|
On March 12 2015 04:51 haleu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:42 OtherWorld wrote:On March 12 2015 01:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 11 2015 23:49 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:44 wei2coolman wrote: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. That implies the biological strenth advantage isn't what formed those societal 'discrimination' in the first place. If your job is physically demanding, and the average female is a couple standard deviation of strength weaker than men, doesn't it reason that there is going to be an obvious population bias towards having significantly more males in that job? Especially if you consider how normal curve scaling goes when talking about 2 groups whom's averages are off by standards of deviation. Now if you would be kind enough to explain me how the "physically demanding" part of your post applies to today's world, since in a developed country, most people work in non-physically demanding jobs, I'd like it, please. I'd like if you could explain me how it justifies women being widely underrepresented in powerful places like governments of heads of big firms too, I'm ready to be enlightened. Isn't that because men need to outcompete other men in order to acquire sex (and acquiring high quality mates) while an extremely high-earning woman won't get much added benefits in reproduction chances or mate quality for having such high economic status.
I was just gunna say, as the only guy working in the lab. I'm constantly asked to move packages that ship in, and equipment. God forbid I tell the girls in my lab "move that shit yourself"
|
On March 12 2015 04:51 haleu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:42 OtherWorld wrote:On March 12 2015 01:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 11 2015 23:49 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:44 wei2coolman wrote: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. That implies the biological strenth advantage isn't what formed those societal 'discrimination' in the first place. If your job is physically demanding, and the average female is a couple standard deviation of strength weaker than men, doesn't it reason that there is going to be an obvious population bias towards having significantly more males in that job? Especially if you consider how normal curve scaling goes when talking about 2 groups whom's averages are off by standards of deviation. Now if you would be kind enough to explain me how the "physically demanding" part of your post applies to today's world, since in a developed country, most people work in non-physically demanding jobs, I'd like it, please. I'd like if you could explain me how it justifies women being widely underrepresented in powerful places like governments of heads of big firms too, I'm ready to be enlightened. Isn't that because men need to outcompete other men in order to acquire sex (and acquiring high quality mates) while an extremely high-earning woman won't get much added benefits in reproduction chances or mate quality for having such high economic status.
If you think that women don't compete with each other in order to "acquire sex", then I think you should spend some time actually talking to some women instead of looking at other parts of their body.
Besides, this conception of the world that men need money while women don't is coming straight-up from the fifties or even before that. We are in the 21st century, money = independence and freedom in developed countries, and arguing that women need a "high economic status" less than men is basically denying them freedom and independence. Which can be a valid way to conceptualize a society ; I think you would be particularly happy in some of the less democratic Middle-Eastern countries.
|
On March 12 2015 05:00 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:51 haleu wrote:On March 12 2015 04:42 OtherWorld wrote:On March 12 2015 01:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 11 2015 23:49 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:44 wei2coolman wrote: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. That implies the biological strenth advantage isn't what formed those societal 'discrimination' in the first place. If your job is physically demanding, and the average female is a couple standard deviation of strength weaker than men, doesn't it reason that there is going to be an obvious population bias towards having significantly more males in that job? Especially if you consider how normal curve scaling goes when talking about 2 groups whom's averages are off by standards of deviation. Now if you would be kind enough to explain me how the "physically demanding" part of your post applies to today's world, since in a developed country, most people work in non-physically demanding jobs, I'd like it, please. I'd like if you could explain me how it justifies women being widely underrepresented in powerful places like governments of heads of big firms too, I'm ready to be enlightened. Isn't that because men need to outcompete other men in order to acquire sex (and acquiring high quality mates) while an extremely high-earning woman won't get much added benefits in reproduction chances or mate quality for having such high economic status. If you think that women don't compete with each other in order to "acquire sex", then I think you should spend some time actually talking to some women instead of looking at other parts of their body. Besides, this conception of the world that men need money while women don't is coming straight-up from the fifties or even before that. We are in the 21st century, money = independence and freedom in developed countries, and arguing that women need a "high economic status" less than men is basically denying them freedom and independence. Which can be a valid way to conceptualize a society ; I think you would be particularly happy in some of the less democratic Middle-Eastern countries.
