On September 19 2011 04:14 feathertoken wrote: For the first 20 pages of this thread, I was amazed. This is a very intelligent, rational message board. I love the fact that the moderators actually enforce civilized behavior. Then the incessant need for some people to be "correct" reared its ugly head. I know I am brand new, but I would like a few people here to think about this...
If you have posted more than 30 times in the same thread, you are being obnoxious and ruining the discussion for everyone else. Please control yourself. No one ever wins an debate on a message board. Ever.
As for the article, it was embarassing. The only way I can come to grips with it is to see it as a loud bout of name-dropping performance art that is meant to brag about a newfound politics that he can talk about with his girlfriend.
The issues of aggression in gaming are much better addressed by one of the comments posted on the Star City site immediately following the article. And I quote:
"As a female that only began playing MTG about five months ago, I’ve seen and heard less-than-desirable things uttered and written about women emanating from what has presented itself as one of the most sportsmanlike casual gaming communities around. Having been friends with gamers for years as well as a videogame enthusiast, I’d come to accept it as something that one was simply expected to “grin and bear” as a woman, as the gaming community has always seemed to be a kind of impenetrable boys’ club in which intellectualism, no matter how prevalent within the strategy-building and gameplay, is always secondary to a kind of brutish, systematic desire for the title of alpha-dog within the pack.
While some of my gaming friends through the years have been the sweetest, most intelligent men I’ve known, I have noted that gaming is often the only way for these men to express their aggression, especially as a generation that will never see the ugly face of war unless it volunteers itself to.For the majority of men and women alike, the spectrum for potential greatness is, in many ways, more limited than it has ever been before. This is a point in history in which technology has made nearly anything and everything possible, but in such a way that the majority of us cannot potentially contribute to that evolution, as we do not possess what is essentially a somewhat elitist skillset. Unfortunately, this realization is colliding with (and, arguably, causing) a catastrophic economic downturn, causing individuals that may already feel somewhat emasculated by the inability to express physical domination to feel even moreso, adding shades of isolation and shame. So, when one is given the opportunity to express discontentment through the vehicle of another individual’s “trollish” statements through the most passive-aggressive safety blanket we as a people have ever invented (i.e.: the Internet), one leaps at the opportunity to become the king of commentators/trolls/whistle-blowers/generally outraged citizens by expressing some kind of personal greatness in calling out someone else for something silly that has been said."
[edit] Italicized the part of the quote I was referring to.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative. It started off pretty rocky but I give lorkac and HereticSaint a lot of credit for continuing the dialogue with a certain amount of rhetorical respect, despite coming from different sides of a huge divide, and what could be construed as personal attacks. Lorkac (in my opinion) is a rather unbiased source of gender-studies knowledge and opinions, and he's doing a good job fielding the arguments across a broad spectrum, much of which was focused on a sophomoric linguistic debate at first. HereticSaint is the model forum fighter, providing myriad documented evidence to support his arguments while he's fighting uphill against an ideology that by definition tries to supercede the world view he's operating with. That's brave, and hard work to keep a level head.
When you're trying to combat prejudice, in this case agitate for altered community-wide behavior to limit perceived sexism, it's very difficult not to be inherently attacking the community you're trying to reform. Of course people will get defensive. Most of them aren't really defending themselves rationally, they're just saying "I"m not wrong you're dumb". In this case, if you want to take the time to read dozens of pages, you can see the alternative to that unfold, wherein an actual discussion of various points takes place while a object of the reform tries to hold the reformer accountable.
Please understand that I'm not making a judgement on either of these people (both of whom are awesome intellectual competitors in their own way, in a way we can all benefit from, if you ask me). For the record, I'm strongly in favor of a shift in gamer culture--to lead the way in society as a whole--to curb implicit sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice). I'm not sure how I feel about the actual Geordie Tait article. The choice to take a "daddy's sorry" tone shows a lack of acuity for the subject, using style to make up for shortcomings in substance. I think you can detect the "beyond the comfort zone" feeling of an author trying to do something more than they're used to... which is write articles about MTG. Earlier I wrote an angry post trying to clarify this side of things more. The intersection of the sc2 community with this MTG article community is pretty much a giant unknown more the vast majority of the people who were posting and it was irritating that (as usual) there were outcries about off topic shit from people who had no clue what they were talking about. As it turns out, most of the thread was moot argument because the day9 quote is in fact real and true.
My broader point then, which I wasn't clear about, and which I will try to get noticed as much as possible in the future, is that as esports garners more and more attention from outside, even from "nearby" outside like another segment of gaming culture, there will continue to be things we find that may misrepresent us. There's nothing you can do about the fact that it will happen, because it will, repeatedly. The best possible thing you can do is not be insulted by blatantly wrong tripe. Instead, be reasonable and try to get it corrected so people who know nothing about us don't see misinformation. Raging about it just reflects poorly and reinforces the perception that we are culturally unacceptable and inept at interacting like a normal segment of society. In this case, however, there is a serious problem of sexism. (Obviously this is not limited to just our community. That doesn't make it okay to ignore it here.) If you don't understand why people are saying something that seems stupid to you, maybe you should read up on it, hell, even read the thread and the linked articles first, and then share your opinions. Better yet, ask a question instead. Try assuming that you're wrong, so you can learn something in the process of showing someone else why you're right. If you're not interested in what I just said, why are you sharing your opinion?
Official department of justice meeting summary with numerous sources and studies referenced. Shatters a lot of misconceptions about rape in our society. I very much wish everyone would read the whole thing, but since it's quite long, at the least have a read through the executive summary.
On September 17 2011 23:44 KwarK wrote: Pretty sure he didn't say "you young bitch". I'm checking now but I watched it pretty recently and I don't recall that. I expect it's standard bullshit journalism.
On September 17 2011 23:57 Shiragaku wrote: And ignore the Sean Plott thing, I do not think that was the main point of the article.
Well... It did lose any credibility it could have had in my eyes because of it and I'm sure I'm not alone.
To be fair... from 10:20... It's not all cute words coming out of mr Plotts godlike mouth. But yeah, as people pointed out a bagillion times... It's taken out of context
Words have no more meaning then what you give them. Be the bigger person and just roll with the punches, if you let people get to you then you're letting them win.
On September 17 2011 23:44 KwarK wrote: Pretty sure he didn't say "you young bitch". I'm checking now but I watched it pretty recently and I don't recall that. I expect it's standard bullshit journalism.
