Zero Punctuation: Papers, Please & Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons (escapistmagazine.com)

Games

755 ups - 259 downs = 496 votes

158 comments submitted at 16:12:50 on Aug 21, 2013 by toomanylizards

  • [-]
  • elmstfreddie
  • 61 Points
  • 00:04:36, 22 August

What's with all the "transphobia" comments on this video? The gender discrepancy on their documents is literally a gameplay mechanic of Papers, Please.

  • [-]
  • LeonardNemoysHead
  • 3 Points
  • 09:45:20, 22 August

It's not about the mechanic, it's about the jokes made at the expense of trans* people. "Tranny" is a slur.

  • [-]
  • Tollaneer
  • 44 Points
  • 00:29:45, 22 August

Tumblr roots grow deeper and deeper into internet.

  • [-]
  • morris198
  • 9 Points
  • 06:08:01, 22 August

Perhaps I spend a little too much time on rTumblrInAction, but watching that video I knew people were going to be crying about his jokes.

  • [-]
  • TheArtisticSpectrum
  • 3 Points
  • 08:10:11, 22 August

"Your gameplay features end where my feelings begin"

  • [-]
  • admiral_tuff
  • -21 Points
  • 04:28:07, 22 August

Ever consider that what he said and showed might actually be offensive to some people? It's easy to dismiss people's feeling and concerns and lives as "LOL OVERSENSITIVE TUMBLR," but off-handed, shitty jokes still hurt.

  • [-]
  • ChickenOverlord
  • 17 Points
  • 04:52:07, 22 August

Or maybe, just maybe, some people don't get offended over every little thing people say to them. I can't tell you how many times I've heard jokes about "magic underwear" as a Mormon, but I don't go crying to the feelings police over it.

  • [-]
  • EricIsEric
  • 5 Points
  • 05:05:00, 22 August

It is important to note that not all people are the same. What offends you may not offend others and vice versa. So while the answer is absolutely not censoring everything to avoid offending anyone, it is important that people maintain a degree of tolerance and empathy, to understand that a comment may not have offended you personally, but that it may have offended somebody else. While censoring works isn't the right thing to do, neither is ridiculing those that have been offended.

  • [-]
  • Experis
  • 1 Points
  • 06:16:13, 22 August

Why is it that people get offended over every little thing nowadays? It's so incredible ridiculous and frustrating.

  • [-]
  • admiral_tuff
  • -2 Points
  • 05:05:12, 22 August

You're right, and normally I try not to let this stuff get to me, but off-handedly joking that having oral sex with a trans woman makes a man gay is just kinda fucked up. He's basically saying because she has/had a penis that she's actually a man.

I'm sorry that people mock your beliefs and I'm glad you can handle it better than I could, but all I was saying is that people should have some empathy and not just fart out dismissive excuses like "lol tumblr."

Anyways, I know fighting for empathy and understanding on the internet is pointless though so I'll just stop here.

  • [-]
  • ChickenOverlord
  • 0 Points
  • 05:20:44, 22 August

>He's basically saying because she has/had a penis that she's actually a man.

This is the part that I literally do not understand. Gender and sex are the same thing, and they have been considered the same thing for the last few thousand years of human history. Only recently (as in within the last 20 years) have there been attempts to make gender mean something other than the biological sex of an individual.

I know perfectly well that there are men who feel like women in their minds, and there are perfectly valid ways to describe that phenomenon without hijacking the meanings of existing words (and then getting offended when the rest of the world refuses to accept the new meaning you've imposed on them).

  • [-]
  • admiral_tuff
  • 6 Points
  • 05:42:25, 22 August

The problem with what you're saying is that it falls flat in the context of any social or cultural change.

For example, slavery used to be considered natural, all other people were considered to be inferior to white males by "science", interracial relationships were unthinkable and shameful, women and minorities weren't considered intelligent enough to vote or have basic rights, women were thought to be naturally subservient to men, homosexuality was considered to be an abomination, etc.

That's just in North America though. Most of those outdated beliefs have roots that are thousands of years old and toxic fragments still remain today, but society has changed for the most part and so have the words we use to understand it. Words change as concepts and ideas change, for better or worse.