Yeah they compete with each other. I'm just saying the "acquire wealth and authority" thing ranks higher for men to secure mating opportunities.
|
On March 12 2015 04:53 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:51 haleu wrote:On March 12 2015 04:42 OtherWorld wrote:On March 12 2015 01:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 11 2015 23:49 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:44 wei2coolman wrote: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. That implies the biological strenth advantage isn't what formed those societal 'discrimination' in the first place. If your job is physically demanding, and the average female is a couple standard deviation of strength weaker than men, doesn't it reason that there is going to be an obvious population bias towards having significantly more males in that job? Especially if you consider how normal curve scaling goes when talking about 2 groups whom's averages are off by standards of deviation. Now if you would be kind enough to explain me how the "physically demanding" part of your post applies to today's world, since in a developed country, most people work in non-physically demanding jobs, I'd like it, please. I'd like if you could explain me how it justifies women being widely underrepresented in powerful places like governments of heads of big firms too, I'm ready to be enlightened. Isn't that because men need to outcompete other men in order to acquire sex (and acquiring high quality mates) while an extremely high-earning woman won't get much added benefits in reproduction chances or mate quality for having such high economic status. I was just gunna say, as the only guy working in the lab. I'm constantly asked to move packages that ship in, and equipment. God forbid I tell the girls in my lab "move that shit yourself"
Well you should tell them. But I guess that it's better to look like a nice guy and obey to them, amirite?
|
On March 12 2015 04:39 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:33 Plansix wrote:On March 12 2015 04:29 wei2coolman wrote:On March 12 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:
The internet badass MRA have arrived and want to tell us all about our need to toughen up and get out of our hugboxes. And they clearly didn't read the article because none of what they are talking about is referenced.
I also like how a bunch of channer's are pretty much going full old man on this and saying "When I was a kid back is 2004, I was totally fine and the internet was great. These kids nowadays are soft and weak." That's pretty much what every old person says, and guess what? they're right. I'm very likely older than you and your wrong. Its just showing how ignorant and out of touch you are. You use 'MRA' as an insult. You're only showing yourself to be ignorant. Men have problems and need advocates. I grew up with the internet too and I couldn't be more grateful for that, in particular how open and unrestricted it is by popular opinion about what is 'acceptable'.
So actually on this point, if you are playing DOTA say, and you yell one of those "HEY YOUR PENIS IS TINY YOU LOUSY CARRY NOOB", or "i had sex with your mom haha", and on the otherside some guy says "hey man can you cut that out, I actually have erectile dysfunction/tiny penis syndrome/got castrated/my mom was realy raped", and you just going to tell him to deal with it? All those penis related problems sound like very guy problems.
|
Canada11505 Posts
It seems to me that in the last few pages, we've switched from 'It exists, but it's the vocal minority' to 'It exists and I like that, it's just the way it is.' I'd like to say that might prove the documentary's point... but I have not seen it so I do not even know if that that IS one of their points.
There is, perhaps, a fundamental problem with this thread in that the intial article was discussed early on, but because we can't see the actual video, the discussion points are limited. In the mean time, this thread seems to be going into the direction of every thread on Escapist regarding females in gaming- that is anti-Sarkeesian, anti-Zoe Quinn, anti-SJW's (whatever that means) etc, etc -combined with a dose of MRA.
I don't really where this thread could turn, but I'm not sure I like the direction it is turning.
|
On March 12 2015 05:05 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:53 wei2coolman wrote:On March 12 2015 04:51 haleu wrote:On March 12 2015 04:42 OtherWorld wrote:On March 12 2015 01:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 11 2015 23:49 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:44 wei2coolman wrote:On March 11 2015 23:37 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE.