It really pissed me off, this one girl I dated, I explained to her gg, that you say good game, and she would type it to me on AIM but she would do lower case g, period, lower case g, period. I'm like "that's not how you abbreviate it, it's gg, it's this thing" and she would like do it to poke fun at me. Urghh! So glad that ended. Clearly she does not respect the important things in life.
Ya same thought. I watched it Thursday night and don't remember that quote the author used. Sean's probably one of the most respectful guys in the gaming industry. He always is saying how grateful and thankful he is for his friends and a majority of them are women, it seems. i.e. cambria.
I don't see anymore sexism in gaming than anywhere else honestly. Sexual themes/jokes are everywhere, because sex is such a mainstream thing.
On September 19 2011 03:52 imallinson wrote: [quote]
I'm more talking about the general population, seeing as gamers belong to that group. Prisons will skew the results quite a bit because the type of people who go into prisons are more likely to rape people and also that prisons are completely gendered institutions so men have no chance to rape women.
There's literally no point interacting with you. You make analogies based on nations when we are talking about sexism, you say murder is neutral gender, when it isn't and I give you statistics that show otherwise. You hang on the fact that rape is something that happens to females more when it isn't, WHY it happens to males more or is more traumatic/damaging doesn't matter, it does.
The analogy about nations was just that, an analogy, there isn't any reason to attack it like it was my main point. I'm saying murder isn't gender oriented (i.e. people murder people because of circumstance not on their gender). In the general public rape is something that happens more to females by males (also because they are female not just circumstance) and prisons skew the data if included because they are gendered institutions. So males walking down the street will be much less worried about being raped than females walking down the street.
A man is much more likely to murder another man over a small confrontation than a woman, that's a fact, I'd get you a study but you seem to not give a **** about them. So only the parts of society you want to matter do? So we are only allowed to address rape as per how it would work in your theoretical society? Male on male rape outside of prison as also far less reported and prisoners aren't in prison for ever, the damaging effects of rape maintain in effect when they are released.
I do give a **** about your studies, that's why I responded to them. As far as the parts of society that matter I'm trying to use the section of society where it is possible for any gender to rape any gender because this gives the most balanced view. As far as rape in prisons goes, I'm sure a lot of men who have been in a prison where homosexual rapes are a big problem will be just as offended at another male saying they will rape them in a game as a woman would because for that specific group it was a big worry. That isn't the case for males who aren't in this group.
Under reporting
According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.[4][5]
The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 government report in England says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 per cent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."[6]
Statistics on rape and sexual assault are common in Western countries and are becoming more common throughout the world. Inconsistent definitions of rape, different rates of reporting, recording, prosecution and conviction for rape create controversial statistical disparities, and lead to accusations that many rape statistics are unreliable or misleading. According to USA Today reporter Kevin Johnson "no other major category of crime - not murder, assault or robbery - has generated a more serious challenge of the credibility of national crime statistics" than rape.[1]
A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of male-female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.[2]
In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape counted in the statistics.[3]
Traditional (male-female) focused rape-related advocacy groups have suggested several tactics to encourage the reporting of sexual assaults, most of which aim at lessening the psychological trauma, often suffered by female rape victims following their assault by male rapists. Many police departments now assign female police officers to deal with rape cases. Advocacy groups also argue for the preservation of the victim's privacy during the legal process; it is standard practice among mainstream American news media not to divulge the names of alleged rape victims in news reports but this practice is becoming increasingly controversial due to well publicized cases of false rape accusations. Traditional rape-related advocacy groups are also beginning to support male-male rape victims as well as male-female rape victims. Other advocacy groups that support male victims of female rape encourage recognition of female-male rape as rape rather than as a 'love affair', a 'relationship', or as a beneficial form of sex 'education'. However, female-male and female-female rape is rarely recognized as a statistically significant form of rape despite research indicating otherwise. Thus reporting rape by females remains difficult or impossible especially in jurisdictions where rape by a female is considered no crime or where the false perception persists that rape of a male by a female is impossible.[7]
Basically what this says is, "Even when not counting prisons" rape of males, even by other males is generally not a statistic that is kept in any form and in fact males claiming rape in general and female on male rape especially are generally not only not accounted for but intentionally mocked and ignored.
Rape as a whole is very under reported, but yes it is especially so with regards to females raping males. It is possible that there are more females raping males than vice versa, although I doubt that there are 250,000 + unreported male -> female rapes than unreported female -> male rapes, but there is no data on this so it's not really worth arguing it. However there is also the fact that the public perception is that almost all rapes occur male -> female which means that the majority of the female population will be much more worried about being raped than the majority of the male population even if most rapes were female -> male.
Most people being uninformed doesn't all of a sudden change how things are. I'm not saying that there's that many unreported cases either, but I will say my 66% statistic regarding murder is a lot closer (if not higher, but who knows) than you give it credit to be. Keeping in mind, again that males are more likely to be victim to murder (regardless of why, that again, isn't the point).
People being uninformed doesn't change how things are but seeing as this is about who will get offended by a certain term then how they view the situation surrounding that term is going to have a large effect on how they perceive that term
And what of the people who are informed? **** them because they are the minority? I'm not saying you are saying that, but I mean... that's how it comes off.
Main point being rape isn't anymore of a gendered insult than murder is, if the vast majority of the population who are uninformed disagree with me, then they can continue enjoying their Justin Beiber music and Farmville while I continue not catering to them just because they are the uninformed majority. I realize this goes back to me not caring, but really I think it points out that I'm not being completely unreasonable. Of course, I'm sure someone disagrees with me.
I'm not saying you are being unreasonable. You do have a good point about rape not being as gendered as most people think.
Bringing this back to the original article and it's points about sexist stuff happening in the community alienating potential female gamers. I think the public perception is an important thing to worry about, even if it is uninformed. There is a vocal minority of people who are very sexist and I think the vast majority of the community, while not sexist itself, doesn't care about the people who are so it continues (and also doesn't care about correcting people who aren't sexist but make a sexist remark because they don't know better). The only way to stop this is to actually call people out if they are being sexist (which TL is actually fairly decent at) which will let women feel like they belong in the community and join it which will make all but the worst trolls be more reasonable about it. I'm not saying you have to join in, if you don't care that's a perfectly reasonable stance but let people who do care spend their time doing it.
Not only that, but ignoring unreported stats which are hard to deal with because they are unreported, but which is sex is most cautious about when and where a person walks for fear of being sexually assaulted? And before someone jumps in mugging issues in bad parts of town. Yes of course there's areas you want to avoid male/ or female. But females most often are concerned about the possibility of sexual assault in areas males would generally not even dream of thinking about. Even the small uni I went to we had several creeps either groping or exposing themselves in some of the poorly lit areas on or around campus. All male to female. Most girls continued to walk, some were quite unconcerned, but it is an extra calculation that females are more likely to make then males.
