|
On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people.
Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women?
|
Todays western society measuers everything in $.
Men are better off in this department and therefore Women are seen as the "discriminated" Gender.
Make out of that what you will.
|
On March 11 2015 23:37 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Sorry bud, saying that women are worse off than men when talking biologically is indeed a nonsense, but when talking about men and women as societal groups it makes a lot of sense and has a very legit value. Just like a comparison between two societal groups almost always make sense.
Yeah, because women on average can lift as much as men?
|
On March 11 2015 23:44 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:37 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Sorry bud, saying that women are worse off than men when talking biologically is indeed a nonsense, but when talking about men and women as societal groups it makes a lot of sense and has a very legit value. Just like a comparison between two societal groups almost always make sense. Yeah, because women on average can lift as much as men?
That's it folks, he did it. Feminism is over because they can't lift as much as men. Pack up your stuff and lets all go home.
|
On March 11 2015 23:44 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:37 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Sorry bud, saying that women are worse off than men when talking biologically is indeed a nonsense, but when talking about men and women as societal groups it makes a lot of sense and has a very legit value. Just like a comparison between two societal groups almost always make sense. Yeah, because women on average can lift as much as men?
...
I suggest you read my post again. If you still don't get it, here's the thing :
-things such as alcohol tolerance or amount of weight that can be lifted is biological.
-things such as average salary, amount of domestic violence received or given, or society-based discrimination in general is societal.
|
Hahaha.
Instantly reminded me of this extract from a French comedy movie:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Close the thread, because this discussion is going nowhere. Only violent revolution by females can change things and overthrow male supremacy. Can they do it because they lift less? That is the question.
|
On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women?
This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment.
On March 11 2015 23:37 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Sorry bud, saying that women are worse off than men when talking biologically is indeed a nonsense, but when talking about men and women as societal groups it makes a lot of sense and has a very legit value. Just like a comparison between two societal groups almost always make sense.
A comparison in one specific area, as above - representation in government, rates of homelessness - can be made, but overall both genders have distinct advantages and disadvantages set upon them by society/biology. An overall comparison is meaningless because they both have different benefits and problems. How do you decide which is worse, a higher chance of being raped or a higher chance of being murdered? A higher chance of being homeless or a lower chance of being in government? It's meaningless.
|
On March 12 2015 00:07 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women? This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:37 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Sorry bud, saying that women are worse off than men when talking biologically is indeed a nonsense, but when talking about men and women as societal groups it makes a lot of sense and has a very legit value. Just like a comparison between two societal groups almost always make sense. A comparison in one specific area, as above - representation in government, rates of homelessness - can be made, but overall both genders have distinct advantages and disadvantages set upon them by society/biology. An overall comparison is meaningless because they both have different benefits and problems. How do you decide which is worse, a higher chance of being raped or a higher chance of being murdered? A higher chance of being homeless or a lower chance of being in government? It's meaningless.
An overall comparison is indeed meaningless, I agree with you here. I just walked in the thread and saw your post, and I thought that you were implying that saying that women were worse off than men in a precise domain had no value/meaning. However, I don't see how this is related to "it takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative", since feminism in its non-extreme forms can be about pointing objectively true comparison, such as the underrepresentation of women in governments/powerful positions in general, etc.