[quote]
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. That implies the biological strenth advantage isn't what formed those societal 'discrimination' in the first place. If your job is physically demanding, and the average female is a couple standard deviation of strength weaker than men, doesn't it reason that there is going to be an obvious population bias towards having significantly more males in that job? Especially if you consider how normal curve scaling goes when talking about 2 groups whom's averages are off by standards of deviation. Now if you would be kind enough to explain me how the "physically demanding" part of your post applies to today's world, since in a developed country, most people work in non-physically demanding jobs, I'd like it, please. I'd like if you could explain me how it justifies women being widely underrepresented in powerful places like governments of heads of big firms too, I'm ready to be enlightened. Isn't that because men need to outcompete other men in order to acquire sex (and acquiring high quality mates) while an extremely high-earning woman won't get much added benefits in reproduction chances or mate quality for having such high economic status. I was just gunna say, as the only guy working in the lab. I'm constantly asked to move packages that ship in, and equipment. God forbid I tell the girls in my lab "move that shit yourself" Well you should tell them. But I guess that it's better to look like a nice guy and obey to them, amirite?
and expect some 110lb girl to deadlift 50lbs and walk it? I'm not that much of a dick.
|
On March 12 2015 04:39 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Y'know what I find amusing, people have been harassed on the internet since day 1 (maybe 3 or 4), most of us here grew up on the internet and have gotten used to the occasional person calling us some kind of slur and all capsing that we should die.
Yet it's only now, with the rise of the radical 3rd wave feminists and the social revenge warriors, that these people have started to claim that when they get harassed, women, gays or minorities are being driven out of gaming, that this is some great attack to them that will cause a massive exodus, despite the constant horrible insults the internet has grown only bigger and bigger and attracted more and more people, appearantly this place full of muh soggy knee, hatred and death threats is incredibly appealing to our species.
Almost like it's not about women in gaming but SJW's in gaming getting butthurt by threats and running to their Tumblr hugboxes because they where "triggered".
If the internet was really all that difficult for these poor, poor, oppressed women to deal with, they probably would get off it instead of complaining about it on Twitter and asking people to donate to their Patreon's. Actually this raises and interesting point. I've on the webs for sometime now, and my personal impression is that gaming communities are actually much more toxic than before. Btw you do realise that it is only recently that more women are playing games, so that's why such issues are being raised given that there are more women around.
I will definitely give you that the last couple of months gaming communities have become more aggressive yeah, at least to outsiders, because they have become a threat to their hobby's.
The garbage that we call "Game Journamism" has been attacking gamers for at least a year now and they've exploded since the start of GG, SJW's and self professed feminists getting the spotlight to spout about how bad we all are for being males, that the future of gaming doesn't belong to us because Gone Home, Angry Birds, Candy Crush and other casual garbage are the way of the future. Somehow not understanding that playing a game on your phone while taking a shit and playing an actual video game on a dedicated system like a PC or console are not the same thing.
This is an institution that will give glowing reviews to Depression Quest, a bad text based adventure even by that genre's standards, or Dragon Age Inquisition, a game that is worse in every respect to it's predecessors, but which is written by someone who agrees with their politics.
And then almost completely ignore fantastic recent games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, the Baldur's Gate remakes and impending sequel, or anything else that's not considered either AAA studio material or fitting with their political agenda.
But hey, a lot of sites have already folded and fired the writers of clickbait like the "Gamers are dead" article, Gawker has almost no sponsors left so it's pretty likely that all of this crying about being oppressed in videogames is going to stop in the upcoming months, the people who pay for it are going out of bussiness :^).
And when it does, the gaming community will calm down again to it's fun, uncensored, but usually friendly atmosphere that it's always been.
|
On March 12 2015 05:10 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:39 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 04:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Y'know what I find amusing, people have been harassed on the internet since day 1 (maybe 3 or 4), most of us here grew up on the internet and have gotten used to the occasional person calling us some kind of slur and all capsing that we should die.
Yet it's only now, with the rise of the radical 3rd wave feminists and the social revenge warriors, that these people have started to claim that when they get harassed, women, gays or minorities are being driven out of gaming, that this is some great attack to them that will cause a massive exodus, despite the constant horrible insults the internet has grown only bigger and bigger and attracted more and more people, appearantly this place full of muh soggy knee, hatred and death threats is incredibly appealing to our species.
