One thing that amused me about yesterdays firestorm of argument was the assumption that I am wholly resistant to any form of change. The line of ill-reasoning goes something like this;
I don’t agree with your idea of needed change;
ergo, I must therefore be against all forms of change.
It is an intellectual jump usually reserved to those with a limited capacity at reasoning and an unstable emotional base with which to work from. The idea to these people that you do not agree with their “noble concept” is terribly insulting to them. Thus, they must jump to this conclusion to save themselves from further emotional pain. They cannot handle at all the creeping realisation that actually:
I have a very healthy attitude towards change, but in this case not to yours.
This is a double layer cake of insult to them. It is much easier for those unstable emotions flying around to take refuge in the belief that the opponent is just some hard-head who is against all forms of change, (as it makes it even easier still to immediately tar their opponent with the brush of bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, etc, accusations of which come forth immediately when they realise that someone is not in agreement with them). Being resistant to all change is obviously stupid. But reading my blog for any length of time and coming to the conclusion that I am resistant to all change is even more stupider still.
In regards to all the misconceptions and incorrect conclusions made in regards to my last two posts, I am not going to defend myself, nor clarify my thoughts. I did that once yesterday when I pointed out to a certain individual that his assumption that I am homophobic was completely incorrect. Did I receive some form of recognition that his public accusation was unfounded? No, I got insulted even further as regards to my writing ability. These people do not want to be reasoned with. They form their opinion and then they will fight at all costs to uphold it. They are not looking for a rational discussion. They are running on emotion. Trying to defend yourself with people like this is like trying to stamp out a grass fire; you think that you’ve finally got it under control and then it pops up somewhere else. But what I will do is spell out, once and for all, my stand on all of this:
I am all for the natural evolution of a game and a gaming genre. But I will strongly resist the idea of change for the sake of making change in order to appease any outside special interest groups, whatever the change or whomever the group may be.
I think that this covers it all quite nicely. Of course, I am not afraid at all of Blizzard bowing to any pressure groups in this way. They are not stupid. And a commentator yesterday asked me why I was bothering to make this stand, as apparently you can never win fighting against these types of people. My response is that to remain silent while these ideas are being put forth is to tacitly condone what is being said, and I will not do that. And above all else, a good poke of the wasps nest every now and then can surprise you with which wasps are actually raving emotional nut-jobs beneath their carefully constructed public persona.
The Noisy Rogue 
August 28, 2010 at 9:43 am
I have hesitated to step in here, even when I disagreed with you…but really? I think it’s been clear that Chastity and RO is a woman. Calling her a he? What’s the point of that?
The key thing you say here that pisses me off? “I will strongly resist the idea of change for the sake of making change in order to appease any outside special interest groups.” Women may be a minority in Azeroth, but we’ve been part of WoW from the start. We aren’t an “outside group” taking over your personal sanctuary, we’re a part of it as well. You aren’t likely to acknowledge us, but we’re here…and we’ve been here a long time.
/snark
And whether the developers actually listen, we have every right to state our personal feelings about how that world could be better on a private blog without some ass like you bitching about how we don’t have any right to open our mouths.
August 28, 2010 at 10:03 am
How I am supposed to know whether Chastity is a he or a she? I had assumed that Chastity was female, until a few days ago when I saw a lot of people using the ‘he’ form.
If somebody uses an ambiguous moniker as their internet name, that’s not my concern.
As far as you jumping to the conclusion that my use of ‘he’ was an intentional attack, (even though you yourself could not envisage a point to that), this just further reinforces a good many of my points in this post, which based on the rest of your comment seem to have flown you by.
August 29, 2010 at 3:40 am
Admittedly that wasn’t a fair point of attack, and I was in fact misinformed.
August 28, 2010 at 10:14 am
@ecclesiastical: Chastity is in fact a man, the nickname just confuses people.
Other than that I agree with your post.
August 28, 2010 at 10:42 am
‘I think it’s been clear that Chastity and RO is a woman. Calling her a he? What’s the point of that?’
So lets face it you don’t know whether Chastity & RO are women! But taking it at face value they maybe are. So whats the point a spelling mistake was made? Thx for pointing that out.
What pisses me off is a minority of people forcing views which do not have any merit too them. So why did these girls start playing Wow in the first place if it was so flawed and offensive to them? The answer is that it is not . Certain tweaking might be neccessary as the game developes but the model is sound and the balance is correct for a fantasy game. In fact there is probably an over represention of women within the game.
You do have a right to state you personal feeling just as others have a right to state theirs. However some believe in their rights do not extend to others. Are you one of these?
Are blogs meant to be private? I had no problems in accessing your private blog so perhaps you ought to put some security restrictions on it. Just kidding ;).
August 28, 2010 at 12:16 pm
For what it’s worth, I am actually a guy, it says so on my about page.
August 28, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to clear up that vitally important point.
I suppose it was too much of you to make the effort to withdraw your accusations of homphobia that have been proven to be baseless. Perfectly understandable.
August 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm
The moment you accept that gay people have a right to ask to be represented in video games, I’ll apologize for calling you a homophobe.
Until then, your belief system contains homophobic elements, and I can’t say otherwise.
August 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Go fuck yourself, you arrogant little self-entitled snotbag. I marched in two gay mardi gra’s in Sydney to support my gay friends almost 20 years ago as well as being involved in a number of physical altercations in order to defend them. I have no desire for any sort of apology from the likes of you.
August 28, 2010 at 1:58 pm
It’s good to see that you’re still being logical and rational.
A lot of homophobes have gay friends. A lot of racists have black friends.0
I have no doubt that you are *deeply invested* in the notion that you are not a homophobe, but by labeling homosexuals as a special interest group and not applying the *same* label to heterosexuals, you are maintaining a homophobic, or at least heteronormative double standard.
August 28, 2010 at 10:56 pm
‘A lot of homophobes have gay friends. A lot of racists have black friends.’
Yes, it’s obvious now that you live in opposite-land, where it’s possible to become close friends with people you hate.
Honestly though, Chastity, thank you. I mean that. Arguing with idiots like you is a great boost to my already considerable ego. I can never suffer from low self-esteem because I can always find a smug, self-satisfied shit like yourself out there to make this kind of specious argument. It reminds me how much straight-up *better* I am than 99% of the people in the world.
/nihilism off
August 28, 2010 at 12:19 pm
@ecclesiasticaldiscipline
‘Women may be a minority in Azeroth, but we’ve been part of WoW from the start. We aren’t an “outside group”…’
Just because you’ve been there from the start doesn’t mean you’re not an outside group.
And what makes you an outside group? Well, I’d be absolutely amazed if the demographic Blizzard were aiming for, included female players. Not because they’re sexist or hate women or whatever, but because they want the game to be as succesful as possible. By developing it to appeal to the largest group of gamers as possible, males, they hoped to achieve this.
Of course, they would expect some women to play, but they probably know that the more they make it appeal to the typical girl gamer, the less it would appeal to the typical male gamer, and so they developed it the way they have – aimed at male gamers.
So, if you enjoy something that’s not aimed towards you, then fine, good for you. Just don’t expect it to change because you’re not happy with some part of it. Not when the underlying reason is because it was never intended to make you happy, it was intended to make another group of people happy.
