that's why many great movies are called cult classics. :P
Alright, if you want an honest answer, I was offended by Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare. Basically because it takes place in my country and for some reason anti-terrorist operation is performed by NATO special forces, instead of native ones.
Taking a wider look, I think I am not offended by sex/violence/gore/obscene language and similar things in my age, but rather by certain ideological orientations, vulgar propaganda (of any type), and, huh, lack of creativity in gameplay :P.
Speaking of adventure games... I am offended by Sierra humor in their games. I think sometimes it is really tasteless and annoying.
I would never play a game that would offend the mighty oth
...And my pointless post count goes up another notch ;D
I doubt there's anything story or theme wise that would offend me - I'm a Chuck Palahniuk and Bret Easton Ellis fan, and while some scenes in their novels do disgust or shock, if that was their purpose, more power to the author!
What would WOULD offend me however, is disturbing images displayed suddenly and without warning (like prank screamers in youtube videos). I have a good visual memory and really can't visit shock sites like rotten.com because the images will be stuck in my mind for a very long time. If something like that happened in a game, I would simply quit it and never play it again. A word of warning: I was doing research on Commedia Del'Arte characters, and I strongly advise you to never, ever do a google image search for "harlequin" without the exclusions "-baby -fetus -ichthyosis" - you WILL be scarred for life.
Personally I hold R-rated movies and cable TV shows as a standard of how far to go in terms of violence and sexual content. If David Cronenberg would put it in a movie, it's probably alright to put it in a game.
While I would love to say I'm easily amused and not often offended there are some things that provoke anger or disgust in me. What may offend me in one area (Such as a novel) may not have the same effect on my via a documentary. It all depends really. It allows has a lot to do with what's going on in your life or what may happen in the future. While I may not have a problem with offensive materials in a game today, that's not to say something won't change my opinion later on. Violence in games does not bother me. Having sex like material in games does not bother me (if done proper and tasteful). But should someone use violence in a game as a means to have sex scenes then that may bother me. Really, everyone is different and all I'm saying is, what is fine today may be wrong tomorrow and vis versa. In the end, whatever floats your boat.
Quote from: GarageGothic on Thu 18/03/2010 15:06:18
What would WOULD offend me however, is disturbing images displayed suddenly and without warning (like prank screamers in youtube videos).
I find this interesting...
My game coming up is modeled after nightmares I have had and will include a few 'jump out of your seat' moments, but I think they belong, as that is how they actually happened. I think there's 2 (3 if you're REALLY easily scared) but none of the game includes random graphic violence, for that has always turned me off from atmosphere (I'm one to think Trilby's notes would have been greatly improved without the excessive dead bodies, blood, etc. in the hotel.)
I will include some warning dialog before the game starts about that.
I think that if they're tame enough scenes for my girlfriend to watch without jumping, just about anyone could. :P
Does this sort of thing bother anyone else?
All in all, Badger, while you may not want to reveal any spoliers, a bit more explanation on "risky" would be useful.
@Domithan: if it contributes to the game, it should be ok, same as with random gore - there's a use for shocking (the sight, no in that "out of your seat" way) and then there's something that 's just not pleasant to look at all the time.
OFFTOPIC warning:
Quote from: GarageGothic on Thu 18/03/2010 15:06:18
I doubt there's anything story or theme wise that would offend me - I'm a Chuck Palahniuk and Bret Easton Ellis fan, and while some scenes in their novels do disgust or shock, if that was their purpose, more power to the author!
What would WOULD offend me however, is disturbing images displayed suddenly and without warning (like prank screamers in youtube videos). I have a good visual memory and really can't visit shock sites like rotten.com because the images will be stuck in my mind for a very long time. If something like that happened in a game, I would simply quit it and never play it again. A word of warning: I was doing research on Commedia Del'Arte characters, and I strongly advise you to never, ever do a google image search for "harlequin" without the exclusions "-baby -fetus -ichthyosis" - you WILL be scarred for life.
Aww, I actually was planning on a story with Commedia del'Arte characters and plot mondernised (almost unreconisable except by looking at the overall story) and set in some setting like Palahniuk's Choke/Fight club setting. It would just kind of work cause there's harlequins, older men, younger women, servants, pierrots, brighellas, scaramuccio etc.
Though I only looked over wiki pages for character types in those "Commedies". ;D
I have watched the most offensive movies and played the most offensive games. And I think like Crimson Wizard I can understand how he could get slightly offended because it is like Stereotyping people. Like Wolfenstein it is saying all Germans are Nazis. Which I agree it is quite offensive.
But With like Violence and Sex whatever rubbish. People should not take in any offense unless like Gravity said
QuoteHaving sex like material in games does not bother me (if done proper and tasteful). But should someone use violence in a game as a means to have sex scenes then that may bother me.
Which is not offensive just damn irritating.
Well for me, if by offensive you mean tragic, yes I would play it in a heartbeat. I'm a sucker for tragic endings.
