Taboo Topics (Heavily moderated)

The Nightman · **Posted:** Sun May 05, 2013 6:56 pm

Yea, I've heard of a singular they before. But, it just feels different to me when I actually know the gender of a person, yet they insist on being called something they're not. You're not a they, you're a she.

banter · **Joined:** Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:22 pm **Posts:** 121

oh shit

you're right

i've been female all along how didn't i know thank you for telling me what i am

because clearly you know who i am better than i do

you wise and noble sage

on a less sarcastic note, does it seriously offend you more to call me "they" than you think it offends me to be called "she"? it's four letters. doesn't take long to type. why can't you fucking type it, even if you don't agree with it, because it's what i'd be comfortable with? can you not show that basic courtesy to someone?

Turbro · **Joined:** Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:11 am **Posts:** 5475

Benson, you do know we have at least one agender person, at least one non binary gender person, and at least one mtf/ftm person on AZ, right? It's not just Banter you're blatantly offending by saying you're calling them by their biological sex instead of what they prefer to be called, it's a substantial part of the userbase here.

Lolita · **Posted:** Sun May 05, 2013 7:47 pm

Allright, enough.

I'm going to reiterate this one more time. Benson, even if you don't agree with their gender identities or choices you have to respect them. You're treading thin ice so shape up.

SaintCrazy · **Posted:** Sun May 05, 2013 8:17 pm

Imagine if someone says "Hey my name is Samantha, but I go by Sam, I really don't like it when people call me Samantha."

You could feasibly say "Well, your REAL name is Samantha, so that's what I'm calling you." But that would make you a huge jerk, and Sam would be pretty rustled off, yeah?

If someone asks you to refer to some part of their identity a certain way, you should do so.

Lolita · **Posted:** Sun May 05, 2013 9:27 pm

Considering the amount of reports I've gotten and how much I've had to say, I'm going to temporarily lock the taboo thread. Banter, cool yourself off. I can understand your irritation but taking it out on the other forum members is unacceptable.

I'll unlock it tomorrow, all of you need to cool down for a while.

Lolita · **Posted:** Mon May 06, 2013 4:09 pm

unlocked. start keeping things civil or it's gone for good.

Wry Bread · **Posted:** Mon May 06, 2013 5:30 pm

To change the current subject and discuss a new thing about an old subject:

I don't know all the details right now, but apparently there's been another surge in violent teen crime being blamed on videogames. We've all discussed this subject before and concluded basically:

Quote:

Like any form of media, videogames cannot directly impact someone's behavior; however also like any form of media, it's important for the parents of teens and young people to be involved in what they're doing and make sure the proper context exists for understanding what they see. Violent games can spark upticks in aggressive feelings (primarily while they're being experienced,) but the same is true for films (after screenings of racing films, reckless driving spikes, etc.) and other media.

That's been the general consensus if I recall correctly.

To continue on to the new idea, I was reading Gabe's newspost on today's PA comic and he said that in light of the misunderstandings about games and how to effectively monitor kids without overreacting or breeding resentment, he contacted the PTA at his son's school and arranged to set up a one hour seminar to educate parents in his area about things like ESRB ratings, how the experience of a game can chance when online aspects are introduced, what to expect in common gaming situations and how to look for games that deliver a more desirable experience, especially one parents can share with their kids. I think that's a really great idea and I'm kind of considering seeing if my area's highscool would be interested in something similar I could discuss. I enjoy public speaking and this is an issue I see a lot in my area, where parents don't check and don't understand ratings and yet get upset about games being "dangerous."

Do you guys think that a catching-on of similar talks with parents would eventually positively impact the way games are approached by the mainstream, etc.?

Brekkjern · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:22 am **Posts:** 1435

I am going to quote a reddit post on the exact Penny Arcade post. I was agreeing very much with Gabe until I read this.

Quote:

I don't really see what's so bad about Slenderman for kids. It's a generic "spooky urban legend" kind of character and doesn't really do anything other than look intimidating. IIRC the character was invented by the Something Awful forums specifically as one of those urban legend characters. And I haven't played it but I'm pretty sure that Slenderman game contains zero violence. I dunno, I don't think kids are getting corrupted by what are essentially campfire ghost stories.

As an elementary teacher, I think Gabe should chill out a little, kids get into a lot worse kind of stuff than Slenderman. He mentions Call of Duty which is infinitely worse than the subject of his comic. The other day I was listening to a 12 year old describe to his friend how awesome the airport level was (where you play as a terrorist and slaughter crowds of civilians) and I just cringed. Then again, when I was his age, I was playing games like Conker's Bad Fur Day and Leisure Suit Larry and I turned out ok.