|
On March 11 2015 22:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:37 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 11 2015 11:19 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. The quote is: "There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." Now if you don't understand why this is not a given, I probably can't help you (with this, or with anything else, really). But let me explain. She makes an argument that has these 3 parts 1- Premise: Sexism = Prejudice + Power 2- Men have all the power (women have none) 3- Therefore, sexism against men is impossible because women cannot have power There are at least two problems 1- The premise does not refer to EVERY definition of sexism, in fact I don't know that any widely agreed upon definitions of sexism which necessarily require power (nor do they define what power is, but from my poli sci background (and just common sense really), power goes beyond "domination", which is my next point) 2- If we agree with the premise, then we have to consider that there are many forms of power. Power is not only complete domination - power can exist in the workspace, for instance (obviously). If a woman runs a business, she can exert her power (in that arena) and her prejudice, thus making her sexist against men. It may not be systemic sexism to the extent that the one women face, but it's sexism nonetheless. So no I don't agree that the notion of sexism, or racism, should always be from the majority to a minority. That's just a weird way to try to gain points in an argument, by preventing others from turning it back against them, by preventing nuances from being brought up. And God knows the people of the Internet don't deal in nuances. Nuances are too hard to some of these people. My point is, in the end, if we were to settle for a definition of the word "sexism" which only applied in the way which is suggested here, we'd definitely need a more neutral word to replace it, because "sexism" would've been hijacked by the proponents of a certain ideology, and would become tainted for any use by intellectuals. I agree that the comment is problematic in a context like Twitter, but more because Twitter is not the environment in which the theoretical basis for that claim can actually be explained. There are actually several theoretical approaches to sexism in which power is very clearly a central concern. A fairly readable example is C.J. Pascoe's Dude, You're a Fag, and the additional literature is extensive. Jane Hill's [The Everyday Language of White Racism takes a similar approach to racism. Again, plenty of lit out there. "Power" is also an ambiguous term, but I think here it can be clarified. Yes, Hilary Clinton has more power than your average American man. But what we're interested in as social scientists is "how does being female affect Hilary Clinton's political, social, economic, and cultural power?" It is one thing to say, "Hilary Clinton is more powerful than I am," and another to say, "Hilary Clinton's power follows from the fact that she is female." The first is usually a given, the second is quite possibly false. In fact, one might suggest that Hilary Clinton is powerful despite the fact that she is female, a traditionally power-deprived social group. This leaves room for both sexism and powerful women. "Men are the dominant gender with power in society" is also misleading. It can easily be interpreted in the way that you did, which is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure it means something else: that while being a female is often not helpful when one seeks power, being a male often is. This doesn't mean that all men are powerful and all women are powerless. It just means being male often reduces barriers to power. When and how this happens tends to vary based on the context, which is one reason for why people focus their gender studies on specific areas and topics. Responding to a post from a few pages back. I agree with literally all of this and to my senses it certainly does not support the content of her tweet. Whatever definition you give to power, women can have it despite the fact that it's harder, so twisting the definition of sexism so it can only mean sexism toward a minority serves no purpose other than to win an argument by dismissing nuanced comments. If people were actually interested in an intellectual argument, this kind of hijacking of terms would not be accepted in a debate, because it is VERY CLEARLY being instrumentalized. And I've seen these kinds of attempts get shut down before. I myself am from a social sciences background and rigorous researchers would never ever stand for that. And even if you support the cause of feminism, as I do - I'm very much an egalitarian - then you shouldn't accept a weak definition of sexism, because it undermines the debate and it undermines the entire discussion. Which brings me back to my initial point: Yes there is a big problem, but this is not how you fight it. Much of this "sexism in games" thing, while partially true, is communicated in a vile way much of the time. In the end, it hasn't really opened a debate because it has just been mudslinging. This is the most reasonable debate I've ever seen on it and people are nonetheless very dogmatic here and blindly accept biased or prejudiced definitions of some concepts without a second thought because it supports their predispositions. This polarized mudslinging is not opening a debate, it's making everyone uneasy because no one is willing to actually talk. Everyone wants to checkmate their opponent before words can even be said, and that's why reasonable definitions of certain terms, so we can debate using the same words, are dismissed out of the gate. Furthermore, people who'd like to bring some nuance to the debate are dismissed or considered MRA's or sexists for not outright agreeing with all the stuff that's been brought forward by credible and less credible feminist thinkers alike. I love the feminists in my university because the ones I've spoken to about the subject of feminism are willing to discuss it. They're not so adversarial. And they're into social sciences above all. They're not publicists and activists (who I profoundly respect, but if your goal is to have a healthy intellectual debate, you're generally not getting it with them). [/i]
I definitely agree that the words people are throwing around aren't actually that clear, which leads to a lot of equivocating and general misunderstanding. However I'm not sure that "twisting the definition of sexism so it can only mean sexism toward a minority serves no purpose other than to win an argument by dismissing nuanced comments," although again I can understand why you feel this way since it does get deployed as an obvious truth when it's actually a theoretically complex position. Part of what I hoped to show with my earlier post was that this definition of sexism actually does have theoretical merit beyond being just a rhetorical tool, and that this shouldn't be just dismissed off the bat. Part of its merit is that it gives us a nuanced framework for understanding how gender impacts power in a world where there are many different empowering and disempowering factors.
