21 votes

World of Warcraft player penalized for asking players to say "Trans Rights"

This topic is locked. New comments can not be posted.

69 comments

  1. [3]
    whbboyd
    (edited )
    Link
    …Well, this is a disappointing conversation. I see two (and a half) fairly deep misconceptions being missed or talked over here, which are extremely common in political discussion discussions. I'm...

    …Well, this is a disappointing conversation.

    I see two (and a half) fairly deep misconceptions being missed or talked over here, which are extremely common in political discussion discussions. I'm going to try to address them in a general way, but they're immediately applicable to the above discussion thread in a way I expect is fairly obvious.

    So, here we go. (Deep breath.)

    1. "Politeness" is a red herring.

    It doesn't matter how "polite" people are. It's completely irrelevant. What matters is respect, which is entirely orthogonal (as illustrated surprisingly clearly by this rage comic). Respect is how you treat people; politeness is the words you use to do it. Respect is the part which actually uplifts people (or harms by its absence). If I say "trans rights are the fucking best and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking shithead", while that statement is very impolite, it's not disrespectful at all¹·⁵, and it (hopefully! Obviously all communication is subjective) uplifts trans people and allies who read it. No amount of politeness will dampen the impact of a disrespectful statement.

    It's worse than that, though, because a strong concern for politeness is almost exclusively used to shut down the targets of disrespect when they get upset. (This is called tone policing.) Because harm is done by disrespect, not impoliteness, Nazis, white supremacists, and other bigots don't care if they have to be polite; they can do their damage equally effectively either way. (And if they can't, they should have been banned for being disrespectful anyway, so it's irrelevant.) Conversely, asking the targets of bigotry not to be upset about the bigotry they face is both deeply unreasonable (emotions are largely involuntary, especially in response to to an insult as deep as unpersoning, and shouldn't be suppressed regardless) and does not recognize the respect inherent in calling out or addressing bigotry¹·⁵.

    1.5. Don't forget the paradox of tolerance.

    People on the wrong side of the respect line love to pull this one out. If someone is being disrespectful on the basis of harmless or involuntary traits, it is transitively disrespectful to respect them. Don't do it. Racists, misogynists, transphobes, and bigots of all stripes do not need or deserve your respect, and it is spectacularly counterproductive to give it to them.

    2. It is literally impossible to communicate in a manner which is not "political".

    "Political" just means it affects any group of people, and communication inherently involves at least two people transmitting thoughts to each others' brains. Consider this: this entire conversation is happening in English. That's political—it immediately excludes large numbers of the world's poorest citizens because they don't speak the language. If it were happening in any other language, that would also be political! If I drop into Tildes and say "hola chicos, ¡derechos transgéneros!", I'm making a political statement (other than the obvious textual one) by specifically making it intelligible to only a select subset of the userbase. (Also probably by botching the grammar and/or terminology, because my Spanish is rusty and exceptionally American. Corrections gratefully appreciated.)

    Furthermore, decrying "politics" is incredibly political! It is (a) establishing a set of topics as "political" (usually implicitly, which is itself highly political), and then (b) forbidding discussion of them. Forbidding discussion of a topic is a stunningly strong reinforcer of the status quo, so this is stating that the current state of affairs on the topics (implicitly) included in (a) is totally fine and does not require addressing. Obviously, this does not go over well with targets of bigotry. Even contextualizing the statement (e.g. "don't talk about trans rights in WoW") only contextualizes the reinforcement (e.g. "the current state of trans rights in WoW is totally fine"), which only changes things if the status quo in context is very different than in general. (For a topic like trans rights, where the status quo is nearly universally deplorable, there is essentially no context where objecting to discussions of it is not functionally transphobic.)

    What I think a lot of people intend when trying to avoid "political discussion" is not the above, but something more along the lines of "this conversation makes me uncomfortable, and I would rather not have it" (possibly suffixed with "here and now"). I really get this view! I feel this way all the time, and I almost always disengage from online discussions of bigotry, because I find them incredibly exhausting. But for people who suffer under the status quo, not discussing the topic may be vastly more uncomfortable than discussing it. If they are marginalized and you are not, then their discomfort with the absence of a discussion almost certainly overrides your discomfort with having it.

    20 votes
    1. viridian
      Link Parent
      In my experience, tone policing is the siren song of those who seek to defend being an outright asshole to other members of a community. They will insult, belittle, and bully other members of a...

      In my experience, tone policing is the siren song of those who seek to defend being an outright asshole to other members of a community. They will insult, belittle, and bully other members of a group, and when challenged, they tell folks that they aren't going to made the subject of tone policing because they have been injured in same way. Left unchecked, this rhetoric degrades communities to the point that all disagreement takes the form of acerbic, venomous sniping where the goal is the total suppression of your interlocutor.

      Based on this recurring pattern, I view any defense proffered in the form of tone policing with extreme suspicion, because it's so often just a flag of convenience for someone who is either unwilling or incapable of disagreeing with folks without being a jerk.

      5 votes
    2. Akir
      Link Parent
      I really wish this were the top comment. While the thread above has some great ideas, the sections where it devolves into argument is just painfully stupid at times, to the point where I am kind...

      I really wish this were the top comment. While the thread above has some great ideas, the sections where it devolves into argument is just painfully stupid at times, to the point where I am kind of hoping @Deimos locks this topic.

      4 votes
  2. [61]
    Adys
    (edited )
    Link
    I'm gonna do something I'd never do on other web platforms and jump into the controversiality of this. So, disclaimer: I am 100% behind trans rights and the lgbt movement in general. Still, this...

    I'm gonna do something I'd never do on other web platforms and jump into the controversiality of this. So, disclaimer: I am 100% behind trans rights and the lgbt movement in general.

    Still, this right there reminds me of a pattern I see all too often coming from fringe/alt-right groups: Take a defined rule, warp your behaviour so it adheres to the rule in letter but not in spirit, and justify it when you're all-too-predictably getting called out for it.

    This behaviour is almost always executed with the goal of either getting into a fight, or generally creating drama/getting people to talk about you. It's for show. And it's never fucking helpful. It gets people to dislike you.

    When I moderated larger communities, I've seen this type of drama play out countless times. Generally it's just from trolls, but there's one instance of a trans woman I remember, who just essentially made a bunch of people dislike her by doing exactly this type of stuff. I gave her a lot of leeway until I had to kick her out of the community for a host of reasons. The community was well-moderated, trolls would be kicked out very fast and I've never seen a single complaint relating to any type of discrimination, LGBT issues, or really anything up until I left. Except for complaints against her, as she would constantly stir up trouble.

    I can't possibly think how what she did actually helped anyone, or really achieved anything other than getting people to be uneasy with her. And this article spot-on reminds me of that type of mindset. Maybe I'm wrong and that whisper requirement is a good filter but the odds are just as high that someone would go through and stir up shit on purpose just because of that filter.

    I think the one thing that changed with me the most as I matured from my ages 16 to 26 was leaving this sort of attitude behind me. I used to think like that and now I'm ashamed of how much of a dick I was to people because of it. I was extremely pro-free-speech and eased on that for the same reasons (I still am pro free speech, but now in the european sense, no longer in the american sense).

    And I do want to add that, Blizzard has made a lot of disgusting political missteps and I don't view them in a favourable light at all nowadays. This, though, seems normal to me. I can think of a million politically-charged subjects I'm in favour of (and many that shouldn't be politically charged but still are), that I would consider to be critical issues, and I'd similarly look down at anyone asking players to make such statements to enter a raid.

    People who log in to WoW (or most video games) are generally doing so to relax. It's a good thing that they can be asked to leave their political views behind when doing so. Or to give a parallel example, there's nothing wrong asking members to avoid other subjects such as porn and sex when entering a community, logging into a game; it makes some people uncomfortable, it's not always age-appropriate, and more generally it's not something most people present want to see.

    29 votes
    1. [6]
      Whom
      Link Parent
      “Leave your politics at the door” is an impossible goal which supports the status quo and then acts as if that’s a neutral action. And yes, shit like this can be a very good filter. It makes it...

      “Leave your politics at the door” is an impossible goal which supports the status quo and then acts as if that’s a neutral action.

      And yes, shit like this can be a very good filter. It makes it crystal clear who the assholes are and serves as a beacon that others can gravitate towards. Having an “are you a decent person I can feel safe around” question is really really valuable, even if it’s technically possible to circumvent.

      It is political and that political statement is a good one. If you treat shit like this as being political but actions which support things as they are right now (like being silent) as being apolitical, you’re actively supporting the status quo.

      19 votes
      1. mftrhu
        Link Parent
        If you are in control of the platform it also helps in sweeping it for deplorables. I have done it in groups I moderate, because those topics - LGBT+, abortion rights, atheism (especially in the...

        It makes it crystal clear who the assholes are and serves as a beacon that others can gravitate towards.

        If you are in control of the platform it also helps in sweeping it for deplorables. I have done it in groups I moderate, because those topics - LGBT+, abortion rights, atheism (especially in the context of the previous two) - will come up sooner or later, and it's better if possible problems are handled as soon as possible, instead of letting them fester while pretending that everything is all right.

        8 votes
      2. [4]
        Adys
        Link Parent
        Just because I'm silent when I'm playing a video game doesn't mean I'm silent when I'm somewhere I can make a real impact rather than be a dick to people (who may very well be on my side of the...

        Just because I'm silent when I'm playing a video game doesn't mean I'm silent when I'm somewhere I can make a real impact rather than be a dick to people (who may very well be on my side of the issue) in an environment that is free of politics.

        This concept that having politics-free safe spaces is in favour of the status quo is so utterly absurd. Yes, saying nothing everywhere supports the status quo. But just because you're not actively talking about politics absolutely everywhere doesn't mean you're in support of the status quo.