The stats ARE hard to deal with and those stats are the only thing which would be in your favor! Did you even read the studies? Go research it yourself if you think I'm full of ****. Men are much, much less likely to report rape especially by a female than a woman would be by a man. Explain to me how that doesn't make the stats if anything slide into my favor, especially in regard to how damaging it is to males.
Yes stats are in my favour, rape is under-reported in general and I'm confident men are much less likely to report rape then women. But as far as primary discourse is concerned, when the word rape is mentioned, rape against men is not immediately associated. Only if you're part of a secondary discourse- have been, know someone, or know about rape against male would the word immediately rape immediately be associated with men. That could be something to work on. Bring more awareness to the issue because that secondary discourse is valid.
However, if you're talking about the primary discourse, when the word rape is mentioned, two things can come to mind male to female rape and possibly beating someone in a video game. I would actually argue that male to female rape is the primary discourse that is immediately associated with the word and dominating someone in a game is also a secondary discourse that has developed amongst gamers and that is slowly working it's way into the primary discourse.
All that to say, the word 'rape' carries a couple different meanings at the same time and you cannot pick and choose which ones other people think of because the word currently carries sexual violence against women as the automatic association with most people. It's the issue of shared social meaning when we think of different words. ex) dog- there's all sorts of mental images and values that are tied into the one word: Man's best friend, loyalty, determined (dogged). Pretty much any word is going to carry a weight of shared meaning behind it, good or bad.
My point about ignoring stats though. You are arguing hard that rape effects males and females without discrimination. I would say based on societal behaviour, this is demonstrably not true. Who is most concerned about poorly lit paths on uni campus? Who is most concerned with "Take Back the Night?" etc, etc. Your prison examples are horrific, but limited to prisons and quite possibly to the unique situation of the US's prison system (at least the rampant issues.) Rape in total society play a far larger part on women's calculations of when and where they will go and with whom, and from whom they will accept a drink at a bar (date rape), etc.
On September 19 2011 04:14 feathertoken wrote: For the first 20 pages of this thread, I was amazed. This is a very intelligent, rational message board. I love the fact that the moderators actually enforce civilized behavior. Then the incessant need for some people to be "correct" reared its ugly head. I know I am brand new, but I would like a few people here to think about this...
If you have posted more than 30 times in the same thread, you are being obnoxious and ruining the discussion for everyone else. Please control yourself. No one ever wins an debate on a message board. Ever.
As for the article, it was embarassing. The only way I can come to grips with it is to see it as a loud bout of name-dropping performance art that is meant to brag about a newfound politics that he can talk about with his girlfriend.
The issues of aggression in gaming are much better addressed by one of the comments posted on the Star City site immediately following the article. And I quote:
"As a female that only began playing MTG about five months ago, I’ve seen and heard less-than-desirable things uttered and written about women emanating from what has presented itself as one of the most sportsmanlike casual gaming communities around. Having been friends with gamers for years as well as a videogame enthusiast, I’d come to accept it as something that one was simply expected to “grin and bear” as a woman, as the gaming community has always seemed to be a kind of impenetrable boys’ club in which intellectualism, no matter how prevalent within the strategy-building and gameplay, is always secondary to a kind of brutish, systematic desire for the title of alpha-dog within the pack.
While some of my gaming friends through the years have been the sweetest, most intelligent men I’ve known, I have noted that gaming is often the only way for these men to express their aggression, especially as a generation that will never see the ugly face of war unless it volunteers itself to.For the majority of men and women alike, the spectrum for potential greatness is, in many ways, more limited than it has ever been before. This is a point in history in which technology has made nearly anything and everything possible, but in such a way that the majority of us cannot potentially contribute to that evolution, as we do not possess what is essentially a somewhat elitist skillset. Unfortunately, this realization is colliding with (and, arguably, causing) a catastrophic economic downturn, causing individuals that may already feel somewhat emasculated by the inability to express physical domination to feel even moreso, adding shades of isolation and shame. So, when one is given the opportunity to express discontentment through the vehicle of another individual’s “trollish” statements through the most passive-aggressive safety blanket we as a people have ever invented (i.e.: the Internet), one leaps at the opportunity to become the king of commentators/trolls/whistle-blowers/generally outraged citizens by expressing some kind of personal greatness in calling out someone else for something silly that has been said."
[edit] Italicized the part of the quote I was referring to.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative. It started off pretty rocky but I give lorkac and HereticSaint a lot of credit for continuing the dialogue with a certain amount of rhetorical respect, despite coming from different sides of a huge divide, and what could be construed as personal attacks. Lorkac (in my opinion) is a rather unbiased source of gender-studies knowledge and opinions, and he's doing a good job fielding the arguments across a broad spectrum, much of which was focused on a sophomoric linguistic debate at first. HereticSaint is the model forum fighter, providing myriad documented evidence to support his arguments while he's fighting uphill against an ideology that by definition tries to supercede the world view he's operating with. That's brave, and hard work to keep a level head.
When you're trying to combat prejudice, in this case agitate for altered community-wide behavior to limit perceived sexism, it's very difficult not to be inherently attacking the community you're trying to reform. Of course people will get defensive. Most of them aren't really defending themselves rationally, they're just saying "I"m not wrong you're dumb". In this case, if you want to take the time to read dozens of pages, you can see the alternative to that unfold, wherein an actual discussion of various points takes place while a object of the reform tries to hold the reformer accountable.
Please understand that I'm not making a judgement on either of these people (both of whom are awesome intellectual competitors in their own way, in a way we can all benefit from, if you ask me). For the record, I'm strongly in favor of a shift in gamer culture--to lead the way in society as a whole--to curb implicit sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice). I'm not sure how I feel about the actual Geordie Tait article. The choice to take a "daddy's sorry" tone shows a lack of acuity for the subject, using style to make up for shortcomings in substance. I think you can detect the "beyond the comfort zone" feeling of an author trying to do something more than they're used to... which is write articles about MTG. Earlier I wrote an angry post trying to clarify this side of things more. The intersection of the sc2 community with this MTG article community is pretty much a giant unknown more the vast majority of the people who were posting and it was irritating that (as usual) there were outcries about off topic shit from people who had no clue what they were talking about. As it turns out, most of the thread was moot argument because the day9 quote is in fact real and true.
