Guild Wars 2

ASP.8093:

Harper.4173:

1. I have already expressed a statement about Sya – I do not care that he/she exists.

Then maybe this thread doesn’t require your continued involvement. That’s okay! I drive by dozens of threads I don’t care about every day. I don’t post in them.

Harper.4173:

6. I could ignore the topic at hand and chatter – sure – but I would like to be informed. That’s why I came here. It’s what you claim to want people to be. Informed and aware. Maybe if you did that you might actually win ground. I certainly would like to know and understand more about a thing that I’m not very familiar with since my country doesn’t really have this phenomenon.

If that’s unwelcome I guess that says a lot.

If you’re poorly-informed about a topic, trying to “debate” it with “scientific” sources and endless definitional minutiae isn’t a good way to learn more.

Because, given the conflict between your stated goal and your presentation, one of these two things must be true:
1. You’re not as naive as you claim to be, so it’s an act to deflect criticism.
2. You are as naive as you claim to be, so your arguments aren’t well-founded anyway but you’re constantly wasting time by insisting people provide detailed point-by-point rebuttals to a statement that’s basically a pile of empty broken nonsense.

Either way, this is hostile and arguing in bad faith. What’s the point?

I may not care about the NPC but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about the real life phenomenon it represents – and which is being discussed at large in this thread.

I’m informed about the scientific part of this topic – I’m not informed about how the people see it and why they feel the way they do. How they see things themselves.

It’s the difference between reading about a country and visiting and living among them I guess. I wanted to see the human side of it – hear what the people have to say instead of what the textbook teaches.

Does this clear things up?

Harper.4173:

If I dislike something -regardless of what it is or isn’t – that doesn’t automatically means I’m scared of it and I want it to not exist.

Merriam-Webster defines “homophobia” as:

" irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Please note the “aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals” part. Can we please stop pretending that the word homphobia doesn’t apply simply because one isn’t “afraid” of gay people?

“Homophobia” is a compound word. That’s when you put two words together so that the combined word takes on a new meaning of it’s own. In this case, “phobia” is not meant to only mean “fear”.

So yes, if someone has an aversion to the entire group of people who identify as gay, or discriminates against the entire group of people who identify as gay, it does mean that person is homophobic, whether or not they experience fear as a component of their homophobia.

Not even sure why this is still being discussed.

If you like it, fine. If you don’t, deal with it and move on. End of story for both sides.

Sarevok.2638:

Then why is the character’s choice “brave”? Why not “Oh nice” or “Hope it works for you” or “So how about Lion’s Arch?”

Shrug.

She says: “[Fighting Scarlet] reminded me of how short life is and how we should spend every moment embracing who we are.”

That’s a “brave” sentiment, emotionally, even in the absence of social discrimination or violent threat. Because, in fact, most people do compromise “who we are” all the time, in all sorts of little ways — in pursuit of comfort, safety, status, self-image.

Even if changing your gender in Tyria was as easy as changing your hair color, doing a complete reversal and embracing an aspect of yourself you’d kept under wraps previously could still be called “brave” in casual conversation. It’s not like the protagonist jumps up and down yelling “OMG GIVE THIS WOMAN A MEDAL!”

I’ve now spent way more time close-reading GW2 NPC dialogue that I’d ever intended to. :/

Harper.4173:

But if I’m still short than he’s not objectively wrong. If I’m still short then I’m still short.
My feelings about a topic don’t change what exists and doesn’t in the real world.

What if it’s not short or tall – what if it’s blind and not blind. If I’m blind can I wish sight onto myself because I dislike being blind?
Also the “hide thing” is really odd as well – it depends greatly on how you define hidden. One man’s hide can be another man’s way out in the open.

Does his being objectively correct make him any less cruel or rude? I don’t think so. You aren’t talking about a “wishing” situation here. Obviously the blind man can’t wish sight on himself, but if he has fancy new brain implants that let him “see” using special cameras, and behaves and operates in the world in the same way as someone with natural sight, are you going to go out of your way to call him blind to his face, just because it happens to be objectively true? You have every right to do so, of course, but me and and lots of other people are going to consider you an awful person.

Harper.4173:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Harper.4173:

imsoenthused.1634:

Harper.4173:

Also on the topic of “he” vs “she” – I understand that these individuals feel a certain way about themselves and do not necessarily identify with their biological identity. That’s fine.

But for me – who perceives them as that biological entity which they are ( regardless of their own inner perceptions) – why is it wrong to call them with the normal pronoun associated with that biological entity? My perception of them is mine. It is subjective.

Is it wrong that I choose to perceive them in my own way instead of the way they themselves want to be perceived?

These are serious questions – and it would be interesting to see how people feel about them and what their answers would be.