        The movies, TV series and YouTube videos I watch don't always have politics in them. I was just watching a video a minute ago about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Would that video have been improved by talking about abortion rights and climate change? No, because that isn't what I fucking go to the Numberphile YouTube channel for. And you will find me EXTREMELY OUTSPOKEN about how important I consider both of those topics.

        It doesn't make a positive impact if I get all up into other people's faces. It usually makes an extremely negative impact in fact, putting people on the defensive and they retract into their shell.

        I have long theorized that this attitude of wanting politics everywhere is a large factor in the creation of this massive divide in the United States, a divide you will not find in other countries, a divide which actively encourages politicizing topics that shouldn't be a political matter. Why the US is struggling with fucking COVID right now and why people are dying.

        Because of the divide.

        6 votes
        1. moonbathers
          Link Parent
          Other countries are dealing with the same conservative, regressive, vaguely-fascistic bullshit we are, like the UK, Brazil, Poland, Hungary, and Russia, and to a lesser extent France, Germany, and...

          I have long theorized that this attitude of wanting politics everywhere is a large factor in the creation of this massive divide in the United States, a divide you will not find in other countries, a divide which actively encourages politicizing topics that shouldn't be a political matter. Why the US is struggling with fucking COVID right now and why people are dying.

          Because of the divide.

          Other countries are dealing with the same conservative, regressive, vaguely-fascistic bullshit we are, like the UK, Brazil, Poland, Hungary, and Russia, and to a lesser extent France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Of those, the UK, Brazil, and Russia are all having trouble with COVID too.

          No one needs to be talking politics on random YouTube videos, but YouTube comments are a dumpster fire regardless. In the case that we're talking about, all Reimann did was ask people to say "trans rights" to show that they're not a complete shithead, and multiple people felt the need to harass them over it. They weren't shouting about it in trade chat, they weren't running around Stormwind yelling it, they weren't whisper-spamming people, they had it in the description in their group finder entry. Probably not very many people saw it even.

          I'm not gonna say that marginalized people don't need to be nice sometimes to get their point across, but this does not even come close to crossing any lines. It's not Reimann's fault if people get pissed off by the phrase "trans rights" in a place that people don't even have to look. It's not our fault if people get pissed off by that, or "black lives matter", or other similar phrases. If people are becoming fascistic because I want to be treated like a person, because I want to be able to get married to the person I love or not get fired because of an innate quality, that is not my fault. It is not my fault that 140,000 people are dead in the United States because our government is malicious, it's the fault of the 62 million people who voted for the Republican politicians who let it happen and the politicians for letting it happen. You do not get to blame my and millions of other people's struggle for equality for all the bullshit that's happening right now. Those people chose to vote for incompetent, malicious fascists on their own.

          But just because you're not actively talking about politics absolutely everywhere doesn't mean you're in support of the status quo.

          In general I'd agree with you, but in this situation you're supporting someone being harassed and that harassment being supported by Blizzard because of something about as severe as jaywalking. Maybe if Blizzard cared about the Trump trolls as much as they care about Reimann's method of screening out the shitheads I'd agree a bit more in this case.

          20 votes
        2. tindall
          Link Parent
          This is the essence of privilege. That's not to say it's a bad thing, but just to share an anecdote, I used to play a lot of Counter Strike and Insurgency. Those games basically have three kinds...

          Just because I'm silent when I'm playing a video game doesn't mean I'm silent when I'm somewhere I can make a real impact

          This is the essence of privilege. That's not to say it's a bad thing, but just to share an anecdote, I used to play a lot of Counter Strike and Insurgency. Those games basically have three kinds of players: players without a mic, players who just talk tactics, and players who scream racist slurs and Islamophobic jokes the whole time they play.

          The problem is, once I started transitioning, I really didn't feel safe playing either game anymore. It's not nearly as fun without using a mic, but I had to either change my username to something less gendered or not go on voice to avoid being called t****y and other lovely language. My voice is now at the point where it's really not obvious that I'm trans, but I still avoid those games, because just remembering that experience makes me sick to my stomach.

          There was one session I was in, though, when someone called me a slur and another player spoke up and said, "hey, that's not cool! don't say shit like that." The other player didn't stop saying slurs, but just that interaction made me feel a lot less afraid and alone, and let me enjoy the game a lot more.

          The movies, TV series and YouTube videos I watch don't always have politics in them. [...] that isn't what I fucking go to the Numberphile YouTube channel for.

          There is a difference between not bringing up politics when it's not relevant, and actively shunning anyone who ever brings it up in a space you're in.

          15 votes
        3. Tygrak
          Link Parent
          But you can still be silent when you play the video game. You can either choose not to join the raid party and find another one, or you can join the raid party just by saying "trans rights" once...

          But you can still be silent when you play the video game. You can either choose not to join the raid party and find another one, or you can join the raid party just by saying "trans rights" once and play the video game afterwards, free of any politics. I would guess that the raid leader isn't actually talking about trans rights while the group is fighting a raid boss...

          9 votes
    2. [5]
      moonbathers
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Unless the community has changed in the decade since I played retail, public chat has always been full of things that aren't age-appropriate. There's racism and misogyny and homophobia and more...

      People who log in to WoW (or most video games) are generally doing so to relax. It's a good thing that they can be asked to leave their political views behind when doing so. Or to give a parallel example, there's nothing wrong asking members to avoid other subjects such as porn and sex when entering a community, logging into a game; it makes some people uncomfortable, it's not always age-appropriate, and more generally it's not something most people present want to see.

      Unless the community has changed in the decade since I played retail, public chat has always been full of things that aren't age-appropriate. There's racism and misogyny and homophobia and more benign jokes like the anal jokes that were all the rage in 2008. The game itself has aspects to it that aren't age-appropriate too; you can drink alcohol and do drugs and it deals with mature topics like homelessness, war, xenophobia, and genocide. Even if you don't read quest text and manage to tune out every part of the game's setting, unless you're Doubleagent you're going to kill thousands upon thousands of people and monsters on your way to max level. Even though we in the United States are desensitized to violence, it's not any more age-appropriate than sexual topics.

      Talking about sexuality and gender identity can absolutely be age-appropriate. There are plenty of anecdotes on the internet of people's four- and five-year-olds asking them what being gay was, and when the kids were told that it means their uncle loves a man, they said ok and went back to whatever they were doing before. It's no different from people being trans and explaining "well, your aunt feels like she's a girl and so that's what we call her". If someone doesn't consider the phrase "trans rights" to be age-appropriate for their kid, they shouldn't be letting their kid on the internet at all.

      Which leads into the second part of my argument: what the person in the article did was screen out the shitheads before they added the shitheads to the group in the most benign way possible. It has nothing to do with sex, it wasn't "tell me what white privilege means" (I support BPT doing that, by the way) or "fuck Trump" or anything like that. It asked people to say two simple words to show that they have some compassion for other people, and Reimann was repeatedly harassed for it. I know you're not saying they should have been harassed for it, but I mention that to show just how shitty some people are to others who want to play with people who aren't complete assholes.

      People want a space free from politics to relax? That's great, so do those of us who are victimized because of our sex, sexuality, skin color, etc. People who feel bothered by seeing "message me 'trans rights' for an invite" for a single entry in the group finder can go fuck themselves. Everything is political whether they like it or not, they only complain about women and minorities in video games because it's not their status quo in which they don't have to hear about the issues women or racial minorities or LGBT people face. War is inherently political and that's what a vast majority of the franchise is about. Having to choose between taking the side of your homeland or the friends you've made in the name of peace and racial unity is political. Choosing to take part in the genocide at Teldrassil is political. Those are fine because there's a paper-thin layer between those in-game events and their real-life parallels, but as soon as someone asks you to say "trans rights" with no context, no questions asked, suddenly it's invading your safe space.

      Suddenly people who are discriminated against, marginalized, victimized, and outright hated don't deserve to have even a harmless way to say "hey I want to make sure you're not an asshole before I play with you", because that gets in the way of playing as your character who's more likely than not been discriminated against and outright hated. So no, the people who think Reimann is in the wrong here don't deserve their safe space and Blizzard is 100% in the wrong to keep silencing them.

      Editing to add: The topic of trans rights is political, but banning all politics enforces the status quo which is itself political, and I don't think it's hypocritical or inconsistent to say "trans rights" is fine and "MAGA" isn't, because one is "hey let's treat everyone with compassion" and the other is "fuck everyone who isn't like me".

      Edit 2: I don't appreciate being lumped in with neo-Nazis just because trans rights were once as unpopular as Nazis are. We're not at all the same.

      18 votes
      1. [4]
        mftrhu
        Link Parent
        It doesn't help that we were one of the first groups to be attacked by the OG Nazis.

        Edit 2: I don't appreciate being lumped in with neo-Nazis just because trans rights were once as unpopular as Nazis are. We're not at all the same.

        It doesn't help that we were one of the first groups to be attacked by the OG Nazis.

        2 votes
        1. [3]
          moonbathers
          Link Parent
          I know Adys supports us but that the argument that I'm referring to is an unfortunate argument in this discussion.

          I know Adys supports us but that the argument that I'm referring to is an unfortunate argument in this discussion.

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            Adys
            Link Parent
            I was deeply confused about that edit until I figured out (I think) that it relates to your first edit. And… yeah, it does suck to be lumped in. I certainly don't personally consider trans rights...

            I was deeply confused about that edit until I figured out (I think) that it relates to your first edit.

