84 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

You can't be serious.

 

This is where people who otherwise indifferent and uninvolved have to speak up. So because he uses a vernacular that has the audacity to suggest that sexual "orientation" is a choice he suddenly has a bias against it? He drew no such conclusions in his post.

 

You can't term semantic misunderstandings or grammatical affronts as "bias" and expect to be taken seriously. The PC agenda makes minorities look petty, and can only yield the same for the causes that they attach themselves too. Understanding and acceptance is a two way street, that definitely includes understanding that other people may not speak the same as you.

 

I am serious. 

 

The poster explicitly included the word "preference" which is a common English word. There is zero room for ambiguity. By definition this implies that this is a choice..

 

If you still think that sexual orientation is a "choice", then assumptions regarding your position on the subject are perfectly justified, especially from those who are very much involved in the issue.  The context of his post certainly supports this.

[Risien]

 I don't think anyone has an anti-gender/race equality agenda

You do.

 

 

This is where people who are otherwise indifferent and uninvolved have to speak up.

 

The PC agenda makes minorities look petty, and can only yield the same for the causes that they attach themselves to.

 

You are anything but "indifferent".

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

Well, yeah. To a certain extent that is valid as, as LD termed it, "a hint". Perhaps you don't follow the dialogue surrounding LGBT rights but the suggestion that sexual orientation is a voluntary choice is a mainstay of the homophobe position and flies directly in the face of the scientific evidence on the subject. Perhaps it was just offered in ignorance but, in light of other comments regarding "manly-women" etc. I certainly interpeted it as illustrating bias.

 

Understanding why any offense was taken to the use of words displays more than enough understanding of the issue.

 

It wasn't suggested and had nothing to do with the content of the post, it was a perceived slight, nothing more. If you want to admonish every "perceived" attack, then be my guest, just get used to looking like the bad guy.

 

But something tells me you wouldn't be concerned if you did, if that's the case, I don't see why the other side of the issue should care if any feelings are hurt. Why should they watch what they say when they're constantly called "ignorant and idiots" without a second thought? The heterosexual homophobic rampaging redneck hardly has a monopoly on idiocy, that demographic seems relatively evenly spread amongst the populace.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

I am serious. 

 

The poster explicitly included the word "preference" which is a common English word. There is zero room for ambiguity. By definition this implies that this is a choice. The context of his post certainly hints this.

 

If you still think that sexual orientation is a "choice", then assumptions regarding your position on the subject are perfectly justified, especially from those who are very much involved in the issue.

 

Are you concerned with policing grammar or equal rights for homosexuals? One has little to do with the other.

 

I thought I made it as perfectly clear that I'm indifferent as I did state my stance on the subject, it seems you enjoy extracting intent where there is none. So I guess we can add that to the list of things that fall under your exclusive province, since I don't see anyone else doing that. 

[Lebanese Dude]

Are you concerned with policing grammar or equal rights for homosexuals? One has little to do with the other.

 

I thought I made it as perfectly clear that I'm indifferent as I did state my stance on the subject, it seems you enjoy extracting intent where there is none. So I guess we can add that to the list of things that fall under your exclusive province, since I don't see anyone else doing that. 

 

Are you seriously dismissing the power of words? Are you implying there isn't a correlation between correct terminology and rights?

 

Also I made no comments towards you. What are you getting at? The "you" I think you are referring to is a second person personal pronoun.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

Are you implying there isn't a correlation between correct terminology and rights?

 

There is no such correlation. Your rights are not infringed upon by what anyone says about any group of people, you still have the same amount of rights before and after any comment was made.

 

It looked as if you were saying I somehow indicated I believe sexuality was a choice, you did say "If you still think that sexual orientation is a "choice", then assumptions regarding your position on the subject are perfectly justified".

[Emeriick]

These threads never end well

 

This man speaks the truth, turn back now if you still can!

[Nathair Nimheil]

It wasn't suggested and had nothing to do with the content of the post, it was a perceived slight, nothing more.

It certain was "suggested" (Suggest: to cause one to think that something is the case) by the content of the post. Sexual orientation is a choice, powerful women are "manly-women", representing an egalitarian society with respect to sex and gender is "pushing an agenda", and on and on. So yes, this was a perceived (Perceive: to become aware of something), what about it?
 