Because it has an emotional connotation for them that you are completely ignoring? You are choosing, by ignoring both their wishes and presentation to actively cause them emotional harm for the sake of a word. Basic human decency and politeness would dictate that you, being aware that it hurts them, wouldn’t do it. But some people just aren’t polite or decent I guess.

Ok I get that but if that’s true then shouldn’t all issues of this matter be treated equally?

If I’m short but it has a very negative emotional impact on me can I then demand that the people around me treat me as if I were tall?

It is a biological trait that I dislike or do not identify with that I want others to perceive as I do rather than how they do.

“If I’m short but it has a very negative emotional impact on me can I then demand that the people around me treat me as if I were tall? "

Yes, in the sense they don’t treat you as being inferior or lesser for being short. Not make jokes/comments about short people aiming to hurt. Not kill, threaten, hit, etc.. for being short. Not pass laws against being short that carry the death penalty or jail sentence. Not forbid you to marry another short person, because they are short. Not fire you from your job once they see you’re short. Not be thrown out by your parents on to the streets to fend for yourself at a young age, for the “sin” of being short.

All that and more, you can ask for. Just like a tall person.

So basically now I’m tall without being tall. I get treated as if I’m not short even though I’m short.

You get treated as though you were a real live human being with feelings and thoughts just like a tall person. You don’t get laws passed against you and forbidden to marry someone you love.

And I have to say, reading your posts, I don’t think you are being honest in your questions. It feels like you are asking “innocent” questions that actually aren’t.

Sarevok.2638:

Then why is the character’s choice “brave”? Why not “Oh nice” or “Hope it works for you” or “So how about Lion’s Arch?”

Let’s say that after a near-death experience you re-evaluate your life and decide to quit your job and move halfway around the world to start a new life. That would be a pretty brave thing to do, would it not?

Any radical life change can be considered “brave”. That fact that the dialogue choice mentions that her decision is brave does not have to automatically be attributed to mean “brave because the citizens of Tryia will now judge and discriminate against you, because, politics and stuff.”

If you choose to interpret it that way, that’s on you. But don’t blame others for bringing in “real life” story elements that aren’t actually there.

minbariguy.7504:

Harper.4173:

If I dislike something -regardless of what it is or isn’t – that doesn’t automatically means I’m scared of it and I want it to not exist.

Merriam-Webster defines “homophobia” as:

" irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Please note the “aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals” part. Can we please stop pretending that the word homphobia doesn’t apply simply because one isn’t “afraid” of gay people?

“Homophobia” is a compound word. That’s when you put two words together so that the combined word takes on a new meaning of it’s own. In this case, “phobia” is not meant to only mean “fear”.

So yes, if someone has an aversion to the entire group of people who identify as gay, or discriminates against the entire group of people who identify as gay, it does mean that person is homophobic, whether or not they experience fear as a component of their homophobia.

So how exactly does one discriminate against something by disliking it? Where’s the inequality? It can be equally disliked as all other things that are disliked.
Also aversion is a strong word – what if you dislike something but not as strongly. There are all sorts of things wrong with that definition.

Also I feel that you might want to cut the “entire” part out of your statement. By that logic you can dislike and discriminate 99% of said category and still be outside your definition if you’re nice to 1% of it.

disagreeance with the lgbt community doesnt mean one is averse to it… there fore homophobia does NOT apply to all those who donot support the lifestyle. And once again WE ARE OFF TOPIC, Moderator, please move the thread to its proper place.

minbariguy.7504:

Sarevok.2638:

Then why is the character’s choice “brave”? Why not “Oh nice” or “Hope it works for you” or “So how about Lion’s Arch?”

Let’s say that after a near-death experience you re-evaluate your life and decide to quit your job and move halfway around the world to start a new life. That would be a pretty brave thing to do, wouldn’kitten

Any radical life change can be considered “brave”. That fact that the dialogue choice mentions that her decision is brave does not have to automatically be attributed to mean “brave because the citizens of Tryia will now judge and discriminate against you, because, politics and stuff.”

If you choose to interpret it that way, that’s on you. But don’t blame others for bringing in “real life” story elements that aren’t actually there.

If any radical life changes can be considered brave I’d argue that none can be considered brave. It depends on your definition of bravery – you seem to think that these issues are cut and dry but they’re not.

Also where exactly does it say that the “that’s very brave of you” refers to her statement about changing gender and not about her entire volunteer against Scarlet thing.
No clear distinction has been made as to what our characters are responding to. Sure – people will assume but that is a bit pushing.

Charritable.8709:

Egon Vidar.9125:

It’s very strange to see people objecting to this NPC and people like her. When people object like this, it feels as though they’re objecting to my existence as well. It’s discomforting.
I honestly cannot comprehend a dislike of inclusion and representation.

You’re the only one kittenumes his / her / its own existence by his / her / its sexual orientation.

I genuinely can’t tell what you said due to the filter, and I wasn’t talking about my sexual orientation, I was talking about my gender identity. I’m a he, by the way.