Having said that, I honestly couldn’t care less about the female characters in the game. They could make all the leaders strong powerful females for all I care. I play for the gameplay and know next to nothing about the lore behind the leaders anyway. That’s why its not the idea of Blizzard changing things that I’m against, its the sense of entitlement, that people want a game changed just to suit their personal beliefs, that I find irritating.
In short, WoW is a game aimed towards males. It was never designed to empower women. If that’s what you want to do, find (or create) something that has that purpose. Preferrably in the real world, where it’ll actually make a difference.
August 28, 2010 at 1:33 pm
You should probably not post something like this:
“In short, WoW is a game aimed towards males. It was never designed to empower women. If that’s what you want to do, find (or create) something that has that purpose. Preferrably in the real world, where it’ll actually make a difference”
while complaining about other peoples’ sense of entitlement.
August 28, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I’d be interested in hearing why not, because I fail to see where I indicated I felt entitled to anything, anywhere in that post.
August 28, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Hint: Female gamers are not the borg. What “appeals to female gamers” is as meaningless a statement as “what appeals to male gamers”, when you look at the incredible diversity amongst the wow community.
Blizzard has pretty clearly intended men and women from all cultures to play their game, which IS the best way to dominate market share. The “largest group of gamers” isn’t male or female, it’s BOTH. More subscriptions, from a large market, is better for Blizzard. It’s not a specialty game, which is what made WoW so groundbreaking and so huge. I’m pretty sure no one thought at Blizzco “Let’s make a game for dudes!”, they’re, like all of us, living in a heteronormative, male dominated culture and wrote a game that in some ways reflects those prejudices.
There’s no reason why the game can’t be inclusive to BOTH men and women. I don’t need a game to “empower me”.
August 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm
‘I’m pretty sure no one thought at Blizzco “Let’s make a game for dudes!”..’
I’m pretty sure games are developed with an intended demographic in mind.
I’m also pretty sure that demographic wasn’t the average female gamer.
That’s not to say they don’t put design elements in place for female gamers, its just never going to be a priority over what they believe the intended demographic would prefer.
And if you think ‘What “appeals to female gamers” is as meaningless a statement as “what appeals to male gamers”’, then ask yourself just how many female players enjoy serious raiding or pvp.
Also, the game’s already inclusive to both genders. Playing with a female toon is no different to playing with a male toon. The male leaders in WoW are just as stereotyped as their female counterparts.
By the way, just to clarify, I’ve got nothing against Blizzard putting less stereotyped female leaders into WoW. What I don’t like is one group of people feeling they are entitled to special treatment. Why argue for less stereotyped female leaders when arguing for less stereotyped leaders, whatever the gender, would be better still? What that’s implying is that its not okay to stereotype females, but males, yeah everything’s fine, no change needed there.
August 28, 2010 at 5:00 pm
You wish for the game to remain suited to your personal beliefs (that it is designed for male gamers and everybody else is just along for the ride) and you do not want people of whom you believe the game is not meant for to speak out against this. I’m surprised you don’t see the irony in the fact that you’re complaining about entitlement.
August 28, 2010 at 5:12 pm
“You wish for the game to remain suited to your personal beliefs (that it is designed for male gamers and everybody else is just along for the ride) and you do not want people of whom you believe the game is not meant for to speak out against this. ”
No.
Those are your assumptions.
If I believed that I’m more than capable of explicitly stating that.
To clarify,
I am no more entitled to have the game stay the way I like it, than people are entitled to have it shaped the way they want it, for whatever reason.
Anyone who disagrees with any of this, is perfectly entitled to speak out about it. Arguing against something, does not imply I don’t want them to speak out about it.
August 28, 2010 at 6:06 pm
That did not come across in your comment, in which you respond to a commenter defying the notion of belonging to an outside minority group clamoring for changes within the target audience’s fantasy world. All your post seemed to want to do is explain to her exactly in which way she belongs to that outside group which then does imply the second part of that argument (“… and therefore has no business trying to change what isn’t for her to begin with”) – it being what she was taking offense to in the first place.
I do apologise if I have somehow misunderstood your intent in this, but I do feel I need to ask: what exactly are you arguing for/against?
August 28, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Well, the issue is that a relatively small group of players aren’t happy with the way women are represented in game.
They believe, they should instead be represented in a way that suits their beliefs better.
Some have also suggested this is sexism.
In my opinion, the reason women are repesented like this is because the game isn’t aimed at this particular group, instead, it is aimed at a different, larger group of players.
For that reason, I don’t believe its sexism. Not when there is no discrimination in game against women. They have the same opportunities open to them, as men do. It is steorotyping, but that occurs just as much with the male representation.
For this smaller group to believe they are entitled to have aspects of the game to be designed around their wishes, rather than the larger group it is aimed at, I believe shows a sense of self entitlement.
And after reading it in simple terms like that, I don’t even think I agree with myself any more!
I still don’t think its sexism, and do think the game is aimed at males, but yeah, introducing some stronger female characters (and less stereotypical male characters) would probably be good. Although, I would prefer they did it to make the game more interesting, not just to keep a certain, relatively small, group happy.
August 28, 2010 at 8:05 pm
🙂 I don’t think the primary reason people are talking about this is because they feel Blizzard should jump whenever they snap their fingers. (Some?) People perceive WoW as a fantasy environment where real life issues like gender inequalities do not exist, others take a step back, look at this world and see that despite this fact, there still are some issues like large imbalances in the distribution of gender in leadership roles.
Whether or not the intent behind this fact is anti-women isn’t really what is being debated, although for what its worth I doubt it. I believe that a reason male faction leaders or major lore figures are more commonly male is for a large part due to the fact that a lot of the creators are more familiar with men in these roles. Furthermore, as you already pointed out, they possibly are considering the majority of their target audience. All that I personally, and as I read it a few others, wish to do is make aware of this fact and give the impetus of trying to overcome the stereotypes we are accustomed to and change things up a bit in the story (in the future, I don’t think anybody is clamoring to retroactively insert token women into the lore).
Very few of the roles in the Warcraft universe are impossible were the gender of the character switched, which is great! It would be nice to see this reflected in the major characters of the world a little more, the world itself provides the basis to make the gender of a character have no bearings on the quality of their story.
August 28, 2010 at 10:23 pm
“In my opinion, the reason women are repesented like this is because the game isn’t aimed at this particular group, instead, it is aimed at a different, larger group of players. For that reason, I don’t believe its sexism.”
So your argument is that if I write a book saying that all women are stupid sluts, it wouldn’t be a sexist book because I’d clearly aimed it for the enjoyment of men? Men were the target demographic of the book?
Golly! That’s some thinking you’ve got there!
August 28, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Maybe you stopped reading after the part you just quoted because it seems you missed the part that said,
‘Not when there is no discrimination in game against women. They have the same opportunities open to them, as men do. It is steorotyping, but that occurs just as much with the male representation.’
So, my actual argument was that every woman has the same opportunities available as every man, and every male character is just as badly stereotyped as every female character.
Put that down to sexism if you want, but in my opinion its poor character development, nothing more.
Not everything has to involve an ism.
As for your ‘stupid slut’ attempt at an analogy, Golly! That’s some thinking you’ve got there!
