Well, bluegeek is a "super moderator," I guess he feels that gives him the right to say whatever insulting, bigoted, disrespectful stuff he wants about LGBT people.
Like, what he said, that the presence of LGBT characters makes the game suitable for mature audiences only.
That it is inappropriate in this game because the game is rated T for Teen.
yeah this is surprising, he is suppose to take the middle of road dont get involved approach
in my 3 years of sto, I have never seen so much outrage on the forums
(and for the sto forums this is surprising)
"Frankly, not sure why you're on a one man nerf campaign. "
I liked to think that the Trekkie community was beyond differentiating people because of their Sexuality but it appears I was wrong, so much for a "Utopian Future".
And as for Bluegeek I'm surprised by your attitude, attempting to protect your children form a threat which exists only in your mind, I'm disappointed about this complete disregard about what Star Trek stands for, I expected better from this community, one that I have been part of for most of my childhood.
I liked to think that the Trekkie community was beyond differentiating people because of their Sexuality but it appears I was wrong, so much for a "Utopian Future".
And as for Bluegeek I'm surprised by your attitude, attempting to protect your children form a threat which exists only in your mind, I'm disappointed about this complete disregard about what Star Trek stands for, I expected better from this community, one that I have been part of for most of my childhood.
It's a truely sad day when the Dentist must agree with the brony.
I fail to see how the portrayal of an apparantly healthy and wholesome same-sex relationship in the game is somehow 'about sex', as Bluegeek puts it.
Was there any portrayal of sex or any other physical act such as kissing? No. All there was was a overprotective partner wishing to ensure that her girlfriend wasn't exposed to unnecessary harm and ensuing banter between them.
Was it poorly written? Very much so, like the rest of the episode. But was it 'about sex' and an inappropriate subject for younger players? I cannot see how the portrayal of a healthy same-sex relationship is in any way exposing them to adult or obscene material.
Several people in this thread have spoken about their desire to 'protect their children' from exposure to such concepts before they have 'had a conversation with them'. If protecting their children from 'adult' themes is such a concern for them, I would suggest they do not allow them to play a game whose business model is based upon pseudo gambling via lockboxes, and which turns a blind eye to furry/erotic roleplay (Drozana, Risa, etc).
I also personally fail to see why children need to be 'protected' from the idea that two people of the same gender may be capable of loving eachother.
In the UK several years ago we repealed regressive legislation, such as Section 28, which prevented schools from either promoting, describing or teaching about homosexuality, in particular forbidding the "the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
This act caused misery for hundreds of young vulnerable TRIBBLE children who were bullied as a result of this official state line which forbid the portrayal of any TRIBBLE role models, or even the mention that homosexuality existed. It furthered a culture in which homosexuality was seen as somehow obscene and morally wrong, and encouraged homophobia and bullying.
In other words - people who think that TRIBBLE relationships should be hidden from children for their 'protection', may want to think about the rights of TRIBBLE children as well. Are all references to same-sex relationships to be excised for their 'protection' too?
What if your child is, or later turns out to be TRIBBLE? I presume that you would accept that (I would feel tremendously sorry for both of you if you could not). How do you think they would view your behaviour over this: decrying homosexual relationships as somehow obscene or solely about sex. Would you want your child to think you thought them abnormal?
Whilst this episode was badly written, I think including the TRIBBLE couple was a progressive step on the part of Cryptic and in line with the spirit of Star Trek, which has often taken a pioneering step on social issues (especially in TOS). It has prompted this debate, which is very timely in light of the recent Irish referendum. Whilst I would have preferred it be handled and written better, I think their inclusion was a positive step overall.
I was actually offended by the couple's steretypical depiction at first, but after thinking about it they may just incorporate the "Klingon" aspect of the relationship. After all, the character was not a butch man hating amazon, she reacts the same to anyone endangering her mate.
But let me ask you a question: If there had been a heterosexual couple - would that be a "militant" promotion of marriage? This is an honest question. I don't understand why a homosexual couple appearing anywhere automatically equals a statement or militant political action when all we ask for is equal treatment, as in it doesn't matter what kind of couple is depicted. Believe it or not, it is *not* in my interest that TRIBBLE klingons cause this uproar - it saddens me deeply. And I like to understand why it has to this way, why so many people are so dedicated to refuse equal rights for all human beings (as I honestly don'T get why this depiciton should not be in this game, based on a universe propagating open cooperation and tolerance). I don't say you are - but you advocate to conceal and hide and not step out in the open.