Dashingsteel.3410:

I think it is a lifestyle choice. Those lifestyles offend me because of my religious beliefs.

I can assure you that I didn’t choose to be born transgender. Why would anyone choose this, with the abuse, hatred, and flagrant lack of understanding that we deal with?

Harper.4173:

I think your views border a little on the extreme. If I dislike something -regardless of what it is or isn’t – that doesn’t automatically means I’m scared of it and I want it to not exist.

What if I dislike some type of car? Does that mean I want that brand to cease existing? Does that mean I cower with fear internally each time one passes me by in the street?

And comparing living, breathing humans who feel and love with cars isn’t extreme? Your extreme lack of empathy and care is mind-boggling. You’re comparing transgender people with pieces of metal, objects, lacking in humanity. Your logic is very flawed and honestly VERY disconcerting.

Egon Vidar.9125:

Charritable.8709:

Egon Vidar.9125:

It’s very strange to see people objecting to this NPC and people like her. When people object like this, it feels as though they’re objecting to my existence as well. It’s discomforting.
I honestly cannot comprehend a dislike of inclusion and representation.

You’re the only one kittenumes his / her / its own existence by his / her / its sexual orientation.

I genuinely can’t tell what you said due to the filter, and I wasn’t talking about my sexual orientation, I was talking about my gender identity. I’m a he, by the way.

Dashingsteel.3410:

I think it is a lifestyle choice. Those lifestyles offend me because of my religious beliefs.

I can assure you that I didn’t choose to be born transgender. Why would anyone choose this, with the abuse, hatred, and flagrant lack of understanding that we deal with?

If you find this offensive that is your choice – objectively speaking there are real life situations that because of their intense emotional charge drive people to physical acts of self-harm even culminating in suicide.
One could speculate it could be a subconscious drive towards a form of social harm.

As far as I see things I think there is also an underlying biological change that might not go as far as to cause this behavior but maybe increase individual susceptibility to it with social and other factors ultimately deciding the outcome.

Fay.2735:

Harper.4173:

I think your views border a little on the extreme. If I dislike something -regardless of what it is or isn’t – that doesn’t automatically means I’m scared of it and I want it to not exist.

What if I dislike some type of car? Does that mean I want that brand to cease existing? Does that mean I cower with fear internally each time one passes me by in the street?

And comparing living, breathing humans who feel and love with cars isn’t extreme? Your extreme lack of empathy and care is mind-boggling. You’re comparing transgender people with pieces of metal, objects, lacking in humanity. Your logic is very flawed and honestly VERY disconcerting.

Ok. So the car comparison makes you feel uncomfortable.
What about let’s say people that ride bikes. What if I dislike people that ride bikes. My question still stands.

I get that you might be shocked by my views on cars and people but ultimately the question stands and you’ve just side stepped it.
Also how is my logic flawed? Maybe for me groups of people and groups of cars hold the same emotional value. What if I love cars as much as I do people? You automatically assume I put very little stock in people because I compared them with cars ( which is just one side of the possible situations).

DragonflyDusk.6582:

So one person’s emotions matter more than another person’s.

In a word? Yes.

Not all opinions are created equal. Not all emotions are equivalent.

Once again, we are seeing an example of a false equivalence. Person A is existing how they feel comfortable existing. Person B is taking offense to that existence.

Person B’s feelings are completely irrelevant on this score, and can be dismissed without merit. Person B’s feelings do not matter in regard to Person A’s.

Harper.4173:

So how exactly does one discriminate against something by disliking it?

You don’t. Not liking something isn’t discrimination. Nor does the definition from Merriam-Webster imply that it is.

Harper.4173:

Also aversion is a strong word – what if you dislike something but not as strongly. There are all sorts of things wrong with that definition.

If one is only slightly averse to gay people, then I suppose they are only slightly homophobic. There is a spectrum. Not everyone who is merely mildly uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality is a frothing hate-monger.

Harper.4173:

Also I feel that you might want to cut the “entire” part out of your statement. By that logic you can dislike and discriminate 99% of said category and still be outside your definition if you’re nice to 1% of it.

By “entire” I simply meant that if you object to gay people as a group of people simply because they are gay, rather than simply disliking a single gay person, who you may dislike simply because they happen to be a jerk. Sorry if I was unclear.

chemiclord.3978:

DragonflyDusk.6582:

So one person’s emotions matter more than another person’s.

In a word? Yes.

Not all opinions are created equal. Not all emotions are equivalent.

Once again, we are seeing an example of a false equivalence. Person A is existing how they feel comfortable existing. Person B is taking offense to that existence.

Person B’s feelings are completely irrelevant on this score, and can be dismissed without merit. Person B’s feelings do not matter in regard to Person A’s.

