No I’m not being obtuse. I’m pointing out the fact that the game very clearly is not calling him gay or insinuating that he is gay, but is just pointing out the fact that he has a preference that his units be men. That preference can be because of so many things. The fact is that he chooses to assume the game comments on his sexuality, while it could just as easily be a comment on the fact he thinks them to be better warriors.
If you put in ahem or something like that, then yeah it is suddenly cheeky, but it’s not in there.
The character is not commenting passively on things he sees, for instance, “Oh, the hero has a preference for pauldrons” or “wow, the hero likes to match shoes with his followers”. It’s specifically about a preference for being surrounded by men-- pretty directly connected to the term “sexual preference.”
I understand what you’re saying, but people who grew up boys and men in a homophobic culture know exactly what this means. It’s not because they are insecure with their sexuality, it’s because enforced masculinity requires that guys come up with a million different ways to call each other gay. This is one of them and pretty much everyone in the thread recognizes it for what it is.
Yeah I think were just gonna have to disagree. I also grew up in such a culture, which is why I can see how it can be understood as a comment on sexuality, but since that is entirely something I put on it and not something inherent in the text, then I must admit that there is no comment on sexuality.
“All the pawns are women, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
“All the pawns are non-binary, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
“All the pawns wear crop-tops, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
“All the pawns are using spears, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
“All the pawns are wearing sandals, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
These could all be implying something about sexuality or they could be implying something about how the player thinks proper dress is, how a society should be, how their politics are, which units they thought looked cool and so on and so forth.
I’m not saying it couldn’t imply sexuality - it could. I am saying it could imply a lot of things, and the fact that the OP assumes the game is calling him gay, speaks to a very defensive reaction, something that is typical for people who are insecure about their sexuality.
Referring to “everyone in the thread” seems disingenuous to me. I have a bunch of upbears, does that then mean I can refer to all who upvoted my comment?
but since that is entirely something I put on it and not something inherent in the text, then I must admit that there is no comment on sexuality.
It’s not entirely something you put on it. It’s the intention of the speaker as well as the cultural cintext. If someone calls you a b*tch, and you interpret it to mean dog, that doesn’t make the comment not sexist.
Now, this next part I could be wrong about because I don’t know what they actually put in the game, but don’t you think it’s sus that the writers specifically chose to include that line of dialogue for men exclusively and not any of the other identities you mentioned?
am saying it could imply a lot of things, and the fact that the OP assumes the game is calling him gay, speaks to a very defensive reaction, something that is typical for people who are insecure about their sexuality.
This is a pretty antiquated trope, honestly. Most homophobes aren’t secretly gay or insecure. They just hate gay people.
As a bi person who is comfortable with his sexuality, my perception that this is a homophobic jab isn’t based on any kind of insecurity, just social conditioning.
Referring to “everyone in the thread” seems disingenuous to me
I’m referring to other people in the thread because we’re having a subjective disagreement about how to interpret language. There’s no objective point that either of us can make on this topic. However, pointing to the room with many queer people who also interpret it as a gay joke is helpful to the conversation for this reason. It doesn’t “win” the argument.
Yeah I think were just gonna have to disagree
Yes, I do believe this is what needs to happen, comrade
I didn’t mean to imply you were insecure about your sexuality or that all homophobes are insecure about theirs. I meant that this specific user was. I’m also bi, since that seems to be important. Thanks for the chat.
NPC Dialogue: “I have noticed all of us are men.”
This guys’ reaction: “Oh so you’re saying I’m gay, huh?”
Well to be fair the dialogue has a cheeky reference to the players ahem preferences
You’re the only one putting in the “ahem”.
The game is literally just pointing out the obvious. The player has a preference for men.
So you’re just going to be purposefully obtuse about this one, huh
No I’m not being obtuse. I’m pointing out the fact that the game very clearly is not calling him gay or insinuating that he is gay, but is just pointing out the fact that he has a preference that his units be men. That preference can be because of so many things. The fact is that he chooses to assume the game comments on his sexuality, while it could just as easily be a comment on the fact he thinks them to be better warriors.
If you put in ahem or something like that, then yeah it is suddenly cheeky, but it’s not in there.
The character is not commenting passively on things he sees, for instance, “Oh, the hero has a preference for pauldrons” or “wow, the hero likes to match shoes with his followers”. It’s specifically about a preference for being surrounded by men-- pretty directly connected to the term “sexual preference.”
I understand what you’re saying, but people who grew up boys and men in a homophobic culture know exactly what this means. It’s not because they are insecure with their sexuality, it’s because enforced masculinity requires that guys come up with a million different ways to call each other gay. This is one of them and pretty much everyone in the thread recognizes it for what it is.
Yeah I think were just gonna have to disagree. I also grew up in such a culture, which is why I can see how it can be understood as a comment on sexuality, but since that is entirely something I put on it and not something inherent in the text, then I must admit that there is no comment on sexuality.
“All the pawns are women, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
“All the pawns are non-binary, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
“All the pawns wear crop-tops, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
“All the pawns are using spears, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
“All the pawns are wearing sandals, I wonder if this speaks to the arisens preferences?”
These could all be implying something about sexuality or they could be implying something about how the player thinks proper dress is, how a society should be, how their politics are, which units they thought looked cool and so on and so forth.
I’m not saying it couldn’t imply sexuality - it could. I am saying it could imply a lot of things, and the fact that the OP assumes the game is calling him gay, speaks to a very defensive reaction, something that is typical for people who are insecure about their sexuality.
Referring to “everyone in the thread” seems disingenuous to me. I have a bunch of upbears, does that then mean I can refer to all who upvoted my comment?
It’s not entirely something you put on it. It’s the intention of the speaker as well as the cultural cintext. If someone calls you a b*tch, and you interpret it to mean dog, that doesn’t make the comment not sexist.
Now, this next part I could be wrong about because I don’t know what they actually put in the game, but don’t you think it’s sus that the writers specifically chose to include that line of dialogue for men exclusively and not any of the other identities you mentioned?
This is a pretty antiquated trope, honestly. Most homophobes aren’t secretly gay or insecure. They just hate gay people.
As a bi person who is comfortable with his sexuality, my perception that this is a homophobic jab isn’t based on any kind of insecurity, just social conditioning.
I’m referring to other people in the thread because we’re having a subjective disagreement about how to interpret language. There’s no objective point that either of us can make on this topic. However, pointing to the room with many queer people who also interpret it as a gay joke is helpful to the conversation for this reason. It doesn’t “win” the argument.
Yes, I do believe this is what needs to happen, comrade
I didn’t mean to imply you were insecure about your sexuality or that all homophobes are insecure about theirs. I meant that this specific user was. I’m also bi, since that seems to be important. Thanks for the chat.
