NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8557902&postcount=23

The Issue
The commercial release of the controversial children's book 'Heather Has Two Mommies' in @@NAME@@ has sparked debate over laws concerning the adoption of children by homosexual couples.

The Debate
1. "I cannot understand for the life of me why anyone could possibly be against this," complains Jacob Kantelberg, showing up at your office wearing a pink feather boa. "Bart and I are good and caring people and will make excellent fathers, so what's the problem? All of the scientific studies have shown that there's no difference in the wellbeing of children raised by gay and straight couples. All that's holding these little darlings back from the happy family life that they deserve is the outdated prejudices of some prudes. All we want is to adopt a child to call our own. It'll be fabulous!"

2. "I don't care what these so-called scientific studies say," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, representing a number of conservative religious organisations. "How can a boy hope to develop properly into a man if he's being brought up by poofs? A father figure is not supposed to behave as if it is 'okay' to be, um, romantically invested in another man - and the same goes for lesbians! Why? Because it is not okay. It'll just give them gay! Think about it: say you have two gay penguins - they can't have children because nature did not provide them with the tools and if God wanted gays to have kids then they would have those tools. Don't legalise this blasphemy! Think of the children!"

3. "This just doesn't go far enough in my opinion," grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@ an ardent opponent to homosexuality. "The more concessions we give these people, the more they'll reduce our nation to the most embarrassing gayfest of all @@REGION@@! We'll be a joke! Homosexuality is a sin, and not only that it's a disease of society and there's no two ways about it. It must be criminalised and those responsible hanged just like in the good old days."I hadn't noticed this before (indeed, this is probably the first time I've even seen this issue in my inbox), but that last line struck me as oddly offensive, even for a NationStates issue. I can see how criminalizing homosexuality would be an in-bounds issue choice, or declaring gay rights "special rights," or banning gay marriage or gay adoption or gays in the military. I can even see how locking up all the gays would be "acceptable." But hanging them? Is there a similar option in another issue allowing for the lynching of blacks? Or the extermination of Jews? Bigtopians, even? I don't even recall slavery being discussed in a racial context.

Does this offend anyone else, or am I just overreacting?

No, I think you are right, it is slightly offensive. I'm bisexual and I felt that it would be slightly offensive.

But, some people do believe in hanging homosexuals. So, if you want a touch of realism, I suppose you could leave it in. Then again, it could be altered.

Real life decisions by governments can be insulting and offensive, if the game wants to be realistic, there needs to be options like this.

Though it is scary and unnerving, it is very much reality. I think it ought to stay.

Yes, it is offensive, I will agree with that.

If you read the whole third quote, you will note that the person who proposes it is an "ardent opponent". I believe it was included to reflect the different extremes in society, as there are people who may very well believe it. However, no choice is right at the end of the day. Issues are constructed so that every option is wrong.

Yes, it is offensive, I will agree with that.

If you read the whole third quote, you will note that the person who proposes it is an "ardent opponent". I believe it was included to reflect the different extremes in society, as there are people who may very well believe it. However, no choice is right at the end of the day. Issues are constructed so that every option is wrong.

True, but I think in this case that the question would be how wrong. I always thought there was supposed to be some kind of equality and even handedness in the wrongness of the different options. I'm not declaring my position either way, I just wanted to throw that in there for the sake of argument.

Edit: Also, "ardent opponent" seems a bit of a light phrase for someone who wants to massacre thousands. Perhaps "radical opponent" or something.

True, but I think in this case that the question would be how wrong. I always thought there was supposed to be some kind of equality and even handedness in the wrongness of the different options. I'm not declaring my position either way, I just wanted to throw that in there for the sake of argument.

Edit: Also, "ardent opponent" seems a bit of a light phrase for someone who wants to massacre thousands. Perhaps "radical opponent" or something.

"radical" opponent is making a judgment on his view, in the society that he would be a majority, he wouldn't be a radical. And I think theres often not an even handedness in the game's options, though that may usually be the case.

I've helped Sirocco with the phrasing on a few issues. It's always been my intention to make the "Man On The Street" have opinions that were strong and bordering on offensive.

