Gamers Against Bigotry

[Delfosse]

It's pretty well established that the biggest consumers of video games are males between the ages 18-30. That is why the more popular titles are NOT child orientated.

Crysis and Mass Effect core audience:

 

[Orogun01]

Nah, that child doesn't look like he has down syndrome.

[Volourn]

What's is a likely higher percentage of people herre probably bought one or both of those games then in the general populace... so, my question is... why do you insult your fellow Obsidian posters so? LMAO

[Tigranes]

I've bought neither. Sorry.

[Hurlshort]

I've bought neither. Sorry.

 

Seconded.

[Cantousent]

I don't normally get involved in these big internet navel gazing issues anymore, but this one caught my eye. As I see it, the problem isn't bigotry anyway. By use, bigotry generally refers to individuals who show marked intolerance towards groups of people. For example, a bigot hates gays, blacks, Jews, or some other minority group. The problem with the internet isn't nearly one of bigotry, which is itself by and large incidental in these large gaming communities. The problem with the internet is complete and utter nastiness on a personal level. I know, from PMs and comments and other things that some people online despise me. In real life, I tend to get along with folks. Also, in real life I'm a big, mean looking son of a bitch and most folks who talk big on the internet would spend a lot of time mumbling and looking at their shoe laces if they met me in real life, which is also sad considering I'm such a softy at heart. Anonymity, lack of consequences, and (if we were to be honest) the demographics make rudeness more common in online gaming, but I'm usually surprised that people are generally pretty decent to one another online. When they aren't, it's actually quite easy to avoid or ignore them as long as you don't get into a snit and insist on responding in kind to slights. Back, a long time ago, I used to get into epic flamewars with Grom. Of course, at some point in time, who didn't? lol Anyhow, would I get into a flame war with him in real life? Probably not. I'm a nice guy and he's probably quite personable in real life. ...And if I did tangle with him, he'd probably beat me up. After all, I was in great shape while I was in the Navy, but now I'm a fat middle aged white guy with a heart condition. :Cant's wry grin icon: The upshot is, most folks who suffer abuse lead with their chins and then refuse to put the other person on ignore. It takes two to dance and that is nowhere more true than on the internet.

 

The other thing I'll point out is that I'm not comfortable with someone else deciding what is or is not bigotry or appropriate speech. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that you can say what you want. It means that you have to accept that the other guy can say what he wants also. When we say one group can engage in speech without any consequence and another group should be denied the same right, we're diminishing our freedoms. I have literally had some ignoramous on this board tell me I was a racist because I would not vote for then candidate Obama. I didn't get mad. I don't know that I said much in response at all, simply hoping the ignorance of his statement would be evidence enough to defend me. If this person had his way, I'm sure that he would come up with a standard of free speech that would mean more or less speech that agreed with his view. That is no freedom at all for anyone other than the person who decides what should be free or not because, when you accept that those freedoms come from anywhere other than God or nature, you relinquish those freedoms. The underpinnings of our basic human rights and freedoms relies on the fact that they come from beyond human authority. So, for that reason if no other, I don't want some internet vigilante group deciding what would make me a bigot or not. After all, some people would say I'm a bigot based solely on the fact that I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. How's that for enlightened tolerance for ya?

[Delfosse]

Didn't read of course, but my eyes slid over this surface of text and I recognized 3 words: "Obama", "catholic" and "tolerance".

 

Try it and type whatever 3 words your eyes caught without reading. Let's see what everyone gets.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Delfosse

[Gorth]

Anonymity, lack of consequences

Those two things seems to bring out the worst in people. Funny how many people insist that "Freedom" is the freedom to take whatever they want, do whatever they want and insult whoever they want without being held accountable.

 

"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility."

Sigmund Freud

 

Some day, the internet will grow up. Might take a few decades yet.

[Cantousent]

Funny how many people insist that "Freedom" is the freedom to take whatever they want, do whatever they want and insult

Some day, the internet will grow up. Might take a few decades yet.

 

Yeah, but do you really want some outside group to decide what speech should be allowed or not?

 

As for you, Delfosse, I tried to skim over my comments and see what popped out at me. I would say that I got to 'flamewar' and 'Gromnir,' broke out in a cold sweat, and then couldn't skim any longer. Weird game, but now I'm curious.

