No one is assuming anyone else to be of any sexual orientation aside from Nick and the odd man saying Luke. If were assuming everyone was gay or bisexual, we'd be talking about Clem, Sarah, Carlos, Pete, Ben, Chuck, Carver, Bonnie, and every other character.
Yeah, that's a good point.
We've only ever seen them in pretty dramatic situations though, and at some points Luke is kind of right about Nick. He wouldn't have been much help on the bridge, and while Luke said "He's not fit to tie his own shoes" he also includes "right now" which makes it sound much different.
Nick WAS completely out of whack following Pete's death. It wasn't a good idea to include Nick in a possible life or death situation (as proven by him shooting Matthew).
I dunno, their relationship obviously wouldn't be perfect, but we are only seeing them together in situations where Luke putting down Nick actually makes sense, and I think it's a pretty realistic character flaw. I'd rather see realistic representation than perfect human beings like Matthew and Walter.
I'm going to confess that I'm actually reluctant to push for Nick and Luke as a couple.
I've expressed this a few times here and on tu… moremblr and been met with a lot of torn views, but I personally don't think Luke treats Nick very well. I think Luke subconsciously patronizes Nick due to his depression, and speaking as someone who struggles with depression, I've had "Lukes" in my life who have used the same language he does and it's been really hurtful and toxic, even if they don't actually mean for it to be. He calls him a "kid" and says things like "He's not fit to tie his own shoes" and puts more trust in Clementine than he does Nick, and if they've really been friends for 20 years then he should have more respect for him than that. And it's actually really, really sad to see that and then compare it to how Nick practically idolizes him. Honestly I could write a lot about this, way more than what I wrote above, but it's digressing a lot… [view original content]
You are allowed to get offended. Your emotions are your own and no one can dictate how you choose to react to something. I'm so sorry that person said that of you. It was unwarranted and hurtful.
Your respect means a lot to me, but I can't help but wonder if I'm wasting my time. I'm hoping I can change some minds and maybe I have, I don't know. I'm just getting more and more bothered because there are young LGBT+ people on this forum who want representation and want a safe space to talk but they're being bombarded with "We don't need more gays in the game! There's no logic to this! Nick doesn't act gay! You guys are fag lovers!" and that can be really, really overwhelming for someone who's still impressionable and still coming into their own and learning who they are.
This thread shouldn't have HAD to turn into this. It should have just been people discussing the theory. It shouldn't have HAD to turn into an argument about rights and representation, but it did, and it's not your fault and it's not the fault of anyone except the people coming in and spreading hateful words.
To be honest, after reading comments that use the word faggot, yeah i think its safe to say theres some real insulting stuff going on this t… morehread without any moderation. Now im being accused of being manipulating people emotionally, trust me ive dealt with some shit because of my sexuality but to be told im not aloud to get offended because of it is just WOW. Skoothz, i deeply respect the amount of time you have put into this thread with a level head, just wish i could say the same for some of the others.
I don't know, maybe your hobbies, taste in music and maybe rainbow clothing, I guess after taking my time to get to know you, I would probably find out about your homosexuality.
Fair enough. I dunno. I have some strong mixed feelings about it that, like I said before, I don't really want to get into in this thread because it veers way off topic.
Yeah, that's a good point.
We've only ever seen them in pretty dramatic situations though, and at some points Luke is kind of right about … moreNick. He wouldn't have been much help on the bridge, and while Luke said "He's not fit to tie his own shoes" he also includes "right now" which makes it sound much different.
Nick WAS completely out of whack following Pete's death. It wasn't a good idea to include Nick in a possible life or death situation (as proven by him shooting Matthew).
I dunno, their relationship obviously wouldn't be perfect, but we are only seeing them together in situations where Luke putting down Nick actually makes sense, and I think it's a pretty realistic character flaw. I'd rather see realistic representation than perfect human beings like Matthew and Walter.
I'm fine with Nick being gay, but having faith that your friend is going to return is the same as "gushing on how great he is?" I have a question for you, if you were alone, grieving, and depressed and your crush came back for you and hugged you, wouldn't you hold him tight? Nick didn't even return Luke's hug, he just put his hand over his eyes.
