Valve pulls "Kill the Faggot" from Steam Greenlight - Polidicks

[QUOTE=/dev/sda1;47660951]kill all jews its ok because being jewish is a choice[/QUOTE] Uh I think you might have messed this one up since being Jewish is a choice.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;47661993]Uh I think you might have messed this one up since being Jewish is a choice.[/QUOTE] I don't want to get emotional but that's a joke post right?

[QUOTE=Sally;47662029]I don't want to get emotional but that's a joke post right?[/QUOTE] How can it be a joke? Pretty sure religion is a rather free choice where both of us live.

Real shame. I was looking forward to selling some mods that changed the gay people to various other minorities.

The fonts used and the bad lighting really made it look like something from a law and order episode.

[QUOTE=MaGGiFiXXX;47658394]You know they could have been "smart" about it.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how you can be smart about any form of hatespeech, serious or not.

You can find games on Steam in which you can shoot people. Valve pulled a game, in which you shoot homosexuals. Conclusion? Homosexuals ≠ People. Good job, Steam!

I don't think the developer understands the difference between making a game about killing straight white people and killing homosexuals, at least when you look at his malformed response. I think he should be labeled as a genuine homophobe because I'm tired of people who try to do this whole trolling bullshit. People want a cop out when they're controversial but aren't intelligent enough to satirize anything. The result is unfunny, intellectually unprovocative garbage. I really don't want this guy to be able to escape his label without apologizing. [editline]5th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=uzikus;47662638]You can find games on Steam in which you can shoot people. Valve pulled a game, in which you shoot homosexuals. Conclusion? Homosexuals ≠ People. Good job, Steam![/QUOTE] Uh... I'm not sure I've encountered someone who has missed the point as hard as you just did. Do you not understand the point between shooting people and targeting? Targeting with hate speech is bullshit.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;47662764]Uh... I'm not sure I've encountered someone who has missed the point as hard as you just did. [/QUOTE] Boo fucking hoo. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("why reply" - Orkel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=uzikus;47662838]Boo fucking hoo.[/QUOTE] It's not really a problem for me if you choose to be that painfully obtuse and actually want to protect this game. "Hey, because I can't play a game that explicitly focuses on shooting transsexuals because of their sexuality, then they are dehumanizing transsexuals! After all, I can shoot other people in other games, so really what this means is Steam hates LGBTQ people! I've cracked the code guys!" I mean, what's the difference between making a game called "Kill That Faggot" and something like "Hang That Nigger"? Would you actually defend that game? Are you going to get all riled up because of free speech? I mean, you can do whatever you want but I'm not the one that's going to be boo-hooing over your mental issues.

Who said I protect the game? I didn't.

You just said that Steam's removal of the game dehumanizes the LGBTQ community. Backpedal harder please

I didn't, Steam did by pulling the game from Greenlight.

I'm just going to assume there is a permanent language barrier between you and I and call it quits, because you obviously think I'm asking you to continue moving the blame to Steam instead of looking at what you actually said.

shame that 100 dollars couldn't be spent on an assistant to read the very clear and obvious rules [img]http://puu.sh/hCasU.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Untouch;47663043]shame that 100 dollars couldn't be spent on an assistant to read the very clear and obvious rules [img]http://puu.sh/hCasU.png[/img][/QUOTE] To be fair though, Offensive material is a rather vague term. But yeah where hatred is iirc, just killing people, this is being rather targeted towards who you kill and I have no problem with this game being removed from Steam. There's a difference between in a game mass murdering people, and in a game killing a very specific kind of depicted person

[QUOTE=uzikus;47662638]You can find games on Steam in which you can shoot people. Valve pulled a game, in which you shoot homosexuals. Conclusion? Homosexuals ≠ People. Good job, Steam![/QUOTE] And Valve has every right to do that.

Dunno about you guys but this game is so badly executed that it's being funny. Like some kind of anti joke.

[QUOTE=Sally;47662029]I don't want to get emotional but that's a joke post right?[/QUOTE] Wait are you forced into the Jewish religion were you live? You might want to move.

[QUOTE=Korova;47657093]But South Park and GTA are satirical, what is this satirizing? This is just edgy content for the sake of controversy or an "elaborate" form of hate speech.[/QUOTE] he meant it seems like satire from those games idk why everyone rated him dumb

Weren't they supposed to shut down Greelight soonish?

[QUOTE=OfficerLamarr;47663178]And Valve has every right to do that.[/QUOTE] Valve also has every right to ban games featuring queer characters in any capacity, but I'm pretty sure most of us wouldn't be happy about that.

[QUOTE=uzikus;47662896]I didn't, Steam did by pulling the game from Greenlight.[/QUOTE] We'd better make Kill the Heteros too or else the straight community will be dehumanized