[Gorth]

Yeah, but do you really want some outside group to decide what speech should be allowed or not?

You sort of have that already. Despite assurances of the opposite, there are things you can't say in public. There are things you can't print on paper and there are things you can't say on TV. Why should the internet be any different?

[Cantousent]

The laws that address speech are two things this organization is not, at least in the United States:

 

1. Used sparingly

and

2. Enacted by elected representatives.

 

If this group were an elected body that used it's power sparingly and took pains to protect the rights of minority views, I'd be all for it. That's not what it is. It's a group of self appointed autocrats. Contrast that with how you and Fionavar run this very board. You allow great leeway in terms of speech and yet it's really not all that bad. A lot more freedom and yet a lot less restrictive.

 

EDIT:

 

You know, think I overstated the goals by a bit. I don't really think that the organization wants to be autocratic. I just think the movement is misguided. Also, Gorth, in all the time I've been posting here, even though less lately, do you really think I've acted like a bigot or been hateful to other folks? I just believe freedom should trump personal feelings. I believe that we cannot 'change the nature of a man.' We're better off going for the stated goal of the organization, namely vowing not to be dickheads, without actually making a big deal about it.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Cantousent

[Gorth]

You know, think I overstated the goals by a bit. I don't really think that the organization wants to be autocratic. I just think the movement is misguided. Also, Gorth, in all the time I've been posting here, even though less lately, do you really think I've acted like a bigot or been hateful to other folks?

I doubt you could even if you wanted to, mate, you simply don't know how to

 

My objection is really to the notion that what happens on the net should somehow be exempt from the same laws and code of conduct that would apply if you were having a meeting/conversation in cafe, on a street corner or the local town square, trying to rally people for some cause. Some people seem to revel in the idea of "unrestricted" freedom (read; lack of accountability).

[Cantousent]

I think my problem is that the ideal is more important than the actuality for me. I want to protect freedom of speech, but it really takes a lot to get me angry. So, I'm arguing for freedom to be a nasty even though I tend to try not to be so myself. I think the biggest problem with the internet is that in real life you'd either have one backing down or a fight and subsequent intervention by bystanders or authorities whereas in the internet, folks can get away with almost anything. I guess I just hope that people will police themselves rather than requiring someone else to police them.

[Monte Carlo]

Yeah, but do you really want some outside group to decide what speech should be allowed or not?

You sort of have that already. Despite assurances of the opposite, there are things you can't say in public. There are things you can't print on paper and there are things you can't say on TV. Why should the internet be any different?

 

Whoah. Stop. Right. There. The internet was designed to be unregulated. The very essence of the internet is it's freedom and extra-judicial nature. This is why dead tree press outlets and media organisations loathe the net and want to control it: they can't harness it for nickel and dime profit so they want to strap it down with the rules they suffer. Tough. The world moves on, law moves on.

 

It's very simple. The net is like a shopping mall. Only go in the bits of it you want to and avoid the rest. I'm a middle-aged guy who goes to work in a suit. If I walked into a bar for twenty-something goths I might want to think about (a) fitting in and being open to their mores or (b) not entering in the first place.

 

It really is that simple. I also support private property rights. A website is private property. This one is policed by Moderators. We either take due regard of their direction or leave... Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? My beef is with services that *should* be moderated but are not (see my post about the Relic servers).

 

The internet is the most amazing phenomenon. I am a passionate defender of it's core mission, which was to create a free forum for interaction, commerce and entertainment free of the dead hand of governments of every stripe (from authoritarian right to wheedling Gramscian liberal-left). 'Gamers Against Bigotry' could easily become 'Gamers Telling You What You Can and Cannot Say.' They should either man up, change their mission to something more sensible or go away.

[Gorth]

Erhh, the internet was created by the military to ensure world domination in case of a nuclear war (or at least ensure your military was resilient enough to retaliate before the end), not to facilitate free speech.

 

Edit to add:

 

The internet is the most amazing phenomenon. I am a passionate defender of it's core mission, which was to create a free forum for interaction, commerce and entertainment free of the dead hand of governments of every stripe (from authoritarian right to wheedling Gramscian liberal-left). 'Gamers Against Bigotry' could easily become 'Gamers Telling You What You Can and Cannot Say.' They should either man up, change their mission to something more sensible or go away.