On the other hand, I wouldnt play a saw game, because I find nothing tragic.
Quote from: anian on Thu 18/03/2010 15:27:23
All in all, Badger, while you may not want to reveal any spoliers, a bit more explanation on "risky" would be useful.
I believe the word that Badgey is seeking would be: risqué
Quote from: Badger on Thu 18/03/2010 10:31:31
Clues in the title; Just wondering what people find offensive in games/game content and what they would/wouldn't play.
Depends on whether the offense is gratuitous or truly part of the plot.
Offensive content usually comes via depictions of reality. Its fine to tear up demons with a chainsaw but its less acceptable to chainsaw Jews.
It's not fine to run over pedestrians (carmageddon) but its fine to run them over if they are zombies (i.e their blood is green)
The act itself is irrelevant.
Winter's Shadow has a fair amount of religious imagery in it which could possibly cause offense but the fact of the matter is that this is *fiction*. It's not real and any depictions of reality are merely metaphors and cultural signals that the audience can relate to. No one is being hurt.
There was a story a while ago about the governor of Las Vegas being very 'offended' by one of the rainbow six games because it implied that Vegas was full of terrorists. These are the kinds of people that think Johnny Depp really is a pirate.
My advice is to go for it. You are an independent developer. You don't have to worry about shareholders or even commercial impact. A vision is always more pure than compromise.
When Reservoir Dogs was be premièred at Cannes, a director/film critic(I forget his name), walked out during the ear cutting scene but afterwards he said this was a compliment to Tarantino since it meant that he had achieved his goal, despite how physically offputting it was to audience.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 18/03/2010 18:11:42
These are the kinds of people that think Johnny Depp really is a pirate.
Wait- what? JESUS CALIN! Ever heard of f****ing [SPOILER ALERT?!?!]
P.S. Is it wrong that every-time you gave an example of what isn't acceptable I thought: "Well, it really depends on the presentation..."
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 18/03/2010 18:11:42
There was a story a while ago about the governor of Las Vegas being very 'offended' by one of the rainbow six games because it implied that Vegas was full of terrorists. These are the kinds of people that think Johnny Depp really is a pirate.
You mean he uses BitTorrent?
I'm offended when racist jokes are hidden behind a flimsy veil of tacked-on irony.
I'm against censorship, if a racist joke is funny then it deserves to be heard no matter how reprehensible; I'm an adult, I know the difference between right and wrong, I can decide for myself how vile something is, I can handle it.
Hiding behind an ill-conceived 'just kidding' doesn't make you politically correct; it just makes you a coward. If something's funny it's funny, it's not your fault; put it out there and accept the consequences or don't put it out there; don't try and have it both ways... you're just cheapening whatever plight makes the joke offensive in the first place.
So yeah, that's my pet peeve.
I agree with Eggie on censorship.
There is a difference between condemning someone for what they say and condemning their right to say it.
However I actually believe post-modernist irony is funny in itself. It displays the racist joke as a parody of itself and accepts the fact that they are always based on incorrect stereotypes. Harold and Kumar is full of this kind of stuff. If you removed the irony the whole film would essentially be racist propaganda.
Yeah, you're right of course. And I'm a big fan of comedians like Sarah Silverman who make the irony an integral part of their act. But I'm not talking about humour ABOUT prejudice, there are jokes out there that are genuinely designed to put down and humiliate a group of people; stuff with no redeeming social value that might still have entertainment (or at least academic value) and certain things will expect to get away with telling such jokes scott-free by simply playing the "Satire/I didn't mean it" card.
Well of course you didn't mean it, you're obviously not a terrible, ignorant person but you still said it, it still came out of your mouth. Take some responsibility; you said it because you thought it was funny.
I am offended by movies/games/time based media in general that is spoon-feeding me its "message". Also, I don't want to know by looks or clothing (leather jackets, cigarettes, eye patches, stupid hats) who are the good and who are the bad guys. In fact, I don't want good or bad guys at all, I want individuals torn between right and wrong and caught up in a confusing society that made them what they are. Everything else will offend me.
Oh, and while I am at it: I don't want stereotypical women, and by that I mean neither stereotypically sexy nor stereotypically strong and brave. Oh, and to emancipate a bit further: I also don't want stereotypical men. And I don't want stereotypical kids, got it? Yes. And, come to think of it, the only game that probably won't offend me is a game where you play Josef Stalin solving pornographic crossword puzzles and every once in a while have to shoot your current assistant in a minigame.
No, that's not true. But I'd play that!
The simple truth of the matter is you can't satisfy everyone so don't try-you'll only end up displeasing everyone in the process. Until you have a publisher breathing down your neck about do this or don't do that, make whatever kind of game you want, are happy with, and that you get a sense of accomplishment from.
Quote from: Badger on Thu 18/03/2010 10:31:31
Clues in the title; Just wondering what people find offensive in games/game content and what they would/wouldn't play.