He said all of two words to Bonnie, and then spent the next scene gushing to Clementine about how great Luke is.
It's fine if you don't… more see him being gay but I really don't see how him liking Bonnie makes more sense. I mean, they'd be kinda cute in theory, but I just don't see how it has more validity.
You are allowed to get offended. Your emotions are your own and no one can dictate how you choose to react to something. I'm so sorry that p… moreerson said that of you. It was unwarranted and hurtful.
Your respect means a lot to me, but I can't help but wonder if I'm wasting my time. I'm hoping I can change some minds and maybe I have, I don't know. I'm just getting more and more bothered because there are young LGBT+ people on this forum who want representation and want a safe space to talk but they're being bombarded with "We don't need more gays in the game! There's no logic to this! Nick doesn't act gay! You guys are fag lovers!" and that can be really, really overwhelming for someone who's still impressionable and still coming into their own and learning who they are.
This thread shouldn't have HAD to turn into this. It should have just been people discussing the theory. It shouldn't have HAD to turn into an argument about rights an… [view original content]
I don't know, maybe your hobbies, taste in music and maybe rainbow clothing, I guess after taking my time to get to know you, I would probably find out about your homosexuality.
He was kinda shocked at the time and grieving. The hug was certainly pretty tight regardless. The fact he even let Luke hug him so tightly is a sign he didn't mind it. He could have easily pushed him away and grieved on his own.
I'm fine with Nick being gay, but having faith that your friend is going to return is the same as "gushing on how great he is?" I have a que… morestion for you, if you were alone, grieving, and depressed and your crush came back for you and hugged you, wouldn't you hold him tight? Nick didn't even return Luke's hug, he just put his hand over his eyes.
If I'd just lost my last survivor family member and was recovering from a hangover I'm not sure if I'd even have the energy to reciprocate it, no matter how much I liked them. Sometimes you just need to be held and not have to hold back.
I'm fine with Nick being gay, but having faith that your friend is going to return is the same as "gushing on how great he is?" I have a que… morestion for you, if you were alone, grieving, and depressed and your crush came back for you and hugged you, wouldn't you hold him tight? Nick didn't even return Luke's hug, he just put his hand over his eyes.
If I'd just lost my last survivor family member and was recovering from a hangover I'm not sure if I'd even have the energy to reciprocate it, no matter how much I liked them. Sometimes you just need to be held and not have to hold back.
The mods should really close this thread. It's become a discussion( an argument tbh) more about LGBTQ rights and the effects of close mindedness/homophobia, not a civil speculation/debate about Nick's sexuality. The thread is full of angry people now, and it's gone way, way off topic.
The mods should really close this thread. It's become a discussion( an argument tbh) more about LGBTQ rights and the effects of close minded… moreness/homophobia, not a civil speculation/debate about Nick's sexuality. The thread is full of angry people now, and it's gone way, way off topic.
The mods should really close this thread. It's become a discussion( an argument tbh) more about LGBTQ rights and the effects of close minded… moreness/homophobia, not a civil speculation/debate about Nick's sexuality. The thread is full of angry people now, and it's gone way, way off topic.
you can't force people to be politically correct just because you don't like what they're saying, that'd be violating their right to freedom of speech. They should only be "punished" if there has been threats upon others' lives, which I'm pretty sure there has not been any. This thread is a perfect example where you just have to turn the other cheek.
Bro - I didn't think you were making sense the entire time you were talking about logic and how my thoughts don't connect to each other. What I said in the above post is pretty simple english.
Everything a side, don't act all high and mighty by saying "(coming from a 14 year old)." Especially because in the USA, you aren't even allowed to play this game unless your parents bought it for you.
Racist threads get closed. Do you think the nonwhite people of the forum should just turn the other cheek and get over it and let those threads continue without mod intervention?
you can't force people to be politically correct just because you don't like what they're saying, that'd be violating their right to freedom… more of speech. They should only be "punished" if there has been threats upon others' lives, which I'm pretty sure there has not been any. This thread is a perfect example where you just have to turn the other cheek.