My broader point then, which I wasn't clear about, and which I will try to get noticed as much as possible in the future, is that as esports garners more and more attention from outside, even from "nearby" outside like another segment of gaming culture, there will continue to be things we find that may misrepresent us. There's nothing you can do about the fact that it will happen, because it will, repeatedly. The best possible thing you can do is not be insulted by blatantly wrong tripe. Instead, be reasonable and try to get it corrected so people who nothing about us don't see misinformation. Raging about it just reflects poorly and reinforces the perception that we are culturally unacceptable and inept at interacting like a normal segment of society. In this case, however, there is a serious problem of sexism. (Obviously this is not limited to just our community. That doesn't make it okay to ignore it here.) If you don't understand why people are saying something that seems stupid to you, maybe you should read up on it, hell, even read the thread and the linked articles first, and then share your opinions. Better yet, ask a question instead. Try assuming that you're wrong, so you can learn something in the process of showing someone else why you're right. If you're not interested in what I just said, why are you sharing your opinion?
I was also masochistic enough to read the entire thread. It left me with a very different impression. I think that the tone, civility, honesty, and level of argumentation exhibited by both lorkac and HereticSaint has been so low as to add nothing to my understanding of the debate. I think that it has been so low as to also actively discourage more level-headed, intelligent, honest people from contributing to the discussion for fear of being shut out of the discussion with an onslaught of misrepresentative hyperbole and superficial points.
Having read this entire thread, you probably know that I tried to contribute earlier and hopefully interact with people who were willing to have an intelligent discussion about these important issues. The horrendous, misleading responses I received from lorkac convinced me that this was a lost cause. I can only imagine, or hope, that if posters like these had been absent from the thread, a more enlightening dialogue could have taken place.
On September 19 2011 03:55 HereticSaint wrote: [quote]
There's literally no point interacting with you. You make analogies based on nations when we are talking about sexism, you say murder is neutral gender, when it isn't and I give you statistics that show otherwise. You hang on the fact that rape is something that happens to females more when it isn't, WHY it happens to males more or is more traumatic/damaging doesn't matter, it does.
The analogy about nations was just that, an analogy, there isn't any reason to attack it like it was my main point. I'm saying murder isn't gender oriented (i.e. people murder people because of circumstance not on their gender). In the general public rape is something that happens more to females by males (also because they are female not just circumstance) and prisons skew the data if included because they are gendered institutions. So males walking down the street will be much less worried about being raped than females walking down the street.
A man is much more likely to murder another man over a small confrontation than a woman, that's a fact, I'd get you a study but you seem to not give a **** about them. So only the parts of society you want to matter do? So we are only allowed to address rape as per how it would work in your theoretical society? Male on male rape outside of prison as also far less reported and prisoners aren't in prison for ever, the damaging effects of rape maintain in effect when they are released.
I do give a **** about your studies, that's why I responded to them. As far as the parts of society that matter I'm trying to use the section of society where it is possible for any gender to rape any gender because this gives the most balanced view. As far as rape in prisons goes, I'm sure a lot of men who have been in a prison where homosexual rapes are a big problem will be just as offended at another male saying they will rape them in a game as a woman would because for that specific group it was a big worry. That isn't the case for males who aren't in this group.
Under reporting
According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.[4][5]
The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 government report in England says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 per cent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."[6]
Statistics on rape and sexual assault are common in Western countries and are becoming more common throughout the world. Inconsistent definitions of rape, different rates of reporting, recording, prosecution and conviction for rape create controversial statistical disparities, and lead to accusations that many rape statistics are unreliable or misleading. According to USA Today reporter Kevin Johnson "no other major category of crime - not murder, assault or robbery - has generated a more serious challenge of the credibility of national crime statistics" than rape.[1]
A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of male-female rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.[2]
In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape counted in the statistics.[3]
Traditional (male-female) focused rape-related advocacy groups have suggested several tactics to encourage the reporting of sexual assaults, most of which aim at lessening the psychological trauma, often suffered by female rape victims following their assault by male rapists. Many police departments now assign female police officers to deal with rape cases. Advocacy groups also argue for the preservation of the victim's privacy during the legal process; it is standard practice among mainstream American news media not to divulge the names of alleged rape victims in news reports but this practice is becoming increasingly controversial due to well publicized cases of false rape accusations. Traditional rape-related advocacy groups are also beginning to support male-male rape victims as well as male-female rape victims. Other advocacy groups that support male victims of female rape encourage recognition of female-male rape as rape rather than as a 'love affair', a 'relationship', or as a beneficial form of sex 'education'. However, female-male and female-female rape is rarely recognized as a statistically significant form of rape despite research indicating otherwise. Thus reporting rape by females remains difficult or impossible especially in jurisdictions where rape by a female is considered no crime or where the false perception persists that rape of a male by a female is impossible.[7]
Basically what this says is, "Even when not counting prisons" rape of males, even by other males is generally not a statistic that is kept in any form and in fact males claiming rape in general and female on male rape especially are generally not only not accounted for but intentionally mocked and ignored.
Rape as a whole is very under reported, but yes it is especially so with regards to females raping males. It is possible that there are more females raping males than vice versa, although I doubt that there are 250,000 + unreported male -> female rapes than unreported female -> male rapes, but there is no data on this so it's not really worth arguing it. However there is also the fact that the public perception is that almost all rapes occur male -> female which means that the majority of the female population will be much more worried about being raped than the majority of the male population even if most rapes were female -> male.
Most people being uninformed doesn't all of a sudden change how things are. I'm not saying that there's that many unreported cases either, but I will say my 66% statistic regarding murder is a lot closer (if not higher, but who knows) than you give it credit to be. Keeping in mind, again that males are more likely to be victim to murder (regardless of why, that again, isn't the point).
People being uninformed doesn't change how things are but seeing as this is about who will get offended by a certain term then how they view the situation surrounding that term is going to have a large effect on how they perceive that term
And what of the people who are informed? **** them because they are the minority? I'm not saying you are saying that, but I mean... that's how it comes off.
Main point being rape isn't anymore of a gendered insult than murder is, if the vast majority of the population who are uninformed disagree with me, then they can continue enjoying their Justin Beiber music and Farmville while I continue not catering to them just because they are the uninformed majority. I realize this goes back to me not caring, but really I think it points out that I'm not being completely unreasonable. Of course, I'm sure someone disagrees with me.
I'm not saying you are being unreasonable. You do have a good point about rape not being as gendered as most people think.