            And… yeah, it does suck to be lumped in. I certainly don't personally consider trans rights to be a political issue. I'll tell you my "political" view on it, since it's easy for people to jump to conclusions: I don't give a shit about people's gender, the same way I don't care about their name, height or eye color. I'll make a note of it, and I may have romantic/sexual preferences and it stops there. If those change while I know them, then… okay? If I hadn't researched the absurdity of how abusively trans people are treated (especially in the US), I wouldn't believe it.

            People suck, and I'll support anything that gets people to stop sucking. I stopped political activism when I realized how hopeless it is, and how much more impact I can have by learning the field and putting money in the right places, than by being a name on petitions or a random voice in an unreadable comments section.

            So, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to lump you in; though it is an unfortunate fact that right now, "trans rights" is as political as "maga". You and I can agree how absurd it is, how disconnected it is, we can agree on the atrocities of the rise of a real neo-nazi party in the US, like, fuck, I know.

            I'm sorry. I'm fucking powerless to help, there. All I can do is give feedback on what I personally believe (through experience) works better when communicating.

            I do not believe that this player, and the "drama" that ensued, had a positive impact on trans rights. I believe all it did was make some people on one side feel good, and reinforce preconceived beliefs on the other side. This is based on previous experiences, it's not just a wild guess, and I'd love to hear even a theory as to why I might be wrong because it's fucking depressing.

            8 votes
            1. moonbathers
              Link Parent
              It's alright, don't worry about it. I know you're on my side. I'm not sure it had a positive impact on trans rights either, but I doubt it had much of a negative impact if any.

              It's alright, don't worry about it. I know you're on my side. I'm not sure it had a positive impact on trans rights either, but I doubt it had much of a negative impact if any.

              6 votes
    3. kfwyre
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Thanks for writing your thoughts out for us and putting yourself out there. This is a difficult topic, and I appreciate that you're approaching it with honesty. There is a lot that has already...

      Thanks for writing your thoughts out for us and putting yourself out there. This is a difficult topic, and I appreciate that you're approaching it with honesty.

      There is a lot that has already been covered in other threads and I don't want to rehash anything since I know you're already involved in a lot of different conversations. Instead, I want to zoom in on something different.

      Back when I started doing queer advocacy work, I hated a lot of the in-your-face stuff. I had responses very similar to yours. I found them combative and off-putting. I wondered why were were seemingly poking the bear of wider society, when it was clear the bear was simply going to bite us back. Wouldn't we get more flies with honey?

      What it took me a while to understand was that overt activism is self-centered by design. If you'd like a longer rundown you can see one of my other comments about it here, but the basic idea is that activism is often used as a tool to invigorate allies rather than convince opposition. Acts of activism often look pointless or counterproductive from the outside, but that's because, from the outside, we're not experiencing their benefits. Those actions aren't putting gas back in our tanks.

      Furthermore, activism is often a direct claiming of momentary power by those who feel disempowered. By deliberately transgressing social norms, someone is explicitly making a statement that they are operating on their own terms -- not on someone else's. Again, to bystanders, this can feel invalidating and frustrating, but to someone who has been widely oppressed by society, as many trans people have, such an action can be invigorating and affirming. Someone doing something like this is choosing to break the status quo, often as a way of creating a personal power and presence that has widely been denied to them.

      Whether or not the particular person this article is focusing on was engaging in a sort of overt activism isn't something I really feel qualified to speak on as I think it requires an understanding of the dynamics of World of Warcraft that I don't have (I've never played it). Rather than focus on the details of this particular case however, I'd encourage you to consider that even in an instance where someone is deliberately and overtly using a "trans rights" message as a political barb, its primary purpose might simply be to validate that individual and others and yield in them a sense of temporary or limited empowerement. Furthermore, doing this in a way that people might find it off-putting is genuinely part of what gives it its meaning. By communicating to others "I refuse to consider your feelings on this" someone is making their viewpoint non-negotiable. Consider how valuable such an action might be to someone who has grown up underneath widespread transphobia -- how discarding the weight of the judgment of others can make them feel free, even if just for a moment.

      Now, it's absolutely possible to take this too far. Also, those activist tactics can be used for awful ideologies as well, which is why it's important to interrogate the message itself too. I would treat someone politicizing the statement "trans rights" very differently than I would someone politicizing the statement "white power", for example. I'm not saying that all activism is equal or that we shouldn't be able to critique it (and if you want more on that idea I do cover some of that in my linked comment earlier). Instead, I want to highlight that even a social act conducted in a transparently destructive manner to a wider audience can still have genuine value to those participating in it.

      9 votes
    4. Tygrak
      Link Parent
      I mostly agree with you, but if I understand the article the person just had people message them "trans rights" if they wanted to join their group. I understand that it kind of is political to say...

      I mostly agree with you, but if I understand the article the person just had people message them "trans rights" if they wanted to join their group. I understand that it kind of is political to say that... even though it's incredibly stupid that it is. But the other people don't have to join that party. They can choose a different party.

      Ironically, by trying to screen players, Reimann has received abusive messages denigrating trans people, and has been reported for abusive language themself. "Know your place dog, you're worth fuck all you autistic dickhead," one player wrote to them.

      Or send them messages such as this.

      I think what they are doing is actually a great idea, it will definitely filter out people who otherwise might say offensive bigoted stuff to all the people in the group. Hearing bigoted stupid shit, when they just want to relax with a video game might very likely make someone uncomfortable, understandably so. So if someone wants to prevent that from happening, why should they get penalized?

      7 votes
    5. knocklessmonster
      Link Parent
      I get where you're coming from with people wanting to remain apolitical in games. I try to avoid a lot of heavier topics in games in favor of escapism, and will leave a server if I'm uncomfortable...

      I get where you're coming from with people wanting to remain apolitical in games. I try to avoid a lot of heavier topics in games in favor of escapism, and will leave a server if I'm uncomfortable with what's going on, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.

      However, when one encounters something like "whisper 'trans rights' to join my party," if they're truly interested in not engaging in politics, it's simple: don't engage somebody you think attempting to engage in politics.

      I think the majority of the fault is on the people who take the bait, so to speak. Arguably the screening is in place to prevent people who don't agree with you from joining, and you can sidestep it by simply not engaging. The people who lost their cool and sent incredibly messed up things to this individual were either not aiming to be apolitical in an MMO, or more charitably just failed spectacularly at it because they somehow found the statement offensive.

      7 votes
    6. [44]
      Gaywallet
      Link Parent
      Can you please go into more details about what she specifically did? Because the way I read this is that someone who was a minority decided to go onto a forum and simply validate their own...

      who just essentially made a bunch of people dislike her by doing exactly this type of stuff.

      I can't possibly think how what she did actually helped anyone, or really achieved anything other than getting people to be uneasy with her.

      Can you please go into more details about what she specifically did? Because the way I read this is that someone who was a minority decided to go onto a forum and simply validate their own existence, and that because this pulled out the crazies and made them voice their opinions you decided to ban them because it was causing you trouble... is this correct?

      Maybe I'm wrong and that whisper requirement is a good filter but the odds are just as high that someone would go through and stir up shit on purpose just because of that filter.

      Can you please explain what you are saying further? I don't understand what you're saying here.

      It's a good thing that they can be asked to leave their political views behind when doing so.

      Are you saying that a statement affirming that a group of individuals have rights is a political view?

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        Adys
        Link Parent
        It is not. We seldom had "the crazies" you're talking about; maybe a couple of them reacted to her and they would get banned very quickly. Her drama had nothing to do with trans stuff, she just...

        Can you please go into more details about what she specifically did? Because the way I read this is that someone who was a minority decided to go onto a forum and simply validate their own existence, and that because this pulled out the crazies and made them voice their opinions you decided to ban them because it was causing you trouble... is this correct?

        It is not. We seldom had "the crazies" you're talking about; maybe a couple of them reacted to her and they would get banned very quickly. Her drama had nothing to do with trans stuff, she just tended to be a loudmouth and provoke people. When people would react, then she would move the topic on to trans-related subjects, or sometimes she'd turn the subject around to her disability (she had a pretty bad life-altering disease, and I won't go into more details for her privacy).

        In other words, she would provoke people into fights, then use "but I'm trans" and "but I'm disabled" as a sort of shield. Do you think that's particularly productive?

        The post here is a little less black & white but it's still pretty obviously provocative. Like I said, I can think of a lot of other statements you could replace "trans rights" with and still, IMO, get the same ban, much as I would agree with them. "free hong kong" (despite what I think was a horrible treatment of blitzchung), "I'm with her", "yes we can", "my body my choice" (even if it shouldn't fucking be political), "black lives matter" (even if it's about human rights), "climate change is real" (even if it's fucking obvious); and certainly plenty more I would disagree with or that would disgust me ("maga", "trump 2020", "all lives matter", etc).

        You'll notice I don't have a problem with those first ones on tildes, or in any setting where I expect to encounter/discuss politics. Hell, sometimes a subject gains enough momentum to enter non-political contexts (such as black lives matter and free hong kong as recent examples). The key being, in my opinion, that a video game is generally supposed to be (but often fails to be) a politics-free safe space. You leave politics at the door, no matter how important the subject is to you or to the world.

        9 votes
        1. Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          Ah okay, persecution complex. This has more to do with her as a person than it did her beliefs. Hard disagree here. A human stating that they are a human and have the rights afforded to them for...

          In other words, she would provoke people into fights, then use "but I'm trans" and "but I'm disabled" as a sort of shield. Do you think that's particularly productive?

          Ah okay, persecution complex. This has more to do with her as a person than it did her beliefs.

          it's still pretty obviously provocative

          Hard disagree here. A human stating that they are a human and have the rights afforded to them for being a human is not and will never be political. The only people who believe it is a political issue are people who are trying to make it a political issue so that they can exert their power over other unwilling human beings on the bases of some characteristic.

