Please don't go calling people racist, misogynists, or any combination therein. Don't start throwing around words like "white Knight" or SJW, these words are at this point used in a derogatory manner regarding this debate. You can discuss that these terms exist, but do not attribute them to any individual user or group of users on this website.
Try to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks and we will all be the better for it. Breaking this rule will result in an automatic temp ban the length of which will depend on the comment you make.
This thread started not so bad. It is getting worse. If you want to have this discussion on TL be respectful of your fellow users, we all live in the same house.
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
Real talk Anita is neither connected to gamergate and is only a subject for gaming journalists. She isn't apart of the problem and certainly not worth the few but undeniable pages we've given her here.
I'm going to ignore all LW related posts unrelated to gamergate here from now on, I suggest if anyone actually cares they do the same.
Remember what Prof. Oak says, "There's a time and place for everything, but are you a girl or boy?"
Or something like that. Never actually played pokemon.
At its core, there are problematic representations of women in gaming - this cannot be argued as false.
It can actually, though it focuses on what denotes "problematic" rather than what's going on in gaming, and how there's lots of other potential "problematic" views if you use the same criteria to determine it's an issue for women alone. And that's entirely unrelated to #gamergate so I'm steering clear of that.
Well yes, of course, you can find analogues across the genders, but we need to remember that from the perspective of a critique, it needs to be focused. You can't argue every "negative" presentation of a human being in every game.
From the position of looking at the over sexualisation of women in gaming and their dis-empowerment then you can find that in spades. If your point is to examine that specifically then you can do that. Just because a men are presented as ultimate killing machines as a protagonist or meat shield fodder for enemies. The fact this exists doesn't invalidate the former as a critique.
Thats the one thing a lot of people seem to gloss over. This isn't a hard science, the opposite of one thing does not invalidate the other. They can both coexist. Strong female leads can coexist with weak females treated as objects. Both exist, and thats OK (from the perspective of having a discussion and discourse). But if I want to talk about how the latter is more common than the former I can do so, and its entirely valid.
And the definition of problematic is shaped by the position taken by the person claiming a problematic. Now you need to prove its problematic and if you make vast all encompassing claims that all women in gaming are being hurt by men and that all women are presented simply as objects could be disproved. But only when you make such wild claims that they apply as an absolute across every possible situation do you come into that kind of situation.
On October 19 2014 03:34 Dunnobro wrote: Real talk Anita is neither connected to gamergate and is only a subject for gaming journalists. She isn't apart of the problem and certainly not worth the few but undeniable pages we've given her here.
I'm going to ignore all LW related posts unrelated to gamergate here from now on, I suggest if anyone actually cares they do the same.
Remember what Prof. Oak says, "There's a time and place for everything, but are you a girl or boy?"
Or something like that. Never actually played pokemon.
This is true, I was trying to shut the door on it but might only be making things worse
If it derails the thread too much and others agree (PM me or post in here) we can limit the discussion to the issue of journalism in gaming.
However, that itself is difficult because the issue of gender is associated with the issue of journalistic integrity because of the history of the evolution of the debate surrounding it (beginning with the whole Zoe Quinn crap).
This is what confuses me so much about "gamergate" (hate the term btw).
How can anyone be against the notion of trying to apply journalistic integrity to the gaming press?
On October 19 2014 03:34 Dunnobro wrote: Real talk Anita is neither connected to gamergate and is only a subject for gaming journalists. She isn't apart of the problem and certainly not worth the few but undeniable pages we've given her here.
I'm going to ignore all LW related posts unrelated to gamergate here from now on, I suggest if anyone actually cares they do the same.
Remember what Prof. Oak says, "There's a time and place for everything, but are you a girl or boy?"
Or something like that. Never actually played pokemon.
Well, what she does is interesting to talk about at the very least, and off-topic derailing is kind of the norm for forum threads.
Although, she's relevant in that a lot of game writers seem to frequent her conferences and talks, for whatever reasons.
