I thought the solution was rather obvious, actually.

You fix things by making games where people are portrayed as... people. Not trophies to be acquired, not sexual objects to be drooled over, and not stereotypes.

You couple that with continued criticism of games that continue to rely on sexist, racist, or homophobic tropes.

And guess what? That's already happening. People have been saying that games need to change for a while before Sarkeesian showed up. Bioware acknowledged the issues and started trying to include more realistic characters in its RPGs years ago--and caught flak for it even back then.

To address your other... points?

My daughter asked me the other day why she can't play as the princess in Super Mario Galaxy 2 (or any of the other Mario games we own). And I had to tell her it's because the Princess got kidnapped. Her response was to ask if she could play as the Princess once we freed her from Bowser. And I had to tell her no.

There is something wrong with that!

After having that conversation with my daughter I fired up Torchlight, where I'm currently playing as a Vanquisher. Vanquisher's are rogue-like ranged characters and can only be female. If you want to be a warrior ("Destroyer" in game terms) or magic user ("Alchemist" in game terms), sorry--it's a men's only club. And not only that, but Vanquisher's--regardless of the armor they wear, must bare their midriff and wearing a mini-skirt showing lots of leg and cleavage (do a google image search for Torchlight Vanquisher to see what I'm talking about). Apparently you can't be a Vanquisher without being a sex pot too.

There is something wrong with that! (To be fair, they got better with Torchlight II and allowed any class to be any gender and allowed the women to cover up with armor OR choose to be sexy).

Society doesn't just change by itself. You're right, society is becoming more accepting of diversity--because people are fighting very hard for it.

Take America's attitude towards homosexuality. Look at the strides made in the last 20 years. That didn't just magically happen. There were TV shows that portrayed homosexuals as human beings worthy of respect. There were lawsuits. There were marches and protests. There were speeches. There were YouTube campaigns like "It gets better." A lot of people worked fucking hard to get the message out that bigotry is not okay.

Look, I'm sorry people pointing out to you how fucked up it is how women are sometimes portrayed in games is somehow ruining your ability to enjoy games. But there are serious problems here. Maybe not problems for you, but problems for people like my daughter.

The solution to these problems is not to lambast the people pointing them out. Nor is the solution to sit back and do nothing and hope it all works out for the best. One solution, as I've already stated, is to be openly critical of the messages contained in ALL media (including games). Another solution is to be vocal about the need for more realistic and diverse portrayals of people in ALL media (including games).

You can still have your Damsel/Dude in Distress trope, by the way. I have no doubt lazy developers will continue to use it as a substitute for meaningful story. Just don't expect people not to call out the utter absurdity of it, is all I'm saying.

Hmmm, if you watch the beginning carefully the guy he attacked was filming him without his permission. The angry guy asks him to stop, and the man tells him, "I'm not going to stop." The angry man calls the man a homosexual because he's filming him without his consent, and then attacks him. But he does not attack the man simply because he thinks he's homosexual.

Meh, I don't care if he doesn't want to talk to atheists; as I said, one more benefit to being an atheist.

As for my "sweet monkey jesus" comment... suck it up, Jesus (if he ever existed) was a monkey like the rest of us.

But his opinion of women is just fucking awful, and no I don't have any tolerance for that.

I don't really believe in tolerance as a virtue anyway; at least, not in the way you mean it.

I don't "tolerate" homosexuals or other races. That would imply that they are something I have to reluctantly put up with because I don't have a choice, that they somehow bother me.

But racists, homophobes, misogynists do bother me and I won't put up with that shit.

So fuck Steve Harvey.

The point I was originally making, which apparently you seem to have missed completely in your haste to say I was making a completely different point, is that the religion Islam is not a religion of peace.

This is the same point that they are arguing about in this video. One side is describing intelligently why Islam, the religion, not everyone who lives in a country who practices it, is a religion that promotes violence and strife. The other side is blindly throwing out incorrect terms and trying to claim bias, racism, or is generally just frothing at the mouth.

You seem to be following the second group's methods for whatever reason. I am not sure why, but I will ask you once more to answer a simple question.

Do you or do you not feel that a religion that promotes killing people who leave it/don't follow it, killing homosexuals, performing acts of terror in the name of jihad, and oppresses women to be a religion of peace?

Again, please note that in no way, shape, or form am I saying that everyone who professes to follow the religion, independent of their location in the world, believes these ideals or acts them out. All I am saying is that the religion itself specifically calls for people who would be 'true' Muslims to perform these acts and that evidence shows that the Muslims who do not feel this way are actually the minority of those following Islam.