(Because my game idea is a little 'riskay')
Well Badger, I'm offended by your spelling of 'risqué', the drawing in your avatar and (as a vegetarian) the fact that they seem to be doing it on a giant burger. Well, not very offended but mildly perturbed.
If you make a saucy game it will put
some people off, and attract
a lot of others. Just make the game you want to make, but maybe change the burger into some kind of tofu?
Quote from: Bulbapuck on Thu 18/03/2010 14:48:34
I would never play a game that would offend the mighty oth
This made me laugh one of those unexpected snorty kind of laughs.
There's a different between an offensive scene and a stupidly offensive scene. The first can be clarified as Art, the second can be clarified as a load full of s^&$.
When you say offensive I take it as sexual kind of? I was going to make a game about a guy that his wife would get raped from a gang of guys and he would go for revenge, and that's the closest to offensive I've reached.
Quote from: Dualnames on Thu 18/03/2010 22:07:13
There's a different between an offensive scene and a stupidly offensive scene. The first can be clarified as Art, the second can be clarified as a load full of s^&$.
When you say offensive I take it as sexual kind of? I was going to make a game about a guy that his wife would get raped from a gang of guys and he would go for revenge, and that's the closest to offensive I've reached.
Exactly. If it fits in with the story then fine. But if someone adds a rape scene in just for the sake of it then...
I assumed the boundary was scat.
Quote from: Jared on Fri 19/03/2010 02:13:13
I assumed the boundary was scat.
Nope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scatman_%28Ski_Ba_Bop_Ba_Dop_Bop%29)
I'd be offended if you used my stuff in your game without my permission.
I would be either angry or laughing if you 'attack' me personaly in your game, depending on how you do it.
A lot of other things would make me feel something, but not offended.
Yes, I'd have a look at a game that is offensive to someone else.
I am now tempted to make a game that will offend the most people possible.
Quote from: Dataflashsabot on Fri 19/03/2010 21:07:22
I am now tempted to make a game that will offend the most people possible.
Easy. Just make a game saying to the player: "You're the biggest idiot who has ever played this game... Now watch this offensive p0rn:" or something like that.
Quote from: Dataflashsabot on Fri 19/03/2010 21:07:22
I am now tempted to make a game that will offend the most people possible.
How about a MAGS theme? Dibs for making "Concentration Camp Tycoon" where you get a "German Efficiency" achievement for eradicating 1000+ Jews with a single canister of Zyklon B.
God damn you GG!!! I was mostly influenced by this post, to announce a cool MAGS theme...but you hold your breath, there will be TEH AWSMOEA!!
Quote from: Ascovel on Fri 19/03/2010 23:28:14
Quote from: Dataflashsabot on Fri 19/03/2010 21:07:22
I am now tempted to make a game that will offend the most people possible.
Easy. Just make a game saying to the player: "You're the biggest idiot who has ever played this game... Now watch this offensive p0rn:" or something like that.
A Fun Game (http://a-fun-game.funnypart.com)
Offensive? I wasn't personally, but I wouldnt mind hearing opinions.
Quote from: Scarab on Sat 20/03/2010 09:21:43
Quote from: Ascovel on Fri 19/03/2010 23:28:14
Quote from: Dataflashsabot on Fri 19/03/2010 21:07:22
I am now tempted to make a game that will offend the most people possible.
Easy. Just make a game saying to the player: "You're the biggest idiot who has ever played this game... Now watch this offensive p0rn:" or something like that.
A Fun Game (http://a-fun-game.funnypart.com)
Offensive? I wasn't personally, but I wouldnt mind hearing opinions.
I thought that was hilarious :D
Anyway, time to work on Hitler Rape Massacre I think...
Quote from: Dataflashsabot on Sat 20/03/2010 10:12:40Anyway, time to work on Hitler Rape Massacre I think...
Any title of such awesomeness surely needs a Blackface Edition!
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6468/hitlerblackface.jpg)
EDIT: Woohoo! Succeeded in offending somebody and have the broken link to prove it!
(deleted)
Well I have a few odd characters to converse with throughout the game, and they're fairly integral to the initial plot (not the main plot)
Pedofiles, toddler drug dealers, transexual prison inmates, which you have to help/get to help you in some way. Though i agree with much that's been said. I hate bad grammar and would want the characters to mean something in a game. As for sexual nature, there's none planned for this game, except in verbal use.
Thanks for the feedback, very inspirational :o
Only 2 games offended me and both had the author forcefully shoving down my throat his/her opinions. It's one thing do it subtly, over the course of the game, it's another to just interrupt the story with a completly unrelated 5 minutes long cutscene just to be trolled by the author.
I don't think the fear of offending someone should stop anyone from making a game. There will always be people who'll like your game and people who won't, with or without offending content, so you may as well put whatever you want in your game, just make sure that, like hofmeier suggested, your game's implementation is as flawless as possible.
I'm not easily offended by games/TV/film etc... I'm all for a bit off bad taste. I'm more easily offended by personal things such as if someone says (or even implies that they think) I'm a liar.