There's a difference between expressing opinions on things and insulting/hating on people just because of who they are. One is freedom of speech the other is hate speech. Just because you can say some things doesn't mean you should, especially when those things are hateful and can hurt people.
I hate it when homophobia is labeled "freedom of speech"
you can't force people to be politically correct just because you don't like what they're saying, that'd be violating their right to freedom… more of speech. They should only be "punished" if there has been threats upon others' lives, which I'm pretty sure there has not been any. This thread is a perfect example where you just have to turn the other cheek.
I haven't seen any racist threads on here. If you mean racist speech, yes it's wrong, but I have no right to tell people how or what they are allowed to say. As for homophobia and racism, it depends on how you view the two. I know this is going to piss both you, and many others off, but I don't believe racism and homophobia to be comparable. That is my opinion, where your opinion is that they are. You can tell me how wrong my views are and how close minded and fucked up they are, but I'm still going to have the same opinion. Just as I could tell you how wrong you are, but that's not going to change the way you think. I have no control over your opinions, and you have no control over my opinions. I would hope that you wouldn't attack me for my opinion, just as I won't attack you for yours.
Racist threads get closed. Do you think the nonwhite people of the forum should just turn the other cheek and get over it and let those threads continue without mod intervention?
That is freedom of speech though, an opinion that is hateful and hurtful is still at it's core an opinion. People get their feelings hurt all the time, it's not fair, but that's life. You just have to brush it off and move on.
There's a difference between expressing opinions on things and insulting/hating on people just because of who they are. One is freedom of sp… moreeech the other is hate speech. Just because you can say some things doesn't mean you should, especially when those things are hateful and can hurt people.
I hate it when homophobia is labeled "freedom of speech"
You haven't seen the racist threads because they get CLOSED. I've seen them and so have many other people.
When it comes to hate speech it's not about Tinni or Skoothz's opinions, it's about what is generally considered to be hate speech, and homophobia is widely considered to be hate speech by pretty much all secular organizations.
I haven't seen any racist threads on here. If you mean racist speech, yes it's wrong, but I have no right to tell people how or what they ar… moree allowed to say. As for homophobia and racism, it depends on how you view the two. I know this is going to piss both you, and many others off, but I don't believe racism and homophobia to be comparable. That is my opinion, where your opinion is that they are. You can tell me how wrong my views are and how close minded and fucked up they are, but I'm still going to have the same opinion. Just as I could tell you how wrong you are, but that's not going to change the way you think. I have no control over your opinions, and you have no control over my opinions. I would hope that you wouldn't attack me for my opinion, just as I won't attack you for yours.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're exempt from getting called out for saying harmful things. If you're free to say something offensive, then someone else is just as free to call you the fuck out for it.
That is freedom of speech though, an opinion that is hateful and hurtful is still at it's core an opinion. People get their feelings hurt all the time, it's not fair, but that's life. You just have to brush it off and move on.
Or maybe people should stop being hateful towards others for no good reason? Wouldn't that be better than accepting people will hate you just because of who you are? It might be easy for you to say that people who get their feelings hurt should move on but are you even aware of how many people have had their lives ruined by homophobia, which you call freedom of speech? It's the same freedom of speech that keeps most people from even marrying because apparently they're not as equal. Should they accept that too?
That is freedom of speech though, an opinion that is hateful and hurtful is still at it's core an opinion. People get their feelings hurt all the time, it's not fair, but that's life. You just have to brush it off and move on.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're exempt from getting called out for saying harmful things. If you're free to say something offensive, then someone else is just as free to call you the fuck out for it.
Or maybe people should stop being hateful towards others for no good reason? Wouldn't that be better than accepting people will hate you jus… moret because of who you are? It might be easy for you to say that people who get their feelings hurt should move on but are you even aware of how many people have had their lives ruined by homophobia, which you call freedom of speech? It's the same freedom of speech that keeps most people from even marrying because apparently they're not as equal. Should they accept that too?
It's simple English, it's just not a coherent sentence. I'm sure it makes sense if you clarify what you're meaning but it looks like you start with one topic and bumble off into a completely separate topic.