'Targ, I believe the militantism he speaks of wasnt of the inclusion of the couple, but some of the extreme responses to peoples mentioning concerns of the content. Without even trying to find out the whys of the situation there was the "us vs. them" lines drawn out, literally calling out for public shaming and other aggresive overtones. Trendy even had to ban at least one person for militant expression.
Theres a lot of shades of grey to this (and other) issues, and to come out of the corner immediately calling people bigots, homophobes, and oppressors isn't going to get anybody anywhere. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi didn't bring change in this manner, and thats why they had success. Thats my $.02 on that aspect of this conversation.
I liked to think that the Trekkie community was beyond differentiating people because of their Sexuality but it appears I was wrong, so much for a "Utopian Future".
And as for Bluegeek I'm surprised by your attitude, attempting to protect your children form a threat which exists only in your mind, I'm disappointed about this complete disregard about what Star Trek stands for, I expected better from this community, one that I have been part of for most of my childhood.
Yeah, I find that strange to, because I always find trek to be about the future. Watching trek I found tolerance.
But there will always be those 5 per-centers that become the exception to the rule.
just because your straight does not mean you can hate
"Frankly, not sure why you're on a one man nerf campaign. "
'Targ, I believe the militantism he speaks of wasnt of the inclusion of the couple, but some of the extreme responses to peoples mentioning concerns of the content. Without even trying to find out the whys of the situation there was the "us vs. them" lines drawn out, literally calling out for public shaming and other aggresive overtones. Trendy even had to ban at least one person for militant expression.
Theres a lot of shades of grey to this (and other) issues, and to come out of the corner immediately calling people bigots, homophobes, and oppressors isn't going to get anybody anywhere. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi didn't bring change in this manner, and thats why they had success. Thats my $.02 on that aspect of this conversation.
If so I misunderstood the point that was brought across, however the notion that it is better to not place a homosexual couple in the game at all, because there could be an outrage, was brought up before. And this is what I just cannot understand and would like to have explained. I really just want to understand.
But I wholeheartedly agree. Namecalling and falling into "us vs. them" has never brought nor will it bring any good.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
'Targ, I believe the militantism he speaks of wasnt of the inclusion of the couple, but some of the extreme responses to peoples mentioning concerns of the content. Without even trying to find out the whys of the situation there was the "us vs. them" lines drawn out, literally calling out for public shaming and other aggresive overtones. Trendy even had to ban at least one person for militant expression.
Theres a lot of shades of grey to this (and other) issues, and to come out of the corner immediately calling people bigots, homophobes, and oppressors isn't going to get anybody anywhere. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi didn't bring change in this manner, and thats why they had success. Thats my $.02 on that aspect of this conversation.
The person that drew the Us vs Them line was the first person that called them out for being a same sex couple in the first place there doesn't need to be a differentiation between a Heterosexual and Same sex couple until someone creates one.
I have to say, the thing I find really funny about this 'issue' of "think of the children" is that when I was discussing this particular thread and some of it's responses with my friend, her 10 year old daughter interrupted me and said "why would anybody care that it was two women? That's just silly, people love who they love"... Children like her are what give me hope for the future.
I'm all for protecting children from 'mature content', as some people have phrased it. I too believe there is far too much 'mature content' on television and in the media these days which young children are exposed to. But children see their mums and dads, or mums and mums, or dads and dads in, hopefully, loving relationships from the earliest point they can form memories and begin to form their understanding of the world around them. Why does it suddenly become 'mature content' when it's not just a mum and dad scenario?
Also, just one little point directed at the post made by BlueGeek. I understand that you may feel the word 'mate' was used inappropriately, but I'd like to point out that all through the TV series 'mate' was the word most commonly used when discussing Klingon pairings. Worf spoke numerous times of 'choosing a mate' in TNG. Martok spoke of his 'mate' in DS9. Watching those shows as a kid, I never heard the word mate and instantly jumped to "they're talking about having you know what". So in the context of canon, I don't think the episode writers used the wording inappropriately to discuss a Klingon pairing.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to start an argument, or annoy anybody. I'm just pointing out that 'mature content' does not cover couples simply existing.