Another point is that it's not the world that's changing, but our understanding of it. Transgender people have always been around, just like any other group of people, but until recently we haven't had the social progress or concepts to understand them. It was only within the last year or two that the APA finally stopped considering trans people mentally ill.

You don't have to be accepting of this idea though, I understand. That got a little long winded, sorry bout that.

  • [-]
  • wdame
  • 5 Points
  • 05:36:32, 22 August

"Gender and sex are the same thing, and they have been considered the same thing for the last few thousand years of human history."

That's not true at all. Many cultures throughout history have had multiple genders that have little or nothing to do with what's between a persons legs. There are many cultures with a third or fourth gender or even more. It's actually the idea of two genders that are defined by a person's genitals that's new and unusual.

  • [-]
  • morris198
  • 1 Points
  • 14:22:39, 22 August

> That's not true at all.

Sure. 'Cos when people say, "I'm sexually attracted to women," they're only concerned about whether that person identifies as a woman, not what's between their legs? For much of recorded history, sex and gender have been used interchangeably -- it's only been since about the 1950's that gender has been generally redefined in some academic circles as a "societal construct." Many cultures have had transgenderism, but they've also had special words to define these people. Males disinterested in being men did not simply become "women," they were given special labels like the variety of Native American terms that have fallen under the umbrella term of "two-spirit." So, you're half right in that many cultures have created third and fourth genders, but they are defined by what's between the individual's legs (it's just harder to do and not everyone is going to be happy when people are forced into a strict two genders).

  • [-]
  • synthion
  • 24 Points
  • 01:13:43, 22 August

I thought it was more about that first half of the vid, which despite being a joke, is implying that having sex with a transsexual woman as a man is actually gay, since she isn't a 'real woman', so to speak.

Whether or not that was Yahtzee's intent is another matter, one I don't plan on delving into, but it's easy to see it that way. And the second half of the video didn't serve to lessen the load.

  • [-]
  • StNowhere
  • 5 Points
  • 03:19:11, 22 August

The joke was that he isn't gay, he just has sex with pre-op transsexuals. Meaning, despite her gender identity, she is still physically male.

  • [-]
  • Asurnasurpal
  • 6 Points
  • 03:29:20, 22 August

Hey all.

I get the confusion, but as a non-op tranwoman, I like to think of myself as a woman regardless of dangly bits. And yeah, Yahtzee's comment implying that men who would want to sleep with people like me are obviously gay did hurt a bit.

However, I just think that he didn't really think it through. At least, I'd like to think that, rather than the alternative, being he finds people like me repulsive and sees no issue with joking at our expense.

  • [-]
  • elmstfreddie
  • 13 Points
  • 05:17:40, 22 August

Sexual preference isn't entirely determined by gender. I'm perfectly cool with transpeople, but I wouldn't want to date a woman that has a penis. Some people would prefer to date a woman with a penis. Some people don't care either way as long as it's a woman.

So, to me, sleeping with a woman who has a penis is indeed gay. That is probably also the prevailing attitude of our society (as far as I can tell).

  • [-]
  • TheArtisticSpectrum
  • 0 Points
  • 08:09:36, 22 August

I think all he said was sucking a dick is pretty gay, and to be honest, I'm sure a lot of people would agree.

  • [-]
  • Carighan
  • -2 Points
  • 08:59:25, 22 August

I honestly don't see how the last line follows from the gay comment. Is being gay something negative now? Because it sounds like you're implying that.
(see how this works? :P )

  • [-]
  • Asurnasurpal
  • 1 Points
  • 12:33:56, 22 August

No, but it implies I am not a woman. Which I am.

  • [-]
  • ChickenOverlord
  • -15 Points
  • 04:42:08, 22 August

The big problem with that is that sex and gender are literally the same thing. It wasn't until Social Justice Warriors took up the cause of transexuals that they tried to make a distinction between sex and gender, when both simply refer to the genetic makeup of the individual (not counting those rare few with actual genetic gender disorders).