You persist at making the claim that Nick being straight is a fact. But it isn't. Nick's sexuality is currently ambiguous and you can only speculate. You have nothing to back up your claim that what people see as signs that Nick might be gay aren't signs at all. There is reasonable grounds to say that you can interpret those signs as being for brotherly affection, but there is no proof to dismiss them as zero signs.
You have failed to date to present a coherent and logical argument to prove that there are factually and objectively zero signs. Here's the rub - just because you use the word logic doesn't mean it's logical.
I'd recommend rather than just assuming everyone thinks exactly like you, you might get more joy making your case if you assume people think differently and you are explaining step by step your whole thought process rather than jumping to your conclusion as if it is an obvious foregone fact.
Because that's how a debate works - assume your opponent doesn't think like you.
Bro - I didn't think you were making sense the entire time you were talking about logic and how my thoughts don't connect to each other. What I said in the above post is pretty simple english.
So the people who are being bullied/oppressed should be forced to stay silent, move on because teaching people to be nice to eachother is forcing them and homophobes gonna homophobe? Yeah, that makes sense.
Oh man I'm not even going to reply anymore, this thread has gone from bad to worse. I sincerely hope you're a troll.
So the people who are being bullied/oppressed should be forced to stay silent, move on because teaching people to be nice to eachother is fo… morercing them and homophobes gonna homophobe? Yeah, that makes sense.
Oh man I'm not even going to reply anymore, this thread has gone from bad to worse. I sincerely hope you're a troll.
All we needed for Episode 3 was for Clementine to get woken up in the middle of the night to the voice of Luke shouting "I CAN'T QUIT YOU NICK!"
Undeniable proof. She can handle it, she's mature for her age.
Tinni, Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequence.
There are legitimate limits on the consequences that can be applied when someone says something offensive, but you don't get to make offensive statements scott free.
Equally, if you act like a dick and someone calls you a dick, you are free to say "no you're a dick" right back. But if they tell you to leave their company, forum, house etc they are fully in their rights to do so and Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you.
Furthermore, fines can be offered as the alternative to them kicking you out. If you agree to pay the fine, freedom of speech doesn't protect you. And if they fire you because you refused the fine, freedom of speech doesn't protect you.
Freedom of speech exists to allow you to say what you want, but it can't trump anyone else's rights or force them to listen to you. That's why it's the freedom of speech and not the right of speech.
Freedoms are liberties that can't be denied to you. But rights have linked obligations. We're obligated to let people talk like asses, but we're not obligated to just grin and bear it.
Having said all that, it is still considered good manners to at least try and talk on an equal basis.
But that is reliant on honest open debate. People who try to use tolerance as a magical shield to justify intolerance generally are starting from a weaker position from the outset.
Be wary of any argument that sounds too clever for its own good. It's like the "that's just my opinion" defence. Often that's a warning sign of an argument that isn't particularly sound.
Tinni, Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequence.
There are legitimate limits on the consequences that can be applied when some… moreone says something offensive, but you don't get to make offensive statements scott free.
Equally, if you act like a dick and someone calls you a dick, you are free to say "no you're a dick" right back. But if they tell you to leave their company, forum, house etc they are fully in their rights to do so and Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you.
Furthermore, fines can be offered as the alternative to them kicking you out. If you agree to pay the fine, freedom of speech doesn't protect you. And if they fire you because you refused the fine, freedom of speech doesn't protect you.
Freedom of speech exists to allow you to say what you want, but it can't trump anyone else's rights or force them to listen to you. That's why it's the freedom of speech and not the right of speech.
Freedoms are … [view original content]
I was talking freedom of speech specifically to this forum and thread. It was a response to what Skoothz said about people needing to be punished for what they are choosing to post in an online forum. I think it's ridiculous to want people to be punished because he/she didn't like what they were saying. I added in the part about fines and being jailed more as an afterthought, because that's my personal opinion about that matter. Thinking back, I should have left that out. Another reason why this thread should be closed, we're no longer talking about these topics in terms to the game, but to real life. That's not what these forums are for. So this will be my last comment here.
Tinni, Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequence.
There are legitimate limits on the consequences that can be applied when some… moreone says something offensive, but you don't get to make offensive statements scott free.