 

...and I believe you can't hand out "freedom" like it was some kind of candy and expect people to appreciate, much less respect the responsibility that comes with something not earned.

[kirottu]

I think certain level of trash talk belongs to any PvP arena, psychological warfare and all that stuff. Sexist and racist trash talk are "popular", because they are so easy. Those two are like elementary school classes of insults... and to anyone, who actually plays a lot PvP or spends a lot time in the internets, those two are the most boring ones. There's nothing there you haven't heard hundreds of times already.

 

I don't see any reason to change anything since those two types of insults tell more about the actual person who is using them, if he/she has passed elementary school, than who ever they were meant to insult.

[Mamoulian War]

I've bought neither. Sorry.

 

Seconded.

 

Thirded

Edited July 29, 2012 by Mamoulian War

[Mamoulian War]

You know, think I overstated the goals by a bit. I don't really think that the organization wants to be autocratic. I just think the movement is misguided. Also, Gorth, in all the time I've been posting here, even though less lately, do you really think I've acted like a bigot or been hateful to other folks?

I doubt you could even if you wanted to, mate, you simply don't know how to

 

My objection is really to the notion that what happens on the net should somehow be exempt from the same laws and code of conduct that would apply if you were having a meeting/conversation in cafe, on a street corner or the local town square, trying to rally people for some cause. Some people seem to revel in the idea of "unrestricted" freedom (read; lack of accountability).

 

The problem with the same laws for internet is, that internet is international, and what is prohibited by laws in some countries, is allowed without any consequences in other countries. How would you propose to solve this?

[Monte Carlo]

Erhh, the internet was created by the military to ensure world domination in case of a nuclear war (or at least ensure your military was resilient enough to retaliate before the end), not to facilitate free speech.

 

Edit to add:

 

The internet is the most amazing phenomenon. I am a passionate defender of it's core mission, which was to create a free forum for interaction, commerce and entertainment free of the dead hand of governments of every stripe (from authoritarian right to wheedling Gramscian liberal-left). 'Gamers Against Bigotry' could easily become 'Gamers Telling You What You Can and Cannot Say.' They should either man up, change their mission to something more sensible or go away.

 

...and I believe you can't hand out "freedom" like it was some kind of candy and expect people to appreciate, much less respect the responsibility that comes with something not earned.

 

My bad. The internet was a military application. The world wide web wasn't. There is a discrete difference.

 

As for your last comment, we will have to agree to differ. You don't hand out freedom, it is a natural birthright. And with respect you are missing the point. Shared values that grow out of efficacy work. If people took responsibility for their corner of the internet, not all of it, then the wankers would only have a few places left to go, crude echo-chambers where they could vent their spleen, irrelevant and marginalised. Trying to enlighten them via PC-as-missionary lobby groups just panders to their vanity.

[Delfosse]

...and I believe you can't hand out "freedom" like it was some kind of candy

 

Slavery, f~~k yeah!

[Fighter]

Some day, the internet will grow up. Might take a few decades yet.

 

By 'grow up' you mean regulated.

[Gorth]

Some day, the internet will grow up. Might take a few decades yet.

 

By 'grow up' you mean regulated.

...could also meaning the internet community as a whole growing up enough as to not needing regulation. You tell me which is the most likely outcome.

[Fighter]

You tell me which is the most likely outcome.

 

Regulated.

[Hurlshort]

It isn't going to take any government or third party regulations. If it keeps up at this rate, eventually companies that run game servers and the like will regulate speech, because they want their game to appeal to a mass audience. Eventually it is going to be clear that customers are lost because of bigotry online.

 

You just have to look at the social network sites to see where we are headed. They don't allow harassment because they don't want to lose customers.

[pmp10]

It isn't going to take any government or third party regulations. If it keeps up at this rate, eventually companies that run game servers and the like will regulate speech, because they want their game to appeal to a mass audience. Eventually it is going to be clear that customers are lost because of bigotry online.

 

You just have to look at the social network sites to see where we are headed. They don't allow harassment because they don't want to lose customers.

Except most games are still a product and need to be bought.

No matter how bigoted and offensive your regular customers may be - they can be depended upon to buy your product provided you fulfill certain expectations.

How far are you willing to anger them in order to appeal to people that may or may not become occasional customers?

Perhaps it's easier to hope that eventually the latter will be assimilated and become more like the former?