Ouch I guess the delivery was a bit off. I guess this why I still dont have my own Netflix comedy special. That was a joke, mate.
1 Like
It wasn’t really a good one…
2 Likes
Yeah, thing is the ‘bigoted statement’ that turns into ‘not bigoted statement’ for irony thing stopped being funny like five years ago. Honestly it’s kind of like a other way of saying “I’m not a bigot, give me attention for it”
It’s something that gives minorities stress over how the statement will end and people not in the minority something to pat themselves on the back for because they’re a Gold Star Not-Bigot. It’s not as if you like actively let a real gay doctor die or anything, byt it’s just tiring and really juvenile
Plus there’s nothing that says what type of scientist that guy is. A guy who worked for Nasa but doesn’t have any experience with, say, working with nature or how to set a broken bone really isn’t gonna help you at all. Meanwhile, a doctor would have actual experience working with sick and injured people, which you’d want if you got sick or injured while stuck in the middle of nowhere
7 Likes
That’s one of those things where I’d have to go on a case-by-case basis. It’s probably also the situation where I’d be most inclined to say that, yeah, it really makes a difference whether you’re a member of the group or not. There’s a pretty big difference between making fun of someone else, and making jokes about your own group. Especially since I think that jokes made by LGBTQ people ourselves are more likely to be at the expense of homophobia, transphobia and stereotyping, rather than at the expense of LGBTQ people. I wouldn’t state this as a hard-and-fast rule, though.
Plus, it’s nice to have LGBTQ characters in comedic situations where the humor has nothing to do with their identity… they just have eccentric personality traits or get in silly situations or all the other sorts of things that can happen in comedy…
Obviously I can’t comment on the title, but I’ll just say that when I’ve typed out the acronym, I’ve sort of just been going along with the shorter version I’m used to… which admittedly doesn’t clearly cover everyone… it seems there’s a shortage of terminology that doesn’t have any problems with it 
I’ve seen variants as long as LGBTQQAAIP… and you could easily add on to that…
At college I got used to “queer” being used as the general term, but since that’s a reclaimed slur, a lot of people are uncomfortable with that. But it can in theory be an umbrella term 
I remember at one point someone advocating the term GLOW (very loudly and repetitively…) which stands for “gay, lesbian, or whatever” but… yeah, that has the pretty big problem of calling all the other groups “whatever” 
So anyway, I’m generally used to the idea that LGBTQ can encompass ace/aro, pan, etc… but I also acknowledge that it’s a little troubling for some groups to be specifically enumerated while others aren’t 
On a related note, there’s also the question of how to apply terminology to fictional settings, or just historical settings, since a lot of it seems very our-world-present-day-specific. 
One that I’m really unsure of is how would would use transgender terminology for a theoretical society in which people don’t make binary assumptions about newborn babies. At least, “DMAB” and “DFAB” wouldn’t seem entirely accurate? 
4 Likes
Even, as you’ve already noted, in more accepting times such as ancient Rome slurs like this were common. Julius Ceasar was apparently referred to as every woman’s man and every man’s woman in Seutonius. For having both an active bisexual sex-drive and apparently preferring the “bottom” role with guys, so what?
I think slurs like that then and now say more about the person uttering them than about who they are supposedly directed at. 
Ugh, I hate “dudebro” stuff and guys who have to paraphrase every interaction with a vaguely cute guy with “no homo bro, lulz!” Both in media and in real-life. Then again I can’t stand all Adam Sandler movies.
Well LGBTQ or not I tend to like it when cute “leading men” looking guys get used as the comic-relief, something that doesn’t happen enough.
Don’t worry I think you’re very queer @TSSL. 
Then again most of us around here are at least a little bit queer.
Still using the word does carry the implication that our attractions and preferences are odd, not the norm, deviant or unusual. Well okay some of mine probably are, but I refuse to be kink-shamed! 