And simply because Yahtzee (apparently) doesn't accept your forced redefining of a word, you're suggesting that "he finds people like me repulsive and sees no issue with joking at our expense?"

  • [-]
  • OverlordXenu
  • 4 Points
  • 05:19:41, 22 August

No, sex and gender are not the same thing. And, importantly, both are socially constructed and assigned. Gender is a complex mish-mash of internal feelings of identity, outward expressions of identity, use and reinterpretation of roles, etc. Gender is more informed by psychology than biology. Now, sex. Sex is more biologically informed, but even it isn't completely determined by "genetics." For one thing, genetics—XX or XY—isn't that simple. There are a lot of other chromosomes, and even genes, that go into determining sexual characteristics, both secondary and primary. And, there are a lot of mutations surrounding X and Y chromosomes and their pairing-up anyway, such as XXY, XXYY, etc. etc. individuals. Hell, you can have XY genes and display "feminine" secondary sex characteristics. You can be intersex in so many ways.

Both gender and sex are a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be, and you're simply wrong. Not even a biologist, let alone a geneticist or psychologist, would agree with your definitions.

Oh, and just to reinforce the idea that they're socially constructed, who exactly created the words "male" and "female" or "man" and "woman"? That's right, us people. They're real, sure, but GATC aren't sitting there spelling those words out. They're all just words we use to clumsily describe the characteristics of living beings.

  • [-]
  • ChickenOverlord
  • -5 Points
  • 06:04:39, 22 August

For starters, I'm very well aware of intersexed individuals (as I made clear in my earlier post), but they really have nothing to do with a discussion of gender identity disorder (and make up an astronomically small number of cases compared to transsexuals).

Gender is anything but a social construct. Genders occur in virtually all forms of animal life, and most definitely in all forms of mammals. Whether or not certain features we apply to gender are socially constructed (i.e. dresses for women pants for men) are socially constructed is a different matter, but the basic existence of gender differences are natural, not social.

And the very word gender, as long as it has been used in the English language, has been used to mean biological sex (though really it has mainly been used to describe characteristics of nouns, but that is neither here nor there). It was never, until a few years ago, used to describe what gender someone felt they were in their mind. The attempts to redefine it as such are nothing short of blatant attempts to hijack the word by Social Justice Warriors (and in so doing to try to force acceptance of their agenda through language).

  • [-]
  • OverlordXenu
  • 2 Points
  • 06:23:24, 22 August

> It was never, until a few years ago, used to describe what gender someone felt they were in their mind.

It's been used that way since second-wave feminism in the mid-to-late 20th century.

>but the basic existence of gender differences are natural, not social.

Well, yes. Psychological doesn't mean natural, and "socially constructed" doesn't mean it doesn't, to some extent, come from nature.

But, again, gender and sex are distinct and describe two different concepts, the concepts themselves still being socially constructed even if they come from nature.

And it really has fuckall to do with "social justice warriors" (nice strawman attack paired with ad hominem paired with invented boogeymen, though). It's long been established in academic, across many, many, many disciplines. (Psychology and anthropology, for starters.)

  • [-]
  • Canama
  • 0 Points
  • 05:49:58, 22 August

No. They are not. And it's frankly offensive that you say so.

Gender is a mental identity. Sex is a physical trait. They need not intersect.

And what I'm saying is simplified - /u/OverlordXenu gave a lot more details. And there's even more to it.

So basically, educate yourself, because what you express is hurtful to a lot of people.

  • [-]
  • still_sic_of_it
  • -4 Points
  • 06:48:03, 22 August

>educate yourself

Oh christ, fuck off back to the BRD cage.

  • [-]
  • Canama
  • -1 Points
  • 07:00:17, 22 August

Yep, education is bad. You heard it here first, folks.

  • [-]
  • ChickenOverlord
  • -4 Points
  • 05:56:26, 22 August

>Gender is a mental identity

That is a idea that has literally only come into existence in the last few decades. The actual word gender means biological sex. I'm very well educated in the attempts of Social Justice Warriors to redefine the word to force people to accept transsexuals as their preferred gender, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. If anything, your attempts to hijack language to push ideology is what's offensive here.