Equally, if you act like a dick and someone calls you a dick, you are free to say "no you're a dick" right back. But if they tell you to leave their company, forum, house etc they are fully in their rights to do so and Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you.
Furthermore, fines can be offered as the alternative to them kicking you out. If you agree to pay the fine, freedom of speech doesn't protect you. And if they fire you because you refused the fine, freedom of speech doesn't protect you.
Freedom of speech exists to allow you to say what you want, but it can't trump anyone else's rights or force them to listen to you. That's why it's the freedom of speech and not the right of speech.
Freedoms are … [view original content]
Well there's a fine line here. As I mentioned before Freedom of Speech is not freedom from consequence. If people are going to be openly offensive on the forum in breach of the rules of behaviour - they are free to do so but they do so knowing that they may be ostracised for some time from the forum.
But I agree it comes down to tolerance. There are some offensive posts here but I wouldn't go demanding a ban for them - I'd rather get into the kind of discussions we're having about "why do you think that and here is why it isn't wholly accurate or here's an opposite opinion."
If they are still being offensive and don't want to listen - well there is always the abiltiy to hide the comment and just ignore them.
But people who have resorted to names and outright hostile behaviour - such as that poster who was saying homosexuality is sick etc - then I think the moderators need to step in.
Freedom of speech gets a bit weird around forums. Again I think it really does come down to ownership of the site. The moderators are in their right to say "get out of our forum." They can't prevent you from going on Tumblr or another forum to say whatever you want.
I think the best way to think of the forum is to think of it as a room in the TellTale Games office where they invite the public to come in and talk about their games and any other topics that arise from those discussions. If someone becomes too unruly or upsets the group - they are in their rights to kick that person out. He (or she) can stand outside the office and keep yelling. They can go home and keep yelling. And in either of those places someone can still demand they take their complaints elsewhere.
Equally Skoothz has every right to ask that they be punished. Doesn't mean there is any obligation on TTG to mete out punishments, though. And again, it doesn't mean that TTG can't mete out any bans if they feel that is the best solution to restoring order.
I do agree that this thread has drifted considerably - but again that is kind of a statement as to the state of LGBT rights today. They are not equal yet and any mention of gay or lesbian does tend to cause this drift because there are still a lot of people who don't like seeing that talk and feel they have an entitlement to drag out arguments about what constitutes equal rights etc etc etc.
The thing that I always find hilarious about this is that it's usually the people who are against discussions about LGBT rights who tend to be responsible for threads derailing into discussions about LGBT rights because the very act of complaining about them is an example of why they need to be discussed.
All very convoluted. Wouldn't it be so much easier if people who wanted to discuss if Nick was possibly gay could just discuss that without someone walking in and saying "stupid gays gaying up the place" or something to that effect? :)
I was talking freedom of speech specifically to this forum and thread. It was a response to what Skoothz said about people needing to be pun… moreished for what they are choosing to post in an online forum. I think it's ridiculous to want people to be punished because he/she didn't like what they were saying. I added in the part about fines and being jailed more as an afterthought, because that's my personal opinion about that matter. Thinking back, I should have left that out. Another reason why this thread should be closed, we're no longer talking about these topics in terms to the game, but to real life. That's not what these forums are for. So this will be my last comment here.
Dude - I have been very logically clear in my argument which you have clearly ignored. Let me give you the recap again to get you up to speed:
People are saying Nick is gay because:
a) he talks about and is concerned about Luke's well being
b) Nick was defensive when Kenny jokingly insinuated he was gay with Luke
MY STANCE: If the above two reasons give a reason to "speculate" over the sexuality of Nick than there is a MUCH deeper problem with those claiming Nick is gay. Because someone misses a member of the same sex or defends themselves after being called gay, does not make them gay. In fact, it shouldn't even open up any doors for the argument. Nick has done nothing to imply he is gay. By gay I mean that he is sexually attracted to the same gender. Every single argument on here is based off of people perspective of how a gay person acts. As I said many times before, if the above two reasons are enough to speculate a person is gay than literally every single person should re-consider their sexuality because they are, as this thread states, probably gay.