I'm only about 9 minutes in, but I don't agree with how Cenk took Maher and Harris' comments...

He said that Maher (and Harris) are suggesting that ALL Muslims hold the radical, fundamentalist beliefs. But I didn't interpret Maher's statement that way, and whether you do or not they both later suggest that a significant portion, sometimes even a majority in some countries, are the ones that hold those radical beliefs. A significant portion or "sometimes" a majority is NOT all.

I don't take that as painting ALL Muslims with the same brush, and I don't believe that either Harris or Maher intended it that way. They are, however, suggesting that if Islam is promoting these radical ideas such that they are present at (much) higher rates in Muslims than in other people... Well, maybe there is something wrong with Islam.

Cenk's argument about fundie Christians believing in the rapture is a good one. Christians believe that crazy messed up shit at a higher rate than other people of the world, so... Well, maybe something is wrong with Christianity. True.

BUT, Harris saying that Islam is "the mother lode of bad ideas" is still not necessarily meant in a racist/bigoted way (I believe it is not); OK, yes, the rapture is pretty fucked up, and people that buy into it wholeheartedly are capable of some causing a lot of fucked up damage. But I think that Harris would argue that Islam has MORE stuff like that than Christianity (death to those that leave the religion, homosexual hate, violence as a solution to many many "offences" against the religion, etc. etc.), and that unfortunately a greater percentage of Muslims buy into that extreme/damaging stuff than the percentage of Christians that buy into their extreme/damaging stuff.

I don't know that I fully agree with Harris on that point -- watch Fox News polls and you'll see that a LOT of people do unfortunately buy in to a lot of that way -out-there right-wing fundie nonsense. But, I think that Harris and Maher are correct to suggest that the best way to combat that stuff is to bring it out into the open and openly and logically criticize it for the dangerous nonsense that it is.

So, I may be jumping the gun by posting before watching the whole clip here, but I really feel like Cenk is misinterpreting what Maher and Harris were going for.

I never said that we should brand people living in Islamic regions as the same. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that if you seriously follow the tenets of the Islamic religion, not casually but seriously follow what the religion says, then you will be doing whatever you can to further the spread of Islam and Sharia law.

This is somewhat of a problem in all religions, but IT IS PREDOMINANT in Islam because Islam has never stepped away from these rules and tenets. In a very sad way, Islam is still in the state Christianity was during the damn inquisition and crusades. Now you will have people that refuse to devote themselves fully to Islam and those people will not act in a fashion like I illustrated. They are truly casual worshipers that have found a way to morally work around the tenets of the religion. I have no problem with those folks. Sadly, a huge amount of evidence points towards the information that they are a minority of the religion.

As far as US involvement, I said that we do stick our nose where it doesn't belong and that we should cut the rest of the world off when it comes to requests for military aid. But lets look at the link you posted. I see about half or more of the incidents are the US providing help at the request of other countries or joining coalitions of other countries. You can't have it both ways, either ask us to back out of the world scene completely or get over it when we do get involved at your request. Do you think we just popped up and sent troops/missiles to Turkey because we wanted to? Or did we invade Jordan while sending troops to help prevent the Syrian Civil War from spilling over into their country? They ASKED us to come and help. Are drone strikes against terrorists stupid? Absolutely and they help the terrorists find new recruits, but does that make Islam any less of a violence promoting religion?

The answer is no, it does not. Nor does your attempt to veer the spotlight off of the failings of Islam and back onto something else. You can misdirect all you like, but until you can provide hard facts you are simply equivocating.

Islam promotes Sharia law. Tell me truthfully if you can, that a religion that supports the execution of a woman who left the faith to marry a man her family didn't receive a dowry from is a religion of peace. Tell me that a religion that supports the execution of Homosexuals is a religion of peace. Tell me that a religion that still promotes honor killing is a religion of peace.

Because if that is the case, by your own definition the US is the greatest supporter of peace since the Romans.

Well at least now I'm starting to understand how your brain works. And it's fascinating.

Me: "80% of Muslims believe women should have no rights, homosexuals should be murdered, and any Muslim who speaks to the contrary should also be murdered. Something should be done to turn that around."
You: "You're racist."

So the rationale is: "Muslims should be left alone to keep oppressing and killing one another because to suggest it should stop is racist." Got it. Crystal clear. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming it would not be racist if a Muslim person were to say that [before getting stoned to death].)