What about this?
Person B does not take any offense but doesn’t care about person A enough that they’re willing to change the way they see the world and perceive it in order to cater to person A.
Person B decides to do things the way he/she feels like doing them not because he hates or is offended by person A but simply because person B is indifferent to person A.

but if Person A’s beliefs and emotions are being forced on Person B, his/her emotions DO matter and very well SHOULD be considered. With the recent media hype over the LGBT community and how it needs special treatment being placed infront of everyone everywhere they look, can you really expect people to not be tired of it and not want to see it anymore?

minbariguy.7504:

Harper.4173:

So how exactly does one discriminate against something by disliking it?

You don’t. Not liking something isn’t discrimination. Nor does the definition from Merriam-Webster imply that it is.

Harper.4173:

Also aversion is a strong word – what if you dislike something but not as strongly. There are all sorts of things wrong with that definition.

If one is only slightly averse to gay people, then I suppose they are only slightly homophobic. There is a spectrum. Not everyone who is merely mildly uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality is a frothing hate-monger.

Harper.4173:

Also I feel that you might want to cut the “entire” part out of your statement. By that logic you can dislike and discriminate 99% of said category and still be outside your definition if you’re nice to 1% of it.

By “entire” I simply meant that if you object to gay people as a group of people simply because they are gay, rather than simply disliking a single gay person, who you may dislike simply because they happen to be a jerk. Sorry if I was unclear.

That actually makes sense – odd that I didn’t see it before.

Still I feel it’s a bit too much to automatically label someone as something ( homophobic for example) if they express the mildest dislike to a thing. I feel it’s too extreme.
It’s like – if you’re not 100% we’re labeling you as this. Life isn’t black and white like that. I dislike that this “definition” leaves no gray area – it’s like if you’re not with us you’re against us.

What if people just don’t care?
What if someone doesn’t consider you special. What if the plight of an individual (however justified and difficult it might be) is simply irrelevant to another.

I feel there’s no “neutral” state – you’re either allied or opposed.

CorrynnStarr.7942:

With the recent media hype over the LGBT community and how it needs special treatment…

And by “special”, you mean “equal”, right?

ANET has a long track record of including pop culture in areas of the game. I’ve heard quotes from movies like Star Wars and Jurrassic Park among other things.

Caittlyn/Bruce Jenner recently popped back into the public eye with her gender transition. So, it’s logical to see the mirror in GW2. I’m really pleased by the choice of words.. She needed to live as herself.. wow some understanding.

I’m reasonably sure that the TOS mentions hate speech. Homophobia is hate speech by definition.

As a Post-Op T woman, I am surprised and gratified. It’s really nice to get some positive portrayal.

Thank you ANET.

Harper.4173:

What if people just don’t care?
What if someone doesn’t consider you special. What if the plight of an individual (however justified and difficult it might be) is simply irrelevant to another.

I feel there’s no “neutral” state – you’re either allied or opposed.

That’s actually, in my opinion, the most optimal state. True neutrality. Someone who is truly neutral couldn’t be homophobic, since they lack any reason to fear, be averse to, or discriminate against gay people.

Neutrality is where I hope the world is heading.

Harper.4173:

Person B does not take any offense but doesn’t care about person A enough that they’re willing to change the way they see the world and perceive it in order to cater to person A.
Person B decides to do things the way he/she feels like doing them not because he hates or is offended by person A but simply because person B is indifferent to person A.

If Person B is truly indifferent to Person A, then there is no discussion, and both people co-exist without issue. That there IS a discussion suggests that you actually aren’t indifferent at all.

That’s nice.

Well done Anet – you handled the wording really sensitively too, I think.

chemiclord.3978:

DragonflyDusk.6582:

So one person’s emotions matter more than another person’s.

In a word? Yes.

Not all opinions are created equal. Not all emotions are equivalent.

Once again, we are seeing an example of a false equivalence. Person A is existing how they feel comfortable existing. Person B is taking offense to that existence.

Person B’s feelings are completely irrelevant on this score, and can be dismissed without merit. Person B’s feelings do not matter in regard to Person A’s.

That sounds extremely backwards in progressing “equality”. And to be quite frank that reeks of “your opinion is different than mine, so it doesn’t matter.” Not to mention being a breath away from “Not all people are equal.”

What gets me is if you do anything but kiss their kitten you’re labelled as phobic, regardless of what it is.
Just because I disagree with it, as free speech allows me to, does not mean I’m scared of it, hate it, or hate the people belonging to that group.
I really couldn’t care what people choose to do with themselves, but if Anet keeps pushing the juvenile tumblr mindset I won’t be playing.

Just as well I never planned on buying HoT.
It’s a shame GW2 doesn’t have a very adult community.

CorrynnStarr.7942:

but if Person A’s beliefs and emotions are being forced on Person B, his/her emotions DO matter and very well SHOULD be considered. With the recent media hype over the LGBT community and how it needs special treatment being placed infront of everyone everywhere they look, can you really expect people to not be tired of it and not want to see it anymore?