August 29, 2010 at 3:58 am
Well, thank you for taking the time to calmly state your reasons for disagreeing with my opinion.
I will fully admit that women are a minority in WoW. But as the game was not deliberately designed to exclude us, we aren’t an “outside” group. I think Blizzard aims the game towards a very broad range of people from PvPers to casual levelers to end game raiders. I also think they want a broad audience of players of varying genders and nationalities and ages. The financial success of WoW was never about targeting only 20 something white American men…of 11m + subscribers, there are a huge amount of people who don’t fit that mold. The largest MMO in existance – appealing to a narrow market wouldn’t have created that empire. I wish I could find statistics.
Incidentally, I wasn’t one of the women who triggered this initial post by posting about female leaders and such. Frankly, I spend a lot more of my time thinking about theory crafting, gear upgrades, or boss strategies. And if I was going to take the time to ask Blizzard for anything, it would be to make some changes to how they are handling Disc Priests in the expansion.
August 28, 2010 at 10:21 am
I believe you are misinterpreting what the issue with your statements is. It is in fact not about whether or not you seem resistant to change. It is the reason you wish to resist this particular change, because from your posts you find it arbitrary, “for the sake of change” only and unfitting in your escapist fantasy environment. People are trying to explain to you that they are, and always have been, part of the fantasy environment that is WoW, which is in fact not all about you. They are asking for representation within it in acknowledgment of this and are irritated by the fact that your opposition thus seems not merely an opposition to what they’d like the game to look like, but to a recognition of them existing in the game.
Would it in fact bother you if there were more female faction leaders? If not, then why all the fuss?
August 28, 2010 at 10:39 am
This is the crux of the mis-representation: I have only spoken about this particular change, (feminist issues), as this was the one that was up for discussion. If it had been any other issue then my view would have been the same. The vast majority of commentators then jumped on the bandwagon that I was against feminism per se, (and thus naturally a misogynist), without taking the time and effort to understand what I was actually saying.
But even the first two commentators here are not adressing the point of my post – they are merely projecting it onto their own personal issue, (feminism), and demanding that I argue about that. Well, that’s not the argument. The point is the imposition of ANY change from a group with a real world private agenda.
I personally do not wish to have representation of my real world ideals and issues in a game that I play, or a book that I read, or a film that I watch. I enjoy these things for what they are. And it would be extremely arrogant and selfish of me to attempt to impose my own personal real life issues on what is a game that a lot of other people play and enjoy.
The extremely interesting thing here is the assumption that I am a white heterosexual male and thus ‘priviliged’ in regards to the other poor ‘under-priviliged’ and ‘persecuted’ people who also happen to play the game, or read the book, or watch the film.
If I per chance was not white, (because you don’t actually know), would that then influence these peoples attitudes to what I was writing? If it would, then we know where the true bigotry actually lies.
To drag real world issues into what is a leisure activity, and perhaps a work of art on some levels, (although I am doubtful on this and I believe that Erbert was in fact right), is an impostition that I am not willing to sit by and let happen.
August 28, 2010 at 11:24 am
Had your post been about any other group asking for in game representation the response would have likely been the same: the issue is not that you disagree, the issue is with your stated reason. People are not trying to bring real life issues into the game, they are asking for the issues present in it to be removed. WoW is allegedly a place where males and females are equal and sexuality does not matter (while racism (among Azerothian races) is interestingly rather prevalent in game). Why then is this not accurately represented in game? Why does armour change in more ways than to accommodate differing physiques, depending on which sex wears the item (by gaining random cleavage or losing the middle section for no apparent reason, for instance)? Why is the amount of female faction leaders and current lore-impacting figures (in which I include include Jaina, Bolvar or Tiron Fordring among others) so much lower than the expected 50%?
Real life considerations (“what would our audience find appealing?” or the ESRB rating) are already part of what shapes the game. With this being the case, what then is the problem with considering groups of players other than the supposed majority? And considering that real life “issues” and considerations will already find representation in game, why are you surprised at people finding offense in the fact that you see their input as an imposition on what “should be”?
August 28, 2010 at 11:37 am
“… People are not trying to bring real life issues into the game, they are asking for the issues present in it to be removed.”
There are no real life issues in the game at present. The act of seeking to identify issues within the game and then asking for those issues to be removed is the act of bringing real life issues into the game.
Capisci?
August 28, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“There are no real life issues in the game at present.”
You do not perceive any real life issues in the game at present. The game and its lore in fact depict a few of them, among them genderist tendencies that are indicative not of Azerothian culture, but of ours. The fact that you do not perceive or care to acknowledge them does not mean that they aren’t present or visible to other people.
August 28, 2010 at 12:32 pm
“…The game and its lore in fact depict a few of them, among them genderist tendencies that are indicative not of Azerothian culture, but of ours.”
You can choose to dig into the game and find whatever you want to find. My objection is for you to then turn around and rub it into our faces by trying to make an issue of it.
August 28, 2010 at 1:04 pm
So clarify: How are people impacting you negatively by perceiving issues within the depiction of genders in game and opening their findings up for discussion? How will they impact your gaming experience negatively by asking the developers to address the issue?
So far, all you are saying is that you oppose the fact that people voice their opinion on the matter, but you fail to provide a reason as to why this is problematic aside from: “But then others would do it too!” the negativity of which so far eludes me, or: “But its not how I see Azeroth!”.
August 28, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Again, Adam, this is *exactly* where we’ve been from the beginning and *exactly* what I’ve been complaining about for the last two days.
Your entire position is based on the false (irrational, emotional) belief that *your* perspective is the default and that *other people’s* perspectives are “agendas” or “special interests”.
You do not, in fact, have a rational argument for this, or if you do you have not presented it.
You have consistently demonstrated that your beliefs are inconsistent. Your repetition of the mantra that You Are Rational And Other People Are Emotional doesn’t change the fact that your position is illogical, inconsistent, and unsupportable.
August 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm
A commentator yesterday phrased it in a way that I can not better:
“Because putting any of them in the game for the sake of just putting them in is stupid, cheapens the story and does nothing for equality. It grants attention and special treatment, not equality.”
August 28, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Had Thrall been a woman, WoW lore would have played out exactly as it does now. I don’t see how that would have cheapened the story in any way. The fact that characters like Thrall are often by default conceived as male is the issue that means we sometimes need to draw attention to the fact that there is an imbalance. The fact that, as you say, a female Thrall would have gained more attention than the male one only undermines this.
August 28, 2010 at 1:39 pm
A commentator yesterday phrased it in a way that I can not better:
I have no doubt that you can not better that phrasing.
I also have no doubt that you agree with the sentiment which, once again, matches exactly the attitude I was consistently told I was falsely attributing to you.
Making a character female simply because there is no reason *not* to is not giving women “special treatment”. Maleness is not a defualt position from which women deviate. Women do not have to somehow “earn” their right to be included by having an overwhelming narrative pressure behind their inclusion.
Again, you are making the mistake of presenting the *elimination* of a double standard as the introduction of one.
August 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Had Thrall been a woman, WoW lore would have played out exactly as it does now. I don’t see how that would have cheapened the story in any way. The fact that characters like Thrall are often by default conceived as male is the issue that means we sometimes need to draw attention to the fact that there is an imbalance. The fact that, as you say, a female Thrall would have gained more attention than the male one only undermines this.