Just to give some perspective because this "just make your own games" "boycott the bad ones" thing is being said a lot... I don't think many feminists are calling for boycotts of games with bad elements. Most I see are trying to raise awareness about the issues in them so the developers can address is better next time around.
Stuff like this from the creative director of Volition, company that made Saints Row:
"I think it's fair to be called out on your shit," he told The Escapist.
"I think that it's a sad man that can never be self-reflective. I think that we tried to go and carry ourselves with respect, and try to respect sexuality and respect gender as much as we can, and sometimes we fail but hopefully we'll do better and continue to get better."
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
As I have said before: her description of issues regarding the issues of the female gender and gaming should not be debated by discussing any perceived lack of ethics.
People bought in on her ideal that games are sexists (this is called brainwashing) even though it have been debunked numerous times by YouTubers.
If you would read the thread, you would definitely find the evidence not too far from here. Go to pg 19.
.
Do you understand what a metaphor or a simile is? Do you realize that people agreeing with one position or another doesn't constitute brainwashing? And that you're using the 'term' brainwashing as a metaphor in this instance?
I've been thinking about this and I realized it would be easier to just paint over sensitive information rather than copy/paste a blank header over the real header and align it correctly. That's why I think it was probably not doctored.
"screen cap taken 12s after last tweet"
So what? Did you know that if you take a screen cap 12s after something happens, time moves forward in a linear fashion? That means a five, ten, fifteen minutes or a WHOLE DAY can go by and the screen cap will still say 12s! HOLY SHIT! Is Anita a time lord?
If someone were a time lord, there would be no way to know, so it is possible that Anita Sarkeesian might hypothetically be a time lord, but I find this to be highly unlikely. I know this has also been pointed out, but twitter automatically updates the time stamps on posts. So if you do a screen cap 12 seconds after a tweet, the tweet will still update its time-stamp, but the actual screen capture image will only capture the activity on the screen at the time it was taken. This means that the person who took the screen capture made the tweet and immediately did a screen cap.
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
I certainly agree with you here, but shouldn't the same logic apply to the gaming world? Choose which companies and which products you want to associate with, and if you don't want to you don't need to? Shouldn't we apply the same judgement about questioning the ethics and marketing of gaming companies trying to sell a product?
If Sarkeesian's work is to be respected by invoking choice, why shouldn't that apply equally to the broader gaming world?
On October 19 2014 03:41 Trumpet wrote: Just to give some perspective because this "just make your own games" "boycott the bad ones" thing is being said a lot... I don't think many feminists are calling for boycotts of games with bad elements. Most I see are trying to raise awareness about the issues in them so the developers can address is better next time around.
"I think it's fair to be called out on your shit," he told The Escapist.
"I think that it's a sad man that can never be self-reflective. I think that we tried to go and carry ourselves with respect, and try to respect sexuality and respect gender as much as we can, and sometimes we fail but hopefully we'll do better and continue to get better."
On October 19 2014 03:34 Dunnobro wrote: Or something like that. Never actually played pokemon.
A smasher that didn't play pokemon? Well now I've seen everything
They are raising awareness about a problem only they see in an industry they have no interest in. It's ridiculous that people pay any attention to what Sarkeesian and others like her say. They don't even play the genre's of videogames they complain about. It reminds me of Piers Morgan's many tirades against gun ownership in the US. He's a British citizen and lives in the UK, yet all he ever did when he still had his show on MSNBC was yell about how guns are evil. He had no interest in the US, and still believed his opinion on how the country should be run mattered.
On October 19 2014 03:51 Dunnobro wrote: People did post that video xiphos, I did and so did someone else lol This is why I feel like we're going in circles...
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
As I have said before: her description of issues regarding the issues of the female gender and gaming should not be debated by discussing any perceived lack of ethics.
Ethos, Pathos and Logos.
The 3 Triad of convincing others.
She used ethos to say that she is gaming expect = disproved.
She used logos to say that there are some patriarchal society being misogynistic = disproved with that video.
And most importantly, she rallied a whole bunch of people against the gaming industry. Its only natural to push back against that.