          The key being, in my opinion, that a video game is generally supposed to be (but often fails to be) a politics-free safe space.

          I agree that people should not be talking about how best to handle the nuances of an economy in a video game but the majority of what you stated as "politics" I completely disagree with. My body my choice is NOT politics - It's about human autonomy and the only people arguing it's about politics are people who want control over the autonomy of another person. It's not acceptable and never will be and anyone who preaches intolerance needs to be dealt with appropriately (banned and chastised) and allowing intolerance to exist by banning people who are making non-political statements affirming their right to exist should be treated is just as harmful if not more harmful.

          Just stop for a second and think about someone who is spontaneously saying "black lives matter". What is causing them to feel the need to state this? Why are people not spontaneously saying "white lives matter" or "all lives matter" until this movement existed? If a human is being persecuted for some characteristic they have and they feel the need to verbally express their feeling that they should be valued as human beings, why are you responding so negatively to this? Do you really think they'd feel the same spontaneous need if we addressed the issues that lead to this persecution in the first place? Why are you willing to give power to the counter-narrative by suppressing this entirely nonviolent, non-confrontational affirmation of worth?

          5 votes
      2. [41]
        NaraVara
        Link Parent
        If it's something people feel the need to create slogans for, publicly affirm their allegiance to, organize around, and base their voting decisions on I would think so.

        Are you saying that a statement affirming that a group of individuals have rights is a political view?

        If it's something people feel the need to create slogans for, publicly affirm their allegiance to, organize around, and base their voting decisions on I would think so.

        5 votes
        1. [40]
          Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          So it's equally political to say "we should kill minorities" and "we should not kill minorities"?

          So it's equally political to say "we should kill minorities" and "we should not kill minorities"?

          2 votes
          1. [37]
            Adys
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            See, to me, that reply falls right into the behavioral pattern I described in my post. You're provoking, and it's unhelpful to the discussion. Frankly: if you can't respectfully engage a...

            See, to me, that reply falls right into the behavioral pattern I described in my post. You're provoking, and it's unhelpful to the discussion. Frankly: if you can't respectfully engage a conversation without resorting to such tactics, you probably haven't thought things through enough, because it's completely possible.

            To properly answer your question, both are equally political indeed, in that they are not political. "We should kill minorities" is not a statement that has entered the political discourse, much as some people wish it were, and "we should not kill minorities" isn't either as it would be a reaction to the former.

            "Trans rights" have entered the political discourse, so they are indeed political. Even if you, and I, wish they weren't. Same for "gay rights", same for "climate change". "The earth is not flat", however, is not a political statement, but given where the bar has been set for the US presidency it might well be a few years from now.


            Edited to add: If you read my posts closely, you'll note that I feel the same way as you do in that a lot of the statements I pasted should not be political. But as @naravara said, you're conflating "is" and "ought to be".

            "My body my choice" indeed shouldn't be political. But it is. The fact that it is is a problem. Same for "climate change". Same for "trans rights". Whether something is political is not a timeless absolute, it depends on when you are making the statement. I'm sorry, I know it sucks, but that those things are political (in that they divide the political discourse) is a fact.

            10 votes
            1. [15]
              tindall
              Link Parent
              This is a really problematic way to approach things, because it means that the regressive element always wins - progressive ideas are political, but regressive ones aren't. The status quo is the...

              This is a really problematic way to approach things, because it means that the regressive element always wins - progressive ideas are political, but regressive ones aren't. The status quo is the only thing your position defends, and unfortunately the status quo is unbearable and unsafe for a lot of people.

              15 votes
              1. [14]
                NaraVara
                Link Parent
                Not really. Let's take the emotionally charged issue of Trans issues out of it and apply the same thing to another item of disagreement. Suppose we insisted everyone make a statement that the...

                because it means that the regressive element always wins

                Not really. Let's take the emotionally charged issue of Trans issues out of it and apply the same thing to another item of disagreement. Suppose we insisted everyone make a statement that the Earth is round before doing anything. Does this accomplish anything aside from riling up flat Earthers and drawing them into starting arguments on your platform?

                It's not about taking steps to uphold the status quo, it's about designating it as not an appropriate venue to have the discussion. Not everything has to be about everything.

                progressive ideas are political, but regressive ones aren't.

                Pretty sure slinging bigoted slurs around is also frowned upon so I'm not sure this is the case.

                3 votes
                1. [9]
                  mftrhu
                  Link Parent
                  Weeding out those who feel strongly about Earth being flat seems like a pretty good thing by itself. Those arguments will happen, sooner or later, and it's best if they happen when people are...

                  Does this accomplish anything aside from riling up flat Earthers and drawing them into starting arguments on your platform?

                  Weeding out those who feel strongly about Earth being flat seems like a pretty good thing by itself. Those arguments will happen, sooner or later, and it's best if they happen when people are ready for them.

                  You also cannot take the emotionally charged issue out of the discussion, because if you could conceivably say "let's not talk about the shape of the Earth while playing", this discussion is not about that. These discussions are never about something that trivial.

                  Saying "this is not an appropriate venue to have the discussion" about something that is part of people's identities means excluding them from that venue, as you are telling them "sorry, even if other people can chit-chat about what's happening in their life, you shouldn't, because letting others know you are LGBT+ will lead to arguments".

                  10 votes
                  1. [8]
                    NaraVara
                    Link Parent
                    On World of Warcraft you think this is an argument that will inevitably happen? Why? And why would you care about weeding them out of an MMORPG in the first place if they’re never talking about it...

                    Weeding out those who feel strongly about Earth being flat seems like a pretty good thing by itself. Those arguments will happen, sooner or later, and it's best if they happen when people are ready for them.

                    On World of Warcraft you think this is an argument that will inevitably happen? Why?

                    And why would you care about weeding them out of an MMORPG in the first place if they’re never talking about it or acting on it? At some point it starts to seem like it’s less about keeping it as a safe space and more like an attempt to punish and purge anyone who doesn’t sign onto the approved values system.

                    4 votes
                    1. [7]
                      mftrhu
                      Link Parent
                      Now, I could reply that if someone believes that the Earth is flat then they are likely to believe in other, more offensive conspiracy theories, and that denial of science should not be allowed in...

                      On World of Warcraft you think this is an argument that will inevitably happen? Why?

                      And why would you care about weeding them out of an MMORPG in the first place if they’re never talking about it or acting on it?

                      Now, I could reply that if someone believes that the Earth is flat then they are likely to believe in other, more offensive conspiracy theories, and that denial of science should not be allowed in the first place.

                      But it's not about flat Earthers. I wasn't actually entertaining your thought experiment, and I said as much in the second and third paragraph of my comment: you can't change a word here and there while having the same argument, these discussions are never about something that trivial, and LGBT+ issues are something that will eventually be brought up, even and maybe especially in an MMORPG.

                      As a child, I used to spend a lot of time on their precursor, MUDs. The MUDs I played on were a diverse lot, but I spent a lot of time on a Diku derivative, and its mechanics - rest, even fights when certain mobs were involved - tended to slow down the gameplay. I chatted a lot with the other players during those breaks, and we often discussed our lives and current events.

                      Saying "no political discussions", while considering LGBT+ rights as political, would have prevented me from doing that, effectively telling me that I am the one at fault because discussion of my identity could trigger an argument.

                      And I already wrote as much in my previous comment.

                      7 votes
                      1. [6]
                        NaraVara
                        Link Parent
                        Nobody is talking about people discussing about their personal lives. This ban applies because the guy was explicitly engaging in political activism and sloganeering. You can, for example, be...

                        Nobody is talking about people discussing about their personal lives. This ban applies because the guy was explicitly engaging in political activism and sloganeering.

                        You can, for example, be Christian without trying to convert everyone you interact with all the time or insist everyone around you accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. It's not "being oppressed" to tell Christians not to evangelize, that's just maintaining a vibe for everyone playing the game to not have theological arguments happening constantly. But Christians are still allowed to play and be Christian and even talk about how they went to Church that Sunday. They simply can't start hectoring everyone else about it.

                        Vegetarians, similarly, are discouraged from yelling at people about how meat is murder. Nobody is criticizing their vegetarianism or talking about being vegetarian or opening up about their ethical misgivings about eating meat. It's specifically the political advocacy around it that is banned. Honestly this doesn't seem that hard to figure out.

                        3 votes
                        1. [4]
                          Gaywallet
                          Link Parent
                          This is false. Here's a clip directly from the article If you believe that Reimann was lying about their intent you are welcome to hold that opinion, but it is simply not what they stated and...

                          the guy was explicitly engaging in political activism and sloganeering.

                          This is false. Here's a clip directly from the article

                          Reimann first started asking players to message them a specific phrase to find players that they could communicate with in English and to see who could follow basic instructions, which is useful for raiding. They changed it to "trans rights" to further filter out people who use bigoted speech.

                          "It is a powerful filter because about one in five make it through. That doesn't necessarily mean that four people don't agree [with the statement]," Reimann said. "Many of them don't read that part that says 'whisper trans rights.' Or they aren't interested in writing two words. Or, of course, they don't speak the language."

                          If you believe that Reimann was lying about their intent you are welcome to hold that opinion, but it is simply not what they stated and saying this was their intent when the person you are referring to has directly stated that this was not their intent is deceitful.

                          7 votes
                          1. [3]
                            NaraVara
                            Link Parent
                            It's astonishing that you don't see that as activism. It's literally a shibboleth to signal your sympathy with a political issue. It's the sort of thing that can prompt griefing and other sorts of...

                            It's astonishing that you don't see that as activism. It's literally a shibboleth to signal your sympathy with a political issue. It's the sort of thing that can prompt griefing and other sorts of abuse in chat once the lid gets taken off the pot.