I am also not sure how the documentary will ultimately communicate its message, or in fact what exactly its message will be. Without watching it, we're left speculating.
|
On March 12 2015 00:07 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women? This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment.
Okay so if the behaviour is directed at everyone and not just women, why is it a bad thing that women are trying to get people to be polite to them? Why is this special treatment really?
Let's say we replace the terms with other things. Suppose everyone gets bullied in a school. Student group A says, we're tired of getting bullied, and this has to stop. They might be acting on the mistake that they get bullied more, but at the end of the day if they are successfully, that's less bullying in school. Added bonus is that there's probably going to be a roll over effect since people realise that bullying is wrong and bullying less people generally and not just student group A. And while Group A is doing their thing, there is nothing stopping group B or group C to also make their own efforts.
Taking a step back from whatever issues we might have with feminism or whatever, can someone please say why is the practical result a bad thing?
|
One problem i see is that there is no "trying to get people to be nice to each other". What i tend to see is people saying "OMG Gamers, those dudes are so sexist!"
I am all for people being polite to each other. Online, offline, in the supermarket, on the street, whereever. When people are polite to each other, that is generally a better enviroment for everyone involved. People should not be more polite to someone just because that person is female, they should be similarly polite to everyone.
I am not for people portraying a group i belong to as sexist assholes because they took the lowest scum from the worst parts of that group, and generalize from that towards the whole.
|
On March 12 2015 00:32 Simberto wrote:
One problem i see is that there is no "trying to get people to be nice to each other". What i tend to see is people saying "OMG Gamers, those dudes are so sexist!"
I am all for people being polite to each other. Online, offline, in the supermarket, on the street, whereever. When people are polite to each other, that is generally a better enviroment for everyone involved. People should not be more polite to someone just because that person is female, they should be similarly polite to everyone.
I am not for people portraying a group i belong to as sexist assholes because they took the lowest scum from the worst parts of that group, and generalize from that towards the whole.
Well first, i think someone has already elaborated on this point quite a bit. The gist is that when the comment is made that women are harassed by male gamers, the comment is directed at the gaming community generally. It isn't saying that all of us wake up every morning with "threaten 5 women with rape on Xbox live", but rather that we are part of community that actively (all the actual trolls etc) or passively (people who facilitate trolly behaviour, people who are relucatant to join efforts to make things better, people who don't see it a problemt) etc harasses women online. So things like this documentary isn't meant to be directed at you or anyone personally, but the community at large.
I tend to think that makes sense. A lot of gamers tend to be unaware of gender issues simply as a matter of innocent ignorance - the community is just so male dominated that we aren't sensitized to gender, or people who are different from the male majority. And yes the trolls tend to be in the minority, but there are also people who (while not trolls themselves) find trolls amusing or funny, and there are also people that think the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, and actively shoot down other ways of dealing with trolls. All this go towards a community which facilitates the harassment of women (or others) online.
Second, so even if you're right, and say that there is a gross mischaracterisation of male gamers by women gamers:
1) Okay so their premise is misguided, but what they are practically asking for (people to be polite) still benefits everyone.
2) Which is the better response by male gamers:
(a) proving them wrong by saying "yes we agree that harassment of any kind is bad and we hope the best for your efforts"
or
(b) fuelling the flames by opposing what they are trying to do
|
On March 12 2015 00:15 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 00:07 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women? This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment. Okay so if the behaviour is directed at everyone and not just women, why is it a bad thing that women are trying to get people to be polite to them? Why is this special treatment really? Let's say we replace the terms with other things. Suppose everyone gets bullied in a school. Student group A says, we're tired of getting bullied, and this has to stop. They might be acting on the mistake that they get bullied more, but at the end of the day if they are successfully, that's less bullying in school. Added bonus is that there's probably going to be a roll over effect since people realise that bullying is wrong and bullying less people generally and not just student group A.