Bringing this back to the original article and it's points about sexist stuff happening in the community alienating potential female gamers. I think the public perception is an important thing to worry about, even if it is uninformed. There is a vocal minority of people who are very sexist and I think the vast majority of the community, while not sexist itself, doesn't care about the people who are so it continues (and also doesn't care about correcting people who aren't sexist but make a sexist remark because they don't know better). The only way to stop this is to actually call people out if they are being sexist (which TL is actually fairly decent at) which will let women feel like they belong in the community and join it which will make all but the worst trolls be more reasonable about it. I'm not saying you have to join in, if you don't care that's a perfectly reasonable stance but let people who do care spend their time doing it.
What I'm saying is if more females joining the community brings along with it this expectation to not say things like, "bitch", "rape", and according to mister, "every swear word is only degrading to females", "dick' among others then no, I rather not have females as part of the community. Of course I think a majority of people are more reasonable than that but I was simply trying to address the vocal majority who act as if saying the word, "dick" is all of a sudden degrading to females.
On September 19 2011 04:14 feathertoken wrote: For the first 20 pages of this thread, I was amazed. This is a very intelligent, rational message board. I love the fact that the moderators actually enforce civilized behavior. Then the incessant need for some people to be "correct" reared its ugly head. I know I am brand new, but I would like a few people here to think about this...
If you have posted more than 30 times in the same thread, you are being obnoxious and ruining the discussion for everyone else. Please control yourself. No one ever wins an debate on a message board. Ever.
As for the article, it was embarassing. The only way I can come to grips with it is to see it as a loud bout of name-dropping performance art that is meant to brag about a newfound politics that he can talk about with his girlfriend.
The issues of aggression in gaming are much better addressed by one of the comments posted on the Star City site immediately following the article. And I quote:
"As a female that only began playing MTG about five months ago, I’ve seen and heard less-than-desirable things uttered and written about women emanating from what has presented itself as one of the most sportsmanlike casual gaming communities around. Having been friends with gamers for years as well as a videogame enthusiast, I’d come to accept it as something that one was simply expected to “grin and bear” as a woman, as the gaming community has always seemed to be a kind of impenetrable boys’ club in which intellectualism, no matter how prevalent within the strategy-building and gameplay, is always secondary to a kind of brutish, systematic desire for the title of alpha-dog within the pack.
While some of my gaming friends through the years have been the sweetest, most intelligent men I’ve known, I have noted that gaming is often the only way for these men to express their aggression, especially as a generation that will never see the ugly face of war unless it volunteers itself to.For the majority of men and women alike, the spectrum for potential greatness is, in many ways, more limited than it has ever been before. This is a point in history in which technology has made nearly anything and everything possible, but in such a way that the majority of us cannot potentially contribute to that evolution, as we do not possess what is essentially a somewhat elitist skillset. Unfortunately, this realization is colliding with (and, arguably, causing) a catastrophic economic downturn, causing individuals that may already feel somewhat emasculated by the inability to express physical domination to feel even moreso, adding shades of isolation and shame. So, when one is given the opportunity to express discontentment through the vehicle of another individual’s “trollish” statements through the most passive-aggressive safety blanket we as a people have ever invented (i.e.: the Internet), one leaps at the opportunity to become the king of commentators/trolls/whistle-blowers/generally outraged citizens by expressing some kind of personal greatness in calling out someone else for something silly that has been said."
[edit] Italicized the part of the quote I was referring to.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative. It started off pretty rocky but I give lorkac and HereticSaint a lot of credit for continuing the dialogue with a certain amount of rhetorical respect, despite coming from different sides of a huge divide, and what could be construed as personal attacks. Lorkac (in my opinion) is a rather unbiased source of gender-studies knowledge and opinions, and he's doing a good job fielding the arguments across a broad spectrum, much of which was focused on a sophomoric linguistic debate at first. HereticSaint is the model forum fighter, providing myriad documented evidence to support his arguments while he's fighting uphill against an ideology that by definition tries to supercede the world view he's operating with. That's brave, and hard work to keep a level head.
When you're trying to combat prejudice, in this case agitate for altered community-wide behavior to limit perceived sexism, it's very difficult not to be inherently attacking the community you're trying to reform. Of course people will get defensive. Most of them aren't really defending themselves rationally, they're just saying "I"m not wrong you're dumb". In this case, if you want to take the time to read dozens of pages, you can see the alternative to that unfold, wherein an actual discussion of various points takes place while a object of the reform tries to hold the reformer accountable.
Please understand that I'm not making a judgement on either of these people (both of whom are awesome intellectual competitors in their own way, in a way we can all benefit from, if you ask me). For the record, I'm strongly in favor of a shift in gamer culture--to lead the way in society as a whole--to curb implicit sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice). I'm not sure how I feel about the actual Geordie Tait article. The choice to take a "daddy's sorry" tone shows a lack of acuity for the subject, using style to make up for shortcomings in substance. I think you can detect the "beyond the comfort zone" feeling of an author trying to do something more than they're used to... which is write articles about MTG. Earlier I wrote an angry post trying to clarify this side of things more. The intersection of the sc2 community with this MTG article community is pretty much a giant unknown more the vast majority of the people who were posting and it was irritating that (as usual) there were outcries about off topic shit from people who had no clue what they were talking about. As it turns out, most of the thread was moot argument because the day9 quote is in fact real and true.
My broader point then, which I wasn't clear about, and which I will try to get noticed as much as possible in the future, is that as esports garners more and more attention from outside, even from "nearby" outside like another segment of gaming culture, there will continue to be things we find that may misrepresent us. There's nothing you can do about the fact that it will happen, because it will, repeatedly. The best possible thing you can do is not be insulted by blatantly wrong tripe. Instead, be reasonable and try to get it corrected so people who nothing about us don't see misinformation. Raging about it just reflects poorly and reinforces the perception that we are culturally unacceptable and inept at interacting like a normal segment of society. In this case, however, there is a serious problem of sexism. (Obviously this is not limited to just our community. That doesn't make it okay to ignore it here.) If you don't understand why people are saying something that seems stupid to you, maybe you should read up on it, hell, even read the thread and the linked articles first, and then share your opinions. Better yet, ask a question instead. Try assuming that you're wrong, so you can learn something in the process of showing someone else why you're right. If you're not interested in what I just said, why are you sharing your opinion?
I was also masochistic enough to read the entire thread. It left me with a very different impression. I think that the tone, civility, honesty, and level of argumentation exhibited by both lorkac and HereticSaint has been so low as to add nothing to my understanding of the debate. I think that it has been so low as to also actively discourage more level-headed, intelligent, honest people from contributing to the discussion for fear of being shut out of the discussion with an onslaught of misrepresentative hyperbole and superficial points.