================================
Your reasoning is as flawed as it gets. First of all, Thrall is not a woman. Changing him to be a woman now is the stupid part i mentioned in yesterdays comments. That would be a change for the sake of change.
Secondly, Orcs are depicted as an honorable race, but also as a brutish and savage race where males do get dominant positions. The females are considered just as good as warriors, but males are the ones that mostly have ruling roles. That is not sexism, that is how that race and society was portrayed.
On the other hand, night elves are a society where females have dominant roles (high priestess, the sentinels, etc), while males are the scholars and druids. Go for a walk in dalaran and you wont find a single male guard. That also isn’t sexism, it’s just a fictional society where things like that are normal.
You can move a society in a different direction by further developing the story, but only if it makes sense and only by adding new things. Not by changing and adding stuff just so you can create an equalised ratio. That’s just plain stupid and there is no valid reason to do that. It would cheapen the game and the lore behind it, because it would mean that blizzard cares about politics more than about the quality of their product.
August 28, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I did not suggest Thrall should be turned into a woman (see the wording: “Had he been…”), I did however choose him quite deliberately to make my point. The Orcs are in fact the race which historically comes closest to a sexist society (the Night Elves also fall into this category, although I personally read their culture as more gender segregating than gender discriminating since the males did traditionally exclusively practice druidism, a matter of perspective though). For example, their first encounter with female warriors of the Night Elves lead to heavy losses on orcish side, as they could not conceive fighting against women (as seen in Wacraft 3) and did not allow female warriors. In the making of WoW these ideas had to be abandoned for the sake of players’ enjoyment, the in game explanation being that such notions seemed foolish in the light of the necessities of war.
As you see, gender equality is actually a concept that already influences WoW. Furthermore, Orcs and Night Elves are so far the only races (that I know of) with such clear cut gender differences, and even for these two, a faction leader of the opposite sex would not “cheapen” the story – do you not consider that term in itself to verge on the offensive, by the way? These two aside, any other race could as easily be led by a woman as a man. However, as it is, only a small amount of females find themselves in leadership roles in WoW, which is a shame as it exacerbates the issue that so many people seem to think that this should be the default.
August 28, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Adam:
Let me try to explain this whole exchange to you from my perspective.
You wrote a post in which you expressed *incredulity* at the fact that women felt underrepresented in the game. You justified this by saying that girls mocked you in high-school for playing video games, and you therefore consider it unreasonable for them to now want to be accepted as part of the gaming community.
This was, and is, a misogynist attitude.
Firstly, you are treating “women” as a homogeneous group, failing to recognize that the girls who mocked you for playing video games twenty years ago are *different people* to the women who play WoW now, and that in fact the women who play WoW now were mostly playing video games twenty years ago, and being mocked by the same girls.
Secondly, what you criticized in your post was not the idea of representation itself but the people who were asking for it. You described people who ask for better representation in the game as “fucking deluded”. You entitled your follow-up post “The Case for Equal Representation of Morons.” Neither of these had anything to do with the *specific* changes people were requesting and everything to do with *insulting the people who were requesting them*.
In my post, where I linked back to your post and – initially – said you were just a decent guy who had come across badly (an opinion I later revised, perhaps unfairly, out of frustration at people insisting I had “misrepresented” you when I had not in any way done so) I made a glib reference to you being angry because you didn’t get laid in high school. This was, I admit, a cheap shot.
Your second post attempted to clarify your position, but it in no way changed my perception of it. I called you a homophobe based *partially* on a misreading of something you said in your post (a misreading which *was* a legitimate interpretation of what you actually wrote, even if it was not your intent). Rather than responding to this by saying “I think you’ve misunderstood what I was saying, I didn’t mean it to sound homophobic” what you said was:
Lets see how much your reading comprehension is clouded by your own rage.
Followed by:
But from this you come to the conclusion that I am homophobic. You’re a moron.
I replied to this by informing you that what you said was ambiguous, which it was. Let us make no mistake about this Adam, my reading comprehension *is better than yours* and I responded to your criticism by *explaining why it was wrong*.
I also reiterated the fact that I still thought you were a homophobe, because even though you had not intended to say that you thought including gay characters in WoW would be a bad example for children (which you still, by one reading of your badly constructed post, in fact did) you still cited the gay community as another group of people who it would be ludicrous to represent in the game.
You then called me biased and unintelligent.
You then made yet another outraged blog post in which you once again complain that everybody who has disagreed with you is irrational and emotional despite the fact that you have not said one single thing on this topic that has not been an ad-hominem attack on the people you disagree with. If you had actually engaged with the topic of representation, I would have engaged with you, but you didn’t.
In this post you also, once again, complain that you are being misrepresented and then in the same post repeat the very ideas that you claim are being misattributed to you.
Let me quote the actual part of this post where you unambiguously outline your beliefs:
“I am all for the natural evolution of a game and a gaming genre. But I will strongly resist the idea of change for the sake of making change in order to appease any outside special interest groups, whatever the change or whomever the group may be.”
These two sentences are exactly the attitudes I was complaining about in the original post which I was told so badly represented you.
Women and gay people are not “outside special interest groups” who have to . They are *people who play WoW* and they have *as much right* to be represented in it as you do. If you do not believe this, you are a bigot.
No misreading, no words being put in your mouth. You believe that anybody who isn’t *exactly like you* is an “outside special interest group” and object to their presence in the game *on principle*.
August 28, 2010 at 1:37 pm
You’re still an idiot, Starscream.
‘Women’ and ‘Gays’ are special interest groups. ‘Men’ is a special interest group. ‘Black people’ or ‘White people’ are special interest groups.
Any group which is not specifically defined as ‘humanity as a whole’ is a special interest group, as indicated by their self-identification as a separate individual group and their specific (special) interest in that group.
Now, when these special interest groups not defined as [White, Christian, Male] were seeking equal opportunity as the group [White, Christian, Male], that was a good thing. It allowed groups that were previously barred from certain activities (voting, drinking from the same water fountain, not being someone else’s personal property) access to those activities.
Now, however, these special interest groups are seeking not merely equality of opportunity, but equality of outcomes. Equal opportunity they already had, you see: female characters could be any class, and did not recieve penalties to strength or damage, even when they were swinging axes bigger than the men (the men’s bodies, not their axes). Equal opportunity, it seems, is not good enough. Now there must be an equal number of female faction leaders, further arbitrarily defined as ‘strong’ women. There needs to be a woman on the statue in Dalaran.
It seems that if you give a feminist a cookie, she’ll want your balls on a plate. Fuck you all. Women are already equal. You just want to be more equal than others.
August 28, 2010 at 2:15 pm
I love you, man! I just do!
August 28, 2010 at 3:20 pm
“Now, however, these special interest groups are seeking not merely equality of opportunity, but equality of outcomes.”
How exactly do women have the opportunity to alter the lore, the appearance of their armour, the conduct of the holiday events or anything else that *they are actually complaining about*? What, exactly, does “equality of opportunity” mean in this context, other than allowing you to take a cheap shot at women?
August 28, 2010 at 10:39 pm
@ Everblue: Equality of opportunty means this:
Female players have exactly as much ability to alter the lore as male players do, which is to say, none whatsoever.