  • [-]
  • jwbraith
  • 1 Points
  • 14:29:11, 22 August

Language isn't fixed. That it might adapt to encompass recent understanding is a good thing.

  • [-]
  • Canama
  • -1 Points
  • 06:06:06, 22 August

>That is a idea that has literally only come into existence in the last few decades

So... you're saying that as time passes and new discoveries are made, consensuses change?

MRW

Also MRW

You know what else is a new idea? Racial equality! (Five bucks says you don't like that either, though!)

>I'm very well educated in the attempts of Social Justice Warriors to redefine the word to force people to accept transsexuals as their preferred gender, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

So... you hate empathy?

Alright, so assuming what you say is true (it's not), what do you propose we do with transexual people? Marginalize em? Lock em up? Kill em?

Or we could treat them how they fucking want to be treated! What a novel concept!

>If anything, your attempts to hijack language to push ideology is what's offensive here.

I ain't hijacking jack shit, yo. I don't makes the terms, I just uses them. And you are the offensive one, and it's depressing you refuse to see that. You are the bigot marginalizing a group because... why? It makes your penis feel bigger? It's the only way you can jerk off? Help me out here, bro.

  • [-]
  • synthion
  • 4 Points
  • 03:23:47, 22 August

The 'op', actually doesn't change much, other than of course the genitals. Most of the 'feminization', (breasts, fat redistribution, hormonal/mental changes, sex drive, etc.) is all done through hormone therapy, and many transwomen never get 'the surgery'. Sex-Reassignment Surgery does not define the sex/gender, and if it does, it does a pretty poor job at it.

  • [-]
  • admiral_tuff
  • -2 Points
  • 04:14:41, 22 August

It's because he uses trans people as the butt of two jokes for no reason, really.

The first is obvious, saying that a man is gay if he has sexual relations with a trans woman. This is coupled with him showing a picture of a bearded lady.

The sign saying NO TRANNIES serves no purpose other than to be a visual gag. He's not talking about the mechanics behind the signs at all, other than saying saying it's a bureaucracy simulator. He mentions the fact that you need to check gender and presents it as a moral dilemma, so the sign is at least relevant to his discussion; but even then throwing out a slur against transgender people is just offensive and pretty uncalled for. You can make the point that the game is banning transgender people from the country, but to put that sign up in the video is another matter because it's not indicative of the game at that point. It's just a joke with "no trannies" as the punchline.

Edited because I was wrong about him not going in-depth about the gender issue.

  • [-]
  • TheArtisticSpectrum
  • 4 Points
  • 08:08:27, 22 August

>He makes no mention to the fact that you need to check gender

Yes he did, that was in the video. He mentions it as things you need to check.

  • [-]
  • admiral_tuff
  • 0 Points
  • 08:09:58, 22 August

Sorry, I must have misheard then, I'll edit my post.

  • [-]
  • BeepBoopBaBop
  • -6 Points
  • 02:21:50, 22 August

It wasn't that comment. It was the comment about being joke that being attracted to transexuals makes you gay. It's dumb because androphilia and gynephilia is the modern and accepted viewpoint to have on sexuality.

  • [-]
  • ChickenOverlord
  • -2 Points
  • 04:45:57, 22 August

>modern and accepted

By whom, I might ask? Biology has (largely) avoided the social justice attempts to redefine sex and sexuality. Most of that stuff is coming from sociologists and psychologists, both of which are much "softer" sciences as far as evidentiary and logical standards are concerned.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -1 Points
  • 05:46:23, 22 August

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • ChickenOverlord
  • -2 Points
  • 06:25:42, 22 August

Well I wrote out a huge response and the guy deleted his comment. Here it is anyways:

I've read dozens and dozens of studies, from psychologists, sociologists, and biologists. Two of my roommates are licensed and practicing psychologists, and both are (in their personal politics) dedicated to pushing the exact social justice nonsense that I'm talking about. Yet even they (and any psychologist with a shred of honesty) are more than willing to admit that there are huge political motivations driving organizations like the APA as well as driving individual psychologists in general.