Almost like it's not about women in gaming but SJW's in gaming getting butthurt by threats and running to their Tumblr hugboxes because they where "triggered".
If the internet was really all that difficult for these poor, poor, oppressed women to deal with, they probably would get off it instead of complaining about it on Twitter and asking people to donate to their Patreon's. Actually this raises and interesting point. I've on the webs for sometime now, and my personal impression is that gaming communities are actually much more toxic than before. Btw you do realise that it is only recently that more women are playing games, so that's why such issues are being raised given that there are more women around. I will definitely give you that the last couple of months gaming communities have become much more toxic yeah. I will however tell you, from actually being in a lot of them, that most of this is because we feel like we're under attack. The garbage that we call "Game Journamism" has been attacking gamers for at least a year now and they've exploded since the start of GG, SJW's and self professed feminists getting the spotlight to spout about how bad we all are for being males, that the future of gaming doesn't belong to us because Farmville, Angry Birds, Candy Crush and other casual garbage are the way of the future. Somehow not understanding that playing a game on your phone while taking a shit and playing an actual video game on a dedicated system like a PC or console are not the same thing. This is an institution that will give glowing reviews to Depression Quest, a bad text based adventure even by that genre's standards, or Dragon Age Inquisition, a game that is worse in every respect to it's predecessors, but which is written by someone who agrees with their politics. And then almost completely ignore fantastic recent games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, the Baldur's Gate remakes and impending sequel, or anything else that's not considered either AAA studio material or fitting with their political agenda. But hey, a lot of sites have already folded and fired the writers of clickbait like the "Gamers are dead" article, Gawker has almost no sponsors left so it's pretty likely that all of this crying about being oppressed in videogames is going to stop in the upcoming months, the people who pay for it are going out of bussiness :^).
Wow, there is so many lies in this post I don't know where to start.
And a huge LoL to Gawker having no sponsors. They posted well into the black in the last share holder call, but keep telling yourself that they are doing out of business.
|
On March 12 2015 05:10 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:39 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 04:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Y'know what I find amusing, people have been harassed on the internet since day 1 (maybe 3 or 4), most of us here grew up on the internet and have gotten used to the occasional person calling us some kind of slur and all capsing that we should die.
Yet it's only now, with the rise of the radical 3rd wave feminists and the social revenge warriors, that these people have started to claim that when they get harassed, women, gays or minorities are being driven out of gaming, that this is some great attack to them that will cause a massive exodus, despite the constant horrible insults the internet has grown only bigger and bigger and attracted more and more people, appearantly this place full of muh soggy knee, hatred and death threats is incredibly appealing to our species.
Almost like it's not about women in gaming but SJW's in gaming getting butthurt by threats and running to their Tumblr hugboxes because they where "triggered".
If the internet was really all that difficult for these poor, poor, oppressed women to deal with, they probably would get off it instead of complaining about it on Twitter and asking people to donate to their Patreon's. Actually this raises and interesting point. I've on the webs for sometime now, and my personal impression is that gaming communities are actually much more toxic than before. Btw you do realise that it is only recently that more women are playing games, so that's why such issues are being raised given that there are more women around. I will definitely give you that the last couple of months gaming communities have become much more toxic yeah. I will however tell you, from actually being in a lot of them, that most of this is because we feel like we're under attack. The garbage that we call "Game Journamism" has been attacking gamers for at least a year now and they've exploded since the start of GG, SJW's and self professed feminists getting the spotlight to spout about how bad we all are for being males, that the future of gaming doesn't belong to us because Farmville, Angry Birds, Candy Crush and other casual garbage are the way of the future. Somehow not understanding that playing a game on your phone while taking a shit and playing an actual video game on a dedicated system like a PC or console are not the same thing. This is an institution that will give glowing reviews to Depression Quest, a bad text based adventure even by that genre's standards, or Dragon Age Inquisition, a game that is worse in every respect to it's predecessors, but which is written by someone who agrees with their politics. And then almost completely ignore fantastic recent games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, the Baldur's Gate remakes and impending sequel, or anything else that's not considered either AAA studio material or fitting with their political agenda. But hey, a lot of sites have already folded and fired the writers of clickbait like the "Gamers are dead" article, Gawker has almost no sponsors left so it's pretty likely that all of this crying about being oppressed in videogames is going to stop in the upcoming months, the people who pay for it are going out of bussiness :^).