Quote from: Stupot on Sat 20/03/2010 15:49:03
I'm more easily offended by personal things such as if someone says (or even implies that they think) I'm a liar.
Really? In your place, I'd only get worried that I was figured out. :=
Quote from: Stupot on Sat 20/03/2010 15:49:03
I'm not easily offended by games/TV/film etc... I'm all for a bit off bad taste. I'm more easily offended by personal things such as if someone says (or even implies that they think) I'm a liar.
Yeah right... like we're gonna believe that.
No one should ever trust a cigarette smoking Santa at the end of March.
I think the biggest thing that "offends" me is sexism towards anyone, regardless of sex, gender, orientation, or whatever. And by "offends" I mean makes me want to backhand the offender. In terms of revulsion, I'd say extreme gore. And by "revulsion" I mean makes me feel sick.
Only girls get offended by sexism. :-*
Quote from: ShadeJackrabbit on Sun 21/03/2010 06:46:53
I think the biggest thing that "offends" me is sexism towards anyone, regardless of sex, gender, orientation, or whatever. And by "offends" I mean makes me want to backhand the offender. In terms of revulsion, I'd say extreme gore. And by "revulsion" I mean makes me feel sick.
By 'sexism' I'm assuming you mean 'discrimination'?
Basically. Sexism is the one that majorly boils me, though. Like, I really hate racism or any other sort of discrimination, but sexism bothers me the most.
If I were to say what I hate about people's treatment of others, I would say that I hate those (more specifically, I hate their actions) who judge without knowing, and refuse to learn. I hate pretty much everything that people employ in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination). Ageism, sexism, caste systems, homophobia, racism, etc... they all get under my skin.
Out of the ones which have been most affecting to me and therefor set me off the most, I'll say sexism. I'm personally offended by sexism. I am not personally offended by racism or the like, though I still hate it and combat it when I can.
Should've been clearer about that, I must say. *shrug*
tl;dr version: personally offended by sexism, hate all discrimination.
Quote from: Stupot on Sun 21/03/2010 19:08:39
Only girls get offended by sexism. :-*
Quite right, you male chauvanist pig!!!111 >:( ;)
On a more serious note, and answering part of the original post, no, I wouldn't download a game that offends others. But then that depends on how seriously it was MEANT to offend. I think offense depends a lot on intent. If the maker of the game MEANT to stir up controversy for no particular reason other than maybe publicity, then I would boycott that game. It means the developer was just being an asshole for the sake of it, and I don't really like assholes. But if the developer was honestly unaware that, say, calling something gay may be offensive (and this is a really common thing nowadays - "that movie's really gay" meaning the movie sucks) - then I might just put it down to ignorance and give it a chance.
Remember though that this is *fiction!*
Fictional characters can say some pretty offensive things (Huck Finn, Buddy, Clockwork Orange, Pulp Fiction) but that doesn't mean the author intended to offend. Rather, it can be an opportunity to explore certain facets of life untouched by more mainstream media.
Fiction and art *should* contain materials which can be considered to be offensive.
Also we should remember that there is a difference between offensive material and material that a viewer simply does not like because it is critical of them or their world view.
If a character were to say something is "gay" its just a reflection of that character and the viewer is free to decide whether or not they like that character but it has no bearing on the opinions or conduct of the author.
In fact sometimes arguments and ideas explored in fiction can be the *opposite* of the authors own beliefs (Dostoevsky I'm looking at you.)
That's a good point Calin. And sometimes there can be a lot of worth in feeling offended about something, such as there can be in anger and sadness. Any emotion, when used in the right context, can merely help and make an experience more fulfilling.
Oh, so in response to the second question (which I forgot to answer): Maybe, I might download a game that would be offensive, if it seems like it would offer something interesting to the table.
True. The "gay" example was just something off the top of my head. But used in such a situation, then the author's intention was not to deliberately provoke the audience, for example if it's said by a character who's supposed to be assholish.
In other words, if the offending character truly serves a purpose in the story and isn't just there for giggles, then sure.
Quote
If a character were to say something is "gay" its just a reflection of that character and the viewer is free to decide whether or not they like that character but it has no bearing on the opinions or conduct of the author.
Hmmm, I don't see why it would be considered asswholish ...
Quote
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay
gay /geɪ/ Show Spelled [gey] Show IPA adjective,-er, -est, noun, adverb
â€"adjective
1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.
The content of an adventure game is initially hidden and gradually revealed to players as they advance through the game. The real issue is that you may surprise players with something they personally find distasteful and would have never chosen for themselves or their friends and family.
Consider, for example, an adventure game having a "Goldie Locks and Three Bears" theme. It is dressed in bright and lively cartoonish style and advertises itself as the classic tale we all know. You say hey this would make a great gift for my little nieces and nephews, so you download it and burn a bunch of CDs. While you're at it you burn a cd for your bosses children as well. A month or so later you learn from your sister/boss that when the kids get to the part where the bears come home and find Goldielocks sleeping in their bed that instead of chasing her away the fore her to perform oral sex on Papa and Mama Bear while Baby bear is boinking her in the bum.