As mentioned, there are foolproof methods of stopping bullying in online games already. This documentary does not seem to be a candid/balanced look at abusive behaviour in gaming, rather it looks like an exercise in entitlement; a demonstration of how cruel the world is to women which ignores how cruel those kids are to everybody they think they can offend. One of their 'solutions' is more female developers... in a genre that is clearly targeted primarily at teenage-young adult males (think about what Call of Duty actually is)... What does that say to you? To me that's disingenuous.
Also, lots of people enjoy the toxicity. I would rather have a toxic community than a sterilised one. At some point you have to accept that not everybody is nice, not everybody shares your world view and not everybody wants to make you happy. If you don't like it, you have the option of muting them or trolling them back. It's part of the dynamic of online games. I'd miss it.
|
On March 12 2015 00:50 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 00:15 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 00:07 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women? This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment. Okay so if the behaviour is directed at everyone and not just women, why is it a bad thing that women are trying to get people to be polite to them? Why is this special treatment really? Let's say we replace the terms with other things. Suppose everyone gets bullied in a school. Student group A says, we're tired of getting bullied, and this has to stop. They might be acting on the mistake that they get bullied more, but at the end of the day if they are successfully, that's less bullying in school. Added bonus is that there's probably going to be a roll over effect since people realise that bullying is wrong and bullying less people generally and not just student group A. As mentioned, there are foolproof methods of stopping bullying in online games already. This documentary does not seem to be a candid/balanced look at abusive behaviour in gaming, rather it looks like an exercise in entitlement; a demonstration of how cruel the world is to women which ignores how cruel those kids are to everybody they think they can offend. One of their 'solutions' is more female developers... in a genre that is clearly targeted primarily at teenage-young adult males (think about what Call of Duty actually is)... What does that say to you? To me that's disingenuous. Also, lots of people enjoy the toxicity. I would rather have a toxic community than a sterilised one. At some point you have to accept that not everybody is nice, not everybody shares your world view and not everybody wants to make you happy. If you don't like it, you have the option of muting them or trolling them back. It's part of the dynamic of online games. I'd miss it.
Again, that puts you in a minority. Feel free to enjoy being an asshole to other people, but understand that is not a common view. Muting and reporting systems are not foolproof and do not stop bullying. For one, most of the games where mute functions are necessary rely heavily on team communication, so having to mute your teammate because he is being a dick is counterproductive. I don't consider that a perfect solution. And when trolls get muted and/or banned that just makes them quiet trolls, they don't magically become better people.
And your point about developers gets down to the crux of the argument, if more women were interested in gaming this would no longer be a genre clearly targeted at teenage and young-adult males. More female developers would likely mean more games that are interesting to women, there is no downside to that. It doesn't mean the next Call of Duty won't get made or that there will somehow be less games for gaming's current core demographic to enjoy.
If anything, having more female developers would mean better written female characters, even in our dude games, and that can never be a bad thing. It requires more women being interested in the games industry, which is mostly on them, but we need to not be purposefully excluding them every chance we get either.
|
On March 12 2015 00:14 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 22:32 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 12:37 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 11 2015 11:19 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +[quote] Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. The quote is: "There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." Now if you don't understand why this is not a given, I probably can't help you (with this, or with anything else, really). But let me explain. She makes an argument that has these 3 parts 1- Premise: Sexism = Prejudice + Power 2- Men have all the power (women have none) 3- Therefore, sexism against men is impossible because women cannot have power There are at least two problems 1- The premise does not refer to EVERY definition of sexism, in fact I don't know that any widely agreed upon definitions of sexism which necessarily require power (nor do they define what power is, but from my poli sci background (and just common sense really), power goes beyond "domination", which is my next point) 2- If we agree with the premise, then we have to consider that there are many forms of power. Power is not only complete domination - power can exist in the workspace, for instance (obviously). If a woman runs a business, she can exert her power (in that arena) and her prejudice, thus making her sexist against men. It may not be systemic sexism to the extent that the one women face, but it's sexism nonetheless. So no I don't agree that the notion of sexism, or racism, should always be from the majority to a minority. That's just a weird way to try to gain points in an argument, by preventing others from turning it back against them, by preventing nuances from being brought up. And God knows the people of the Internet don't deal in nuances. Nuances are too hard to some of these people. My point is, in the end, if we were to settle for a definition