Join date is wrong, I've actually been around since STO Beta.
True alters don't have a "main". Account wide unlocks for all unique event rewards!!
Well - we'll have to still agree to disagree on the question of "is the existence of same sex couples a mature topic" - in my opinion it is not, not in the least. Especially when the opposite of "mature" in case of this game isn't kindergartener but teen who generally understands about feeling attracted to other people, since almost everybody will have experienced it first hand. At the same time, many in my opinion way more mature themes (like prostitution, straight out murder and mass killings) are at best protested in a "oh yeah, I don't like that either" way.
Speaking about differences: there is also no full analogy between the two sides here, again in my opinion. Let's not generalize from the very extreme idiots here, but take the normal homosexual on the one hand and the normal guy (or gal) opposed to this inclusion on the other.
One side wants to live a normal life like the other people in their street do, without fear of prosecution.
The other side wants that the existence of TRIBBLE people should be invisible. This directly affects the one side.
So the "Us vs Them" isn't starting with the TRIBBLE community. It's other people telling them how to live their life, i. e. secretly. Granted, there are overshooting people on the TRIBBLE side, but again, extremists are never the ones after whom you should make rules.
If we were living next door and I would tell you that it's okay to live there but please do not leave the house and even more importantly, if you have a significant other, they shalt not be seen so that anyone could conclude they exist - I guess your best bet would be to ignore me and just live your life. If I now start complaining that you do so, who's attacking whom?
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
We have... lets see... at least four LBGT friendly fleets that I know of off the top of my head. I routinely play with several LBGT folk on here... I myself represent the L in the LBGT spectrum and when I RP at least two of my toons fall somewhere on the rainbow.
So having this Klingon Kouple in game? Not even a thing. The other nods in game didn't even register until someone pointed them out OMFG A MALE NPC WAS FLIRTING WITH MY MALE TOON HOW GROSS.
My advice? Learn to deal with it. We are not going to change to suit the raging homophobes of the country any more than folks of non-white race pander to the bigots and racists. You want the problem to go away, stop making it a problem. Stop trying to pick fights, stop attacking people and stop getting the media involved.
The way things work now, you try to attack/assault or otherwise take an anti-LBGT stance the media is going to eat you alive. And you will be thrown under the bus by society.
And if I have things my way, ejected from this very game and your account (and all paid content you have bought) deleted without hope of reprieve.
This is Star Trek. Star Trek is about inclusion, acceptance, tolerance and learning to accept differences. IDIC for fripping sake -- Infinite Diversity In Infinite Combinations. Think that only applies to combinations you personally approve of?
I expect better out of the fanbase. MUCH better. Calling out this Les couple as unacceptable either on the forum or in game is a direct attack against the many thousands of LBGT players including myself.
Knock it off, lest I roll up my sleeves and call in a couple favors someone on the inside has granted me.
This thread reminded me of a particular quote from Captain Picard echoing the words of Judge Aaron Satie.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged."
With a same sex couple being introduced to the game people are censoring it from their own children, which on it's own is understandable but to use another quote...
"The road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think."
But let me ask you a question: If there had been a heterosexual couple - would that be a "militant" promotion of marriage? This is an honest question. I don't understand why a homosexual couple appearing anywhere automatically equals a statement or militant political action when all we ask for is equal treatment, as in it doesn't matter what kind of couple is depicted. Believe it or not, it is *not* in my interest that TRIBBLE klingons cause this uproar - it saddens me deeply. And I like to understand why it has to this way, why so many people are so dedicated to refuse equal rights for all human beings (as I honestly don'T get why this depiciton should not be in this game, based on a universe propagating open cooperation and tolerance). I don't say you are - but you advocate to conceal and hide and not step out in the open.
I would not have appreciated a heterosexual couple either since in my opinion it would add nothing to the storyline and only distracts from what was supposed to be the point of the FE which is the death of the Klingon Emperor.
