Roe V Wade in the context of GTA:W.

[Tsarna]

2 minutes ago, KinnyWynny said:

I’m sorry but you guys chose to focus on a major abortion bill… instead of literally anything else. No one wanted this, no one.

I wanted this. Don´t speak for others, okay? It is all political RP - why ban them doing it if the want to? We have murder, drugs, adultery, et cetera...in the server, and we certainly can find a person somewhere, who is offended about those topics. Oh, and then stereotypes prevail in this server also - can be very offensive for some. 
Imho - speak about everything and do what you want in the server, which is not against the rules. If you find the topic hurting your feelings, then just simply walk away from the rp, and thats that. Banning different topics is a slippery slope. Of course - COVID was an exception, but there is an argument also, that a lot of interesting rp would have come out of it. But - if we go down that road and ban topics, which might hurt someone, then this leads to many other things being banned, and in no time, we can´t speed in this server, because someone finds it offensive, because they have an ooc trauma from it (figure of speech, not meant to attack no one).

[Gigabyte]

This thread just went out of hand a bit... there's a simple question about having "Roe V Wade" brought IC. Why are there people faction bashing or insulting each other? Come on... just stay on the topic.

[Jedai]

7 minutes ago, Robyn said:

s motivated by people's OOC agendas to do things that'll cause others distress ain't the way the server should be at all.

 

Where do you draw the line though? Just about any topic can cause a level of distress. There are people out there who would find hunting morally unethical, the shooting of animals to be distressing yet there's no rule stopping Tony 2 Glocks from the Chamberlain Rolling Crips from shooting a Police K9 because "I'm on drugs". 

 

A good portion of prostitution is a direct result of sex trafficking. Things that are once again very uncomfortable topics to deal with and most players are not ready to handle those topics on a psychological level nor on a level with a modicum of maturity 

 

I do not think banning certain topics because someone could possibly sensitive towards it is really beneficial as its unnecessary censorship for things that like most real world topics, come and go. If you're banning certain topics because you don't believe the community can handle it or you're concerned of OOC bleed because people like to insert their OOC agendas into the IC of things, then those are two different things.  

[AM]

of all places to handle roe v wade,

 

gtaw is almost comedically not the place to do it, considering it'll just be people channeling their OOC hardon to restrict reproductive rights in a literal video game where it has approximately zero impact. it ain't it, chief.

[Robyn]

2 minutes ago, Jedai said:

If you're banning certain topics because you don't believe the community can handle it or you're concerned of OOC bleed because people like to insert their OOC agendas into the IC of things, then those are two different things.  

 

It's more this than anything. Time and time again people have proven they can't handle certain hot topics and will bleed their OOC stuff into their IC RP so when it's a big current hot topic like this is that effects people in the way it's doing, why give them the chance to do so

[peasoup]

12 minutes ago, Kipps said:

Assuming all that happens IC is a consequence of OOC feelings is a massive projection by the people playing avatars of themselves and believing that everyone else is doing the same. 

 

The elections are almost entirely OOC, and these OOC results are being used to justify pushing this IC, in this very thread. Sorry.

 

This is why you can't discuss this without addressing politics. If Roe v. Wade was just casually mentioned in game, no one would care. People only care because some people decided to make it a whole thing, and here we are.

[Anders]

As someone who first made a bill to safeguard abortion rights in law way before Roe v Wade was on the chopping block and as someone who brought it up to CM regarding this.

 

Using the escapism excuse and that /you/ do not want to see this roleplayed is disingenuous honestly. We cannot just ban every sensitive topic we see just because you are offended by it and as mentioned, we do roleplay a state in US so the federal laws do affect San Andreas.

 

Let me ask you this, I do not want to have good cause removed from CCW applications due to the new ruling because it'll just make people shoot more and be more stupid. Can we ban that now? Ignore that ruling? Do we cherry pick what we want and don't want because it's easier?

 

No. Suicide is spoken about and roleplayed. I personally believe that's horrific and have gone through them before irl. I don't want to roleplay or hear about suicides in this game which I am escaping my real life world into. What can I do?

 

People do roleplay Roe v Wade, especially for the politics part and not so much the abortion part. This needs to be kept ICly.

[Eriks]

1 minute ago, Anders said:

As someone who first made a bill to safeguard abortion rights in law way before Roe v Wade was on the chopping block and as someone who brought it up to CM regarding this.

 

Using the escapism excuse and that /you/ do not want to see this roleplayed is disingenuous honestly. We cannot just ban every sensitive topic we see just because you are offended by it and as mentioned, we do roleplay a state in US so the federal laws do affect San Andreas.

 

Let me ask you this, I do not want to have good cause removed from CCW applications due to the new ruling because it'll just make people shoot more and be more stupid. Can we ban that now? Ignore that ruling? Do we cherry pick what we want and don't want because it's easier?

 

No. Suicide is spoken about and roleplayed. I personally believe that's horrific and have gone through them before irl. I don't want to roleplay or hear about suicides in this game which I am escaping my real life world into. What can I do?

 

People do roleplay Roe v Wade, especially for the politics part and not so much the abortion part. This needs to be kept ICly.

 

I almost completely forgot that you introduced that pro-choice legislation. I don't recall anyone raising hell over it.

[Anders]

1 minute ago, Eriks said:

 

I almost completely forgot that you introduced that pro-choice legislation. I don't recall anyone raising hell over it.

Exactly. Nobody cared then because "roe v wade was safe".

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

 

2 minutes ago, Jedai said:

 

Where do you draw the line though? Just about any topic can cause a level of distress. 

 

This. 

 

Banning topics because they cause some degree of distress is a slippery slope.  Drawing that line is not easy; it would probably be difficult finding the right balance and then explaining away how the line we've drawn captures certain, potentially unforeseen, topics but not others.  

 

As has been suggested above, the roleplay surrounding these topics serves as conduit through which people channel their real-life displeasures and views — sometimes those views are too fringe to find widespread acceptance, and sometimes with trolling.  While this so-called "self-insert" may be undesirable, it can't be prevented to any significant degree, not least because people can easily lie about what their real-life views are.  For this reason, I think we should be focusing less on that fact that the roleplay is self-insert and, instead, should be focusing on practical use.  

 

In-character policy should have as much practical consequence as we can give it.  Unfortunately, the reality is that the current anti-abortion and anti-transgender laws have little practical purpose; they target probably the smallest subset of roleplayers in the community.  That seems like a waste of effort to me.  Are there really no pressing issues to resolve and is policy creativity lacking that much that we need to pass policy that affects, for example, only a small subset of female roleplayers?