On October 19 2014 03:41 Trumpet wrote: Just to give some perspective because this "just make your own games" "boycott the bad ones" thing is being said a lot... I don't think many feminists are calling for boycotts of games with bad elements. Most I see are trying to raise awareness about the issues in them so the developers can address is better next time around.
Stuff like this from the creative director of Volition, company that made Saints Row:
"I think it's fair to be called out on your shit," he told The Escapist.
"I think that it's a sad man that can never be self-reflective. I think that we tried to go and carry ourselves with respect, and try to respect sexuality and respect gender as much as we can, and sometimes we fail but hopefully we'll do better and continue to get better."
That kind of comment from Saints Row staff seems exactly like the kind of thing that people are taking issue with.
Saints Row is a game that's entirely about taking the "gangster" life and pushing it to the most ridiculous extreme. And that happens to involve strippers and hoes. It also involves taking a ball-gagged man and forcing him to pull a pony cart while you gun down dominatrices who are on similar pony carts. It's that kind of game.
So when a creative director of the franchise says things like "we should do better", what does that really mean? I mean, the player character is already extremely customizable, where you can be male, female, fat, old, anorexic, white, black, Asian, purple, metallic gold. And there are a number of female characters in it that are interesting and colourful without existing as eye-candy (I think the latest DLC for SR4 lets you play as Gat and Kenzie, purely because of the popularity of both).
It reminds me a lot of the complaints about Duke Nukem Forever, how it's juvenile, sexist, overly macho...everything that Duke Nukem is expected to be. Of course, it didn't help that the game was poorly made, but there's something silly about asking a game to clean itself up despite being exactly what it's intended to be.
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
I certainly agree with you here, but shouldn't the same logic apply to the gaming world? Choose which companies and which products you want to associate with, and if you don't want to you don't need to? Shouldn't we apply the same judgement about questioning the ethics and marketing of gaming companies trying to sell a product?
If Sarkeesian's work is to be respected by invoking choice, why shouldn't that apply equally to the broader gaming world?
It totally can, but the conversation is about informing individuals to make that choice. I mean if you react to a critique of something with "if you don't like it then leave", well thats not very productive is it? The entire point of entering into debate and discussion is to learn about different viewpoints and trying to understand them so you can come to a conclusion for yourself while being respectful of the other side. If you do not want to take part in a discussion but rather hold your position steadfastly without considering the other you might as well not be discussing and its in that situation where I ask that you just avoid the things/people you don't like.
Please don't apply the "on a soapbox" thing I just mentioned to any sort of youtube shit. By its very nature a video or other form of media which is crafted is intended to be a one way form of communication. These aren't one offs, we didn't ask anyone on this board for only one post or for only one viewpoint. A forum is an interactive medium, so people can discuss and respond to one another. Posing questions to one another, describing perspectives is one thing, but to continually be inflammatory with regards to a personal opinion of one person and their ethical standing (without engaging on a discussion of the core position of said person) is another matter entirely.
My statement you quoted isn't a general application, it was intended as a direct response to Xiphos who is continually drudging up an off topic discussion and who continues to bring up the Anita Sarkeesian thing as a way to invalidate the positions of others through some sort of appeal. He's essentially taking things people say on one topic equating these views to those of Anita Sarkeesian, and then telling people they are wrong because she is a bad person.
This doesn't help the discussion on this board at all. Its akin to when people would call eachother brainwashed in the long ago closed threads on ukraine and russia.
On October 19 2014 03:51 Dunnobro wrote: People did post that video xiphos, I did and so did someone else lol This is why I feel like we're going in circles...
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
As I have said before: her description of issues regarding the issues of the female gender and gaming should not be debated by discussing any perceived lack of ethics.
Ethos, Pathos and Logos.
The 3 Triad of convincing others.
She used ethos to say that she is gaming expect = disproved.
She used logos to say that there are some patriarchal society being misogynistic = disproved with that video.
And most importantly, she rallied a whole bunch of people against the gaming industry. Its only natural to push back against that.