Would i consider addition of a heterosexual couple militant? Good question, but not easy to answer because it all boils down to the context.
As it is heterosexual relations and equal rights for heterosexuals are not an issue. For a large part of western society heterosexual relations and marriage are considered standard while other relations (LGBT) are often considered the exception.
With this in mind, and fully realizing that this reinforces the need for equality for LGBT, adding a heterosexual couple would IMO not be militant. Unnecessary for the storyline and distracting, but since it is unlikely to offend (again a reinforcement for the need for equality) i would not consider it militant.
You may feel i advocate conceal and hide, but from my perspective neither homosexual NOR heterosexual references have a place here.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
Considering House Pegh is a rip off Star Wars IV : A New Hope I would have thought the mission would be much better. The mission seemed much too short and any combat was over too quickly. I liked the new corridors but they seemed a little too empty, perhaps a few MSE-6 droids or a few Cybermats running around would bring life to the barren map. You should have added a task to rescue the Princess, the Emperor's daughter. What's the next episode, The Iconians Strike Back!
Next time I play I will bring my Nanopulse edge Bat'leth.
Come on Cryptic, please can we have some original stories.
yes, because every time an important older character dies fighting the main bad guy is a ripoff of Obi-wan Kenobi. totally.
Honestly it made me think more of the end of 300
"Look! the god CAN bleed! aw TRIBBLE, I died. Kick a&$ in my name!"
which I proceeded to do with a mounting fount of righteous fury.
(...)
With a same sex couple being introduced to the game people are censoring it from their own children, which on it's own is understandable but to use another quote... (...)
I understand what you are trying to say. But try to imagine that there are people out there feeling they need to hide what you are from their children to "protect them". In a place based on a franchise, like so many others myself included said already, built around inclusion, open dialogue and partnership.
Tell me how you feel.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I do think its unacceptable that people in official/semi-official positions should take stances which either directly or indirectly discriminate against segments of the STO community.
The fan base is one thing, but a forum mod posting that he has a problem with this because the LGBT couple are visible to children and teenagers?
That is just another way of saying "gays belong in the closet."
It's old school TRIBBLE bashing. From a forum mod. Who has a responsibility to cryptic/PWE and also a responsibility to the community, a community that includes many LGBT folks.
And come Monday I am going to pull every string I have to have said Supermod banned from the forum outright. Not just stripped of mod-status, but removed from the forum outright.
I'm calling out said supermod, come stand toe to toe with us. Stand your ground, defend your opinion. Your remaining time here is limited might as well go out in a blaze of homophobic glory for all to see.
Yeah, I don't know if any of you guys can contact trendy on Twitter or something but this is some serious BS, the "super moderator" coming on the official thread and telling LGBT people that it inappropriate for them to be around children.
You know, the wonderful old "TRIBBLE people belong in the closet" rhetoric, now brought to you by STO-Forum.perfectworld.com Super Moderator bluegeek.
If he wants to spew that hateful **** on his own time that's one thing, and it shouldn't be allowed on these forums in the first place, but to come in the official thread and shove it in our faces from behind his "super moderator" account, that's beyond the pale.
To be fair Bluegeek is a person and as a person has beliefs, as bigoted and hateful as they may be as long as Bluegeek the person's beliefs don't effect Bluegeeks the moderators actions I have no problem with it in a Star Trek Online manner. As a person though I've lost any respect for Bluegeek that I may have had, but that's also my right.
Still the issue I fear now is that his discrimination towards LGBT in his personal life will come now to the forums, with him prosecuting those who now have come forward to defend Cryptic's actions unfairly, but since I have not seen that happen I am not going to call out the witchhunt on him just in fear that he may call the witchhunt on us. That would be just as inappropiate.
But Cryptic is a buisiness, which owns an ip that has celebrated diversity and inclusitivity and as a company has shown it's willingness to embrace that position. The question now Crptic has go decide how to move forward here as a company. Bluegeek was very brave to take a stand on his beliefs, even if they are hateful and discrimatory to a segment of people, namely that lgbt shouldn't be around children. Does Cryptic want that position in one of it's "employees" or do they want to embrace the fact that Bluegeek is allowed to have his own (bigoted) viewpoints when not acting as moderator, but realize that every one of his actions from now on will be seen through this filter of hatred and discrimination he espouses.