Why should they watch what they say when they're constantly called "ignorant and idiots" without a second thought?

I must have missed it when someone called the OP an ignorant idiot.

 

As to "watching what they say", yeah, if people don't want to be called out about their bigotry they should probably not put it on display. How exactly is that a problem? Are you suggesting that we should be tolerant of intolerance?

[Kylisse]

Beyond the Dorian arch, there is some reading material that talks about the subject. It mostly talks about how sexual orientation is a non-issue but for the purposes of inheritance and gossip.

 

Bioware do their best to make people feel included, unless you're pro-prejudice or whatever. Definitely not a bad thing unless you never grew up.

[Lebanese Dude]

There is no such correlation. Your rights are not infringed upon by what anyone says about any group of people, you still have the same amount of rights before and after any comment was made.

 

It looked as if you were saying I somehow indicated I believe sexuality was a choice, you did say "If you still think that sexual orientation is a "choice", then assumptions regarding your position on the subject are perfectly justified".

 

But we still don't have those rights. Homosexuality was illegal in Lebanon until a few months ago. Despite it being made into law, cultural norms still revolve around treating homosexuality as a perversion. There has been a significant trend towards acceptance, but it's still not the case.

 

Words are only a part of the grand process of revolutionizing the culture.

Telling people to start calling us "Mithliyeen" (roughly means same-sex-ers ) instead of "Shatho el Jins" (sexual perverts) has had a measurable impact, especially since it is being picked up by media outlets. The media. The fourth estate.

 

Having rights are great. Having those rights respected by the public is just as important. 

 

--

 

Also you can blame English ambiguity on that mixup. I did not mean to imply you specifically.

[Nathair Nimheil]

There is no such correlation.

Actually, there often is. The language one chooses to describe people is often illustrative and has significant impact. In this particular case phrasing gender orientation as if it were nothing but a voluntary choice which some people make casts the entire argument in a completely different light. It intentionally undermines the fundamental civil rights issue and rephrases it as just a matter of casual preference. This is not something to be casually ignored when the rights issue remains controversial.

[Deadmac]

*holds up a protest sign that says "Human & Dragon Marriage is a Right!"*

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

As to "watching what they say", yeah, if people don't want to be called out about their bigotry they should probably not put it on display. How exactly is that a problem? Are you suggesting that we should be tolerant of intolerance?

 

I'll narrow it down for you, since there seems to be some trouble on your end. If you're attempting to classify the term "sexual preference" as intolerant and label the person as a bigot due to those choice of words (which is the entire basis of your argument and the discussion) you need to spend more time looking up the words "intolerant" and "bigot" and see how it no way applies to the subject.

 

It's just throwing insulting demeaning words around at the other party, which apparently you don't like but are more than happy to do unto others.

 

So since that gets a pass, I see no reason why any of the things that are said that upset you are more important. Which is exactly why I say you're trivializing your own cause.

 

It's simple logic really.

[Nathair Nimheil]

And you are a filthy uneducated bigot.
 
Anything else you need to be told about me?

Nope, that cinched it for me.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

Actually, there often is.

 

No, there isn't, ever. Your wish to police what other people is more of an infringement on their personal rights than what they say has on yours, which is none.

[Lebanese Dude]

I'll narrow it down for you, since there seems to be some trouble on your end. If you're attempting to classify the term "sexual preference" as intolerant and label the person as a bigot due to those choice of words (which is the entire basis of your argument and the discussion) you need to spend more time looking up the words "intolerant" and "bigot" and see how it no way applies to the subject.

 

 

Context my friend. Context.

 

Someone who uses the term "gays" and "manly-women" does not really come off as a friend of a friend of Dorothy.

 

I don't think anyone used the term "bigot" either. Nathair was just demonstrating a point.

 

I used the term "bias", which is a perfectly justifiable assumption given the context.

[Lebanese Dude]

And you are a filthy uneducated bigot.

 

Anything else you need to be told about me?

 

My assumption about you is far more justified at this stage.