I understand what you are saying by stating that "I am not thinking outside the box/ not assuming people think differently", but I really wouldn't have a problem with this theory nor any theory at all if there was actual evidence and not mis-guided feelings about how a gay person acts/ feels. This theory is false. Please don't make me re-re-re-re-re-repeat myself on why this theory is wrong in so many ways. I know that we are speculating and not throwing anything factual around (emphasis on factual) and that is fine if it has something to do with the game but this thread has actually gotten people to think Nick is gay which is false and has nothing to do with the game itself.
Look I really don't want to continue this. I need to go to sleep (1 am where i am) all I am saying is that speculation is one thing but the reasons bought up in this thread are very disturbing as they are insinuating that missing a member of your sex is a credible reason for being called gay.
It's simple English, it's just not a coherent sentence. I'm sure it makes sense if you clarify what you're meaning but it looks like you sta… morert with one topic and bumble off into a completely separate topic.
You persist at making the claim that Nick being straight is a fact. But it isn't. Nick's sexuality is currently ambiguous and you can only speculate. You have nothing to back up your claim that what people see as signs that Nick might be gay aren't signs at all. There is reasonable grounds to say that you can interpret those signs as being for brotherly affection, but there is no proof to dismiss them as zero signs.
You have failed to date to present a coherent and logical argument to prove that there are factually and objectively zero signs. Here's the rub - just because you use the word logic doesn't mean it's logical.
I'd recommend rather than just assuming everyone thinks exactly like you, you might get more joy making y… [view original content]
That, my friend, is what we call a strawman argument.
You're extrapolating two instances out of several other pieces of evidence to then claim that people are saying missing a friend means you're gay.
But if you look at the top of the post and take the time to read what has been said it's not these points on their own, it's how all the points link together to paint a certain picture.
Evidence is like a jigsaw - you don't point at individual pieces of evidence and say "conclusion!" You gather the pieces and try to speculate and work out the whole picture.
You are committing a strawman here by selecting only two pieces of evidence and then treating what people have said as "all we need is this single piece or this single piece" then basing your argument on that. Of course claiming that just missing Luke or being insulted by Kenny's inference is a weak case to say Nick is gay.
But that's not all the evidence that has been cited. It's how the many different patterns play together.
You have consistently said that your position that there is no evidence makes it a FACT that Nick is straight.
But it isn't and right above you have admitted this. But then you still try to claim that people are foolish for speculating despite at least 5-6 pieces of evidence that when looked at together do present a picture that suggests that Nick could possibly be gay. Again, not that Nick is definitely gay or that the evidence is undeniable proof he's gay. Just that there is enough evidence to question that he may be.
But as I have said over and over again to you - it's also evidence that can be read to show that Nick just sees Luke as a big brother/close friend.
The thing is, both readings are reasonable and thus is it completely fair for people to speculate. What is unreasonable is to say it is wasteful speculation on zero evidence. There is evidence to suggest it.
And therein lies the problem with your argument. You are trying to claim no evidence by ignoring evidence and conflating your speculation as having more weight than others.
Dude - I have been very logically clear in my argument which you have clearly ignored. Let me give you the recap again to get you up to spee… mored:
People are saying Nick is gay because:
a) he talks about and is concerned about Luke's well being
b) Nick was defensive when Kenny jokingly insinuated he was gay with Luke
MY STANCE: If the above two reasons give a reason to "speculate" over the sexuality of Nick than there is a MUCH deeper problem with those claiming Nick is gay. Because someone misses a member of the same sex or defends themselves after being called gay, does not make them gay. In fact, it shouldn't even open up any doors for the argument. Nick has done nothing to imply he is gay. By gay I mean that he is sexually attracted to the same gender. Every single argument on here is based off of people perspective of how a gay person acts. As I said many times before, if the above two reasons are enough to speculate a person … [view original content]
I don't know, maybe your hobbies, taste in music and maybe rainbow clothing, I guess after taking my time to get to know you, I would probably find out about your homosexuality.
Comments
We've only ever seen them in pretty dramatic situations though, and at some points Luke is kind of right about Nick. He wouldn't have been much help on the bridge, and while Luke said "He's not fit to tie his own shoes" he also includes "right now" which makes it sound much different.