I applaud Bluegeek for taking a stand for his beliefs no matter how much I (obviously) disagree with him, but I don't envey Crptics position with him.
There have been "official posts" in this thread following the semi official post in question. These official posts basically stated - be tolerant of the intolerance or else. So I wouldn't expect any relief to be forthcoming.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
And come Monday I am going to pull every string I have to have said Supermod banned from the forum outright. Not just stripped of mod-status, but removed from the forum outright.
I'm calling out said supermod, come stand toe to toe with us. Stand your ground, defend your opinion. Your remaining time here is limited might as well go out in a blaze of homophobic glory for all to see.
Okay now while I think its bad that Blue geek has any issues with TRIBBLE couples acting like this isn't going to help.
Okay now while I think its bad that Blue geek has any issues with TRIBBLE couples acting like this isn't going to help.
Ah but new members coming in here will see Bluegeek's opinion, see Bluegeek's status as a community leader and think "hey alright TRIBBLE-bashing is acceptable here! Woohoo!"
In other words send a strong message that it is not tolerated in any form and will result in official sanction.
And come Monday I am going to pull every string I have to have said Supermod banned from the forum outright. Not just stripped of mod-status, but removed from the forum outright.
I'm calling out said supermod, come stand toe to toe with us. Stand your ground, defend your opinion. Your remaining time here is limited might as well go out in a blaze of homophobic glory for all to see.
While you certainly have a right to do what you say. Exactly what "strings" do you have to pull that the rest of us do not? From the way you speak, you sound as if you are a higher authority than the average user.
Comments
yeah this is surprising, he is suppose to take the middle of road dont get involved approach
in my 3 years of sto, I have never seen so much outrage on the forums
(and for the sto forums this is surprising)
I liked to think that the Trekkie community was beyond differentiating people because of their Sexuality but it appears I was wrong, so much for a "Utopian Future".
And as for Bluegeek I'm surprised by your attitude, attempting to protect your children form a threat which exists only in your mind, I'm disappointed about this complete disregard about what Star Trek stands for, I expected better from this community, one that I have been part of for most of my childhood.
It's a truely sad day when the Dentist must agree with the brony.
Was there any portrayal of sex or any other physical act such as kissing? No. All there was was a overprotective partner wishing to ensure that her girlfriend wasn't exposed to unnecessary harm and ensuing banter between them.
Was it poorly written? Very much so, like the rest of the episode. But was it 'about sex' and an inappropriate subject for younger players? I cannot see how the portrayal of a healthy same-sex relationship is in any way exposing them to adult or obscene material.
Several people in this thread have spoken about their desire to 'protect their children' from exposure to such concepts before they have 'had a conversation with them'. If protecting their children from 'adult' themes is such a concern for them, I would suggest they do not allow them to play a game whose business model is based upon pseudo gambling via lockboxes, and which turns a blind eye to furry/erotic roleplay (Drozana, Risa, etc).
I also personally fail to see why children need to be 'protected' from the idea that two people of the same gender may be capable of loving eachother.
In the UK several years ago we repealed regressive legislation, such as Section 28, which prevented schools from either promoting, describing or teaching about homosexuality, in particular forbidding the "the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
This act caused misery for hundreds of young vulnerable TRIBBLE children who were bullied as a result of this official state line which forbid the portrayal of any TRIBBLE role models, or even the mention that homosexuality existed. It furthered a culture in which homosexuality was seen as somehow obscene and morally wrong, and encouraged homophobia and bullying.
In other words - people who think that TRIBBLE relationships should be hidden from children for their 'protection', may want to think about the rights of TRIBBLE children as well. Are all references to same-sex relationships to be excised for their 'protection' too?
What if your child is, or later turns out to be TRIBBLE? I presume that you would accept that (I would feel tremendously sorry for both of you if you could not). How do you think they would view your behaviour over this: decrying homosexual relationships as somehow obscene or solely about sex. Would you want your child to think you thought them abnormal?