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;47661380]It's just that like... saying "actually EVERYBODY matters!!" speaks over people who are trying to voice their concerns over specific social and demographic issues while saying nothing new whatsoever. Like, yes, activists and rights advocates understand rich and white and Christian and male people matter, too, it's just that there are groups that need to be brought up from poverty and oppression and institutions need to be restructured to accommodate them as well, right here right now. That doesn't mean anybody else doesn't matter. It's just easier and more effective to make small advances rather than laying a blanket of tolerance and friendship over everything.[/QUOTE] How does saying everybody matters speaks over specific concerns? I mean, you're trying to defend the idea that hateful speech against some people is a crime and isn't when against other people. You're precisely saying that some people deserve more protection than others, despite what you claim, which is fundamentally unjust. If you didn't try to force the notion of hate speech only applying to underprivileged people, something which isn't part of the definition of hate speech to boot, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and we could indeed focus on specific problems instead. If you actually agreed with me in saying that everybody deserves protection against hate speech regardless of the demographic they're part of, then that would mean you consider everybody to matter, but you apparently don't.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47664144]How does saying everybody matters speaks over specific concerns? I mean, you're trying to defend the idea that hateful speech against some people is a crime and isn't when against other people. You're precisely saying that some people deserve more protection than others, despite what you claim, which is fundamentally unjust. If you didn't try to force the notion of hate speech only applying to underprivileged people, something which isn't part of the definition of hate speech to boot, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and we could indeed focus on specific problems instead. If you actually agreed with me in saying that everybody deserves protection against hate speech regardless of the demographic they're part of, then that would mean you consider everybody to matter, but you apparently don't.[/QUOTE] [img]http://41.media.tumblr.com/84a14d4a7a9d18ecd6e9bbe94be9ebdd/tumblr_ng8lzzkv1D1sw8rg1o1_1280.png[/img]

[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;47663333]Weren't they supposed to shut down Greelight soonish?[/QUOTE] That was the plan from what I've heard a couple of mouths ago... They need to remake the system to have some quality control or just completely remove it (which I doubt that will do).

[QUOTE=Levithan;47664561][img]http://41.media.tumblr.com/84a14d4a7a9d18ecd6e9bbe94be9ebdd/tumblr_ng8lzzkv1D1sw8rg1o1_1280.png[/img][/QUOTE] Nice strawman. Any victim of hate speech is a burning house regardless of the demographic they're part of. You should stop reasoning in terms of race and sexual orientation and start thinking about individuals. How is that fair to protect some people from hate speech and not others? If we started modifying the law to use this line of logic, we'd end up with retarded legislation. Most rape victims are women, right? So I guess by your own logic it's not worth it criminalizing rape done to males as well, since protecting the most harmed demographic is more important?

[QUOTE=_Axel;47664144]How does saying everybody matters speaks over specific concerns? I mean, you're trying to defend the idea that hateful speech against some people is a crime and isn't when against other people. You're precisely saying that some people deserve more protection than others, despite what you claim, which is fundamentally unjust. If you didn't try to force the notion of hate speech only applying to underprivileged people, something which isn't part of the definition of hate speech to boot, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and we could indeed focus on specific problems instead. If you actually agreed with me in saying that everybody deserves protection against hate speech regardless of the demographic they're part of, then that would mean you consider everybody to matter, but you apparently don't.[/QUOTE] The reason why hate crime legislation exists is essentially because it's difficult enough to be a minority/disenfranchised without the threat of violence, and that hate crimes are overwhelmingly used to support the subjugation of disenfranchised groups. Take [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers%27_murders]the 1964 murder of civil rights workers in Mississippi for example. The KKK and the police murdered three civil rights workers in the 1960s because they were part of a program to help poor black communities get active in voting.[/url] While the murders themselves were heinous enough, these actions weren't just about three people, it was also to send a message to everyone: "this is what happens when you try to change the status quo". The example is especially relevant because it shows why this legislation protects minorities more strongly: Violence and threats like these were common in Mississippi as a method to deter black citizens from voting. It took until a couple of white people died for America to sit up and take notice. So basically, it's pragmatic. You can either do something to combat the biases of society, or you can sit back and delude yourself and pretend that doing nothing will make it all better

[QUOTE=_Axel;47664673]Nice strawman. Any victim of hate speech is a burning house regardless of the demographic they're part of. You should stop reasoning in terms of race and sexual orientation and start thinking about individuals. How is that fair to protect some people from hate speech and not others? If we started modifying the law to use this line of logic, we'd end up with retarded legislation. Most rape victims are women, right? So I guess by your own logic it's not worth it criminalizing rape done to males as well, since protecting the most harmed demographic is more important?[/QUOTE] The point is that we wouldn't ignore everyone who is the victim of hate speech, but instead we would prioritise those who are actually at risk due to the hate speech. Some goon constantly rambling about killing all white straight males is a problem. However someone rambling about killing all homosexual people is a much bigger problem that should be addressed first. Due to the near constant hatred a gay person can face in some places, and the real threat of being killed for their sexual orientation, it is important to try and stop hate speech against an at risk minority when that hate speech could inspire more hatred and violence over preventing hate speech against a group that generally doesn't suffer constant persecution. This is really, really simple shit. You have to be doing this on purpose to consistently miss this point in every thread you do this in,

[QUOTE=hexpunK;47664736]The point is that we wouldn't ignore everyone who is the victim of hate speech, but instead we would prioritise those who are actually at risk due to the hate speech. Some goon constantly rambling about killing all white straight males is a problem. However someone rambling about killing all homosexual people is a much bigger problem that should be addressed first. Due to the near constant hatred a gay person can face in some places, and the real threat of being killed for their sexual orientation, it is important to try and stop hate speech against an at risk minority when that hate speech could inspire more hatred and violence over preventing hate speech against a group that generally doesn't suffer constant persecution. This is really, really simple shit. You have to be doing this on purpose to consistently miss this point in every thread you do this in,[/QUOTE] Then why pretend that hate speech against non-protected people is not actually hate speech? From what you're saying I get that it's pragmatically more sound to prioritize fight against hate speech that can yield the worst results, but that doesn't justify saying that potentially less dangerous calls to violence against people who aren't routinely oppressed isn't hate speech, when it is by definition. [editline]5th May 2015[/editline] That's like saying racism against white people doesn't exist. Sure as a whole it is less rampant than racist against other people, but that doesn't make it nonexistent.