They can alter the appearance of their armor just as much as men can. (not at all)
They have as much power as any male to alter the conduct of holiday events. (neither jack nor shit)
And female characters, just like males, can be any class, wield any weapon that class is capable of wielding, cast all the same spells, and train all the same skills.
The female players of the game have as much influence over it as the male players. One must needs ask, why are the feminists not happy with this equal influence? The answer: because they don’t want to be equal, they want to be ‘special’.
August 28, 2010 at 11:22 pm
If you browse over to the Cataclysm beta forums you’ll see numerous blue posts requesting player input on game mechanics. They ask specifically: what is fun for you, what do you enjoy, what is the most interesting? They also ask for specific feedback regarding zones they have worked on and quest hubs they have implemented. There have been examples of player input shaping the game throughout its history, people voicing their concerns over issues they perceive as relevant is not a request for special treatment.
August 28, 2010 at 11:30 pm
“Female players have exactly as much ability to alter the lore as male players do, which is to say, none whatsoever.”
Very disingenuous, Sjonner. The lore is already written by males, and presented in a male-centric way. If someone said the inequal distribution of inherited wealth in a society caused an inequality of opportunity, you’d be the guy saying “rich children didn’t CHOOSE to be born rich”. Thanks for the obvious and irrelevant information, sir, but you’ve changed no one’s mind.
August 29, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Can’t change what isn’t there, Kurt.
August 29, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Can’t respond sensibly to a sentence fragment that doesn’t say much of anything, Sjonner.
August 28, 2010 at 1:09 pm
“…Women and gay people are not “outside special interest groups” who have to . They are *people who play WoW* and they have *as much right* to be represented in it as you do. If you do not believe this, you are a bigot.”
Your conclusion that if I do not believe that peoples own personal special interests should be represented in game thus makes me an automatic bigot in regards to their issues is axiomatic with the saying;
‘You’re either with us or against us’,
which is of itself incredibly bigoted and narrow minded. Your automatic assumption that I believe that special interest groups as being people who are not exactly like me is both insulting and flawed, as it takes for granted the fact that I myself must be thus no memeber of any special interest group.
When actually I am.
But I will expand on that at more length in my next post.
I also do not myself look in-game for representation of my real world self. That is your own behavioral flaw, not mine, so do not impose it on me.
August 28, 2010 at 1:26 pm
I’m not saying you’re either with us or against us, I’m saying you either believe people have the same rights as you, or you don’t.
Again, I am *completely okay* with you not being bothered by the representation of women in the game. I am *completely okay* with you not being bothered by the representation (or rather non-representation) of homosexuals within the game. I don’t care if you don’t care.
But you seem to not only not care, but to be actively offended by the fact that other people do care. And that means that you *are* against us.
Your automatic assumption that I believe that special interest groups as being people who are not exactly like me is both insulting and flawed, as it takes for granted the fact that I myself must be thus no memeber of any special interest group.
On the contrary, my assertion was based on the assumption that you were a member of several special interest groups, but that you did not consider them to be special interest groups.
Men are a special interest group. Straight people are a special interest group. Cisgendered people are a special interest group. Our special interests are *extremely well taken care of*. Hell geek men who were picked on in high school are a special interest group, and one whose needs you *clearly* feel the game should cater to.
I wasn’t assuming that you weren’t *also* part of a special interest group that you consider to be a special interest group – pretty much everybody is part of some minority or other.
I also do not myself look in-game for representation of my real world self. That is your own behavioral flaw, not mine, so do not impose it on me.
Ah, once again we see your keen intellect and rational mind shine through. *You* do not want to be represented in the game, therefore anybody who *does* want to be represented in the game is displaying a *behavioural flaw*.
And once again we see this backed up with the flawless reasoning that … oh wait.
August 28, 2010 at 1:43 pm
You know, for someone who seems so caring and thoughtful of the needs and feelings of others, (what with all these ‘special’ interest groups and such), it clashes somewhat with the juxtaposition of your willingness to immediately label people with insulting and damaging accusations solely because they may not agree with you.
“…I’m not saying you’re either with us or against us, I’m saying you either believe people have the same rights as you, or you don’t.”
Bullshit. If I don’t agree with you then I am automatically labelled as a bigot.
And the issue is not whether people should or should not have rights. The issue is whether they should be super-imposed on a game that we all play. But in your warped idea of reality the idea that I am merely against their imposition in a game cannot exist. By being against their in-game imposition I am thus against their imposition in any place, shape or form.
Which is a gross mis-representation of everything that I have written.
August 28, 2010 at 2:21 pm
No no, I understand what you’re saying. I understand your beliefs as you have expressed them perfectly well.
Again, you’re being extremely defensive and emotional. I’m sorry if you feel insulted by my insistence of calling you out on your misogyny and homophobia.
But in your warped idea of reality the idea that I am merely against their imposition in a game cannot exist.
On the contrary, I am entirely clear on that fact.
Just to be very, very clear I don’t think you’re against gay marriage or think women shouldn’t be able to have the vote. My interpretation of your beliefs is exactly what you express here.
You do not believe that the rights of women and gay people extend into *your* hobby. *That* is what I am calling bigotry, I am sorry if you feel this is insulting, I am sorry if you feel that this “labels” you but the fact is that it is very, very easy to support the rights of other people *right up until the point where it affects you*.
You believe that gay people and women have rights, except in WoW. Other people believe that gay people and women have rights, except in sport. Other people believe that gay people and women have rights, except in the armed forces.
It’s like that episode of Yes Minister, where everybody agrees that women should be better represented in cabinet, but not in their department.
Saying “I believe in equality for women, except in my hobby” is not only sexism, it’s *mealy-mouthed* sexism.
August 28, 2010 at 2:46 pm
No, you do not understand a single thing he is trying to say. I have no idea if you are just plain ignorant or if you chose to not understand, but that is what is hapenning here.
Point is, equality does not require representation in any medium. The notion todays movies, books and games should all have one or more notable black, gay and female and god know what other characters to represent certain interest groups is plain ridiculous and has no reasonable argument for it. Yet, this kind of ignorant and stupid shit has started hapenning in movies, mostly the ones filmed in Holywood. Now, a loud minority, and don’t kid yourself, that is exactly what you are, is trying to extend the same notion to games.
I will say this one more time,
Equal ratio representation of real world interest groups in fictional settings of any sort DOES NOT EQUAL RIGHTS. It has nothing to do with equality, it has lots to do with a false sense of entitlement.
August 28, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“No, you do not understand a single thing he is trying to say.”
Such an ironic statement. Your arguments would be somewhat relevant Nikola, under two conditions. The first would be a situation where WoW just didn’t even include female characters, it involved only traveling male combatants with the implication that the females were left at home, or that these alien races didn’t have females. Then your tired tropes of equal representation would be accurate. As of now, there ARE equal numbers of males and females in Azeroth, and the females are being presented as weak and inferior.