                            2 votes
                            1. [2]
                              Cycloneblaze
                              Link Parent
                              This reply really gets me. If you think expression of political views in this context is unwanted, that still shouldn't apply here because 'trans rights' is not political. And the main reason I...

                              a political issue

                              This reply really gets me. If you think expression of political views in this context is unwanted, that still shouldn't apply here because 'trans rights' is not political. And the main reason I say so is because 'political' in this context is the standard for shutting down a discussion and censoring any mention of it.

                              Yes, that's what we want when we say 'don't talk about politics' and we're thinking about topics like conservatism or liberalism, elections, political parties, whatever. There's good reason to ban that kind of discussion which was articulated elsewhere. But then that same rule is used as a cudgel to stop trans people mentioning that they exist and that is not right. It smacks of that 'there are two genders, male and political; two sexualities, straight and political' meme.

                              What we really mean when we say "don't talk about 'political' topics here" is "don't talk about controversial topics here". Because politics is often controversial and we're trying to avoid flame wars in a videogame, that's the point of the rule. But trans people should not be a controversial topic. The statement 'trans rights' should not be controversial. A trans person coming into WoW shouldn't have to contend with people getting bent out of shape that they exist and dared to talk about it!

                              If you (or Blizzard) support trans rights then there should be no problem with seeing that statement in the game because it's not controversial. If Blizzard says that it is controversial - that it's 'political' - frankly, that's a problem for the people making the controversy upon seeing it to sort out.

                              (There's probably some way to define 'political' in a way that includes actual politics and excludes people and their experiences, but I'm not trying to do that - I'm just making a value judgement here, I admit.)

                              5 votes
                              1. NaraVara
                                Link Parent
                                I already said this to Gaywallet, but that's just flat wrong. If abolition and civil rights and secularism are all political positions, then how could Trans Rights not be? What is and is not a...

                                If you think expression of political views in this context is unwanted, that still shouldn't apply here because 'trans rights' is not political.

                                I already said this to Gaywallet, but that's just flat wrong. If abolition and civil rights and secularism are all political positions, then how could Trans Rights not be? What is and is not a human right is a political position. The UN, a political entity, went about codifying them for just that reason. They're a major component of international law and politics so of course they're going to be political.

                                But then that same rule is used as a cudgel to stop trans people mentioning that they exist and that is not right.

                                In this case it's really not about stopping people from talking about them or mentioning that they exist. It's about making the political declaration a point to organize around.

                                But trans people should not be a controversial topic.

                                "Should" and "are" aren't the same. To a vegetarian, the moral status of animals should also not be a controversial topic, but it turns out that it is. I don't even think explicitly saying "This is a Trans Friendly guild" would have run afoul of any policy. They're just specifically enforcing against this kind of thing.

                                that's a problem for the people making the controversy upon seeing it to sort out.

                                This is where the worldview of hyper-individualism gets us. It's not just a problem for the people making it a controversy because those people are going to make it a problem for everyone else too. See the other statement about wrestling with pigs. An MMORPG isn't set up to manage those kinds of fights.

                                4 votes
                2. [4]
                  tindall
                  Link Parent
                  That's not the situation that was being discussed, though. If I started a group and said that only people who believed in the round Earth could join it, that would absolutely be a political move....

                  Suppose we insisted everyone make a statement that the Earth is round before doing anything. Does this accomplish anything aside from riling up flat Earthers and drawing them into starting arguments on your platform?

                  That's not the situation that was being discussed, though. If I started a group and said that only people who believed in the round Earth could join it, that would absolutely be a political move. I would be using my (minimal) power as the group's founder to exclude Flat Earthers from the group. Maybe we can all agree that that's a good thing, but that doesn't make it not political.

                  Pretty sure slinging bigoted slurs around is also frowned upon

                  Ah, but is it, though? Sure, saying the N word will get you banned most "no-politics" places, but there have been several rounds of controversy recently about the use of words that marginalized members of those spaces identified as hurtful in origin or intent in the open source community. One such argument, in which a group of developers forked some software with an offensive name, got so heated that several of those developers were doxed and got death threats!

                  The point of all this is, anything that has to do with power is political, and almost everything has to do with power. "Banning politics" would, if taken seriously, mean banning all interaction. In practice, it is a form of discrimination against those whose very existence is seen as political by their oppressors.

                  That's not to say that, for instance, it's always appropriate to bring up the Flat Earth "debate"; but trying to say what is and isn't politics for the purposes of excluding it is ridiculous. That, in and of itself, is a political action.

                  8 votes
                  1. NaraVara
                    Link Parent
                    Come on! Even the most obnoxiously textualist jurists don't go into this kind of reductio ad absurdum. It's plain what the intent behind no politics rules are, and any reasonable person standard...

                    "Banning politics" would, if taken seriously, mean banning all interaction.

                    Come on! Even the most obnoxiously textualist jurists don't go into this kind of reductio ad absurdum. It's plain what the intent behind no politics rules are, and any reasonable person standard can be applied to determine where a line should be drawn. The rule isn't in place to enforce itself, it's in place to keep the community interaction from devolving into partisan fighting all the time in ways that create headaches for moderators and can further set off griefing, trolling, and other negative behaviors.

                    And on a purely pragmatic basis, you seriously don't want this to happen. It takes careful moderation and discipline on the part of the debaters to keep a political discussion from getting ugly. Venues that aren't set up for it will fail to keep it constructive or welcoming, so these fights just end up being wars of attrition. Non-shitheads will always lose these battles against shitheads because arguing with them is like wrestling with pigs. Everyone gets covered in muck, but the pigs like it. They're happy to stay but everyone else gets tired of the toxicity and leaves.

                    5 votes
                  2. [2]
                    moonbathers
                    Link Parent
                    Which particular incident are you referring to? I know these discussions have been happening but I didn't hear about this, I haven't been keeping a super close eye on them.

                    there have been several rounds of controversy recently about the use of words that marginalized members of those spaces identified as hurtful in origin or intent in the open source community. One such argument, in which a group of developers forked some software with an offensive name, got so heated that several of those developers were doxed and got death threats!

                    Which particular incident are you referring to? I know these discussions have been happening but I didn't hear about this, I haven't been keeping a super close eye on them.

                    1. tindall
                      Link Parent
                      Here I'm specifically referring to the Glimpse project, but you're right - this keeps happening, over and over.

                      Here I'm specifically referring to the Glimpse project, but you're right - this keeps happening, over and over.

                      3 votes
            2. [5]
              mftrhu
              Link Parent
              I have often remarked about the fact that centrists are exceedingly predictable, as they care more about the form than the content of the discussion, valuing civility more than what is actually...

              See, to me, that reply falls right into the behavioral pattern I described in my post. You're provoking, and it's unhelpful to the discussion.

              I have often remarked about the fact that centrists are exceedingly predictable, as they care more about the form than the content of the discussion, valuing civility more than what is actually being discussed.

              I dealt with that by learning to get under people's skins, because the first person who rocks the boat is the one who gets kicked out. The fact that they have to be dealt with by using these tactics is concerning: somehow, they don't see the problem with demanding that people be "respectful" and "non-political" in the face of oppression, and, even if they are very sorry about it, they predictably end up joining the oppressors in the name of decorum.

              You are being that centrist right now.

              A statement being politically charged, however you want to define it, means jack shit. It being considered a provocation by some, likewise, because there is a difference between "trans rights!" (progressive; positive, if meaningless to most) and "all lives matter!" (regressive; negative, a racist reaction). Treating both the same because they are "political", however you want to define it, only enforces a discriminatory status quo.

              That said, trans rights.

              8 votes
              1. [4]
                Adys
                Link Parent
                I've said on tildes before that I'm a european-centrist (which is still way the fuck more to the left than most US leftists, for what it's worth). That americans have turned that word into some...

                I've said on tildes before that I'm a european-centrist (which is still way the fuck more to the left than most US leftists, for what it's worth). That americans have turned that word into some sort of insult is… weird. "God forbid you'd consider the opposition's argument rather than dig your heels into whatever you started with" seems to be the go-to attitude on every single side of the spectrum in that country. More on that below.

                That said, trans rights.

                You're on a left-leaning, largely trans-positive website, on a topic talking about politics and trans rights, replying to someone who has explicitly started this thread by saying: "I am 100% behind trans rights". I'm sure you were trying to prove a point.

                So I want to address this:

                "respectful" and "non-political"

                Those are unrelated. Being "respectful" is just something you should be everywhere. Being "non-political" is something you should know how to be, as it is sometimes good etiquette. You maybe don't realize that it is something you pretty consistently do in your day to day life; depending on your environment you may be leaving politics out of any number of these: your work, family dinners, school lessons, out of your kid's life, out of the kitchen, out of church, out of the bedroom, out of dinner parties, out of gatherings, out of music, out of your sports or hobbies or other activities, and plenty plenty more I forget.

                It so happens that yeah, some online communities will ask that you leave political baggage at the door, because:

                1. Sometimes, it's good to escape from real life and leave the serious shit elsewhere. Kind of like when we had a "no coronavirus topics" filter here on tildes.
                2. There's a specific country out there in the world that can't keep it in its fucking pants and tends to turn every single political issue into toxic sewage.

                Anyway, a French friend of mine married to an American girl, pointed out to me something I hadn't realized the extent of: In France, we very often have families that disagree on core political issues, even verbally-violently so, and we can still get together and have a laugh afterwards should we need to leave politics at the door. Whereas in the US, if you have political disagreements in a family, it's almost always toxic and just turns people against each other.