of the word "sexism" which only applied in the way which is suggested here, we'd definitely need a more neutral word to replace it, because "sexism" would've been hijacked by the proponents of a certain ideology, and would become tainted for any use by intellectuals. I agree that the comment is problematic in a context like Twitter, but more because Twitter is not the environment in which the theoretical basis for that claim can actually be explained. There are actually several theoretical approaches to sexism in which power is very clearly a central concern. A fairly readable example is C.J. Pascoe's Dude, You're a Fag, and the additional literature is extensive. Jane Hill's [The Everyday Language of White Racism takes a similar approach to racism. Again, plenty of lit out there. "Power" is also an ambiguous term, but I think here it can be clarified. Yes, Hilary Clinton has more power than your average American man. But what we're interested in as social scientists is "how does being female affect Hilary Clinton's political, social, economic, and cultural power?" It is one thing to say, "Hilary Clinton is more powerful than I am," and another to say, "Hilary Clinton's power follows from the fact that she is female." The first is usually a given, the second is quite possibly false. In fact, one might suggest that Hilary Clinton is powerful despite the fact that she is female, a traditionally power-deprived social group. This leaves room for both sexism and powerful women. "Men are the dominant gender with power in society" is also misleading. It can easily be interpreted in the way that you did, which is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure it means something else: that while being a female is often not helpful when one seeks power, being a male often is. This doesn't mean that all men are powerful and all women are powerless. It just means being male often reduces barriers to power. When and how this happens tends to vary based on the context, which is one reason for why people focus their gender studies on specific areas and topics. Responding to a post from a few pages back. I agree with literally all of this and to my senses it certainly does not support the content of her tweet. Whatever definition you give to power, women can have it despite the fact that it's harder, so twisting the definition of sexism so it can only mean sexism toward a minority serves no purpose other than to win an argument by dismissing nuanced comments. If people were actually interested in an intellectual argument, this kind of hijacking of terms would not be accepted in a debate, because it is VERY CLEARLY being instrumentalized. And I've seen these kinds of attempts get shut down before. I myself am from a social sciences background and rigorous researchers would never ever stand for that. And even if you support the cause of feminism, as I do - I'm very much an egalitarian - then you shouldn't accept a weak definition of sexism, because it undermines the debate and it undermines the entire discussion. Which brings me back to my initial point: Yes there is a big problem, but this is not how you fight it. Much of this "sexism in games" thing, while partially true, is communicated in a vile way much of the time. In the end, it hasn't really opened a debate because it has just been mudslinging. This is the most reasonable debate I've ever seen on it and people are nonetheless very dogmatic here and blindly accept biased or prejudiced definitions of some concepts without a second thought because it supports their predispositions. This polarized mudslinging is not opening a debate, it's making everyone uneasy because no one is willing to actually talk. Everyone wants to checkmate their opponent before words can even be said, and that's why reasonable definitions of certain terms, so we can debate using the same words, are dismissed out of the gate. Furthermore, people who'd like to bring some nuance to the debate are dismissed or considered MRA's or sexists for not outright agreeing with all the stuff that's been brought forward by credible and less credible feminist thinkers alike. I love the feminists in my university because the ones I've spoken to about the subject of feminism are willing to discuss it. They're not so adversarial. And they're into social sciences above all. They're not publicists and activists (who I profoundly respect, but if your goal is to have a healthy intellectual debate, you're generally not getting it with them). I definitely agree that the words people are throwing around aren't actually that clear, which leads to a lot of equivocating and general misunderstanding. However I'm not sure that "twisting the definition of sexism so it can only mean sexism toward a minority serves no purpose other than to win an argument by dismissing nuanced comments," although again I can understand why you feel this way since it does get deployed as an obvious truth when it's actually a theoretically complex position. Part of what I hoped to show with my earlier post was that this definition of sexism actually does have theoretical merit beyond being just a rhetorical tool, and that this shouldn't be just dismissed off the bat. Part of its merit is that it gives us a nuanced framework for understanding how gender impacts power in a world where there are many different empowering and disempowering factors. I am also not sure how the documentary will ultimately communicate its message, or in fact what exactly its message will be. Without watching it, we're left speculating. [/i]
Well I don't disagree that there is merit to the argument that women are (a lot) more frequently victims of systemic sexism, but it should be described as "systemic sexism" rather than to twist the conventional definition of sexism. What's important is that you do seem to understand where you're coming from, I understand where you're coming from, why not just agree that when talking about systemic problem, we should just use that word for the sake of clarity! Clarity is great. Clarity is love. Ambiguous partisan terms are the bane of intellectual discussions.