Okay… let me ask… how is this being “forced” upon you?

Did someone MAKE you approach the NPC and talk to her?

Is there someone next to you right now sitting you in your chair and forcing you to open this discussion?

Does this person lock your TV to an endless loop of Caitlyn Jenner’s interview?

If not, then you’re not being forced. You are choosing to participate, at which point my original statement stands. You are objecting to a person’s existence. Your opinion and feelings therefore can be dismissed. Your right to take offense is not equal in any way, shape, or form to a person’s right to exist however they wish.

minbariguy.7504:

Harper.4173:

What if people just don’t care?
What if someone doesn’t consider you special. What if the plight of an individual (however justified and difficult it might be) is simply irrelevant to another.

I feel there’s no “neutral” state – you’re either allied or opposed.

That’s actually, in my opinion, the most optimal state. True neutrality. Someone who is truly neutral couldn’t be homophobic, since they lack any reason to fear, be averse to, or discriminate against gay people.

Neutrality is where I hope the world is heading.

I fear that’s not how things will be.

If in a room of people I’m asked if I support gay people ( rights, equality, anything really) and I were to answer no – how exactly will people label me?

Will I be “that guy who doesn’t care about things” or will I be instantly demonized?

I’m pretty sure we both know the answer to that one.
We can’t have this neutrality since people are somewhat demanding you support their side.

minbariguy.7504:

CorrynnStarr.7942:

With the recent media hype over the LGBT community and how it needs special treatment…

And by “special”, you mean “equal”, right?

no… by “special” i mean any law behavior or expectation resulting in different treatment other then as a normal human being. We shouldnt and dont need special laws to grant someone a right or privelege already included in the human being clause of constitutional rights. And before you get going, Marriage is not a constitutional right, it was established as a religious practice taken over by the government to inject itself into the everyday lives of its citizens. you want to to call it a union… a joint op, or some other term, then have at it. my rejection of this notion is in no way to remove benefits from you or anyone else, my issue is in name only, just call it something else.

chemiclord.3978:

Harper.4173:

Person B does not take any offense but doesn’t care about person A enough that they’re willing to change the way they see the world and perceive it in order to cater to person A.
Person B decides to do things the way he/she feels like doing them not because he hates or is offended by person A but simply because person B is indifferent to person A.

If Person B is truly indifferent to Person A, then there is no discussion, and both people co-exist without issue. That there IS a discussion suggests that you actually aren’t indifferent at all.

I can have an interest in a subject without being partial to one side or the other. If I watch a nature documentary I don’t necessarily have to root for either the cheetah or the gazelle. I’m just trying to learn. I don’t actually care which one gets do do what and ends up ok or hurt.

Wait so being transgender is a lifestyle choice now? Most transgender people feel dysphoria at a very young age and there are studies that have been done comparing transgender brains with non-trans. A female to male transgender person’s brain is more similar to a male brain than a female one. Same with a m to f transgender being more similar to a female brain. How do you explain these things as lifestyle choices?

As for the npc….It’s fine that there is one, but I would say why not earlier? The timing of it seems rather gimmicky with the whole Jenner thing going on (sorry, I don’t have a high opinion of the Kardashian/Jenner crew).

@Raesin

I’m fully adult. Yes you have Free Speech, right up to the point that you infringe on the rights of others.

The problem here is this; Having had surgery and lived more than a decade in my chosen gender, there are still places I don’t dare go in this country ( the USA ) and walk down the street. I would be risking my life.

In many places a job would be utterly out of the question and I’d face all sorts of discrimination if I requested help such as a homeless shelter.

Guess how I know this?

The Supreme Court ruled long ago ( in the case of the Rastafarian Church ) that you have a right to any beliefs you want. You do not however have the inherent right to practice them.

The reality is that ANET did a nice job of dealing with a sensitive subject. The outcry over it shows some deep insecurities.

No neutrality isn’t a good position at the moment, when in many places my life would be under threat simply for who I am.

DragonflyDusk.6582:

That sounds extremely backwards in progressing “equality”. And to be quite frank that reeks of “your opinion is different than mine, so it doesn’t matter.” Not to mention being a breath away from “Not all people are equal.”

When it comes to me and my life and my body, my own judgement is paramount.
When it comes to you and your life and your body, your own judgement is paramount.
That’s “equality.”

Are you imagining some kind of bizarro world where we’re not truly “equal” until we literally erase the concept of self? That’s not really what anybody wants.

Ithilwen.1529:

@Raesin

I’m fully adult. Yes you have Free Speech, right up to the point that you infringe on the rights of others.

The problem here is this; Having had surgery and lived more than a decade in my chosen gender, there are still places I don’t dare go in this country ( the USA ) and walk down the street. I would be risking my life.