So in gist:
Yes it is worse in the last few months.
Actually it comes directly from the gaming communities.
It is because we disagree with journalism practices, casual gaming, and bad reviews.
I am at a complete loss as to how any of this justifies making everything much more toxic. If anything the inability to disagree with something in a civil way suggests some serious problems in the way we behave.
|
On March 12 2015 05:09 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:05 OtherWorld wrote:On March 12 2015 04:53 wei2coolman wrote:On March 12 2015 04:51 haleu wrote:On March 12 2015 04:42 OtherWorld wrote:On March 12 2015 01:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 11 2015 23:49 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:44 wei2coolman wrote:On March 11 2015 23:37 OtherWorld wrote:On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:
[quote]
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. That implies the biological strenth advantage isn't what formed those societal 'discrimination' in the first place. If your job is physically demanding, and the average female is a couple standard deviation of strength weaker than men, doesn't it reason that there is going to be an obvious population bias towards having significantly more males in that job? Especially if you consider how normal curve scaling goes when talking about 2 groups whom's averages are off by standards of deviation. Now if you would be kind enough to explain me how the "physically demanding" part of your post applies to today's world, since in a developed country, most people work in non-physically demanding jobs, I'd like it, please. I'd like if you could explain me how it justifies women being widely underrepresented in powerful places like governments of heads of big firms too, I'm ready to be enlightened. Isn't that because men need to outcompete other men in order to acquire sex (and acquiring high quality mates) while an extremely high-earning woman won't get much added benefits in reproduction chances or mate quality for having such high economic status. I was just gunna say, as the only guy working in the lab. I'm constantly asked to move packages that ship in, and equipment. God forbid I tell the girls in my lab "move that shit yourself" Well you should tell them. But I guess that it's better to look like a nice guy and obey to them, amirite? and expect some 110lb girl to deadlift 50lbs and walk it? I'm not that much of a dick.
Well, if it isn't your job, if you weren't hired to do that, and you still do it, then it's not "God forbid I tell the girls in my lab "move that shit yourself"", it's you doing something you shouldn't do and you should protest to your hierarchical superiors or something. Now if you would be kind enough to answer my post instead of threwing in your personal anecdote, I'd appreciate.
|
On March 12 2015 05:16 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:10 Scootaloo wrote:On March 12 2015 04:39 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 04:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Y'know what I find amusing, people have been harassed on the internet since day 1 (maybe 3 or 4), most of us here grew up on the internet and have gotten used to the occasional person calling us some kind of slur and all capsing that we should die.
Yet it's only now, with the rise of the radical 3rd wave feminists and the social revenge warriors, that these people have started to claim that when they get harassed, women, gays or minorities are being driven out of gaming, that this is some great attack to them that will cause a massive exodus, despite the constant horrible insults the internet has grown only bigger and bigger and attracted more and more people, appearantly this place full of muh soggy knee, hatred and death threats is incredibly appealing to our species.
Almost like it's not about women in gaming but SJW's in gaming getting butthurt by threats and running to their Tumblr hugboxes because they where "triggered".