Where I live, your typical MOTS will have offensive prejudices that may or may not come out in normal speech, but will certainly come out in extended conversations. You don't defeat prejudice by hiding it. Bring it out where you can either deal with it or find ways to eradicate it.

NS only has three short paragraphs to get to the core of those differing views, so a short summary like the one bolded actually does the job well IMHO. It's the job of you, the National Leader, to find a middle ground that works for all your citizens. Needless to say, we don't strive to make that easy for you.

"radical" opponent is making a judgment on his view, in the society that he would be a majority, he wouldn't be a radical. And I think theres often not an even handedness in the game's options, though that may usually be the case.

Fair enough.

I've helped Sirocco with the phrasing on a few issues. It's always been my intention to make the "Man On The Street" have opinions that were strong and bordering on offensive.

Where I live, your typical MOTS will have offensive prejudices that may or may not come out in normal speech, but will certainly come out in extended conversations. You don't defeat prejudice by hiding it. Bring it out where you can either deal with it or find ways to eradicate it.

NS only has three short paragraphs to get to the core of those differing views, so a short summary like the one bolded actually does the job well IMHO. It's the job of you, the National Leader, to find a middle ground that works for all your citizens. Needless to say, we don't strive to make that easy for you.

I agree, I just like to play to devils advocate until someone presents an argument in a more convincing manner. So uh, good job, my work here is done.

It is sad as to how close to reality such a caricature is, when the most extreme and irrational of views are actually seen as credible in any place that dares to call itself a society.

So, if I were to submit an issue that included an option to lynch blacks or exterminate Jews, or reduce either race to chattel, that would perfectly acceptable under the doctrine of "you cannot defeat prejudice by hiding it"? In an NS context, racial and ethnic issues are usually illustrated by the Bigtopians, which is completely innocuous, as there are no real-life Bigtopians to take offense. But not even they have been threatened by lynchings or genocide or enslavement based on their race -- as far as I am aware -- in any existing NS issues. (In the issue about intervening in a neighboring state to stop genocide, I cannot remember if it is a specific race that is being killed; I stand corrected if it is.)

I'd just like to know why, apart from NS != RL issues, "KILL ALL THE J005!" and "KILL THE N******S!" would not be acceptable as an issue choice, but "Hang the gays!" is.

Also keeping in mind that if the latter were introduced as a proposal before the World Assembly, it would be deleted as highly offensive.

So, if I were to submit an issue that included an option to lynch blacks or exterminate Jews, or reduce either race to chattel, that would perfectly acceptable under the doctrine of "you cannot defeat prejudice by hiding it"? In an NS context, racial and ethnic issues are usually illustrated by the Bigtopians, which is completely innocuous, as there are no real-life Bigtopians to take offense. But not even they have been threatened by lynchings or genocide or enslavement based on their race -- as far as I am aware -- in any existing NS issues. (In the issue about intervening in a neighboring state to stop genocide, I cannot remember if it is a specific race that is being killed; I stand corrected if it is.)

I'd just like to know why, apart from NS != RL issues, "KILL ALL THE J005!" and "KILL THE N******S!" would not be acceptable as an issue choice, but "Hang the gays!" is.

Also keeping in mind that if the latter were introduced as a proposal before the World Assembly, it would be deleted as highly offensive.

I don't think racism is as "mainstream" anymore, where as discrimination based on sexual orientation is (the boy scouts of America are a great example). From what I've seen of "average Joe" racists, they seem to have toned down their message just a tad (in public discourse, at least), to some kind of "racial separation" bullshit. I suspect this is because they're tolerated more and not driven mostly underground like their more violent, and less common, brethren (less "kill all the n*****s" and more "keep those n******s out of my neighborhood", also, less officially sanctioned racism in general). Thus, from a more "realistic" approach, an "ardent opponent" of any particular race would be more likely to be calling for segregation than for genocide (in first world countries, at least).

Of course this is all anecdotal, but I figured it deserved mention. It is very possible that I just haven't witnessed as much strong racism and that this has interfered my perceptions, so take all of that with an additional grain of salt. However, this isn't my main point anyway (since I don't really think NS is going for "gritty realism" anyway), just an addition, so feel free to ignore it entirely.