Right I can understand your concern but as I have said before:
This doesn't matter. People in this thread aren't saying gaming is evil because Anita said so.
So you can push back all you want against the people who are against gaming and think its evil, but thats not what this thread is about, its not what the discussion is about, and its not fair to continue telling people they are wrong because you are associating their position with a person you dislike.
As an FYI I am extremely, vehemently against the notion that games are inherently bad and that they create bad people. I disagree so much with that premise that I am doing my Master's Thesis as an antithesis to this perspective of gaming. But that doesn't mean I can't also agree that it would be nice to have more strong female protagonists in games and that there is a lot of unnecessary oversexualisation of women in games. At the same time though I can still also recognize that alongside the sexualisation of women in gaming you often find homoerotocism of men and expressions of extreme hegemonic masculinity (Duke Nukem, Gears of War).
I basically want to stop derailing the thread with discussions of ethics of a youtuber when the issue should be ethics of journalists and to a slightly broader extent a discussion of what has been called "gamergate" in general at this point which often comes up.
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
I certainly agree with you here, but shouldn't the same logic apply to the gaming world? Choose which companies and which products you want to associate with, and if you don't want to you don't need to? Shouldn't we apply the same judgement about questioning the ethics and marketing of gaming companies trying to sell a product?
If Sarkeesian's work is to be respected by invoking choice, why shouldn't that apply equally to the broader gaming world?
It totally can, but the conversation is about informing individuals to make that choice. I mean if you react to a critique of something with "if you don't like it then leave", well thats not very productive is it? The entire point of entering into debate and discussion is to learn about different viewpoints and trying to understand them so you can come to a conclusion for yourself while being respectful of the other side. If you do not want to take part in a discussion but rather hold your position steadfastly without considering the other you might as well not be discussing and its in that situation where I ask that you just avoid the things/people you don't like.
Please don't apply the "on a soapbox" thing I just mentioned to any sort of youtube shit. By its very nature a video or other form of media which is crafted is intended to be a one way form of communication. These aren't one offs, we didn't ask anyone on this board for only one post or for only one viewpoint. A forum is an interactive medium, so people can discuss and respond to one another. Posing questions to one another, describing perspectives is one thing, but to continually be inflammatory with regards to a personal opinion of one person and their ethical standing (without engaging on a discussion of the core position of said person) is another matter entirely.
My statement you quoted isn't a general application, it was intended as a direct response to Xiphos who is continually drudging up an off topic discussion and who continues to bring up the Anita Sarkeesian thing as a way to invalidate the positions of others through some sort of appeal. He's essentially taking things people say on one topic equating these views to those of Anita Sarkeesian, and then telling people they are wrong because she is a bad person.
This doesn't help the discussion on this board at all. Its akin to when people would call eachother brainwashed in the long ago closed threads on ukraine and russia.
No, I'm not continually bringing Anita Sarkessian, kz w/e ever his name is brought up my posts from pages ago and called me out.
What kind of man am I if I don't stand by my own words?
And I didn't say what kzw w/e his name is representing Anita, everything I brought up is actually attempting to helping her cause by saying:
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
I certainly agree with you here, but shouldn't the same logic apply to the gaming world? Choose which companies and which products you want to associate with, and if you don't want to you don't need to? Shouldn't we apply the same judgement about questioning the ethics and marketing of gaming companies trying to sell a product?
If Sarkeesian's work is to be respected by invoking choice, why shouldn't that apply equally to the broader gaming world?
It totally can, but the conversation is about informing individuals to make that choice. I mean if you react to a critique of something with "if you don't like it then leave", well thats not very productive is it? The entire point of entering into debate and discussion is to learn about different viewpoints and trying to understand them so you can come to a conclusion for yourself while being respectful of the other side. If you do not want to take part in a discussion but rather hold your position steadfastly without considering the other you might as well not be discussing and its in that situation where I ask that you just avoid the things/people you don't like.