If the internet was really all that difficult for these poor, poor, oppressed women to deal with, they probably would get off it instead of complaining about it on Twitter and asking people to donate to their Patreon's. Actually this raises and interesting point. I've on the webs for sometime now, and my personal impression is that gaming communities are actually much more toxic than before. Btw you do realise that it is only recently that more women are playing games, so that's why such issues are being raised given that there are more women around. I will definitely give you that the last couple of months gaming communities have become much more toxic yeah. I will however tell you, from actually being in a lot of them, that most of this is because we feel like we're under attack. The garbage that we call "Game Journamism" has been attacking gamers for at least a year now and they've exploded since the start of GG, SJW's and self professed feminists getting the spotlight to spout about how bad we all are for being males, that the future of gaming doesn't belong to us because Farmville, Angry Birds, Candy Crush and other casual garbage are the way of the future. Somehow not understanding that playing a game on your phone while taking a shit and playing an actual video game on a dedicated system like a PC or console are not the same thing. This is an institution that will give glowing reviews to Depression Quest, a bad text based adventure even by that genre's standards, or Dragon Age Inquisition, a game that is worse in every respect to it's predecessors, but which is written by someone who agrees with their politics. And then almost completely ignore fantastic recent games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, the Baldur's Gate remakes and impending sequel, or anything else that's not considered either AAA studio material or fitting with their political agenda. But hey, a lot of sites have already folded and fired the writers of clickbait like the "Gamers are dead" article, Gawker has almost no sponsors left so it's pretty likely that all of this crying about being oppressed in videogames is going to stop in the upcoming months, the people who pay for it are going out of bussiness :^). So in gist: Yes it is worse in the last few months. Actually it comes directly from the gaming communities. It is because we disagree with journalism practices, casual gaming, and bad reviews. I am at a complete loss as to how any of this justifies making everything much more toxic. If anything the inability to disagree with something in a civil way suggests some serious problems in the way we behave.
What I'm saying is that because a bunch of rich groups or people more engaged with politics then games have declared war on traditional video games, they have forced a state of war where both sides become more aggressive, this was never started by gamers but you can't expect them to sit by idly while people are shitting over their hobby's.
If you want to complain about gaming being more toxic, complain to Gawker, Sarkeesian and her whole clique, they're the ones who started this war, and them retreating from our lands will probably bring about peace.
|
Canada11505 Posts
Ok.
On the Gamergate stuff, I will put my foot down.
Gamergate is a derail on this thread and will be moderated as such.
|
On March 12 2015 05:10 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 04:39 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 04:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Y'know what I find amusing, people have been harassed on the internet since day 1 (maybe 3 or 4), most of us here grew up on the internet and have gotten used to the occasional person calling us some kind of slur and all capsing that we should die.
Yet it's only now, with the rise of the radical 3rd wave feminists and the social revenge warriors, that these people have started to claim that when they get harassed, women, gays or minorities are being driven out of gaming, that this is some great attack to them that will cause a massive exodus, despite the constant horrible insults the internet has grown only bigger and bigger and attracted more and more people, appearantly this place full of muh soggy knee, hatred and death threats is incredibly appealing to our species.
Almost like it's not about women in gaming but SJW's in gaming getting butthurt by threats and running to their Tumblr hugboxes because they where "triggered".
If the internet was really all that difficult for these poor, poor, oppressed women to deal with, they probably would get off it instead of complaining about it on Twitter and asking people to donate to their Patreon's. Actually this raises and interesting point. I've on the webs for sometime now, and my personal impression is that gaming communities are actually much more toxic than before. Btw you do realise that it is only recently that more women are playing games, so that's why such issues are being raised given that there are more women around. I will definitely give you that the last couple of months gaming communities have become more aggressive yeah, at least to outsiders, because they have become a threat to their hobby's. The garbage that we call "Game Journamism" has been attacking gamers for at least a year now and they've exploded since the start of GG, SJW's and self professed feminists getting the spotlight to spout about how bad we all are for being males, that the future of gaming doesn't belong to us because Gone Home, Angry Birds, Candy Crush and other casual garbage are the way of the future. Somehow not understanding that playing a game on your phone while taking a shit and playing an actual video game on a dedicated system like a PC or console are not the same thing. This is an institution that will give glowing reviews to Depression Quest, a bad text based adventure even by that genre's standards, or Dragon Age Inquisition, a game that is worse in every respect to it's predecessors, but which is written by someone who agrees with their politics. And then almost completely ignore fantastic recent games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, the Baldur's Gate remakes and impending sequel, or anything else that's not considered either AAA studio material or fitting with their political agenda. But hey, a lot of sites have already folded and fired the writers of clickbait like the "Gamers are dead" article, Gawker has almost no sponsors left so it's pretty likely that all of this crying about being oppressed in videogames is going to stop in the upcoming months, the people who pay for it are going out of bussiness :^). And when it does, the gaming community will calm down again to it's fun, uncensored, but usually friendly atmosphere that it's always been.