Not sure what's with that [/i] business but yay!
|
On March 12 2015 00:50 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 00:15 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 00:07 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women? This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment. Okay so if the behaviour is directed at everyone and not just women, why is it a bad thing that women are trying to get people to be polite to them? Why is this special treatment really? Let's say we replace the terms with other things. Suppose everyone gets bullied in a school. Student group A says, we're tired of getting bullied, and this has to stop. They might be acting on the mistake that they get bullied more, but at the end of the day if they are successfully, that's less bullying in school. Added bonus is that there's probably going to be a roll over effect since people realise that bullying is wrong and bullying less people generally and not just student group A. As mentioned, there are foolproof methods of stopping bullying in online games already. This documentary does not seem to be a candid/balanced look at abusive behaviour in gaming, rather it looks like an exercise in entitlement; a demonstration of how cruel the world is to women which ignores how cruel those kids are to everybody they think they can offend. One of their 'solutions' is more female developers... in a genre that is clearly targeted primarily at teenage-young adult males (think about what Call of Duty actually is)... What does that say to you? To me that's disingenuous. Also, lots of people enjoy the toxicity. I would rather have a toxic community than a sterilised one. At some point you have to accept that not everybody is nice, not everybody shares your world view and not everybody wants to make you happy. If you don't like it, you have the option of muting them or trolling them back. It's part of the dynamic of online games. I'd miss it.
Like I said, even accepting everything you have just said, I don't see why it's a bad thing to ask people to be polite to each other. Yes it may be just one group asking, but whats the big deal about one group address the harassment it feels most affected by. Other groups can deal with other forms of harassment they think is important. Factually, by the way, I do not think that video games are just targeted at teens/young adult males anymore. That might be true a few years ago, but now we have a sizeable generation of older gamers (with more disposable income too), as well as a growing number of women too. And specifically to COD, I do not think it's a disingenuous thing to ask - I mean if for example a black person feels that a particular game he likes is great but a little racist, I think it's reasonable for him to hope or suggest for more black game directors too. Or a homosexual gamer, and so on. Just because COD is currently targeted at a certain crowd does not mean that it needs to be forever locked there - think about it if the KKK designed a game where you lynched black people, I think it's pretty reasonble for people to take offence even if they aren't the target group for the game.
As to your second para, the opposite of a toxic enviroment is not a sterile one. Plenty of sports have intense but friendly competition. Football for example has strict rules on racism and homophobic comments, but that doesn't stop it from being a really enjoyable sport. Also please consider what you are essentially saying - you are basically telling people who might suffer quite a bit from the toxic enviroment (i.e. people who get bullied excessively or harassed (people generally, not women)) that too bad they should continue to suffer so that you can enjoy the toxicity - the solution open to them is to mute everyone else and basically play a game where they cannot talk to anyone. This sounds pretty harsh - people have to put up with all that just so some of us can have the lulz of spamming memes, saying rape jokes, and so on.