The debate is not over a matter of "your religion is worse." They aren't making a comparison of Islam to any other religion. They're discussing the archaic practices of a religion that objectively are considered primeval and flat out wrong by the majority of modern civilization.

If there's any comparison being made it's between most Muslims versus most civilized human beings.

Not a 1:1 comparison, but it makes me think of North Korea and the horrible torture the government has put its people through for generations, oppressing, starving, and torturing so many. If someone were to say something should be done to help the victims of that regime, would that be a racist notion because it'd be comparing Koreans to Americans? Or does that not count because the oppression is not being performed within the confines of a religion?


Really is truly fascinating stuff.

The website may be biased, but the polls listed are world recognized polls that are mostly above reproach. Christianity is not at the table on this, nobody is saying that there aren't wackos involved in any religion, but realistically how many christian holy war incidents can you list in the last 20 years? I mean real incidents, not just some random guy doing one thing to a doctor or clinic, but a group of holy christian fighters blowing up swathes of people or beheading them. It's not in the same ballpark, in fact it isn't the same league, or sport.

As far as US international policy goes, we do stupid shit a lot of the time. Other times we get dragged into shit because people complain if we don't. Personally I wish we would cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to go pound sand when they ask for help, but again it is not the issue of discussion we are looking at.

The issue is whether or not Islam, due to the nature of it's teachings, promotes certain things that lead to war and/or brutal acts. The fact is that it does, assuming you follow the tenets laid forth in the Koran and other works, such as the Sunnah and the anecdotes of the 12 Imams.

What other religion currently follows these tenets in it's religious laws?

- Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion.
- If a person has never been a Muslim, he or she can live in an Islamic state by accepting to be a dhimmi and pay a Jizyah tax. They cannot practice their religions openly and they also do not have the same rights and legal protections as Muslims.
- Death penalty for Homosexuals
- Numerous women's rights violations and restrictions
- Child marriage
- Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. It is only very recently that it has started to be redefined by a small amount of Muslims as being possible to be non-violent in nature.

As it stands, Islam is not a religion of peace but of strife. Unless you are a casual follower, you will be trying to promote tenets of this religion either through non-violent or violent ways. As we can see around the world and even through the events of the Arab Spring, the violent ways are far more likely.

Exactly like the bible and torah.

Here's the thing. All religions started out as fire, brimstone and the sword, because that's what the prevailing culture at the time was like. The people who made up each religion were reflecting the cultural values of the time, hence the support for slavery, oppression of women and homosexuals, etc.

As humanity progressed and culture became more progressive, liberal and enlightened, the religions were forced to embrace some of those changes to stay relevant (usually a few decades or even centuries behind the prevailing morality).

Back on topic, it appears that Aslans facts are in dispute.

It's not fringe when a good chunk of muslims around the world (not just the middle east) have extremist points of view:


Muslims in most countries surveyed say that a wife should always obey her husband." (including 93% in Indonesia and 65% in Turkey).

Only 32% of Muslims in Indonesia say a woman should have the right to divorce her husband (22% in Egypt, 26% in Pakistan and 60% in Russia)

1 in 3 Muslims in Austria say it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim. 22% oppose democracy

21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.

61% of British Muslims want homosexuality punished

Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings

WZB Berlin Social Science Center: 65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

Pew Research (2013): 81% of South Asian Muslims and 57% of Egyptians suport amputating limbs for theft.

Pew Research (2013): 72% of Indonesians want Sharia to be law of the land

Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers

MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)

Pew Research (2013): 39% of Muslims in Malaysia say suicide bombings "justified" in defense of Islam (only 58% say 'never').

Pew Research (2013): 76% of South Asian Muslims and 56% of Egyptians advocate killing anyone who leaves the Islamic religion.

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.


CLEARLY, what we need is more Islam in the world. Such a force for good...

...So the Kirk Cameron series based off the same books wasn't enough they had to remake it? What, because Tim LaHaye, one of the original authors of the books, didn't make enough off the original series? The studio decides to remake it so he can get a better cut?

Of course when the movie is panned for Cage's bad acting or anything else, the Christian right will just point out it is the "liberal media" trying to put down the Christian message and not be an actual review of the film's merits.

I'm surrounded daily by people who believe this stuff. Who believe the election of Obama is a sign of the end of times. When climate change gets to the point even they can't deny it anymore, they'll still deny it is human activity and chalk it up to more proof that we're in the end times and it's just like the Bible said. That this nation (somehow the US is special) is being judged for abortion and homosexuality, the last just like Sodom... of course if you point out that the Bible says that the specific sin of Sodom was being a land of plenty and doing nothing to help the needy and the poor, they just change subjects.