Excuse me, but I think I would be -- well offended is too mild of a word.
Case in point is the initial post in this thread -- no clue as to what the author is actually concerned about and he feels that he must keep the topic concealed lest he spoil his game. I think this is wrong headed thinking and that it's necessary to be upfront an honest about the content of your work. In the above example the description.abstract ought to contain something like this:
Quote
We've all heard the story about Goldilocks and the Three Bears when we were kids but is that all there is to it? Now that we are grown up we find that life is more complicated than we thought and when we screw things up .... well ... were screwed! WARNING: Contains adult themes, rough language, bestiality, and other sexual acts.
If your game can't survive a brief and accurate description it's not worth playing. Just my 2 cents.
But he
is saying his game might offend others. That's a warning, isn't it?
Quote from: Badger on Sat 20/03/2010 14:19:54
Well I have a few odd characters to converse with throughout the game, and they're fairly integral to the initial plot (not the main plot)
Pedofiles, toddler drug dealers, transexual prison inmates, which you have to help/get to help you in some way.
Let's say that this means the game starts off in a prison, and you have to escape the prison with the help of its inmates. (I have no idea if this is the case.) But it's not the main plot. How would you give warning in a short summary of the game?
"Petty thief Robin Hood escapes prison with the help of some possibly and probably really likely to be offensive characters - and becomes witness to the killing of a police officer. He becomes the principle suspect... WARNING: Pedophiles, toddler drug dealers, transsexual prison inmates in initial part of game, the rest is fine."
Quote
But he is saying his game might offend others. That's a warning, isn't it?
As pointed out earlier in the thread, the same could be said of any/every game. Without some specifics such a warning is meaningless.
Quote
Let's say that this means the game starts off in a prison, ... offensive characters ...
I think the word "offensive characters" in this context is less accurate than "really bad characters". There is nothing controversial or surprising about the fact that really bad people are in prison, every school kid knows that. It's one thing to say "Oh he's a lifer in for murder and the other guy is doin 10-20 for pedophilia..." and quite another to disclose all the gory details of their crimes. IMHO, the former doesn't require prior warning and the latter does. Such a warning could simply contain the following:
" ..., violence, pedophilia, prison, ..."
Quote from: RickJ on Tue 23/03/2010 03:38:38
Quote
If a character were to say something is "gay" its just a reflection of that character and the viewer is free to decide whether or not they like that character but it has no bearing on the opinions or conduct of the author.
Hmmm, I don't see why it would be considered asswholish ...
Using "gay" as a general term of abuse is widely seen as offensive to gay people. Being insensitive to this offensiveness arguably makes a person an asshole. Having a character use it in a work of fiction is obviously defensible (as a reflection of reality, not necessarily the author's personal opinion), though some people will certainly be upset regardless.
I'm kind of offended that gay people have commandeered a word and that anytime I use it to mean anything OTHER "homosexual(s)," they get offended... :P
Pretty much all the negative uses of "gay" are homophobic in origin, so unless you really want to use as a synonym of "cheerful, merry" (which wouldn't be offensive anyway), it's not gays who are to blame that it's offensive.
Questionable and Snarky those are such gay comments. ;D (Cheerful and happy) ;D
I think anyone who gets offended in a game is just not realistic.. In real life it exists. so it can in a game too.
What if I were to say "The baron is a gay old rogue ..." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay)? Would/should that be offensive to anybody?
Quote from: Snarky on Tue 23/03/2010 22:22:13
Pretty much all the negative uses of "gay" are homophobic in origin, so unless you really want to use as a synonym of "cheerful, merry" (which wouldn't be offensive anyway), it's not gays who are to blame that it's offensive.
In my opinion the origin is irrelevant, the modern context is what matters. "Cock" originates from a term describing a male from a bird species, however, if I say that my Cock itches I don't think anyone would believe that I have a Dove in my pocket. Also, culturally words would mean different things: Pulling something out of my Fanny would probably get me arrested in Leeds but would seem completely normal in Orlando.
The word gay has evolved to have MANY different meaning, I think it can accommodate one more. Rick pointed out that it implies someone sexually wonton, by that definition I can see how it could have taken its negative connotations from that. However, I think using "gay" has more in common with "Queer." Queer meaning irregular or unusual. So perhaps the gay barons behavior was queer.
It just doesn't make sense to me that people will try to stop the evolution of slang/language. If I say that "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" is Black Comedy, should that offend the Black Community? Please. It's just selfish and gay people need to get over themselves. If you want to be equals don't act like you're anything special! =P
As a side note, I am a proud support of Gay Rights and Equality for All Humans - even if that means having an oozy grey porridge for a global culture...
But seriously, you can't get more liberal than me, it seems as if nobody is able to understand context, implication and intention.
I also support Happy and Merry Rights and Equality for All Humans. You're quite right is what I always thought.