A question on a related topic for someone like yourself who holds psychology in such high regard: What new research prompted the APA to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the DSM in 1973? There was no new research, it was done to appease the homosexual protesters that repeatedly opposed the APA's conferences. So strong is the bias against anything "homophobic" by the APA that Robert Spitzer, the very man who spearheaded the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, was ostracized and dismissed out of hand in 2003 for doing research suggesting that, with dedicated effort, homosexual men could adapt to and comfortably live their lives as heterosexuals. And even the general public's opposition to such ideas is so strong that New Jersey has made it illegal for therapists to offer conversion therapy, even if the patient himself desires it.

Here is what Joseph Burger, a Distinguished Fellow with the APA, has to say about it:

>What most people are not aware of is that when a group from the American Psychiatric Association first proposed the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, it was very clearly laid out in the "protocol" that the move was purely in response to the designation of "stigma" that those who identified themselves as homosexual claimed that they suffered as a consequence of "homosexuality" being included as a psychiatric disorder.

>It was stated very clearly that the proposed removal was not intended to make any scientific statement about homosexuality per se.

>As is so often the case, that distinction has become forgotten by the next generation, who now have come to believe - or have been "programmed" to believe - that the APA was in fact making a scientific statement about the "normality" of homosexuality - and by implication its irreversibility.

>What happened in the years since is that, of course, gay activists became so "empowered" - to use that horrible contemporary word - that they started to preach the notion that if homosexuality was "normal" then ipso facto no treatment for "it" was necessary, and gradually that evolved into the notion that no treatment should be permitted.

>The American Psychological Association apparently endorsed this notion and the American Psychiatric Association came under considerable pressure to also endorse such a position.

>It was then that some psychiatrists and psychologists, and especially some self-identified "ex-gays" started protesting and saying essentially that for no other form of presentation was there any prohibition against an individual choosing to consult a physician or therapist. In addition, far from it being "unethical" to treat a homosexual person-- it was totally unethical to ban or prevent any homosexual individual who himself or herself voluntarily requested psychotherapy, from following that option.

>It was that demonstration and protest that prompted Dr. Spitzer (who presumably also thought the proposal to ban as being too extreme) apparently with the noble intention of objective research--decided to conduct a review about the irreversibility of homosexuality. He was willing to reconsider his position.

If you really care about the bias in psychology (and really, the bias that affects all scientific and academic fields) I would strongly recommend Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It shows how groupthink, politics, and all sorts of other forms of bias have strongly influenced scientific development throughout history, even after the introduction of the scientific method.

  • [-]
  • theoriginalaks
  • 5 Points
  • 10:07:28, 22 August

I love this. (Also I didn't delete anything)

"My room-mates vastly more educated than I am believe in something different, so they are wrong." That's your entire first paragraph. You have "read some things" but the genuinely educated people are just wrong, for no particular reason. You have no shred of intellectual honesty do you?

> A question on a related topic for someone like yourself who holds psychology in such high regard...

I can sum this up really fucking easily. Any mental illness has a key defining point, it MUST act like an illness. It must negatively effect your life as a direct cause (and not from cultural pressure against it). It must hinder your ability to work, or interact, or live your life. Homosexuality does none of these things.

Of course it was political. A group of people were very clearly making a point that they were not ill. And guess what? They were right! There is no apparent harm or hindrance that causes any symptoms of mental illness directly linked to being homosexual. How the fuck would you still define it as a mental illness then?

If you really knew half the shit you think you did, I think you would know the basic tenets of diagnosing mental illness. Where did you learn your diagnostic criteria? Because I think I had better professors than you.

I mean, that's your ace of your sleeve? The DSM updating to not include homosexuality as a mental illness? When it objectively doesn't meet the definition for mental illness? Once again, do you know ANYTHING about what you are talking about?

This is shit you could learn in a high school course if you wanted. I mean holy fuck, stop living in the fucking past. Stop blaming everything on the nebulous "social justice" nonsense.

  • [-]
  • Karunamon
  • 1 Points
  • 12:24:47, 22 August

The first time I was going through this game, Spoiler

Very clever, Mr. Designer.