Having read this entire thread, you probably know that I tried to contribute earlier and hopefully interact with people who were willing to have an intelligent discussion about these important issues. The horrendous, misleading responses I received from lorkac convinced me that this was a lost cause. I can only imagine, or hope, that if posters like these had been absent from the thread, a more enlightening dialogue could have taken place.
I'm not going to be civil towards someone who shoves words into not only my mouth, but others and also is arrogant enough to not only assume they know how I think but how I lived and currently live. Compare our posting history not just in this thread, but other ones and you'll see I at least attempt to debate, stay on topic and use factual evidence as the basis for this. Where he posts rage pics, talks smack and goes the equivalent of, "lolwut" in quite a few threads.
That being said I still apologize if you felt less inclined to post due to me and will try to improve my posting henceforth.
On September 17 2011 23:44 KwarK wrote: Pretty sure he didn't say "you young bitch". I'm checking now but I watched it pretty recently and I don't recall that. I expect it's standard bullshit journalism.
Exact quote (36 mins in)
It really pissed me off, this one girl I dated, I explained to her gg, that you say good game, and she would type it to me on AIM but she would do lower case g, period, lower case g, period. I'm like "that's not how you abbreviate it, it's gg, it's this thing" and she would like do it to poke fun at me. Urghh! So glad that ended. Clearly she does not respect the important things in life.
Ya same thought. I watched it Thursday night and don't remember that quote the author used. Sean's probably one of the most respectful guys in the gaming industry. He always is saying how grateful and thankful he is for his friends and a majority of them are women, it seems. i.e. cambria.
I don't see anymore sexism in gaming than anywhere else honestly. Sexual themes/jokes are everywhere, because sex is such a mainstream thing.
The actual quote is from him doing monobattles at another date (link in the top bar look @ 20 minutes). The author isn't saying Sean is sexist. He's saying even the nicest of people (i.e. Sean) can say stuff people find offensive even if it was meant to be a joke and they didn't realise it could be offensive.
On September 19 2011 04:14 feathertoken wrote: For the first 20 pages of this thread, I was amazed. This is a very intelligent, rational message board. I love the fact that the moderators actually enforce civilized behavior. Then the incessant need for some people to be "correct" reared its ugly head. I know I am brand new, but I would like a few people here to think about this...
If you have posted more than 30 times in the same thread, you are being obnoxious and ruining the discussion for everyone else. Please control yourself. No one ever wins an debate on a message board. Ever.
As for the article, it was embarassing. The only way I can come to grips with it is to see it as a loud bout of name-dropping performance art that is meant to brag about a newfound politics that he can talk about with his girlfriend.
The issues of aggression in gaming are much better addressed by one of the comments posted on the Star City site immediately following the article. And I quote:
"As a female that only began playing MTG about five months ago, I’ve seen and heard less-than-desirable things uttered and written about women emanating from what has presented itself as one of the most sportsmanlike casual gaming communities around. Having been friends with gamers for years as well as a videogame enthusiast, I’d come to accept it as something that one was simply expected to “grin and bear” as a woman, as the gaming community has always seemed to be a kind of impenetrable boys’ club in which intellectualism, no matter how prevalent within the strategy-building and gameplay, is always secondary to a kind of brutish, systematic desire for the title of alpha-dog within the pack.
While some of my gaming friends through the years have been the sweetest, most intelligent men I’ve known, I have noted that gaming is often the only way for these men to express their aggression, especially as a generation that will never see the ugly face of war unless it volunteers itself to.For the majority of men and women alike, the spectrum for potential greatness is, in many ways, more limited than it has ever been before. This is a point in history in which technology has made nearly anything and everything possible, but in such a way that the majority of us cannot potentially contribute to that evolution, as we do not possess what is essentially a somewhat elitist skillset. Unfortunately, this realization is colliding with (and, arguably, causing) a catastrophic economic downturn, causing individuals that may already feel somewhat emasculated by the inability to express physical domination to feel even moreso, adding shades of isolation and shame. So, when one is given the opportunity to express discontentment through the vehicle of another individual’s “trollish” statements through the most passive-aggressive safety blanket we as a people have ever invented (i.e.: the Internet), one leaps at the opportunity to become the king of commentators/trolls/whistle-blowers/generally outraged citizens by expressing some kind of personal greatness in calling out someone else for something silly that has been said."
[edit] Italicized the part of the quote I was referring to.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative. It started off pretty rocky but I give lorkac and HereticSaint a lot of credit for continuing the dialogue with a certain amount of rhetorical respect, despite coming from different sides of a huge divide, and what could be construed as personal attacks. Lorkac (in my opinion) is a rather unbiased source of gender-studies knowledge and opinions, and he's doing a good job fielding the arguments across a broad spectrum, much of which was focused on a sophomoric linguistic debate at first. HereticSaint is the model forum fighter, providing myriad documented evidence to support his arguments while he's fighting uphill against an ideology that by definition tries to supercede the world view he's operating with. That's brave, and hard work to keep a level head.
When you're trying to combat prejudice, in this case agitate for altered community-wide behavior to limit perceived sexism, it's very difficult not to be inherently attacking the community you're trying to reform. Of course people will get defensive. Most of them aren't really defending themselves rationally, they're just saying "I"m not wrong you're dumb". In this case, if you want to take the time to read dozens of pages, you can see the alternative to that unfold, wherein an actual discussion of various points takes place while a object of the reform tries to hold the reformer accountable.
Please understand that I'm not making a judgement on either of these people (both of whom are awesome intellectual competitors in their own way, in a way we can all benefit from, if you ask me). For the record, I'm strongly in favor of a shift in gamer culture--to lead the way in society as a whole--to curb implicit sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice). I'm not sure how I feel about the actual Geordie Tait article. The choice to take a "daddy's sorry" tone shows a lack of acuity for the subject, using style to make up for shortcomings in substance. I think you can detect the "beyond the comfort zone" feeling of an author trying to do something more than they're used to... which is write articles about MTG. Earlier I wrote an angry post trying to clarify this side of things more. The intersection of the sc2 community with this MTG article community is pretty much a giant unknown more the vast majority of the people who were posting and it was irritating that (as usual) there were outcries about off topic shit from people who had no clue what they were talking about. As it turns out, most of the thread was moot argument because the day9 quote is in fact real and true.