Make the nonbinary form of address the formal and polite form. This game tried to be as gender-neutral with its society as possible, though it didn’t get very far, sadly enough.
Informally and with the RO’s however I would still like for them to acknowledge my mc as a desirable guy and vice versa, but that may naturally happen in a more informal setting. I think you can get away with making non-binary modes of address the formal and polite standard modes of address in your fictional society.
3 Likes
I hate that soooo much, there was a couple guys I used to work with that always went on about that and I’d get pissed. One of them one time said “Don’t worry, no matter who you date you’ll always be the girl” 
I screamed back at him “So will she, that’s the point!”
Like @TSSL said, it really matters where it’s coming from, I mean I will react totally differently about a lesbian joke my girlfriend tells me compared to a straight guy telling me that same joke.
7 Likes
@a_shoggoth It goes a long way to put an emoji at the end of the said joke (or using italic), that way people will take it as a joke and react under that assumption (which doesn’t mean jokes can’t be offensive) and not straight out cause discomfort or offense in those who aren’t sure it is a joke.
We are all in this to have a good time, no need to cause waves for a thing as simple as making sure everyone can recognize a joke when they see one.
Yep, that seems to apply to every group or person. Outsiders making jokes about a certain group is never a good idea.
Thanks for the explanation. I was honestly just curious about it. There are limits to how much we can put in an acronym that works, so I don’t think anyone should feel bad about not going ballistic with the acronym. I was just curious to know if there was some kind of predominantly anti-ace\aro inclusion in the LGBTQ community\forum in this thread. 
Yep, as strange as it seems he wouldn’t be made fun of had he took a more “acceptable” or “manly” (according to Roman culture on the issue) role in his relation with the King of Bithynia, which says a lot about the male-centered society of Rome.
4 Likes
Speaking as an aroace, most people after the q (and, in fact, most people before it) are fine being folded into “queer”, since it’s both an identity and an umbrella term, the latter being more commonplace. Queer has a level of inclusivity, both explicitly and connotatively which the “gay” umbrella does not have, for example, even though I know plenty of bi/pan people who do use the gay umbrella term on occasion.
Well, the thing is, you can make a comedy about queer people without making it offensive to queer people. Take Brooklyn 99, which has the joke about the police chief getting married to his husband and rushing the preacher. If a joke is mocking the system of oppression rather than the people being oppressed, it’s totally fine.
7 Likes
I have actually taken to using the phrase “no hetero” a lot mostly with one specific friend, though, not all women in general 
(we’ve gotten mistaken for a couple a bit 
)
Well, I personally am comfortable with the term 
I just don’t want to exclude people who might not be.
And yeah, it helps that I’m a bit odd anyway 
I could see this, yes. And fictional societies might not be speaking a real world language, so using terms from their own language could add flexibility.
I’d still wonder how to refer to “designated fe/male at birth” in a society where no one actually does designate at birth. On the other hand, in such a society there might not be any reason for it to ever come up (outside medical contexts which games are unlikely to cover)
(Or you could come up with other-language terminology, I suppose? )
You are awesome 
(no hetero)
I’ve never seen it on this forum, but there are some people out there who don’t think asexual people should belong in the LGBT community (and yeah, these people are unlikely to say “LTBTQ”) I always find it disheartening to see when members of my own marginalized group in turn marginalize others
This is reassuring to hear, especially in light of what I was just saying about ace-exclusionary people.
7 Likes
Sorry to answer this a double-dozen posts later, but I finally had a moment to put my thoughts together and type this up.
I feel that my issue with these types of ‘fully fleshed-out character is bigot’ stories, generally speaking, is that the bigoted person is almost always shown from the point of view of other privileged people, and the minorities are just sort of floating about in the background strictly for purposes of tragedy exploitation.