                Macron's a centrist (with right-leaning economic tendencies and a host of other policies across the aisle) -- he'd be called far-left in the US, but I disgress. I voted for him, quite proudly and he's been doing an OK job overall, though his approval rating is worse than Trump's because he mismanaged some key issues. France's problem with him tends to be, for example, the breakdown of communication with the Gilets Jaunes protests, or various failures with the Coronavirus crisis, or various other … you know, all in all political issues.

                That is the type of political discourse in countries that still kinda have their shit together. That's what a centrist looks like, and why people may like or dislike him as a president. You know, I'm quite fucking done taking lessons in how "cEnTriSM is BAD" from a country that doesn't have its shit together in terms of politics.


                I've argued this exact point on Tildes before: You can care about shouting the message in the loudest way possible, or you can care about effecting change. I care about the latter. You cannot effect change if you are silenced, which you will be if you constantly break etiquette. You cannot effect change if you annoy others into ignoring/blocking you. You cannot effect change if you just shout -- you'll be perceived as an extremist, a nutjob, even if your points are perfectly reasonable. What you may achieve however is riling people up against you and giving whatever cause you champion a bad name -- something which, by the way, opponents have long figured out and used strategically (most obviously during the BLM protests, by pushing people to riot, by vandalizing stores and desecrating graveyards with #BLM graffiti, etc).

                That is also why I'll get in arguments such as this one and will defend "form over content". Because I want to have a concrete impact and teach others to better effect change, not win a fucking internet debate by annoying the other person into giving up.

                5 votes
                1. mftrhu
                  Link Parent
                  Interesting assumption, but wrong, which makes most of your reply inapplicable, and irrelevant as far as I am concerned. I'm an European leftist, and it doesn't make me view centrists in a better...

                  That americans have turned that word into some sort of insult is… weird. "God forbid you'd consider the opposition's argument rather than dig your heels into whatever you started with" seems to be the go-to attitude on every single side of the spectrum in that country. More on that below.

                  [...] You know, I'm quite fucking done taking lessons in how "cEnTriSM is BAD" from a country that doesn't have its shit together in terms of politics.

                  Interesting assumption, but wrong, which makes most of your reply inapplicable, and irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

                  I'm an European leftist, and it doesn't make me view centrists in a better light - far from it. They are still more concerned about form rather than function, alleging that there is one way and only one way to effect change - do not raise your voices, do not be rude! work with the system, within the system! follow the rules! - because to be a centrist is to support the status quo.

                  I'm sure you were trying to prove a point.

                  Quite. The point is: something being classified as "political" is, again, irrelevant. If you blindly say "leave politics at the door" while considering "political" what is part of one's identity, guess what you are asking them to leave at the door?

                  Incidentally, no, I do not leave politics out of my work, family dinners, school lessons, church, bedroom, or parties. I'm afraid I do not have that luxury.

                  Sometimes, it's good to escape from real life and leave the serious shit elsewhere. Kind of like when we had a "no coronavirus topics" filter here on tildes.

                  It would be very nice if I was allowed to do that. Instead, I have to see threads about the most trivial shit being classed as "political", and forbidden as to not cause an argument with the dumb fucks who would come out of the woodwork when hearing "trans rights!". I'm not saying that we should be guillotining bigots - even if it'd probably improve their average IQ, mind you - but we could just... not cater to them by letting them win by default.

                  5 votes
                2. [2]
                  whbboyd
                  Link Parent
                  This is bullshit and always has been. Gay marriage is legal in the entire US; it's legal in about half of Europe.

                  a european-centrist (which is still way the fuck more to the left than most US leftists, for what it's worth)

                  This is bullshit and always has been. Gay marriage is legal in the entire US; it's legal in about half of Europe.

                  1. Sand
                    Link Parent
                    Leftism isn't about same-sex marriage. And it's unfair to compare one country to several ones in this regard.

                    Leftism isn't about same-sex marriage. And it's unfair to compare one country to several ones in this regard.

                    3 votes
            3. [2]
              blitz
              Link Parent
              I mostly agree with you and was typing up a very similar response to GP, but I was gonna say that they're equally political and have both entered the public discourse at points in modern history....

              I mostly agree with you and was typing up a very similar response to GP, but I was gonna say that they're equally political and have both entered the public discourse at points in modern history. The former in the form of the 3rd Reich Nazis and the latter in the form of the Black Lives Matter movement, just to name one example of each.

              1. Adys
                Link Parent
                It's not always clear cut but it doesn't feel to me that these are particularly mainstream political views, even in the USA. It's certainly often there in sub-text… but the fact it's still only...

                It's not always clear cut but it doesn't feel to me that these are particularly mainstream political views, even in the USA. It's certainly often there in sub-text… but the fact it's still only sub-text makes it toxic enough IMO that I'd define it as apolitical. Give it a few years I'm sure…

                I'll concede that there's a definite argument to be made that they're both political.

                2 votes
            4. [14]
              NaraVara
              Link Parent
              Yeah I really don't understand the argument. Politics is about exerting power in the process of collective decision making. It's like seeing two people fighting over something and saying "Hey!...

              Yeah I really don't understand the argument. Politics is about exerting power in the process of collective decision making. It's like seeing two people fighting over something and saying "Hey! Team Blue is obviously correct therefore you two aren't really fighting." Of course they're fighting! You can see them fighting right there!

              1. [13]
                Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                So is the argument here that literally everything can be political? I don't understand what purpose labeling something as political is if the definition is simply whether it could be discussed in...

                Politics is about exerting power in the process of collective decision making.

                So is the argument here that literally everything can be political? I don't understand what purpose labeling something as political is if the definition is simply whether it could be discussed in a government.

                4 votes
                1. [12]
                  NaraVara
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  It's not an argument so much as just the definition of the term. Look at the wiki entry. "Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are...

                  So is the argument here that literally everything can be political?

                  It's not an argument so much as just the definition of the term. Look at the wiki entry.

                  "Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status."

                  I don't understand what purpose labeling something as political is if the definition is simply whether it could be discussed in a government.

                  If you've got conflicting interests around an issue, then that issue is political by definition. I'm not sure what you mean by "what purpose" it's supposed to serve. It's like asking what purpose it serves to call a tomato a fruit. It's just a descriptive term for how things are. That's why I asked what your definition of "political" is, because it seems like you're bringing in associations that others here (myself included) don't have.

                  3 votes
                  1. [11]
                    Gaywallet
                    Link Parent
                    This entire discussion around what is political was started because of the following statement If everything is politics, then is the solution to disable all chat? This seems counter-intuitive and...

                    This entire discussion around what is political was started because of the following statement

                    It's a good thing that they can be asked to leave their political views behind when doing so.

                    If everything is politics, then is the solution to disable all chat? This seems counter-intuitive and likely not what is being argued.

                    Instead we must define what fits within the scope of politics for the purposes of reasonable discussion.

                    It is my opinion, as I mentioned elsewhere, that the right to human autonomy is not politics. The right for a human to exist is not politics. We do not treat the discussion around whether murder is illegal the same way we treat the discussion around how best to run an economy and who should pay for infrastructure. It is misleading and deceitful to treat these as political issues.

                    6 votes
                    1. Adys
                      Link Parent
                      You're not far off, as it is something that's been applied to a lot of games when they can afford to cut communications. The former is non-divisive and near-universally agreed-upon; the latter is...

                      If everything is politics, then is the solution to disable all chat?

                      You're not far off, as it is something that's been applied to a lot of games when they can afford to cut communications.

                      We do not treat the discussion around whether murder is illegal the same way we treat the discussion around how best to run an economy and who should pay for infrastructure.

                      The former is non-divisive and near-universally agreed-upon; the latter is not.

                      Defining what is or isn't political isn't always clear cut but this is what I use as a rule of thumb:

                      • It needs to bring clear disagreement. "we should cure cancer" is apolitical; "we should give money to X to cure cancer" may be.
                      • The issue needs to be divisive at a state- or national-level. (Political issues can be a lot smaller but generally, we're talking about national politics, and your favourite MMO doesn't care about your local HOA)
                      • The issue relates to what those state/national groups' policies. "short/long $TSLA" is not political.

                      In general you need to look for the spirit of the rule: Why is it there at all? "No politics" is generally there to prevent heated arguments and is often used as a shortcut for "no radically-divisive debate that will bring the worst out of everyone, give the mods team a fucking break pretty please". I've seen the "tabs vs spaces" debate fall under the no-politics rule.

                      (gonna stop replying to this thread now, I have to sleep)

                      4 votes
                    2. [9]
                      NaraVara
                      Link Parent
                      But everything isn't politics. Blizzard's rule is just a restriction on talking about things that are likely to start an argument. Nobody is banning the guy for talking about Trans issues or...

                      If everything is politics, then is the solution to disable all chat? This seems counter-intuitive and likely not what is being argued.

                      But everything isn't politics. Blizzard's rule is just a restriction on talking about things that are likely to start an argument. Nobody is banning the guy for talking about Trans issues or anyone for simply being Trans. The ban is for engaging in behavior that is specifically intended to provoke a political discussion. It's the difference between hanging out in a bar and going from person to person in the bar and hectoring them about how they feel about Trans rights.

                      2 votes
                      1. [8]
                        Gaywallet
                        Link Parent
                        I'm confused. You just stated everything is politics and now you're saying everything isn't politics? Which is it? I'm not talking about Blizzard's rule here. I am referring specifically to the...

                        But everything isn't politics.

                        I'm confused. You just stated everything is politics and now you're saying everything isn't politics? Which is it?

                        Blizzard's rule is just a restriction on talking about things that are likely to start an argument.

                        I'm not talking about Blizzard's rule here. I am referring specifically to the argument put forth by another user on this forum. You know, the one I quoted.

                        The ban is for engaging in behavior that is specifically intended to provoke a political discussion.

                        If everything is politics than all discussions are intended to provoke a political discussion.

