>At Riot, employees are encouraged to play League before/after work, or during lunch. My very first week at the Dublin office, I heard shouting from individuals playing together, calling each other “fggots” repeatedly. I was unnerved, but it was my first week and I didn’t know if this was a common occurrence. I didn’t say anything at that time. Eventually, the language would escalate to “ngger”. No one flinched, and I realized it was considered the norm. Nearly the same thing happened my first day of meetings at the Riot LA office, where two men were loudly calling each other “c*cksuckers” right outside the office of the CEOs.
That's gaming culture, plain and simple. Is it a new necessity to change gaming culture to pander to people who've never played games? I believe this is being done for the sole reason of extracting more money by tapping into markets that weren't being exploited before.
Case in point, woman-friendly games like Fortnite or Overwatch. This is not a problem by itself, but it's sad that some companies are pushing this narrative to make it look like they care about social issues and gain the favour of those who do, when they just want more money.
If use of racist and homophobic slurs is 'gaming culture' then there is problem with gaming culture. I don't really see how that kind of language is something that needs protecting.
I think there is something wrong with a culture that feels the need to supress what is effectively amateur comedy going on within small groups.
Targeted harassment sure, that's not something to just blindly protect but as a homosexual, i see more harm in trying to police jimmy calling his friends faggots playing CoD than I see in allowing people to speak their minds.
Until someone can posit a great explanation for why its funny for me to call my friends faggots when they have kids and I don't and why that is in the end bad for society as a whole, I don't buy the argument we need to be policing speech along these lines.
Your statements don't seem to line up with each other, so I'm a bit confused as to what side you're arguing for. However, assuming you are defending the use of homophobic or racial slurs as "amateur comedy" then I have to disagree. There is absolutely zero reason to defend it. There's no important discourse being suppressed by encouraging people not to use these words, and as a society there is a lot to lose by allowing antagonistic language to become common vernacular.
Just because something doesn't offend you specifically (even if you are part of the group something offensive is being said about) doesn't mean it isn't offending anyone.
It's very common in countries like the US, for you to have a lot of rights, but their coverage always ends where others' rights begin. You cannot infringe on someone else's rights, and free speech does not cover hate speech. Hateful or derogatory speech has a significant negative impact on the mental and emotional well-being of a lot of people, and suggesting that it shouldn't just because it doesn't affect you is not a valid reason to not try to educate Jimmy on how not to be insensitive.
> Just because something doesn't offend you specifically (even if you are part of the group something offensive is being said about) doesn't mean it isn't offending anyone.
I couldn't care less if someone is offended. This wasn't a serious problem before the internet and with it is even less of an issue because it's just on the computer or your iphone.
Just turn it off, there, problem solved.
> It's very common in countries like the US, for you to have a lot of rights, but their coverage always ends where others' rights begin.
Yes, you don't have a right to not be offended. That is insane.
> and free speech does not cover hate speech
Where in the bill of rights is this covered? Or even the federalist papers?
It’s more that you shouldn’t use that word in the first place — it doesn’t matter if your friends are gay or not; the fact it’s a hateful insult that tells gay men they are lesser is enough. Imagine the young little gay kid who hears “f\t” screamed 20 times an hour — how will that make him feel for the rest of his life? Are you just cementing in his head that it’s wrong to be gay?
I hate to say it, but the days of absolute freedom of speech may be over. Everything these days is done through a commercial platform, and we’re now saying those platforms have editorial responsibility to monitor that speech (outside of any government mandate so it doesn’t fall afoul of 1st amendment).
> it doesn’t matter if your friends are gay or not; the fact it’s a hateful insult that tells gay men they are lesser is enough.
I didn't say that, you said that! Why would you think gay people are lessor to straight men?
> Imagine the young little gay kid who hears “f\t” screamed 20 times an hour
I would ask why a little boy identifies as gay in the first place, a bit young to be making such a big life decision.
> how will that make him feel for the rest of his life?
You tell me, I'm asking for some empirical evidence to stop doing something humans have done for centuries.
> Are you just cementing in his head that it’s wrong to be gay?
Why is it wrong to be gay?