Now, if one decides to do a story like this, I would much rather see a story (or better yet, a game) where Character X is absolutely horrid and abusive to you, but Community doesn’t even believe you when you say so because X is so nice! And is kind to children and kisses babies and volunteers at the soup kitchen! Something that captures that feeling of absolute, abject misery when you not only experience abuse, anyone you try to tell insists that it’s impossible because X is Just So Sweet!
I think that would emphasise how truly dark that dark side can be rather nicely, personally. (Although I myself prefer the ‘your gender, sexuality, faith, clothing style, taste in art, etc. are all accepted or even celebrated!’ style of fiction much better, but as others have said, the existence of both kinds of stories is very likely both necessary and a good thing, at least when done well.)
10 Likes
I hadn’t even thought about that point, because I was just taking it for granted, so… yes, this is very important. It goes with how some writers use bigotry in their settings as an excuse not to include whatever characters are being discriminated against. If the story is going to explore it, well… show it. Show the effect of it. If it’s a bunch of bigots sitting around being bigoted, that’s not going to have the same effect as showing the people affected by it in conjunction with that. I think the best media examples I’ve seen definitely portrayed the side of the people who were marginalized themselves, so that seeing the bigots being nice to each other didn’t really make them “likable.”
I suppose this can get trickier with games, as far as treating characters differently… if it’s a big theme, then applying it unequally could come across as unfair. (This is something I’m worrying about with my own plans )
But yeah, I don’t get how it would even count as addressing bigotry if you do it by writing “pleasant” bigots without writing the people hurt by it
4 Likes
I assume it would have to be the case that the MC was forced into a single racial group, and it was this group that was being discriminated against, since this would ensure that all players are in the “minority”. You wouldn’t be able to do it with LGBTQ characters without the game itself coming across as bigoted.
1 Like
What’s interesting to me is, what would you say defines him more? Would you say that, in your example, Character X is a good person with a bad quality (in this case LGBT-phobia) or a bad person who happens to have some redeeming qualities?
Queerphobia makes you a bad person. Like how racism makes you a bad person. Also, in that particular example, X is abusive. The fact that no one realizes this does not make it untrue–it’s a bit more than a few bad qualities.
7 Likes
Does it necessarily? In this example, Character X is abusive so yes, he/she is a bad person. But on the other hand, they do a lot of good things too. Why does one win over? What if, for another example, we have a character who is a bigot, but a non-abusive one. You know they dislike or even hate gays/transpeople/whichever, but they don’t actually attack anyone. What if that person is also a firefighter who regularly donates to the local orphanage. What matters more, a person’s beliefs or their deeds?
…I guess it also depends on their motives? E.G does that person only act nice with everyone else because they know they couldn’t get away with being bigoted with everyone else/other people? But I’m a believer of that in general-that the motives behind an act affect the morality of the act.
1 Like
The problem here is that a person who hates LGBTQ will necessarily act upon it. Not in the sense of going personally after every LGBTQ, but in the sense of promoting, supporting, enabling and perpetuating that said hate. For example, they are certainly going to vote against homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, or any other human right that people with queer orientations are denied. In the same sense, in the american case, if he is called for jury duty and one of the persons involved is LGBTQ, do we really think he is going to act in a neutral non-discriminating fashion? If he has kids (those who hate LGBTQ are pretty conservative and usually religious, so they will certainly reproduce) he/she will certainly pass on that hate to the next generation, creating one more generation of stupidity and oppression. If he sees someone acting upon that hate he will not intervene. And so many other situations.
This being said, the world isn’t black and white, and people especially. We all know (at least in our extended family) of people who dislike and/or discriminate LGBTQ. Are they 100% bad people? Of course not, no one is 100% good or bad. Are they bad people? Probably, because that is a pretty big moral/personal fault from their part.