|
On March 12 2015 00:58 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 00:50 bardtown wrote:On March 12 2015 00:15 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 00:07 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women? This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment. Okay so if the behaviour is directed at everyone and not just women, why is it a bad thing that women are trying to get people to be polite to them? Why is this special treatment really? Let's say we replace the terms with other things. Suppose everyone gets bullied in a school. Student group A says, we're tired of getting bullied, and this has to stop. They might be acting on the mistake that they get bullied more, but at the end of the day if they are successfully, that's less bullying in school. Added bonus is that there's probably going to be a roll over effect since people realise that bullying is wrong and bullying less people generally and not just student group A. As mentioned, there are foolproof methods of stopping bullying in online games already. This documentary does not seem to be a candid/balanced look at abusive behaviour in gaming, rather it looks like an exercise in entitlement; a demonstration of how cruel the world is to women which ignores how cruel those kids are to everybody they think they can offend. One of their 'solutions' is more female developers... in a genre that is clearly targeted primarily at teenage-young adult males (think about what Call of Duty actually is)... What does that say to you? To me that's disingenuous. Also, lots of people enjoy the toxicity. I would rather have a toxic community than a sterilised one. At some point you have to accept that not everybody is nice, not everybody shares your world view and not everybody wants to make you happy. If you don't like it, you have the option of muting them or trolling them back. It's part of the dynamic of online games. I'd miss it. Again, that puts you in a minority. Feel free to enjoy being an asshole to other people, but understand that is not a common view. Muting and reporting systems are not foolproof and do not stop bullying. For one, most of the games where mute functions are necessary rely heavily on team communication, so having to mute your teammate because he is being a dick is counterproductive. I don't consider that a perfect solution. And when trolls get muted and/or banned that just makes them quiet trolls, they don't magically become better people. And your point about developers gets down to the crux of the argument, if more women were interested in gaming this would no longer be a genre clearly targeted at teenage and young-adult males. More female developers would likely mean more games that are interesting to women, there is no downside to that. It doesn't mean the next Call of Duty won't get made or that there will somehow be less games for gaming's current core demographic to enjoy. If anything, having more female developers would mean better written female characters, even in our dude games, and that can never be a bad thing. It requires more women being interested in the games industry, which is mostly on them, but we need to not be purposefully excluding them every chance we get either.
I actually feel that we've failed a bit as a community everytime I read one of these "well I enjoy the toxcity" comments. At the end of the day it's prioritizing your own (rather banal) enjoyment of frivolous stuff like rape/gay/racist/troll jokes over the enjoyment of others who just want to play the game. People who might be deeply affected by this, and who cannot, as some might expect them, to just "have a thicker skin". And all this stuff isn't even required to play the actual game either.
|
On March 12 2015 01:10 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 00:58 ZasZ. wrote:On March 12 2015 00:50 bardtown wrote:On March 12 2015 00:15 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 00:07 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women? This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment. Okay so if the behaviour is directed at everyone and not just women, why is it a bad thing that women are trying to get people to be polite to them? Why is this special treatment really? Let's say we replace the terms with other things. Suppose everyone gets bullied in a school. Student group A says, we're tired of getting bullied, and this has to stop. They might be acting on the mistake that they get bullied more, but at the end of the day if they are successfully, that's less bullying in school. Added bonus is that there's probably going to be a roll over effect since people realise that bullying is wrong and bullying less people generally and not just student group A. As mentioned, there are foolproof methods of stopping bullying in online games already. This documentary does not seem to be a candid/balanced look at abusive behaviour in gaming, rather it looks like an exercise in entitlement; a demonstration of how cruel the world is to women which ignores how cruel those kids are to everybody they think they can offend. One of their 'solutions' is more female developers... in a genre that is clearly targeted primarily at teenage-young adult males (think about what Call of Duty actually is)... What does that say to you? To me that's disingenuous. Also, lots of people enjoy the toxicity. I would rather have a toxic community than a sterilised one. At some point you have to accept that not everybody is nice, not everybody shares your world view and not everybody wants to make you happy. If you don't like it, you have the option of muting them or trolling them back. It's part of the dynamic of online games. I'd miss it. Again, that puts you in a minority. Feel free to enjoy being an asshole to other people, but understand that is not a common view. Muting and reporting systems are not foolproof and do not stop bullying. For one, most of the games where mute functions are necessary rely heavily on team communication, so having to mute your teammate because he is being a dick is counterproductive. I don't consider that a perfect solution. And when trolls get muted and/or banned that just makes them quiet trolls, they don't magically become better people. And your point about developers gets down to the crux of the argument, if more women were interested in gaming this would no longer be a genre clearly targeted at teenage and young-adult males. More female developers would likely mean more games that are interesting to women, there is no downside to that. It doesn't mean the next Call of Duty won't get made or that there will somehow be less games for gaming's current core demographic to enjoy. If anything, having more female developers would mean better written female characters, even in our dude games, and that can never be a bad thing. It requires more women being interested in the games industry, which is mostly on them, but we need to not be purposefully excluding them every chance we get either. I actually feel that we've failed a bit as a community everytime I read one of these "well I enjoy the toxcity" comments. At the end of the day it's prioritizing your own (rather banal) enjoyment of frivolous stuff like rape/gay/racist/troll jokes over the enjoyment of others who just want to play the game. People who might be deeply affected by this, and who cannot, as some might expect them, to just "have a thicker skin". And all this stuff isn't even required to play the actual game either.