Nick WAS completely out of whack following Pete's death. It wasn't a good idea to include Nick in a possible life or death situation (as proven by him shooting Matthew).
I dunno, their relationship obviously wouldn't be perfect, but we are only seeing them together in situations where Luke putting down Nick actually makes sense, and I think it's a pretty realistic character flaw. I'd rather see realistic representation than perfect human beings like Matthew and Walter.
Your respect means a lot to me, but I can't help but wonder if I'm wasting my time. I'm hoping I can change some minds and maybe I have, I don't know. I'm just getting more and more bothered because there are young LGBT+ people on this forum who want representation and want a safe space to talk but they're being bombarded with "We don't need more gays in the game! There's no logic to this! Nick doesn't act gay! You guys are fag lovers!" and that can be really, really overwhelming for someone who's still impressionable and still coming into their own and learning who they are.
This thread shouldn't have HAD to turn into this. It should have just been people discussing the theory. It shouldn't have HAD to turn into an argument about rights and representation, but it did, and it's not your fault and it's not the fault of anyone except the people coming in and spreading hateful words.
I hate it when homophobia is labeled "freedom of speech"
When it comes to hate speech it's not about Tinni or Skoothz's opinions, it's about what is generally considered to be hate speech, and homophobia is widely considered to be hate speech by pretty much all secular organizations.
You persist at making the claim that Nick being straight is a fact. But it isn't. Nick's sexuality is currently ambiguous and you can only speculate. You have nothing to back up your claim that what people see as signs that Nick might be gay aren't signs at all. There is reasonable grounds to say that you can interpret those signs as being for brotherly affection, but there is no proof to dismiss them as zero signs.
You have failed to date to present a coherent and logical argument to prove that there are factually and objectively zero signs. Here's the rub - just because you use the word logic doesn't mean it's logical.
I'd recommend rather than just assuming everyone thinks exactly like you, you might get more joy making your case if you assume people think differently and you are explaining step by step your whole thought process rather than jumping to your conclusion as if it is an obvious foregone fact.
Because that's how a debate works - assume your opponent doesn't think like you.
Oh man I'm not even going to reply anymore, this thread has gone from bad to worse. I sincerely hope you're a troll.
Undeniable proof. She can handle it, she's mature for her age.
There are legitimate limits on the consequences that can be applied when someone says something offensive, but you don't get to make offensive statements scott free.
Equally, if you act like a dick and someone calls you a dick, you are free to say "no you're a dick" right back. But if they tell you to leave their company, forum, house etc they are fully in their rights to do so and Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you.
Furthermore, fines can be offered as the alternative to them kicking you out. If you agree to pay the fine, freedom of speech doesn't protect you. And if they fire you because you refused the fine, freedom of speech doesn't protect you.
Freedom of speech exists to allow you to say what you want, but it can't trump anyone else's rights or force them to listen to you. That's why it's the freedom of speech and not the right of speech.
Freedoms are liberties that can't be denied to you. But rights have linked obligations. We're obligated to let people talk like asses, but we're not obligated to just grin and bear it.
But that is reliant on honest open debate. People who try to use tolerance as a magical shield to justify intolerance generally are starting from a weaker position from the outset.
Be wary of any argument that sounds too clever for its own good. It's like the "that's just my opinion" defence. Often that's a warning sign of an argument that isn't particularly sound.
But I agree it comes down to tolerance. There are some offensive posts here but I wouldn't go demanding a ban for them - I'd rather get into the kind of discussions we're having about "why do you think that and here is why it isn't wholly accurate or here's an opposite opinion."
If they are still being offensive and don't want to listen - well there is always the abiltiy to hide the comment and just ignore them.
But people who have resorted to names and outright hostile behaviour - such as that poster who was saying homosexuality is sick etc - then I think the moderators need to step in.
Freedom of speech gets a bit weird around forums. Again I think it really does come down to ownership of the site. The moderators are in their right to say "get out of our forum." They can't prevent you from going on Tumblr or another forum to say whatever you want.