Please don't apply the "on a soapbox" thing I just mentioned to any sort of youtube shit. By its very nature a video or other form of media which is crafted is intended to be a one way form of communication. These aren't one offs, we didn't ask anyone on this board for only one post or for only one viewpoint. A forum is an interactive medium, so people can discuss and respond to one another. Posing questions to one another, describing perspectives is one thing, but to continually be inflammatory with regards to a personal opinion of one person and their ethical standing (without engaging on a discussion of the core position of said person) is another matter entirely.
My statement you quoted isn't a general application, it was intended as a direct response to Xiphos who is continually drudging up an off topic discussion and who continues to bring up the Anita Sarkeesian thing as a way to invalidate the positions of others through some sort of appeal. He's essentially taking things people say on one topic equating these views to those of Anita Sarkeesian, and then telling people they are wrong because she is a bad person.
This doesn't help the discussion on this board at all. Its akin to when people would call eachother brainwashed in the long ago closed threads on ukraine and russia.
No, I'm not continually bringing Anita Sarkessian, kz w/e ever his name is brought up my posts from pages ago and called me out.
What kind of man am I if I don't stand by my own words?
And I didn't say what kzw w/e his name is representing Anita, everything I brought up is actually attempting to helping her cause by saying:
"Here is the road to what you want, walk on it."
I suggesting dropping it. Your posts have become a rather large annoyance on this thread.
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
I certainly agree with you here, but shouldn't the same logic apply to the gaming world? Choose which companies and which products you want to associate with, and if you don't want to you don't need to? Shouldn't we apply the same judgement about questioning the ethics and marketing of gaming companies trying to sell a product?
If Sarkeesian's work is to be respected by invoking choice, why shouldn't that apply equally to the broader gaming world?
It totally can, but the conversation is about informing individuals to make that choice. I mean if you react to a critique of something with "if you don't like it then leave", well thats not very productive is it? The entire point of entering into debate and discussion is to learn about different viewpoints and trying to understand them so you can come to a conclusion for yourself while being respectful of the other side. If you do not want to take part in a discussion but rather hold your position steadfastly without considering the other you might as well not be discussing and its in that situation where I ask that you just avoid the things/people you don't like.
You're right, and I agree with a few things Sarkeesian et. al. have mentioned, my objection is precisely the point you're trying to make; they are extremely unwilling to engage differing viewpoints with anything beyond accusations of misogyny etc. She isn't wrong to complain about some of the things she identifies, she's wrong to dismiss the culture as being misogynistic because things aren't being fine tuned to her specifications. In principle I can agree with the content of what Sarkeesian is saying while prioritizing liberty over "fixing" some of these problems, and in that sense be opposed to what she's promoting. Are some games childish? Absolutely, but let people make them, and let consumers buy them.
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
I certainly agree with you here, but shouldn't the same logic apply to the gaming world? Choose which companies and which products you want to associate with, and if you don't want to you don't need to? Shouldn't we apply the same judgement about questioning the ethics and marketing of gaming companies trying to sell a product?
If Sarkeesian's work is to be respected by invoking choice, why shouldn't that apply equally to the broader gaming world?
It totally can, but the conversation is about informing individuals to make that choice. I mean if you react to a critique of something with "if you don't like it then leave", well thats not very productive is it? The entire point of entering into debate and discussion is to learn about different viewpoints and trying to understand them so you can come to a conclusion for yourself while being respectful of the other side. If you do not want to take part in a discussion but rather hold your position steadfastly without considering the other you might as well not be discussing and its in that situation where I ask that you just avoid the things/people you don't like.
You're right, and I agree with a few things Sarkeesian et. al. have mentioned, my objection is precisely the point you're trying to make; they are extremely unwilling to engage differing viewpoints with anything beyond accusations of misogyny etc. She isn't wrong to complain about some of the things she identifies, she's wrong to dismiss the culture as being misogynistic because things aren't being fine tuned to her specifications. In principle I can agree with the content of what Sarkeesian is saying while prioritizing liberty over "fixing" some of these problems, and in that sense be opposed to what she's promoting. Are some games childish? Absolutely, but let people make them, and let consumers buy them.