It also relates directly to sale and marketability. People who make games want to sell them to as many people as possible. If they are losing a section of the audience because of this behavior. If the section of the audience happens to be women and they are unable to sell games to that demographic, they have good reasons to address the issues. For a lot of developers, who want as many people as possible to play their games, the idea of losing the audience that does not want to "get a thicker skin" isn't acceptable.
|
On March 12 2015 00:58 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 00:50 bardtown wrote:On March 12 2015 00:15 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 00:07 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 23:41 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people. Those are broad and really quite tangential statements. But let's say you're totally right, could you tell us why is it practically a bad idea to try and clean up online behaviour towards women? This behaviour is directed not just at women, but at everybody. In this case the point is that it is not a gendered issue in any way. Over time developers have added ways to mute/avoid/report people, and these are available to everybody. There is no reason for women to get special treatment. Okay so if the behaviour is directed at everyone and not just women, why is it a bad thing that women are trying to get people to be polite to them? Why is this special treatment really? Let's say we replace the terms with other things. Suppose everyone gets bullied in a school. Student group A says, we're tired of getting bullied, and this has to stop. They might be acting on the mistake that they get bullied more, but at the end of the day if they are successfully, that's less bullying in school. Added bonus is that there's probably going to be a roll over effect since people realise that bullying is wrong and bullying less people generally and not just student group A. As mentioned, there are foolproof methods of stopping bullying in online games already. This documentary does not seem to be a candid/balanced look at abusive behaviour in gaming, rather it looks like an exercise in entitlement; a demonstration of how cruel the world is to women which ignores how cruel those kids are to everybody they think they can offend. One of their 'solutions' is more female developers... in a genre that is clearly targeted primarily at teenage-young adult males (think about what Call of Duty actually is)... What does that say to you? To me that's disingenuous. Also, lots of people enjoy the toxicity. I would rather have a toxic community than a sterilised one. At some point you have to accept that not everybody is nice, not everybody shares your world view and not everybody wants to make you happy. If you don't like it, you have the option of muting them or trolling them back. It's part of the dynamic of online games. I'd miss it. Again, that puts you in a minority. Feel free to enjoy being an asshole to other people, but understand that is not a common view. Muting and reporting systems are not foolproof and do not stop bullying. For one, most of the games where mute functions are necessary rely heavily on team communication, so having to mute your teammate because he is being a dick is counterproductive. I don't consider that a perfect solution. And when trolls get muted and/or banned that just makes them quiet trolls, they don't magically become better people. And your point about developers gets down to the crux of the argument, if more women were interested in gaming this would no longer be a genre clearly targeted at teenage and young-adult males. More female developers would likely mean more games that are interesting to women, there is no downside to that. It doesn't mean the next Call of Duty won't get made or that there will somehow be less games for gaming's current core demographic to enjoy. If anything, having more female developers would mean better written female characters, even in our dude games, and that can never be a bad thing. It requires more women being interested in the games industry, which is mostly on them, but we need to not be purposefully excluding them every chance we get either.
a) That is an absolutely massive assumption. The fact that trolling/lewd arguing is so common in gaming is an indication that it is popular/part of the culture. Go look at how popular trolling videos are and then tell me it's a minority. TL is the exception, not the rule. I have played games where nobody speaks without cursing every other word. Also, Idra.
b) Female developers will not magically make trolls better people, either. This has nothing to do with gaming. You should make a good parenting thread.
c) Trolls are not communicating usefully in team games, so muting them makes no difference to your chances at winning.
d) Many games implement a system whereby you can choose not to be matched with certain people. I'm sure more will do so in future.
e) There is no shortage of games that appeal to women. We are talking about competitive gaming. You're making broad and inapplicable statements. A game like Call of Duty which features in this documentary is clearly aimed at males. Something like Dota is much more gender neutral.
f) Nobody is purposefully excluding anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jbfakesarkqu.png)