Whilst this episode was badly written, I think including the TRIBBLE couple was a progressive step on the part of Cryptic and in line with the spirit of Star Trek, which has often taken a pioneering step on social issues (especially in TOS). It has prompted this debate, which is very timely in light of the recent Irish referendum. Whilst I would have preferred it be handled and written better, I think their inclusion was a positive step overall.
Creating a Dentist pony
'Targ, I believe the militantism he speaks of wasnt of the inclusion of the couple, but some of the extreme responses to peoples mentioning concerns of the content. Without even trying to find out the whys of the situation there was the "us vs. them" lines drawn out, literally calling out for public shaming and other aggresive overtones. Trendy even had to ban at least one person for militant expression.
Theres a lot of shades of grey to this (and other) issues, and to come out of the corner immediately calling people bigots, homophobes, and oppressors isn't going to get anybody anywhere. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi didn't bring change in this manner, and thats why they had success. Thats my $.02 on that aspect of this conversation.
Yeah, I find that strange to, because I always find trek to be about the future. Watching trek I found tolerance.
But there will always be those 5 per-centers that become the exception to the rule.
just because your straight does not mean you can hate
If so I misunderstood the point that was brought across, however the notion that it is better to not place a homosexual couple in the game at all, because there could be an outrage, was brought up before. And this is what I just cannot understand and would like to have explained. I really just want to understand.
But I wholeheartedly agree. Namecalling and falling into "us vs. them" has never brought nor will it bring any good.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The person that drew the Us vs Them line was the first person that called them out for being a same sex couple in the first place there doesn't need to be a differentiation between a Heterosexual and Same sex couple until someone creates one.
I'm all for protecting children from 'mature content', as some people have phrased it. I too believe there is far too much 'mature content' on television and in the media these days which young children are exposed to. But children see their mums and dads, or mums and mums, or dads and dads in, hopefully, loving relationships from the earliest point they can form memories and begin to form their understanding of the world around them. Why does it suddenly become 'mature content' when it's not just a mum and dad scenario?
Also, just one little point directed at the post made by BlueGeek. I understand that you may feel the word 'mate' was used inappropriately, but I'd like to point out that all through the TV series 'mate' was the word most commonly used when discussing Klingon pairings. Worf spoke numerous times of 'choosing a mate' in TNG. Martok spoke of his 'mate' in DS9. Watching those shows as a kid, I never heard the word mate and instantly jumped to "they're talking about having you know what". So in the context of canon, I don't think the episode writers used the wording inappropriately to discuss a Klingon pairing.
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to start an argument, or annoy anybody. I'm just pointing out that 'mature content' does not cover couples simply existing.
Speaking about differences: there is also no full analogy between the two sides here, again in my opinion. Let's not generalize from the very extreme idiots here, but take the normal homosexual on the one hand and the normal guy (or gal) opposed to this inclusion on the other.
One side wants to live a normal life like the other people in their street do, without fear of prosecution.
The other side wants that the existence of TRIBBLE people should be invisible. This directly affects the one side.
So the "Us vs Them" isn't starting with the TRIBBLE community. It's other people telling them how to live their life, i. e. secretly. Granted, there are overshooting people on the TRIBBLE side, but again, extremists are never the ones after whom you should make rules.
If we were living next door and I would tell you that it's okay to live there but please do not leave the house and even more importantly, if you have a significant other, they shalt not be seen so that anyone could conclude they exist - I guess your best bet would be to ignore me and just live your life. If I now start complaining that you do so, who's attacking whom?
So having this Klingon Kouple in game? Not even a thing. The other nods in game didn't even register until someone pointed them out OMFG A MALE NPC WAS FLIRTING WITH MY MALE TOON HOW GROSS.
My advice? Learn to deal with it. We are not going to change to suit the raging homophobes of the country any more than folks of non-white race pander to the bigots and racists. You want the problem to go away, stop making it a problem. Stop trying to pick fights, stop attacking people and stop getting the media involved.
The way things work now, you try to attack/assault or otherwise take an anti-LBGT stance the media is going to eat you alive. And you will be thrown under the bus by society.
And if I have things my way, ejected from this very game and your account (and all paid content you have bought) deleted without hope of reprieve.