To be fair though, the fact that there is no engagement on differing viewpoints is in part due to the medium chosen. Youtube is effectively television and the videos are in essence just a presentation. If there was an option to engage in debate and discussion at large nuance could be achieved, but in the medium and form of presentation chosen it just can't happen. Perhaps, in the future after the core of the position is fully explained more nuance can be added which would greatly improve the appeal to the masses imo. In the end just be critical of the critique and choose to understand (not necessarily accept) the position presented.
I can understand a lot of things while accepting very little of it.
On October 18 2014 18:05 ShiroKaisen wrote: I mean, look at how the last ton of pages in this thread are nothing but people arguing about Anita, with several people insisting that she's a "fraud" or a "criminal." Even TotalBiscuit had to pop in to set that straight. When a considerable amount of what's visible is something that isn't ostensibly part of the message, that's not the 3rd party's fault for misinterpreting, and you can't just blame it all away on a "smear campaign."
Several people is a bit of an overstatement. It's basically just Xiphos being overtly inflammatory, and I've been largely ignoring his posts because that's what he's like.
If some certain people aren't so misinformed about Anita, inflammation isn't needed.
I'm not saying that my opinions toward Anita won't change in the future but so far, her marketing ethics, work ethics, and her lack of game knowledge despite claiming to be a gaming expert proves that she definitely isn't someone that I personally would associate with.
And I'm surprised that nobody have posted up this crucial video regarding the topic here:
Choose you don't want to associate with her and thats great, you don't need to. But if the issue of women in gaming is brought up, and someone uses an example Ms. Sarkeesian uses can you not start derailing by questioning her ethics and marketing?
I certainly agree with you here, but shouldn't the same logic apply to the gaming world? Choose which companies and which products you want to associate with, and if you don't want to you don't need to? Shouldn't we apply the same judgement about questioning the ethics and marketing of gaming companies trying to sell a product?
If Sarkeesian's work is to be respected by invoking choice, why shouldn't that apply equally to the broader gaming world?
It totally can, but the conversation is about informing individuals to make that choice. I mean if you react to a critique of something with "if you don't like it then leave", well thats not very productive is it? The entire point of entering into debate and discussion is to learn about different viewpoints and trying to understand them so you can come to a conclusion for yourself while being respectful of the other side. If you do not want to take part in a discussion but rather hold your position steadfastly without considering the other you might as well not be discussing and its in that situation where I ask that you just avoid the things/people you don't like.
Please don't apply the "on a soapbox" thing I just mentioned to any sort of youtube shit. By its very nature a video or other form of media which is crafted is intended to be a one way form of communication. These aren't one offs, we didn't ask anyone on this board for only one post or for only one viewpoint. A forum is an interactive medium, so people can discuss and respond to one another. Posing questions to one another, describing perspectives is one thing, but to continually be inflammatory with regards to a personal opinion of one person and their ethical standing (without engaging on a discussion of the core position of said person) is another matter entirely.
My statement you quoted isn't a general application, it was intended as a direct response to Xiphos who is continually drudging up an off topic discussion and who continues to bring up the Anita Sarkeesian thing as a way to invalidate the positions of others through some sort of appeal. He's essentially taking things people say on one topic equating these views to those of Anita Sarkeesian, and then telling people they are wrong because she is a bad person.
This doesn't help the discussion on this board at all. Its akin to when people would call eachother brainwashed in the long ago closed threads on ukraine and russia.
No, I'm not continually bringing Anita Sarkessian, kz w/e ever his name is brought up my posts from pages ago and called me out.
What kind of man am I if I don't stand by my own words?
And I didn't say what kzw w/e his name is representing Anita, everything I brought up is actually attempting to helping her cause by saying:
"Here is the road to what you want, walk on it."
I suggesting dropping it. Your posts have become a rather large annoyance on this thread.
If defending one's word with logic and evidence = being annoying to you, then boy you must have a lot aneurysm.
I get that though.
I'm also annoyed by other people telling me stuff that I don't necessarily want to hear but need to hear. But the mature thing is to accept them and not run away from it.
EPT