QuoteIf you want to be equal don't act like you're anything special! =P
But this also apply to Racism too I think. People make it a big deal to be "special" .
Quote from: Questionable on Wed 24/03/2010 13:36:26
In my opinion the origin is irrelevant, the modern context is what matters. "Cock" originates from a term describing a male from a bird species, however, if I say that my Cock itches I don't think anyone would believe that I have a Dove in my pocket. Also, culturally words would mean different things: Pulling something out of my Fanny would probably get me arrested in Leeds but would seem completely normal in Orlando.
The word gay has evolved to have MANY different meaning, I think it can accommodate one more. Rick pointed out that it implies someone sexually wonton, by that definition I can see how it could have taken its negative connotations from that. However, I think using "gay" has more in common with "Queer." Queer meaning irregular or unusual. So perhaps the gay barons behavior was queer.
The hypotheticals are moot. When "gay" is used as a negative term or playground insult today, it comes from (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7289390.stm) its use as a term of homophobic abuse.
Kids who use it may not consider it to have any sexual connotations, but the link is clear, and many gay people find it hurtful (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1422311/is_it_appropriate_to_use_the_word_gay.html?cat=9). Advocacy groups have run big billboard campaigns against its use.
Would you use "to jew someone" to mean cheat them or underpay them? No, of course not. Even "gyp", where the racist origin is more obscure, is now pretty much frowned upon. And why? Because terms of disparagement that arise from negative assumptions about groups of people are now seen as unacceptable. Why should "gay" be any different?
It's similar to slang use of "retarded", which some groups also oppose and which is seen as uncouth at best. (Michael Scott: "You don't call retarded people "retards". That would be in bad taste. You call your friends "retards" when they're acting retarded.") Personally I think this insult is less offensive because, putting aside political correctness, it's not bigoted to believe that being mentally retarded is undesirable. Of course, it could still be hurtful, maybe even more so.
QuoteIt just doesn't make sense to me that people will try to stop the evolution of slang/language.
Then you might equally well argue that regardless of the background, it's now a term that (when use pejoratively) gay groups regard as offensive to homosexuals and that is widely understood (at least in the adult world) to have homophobic undertones. So even if it was OK to use it as an insult before, now it probably isn't. Hey, that's just the evolution of language!
Though I have to say that I personally use "Bugger!" as an interjection, which I guess has a similar background. The difference? As far as I'm aware, no one actually finds it particularly offensive.
Well that is what slang is like.. Retarded is not really hurtful it has the same meaning has mentally challenged.
Definition: intellectually limited
or slowed or delayed in development or progress
There is nothing offensive about that. It is just who and what they are. If the word Retard fits a person then it is not offensive. If the definition is correct how can anyone take offense to it. least that is my say ;D
QuoteWould you use "to jew someone" to mean cheat them or underpay them? No, of course not. Even "gyp", where the racist origin is more obscure, is now pretty much frowned upon.
::)
I wouldn't say it in a group or crowd of people I didn't know or would judge me for saying it, but I've definitely said both before.
I blame the guys I worked with. :P The one guy was 50 years old and would pretend to be racist all the time, but he of course wasn't. Like a black truck driver would come in and drop something off, he would then leave and my colleague would say "he was a nigger". It was funny. It's wrong, but it's funny. He only said it because he knows you're not supposed to say it, which makes it funny because he did. But if he ever said it to the man's face, I would be extremely awkward and walk away.
It's like the CollegeHumour spelling-b video of the word "Niggerfaggot". I found the video hilarious, which obviously I'm not alone since it has tons of views and they of course made the video to be funny.
They had a saying at my old job which was "a black person isn't a nigger unless they're gangsters or thieves, etc". I seriously have no issue with someone calling a black person who dresses like 50cent with bling up his arse and jeans down to his knees a nigger. But if someone were to call Obama or a straight up black citizen a nigger, to me that is offensive.
Just like white people who dress like 50cent, pretending to be gangsters, I have no issue calling them Wiggers. Which has obviously originated from "white-nigger".
Anyway, the big question is: was my post offensive?
I always thought the word "nigger" meant gangster or I guess Black Gangster. The only thing that I never understand is a black person calls a white person a nigger it is not racist. The other way it is. Doesn't make sense that part. But what do I know I live in Africa. With different languages so only racist words are very racist.
I think all our posts are offensive. To Homosexuals,Black people, Retarded people, and also Jews ;D
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 24/03/2010 14:48:41
The hypotheticals are moot.
Hardly! They illustrate the point and are all valid.
QuoteWould you use "to jew someone" to mean cheat them or underpay them?
Actually yes, although this may work diferently because i'm half Jew... I say "That's jewish" or "I got jewed" to mean "a bad deal" or "getting screwed like a the jews have for most of eternity." For instance:
Five dollars for a taco?! Well that's jewish.
or
The ref didn't even call that a foul! We got so jewed.