In many places a job would be utterly out of the question and I’d face all sorts of discrimination if I requested help such as a homeless shelter.

Guess how I know this?

The Supreme Court ruled long ago ( in the case of the Rastafarian Church ) that you have a right to any beliefs you want. You do not however have the inherent right to practice them.

The reality is that ANET did a nice job of dealing with a sensitive subject. The outcry over it shows some deep insecurities.

No neutrality isn’t a good position at the moment, when in many places my life would be under threat simply for who I am.

What makes you think you’re special? A lot of people’s lives are under threat for simply being who they are.
Why isn’t neutrality good? Why must people take a side?

ASP.8093:

DragonflyDusk.6582:

That sounds extremely backwards in progressing “equality”. And to be quite frank that reeks of “your opinion is different than mine, so it doesn’t matter.” Not to mention being a breath away from “Not all people are equal.”

When it comes to me and my life and my body, my own judgement is paramount.
When it comes to you and your life and your body, your own judgement is paramount.
That’s “equality.”

Are you imagining some kind of bizarro world where we’re not truly “equal” until we literally erase the concept of self? That’s not really what anybody wants.

Can an individual’s choice of perception be the subject of another individual’s will?
If I perceive something as something – can someone else tell me it’s something else even though I myself do not perceive and recognize it as such?

chemiclord.3978:

CorrynnStarr.7942:

but if Person A’s beliefs and emotions are being forced on Person B, his/her emotions DO matter and very well SHOULD be considered. With the recent media hype over the LGBT community and how it needs special treatment being placed infront of everyone everywhere they look, can you really expect people to not be tired of it and not want to see it anymore?

Okay… let me ask… how is this being “forced” upon you?

Did someone MAKE you approach the NPC and talk to her?

Is there someone next to you right now sitting you in your chair and forcing you to open this discussion?

Does this person lock your TV to an endless loop of Caitlyn Jenner’s interview?

If not, then you’re not being forced. You are choosing to participate, at which point my original statement stands. You are objecting to a person’s existence. Your opinion and feelings therefore can be dismissed. Your right to take offense is not equal in any way, shape, or form to a person’s right to exist however they wish.

c’mon dude… you and I both know you cant walk, look, read, or hear anything anymore that isnt biased or discussing this topic… its like listening to the same justin beiber song for days on end… at some point you get tired of hearing justin beiber, no matter how well or poorly you think he sings… so yes, in some reguards, it IS forced on us by the media whether its directly or in passing or through other people engaging you to support their cause, or whatever other method you choose to say it.

the fact you are resulting to ABSOLUTES in your theory crafting is telling. Of course no one can FORCE me to watch biased NBC news or whatever, but it doesnt mean i dont hear things in passing, or on the radio, or see a magazine title etc…

and lets be clear… i dont object to their existing, im just tired of hearing about it everywhere i turn…. so your whole theory is a wash…

Can we just lock this thread please?

Harper.4173:

I fear that’s not how things will be.

If in a room of people I’m asked if I support gay people ( rights, equality, anything really) and I were to answer no – how exactly will people label me?

Will I be “that guy who doesn’t care about things” or will I be instantly demonized?

I’m pretty sure we both know the answer to that one.
We can’t have this neutrality since people are somewhat demanding you support their side.

Let’s explore that for a moment.

If your answer to the question you posed was that you don’t actively take action to support gay people, simply because you have other interests and passions in your life that occupy your time, I don’t think you would be demonized. Nor should you be.

I mean, I don’t do work on behalf of cancer fundraising, but that doesn’t mean I oppose people raising money for cancer reasearch, right?

But what if the question you were asked in a room full of people was “Do you oppose gay people” (rights, equality, etc.). That is an entirely different question; and I’m afraid that if someone were to give the answer that yes, they actively oppose equal rights for gay people, then the reaction would most likely be unfavorable.

Because someone not wanting others to have the same rights they have is pretty callous and selfish. (In my opinion, at least) And, it is worth noting, it’s also not at all a truly neutral position.

So not caring is no longer neutral basically. I cannot separate myself from this issue and am forced to take a side.

If the question is “do you oppose it” and I answer no people will automatically assume I support it. I want the situation where I don’t do either. What do you call that?

Harper.4173:

6. I could ignore the topic at hand and chatter – sure – but I would like to be informed. That’s why I came here. It’s what you claim to want people to be. Informed and aware. Maybe if you did that you might actually win ground. I certainly would like to know and understand more about a thing that I’m not very familiar with since my country doesn’t really have this phenomenon.

If that’s unwelcome I guess that says a lot.

Alright, I’m going to treat you like the prospective ally you claim to want to be and give you a few tips on how to handle situations like this.