Also you take on free speech is just simply wrong, these tech companies can be easily classified as natural monopolies like bell telecom was.
It's the same problem of the scaling increase of value with every customer but on a whole other level, this is not just a small collection of totally private companies.
You would have to be living under a rock to think google is just a little private company with no strong relationships with the US government.
> I would ask why a little boy identifies as gay in the first place, a bit young to be making such a big life decision.
It’s not about the little boy who identifies as gay in the moment; it’s about the little boy who realizes he is gay later on, and who has already internalized the message “it is wrong to be gay and people will make fun of you for it.”
And it’s not just gay people; this can apply to anyone who is considered “lesser”. The slurs are hurtful; and should be avoided out of empathy for your fellow humans rather than because the government said so.
But naturally there are a bunch of unempathetic edgelords who have to defy authority. So we are where we are.
Who’s the “we’re”? I don’t agree with YouTube banning Alex Jones and numerous gun channels. I’ll probably cancel my YouTube red subscription over it.
25 years ago you would find the KKK show on NYC public access cable. A round table of guys in hoods, with an AK-47 table piece, talking about African Jews. That was there due to governments freedom of speech protections. Government is now turning a blind eye while corporate media monopolies get away with censorship.
> 25 years ago you would find the KKK show on NYC public access cable. A round table of guys in hoods, with an AK-47 table piece, talking about African Jews.
If I were the FCC, I'd be shutting down those guys.
> If I were the FCC, I’d be shutting down YouTube.
Why? I get why public access would have a mandate to allow people with unpopular (imo hateful) opinions on the air, but not YouTube.
I was under the impression, they're a private network and under no obligation to allow you to post content they don't like. They are free to change their ToS at anytime and ban who they choose, right?
Their data is carried over the same right of ways as cable TV. It’d be like the power company refusing to sell you electricity because you manufacture legal firearms, or the phone company censoring your conversations.
Probably the reason why Google split into so many companies, so they can insulate themselves when pulling shit like this. A network provider separate from a content provider, when in reality it’s the same.
It stops being "amateur comedy" when it starts directly interfering with other people against their will.
If I go to a comedy show, I accept that I might get offended; that's on me. The power dynamic when I go to work, where I am expected to work with my team in order to get compensated, is massively different.
Nobody is making claims about "policing" (whatever that means in context). I don't care about words impact on "society as a whole" as some abstract concept. Society as a whole is comprised of people, and starts with the people around you upon whom you have the most direct impact. If you knew you worked with (or played a game of CoD with) a gay person, or a black person, how would you feel about using those words? That's why it's "bad for society as a whole"--because it's bad for the people right next to you.
Of course, I agree. As I said there's this new "egalitarian and respectful and social justice and all of that" culture that is being created by the games I mentioned and many others, but traditional online games will probably always follow the "classic" gaming culture.
"A place of work", that's another matter; I agree it's unprofessional. I'm talking purely about videogames and those who play them at home.
Speaking as a dinosaur, that is not classic gaming culture. Anecdotally that highly anatagonistic language became far more the norm in my circle after gamers from the U.S. (and vocal communication) became common. I’ve always unfairly made the assumption that it was a reflection of culture when growing up in the U.S. It is disappointing that it is generally accepted as the norm worldwide now.
That's gaming culture to have racist and homophobic speech? There is no valid reason for this. I don't get why people think this is justified and acceptable.
Provoking an opponent into irrational behavior seems like a valid game strategy. In other words the language is not necessarily used for its face content but for its psychological effects.
Maybe that's a subset of 'gaming culture' you've experienced. But, I've played in many, many large online areas across a diverse set of games, socialized in many gaming forums online and, simply put, this would not be acceptable behavior at all and would quickly get people tossed out.
It feels like you are saying 'well, boys will be boys', and that's honestly just a way to rationalize unacceptable behavior by refusing to taken ownership of it.
This is not gaming culture at all, and even if it were it's still extremely problematic. Especially as Riot is not a LAN Cafe, but a company. Companies have codes of conduct and people can be reprimanded or let go for not following them inside the companies offices, it's that simple. Additionally this will remain gaming culture as long as noone takes an active stance of fighting against it.