...which further shows the hypocrisy of @lantern53

We see it all the time, he says he knows what a strawman is, what an anecdote is, yet as others have called him out on, He spouts strawmans, he spouts anecdotes, he does it consistently.

He whines about personal responsibility, but is the first one to cry foul, to claim victimhood, to pretend that he so oppressed. He's STILL whining about something I teased him about MONTHS ago. And news flash Lantern, I never did directly call you a homosexual (not the derogatory term "homo") I called you out on your strange "fantasies" (your word, not mine) that you yourself described regarding homosexuals. If you want to internalize that as an insult or an accusation, that's your problem, not mine. And besides, even if I did directly call you a homosexual and you're not, that's not an insult, it may be an incorrect statement, but it's not an insult.

That's your baggage, not mine.

Then there's the hypocrisy of claiming to care so much about manners, then saying that violence would be a good way to make someone have good manners. Do you fucking listen to yourself? The civilized world generally considers violence of ANY kind to be BAD manners...not good. Again, such a hypocrite. The fact that you seem to think differently is rather appalling.

and then his hypocrisy about name calling, just now he claimed that because someone "namecalled" him that he lost the argument, but you really don't have to look through his comment history very hard to find him being quite liberal <gasp!> with the name calling, often being the one instigating it with many ad hominem attacks. Enoch has already called you out about how you spit out the word "leftist" like it's a dirty word. news flash, people don't like being demonized. We may think you're an idiot, but we don't think you're evil, or less than human like you seem to think of us.

I know what you're thinking, "wah! but liberals do it too!!" Sure they do. But again, no one ever claimed that the left was perfect (that would be another strawman). we just claim that our ideas are better than yours and can usually back it up...big difference. And again, as someone who claims liberals are so bad and sub-human, wouldn't you want to NOT act like the bad, filthy liberals? So in either case, the "but they do it too" excuse just never holds any water.

Again, going back to what someone else asked and you never answered. What exactly is your goal in these threads? Again, you look at lantern's comment history and it's just nothing but negative negative derogatory posts. never building anyone up, but always tearing someone down. Yeah, you're right, posting videos is not a requirement to be here. But if all you do IS make comments, then you better fucking believe we're going to judge you on them.

You

Bring

This

On

Yourself.

Think before you type. It's a pretty simple concept.

Yes and no. On one hand, he did preach inclusion and forgiveness, but he also said that the Law still applies. So technically, homosexuality is still against the Christian faith (along with eating shellfish, rabbit, pork, etc and thinking for yourself)

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

@ChaosEngine wins the internet. He's exactly right, it's not about the orientation, it's about the overt, explicit nature. No one wants to hear about someone's sexual adventures in mixed company, straight or gay.

Hollywood, loves to fall back to a definite gay stereotype though.

Glee was actually guilty of this in the the first few seasons. Kurt, the gay character had a crush on Finn, the straight character, and not only that, they were step brothers. Kurt practically stalked Finn and was downright harassing at times. Yet Finn was portrayed as the jerk for not being "more accepting"

It's ironic, TV and movies had a large role in making America more accepting of homosexuality, but they also perpetuate some shitty stereotypes too. News flash, not all homosexuals are flaming interior decorators.

Oh and ACTUAL homophobes? You're not that good looking. Gays are actually able to restrain themselves from raping you in broad daylight. Shocking, I know.

I'm not defining what is and is not gay, I'm saying that "one who is sexually attracted to those of one's own sex" is how we define homosexual and 'gay' is just a slang term for that. I'm just citing the definition, not deciding what it is. If you don't feel that 'gay' is synonymous with 'homosexual' in this context, then we won't be able to have this debate.

To address your claims about me, no, I'm not saying I'm only willing to tolerate a plain vanilla male personality. I don't mind a guy wearing a pink shirt; I don't mind an effeminate guy; I don't mind a gay guy; and I don't mind any combination of these things.

However, if he shoves a picture of his asshole in my face, unprompted and at work no less, then he's an asshole. If he accuses me of being homophobic just because I don't like him, then he's an asshole.

If this character was a straight woman with penis paraphernalia all over her desk, a picture of her asshole on her phone, and detailed genital descriptions of the guy she slept with last night, I wouldn't like her either.