When someone speaks from personal experience about a subject, say the proud trans posters on this thread, listen to them. Don’t argue. Don’t offer rebuttal. Not yet. You say that you aren’t familiar with this issue, so that means you have to understand that you don’t have the frame of reference to square their experiences against yet. OMG it’s hard to fight that urge, but if you really want to learn, you gotta do it.

When you try to argue about how YOU feel or try to play devil’s advocate, you’re not listening to what THEY are telling you.

The second thing is, a good ally doesn’t seek out members of the group they’re interested in, enter a space that isn’t for education (like this thread; it’s a celebration, not a lecture hall) and then demand that the other posters take time to educate you.

Yes, anyone from a minority group wants the rest of the world to get educated. But we can’t do all ourselves. It’s exhausting. Imagine having to justify your mere existence to people day in and day out because they’re demanding it.

And, we don’t speak for everyone in our identity groups. There are posters in this very thread who identify as LGBT that have said things that, as a gay man, I just can’t even with. But, that’s their experience. They don’t speak for me and clearly I don’t speak for them. So you should seek out as many different perspectives as you can before you start trying to form a frame of reference.

So how can you get educated? Do research. Use Google. Read books. People far more eloquent and informed than I have gone to great lengths to publish everything from blogs to books to help people, even those in the group, get better educated.

CorrynnStarr.7942:

c’mon dude… you and I both know you cant walk, look, read, or hear anything anymore that isnt biased or discussing this topic… its like listening to the same justin beiber song for days on end… at some point you get tired of hearing justin beiber, no matter how well or poorly you think he sings… so yes, in some reguards, it IS forced on us by the media whether its directly or in passing or through other people engaging you to support their cause, or whatever other method you choose to say it.

the fact you are resulting to ABSOLUTES in your theory crafting is telling. Of course no one can FORCE me to watch biased NBC news or whatever, but it doesnt mean i dont hear things in passing, or on the radio, or see a magazine title etc…

and lets be clear… i dont object to their existing, im just tired of hearing about it everywhere i turn…. so your whole theory is a wash…

And yet, unless you do not have the power to change the station, you are CHOOSING to listen to that Justin Bieber song over and over.

You are being intellectually dishonest at best. You are NOT being “forced” to hear any of this. You are CHOOSING to hear it and participate in it. You have effectively walked into a room of people trying to have a discussion and started screaming, “I’m tired of hearing about this! Shut up! Stop forcing me to hear this!”

Everything you talk about are all things you could actively avoid… if you honestly wished to. But you don’t. You want to air your offense to these issues. Therefore, your claims that you are being “forced” are pure bullkitten, and your feelings on the matter can, and should, be dismissed whole cloth.

Good day. Do be a dear and show yourself out so that you aren’t “forced” to participate any longer.

@Harper

For the same reason neutrality isn’t good for any serious issue.
Ask Neville Chamberlain if neutrality and “Peace in our time.” worked out.

HINT: It didn’t, the kittens invaded Poland launching WWII.

If you choose to be “neutral” then you are by default supporting the status quo and therefore not neutral.

felessan.9587:

Harper.4173:

6. I could ignore the topic at hand and chatter – sure – but I would like to be informed. That’s why I came here. It’s what you claim to want people to be. Informed and aware. Maybe if you did that you might actually win ground. I certainly would like to know and understand more about a thing that I’m not very familiar with since my country doesn’t really have this phenomenon.

If that’s unwelcome I guess that says a lot.

Alright, I’m going to treat you like the prospective ally you claim to want to be and give you a few tips on how to handle situations like this.

When someone speaks from personal experience about a subject, say the proud trans posters on this thread, listen to them. Don’t argue. Don’t offer rebuttal. Not yet. You say that you aren’t familiar with this issue, so that means you have to understand that you don’t have the frame of reference to square their experiences against yet. OMG it’s hard to fight that urge, but if you really want to learn, you gotta do it.

When you try to argue about how YOU feel or try to play devil’s advocate, you’re not listening to what THEY are telling you.

The second thing is, a good ally doesn’t seek out members of the group they’re interested in, enter a space that isn’t for education (like this thread; it’s a celebration, not a lecture hall) and then demand that the other posters take time to educate you.

Yes, anyone from a minority group wants the rest of the world to get educated. But we can’t do all ourselves. It’s exhausting. Imagine having to justify your mere existence to people day in and day out because they’re demanding it.

And, we don’t speak for everyone in our identity groups. There are posters in this very thread who identify as LGBT that have said things that, as a gay man, I just can’t even with. But, that’s their experience. They don’t speak for me and clearly I don’t speak for them. So you should seek out as many different perspectives as you can before you start trying to form a frame of reference.

So how can you get educated? Do research. Use Google. Read books. People far more eloquent and informed than I have gone to great lengths to publish everything from blogs to books to help people, even those in the group, get better educated.