As a side note, getting "gypped" isn't frowned upon in any of the places I've been... well GETTING GYPPED is frowned upon but SAYING gypped isn't, LOL.
Quote
It's similar to slang use of "retarded", which some groups also oppose and which is seen as uncouth at best. (Michael Scott: "You don't call retarded people "retards". That would be in bad taste. You call your friends "retards" when they're acting retarded.") Personally I think this insult is less offensive because, putting aside political correctness, it's not bigoted to believe that being mentally retarded is undesirable. Of course, it could still be hurtful, maybe even more so.
This is a funny situation to me. People close to the mentally challenged/damaged communities insist on using the phrases "mentally challenged" or "reduced mental capacity/function" and similar terms to describe the individuals. Also preferred is describing the exact trauma/deformation. Using the word retarded, isn't something they've embraced (like "fat" or "gay" are embraced [in most cases] by their respective communities) and isn't an archaic word not typically used (gay) in general speech. To call someone else is retarded is to imply that they are incompetent... if I call a bar retarded, however, what am I implying? I find it silly.
QuoteThen you might equally well argue that regardless of the background, it's now a term that (when use pejoratively) gay groups regard as offensive to homosexuals and that is widely understood (at least in the adult world) to have homophobic undertones. So even if it was OK to use it as an insult before, now it probably isn't. Hey, that's just the evolution of language!
I'm saying that many people in the gay community act as if the word doesn't mean anything BUT homosexual and cannot/should not mean/apply to anything but homosexuals. The social acceptance of the word is irrelevant as no matter how much gay people want people to stop using the word for anything but homosexual isn't going to happen anytime soon. Similarly, people that don't want individuals to say "bollocks" or "stupid" or "felching" probably aren't going to have any influence the words actually being used. I'm not talking about USAGE, I'm talking about acceptance of a word to be defined BEYOND what a small group of individuals WILLS it to be defined as. I'm saying that just as many people use the word gay as a negative descriptor as use it as a synonym for homosexuals and it should justifiably be recognized as having those multiple definitions, why can the two NOT co-exist? Whether or not it is in good taste is moot, as people will ALWAYS have bad taste.
QuoteThough I have to say that I personally use "Bugger!" as an interjection, which I guess has a similar background. The difference? As far as I'm aware, no one actually finds it particularly offensive.
Because it isn't found offensive doesn't mean that your usage of it prevents it from being defined properly! Also, probably because there really aren't many ways to use the word "bugger!" =P
My argument isn't that it should or shouldn't be used, that's an endless debate because we all walk lines and sometimes the lines that we walk hurt others, it's non-resolvable. However, recognizing that the word gay can ALSO be a negative descriptor, coexisting with being sexually liberal, being bright and showy and flashy, being merry, participating in social pleasures AND ALSO being homosexual.
Quote from: Questionable on Wed 24/03/2010 17:12:15
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 24/03/2010 14:48:41
The hypotheticals are moot.
Hardly! They illustrate the point and are all valid.
That a word "could have" originated one way is completely irrelevant when (a) it didn't, and (b) everyone knows that it didn't.
QuoteQuoteWould you use "to jew someone" to mean cheat them or underpay them?
Actually yes, although this may work diferently because i'm half Jew... I say "That's jewish" or "I got jewed" to mean "a bad deal" or "getting screwed like a the jews have for most of eternity."
When I first heard the term "Indian giver", I assumed that it came from the way the settlers constantly reneged on their treaties with the native Americans, taking land they had previously "given" them. But just because someone might have a naive interpretation that makes it seem inoffensive doesn't make it true.
QuoteI'm saying that many people in the gay community act as if the word doesn't mean anything BUT homosexual and cannot/should not mean/apply to anything but homosexuals. The social acceptance of the word is irrelevant as no matter how much gay people want people to stop using the word for anything but homosexual isn't going to happen anytime soon. Similarly, people that don't want individuals to say "bollocks" or "stupid" or "felching" probably aren't going to have any influence the words actually being used. I'm not talking about USAGE, I'm talking about acceptance of a word to be defined BEYOND what a small group of individuals WILLS it to be defined as. I'm saying that just as many people use the word gay as a negative descriptor as use it as a synonym for homosexuals and it should justifiably be recognized as having those multiple definitions, why can the two NOT co-exist? Whether or not it is in good taste is moot, as people will ALWAYS have bad taste.
I have no idea what you're arguing here. "The social acceptance of the word is irrelevant"? It's exactly the point! Look, kids may not know or consider what the words they use mean, but adults have to be a bit more reflective. And anyone who thinks about it for a moment has to realize that "gay" as a general pejorative is based on its use as a homophobic insult. This is not even moderately obscure, like the fact that "dork" comes from a slang word for penis.
And I think you're wrong that affecting how people use it won't work. Activist groups seem determined to raise awareness of the homophobic implications of its pejorative use, and there's been a very clear trend in modern English for bigoted language to be increasingly considered beyond the pale and hateful. It doesn't mean people will stop using it completely (and certainly kids will continue to use slang that is derogatory to gays and others), but when it causes their listeners to wince they might think twice.