My broader point then, which I wasn't clear about, and which I will try to get noticed as much as possible in the future, is that as esports garners more and more attention from outside, even from "nearby" outside like another segment of gaming culture, there will continue to be things we find that may misrepresent us. There's nothing you can do about the fact that it will happen, because it will, repeatedly. The best possible thing you can do is not be insulted by blatantly wrong tripe. Instead, be reasonable and try to get it corrected so people who nothing about us don't see misinformation. Raging about it just reflects poorly and reinforces the perception that we are culturally unacceptable and inept at interacting like a normal segment of society. In this case, however, there is a serious problem of sexism. (Obviously this is not limited to just our community. That doesn't make it okay to ignore it here.) If you don't understand why people are saying something that seems stupid to you, maybe you should read up on it, hell, even read the thread and the linked articles first, and then share your opinions. Better yet, ask a question instead. Try assuming that you're wrong, so you can learn something in the process of showing someone else why you're right. If you're not interested in what I just said, why are you sharing your opinion?
I was also masochistic enough to read the entire thread. It left me with a very different impression. I think that the tone, civility, honesty, and level of argumentation exhibited by both lorkac and HereticSaint has been so low as to add nothing to my understanding of the debate. I think that it has been so low as to also actively discourage more level-headed, intelligent, honest people from contributing to the discussion for fear of being shut out of the discussion with an onslaught of misrepresentative hyperbole and superficial points.
Having read this entire thread, you probably know that I tried to contribute earlier and hopefully interact with people who were willing to have an intelligent discussion about these important issues. The horrendous, misleading responses I received from lorkac convinced me that this was a lost cause. I can only imagine, or hope, that if posters like these had been absent from the thread, a more enlightening dialogue could have taken place.
In order to respond to you I'm rereading that stuff. I'll edit. [edit] posted instead, heh. ><
Sorry to interject. This probably has been said before but she went out with the 1st Magic player in the world, which is also a professional poker player who won a 3.500.000$ Tournament.
And she tough it was a bad thing.
I actually facepalmed hard in front of my computer because of how stupid that sound.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative.
Self-indulgent talking to hear themselves talk? That's not information, that's boring. I will say it again, this thread was great until it was taken over by three or four people who insist on "fighting uphill" until the whole thread is unreadable. I tried to skim past all their bickering, but eventually it just becomes an embarassing example of unchecked narcissism.
Not only that, but ignoring unreported stats which are hard to deal with because they are unreported, but which is sex is most cautious about when and where a person walks for fear of being sexually assaulted? And before someone jumps in mugging issues in bad parts of town. Yes of course there's areas you want to avoid male/ or female. But females most often are concerned about the possibility of sexual assault in areas males would generally not even dream of thinking about. Even the small uni I went to we had several creeps either groping or exposing themselves in some of the poorly lit areas on or around campus. All male to female. Most girls continued to walk, some were quite unconcerned, but it is an extra calculation that females are more likely to make then males.
The stats ARE hard to deal with and those stats are the only thing which would be in your favor! Did you even read the studies? Go research it yourself if you think I'm full of ****. Men are much, much less likely to report rape especially by a female than a woman would be by a man. Explain to me how that doesn't make the stats if anything slide into my favor, especially in regard to how damaging it is to males.
Yes stats are in my favour, rape is under-reported in general and I'm confident men are much less likely to report rape then women. But as far as primary discourse is concerned, when the word rape is mentioned, rape against men is not immediately associated. Only if you're part of a secondary discourse- have been, know someone, or know about rape against male would the word immediately rape immediately be associated with men. That could be something to work on. Bring more awareness to the issue because that secondary discourse is valid.
However, if you're talking about the primary discourse, when the word rape is mentioned, two things can come to mind male to female rape and possibly beating someone in a video game. I would actually argue that male to female rape is the primary discourse that is immediately associated with the word and dominating someone in a game is also a secondary discourse that has developed amongst gamers and that is slowly working it's way into the primary discourse.
All that to say, the word 'rape' carries a couple different meanings at the same time and you cannot pick and choose which ones other people think of because the word currently carries sexual violence against women as the automatic association with most people. It's the issue of shared social meaning when we think of different words. ex) dog- there's all sorts of mental images and values that are tied into the one word: Man's best friend, loyalty, determined (dogged). Pretty much any word is going to carry a weight of shared meaning behind it, good or bad.
My point about ignoring stats though. You are arguing hard that rape effects males and females without discrimination. I would say based on societal behaviour, this is demonstrably not true. Who is most concerned about poorly lit paths on uni campus? Who is most concerned with "Take Back the Night?" etc, etc. Your prison examples are horrific, but limited to prisons and quite possibly to the unique situation of the US's prison system (at least the rampant issues.) Rape in total society play a far larger part on women's calculations of when and where they will go and with whom, and from whom they will accept a drink at a bar (date rape), etc.
I am arguing that if rape is gendered then so is murder.(As I think that these statistics are at least in the same realm of "lopsidedness") If you don't want me to use that as an example then I could always try another word. I've never been raped nor has anyone I known (I was almost raped, but I wouldn't count that) at the same time I still believe when I say the word, "rape" in game I am primarily speaking of, "owning" someone (Could be considered racist), or defeating them (don't know if you could put a sexual context on that one, but I'm sure you know who will if you can) and then secondarily I think of someone (not a gender) who is forcibly made to have sexual intercourse of some form.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative.
Self-indulgent talking to hear themselves talk? That's not information, that's boring. I will say it again, this thread was great until it was taken over by three or four people who insist on "fighting uphill" until the whole thread is unreadable. I tried to skim past all their bickering, but eventually it just becomes an embarassing example of unchecked narcissism.
A lot like the original article, actually.
This is what happens in a normal discussion. There is a lot of back and forth between people. You don't see debates where people say their piece and leave. People argue their point with the aim of finding some common ground, although this isn't always achieved.
Ok so now that i just read the full story i though the transition from "Payback paragraph" to "Mysoginy" paragraph was weak, if not non-existent.
Even though the payback is probably harder than it should, she is bashed for her stupidity, not for being a woman dating a gamer or anything sex-related, so i dont see anything special to see here.
Sorry to interject. This probably has been said before but she went out with the 1st Magic player in the world, which is also a professional poker player who won a 3.500.000$ Tournament.
And she tough it was a bad thing.
I actually facepalmed hard in front of my computer because of how stupid that sound.
She didn't find him attractive, and they had *nothing* in common. Yeah, she thought it was a "bad thing."
There's nothing wrong with that, and to imply that she should have kept dating with him merely because he's successful is silly.
On September 19 2011 04:14 feathertoken wrote: For the first 20 pages of this thread, I was amazed. This is a very intelligent, rational message board. I love the fact that the moderators actually enforce civilized behavior. Then the incessant need for some people to be "correct" reared its ugly head. I know I am brand new, but I would like a few people here to think about this...