I think the best way to think of the forum is to think of it as a room in the TellTale Games office where they invite the public to come in and talk about their games and any other topics that arise from those discussions. If someone becomes too unruly or upsets the group - they are in their rights to kick that person out. He (or she) can stand outside the office and keep yelling. They can go home and keep yelling. And in either of those places someone can still demand they take their complaints elsewhere.
Equally Skoothz has every right to ask that they be punished. Doesn't mean there is any obligation on TTG to mete out punishments, though. And again, it doesn't mean that TTG can't mete out any bans if they feel that is the best solution to restoring order.
I do agree that this thread has drifted considerably - but again that is kind of a statement as to the state of LGBT rights today. They are not equal yet and any mention of gay or lesbian does tend to cause this drift because there are still a lot of people who don't like seeing that talk and feel they have an entitlement to drag out arguments about what constitutes equal rights etc etc etc.
The thing that I always find hilarious about this is that it's usually the people who are against discussions about LGBT rights who tend to be responsible for threads derailing into discussions about LGBT rights because the very act of complaining about them is an example of why they need to be discussed.
All very convoluted. Wouldn't it be so much easier if people who wanted to discuss if Nick was possibly gay could just discuss that without someone walking in and saying "stupid gays gaying up the place" or something to that effect? :)
People are saying Nick is gay because:
a) he talks about and is concerned about Luke's well being
b) Nick was defensive when Kenny jokingly insinuated he was gay with Luke
MY STANCE: If the above two reasons give a reason to "speculate" over the sexuality of Nick than there is a MUCH deeper problem with those claiming Nick is gay. Because someone misses a member of the same sex or defends themselves after being called gay, does not make them gay. In fact, it shouldn't even open up any doors for the argument. Nick has done nothing to imply he is gay. By gay I mean that he is sexually attracted to the same gender. Every single argument on here is based off of people perspective of how a gay person acts. As I said many times before, if the above two reasons are enough to speculate a person is gay than literally every single person should re-consider their sexuality because they are, as this thread states, probably gay.
I understand what you are saying by stating that "I am not thinking outside the box/ not assuming people think differently", but I really wouldn't have a problem with this theory nor any theory at all if there was actual evidence and not mis-guided feelings about how a gay person acts/ feels. This theory is false. Please don't make me re-re-re-re-re-repeat myself on why this theory is wrong in so many ways. I know that we are speculating and not throwing anything factual around (emphasis on factual) and that is fine if it has something to do with the game but this thread has actually gotten people to think Nick is gay which is false and has nothing to do with the game itself.
Look I really don't want to continue this. I need to go to sleep (1 am where i am) all I am saying is that speculation is one thing but the reasons bought up in this thread are very disturbing as they are insinuating that missing a member of your sex is a credible reason for being called gay.
You're extrapolating two instances out of several other pieces of evidence to then claim that people are saying missing a friend means you're gay.
But if you look at the top of the post and take the time to read what has been said it's not these points on their own, it's how all the points link together to paint a certain picture.
Evidence is like a jigsaw - you don't point at individual pieces of evidence and say "conclusion!" You gather the pieces and try to speculate and work out the whole picture.
You are committing a strawman here by selecting only two pieces of evidence and then treating what people have said as "all we need is this single piece or this single piece" then basing your argument on that. Of course claiming that just missing Luke or being insulted by Kenny's inference is a weak case to say Nick is gay.
But that's not all the evidence that has been cited. It's how the many different patterns play together.
You have consistently said that your position that there is no evidence makes it a FACT that Nick is straight.
But it isn't and right above you have admitted this. But then you still try to claim that people are foolish for speculating despite at least 5-6 pieces of evidence that when looked at together do present a picture that suggests that Nick could possibly be gay. Again, not that Nick is definitely gay or that the evidence is undeniable proof he's gay. Just that there is enough evidence to question that he may be.
But as I have said over and over again to you - it's also evidence that can be read to show that Nick just sees Luke as a big brother/close friend.
The thing is, both readings are reasonable and thus is it completely fair for people to speculate. What is unreasonable is to say it is wasteful speculation on zero evidence. There is evidence to suggest it.
And therein lies the problem with your argument. You are trying to claim no evidence by ignoring evidence and conflating your speculation as having more weight than others.