This is Star Trek. Star Trek is about inclusion, acceptance, tolerance and learning to accept differences. IDIC for fripping sake -- Infinite Diversity In Infinite Combinations. Think that only applies to combinations you personally approve of?
I expect better out of the fanbase. MUCH better. Calling out this Les couple as unacceptable either on the forum or in game is a direct attack against the many thousands of LBGT players including myself.
Knock it off, lest I roll up my sleeves and call in a couple favors someone on the inside has granted me.
Shall we dance or are we going to move on now?
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged."
With a same sex couple being introduced to the game people are censoring it from their own children, which on it's own is understandable but to use another quote...
"The road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think."
I would not have appreciated a heterosexual couple either since in my opinion it would add nothing to the storyline and only distracts from what was supposed to be the point of the FE which is the death of the Klingon Emperor.
Would i consider addition of a heterosexual couple militant? Good question, but not easy to answer because it all boils down to the context.
As it is heterosexual relations and equal rights for heterosexuals are not an issue. For a large part of western society heterosexual relations and marriage are considered standard while other relations (LGBT) are often considered the exception.
With this in mind, and fully realizing that this reinforces the need for equality for LGBT, adding a heterosexual couple would IMO not be militant. Unnecessary for the storyline and distracting, but since it is unlikely to offend (again a reinforcement for the need for equality) i would not consider it militant.
You may feel i advocate conceal and hide, but from my perspective neither homosexual NOR heterosexual references have a place here.
yes, because every time an important older character dies fighting the main bad guy is a ripoff of Obi-wan Kenobi. totally.
Honestly it made me think more of the end of 300
"Look! the god CAN bleed! aw TRIBBLE, I died. Kick a&$ in my name!"
which I proceeded to do with a mounting fount of righteous fury.
it was awesome.
I understand what you are trying to say. But try to imagine that there are people out there feeling they need to hide what you are from their children to "protect them". In a place based on a franchise, like so many others myself included said already, built around inclusion, open dialogue and partnership.
Tell me how you feel.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And come Monday I am going to pull every string I have to have said Supermod banned from the forum outright. Not just stripped of mod-status, but removed from the forum outright.
I'm calling out said supermod, come stand toe to toe with us. Stand your ground, defend your opinion. Your remaining time here is limited might as well go out in a blaze of homophobic glory for all to see.
To be fair Bluegeek is a person and as a person has beliefs, as bigoted and hateful as they may be as long as Bluegeek the person's beliefs don't effect Bluegeeks the moderators actions I have no problem with it in a Star Trek Online manner. As a person though I've lost any respect for Bluegeek that I may have had, but that's also my right.
Still the issue I fear now is that his discrimination towards LGBT in his personal life will come now to the forums, with him prosecuting those who now have come forward to defend Cryptic's actions unfairly, but since I have not seen that happen I am not going to call out the witchhunt on him just in fear that he may call the witchhunt on us. That would be just as inappropiate.
But Cryptic is a buisiness, which owns an ip that has celebrated diversity and inclusitivity and as a company has shown it's willingness to embrace that position. The question now Crptic has go decide how to move forward here as a company. Bluegeek was very brave to take a stand on his beliefs, even if they are hateful and discrimatory to a segment of people, namely that lgbt shouldn't be around children. Does Cryptic want that position in one of it's "employees" or do they want to embrace the fact that Bluegeek is allowed to have his own (bigoted) viewpoints when not acting as moderator, but realize that every one of his actions from now on will be seen through this filter of hatred and discrimination he espouses.
I applaud Bluegeek for taking a stand for his beliefs no matter how much I (obviously) disagree with him, but I don't envey Crptics position with him.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
All of us opposed to bluegeek's continued representation of this community, message her. Enough people complain about it action will be taken.
Okay now while I think its bad that Blue geek has any issues with TRIBBLE couples acting like this isn't going to help.
Ah but new members coming in here will see Bluegeek's opinion, see Bluegeek's status as a community leader and think "hey alright TRIBBLE-bashing is acceptable here! Woohoo!"
In other words send a strong message that it is not tolerated in any form and will result in official sanction.
While you certainly have a right to do what you say. Exactly what "strings" do you have to pull that the rest of us do not? From the way you speak, you sound as if you are a higher authority than the average user.