I agree with you. And the fact that this was posted on Tumblr including a Content Warning only adds icing to this ironic cake.
To those who disagree, lemme put it this way: it's not only videogame culture, it is plain old trash talk. Boxing, basketball, soccer, UFC, tennis, you name it, you have it in most competitive sports.
It shocks pretty much anyone who hasn't taken part in a competitive sport/e-sport community before, and find it backwards, but from my perspective, they haven't been socialized in that environment. It's not LGBT-phobic, though many insults come off as that because they've traditionally been insults, that's all.
If the FIBA or FIFA start having mixed gender leagues, the same would happen: women offended when they stopped being oblivious about how men behave in these environments. Actually even in soccer, many women are turned off when they find out female players spend a significant part of the time calling each other b/c* (in some amateur UK leagues at least).
This is just happening with videogames because it happens to be one of the few competitive fields where men and women's ability differs the least, having them playing together more often than most of all other disciplines.
Football (soccer) is probably a poor choice of analogy, given that it has a reputation for racism - everything from bananas thown at players to blaming "immigrants" for team failures. Or even for successes - there were people complaining that the winning French team wasn't white enough.
There are no "out" male professional footballers. This is statistically implausible; the homophobia is sufficiently bad that they have to remain closeted for their career and maybe safety.
Football fans also occasionally produce "ultras" notorious for physical violence: fights with each other and the police, which can be fatal.
And here in Scotland, we've the joy of sectarianism added to the mix as well, with cheerful songs about Fenian blood.
Yeah, I don't defend the fans, I was talking within the business. Football (soccer) all around Europe follows a don't ask, don't tell among players. They know who's what, but it's not public because of the actual shitty homophobia among the fans.
It's absolutely LGBT-phobic. Do you know how many out gay professional footballers there are in the UK? Zero. Because the atmosphere around sexuality in professional football is sufficiently toxic that very few people are willing to come out before they retire.
These things can change. Thirty years ago black players had bananas thrown at them on the pitch. After a lot of work, racism is now rare at football grounds, and generally stamped on when it appears. We could do the same with anti-gay slurs too, if we cared enough.
Justin Fashanu [0] is a counter example. He came out in 1991(!). I don't see how it's a problem now when it wasn't back then. That said, it's the fandom that's rotten, not the players and the industry itself.
"It gives me goosebumps to think of Jason Collins' decision and the way it has been received so positively," Justin's niece, Amal Fashanu, told Yahoo! Sports on Wednesday. Amal, who was only 8 years old when her uncle died, made an award-winning documentary about him for the BBC last year.
"Justin didn't have any of that," she continued. "None of the warmth, none of the recognition that what he did took so much courage. Instead, he was picked on because of it, made to feel inferior, different, wrong. He was a lost soul, but even then his precedent secretly gave a lot of people hope. I get messages about what an inspiration he was from all around the world, all the time."
[...]
Soccer players learn to develop the ability to block out the taunts of the fans, even the most sickening and bigoted vitriol. But what stung Fashanu the most were the comments of his brother John, himself a leading pro who would twice play for the England national team. John Fashanu described Justin as an "outcast" after his revelations about his sexuality, bemoaning the fact that he (John) would be the focus of extra attention from jeering fans as a result of Justin coming out.
> Soccer players learn to develop the ability to block out the taunts of the fans, even the most sickening and bigoted vitriol. But what stung Fashanu the most were the comments of his brother John
They also block trash talk from other players, arguably because it's part of the game. Fans though can be extremely shitty, ignoring them takes much more effort. But I didn't know about the story with his brother. In the end it shows what I'm saying: if you're homosexual and another player calls you a fag, you call him shitgobbler and move on, it's game. If a fan does, it takes a higher toll, after a while it just becomes noise. But when it's your own brother, damn.
That's gaming culture, plain and simple. Is it a new necessity to change gaming culture to pander to people who've never played games? I believe this is being done for the sole reason of extracting more money by tapping into markets that weren't being exploited before.
Case in point, woman-friendly games like Fortnite or Overwatch. This is not a problem by itself, but it's sad that some companies are pushing this narrative to make it look like they care about social issues and gain the favour of those who do, when they just want more money.