Secondly, your assertion that equal outcomes, in a fictional game, are not an absolute right ,exactly similar to some found in real life for minority groups, has some validity, but you raise it too broadly. We don’t really know what kinds of rights most of these commenters are arguing for, as the side that you and Adam appear to have formed is against all such rights absolutely in any form, and doesn’t want to even HEAR about dissenting opinions, which at that point starts to be about you guys not even wanting those groups to have free speech rights in real life… not that actually said they should be stripped of their rights, but since they are complaining about their preferences being unmet, and now you are doing the same, but your complaint is that they are complaining, the only logical way for that not to be circular hypocrisy is if you actually believe yourselves to be superior to them. You’re probably just being circular, though.
August 28, 2010 at 5:29 pm
In yesterday’s post you complained about being stereotyped, in a circumstance where you really weren’t, they were just referring to a way in which you clearly and literally stereotyped yourself.
In today’s post, you blat out :It is an intellectual jump usually reserved to those with a limited capacity at reasoning and an unstable emotional base with which to work from. The idea to these people that you do not agree with their “noble concept” is terribly insulting to them.”
Really? One day after complaining about being stereotyped?
I try to believe that you’re not a bigot, that you’re just incredibly angry and narrow-minded, but then I realize what the two main properties of a bigot are. In any case, I hope you find some inner peace, you may not realize how much you need it but it’s clear for many of us to see. I admire Chastity for having the patience to try and help you as much as he’s done, I know it’s a thankless task.
August 28, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Hey, for a post in the near future I would like to hear what’s going on with Eliza the rogue or you’re undead priest.
August 28, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Heya Nitro,
Normal service will resume on Tuesday. I’m not posting tomorrow, and on Monday I will make what I hope to be my final post on this subject at the present time.
August 28, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Lets try and make this as straightforward as possible.
I have no issues with women, gays, blacks (i hope thats the politicaly correct english term, but i’m not sure), or any other group of people.
If the goblin faction leader did turn out to be female, i would care just as much as i do about him being male, i.e. not at all. In addition to that, as far as i can understand, the same faction leader is portrayed mostly as not a very nice person.
I have no issues with having more female characters in the game. I also have no issues with having unisex armors, or just armors that dont look like they are made for the beach.
I have issues with changing the allready created story by adding characters representing people from the above mentioned groups simply for the sake of adding them. It adds nothing to the content whatsoever.
I have issues with calling wow a sexist game when it in fact is no such thing. There is less female characters compared to male, true, but lack of representation does not make you politicaly incorrect in any way.
The story of wow is not the story of the real world. There is no single fictional society in WoW that would be the equivalent of the modern western society. You have mediaval-to-gunpowder age human society, the viking-like archeology, ale and mining based dwarven society, the steamponk/techno society of the gnomes, the tropical themed vodoo troll society, the savege and brutish tribal orc society, the american indian insipred tauren society, etc. etc. etc.
Out of the above mentioned, i would say the dwarven, the human and the orc cultures would be the ones where men are in the dominant role. Even after saying this, i have to say that in none of these are women being opressed or anything like that. They simply assume the tradiotional at-home roles. Storywise, they aren’t forced to do so, and it looks more like a choice to me. Now, would it really be so illogical that, in a society insipred by mediaval times, the women would chose to stay at home, cook and take care of the kids, while the man would tend to the farm or maybe go to war. Even so, you do have female soldier and guard npcs and i see nothing mentioned about them being treated differently than other npcs.
As for the dwarves, again, it’s a different culture, where the men and the women drink and i feel it’s somewhat isnipred by “your local pub (TM)” where the woman would assume the role of the waitress. Yes, behaviour like that wouldn’t fly in the real world, but this isn’t the real world. The dwarven society is a fictional one where such things are normal and ok.
Now as for the orcs, i really can’t be completely sure how male-female relations are defined, but the lack of female warriors in the lore is apparent. Still, i see no mention of discrimination of any sort. It’s simply a culture where brute strenth is what gets you to the top.
Again, just because wow lacks notable gay, female, black or any other “special interest group” npcs, does not make it discriminatory to any of them. Lack of such things does not define political incorectness. The presence of politicaly incorect things is what defines political incorectness.
Again, i have no problem with represantion of any group within the game, as long as they arent put there just for the sake of represantation. That wouldn’t be about equality or rights, that would be about politics.
I feel the same about the real world. If a company hires women just to fill the “women quota” then that’s politics. If they hire anyone based on their skill and regardless of their sex, skin color, sexual orientation or any other such thing, then that would be equality.
August 28, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Personally, I largely agree with everything you’ve written, except for two paragraphs:
“I have no issues with having more female characters in the game. I also have no issues with having unisex armors, or just armors that dont look like they are made for the beach.
I have issues with changing the allready created story by adding characters representing people from the above mentioned groups simply for the sake of adding them. It adds nothing to the content whatsoever. ”
Why would you be against someone else’s proposal, just because it doesn’t “add to the content”? Also, it’s misleading to say you’re not against more female characters, but then in the next paragraph say that you ARE against adding more female characters, because of the specific reasons for which people are asking that they be added.
I think it’s fair to say that most of your other objections about “quotas” are addressed by the fact that the people who are asking for more diversity in the game either already feel that the story is worsened by not living up to the ideals of equality that Azeroth is presented as having, or if that is not so, then they would want the additional characters to be presented as naturally and thematically there, not just added in unnaturally. To put it more simply, you are saying that “Azeroth is male dominated because it is being presented that the males naturally are dominant, so it would be unnatural for more women to be in positions of power”; and those arguing for more diversity are saying, “Yes, that’s exactly the problem we have with the current story.”
You guys are presenting yourselves as “we don’t care that much, we’re pretty open, we just think the feminists are overreacting.” Well, I think of myself similarly, as not caring that much, I’m not that invested in the issue– and to me you guys seem FILLED WITH RAGE–and it looks like you guys are projecting that rage onto the feminists. Adam more so than you, obviously.
“I feel the same about the real world. If a company hires women just to fill the “women quota” then that’s politics. If they hire anyone based on their skill and regardless of their sex, skin color, sexual orientation or any other such thing, then that would be equality.”
I agree with this statement in principle, however skill is a nebulous quantity. In the majority of jobs, skill has a large component of “people skills”, it’s very easy to define “people skills” in a way that favors the popular perception of one gender. I could put this in much more academic language, but simply put, sometimes the easiest way to equalize the way in which “people skills” is defined is to put a whole bunch of women in positions of power where they can define those skills. This is kinda veering off track, but that’s the best response to your point there and it does touch on the WoW issue tangentially.
August 28, 2010 at 7:34 pm
As usual, you take what the other person says and then twist it around sou you can make your argument.
Let me try at put it even more clearly:
I have problems with the writer saying “we need a new character here, lets make him/her female, because we dont have enough of them allready.” That’s wrong. You wouldnt ask something like that from a novel writer and you shouldnt ask it from someone writing a story for a game.
That’s filling a quota.
It should be the writers choice and he shouldnt feel forced to do anything. If you think he’s being sexist, then show it by boycoting his work, not by demanding him to change it. This applies to game lore the same way it applies to literature.
I can allready tell what you are gona write here. You’ve allready written the same thing several times. Here goes, this is why i would be “against someone else’s proposal just because it doesn’t add content”:
Because to do otherwise would be against what writing in fact is – A CREATIVE PROCESS. It’s not “checking items off a list”.
“I agree with this statement in principle, however skill is a nebulous quantity.”