If you have posted more than 30 times in the same thread, you are being obnoxious and ruining the discussion for everyone else. Please control yourself. No one ever wins an debate on a message board. Ever.
As for the article, it was embarassing. The only way I can come to grips with it is to see it as a loud bout of name-dropping performance art that is meant to brag about a newfound politics that he can talk about with his girlfriend.
The issues of aggression in gaming are much better addressed by one of the comments posted on the Star City site immediately following the article. And I quote:
"As a female that only began playing MTG about five months ago, I’ve seen and heard less-than-desirable things uttered and written about women emanating from what has presented itself as one of the most sportsmanlike casual gaming communities around. Having been friends with gamers for years as well as a videogame enthusiast, I’d come to accept it as something that one was simply expected to “grin and bear” as a woman, as the gaming community has always seemed to be a kind of impenetrable boys’ club in which intellectualism, no matter how prevalent within the strategy-building and gameplay, is always secondary to a kind of brutish, systematic desire for the title of alpha-dog within the pack.
While some of my gaming friends through the years have been the sweetest, most intelligent men I’ve known, I have noted that gaming is often the only way for these men to express their aggression, especially as a generation that will never see the ugly face of war unless it volunteers itself to.For the majority of men and women alike, the spectrum for potential greatness is, in many ways, more limited than it has ever been before. This is a point in history in which technology has made nearly anything and everything possible, but in such a way that the majority of us cannot potentially contribute to that evolution, as we do not possess what is essentially a somewhat elitist skillset. Unfortunately, this realization is colliding with (and, arguably, causing) a catastrophic economic downturn, causing individuals that may already feel somewhat emasculated by the inability to express physical domination to feel even moreso, adding shades of isolation and shame. So, when one is given the opportunity to express discontentment through the vehicle of another individual’s “trollish” statements through the most passive-aggressive safety blanket we as a people have ever invented (i.e.: the Internet), one leaps at the opportunity to become the king of commentators/trolls/whistle-blowers/generally outraged citizens by expressing some kind of personal greatness in calling out someone else for something silly that has been said."
[edit] Italicized the part of the quote I was referring to.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that an extended rally of posts between two people can't be informative. It started off pretty rocky but I give lorkac and HereticSaint a lot of credit for continuing the dialogue with a certain amount of rhetorical respect, despite coming from different sides of a huge divide, and what could be construed as personal attacks. Lorkac (in my opinion) is a rather unbiased source of gender-studies knowledge and opinions, and he's doing a good job fielding the arguments across a broad spectrum, much of which was focused on a sophomoric linguistic debate at first. HereticSaint is the model forum fighter, providing myriad documented evidence to support his arguments while he's fighting uphill against an ideology that by definition tries to supercede the world view he's operating with. That's brave, and hard work to keep a level head.
When you're trying to combat prejudice, in this case agitate for altered community-wide behavior to limit perceived sexism, it's very difficult not to be inherently attacking the community you're trying to reform. Of course people will get defensive. Most of them aren't really defending themselves rationally, they're just saying "I"m not wrong you're dumb". In this case, if you want to take the time to read dozens of pages, you can see the alternative to that unfold, wherein an actual discussion of various points takes place while a object of the reform tries to hold the reformer accountable.
Please understand that I'm not making a judgement on either of these people (both of whom are awesome intellectual competitors in their own way, in a way we can all benefit from, if you ask me). For the record, I'm strongly in favor of a shift in gamer culture--to lead the way in society as a whole--to curb implicit sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice). I'm not sure how I feel about the actual Geordie Tait article. The choice to take a "daddy's sorry" tone shows a lack of acuity for the subject, using style to make up for shortcomings in substance. I think you can detect the "beyond the comfort zone" feeling of an author trying to do something more than they're used to... which is write articles about MTG. Earlier I wrote an angry post trying to clarify this side of things more. The intersection of the sc2 community with this MTG article community is pretty much a giant unknown more the vast majority of the people who were posting and it was irritating that (as usual) there were outcries about off topic shit from people who had no clue what they were talking about. As it turns out, most of the thread was moot argument because the day9 quote is in fact real and true.
My broader point then, which I wasn't clear about, and which I will try to get noticed as much as possible in the future, is that as esports garners more and more attention from outside, even from "nearby" outside like another segment of gaming culture, there will continue to be things we find that may misrepresent us. There's nothing you can do about the fact that it will happen, because it will, repeatedly. The best possible thing you can do is not be insulted by blatantly wrong tripe. Instead, be reasonable and try to get it corrected so people who nothing about us don't see misinformation. Raging about it just reflects poorly and reinforces the perception that we are culturally unacceptable and inept at interacting like a normal segment of society. In this case, however, there is a serious problem of sexism. (Obviously this is not limited to just our community. That doesn't make it okay to ignore it here.) If you don't understand why people are saying something that seems stupid to you, maybe you should read up on it, hell, even read the thread and the linked articles first, and then share your opinions. Better yet, ask a question instead. Try assuming that you're wrong, so you can learn something in the process of showing someone else why you're right. If you're not interested in what I just said, why are you sharing your opinion?
I was also masochistic enough to read the entire thread. It left me with a very different impression. I think that the tone, civility, honesty, and level of argumentation exhibited by both lorkac and HereticSaint has been so low as to add nothing to my understanding of the debate. I think that it has been so low as to also actively discourage more level-headed, intelligent, honest people from contributing to the discussion for fear of being shut out of the discussion with an onslaught of misrepresentative hyperbole and superficial points.
Having read this entire thread, you probably know that I tried to contribute earlier and hopefully interact with people who were willing to have an intelligent discussion about these important issues. The horrendous, misleading responses I received from lorkac convinced me that this was a lost cause. I can only imagine, or hope, that if posters like these had been absent from the thread, a more enlightening dialogue could have taken place.
I'm gonna have to agree... I provide a simple statistic, and lorkac throws me an xkcd comic unrelated to my post.
This is what happens in a normal discussion. There is a lot of back and forth between people. You don't see debates where people say their piece and leave. People argue their point with the aim of finding some common ground, although this isn't always achieved.
That's apologetic crap to cover bad form.
I will say it one more time. The first 20 pages or so were varied opinions from the community. Then the thread was monopolized by a "normal discussion" which actually reads like an attention grabbing temper tantrum by a few people who insist they are smarter than each other without being smart enough to know that neither will admit that they are ruining the thread for everyone else.
If that's what these boards are like, they must be as boring as the rest. I was hoping, from the beginning of the thread, that this place was different.
EPT