                        It's the difference between hanging out in a bar and going from person to person in the bar and hectoring them about how they feel about Trans rights.

                        Except they're not? If this is a bar they've gone in and put up a flier that says please dial this number and give me the printed password to join my band.

                        No one is required to call the number. No one is heckling anyone else. In fact, every patron can completely ignore the posting and still be able to do everything they would like to do at this bar without ever interacting with the individual who posted the flyer.

                        2 votes
                        1. blitz
                          Link Parent
                          You’re still struggling with the “is”/“can be“ distinction. Everything can be political, such as when Galileo was vilified by the religious establishment for claiming the earth went around the...

                          I'm confused. You just stated everything is politics and now you're saying everything isn't politics? Which is it?

                          You’re still struggling with the “is”/“can be“ distinction. Everything can be political, such as when Galileo was vilified by the religious establishment for claiming the earth went around the sun. That’s not political any more, but if that knowledge were somehow lost, perhaps it might become political again.

                          Is the idea of not bringing up divisive issues when spending relaxed time with a group of people with varying opinions a strange one? Focusing on what unites a group rather that what differentiates the individuals? A mix of both seems necessary for a healthy society.

                        2. [6]
                          NaraVara
                          (edited )
                          Link Parent
                          No. And this is an extremely bad faith angle to approach this. Let's go back over the discussion: The little sleight of hand you pulled there wasn't subtle. You abruptly switched from "can" to...

                          I'm confused. You just stated everything is politics and now you're saying everything isn't politics? Which is it?

                          No. And this is an extremely bad faith angle to approach this. Let's go back over the discussion:

                          Me: Politics is about exerting power in the process of collective decision making. It's like seeing two people fighting over something and saying "Hey! Team Blue is obviously correct therefore you two aren't really fighting." Of course they're fighting! You can see them fighting right there!

                          You: So is the argument here that literally everything can be political? I don't understand what purpose labeling something as political is if the definition is simply whether it could be discussed in a government.

                          Me: If you've got conflicting interests around an issue, then that issue is political by definition. I'm not sure what you mean by "what purpose" it's supposed to serve. It's like asking what purpose it serves to call a tomato a fruit. It's just a descriptive term for how things are. That's why I asked what your definition of "political" is, because it seems like you're bringing in associations that others here (myself included) don't have.

                          You: If everything is politics, then is the solution to disable all chat? This seems counter-intuitive and likely not what is being argued.

                          The little sleight of hand you pulled there wasn't subtle. You abruptly switched from "can" to "is." And I even said "If you've got conflicting interests around an issue" which you ignored.

                          So no, not everything IS political. Everything CAN BE political if there is a power struggle around it. This is why I've asked multiple times now how you're defining "political" which you're not doing. I even provided a Wikipedia entry, at least, to make some attempt at arriving at a shared working understanding of what the term means. You can feel free to reference or dispute any part of it.

                          I am referring specifically to the argument put forth by another user on this forum. You know, the one I quoted.

                          That user was talking about it in the context of community management of which Blizzard's action was an example. The context in which they were discussing it is kind of important to keep in mind to avoid generalizing the issue outside of what anyone is actually saying.

                          If this is a bar they've gone in and put up a flier that says please dial this number and give me the printed password to join my band. In fact, every patron can completely ignore the posting and still be able to do everything they would like to do at this bar without ever interacting with the individual who posted the flyer.

                          No, it's more like having a bouncer at the door insisting that you accept that meat is murder before permitting entry. Would you feel comfortable completely ignoring the posting if the "password" was something gross and transphobic? The point of "no politics" rules is to avoid people raising issues in ways that are likely to provoke a fight or argument because the venue does not want to, and is not equipped to be managing heated arguments.

                          1. [5]
                            Gaywallet
                            Link Parent
                            This is an absurd way to define what is political. If nothing is off limits and everything can be on the table when there is a power struggle, we're once again left with the conundrum of what...

                            So no, not everything IS political. Everything CAN BE political if there is a power struggle around it.

                            This is an absurd way to define what is political. If nothing is off limits and everything can be on the table when there is a power struggle, we're once again left with the conundrum of what purpose does it solve to label everything political. This is why I changed from "can be" to "is".

                            I've asked multiple times now how you're defining "political" which you're not doing.

                            You've asked me a grand total of twice. I haven't answered because the only important point I am arguing is that human rights have been politicized, but they are not political in nature.

                            That user was talking about it in the context of community management of which Blizzard's action was an example. The context in which they were discussing it is kind of important to keep in mind to avoid generalizing the issue outside of what anyone is actually saying.

                            Yes, their argument was that the community was best managed by having video games represent a 'political safe space'. I'm not sure why you are calling attention to this.

                            Would you feel comfortable completely ignoring the posting if the "password" was something gross and transphobic?

                            Absolutely not, because I do not tolerate intolerance. In the exact same way that no one would complain about a picture of a kitten saying "you are awesome", no one should be complaining about someone affirming a positive statement.

                            The point of "no politics" rules is to avoid people raising issues in ways that are likely to provoke a fight or argument because the venue does not want to, and is not equipped to be managing heated arguments.

                            Sure, if we were talking about something that was political in nature. Human rights are non-negotiable. They are not political speech. To imply they are is kowtowing to intolerance.

                            3 votes
                            1. [4]
                              NaraVara
                              (edited )
                              Link Parent
                              That's literally the definition of politics. I don't know what kind of headway anyone is going to make if you're going to respond to conventional definitions of terms with "nuh uh" because you're...

                              This is an absurd way to define what is political.

                              That's literally the definition of politics. I don't know what kind of headway anyone is going to make if you're going to respond to conventional definitions of terms with "nuh uh" because you're packing in other associations with it that you don't even want to elaborate on.

                              I haven't answered because the only important point I am arguing is that human rights have been politicized, but they are not political in nature.

                              You can't argue that with any level of persuasiveness if you're unable to establish a working definition for what you think is and isn't "political."

                              And it's crazy to me that anyone would say human rights aren't political in nature. They've always been political in nature. If you search the term "Human Rights" the UN Declaration is one of the first hits. The UN is a political entity. The doctrine around Human Rights is a legal and social framework, both of which are also inherently political. It's insane to claim human rights aren't "political in nature." They're the very definition of what political struggle is about and for. Do you think Civil Rights marchers weren't doing politics? This is honestly just a bizarre take. What even is politics if these things aren't included?

                              no one should be complaining about someone affirming a positive statement.

                              Yeah, and the whole point is that should and will are two different things. And content moderation policies are focused on the latter.

                              Human rights are non-negotiable. To imply they are is kowtowing to intolerance.

                              And yet here we are out in the real world having to negotiate them. Unfortunately other people have different ideas about what is and isn't negotiable and they have just as much right as anyone else to have opinions and to occupy space. At no point is there any policy against saying it's a Trans friendly guild. And there ARE policies to discourage bigotry (and even those content moderation can barely keep up with) and insist on being inclusive. So it's hardly "kowtowing to intolerance." It's literally just telling people to interact in ways that don't stir shit up.

                              1. [3]
                                Gaywallet
                                Link Parent
                                You spent a lot of time pointing out the context yet ignored to take the context into consideration here. This isn't about whether this is an issue that has become politicized. I've gone over this...

                                And it's crazy to me that anyone would say human rights aren't political in nature. They've always been political in nature. If you search the term "Human Rights" the UN Declaration is one of the first hits. The UN is a political entity. The doctrine around Human Rights is a legal and social framework, both of which are also inherently political. It's insane to claim human rights aren't "political in nature." They're the very definition of what political struggle is about and for. Do you think Civil Rights marchers weren't doing politics? This is honestly just a bizarre take. What even is politics if these things aren't included?

                                You spent a lot of time pointing out the context yet ignored to take the context into consideration here. This isn't about whether this is an issue that has become politicized. I've gone over this multiple times.

                                We're talking about the context of what is defined as "political speech" to provide a "safe space from politics". It's entirely unfair to treat "trans rights" as political speech when cis people aren't being attacked and don't feel the need to spontaneously say "cis rights". As I stated before, no one is going to get mad at the cat poster because positive statements about one's rights or oneself are not speech that anyone needs a "safe space" from.

                                Yeah, and the whole point is that should and will are two different things. And content moderation policies are focused on the latter.

                                Uhh, no? Tildes literally has in it's rules that we will not tolerate the intolerant. Just because you want to avoid conflict over things you feel uncomfortable with does not mean it's a good or a just policy.

                                And yet here we are out in the real world having to negotiate them.

                                Exactly my point. Let's not create a space in which the intolerant get to be intolerant.

                                Unfortunately other people have different ideas about what is and isn't negotiable and they have just as much right as anyone else to have opinions and to occupy space.

                                No they fucking don't if those "non-negotiable" things are intolerant in nature.

                                1. [2]
                                  NaraVara
                                  (edited )
                                  Link Parent
                                  The concept of human rights didn't exist until a political process and political entities created it and conceptualized it. This is elaborated on by Fanon or Habermas or Wittingstein. The only...

                                  This isn't about whether this is an issue that has become politicized. I've gone over this multiple times.

                                  The concept of human rights didn't exist until a political process and political entities created it and conceptualized it. This is elaborated on by Fanon or Habermas or Wittingstein. The only reason you think it's "non-political" is because a bunch of political agents did a lot of heavy lifting in the past to the point where you can now argue it should be taken for granted.

                                  Making the space safe happens through decent content moderation and enforcement. It's not about the positions people are holding or taking. It's about their style of interacting or engaging in the community. There are ways of talking and interacting that frame things in contentious, political terms and this is specifically what they're trying to avoid because those moderators think it will stir up arguments they aren't prepared to deal with.