Every job has a required skill set. If a person that does not have all the skills from that set is accepted instead of a person that does, just because he/she is part of a special group, that is wrong. There is nothing nebulous about that.
You arent solving the problem of gender equality in the job market by hiring more women regardless of skill, you are just creating a whole new set of issues.
August 28, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Sorry about the “as usual” part at start. I was under the impression i was talking to someone else. Everything else applies though.
August 28, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Sorry again, but actually i was talking to you…
I really need to get better at remembering names.
August 28, 2010 at 9:07 pm
“As usual, you take what the other person says and then twist it around sou you can make your argument.”
I’m not twisting what you say, I just don’t think you are describing the situation accurately in the first place. I wouldn’t respond to this fallacious attack (ad hominem) normally, but I think you are saying it with sincerity, and it would benefit you to think on it.
“I can allready tell what you are gona write here. You’ve allready written the same thing several times. Here goes, this is why i would be “against someone else’s proposal just because it doesn’t add content”:”
Well yes, if you continue to leave off the support for your statements, I’ll keep asking you to provide it. As one would expect. If you provide that support, I’ll address that instead:
“Because to do otherwise would be against what writing in fact is – A CREATIVE PROCESS. It’s not “checking items off a list”.”
I agree with you in large part here–although in something as large as WoW, with many writers not just one, this is less forceful an argument than if you applied it to something like a novel. Still, if a group of people protested a novel and demanded the author change it to be more representational, I wouldn’t think they were wrong to protest–but I would think the author right to stick by his guns, if he felt like doing so. Do you think those people are morally wrong to protest? Freedom of speech should apply equally to the writer and the protesters, in my book. Writing is a creative process, but that doesn’t mean what is produced is holy writ. If you creatively come up with a racist, offensive story, tear it up and write a new one, right?
“It should be the writers choice and he shouldnt feel forced to do anything. If you think he’s being sexist, then show it by boycoting his work, not by demanding him to change it. This applies to game lore the same way it applies to literature.”
If you’re claiming that the writer feels “forced” to do something by a bunch of people saying things, and that is wrong, then I could equally as well say that people feel “forced” to be subservient females because the writers of WoW portray them that way. To me, that is nonsense. The writer, and the players, do not lose their free will because of something they read.
“Every job has a required skill set. If a person that does not have all the skills from that set is accepted instead of a person that does, just because he/she is part of a special group, that is wrong. There is nothing nebulous about that.”
Yes, there is. What if the skill is “leadership”, and the males in control decide that a necessary component of leadership is a strong deep voice? That is sexist, and the best way to change it is to put a bunch of women in power. If you try to legislate it into effect, then it just goes underground and unspoken. History bears me out, not you.
August 28, 2010 at 10:18 pm
I think we might actually be getting close to a common understanding here.
No, i dont see anything inherently moraly wrong in protesting.
The problem is, i consider this specific protest to be without a real cause.
WoW as a game is not sexist. There are no sexist statements in it. The only part you could really argue on would be the gear, and i would agree to change that part, though not by adding a special option to switch between bikini and regular on female characters, but by simply changing the gear apearance for everyone.
As for the story, there is nothing sexist about it. At no point in WoW lore did i ever see a female character’s rights being in any way jeopardised.
My whole argument is, underrepresentation is not inherently wrong. It is simply the way of the world. There are no real world situations where the ratio between men and women is or has to be perfectly proportional to the population as a whole. As long as there is no sexist reason for that to happen, then the situation is not sexist.
At this moment, there is no reason to believe that there is any sexist agenda behind the lore of WoW and the default standing should then be that there is nothing to complain about. You knew, the whole “innocent until proven guilty” idea.
Now, the moment i see anything wrong about this game, i will be the first to protest. Right now though, it just looks like some people are trying to create conflict where there is none.
Now, if this whole thing started with that Righteous Orb post, then i see why Adam reacted on his blog. What could’ve been a regular”it would be nice if the goblin leader was female, but oh well, he isnt” post just turned in to one overreaction after another.
The most ridiculous thing is that the leader in question isn’t really portrayed as a strong person anyway. He’s pretty much a worm that only stayed in power because Thrall said so. Im afraid to think how people would then react if he WAS female.
And again, regarding Garosh calling Sylvannas a bitch, well, she really is a bitch lately. There is nothing sexist about that insult. Guys can be called bitches to. Both sexes can also be gold dogs in a derogative way.
August 28, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Alos, don’t take my “as usual” part as an insult. It’s just that after reading your replies, i get the notion that you really didn’t understand what i was trying to say.
Don’t get me wrong, it might be because i’m not saying it wright. I just know that what you said that i said was not what i was trying to say, if that makes any sense.
August 28, 2010 at 10:26 pm
*right
god damn the mistakes. WTB edit button.
August 28, 2010 at 11:26 pm
“My whole argument is, underrepresentation is not inherently wrong. It is simply the way of the world. There are no real world situations where the ratio between men and women is or has to be perfectly proportional to the population as a whole.”
I agree, but the ratios in WoW for certain gender based things are waaayy out of line. Do I think it’s a huge deal, or based on anything intentional? No, it’s mainly just Blizzard designing the game that they think will sell. I certainly think there are thousands of things more worth protesting about. A sense of proportion is important to maintain. On that subject:
“What could’ve been a regular”it would be nice if the goblin leader was female, but oh well, he isnt” post just turned in to one overreaction after another.”
I agree, and I think the place where it jumped up a notch is when Adam’ made some posts that had a lot of pent-up anger in them. I’d like to think that he was just already angry at something else, and then read that post and went off, but when you make an angry post about feminists on the internet you’re going to be deluged with accusations of bigotry and misogyny. Like you said about something else, it’s just the way of the world. I generally echo Paglia’s take on the feminist movement as a whole, but being male, I echo it silently– there’s no percentage in doing otherwise.
August 28, 2010 at 11:36 pm
“The problem is, i consider this specific protest to be without a real cause.”
You are perfectly within your right to feel this way. However, just because it is an issue that does not concern, move or interest you, does not mean it is not an issue worth discussing. It is fine for you to decide not to participate in the discussion or agree with the arguments being made, it is not fine for you to decide that everybody else shouldn’t either.
August 28, 2010 at 7:03 pm
p.s. in retrospect i was very unclear distinguishing between quotation and paraphrase in that post, but I can’t edit it now, so I have to just apologize and note that here.
August 28, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Hey Adam, I suddenly remembered a quote I heard from somewhere:
‘The modern definition of a bigot is someone who disagrees with a liberal.’
I always though it was just a snarky joke, but this whole discussion has put that quote into a new light.
August 28, 2010 at 11:06 pm
I always heard it as “The modern definition of a liberal is someone who disagrees with a bigot.”
I always thought it was a snarky joke, but this whole discussion has put that quote into a new light.
August 29, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I’ll wear my bend sinister proudly. Being called a bigot by such as yourself is the highest possible compliment I could ever hope to be paid.
August 29, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Like being called ‘The Great Satan’ by Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden. Less an insult and more a badge of honor to be worn proudly.
August 29, 2010 at 7:55 pm
If having perfect strangers on the internet think that you are small-minded and filled with rage is something you take as a badge of honor, then I pity you and hope that things improve for you soon.