Thanks for the information. I gave a bit more detail here :

I’m informed about the scientific part of this topic – I’m not informed about how the people see it and why they feel the way they do. How they see things themselves.
It’s the difference between reading about a country and visiting and living among them I guess. I wanted to see the human side of it – hear what the people have to say instead of what the textbook teaches.

I guess that’s why I was poking and prodding.

Ithilwen.1529:

No neutrality isn’t a good position at the moment, when in many places my life would be under threat simply for who I am.

I totally get what you’re saying here, and I want to clarify that I don’t mean neutrality as in people should feel completely neutral about the subject of discrimination and personal safety.

But if society was truly neutral about the subject of transgender people, you wouldn’t have to be afraid to walk down any street, because no one would care that you are transgender.

That’s the kind of neutrality I mean. The kind where we are all free to just be who we are and it’s no big deal. Sorry if my contribution to the neutrality issue came off differently.

Ithilwen.1529:

@Harper

For the same reason neutrality isn’t good for any serious issue.
Ask Neville Chamberlain if neutrality and “Peace in our time.” worked out.

HINT: It didn’t, the kittens invaded Poland launching WWII.

If you choose to be “neutral” than you are by default supporting the status quo.

I propose to you that the status quo, in which I can be denied the use of toilet facilities, thrown out of public areas and denied a job.. all perfectly legally is not a good status quo.

I agree with you but what I’m arguing is this “just because it’s right or wrong doesn’t mean I have to fight for it”.
Sides being drawn is not a situation that I feel is productive for any side.

Harper.4173:

So not caring is no longer neutral basically. I cannot separate myself from this issue and am forced to take a side.

If the question is “do you oppose it” and I answer no people will automatically assume I support it. I want the situation where I don’t do either. What do you call that?

Okay, your question is literally: Why are people rude to me sometimes when I say I don’t give a kitten about them in any way?

Because saying you don’t give a kitten about someone in any way is, in itself, rude.

If you’re signalling to someone that they’re not worth your time and vice versa, the response is going to be dismissive, not polite. Because when you’re not worth their time, people dismiss you.

minbariguy.7504:

Ithilwen.1529:

No neutrality isn’t a good position at the moment, when in many places my life would be under threat simply for who I am.

I totally get what you’re saying here, and I want to clarify that I don’t mean neutrality as in people should feel completely neutral about the subject of discrimination and personal safety.

But if society was truly neutral about the subject of transgender people, you wouldn’t have to be afraid to walk down any street, because no one would care that you are transgender.

That’s the kind of neutrality I mean. The kind where we are all free to just be who we are and it’s no big deal. Sorry if my contribution to the neutrality issue came off differently.

This is pretty much what I’m trying to say with the “sides being drawn” thing.

ASP.8093:

Harper.4173:

So not caring is no longer neutral basically. I cannot separate myself from this issue and am forced to take a side.

If the question is “do you oppose it” and I answer no people will automatically assume I support it. I want the situation where I don’t do either. What do you call that?

Okay, your question is literally: Why are people rude to me sometimes when I say I don’t give a kitten about them in any way?

Because saying you don’t give a kitten about someone in any way is, in itself, rude.

If you’re signalling to someone that they’re not worth your time and vice versa, the response is going to be dismissive, not polite. Because when you’re not worth their time, people dismiss you.

And I agree that the person in the group I do not care about might be unhappy but I disagree with the fact that society and the people around me not part of the initial group have gotten to a state where not having an opinion is the same as having the wrong opinion.
Not fighting for is the same as fighting against. And so on.

Harper.4173:

So not caring is no longer neutral basically. I cannot separate myself from this issue and am forced to take a side.

If the question is “do you oppose it” and I answer no people will automatically assume I support it. I want the situation where I don’t do either. What do you call that?

I see your point, but I have to wonder why you would worry so much about what other people assume your answer to mean if you truly, actually do not care. It’s not as if you owe anyone access to your deepest thoughts and beliefs.

In that kind of a situation, where someone finds themselves being grilled about their political beliefs, it is entirely acceptable to simply diffuse the situation by smiling and saying something to the effect of “Oh no, I never talk politics in social situations.” If someone persists in grilling you after that, they’re being incredibly rude and deserve what they get.

I guess this is one of those things where you can’t really have it both ways. You can keep your views private (since they aren’t anyone else’s business no matter what they happen to be), or you can air them in public and deal with how other people may react. There simply is no option to be able to say what you want and not have others form an opinion about whatever it is that you just said.

Harper.4173:

So not caring is no longer neutral basically. I cannot separate myself from this issue and am forced to take a side.

If the question is “do you oppose it” and I answer no people will automatically assume I support it. I want the situation where I don’t do either. What do you call that?

I would say you can’t answer those questions with a yes or no. “I’m neutral” would be a better way to explain it. Saying you don’t have an opinion on the suffering of millions of people is difficult to hear though, and makes you seem like you lack empathy or compassion.