I guess what I want to get at is, that regardless of what games or the ESRB do, its going to be up to the parent to make good choices for their kids. Some parents don't give a single shit about what their kids get up to, while some parents do - but if they are letting their kids play Call of Duty, where the level of content is pretty obvious even to a layman, I don't think lectures are going to change their viewpoint. You would be surprised at how disengaged some parents are from their kids. If they aren't going to help their kids with homework good luck convincing them that they need to pay more attention to their kids' videogame choices. These are exactly the kind of people who would not show up to Gabe's PTA parent education night. I understand his anger and frustration all too well but unfortunately there is no way to just force parents to start giving a shit.

Link to the actual reply.

Wry Bread · **Posted:** Mon May 06, 2013 7:26 pm

That's something I had considered-- that parents who are part of the PTA are already involved in their children's lives-- and I don't think Slenderman specifically as mentioned in the comic is a big deal either for obvious reasons. But then, the parents who are petitioning to have games banned ARE the ones who care, presumably. And even if the PTA parents aren't the ones calling for bans or freaking out about games, or the ones whose children are going to be left unsupervised with this stuff and cause trouble later, the more people who have a mature understanding of the subject, the better, I think.

TheStranger · **Posted:** Mon May 06, 2013 7:34 pm

Children are depraved little bastards, video games arent going to make that better or worse

Wry Bread · **Posted:** Mon May 06, 2013 7:43 pm

TheStranger wrote:

Children are depraved little bastards, video games arent going to make that better or worse

I appreciate that that's your opinion, but it's not really the subject I wanted to bring up, which is why I included the general consensus reached in this thread from previous discussions about the actual effect of videogames on people, as opposed to things like Gabe's idea to educate parents about that reality, or other thoughts on how and whether to impact the public perception of games because it obviously doesn't match up with facts. Like, to differentiate the subject from "what do videogames actually do," and focus on something more specific related to videogames.

I do disagree, though. That's a fairly bitter, basic way of looking at the subject of how media impacts children and to what extent it influences their behavior later. I'm sincerely not saying this to be offensive or argumentative, but I would appreciate something more topical than "kids suck, who cares," if you're interested.

EDIT: Not that I'm disagreeing on the facts of the statement. Videogames as a format, like any media, obviously wouldn't be any more or less responsible for something than anything else. But that doesn't mean people don't believe they would be, and respond according to that belief by trying to quash the format.

SaintCrazy · **Posted:** Mon May 06, 2013 7:57 pm

A well-adjusted, healthy child will not be violent.
A well-adjusted, healthy child who plays violent videogames will not be violent.

An unhealthy, emotionally abused child MIGHT be violent.
An unhealthy, emotionally abused child that plays violent videogames MIGHT be violent.

I'd like to see a study to see if there's any differences between the last two examples, but I don't imagine there would be much difference. Maybe one child is triggered to commit a crime because of a videogame, but the other could just as easily be triggered by some other media, or some event that happened in their life. The activities that a child takes part in do not in and of themselves cause violent behavior (barring drug abuse, possibly). It is a parent's responsibility to ensure their child is healthy, physically and emotionally, and to love and nurture them so that have a life good enough to NOT resort to violent crime.

Syobon · **Joined:** Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:34 am **Posts:** 15027

Man I thought that PA comic was just a joke. Seriously, Slenderman is about the least scary "scary" thing I can think of. Boogeyman stories are as old as time, the only difference is now you have a visual aid. Of course, each child will react to those things differently, and it's the responsibility of the parent to judge what their children can/need to handle.

Doormaster · **Posted:** Mon May 06, 2013 8:09 pm

I think a big problem is that a lot of video games normalize violence. No, a child who plays Call of Duty will probably not feel the urge to go pick up an assault rifle and go kill some terrorists

What it DOES do is say to them "violence is normal. It is a legitimate way to solve problems". Obviously this isn't going to happen immediately, but you'd be surprised how constantly doing the same thing over and over can mold your thinking over time.

There have also been several studies that say that catharsis (using some violent outlet to "let off steam" like punching a pillow or something) actually increases violent tendencies. Letting the frustration out feels good, which makes it easier to get angry next time something annoys you. I dunno if they've done similar studies to people who play a violent game to let off steam, but it seems like they would find a similar result.

AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Taboo Topics (Heavily moderated)

Who is online