August 29, 2010 at 7:59 pm
p.s. I don’t self-identify as a liberal, and I don’t recall specifically calling you a bigot. Did I do that somewhere else in the comments?
August 29, 2010 at 8:03 pm
I searched the whole thread, and the closest I came to insulting you was saying one of your posts was disingenuous. I don’t see anywhere where I even came that close to implying you were a bigot, although you seem happy enough to claim the label, which is disturbing.
August 29, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Peoples ease and willingness to throw those types of labels around is much more disturbing I would think.
August 29, 2010 at 8:56 pm
I agree, that’s why I keep quoting you when you use them.
August 28, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Seriously though, I already knew it wasn’t a joke.
August 29, 2010 at 12:48 am
They say the best way to get out of a rut and find your enthusiasm/drive is to PICK A FIGHT.
To wade into a topic of passionate debate and take a “I don’t care what you all think, this is just MY opinion” stance, and wait for all the passionate replies to flow in. Now you can spend your free time DEFENDING yourself and your opinions… which, really, you shouldn’t care about doing. Opinions are just that: yours. They don’t NEED to be defended.
But people do it anyway. because without an irrefutable cause/goal to FIGHT for and DEFEND, people realise they have NO goal. No drive. No ambition. They’re not **CONTENT** without someone to fight and beat.
If you’re enjoying WOW, enjoy it. If lobby groups want to change it… let ’em try. If they succeed, odds are it was because the change was a positive one. If the game has run out of sources of enjoyment, seek it elsewhere.
OR… you could always pick a fight over an inconsequential issue, then take great enjoyment defending your opinion. “Oh no, the hordes are coming down upon me for just saying what I felt, WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS, I better build the fort and get ready to FIGHT BACK (I said ‘fight back’, right? That makes me the good guy, right? Bad guys attack, good guys defend, right? Defending is pure and honorable, just ask Westboro Baptist Church. They’re just *defending* their opinions.”)
Go do something in WoW you haven’t tried yet, and report back to us. It will make more fascinating reading than tomorrow’s “Now let me tell you why Vent should be banned, now this is just my opinion…” post. This isn’t a “He who gets the most namedrops in other blogs WINS” game. Stop being a drama whore.
August 29, 2010 at 9:37 am
Quoted from the post which you are replying to:
“… And a commentator yesterday asked me why I was bothering to make this stand, as apparently you can never win fighting against these types of people. My response is that to remain silent while these ideas are being put forth is to tacitly condone what is being said, and I will not do that.”
These liberal pseudo-left charlatans take it for granted that you are agreeing with them if you don’t say anything. I choose to relieve them of this delusion in my case. And as I wrote in an email to another blogger yesterday, I am not actually enjoying this fight much at all. But as Chewy said, I opened this can of worms, and if I opened it I’ll darn well see it through to a reasonable conclusion.
August 29, 2010 at 7:49 pm
“These liberal pseudo-left charlatans take it for granted that you are agreeing with them if you don’t say anything. I choose to relieve them of this delusion in my case.”
You sure are doing your part to make yourself look like an ass, aren’t you? Object to stereotyping, maintain that you aren’t a bigot, and then you just keep busting out nuggets like this.
Just in case you didn’t know, Liberals and Conservatives in this country are fairly obviously two sides of the same very thin coin, so you’re not just a bigot, you’re a blind one.
August 29, 2010 at 3:02 am
Karadan ! You spoilt it right at the end, I was smiling and generally agreeing with you until that last comment about the “drama whore”.
I don’t know Adam in the flesh, so as to speak, but I’ve read his posts for a good while now, “drama whore”, no, you’re well wide of the mark.
August 29, 2010 at 6:01 am
If you were agreeing with the rest of his post, which is analyzing the reasons why his behavior/motivations now are different then they were before, then why would you think your past reading of his posts are relevant in contradicting the drama whore judgement that his post built up to? One can’t help but conclude that you misunderstood the whole post, more’s the pity, it was well worth the understanding.
August 29, 2010 at 1:55 pm
“why would you think your past reading of his posts are relevant in contradicting the drama whore judgement that his post built up to? ”
Because I’m making a judgement based on having read Adam’s blog for several months. I can’t be entirely sure what Adam’s personality is like, but if it’s reflected in his posts, I don’t think he’s a drama whore.
If you or Karadan know Adam better than I do and can tell me differently, then I’ll accept it, but if all you have to go on is the same information I do, I disagree with the judgement.
August 29, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Hmmm, ok, having considered this a little more perhaps we’re debating the semantics. “Being a drama whore now” or “is a drama whore”.
My comment was based on “is a drama whore” a more generic definition of Adam personality. I’ll conceded that the last two posts could be judged as “being a drama whore”, but I think that’s still harsh.
August 29, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Thanks Chewy …. I think.
August 29, 2010 at 7:47 pm
You aren’t getting it. The post you were nodding and agreeing with is about how he isn’t acting now like he has been for the past several months. Then, you say something based on those past several months. That is an obvious contradiction, so either you are wrong to cite those past several months, or you misunderstood the post you thought you agreed with. Capisce?
August 30, 2010 at 12:28 am
You made me chuckle Kurt, thanks. Your condescending tone is such a cliche. “capisce”, please, spare me.
Re-read my second response and if you still want to believe there was a contradiction, be my guest.
August 30, 2010 at 3:20 am
My tone is a cliche? Not sure why I bothered to try to correct you.
August 30, 2010 at 7:58 am
Wow go away for three days I come back to this…
Adam why the hell are you even bothering dude? Let it lie, stop letting it get to you. You made yr point very clearly first time around: you dont think people should be lobbying to get the game changed for their special interest. I disagree with you, but defend to the death your right to say(blog) it.
My special interest is I am a hunter. I hate the minimum range being added in cata, its going to murder me in pvp. Now add they are removing volley AND my melee abilties, how the hell am i supposed to fight the frost mage who blinks behind me, casts frost nova and then cheerfully sits there channaling death on me? or the dk with chains of ice macroed to his deathgrip. Now I can’t even raptorstrike and wingclip him while I wait to run away: I can’t get back out to firing range before his dg comes off cd and its back to his feet again.
Pointless protesting this, its already been tried and ghostcrawlers stated they dont care what we think. So I got my shammy upto 68 and will play that instead.
Blizzard dont listen, wont listen and blogging about wether they should or shouldnt and wether people should try or not…
Pointless man totally pointless and a waste of yr valuable time.
August 30, 2010 at 2:22 pm
The fact is that Blizzard won’t change their game if some feminists QQ in their blogs about woman underrepresentation. They will change it only if say 500k women quit WoW putting “The women are poorly represented and playing minor roles as NPCs in this game” in the box “Reason for unsubscription”.
Your brave “good fight” is ignored by Blizzard just like their QQ. Unless you and 500k other subscribers quit WoW with reason “This game it too political correct for my taste”, you will not influence the direction in which the game is developing.
Therefore, attacking feminists on blogs have zero consequences either. Aside of a little flame war, of course. If you wanted a flame war for your blog, well, you had it. You might as well write a post for or against abortion to achieve the same result.
September 7, 2010 at 12:39 pm
[…] times that my entire point was something entirely different. Here, let me quote it for you from a post that I wrote in the middle of the […]