My primary point is this; I can't really think of a proxy for homosexuality. Anybody can make up a race like "Bigtopians", but creating a similar construct for homosexuality doesn't seem possible (if you have any ideas, fire away). Thus, if NS is to have any issues relating to homosexuality then I think you have to refer to homosexuality directly.

I think Bigtopians are just a construct to attempt to avoid offense when possible, not to circumvent it all together, so I really don't think an issue about killing all of the Bigtopians would be off the table (however, I say this without any authority on the matter, I'm just speculating).

I tend to agree I'd rather the game, in the satire or not, didn't allow players to choose to execute homosexuals.

But maybe it could be rationalised thus:
- nowhere in the RL world is being a particular race punishable by death
- there are countries in the RL world where being homosexual is punishable by death

So, for the man-on-the-street in Riyadh or Tehran, option #3 is a plausible, if distasteful, option.

I did have some reservations when I posted the finished draft of this issue, but it is true: many people do have these exact opinions. If people do ultimately believe that the wording's too strong (which it may be), I suppose I can tone it down.

I'd just like to know why, apart from NS != RL issues, "KILL ALL THE J005!" and "KILL THE N******S!" would not be acceptable as an issue choice, but "Hang the gays!" is.

There's no specific rule against it, otherwise we wouldn't allow people to roleplay as Nazis. I've just never seen an issue submission that tackled multicultural integration very well. You're welcome to write one! NationStates has been lacking a slavery issue for yonks, too. It was one of the first issues I wrote when I was asked to do issues for NS2.

In conclusion: I never meant to offend readers with this issue, only present three options replete with what could be uncomfortable consequences and force the reader to evaluate their own opinions. I personally think homosexual adoption's a fantastic idea, there's too many kids out there in need of homes to deny them a pair of perfectly loving parents. In reality, some of the ideologies go way beyond what I've presented here.

I hope that's answered any questions. I'm not a big fan of self-censorship, but if everyone's mostly of the opinion that the issue should be toned down I'll make it so.

Had it said "locked up" rather than "hanged," I probably would not have taken offense. Even if it had been in a radically religious, "stone the heathens!" context, I wouldn't have minded. But I think this thread illustrates that I am a bit more queasy about anti-gay rhetoric in issues than some.

Myself, I say keep it. Of course it's offensive. And so is the death penalty for adultery, and so is slaughtering native tribes, and so is marketing industrial waste as a health-enhancer, and so is allowing the poor to starve for being so unreasonable as to reproduce. And I admit that something I find generally annoying about the NS issues in general is when they take a position and then throw in "and execute them" at the end, changing a position you might consider to one that most people would never ever choose. (Very few proponents of mandatory voting would enforce it with the death penalty - I think they realize that the first order of business afterwards for the voters would be to repeal any such legislation.)

These outlaw-and-execute (and other completely outrageous) options defeat the idea that, in the end, you should be left worrying that perhaps you made the wrong choice. Even if you're unyieldingly for faithfulness in marriage, at the end of the day, you probably won't be worried that maybe you should have chosen for those who fail that test to be killed.

My point is that there is a good case to be made that the NS issues system frequently "goes too far". But we won't fix that by changing the wording of a single issue, and it's been made clear that there won't be a wholesale rewrite to make it all kindler, gentler or more sensible. The present NS issues are what they are, and I'm afraid "Stone the gays!" fits right in.

My problem is not that issue effects are too extreme; they are meant to be extreme. This game is supposed to be a satire of real life, not a replica of it. I was simply offended by the language and the sentiments expressed in one issue.

I don't think racism is as "mainstream" anymore, where as discrimination based on sexual orientation is (the boy scouts of America are a great example).

#$^#) you, I've been affiliated w/ the BSA and most of them don't actually care.

Besides, you may not have noticed, but this game mocks/offends the right far more than it does the left. It's a bit too late to become Captain Sensitive.

I'm a bit more used to funny offensive humor being used in issues, so that does strike me as a bit extreme but I think that's the point of different opinions on Issues. If issues didn't have a far-left, far-right and somewhere in between statement our nations wouldn't really shape up too well.

Personally (even as one who generally bats for the other team) I'd say keep it, but if it was truly that offensive it could easily be replaced with something less "offensive" but equally anti-gay.