 

But I don't think Nathair every mentioned their hygiene. Considering the eloquence and content of their post, it's more reasonable to assume that they are educated. Their arguments against homophobia certainly does not paint them as a bigot.

 

[Nathair Nimheil]

I'll narrow it down for you, since there seems to be some trouble on your end. If you're attempting to classify the term "sexual preference" as intolerant and label the person as a bigot due to those choice of words (which is the entire basis of your argument and the discussion) you need to spend more time looking up the words "intolerant" and "bigot" and see how it no way applies to the subject.

I will repeat. Describing sexual orientation as a voluntary choice is ignorant and (intentionally or not) damaging. As this is a tactic often employed by the intolerant then, yes, it does work reasonably well as "a hint" of bias, which is what was actually said.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

But we still don't have those rights. Homosexuality was illegal in Lebanon until a few months ago. Despite it being made into law, cultural norms still revolve around treating homosexuality as a perversion. There has been a significant trend towards acceptance, but it's still not the case.

 

Words are only a part of the grand process of revolutionizing the culture.

Telling people to start calling us "Mithliyeen" (roughly means same-sex-ers ) instead of "Shatho el Jins" (sexual perverts) has had a measurable impact, especially since it is being picked up by media outlets. The media. The fourth estate.

 

Having rights are great. Having those rights respected by the public is just as important. 

 

--

 

Also you can blame English ambiguity on that mixup. I did not mean to imply you specifically.

 

Well, your rights don't really exist on an internet message board, if we want to get specific. I'm aware of the nature of Lebanon, and that people have many different colloquial phrases to describe a lot of different people. But regardless of what words you use in the direction of someone, there are no basic human rights that have been violated. You basically have the right to not care what people say, that's about it.

[Dreamer]

Whether or not there are in the game, OP, it certainly seems like there's a few in this thread...

[Lebanese Dude]

Well, your rights don't really exist on an internet message board, if we want to get specific. I'm aware of the nature of Lebanon, and that people have many different colloquial phrases to describe a lot of different people. But regardless of what words you use in the direction of someone, there are no basic human rights that have been violated. You basically have the right to not care what people say, that's about it.

 

Certainly. As an individual I definitely can simply "not care". Took me 5 years and some pills but I'm there now.

 

When these issues can lead to mental health issues, suicides, and troubled families... I don't think society as a whole can "not care" just as easily, irrespective of the legality of the issue.

 

I know what you're getting at. I just think you are too readily dismissing the power of words.

[SadisticChunkyDwarf]

Context my friend. Context.

 

Someone who uses the term "gays" and "manly-women" does not really come off as a friend of a friend of Dorothy.

 

I don't think anyone used the term "bigot" either. Nathair was just demonstrating a point.

 

I used the term "bias", which is a perfectly justifiable assumption given the context.

 

So we're not allowed to use the word "gays" now either, good to know.

 

So the word "bigot" was just used, it had no real meaning behind it. I see. So now we come to the point where the strong language on your side of the fence is excused and justified, just as long as it isn't from the homophobic side, which is subjected to stringent semantical laws that must be adhered to lest one come off as a bigot.

 

Have you actually read this debate and what has been said, and realize how ridiculous "your side" actually sounds right now?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Games still have to follow real-life cultural norms and in BioWare's case, pioneer them.
Do you honestly think Bioware's lack of depictions of slave trading is not an ingrained "agenda" against real-life slave trading? It is.

I've actually complained about that.

Given that this fictional world is governed by physical laws different from ours, I see no reason why it cannot be governed by different moral rules as well. The logic is equivalent.

[luism]

The inquisitor can totally be a homophobe or a heterophobe or an elf hater or whatever you want it to be yes

[Nathair Nimheil]

No, there isn't, ever. Your wish to police what other people is more of an infringement on their personal rights than what they say has on yours, which is none.

You truly are not understanding me, I will attempt to be more clear. I have no wish to "police" what other people say (I assume the missing word was "say"). What I am suggesting is that what people do say often has real impact and should therefore be considered carefully and taken seriously, and since what you say can usually be taken as illustrative of what you think then it is not at all unreasonable to form an opinion about someone based upon their words.