QuoteAlso, probably because there really aren't many ways to use the word "bugger!" =P
Oh, there are quite a lot!
QuoteMy argument isn't that it should or shouldn't be used, that's an endless debate because we all walk lines and sometimes the lines that we walk hurt others, it's non-resolvable. However, recognizing that the word gay can ALSO be a negative descriptor, coexisting with being sexually liberal, being bright and showy and flashy, being merry, participating in social pleasures AND ALSO being homosexual.
Apart from the first slang use, all those other senses have been crowded out by now, and have to be considered archaic. I don't think you'll find anyone using it innocently (i.e. not as an act of defiance or for a double entendre) for those meanings.
The point is that you associate the term with a negative.
A few months ago Jeremy Clarkson got introuble for calling Gordon brown something like a "blind scottish prat"
He IS partially blind AND scottish but the fact is that Clarkson used this terms as an insult with negative connotations.
It makes me upset when I see people like Jeremy Clarkson visit other countries. If somebody asked me to think of the worst ambassador in the history of the world for this country, it would be him. Richard Hammond is just as bad. Plus, he has an... annoying... presentation style... where he has to... pause, and then... add a "but hey"... joke at the end. And he has annoying hair and a stupid trench coat which I want to ritually burn.
Sorry if I offend any Top-Gear fans!
James May is where it's at... fact
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 24/03/2010 19:33:15
James May is where it's at... fact
I think its a tie between him and Clarkson, may is a bit too dull and Jeremy is a bit too over the top but between the two of them they have GENUINE passion and interest! And in James' case, Knowledge.
Hammond, only the other hand, should be legally required to only host children television.
Gee, every country has goodfballs. I really like Top-Gear because of those guys, they may be goofballs, but they're funny. I think it's the epitomy of idiocy, to actually consider England from:
A. A popular show
B. A popular's show host/s.
Top Gear is my happiness, Jeremy Clarkson included, despite the fact that I pretty much agree about the presentation style and the bad hair and all. I devour episodes like potato chips.
But since the "gay" debate somehow got fired off here... I was specifically using the "gay" example negatively. I doubt anyone would protest against the use of "gay" in its original meaning of cheerful or happy. But when it's used to mean "weak" or "bad"? That's where it gets offensive. Same with "lame" or "retarded". Those were once socially acceptable terms, until they got flung around as insults ("that haircut is lame" - gee, when did it grow legs that couldn't walk?)
Or how about "moron/idiot/imbecile"? All these were once actual, acceptable terms to describe various degrees of mental retardation. Now? I doubt it's acceptable to call even a really mentally retarded person an imbecile or idiot. Probably because some morons thought it was a good idea to use those terms negatively.
See what I did there?
Calin's point was what I meant - that it all lies in the intent. Same with games.
Quote from: GarageGothic on Thu 18/03/2010 15:06:18
I doubt there's anything story or theme wise that would offend me - I'm a Chuck Palahniuk and Bret Easton Ellis fan, and while some scenes in their novels do disgust or shock, if that was their purpose, more power to the author!
What would WOULD offend me however, is disturbing images displayed suddenly and without warning (like prank screamers in youtube videos). I have a good visual memory and really can't visit shock sites like rotten.com because the images will be stuck in my mind for a very long time. If something like that happened in a game, I would simply quit it and never play it again. A word of warning: I was doing research on Commedia Del'Arte characters, and I strongly advise you to never, ever do a google image search for "harlequin" without the exclusions "-baby -fetus -ichthyosis" - you WILL be scarred for life.
Personally I hold R-rated movies and cable TV shows as a standard of how far to go in terms of violence and sexual content. If David Cronenberg would put it in a movie, it's probably alright to put it in a game.
Looked it up, quite disturbing but not offensive. It's just a genetic disorder.
What a gay thread. I feel like jewing it all the way to the chambers.
If only we had more gay jews on this forum, we could ask them if it's offensive. I think it's silly working out what's offensive and what's not. I find that games that concentrate on interaction and say, the literal side of it should know better than to use words like shitmonger. The whole usage of the word takes the game down 5 steps on the intelligent bar. There's a wolrd of difference to how civilised people and pirates talk, using cursewords and offensive words in a sentence of just a regular character really makes the creator sound like a chav or a brat to me. People should really consider before they apply bad language. Of course, one could do it for the idealistic sense of the freedom of speech, but that train has really passed and we don't alll need to be punk rockers. Most of the cursewords like shit, sexual words like fuck, racial words like nigger stand out, but do really not give the character the edge needed.
Quote from: Tuomas on Thu 25/03/2010 05:53:24
If only we had more gay jews on this forum, we could ask them if it's offensive...
Well as only part of a jew (1/2... does that make me a Je or an Ew?) I don't think my opinion counts for much. Dave Gilbert made "The Shivah" AND he live sin New York, right? He's gotta be full-on Jew... somebody PM him. :P