                                  Tildes literally has in it's rules that we will not tolerate the intolerant.

                                  a.) Tildes is a discussion forum with an active user base of ~100 people on a great day. This isn't analogous to WoW's moderation concerns in the slightest. Blizzard wants to take steps to make sure WoW doesn't turn into a space where people are having political arguments all the time because that's bad for the WoW community as a whole. If they wanted it to be like Twitter or even Tildes, they would be making something more like Twitter or Tildes. But that's not the intent of the service.

                                  b.) WoW isn't "tolerating the intolerant" by discouraging political speech. You keep talking as if there is no line between evangelism/proselytization and simply existing but basically everyone knows and understands this line is there. This is sounding like the sort of confidence you can have if you're absolutely sure you'll always be on the approved side of wherever the prevailing winds of social normativity are blowing. But lemme tell you as a religious minority in the Bible Belt that this is not something to take for granted.

                                  Just because you want to avoid conflict over things you feel uncomfortable with

                                  Unsupported, accusatory statements like this do not make it seem like you're actually listening to understand rather than respond here.

                                  Let's not create a space in which the intolerant get to be intolerant.

                                  There's a serious problem of abstraction here where you've repeatedly replaced specific facts of the case with increasingly more generic statements. Somehow this has transmuted "Blizzard muted someone for engaging in political activism" into "Blizzard is creating space for intolerance to thrive." And this whole argument is underpinned by you consistently claiming that a political matter is not political while providing no actual working definition as to what you're talking about.

                                  1. Gaywallet
                                    Link Parent
                                    For the last time, we're not talking about politics in the context of history. We're talking about the use of the word "politics" in the terms of defining "political speech" for which we are...

                                    The concept of human rights didn't exist until a political process and political entities created it and conceptualized it. This is elaborated on by Fanon or Habermas or Wittingstein. The only reason you think it's "non-political" is because a bunch of political agents did a lot of heavy lifting in the past to the point where you can now argue it should be taken for granted.

                                    For the last time, we're not talking about politics in the context of history. We're talking about the use of the word "politics" in the terms of defining "political speech" for which we are providing a "safe space".

                                    WoW isn't "tolerating the intolerant" by discouraging political speech.

                                    You're absolutely right, they aren't because they reversed the ban on this individual. In the end, they endorsed what this person was doing as perfectly okay and within the rules. It took them a while to get there, but they did.

                                    You keep talking as if there is no line between evangelism/proselytization and simply existing but basically everyone knows and understands this line is there.

                                    Humans have rights is always the correct statement and I refuse to accept the intolerant position that it is not. This is not a point up for debate and never has been. If you think it is, I would advise leaving this website because we are not tolerant of such behavior.

                                    There's a serious problem of abstraction here where you've repeatedly replaced specific facts of the case with increasingly more generic statements. Somehow this has transmuted "Blizzard muted someone for engaging in political activism" into "Blizzard is creating space for intolerance to thrive."

                                    I've gone more general because these are the points you are making. This is what you arguing for them to do, under the guise of "content moderation" and it's entirely unfair to invalidate the existence of others simply because you want to "avoid conflict" or perhaps more accurately "be polite". This is expanded upon elsewhere in better words than I have.

                                    1. Removed by admin: 2 comments by 2 users
                                      Link Parent
          2. [2]
            NaraVara
            Link Parent
            Yes? What's the definition of "political" you're going with? It sounds like you're conflating is and ought.

            Yes?

            What's the definition of "political" you're going with? It sounds like you're conflating is and ought.

            1 vote
            1. Gaywallet
              Link Parent
              Thank you for the clarity. I disagree that the statements we should kill and we should not kill are political.

              Thank you for the clarity. I disagree that the statements we should kill and we should not kill are political.

              1 vote
    7. skybrian
      Link Parent
      I'm wondering if your previous experience applies to this case. It seems reasonable for some players of a game to form a club and have their own rules for who can join. It seems reasonable for a...

      I'm wondering if your previous experience applies to this case.

      It seems reasonable for some players of a game to form a club and have their own rules for who can join. It seems reasonable for a club to have a code of conduct, so that members of the club can play with people who have similar beliefs. Sometimes clubs even have some kind of induction ceremony.

      This particular ceremony to join a club seems a bit in-your-face if it's sprung onto people as a surprise, but as a quick-and-dirty way to find like-minded people, it seems like it would be somewhat helpful. It's unclear to me that WoW should disallow it because it seems like it should be allowed under freedom of association?

      But I wonder what other requirements some other clubs might think up, if this were allowed? Someone running a gaming platform might need to worry about this.

      4 votes
    8. Silbern
      Link Parent
      The differences between an "American" and a "European" (and I use quotes here because those are really broad categorizations I personally wouldn't use in this context) approach to free speech...

      (I still am pro free speech, but now in the european sense, no longer in the american sense).

      The differences between an "American" and a "European" (and I use quotes here because those are really broad categorizations I personally wouldn't use in this context) approach to free speech primarily stem from their attitudes towards the government restricting speech, not private communities. It's 100% okay to kick someone off your website or out of your social club IRL for pretty much any reason you like, and imo someone who's constantly acting in bad faith and makes life a pain for everyone else would be fair grounds for it. And by the same token, I don't think most Europeans would consider this behavior to be grounds for being charged with a hate crime or fined, even if it is annoying.

      2 votes
  3. [4]
    monarda
    Link
    I think the use of whispering trans rights is an ingenious way to filter who you would like to play with! I started playing Wow at release and played for more years than I care to admit. I hated...

    I think the use of whispering trans rights is an ingenious way to filter who you would like to play with! I started playing Wow at release and played for more years than I care to admit. I hated and avoided pug pvp groups because of how often I had to heard the word rape; "You raped the shit out of him!" You got raped, lol!" It always made me almost physically ill to read/hear, those phrases, but there wasn't anything I could do other than pvp with my friend group to avoid that sort of thing. Even then, often potty mouthed players were recruited because mechanically they were good players, and I got to watch the weight of the word rape get stripped into nothingness. Rape became just a game word to a generation of boys and men who enabled them.

    I once heard one of my boys use that word while gaming and all my fury became unleashed. He heard in graphic detail my trauma. He heard in graphic detail the rape of little girls and boys, of women and men, of bleeding vaginas and anuses, and of fear. At the end I asked him if that was funny. I've felt a lot shame about how I handled that, and to this day, I do not know what handling differently would look like.

    Hrmm... how does what I wrote have anything to do with the article?

    I know. My last paragraph was written to illustrate my complete frustration of my inability to address or have blizzard address what happened in game with the word rape. My feelings about the word is not political. What it did to me to hear it was physical, this constant depressing annoyance that undermined some part of me. I just wanted to get lost in the game, you know? The thought that I could have come up with a neat little one liner to filter the toxicity and that Blizzard might deem it as political and ban me just furthers my cynicism on the state of the world.

    11 votes
    1. [3]
      kfwyre
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Great comment. Thank you for sharing that with us, and for your valuable perspective. I want to add on to your point: I had the same experience with the word "fag". There was a time on the...

      Great comment. Thank you for sharing that with us, and for your valuable perspective.

      I want to add on to your point: I had the same experience with the word "fag". There was a time on the internet and in gaming that you seemingly couldn't go anywhere without hearing it. Its widespread use was both permitted and even beloved by many, and the easiest way to get on everyone's wrong side was to speak out against it. It's fine for people to throw around hateful and demeaning slurs about people like me, but if I ask people not to use it, suddenly I'm a wet blanket ruining everyone's good time! That's the real evil here!

      What about my good time? Why should I have to abide hate speech for the sake of someone else's comfort? And why am I constantly told to "not be so sensitive" when even an indirect and non-confrontational mention that "fag" is hurtful opens me up to tirades by people who feel aggrieved by the mere hint that their actions could be subject to critique? It was a transparently one-directional accusation of "sensitivity", aimed at protecting malicious people from accountability.

      12 votes
      1. [2]
        monarda
        Link Parent
        Thank you for bringing up fag. I absolutely thought about it when I was writing my post, but since that word did no eviscerate me like rape, I didn't feel like I could speak to it. What an amazing...

        Thank you for bringing up fag. I absolutely thought about it when I was writing my post, but since that word did no eviscerate me like rape, I didn't feel like I could speak to it.

        It was a transparently one-directional accusation of "sensitivity"

        What an amazing phrase that totally gets to the meat of what it's like to try address hate speech in the gaming world.

        Sorry, did I say hate speech? I meant to say, "It's just a word, bro."

        6 votes
        1. kfwyre
          Link Parent
          Likewise, I was always bothered by casual use of the word "rape" but I don't personally bear the damage it weilds. The commonalities between our experiences, however, show us that hate speech...

          Likewise, I was always bothered by casual use of the word "rape" but I don't personally bear the damage it weilds.

          The commonalities between our experiences, however, show us that hate speech always has a target and it's always doing damage to someone -- it just might not be us specifically, depending on the words used. I see this as all the more reason to speak out against it at large, rather than trying to allow or deny individual cases.

          Also, speaking of amazing phrases, I'm haunted by this trenchant and powerful sentence from your post:

          Rape became just a game word to a generation of boys and men who enabled them.

          It's devastating, and it should be.

          8 votes
  4. moonbathers
    (edited )
    Link
    I went and looked at the r/wow post he made and the comments are typical tone-deaf gamer shit. Blizzard can fuck off and so can the community, people like that are why I quit World of Warcraft...

    I went and looked at the r/wow post he made and the comments are typical tone-deaf gamer shit. Blizzard can fuck off and so can the community, people like that are why I quit World of Warcraft over a decade ago, before I even called myself trans.

    Edit: my response here has more substance to it.

    6 votes