But there are never 100% or even 99% bad people or good people. We all have our faults (isn’t that why, as CoG readers, we do enjoy complex characters?). We all discriminate some way or another. Usually, I decide if I pardon queer-phobic behavior based on the queer-phobic person’s age, if she/he is old, I will give some slack and not be too rough on her/him because they are from a completely different period and mentality, if they aren’t old, I will not pardon them. So yeah, all that topic is pretty subjective in my opinion, but good or bad can’t be limited to 100% good or bad people, otherwise there would be none.
5 Likes
The example was purely hypothetical to see what actually determines considering someone good or bad. Ultimately, as you said, this whole thing is very subjective. A lot of it is based on your point of view, but as people have different points of view that clash among each other, it’s hard to determine what’s “right”.
For example, Serbia is still a pretty conservative religious country that isn’t as homophobic as Russia and some Islamic countries, but a gay couple will not be able to walk down the street there without suffering dirty looks at best and physical assault at worst. The majority of Serbs oppose same-sex marriage and adoption and don’t believe in transitioning genders.
But at the same time, Serbs are some of the most hospitable and warmest people you’ll ever meet. So the whole issue is extremely complicated, and I don’t like the absolute thinking of deeming someone a good or bad person overall based or one or few clues without actually knowing who they truly are.
Yep, it is pretty subjective. Still, I can subjectively try to give a pass to someone who is queer-phobic, especially if they have very redeeming qualities, but if they start acting it out (especially in extreme ways, such as insulting or even physical assault) they immediately cross the line. Nazis were probably nice people in some other stuff that wasn’t related to Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals, but the fact that they putted in practice their stupid and absolutely criminal ideas does make them, at least in my book, not only bad people but absolutely evil people.
There are limits to how many bad can one person think or do before being classified as bad no matter their good traits. The degree of flexibility that we input in that analysis of “good vs bad” person is obviously subjective, which isn’t to say that a bad thing, trait, thought and especially action is subjective and relative. Or it might be, but I do perceive the respect of human and democratic rights in all areas of behavior as basic human decency, and necessarily as the objectively good moral thing, which makes the opposite as the objectively bad moral stance. Am I making any sense? Sometimes even I have some time following my own thinking about this issues. 
Lets take a situation as an example… A person goes to his grandfather and admits that she/he is in fact asexual and aromantic (or gay, or lesbian, or whatever you want to put in here). The grandfather gets heart broken and doesn’t really understand why his grandchild feels and acts that way. And then one of two things happen:
a) the grandfather, despite not understanding and disliking it, tries his best to act normally and to continue being the “good grandpa” that he has always been. He may not like it, but he doesn’t criticize it or make the grandchild feel bad about it.
b) the grandfather doesn’t understand and dislikes it, and criticizes his grandchild for it, insults him, makes him/her feel bad about who she/he is, and even goes to the point of cutting ties with his until then loved grandchild, disinheriting him.
In the first case, to me, that person is a complex (as we all are) even if good person. He has his bad ideas, but he is loving or open enough to don’t make the grandchild feel bad about it, to act according to his bad ideas. In the second case that person, to me, is clearly a bad person. Thinking it might not be great, but acting accordingly is awful. So yeah, you are right, when it comes down to making the balance and saying if a person is mostly good or mostly bad, it will come down to a mix of an objective degree of “badness” and a subjective degree of how much “badness” is necessary to cross the line, and how much “goodness” makes up for it.
But hey, this is just my not so organized take on the issue
3 Likes
I agree that in that situation, (b) is bad and (a) is pretty good. What about the grandpa who tries his best to continue being warm and loving and also keeps trying to talk his grandchild out of it – not in a deliberately insulting way, certainly never cutting off ties, but also clearly refusing to accept who the grandchild is?
That’s the profile of many of the anti-LGBTQ people I know. They’d never cut off a gay family member, let alone disinherit them; it would be very important to them to keep trying to show warmth and love. From their perspective, within their particular ideology of gender, part of that love is refusing to accept the family member’s self-identification. This kind of relationship often ends with the LGBTQ person self-protectively disowning the family rather than the other way round…
6 Likes