I can understand why all the other things would be listed here, and I would understand if sexuality in general was considered inappropriate for children, but why homosexuality in particular? This is strange to me.
<content_rating type="oars-1.1">
<content_attribute id="violence-cartoon">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-fantasy">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-realistic">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-bloodshed">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-sexual">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-desecration">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-slavery">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-worship">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-alcohol">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-narcotics">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-tobacco">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-nudity">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-themes">none</content_attribute>
<!-- this line here -->
<content_attribute id="sex-homosexuality">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-prostitution">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-adultery">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-appearance">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-profanity">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-humor">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-discrimination">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-chat">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-info">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-audio">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-location">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-contacts">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="money-purchasing">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="money-gambling">none</content_attribute>
</content_rating>
They should have one for heterosexuality, too, if it’s all about tastes.
No kidding. So sick of hearing about those people 😙
Because by law in certain countries, homosexuality is persona non grata, and a filter needs to be there to legally operate in such countries.
Do these backward shepherds that stone their wives need computers?
The Republican culture war being waged against the LGBT+ community should make it completely clear that your skin color or brand of religious nonsense doesn’t make you immune to bigotry.
if the democrats would stop drumming up as much hatred as possible towards us it wouldn’t have become such a large issue in the first place, People feel like it is getting worse, because it is. People who never even cared about whether someone was gay or not now has a strong negative association towards us because democrats have the incessant need to shove it everywhere they go.
It’s no surprise that people are starting to hate gay folk when they get shit for so much as looking away when they see gay people kiss in public. The amount of time’s I’ve had to say “I’m not one of those gay people” is absurd.
The far-right is not the Democrats fault and I don’t know why you’re bragging about selling out your community.
it’s not the “far right” that’s the issue, it’s the fact that the far left is generating high amounts of animosity from anyone relatively centrist.
“Thanks for pushing normal people to the far-right” is an overt strategy passed around 4chan and far-right chat channels, intended to both discourage the left from defending their views and create the idea that being bigoted is something “normal people” support.
I disagree that it it’s bigoted to for instance, not like games which have rewritten characters to fit a certain demographic, whether it be sexuality or race.
“Defending your rights” and being as loud as possible for the sake of it are 2 completely different things.
The two closest homosexuals in my life are my favorite uncle and my best friend, that happens to be my attorney. My uncle is openly gay, my attorney is married to another woman. This has absolutely NO impact in our interactions. Why? Simple, that’s their business, and everyone in their environment understands this.
Guess why I don’t have more gay people in my environment. Because I don’t like people, precisely because of this incessant need to be loud about irrelevant shit like sexuality. You lack so much of everything else that the only way you have to be seen is your sexual preference? That’s the saddest shit ever. That level of emptiness has to be grueling.
If you have to be constantly “defending” your sexuality, you need to examine the environment you have chosen to participate in.
The problem here is not sexual preference, the problem is that sexual preference, for reasons I can’t begin to understand, has become the defining factor for people, instead of principles, moral, honesty and just flat out being nice.
When was the last time you saw a “heterosexual” parade, specially with a bunch of people swinging it all out?
Whatever happened to “you do you, I do me”?
Oh how sweet is the irony of the bigots in this thread, who thinks the tag is there to “free” from them from seeing gay people holding hands and kissing, when it’s actually there because bigots have outlawed being gay some places.
Cos there are people who are not interested in homosexual stuff cos they are not homosexual?
Tha makes no sense unliss there was also a hetero tag for homosexuals to use.
Maybe it should be but as homosexuals are a minority in human nature I believe there is no point for developers to do it as they are more interested into making their software work for the majority of people.
Um, equality? Accessibility? Not siding with autocrats violating human rights?
Nah, let’s be honest, this is so that parents can make sure precious little Bobby doesn’t catch The Gay. LGBT themed cinema is going to let you know, this is for making sure there isn’t a trace of homosexuality to darken Bobby’s pure little heart.
I think it’s more about homosexuality being an anti-natural behavior, animal and human(as we are animals) females and males are meant to reproduce, so from the point of biology homosexuality goes against the reproductive needs of the specie to keep being alive. I believe it’s not about homosexuality being evil/bad or wrong.
At the same time the factor time-money it’s pretty relevant.so it’s more important developing for a general userbase than a minority userbase.
This is outright false. If there aren’t graphical or explicit illustrations that are deemed pornographic, then homosexuality and heterosexuality should enjoy the same status as encyclopedic knowledge. This is some “Don’t say gay” stuff.
To be honest I’m more concerned by
language-humor. Like not even saying what kind of humour, just any type of humour at all. Jokes are for adults only!Because some bigots want to filter it out.
Excuse me for wanting to filter out heavily homosexual content. If you like it go ahead, I just don’t want to see it.
I don’t want to see heterosexuals but you don’t see me legislating against you, subtly erasing you, and actively hunting you. So no. You’re not excused, sweet cheeks.
exactly, it’s not bigoted to want to filter it out (or heterosexual content). I swear these kinds of people are the type who want to make it legal to force someone to watch them have sex in front of you.
From their website;
OARS relies on honest answers from upstream projects and is purely informational.
Gotta admit, despite being bi, i still avoid most m/m stories on the amateur writing sites i follow. Shit gets weird fast.
Note that in oars git repo itself a lot of tags were removed because of idiots calling it “problematic” https://github.com/hughsie/oars/commit/bbb10186cbecb49252610e5604ed025df8f4c8b7
the actual gitrepo explained why it’s neccessary, not wanted
* `sex-homosexuality`: As of 2020, [various countries](https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/) have laws which criminalise lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people. In order for software and content to be distributed in those countries without breaking the law, and possible reprisal, it is necessary to be able to tag software and content which contains LGBT references, so that it can be hidden in those countries. However, in other countries (for example, the EU), discrimination laws explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality. So while LGBT tagging may be available in OARS data, consumers of that data must only apply it in countries where the law requires that.Because some people want to filter it out. So it gets a label.
Or filter it in
All of these represent various social mores. I’d have no problem with my kids seeing content involving fantasy violence, but I respect that others might object. As a bisexual myself, I have less respect for those who object to their kids seeing homosexuality specifically, but I can tolerate their existence.
For fairness’ sake, I wouldn’t mind it if heterosexuality were on the list too.
I think things got lost in translation here. We’re not talking about explicit/pornographic content here. There are other tags that cover that. This, however, indicates sexual orientation in general which covers any display of affection that characterizes same gender couples, including kissing, holding hands or be explicitly in a relationship, which is no less appropriate for kids than straight smooching.
Hope that helps
Yes that was clear to me. I was saying that, while I don’t find same-sex content objectionable (indeed it makes me happy to see this kind of representation on screen), and I personally think it’s something children should be exposed to, many people would disagree. Just like other tags on here which I think children shouldn’t be exposed to at a young age but others wouldn’t mind. Relative morality.
Politically speaking, I would be happier if those who oppose same-sex relationships were to change their minds. They pose a threat to my life. But FOSS is for everyone, even people I disagree with.
Oh yeah, absolutely. It, unfortunately, a reality.
To mine as well, I’m with you on that one.