EDIT: Took out any GG stuff I posted at the same time as Falling.
Anywho, that's off-topic. I still fail to see why "the internet has always been like this," is even a valid argument for why we shouldn't try to be even a little bit nicer to each other. I will also never understand people that openly admit they think it's nice that it's somewhat socially acceptable to be an asshole on the internet.
|
On March 12 2015 05:16 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:10 Scootaloo wrote:On March 12 2015 04:39 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 04:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Y'know what I find amusing, people have been harassed on the internet since day 1 (maybe 3 or 4), most of us here grew up on the internet and have gotten used to the occasional person calling us some kind of slur and all capsing that we should die.
Yet it's only now, with the rise of the radical 3rd wave feminists and the social revenge warriors, that these people have started to claim that when they get harassed, women, gays or minorities are being driven out of gaming, that this is some great attack to them that will cause a massive exodus, despite the constant horrible insults the internet has grown only bigger and bigger and attracted more and more people, appearantly this place full of muh soggy knee, hatred and death threats is incredibly appealing to our species.
Almost like it's not about women in gaming but SJW's in gaming getting butthurt by threats and running to their Tumblr hugboxes because they where "triggered".
If the internet was really all that difficult for these poor, poor, oppressed women to deal with, they probably would get off it instead of complaining about it on Twitter and asking people to donate to their Patreon's. Actually this raises and interesting point. I've on the webs for sometime now, and my personal impression is that gaming communities are actually much more toxic than before. Btw you do realise that it is only recently that more women are playing games, so that's why such issues are being raised given that there are more women around. I will definitely give you that the last couple of months gaming communities have become much more toxic yeah. I will however tell you, from actually being in a lot of them, that most of this is because we feel like we're under attack. The garbage that we call "Game Journamism" has been attacking gamers for at least a year now and they've exploded since the start of GG, SJW's and self professed feminists getting the spotlight to spout about how bad we all are for being males, that the future of gaming doesn't belong to us because Farmville, Angry Birds, Candy Crush and other casual garbage are the way of the future. Somehow not understanding that playing a game on your phone while taking a shit and playing an actual video game on a dedicated system like a PC or console are not the same thing. This is an institution that will give glowing reviews to Depression Quest, a bad text based adventure even by that genre's standards, or Dragon Age Inquisition, a game that is worse in every respect to it's predecessors, but which is written by someone who agrees with their politics. And then almost completely ignore fantastic recent games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, the Baldur's Gate remakes and impending sequel, or anything else that's not considered either AAA studio material or fitting with their political agenda. But hey, a lot of sites have already folded and fired the writers of clickbait like the "Gamers are dead" article, Gawker has almost no sponsors left so it's pretty likely that all of this crying about being oppressed in videogames is going to stop in the upcoming months, the people who pay for it are going out of bussiness :^). So in gist: Yes it is worse in the last few months. Actually it comes directly from the gaming communities. It is because we disagree with journalism practices, casual gaming, and bad reviews. I am at a complete loss as to how any of this justifies making everything much more toxic. If anything the inability to disagree with something in a civil way suggests some serious problems in the way we behave.
How do you conduct a consumer revolt in a civil way then? I don't understand how you can drive corrupt elements out of your hobby's industry without baring your fangs a little. It's not exactly /b/ tier raids that are being applied here. I for one applaud gamers trying to defend their consumer rights.
|
Edit: listening to the mods and not going to war over Gamergate shit.
|
On March 12 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:10 Scootaloo wrote:On March 12 2015 04:39 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 04:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Y'know what I find amusing, people have been harassed on the internet since day 1 (maybe 3 or 4), most of us here grew up on the internet and have gotten used to the occasional person calling us some kind of slur and all capsing that we should die.
Yet it's only now, with the rise of the radical 3rd wave feminists and the social revenge warriors, that these people have started to claim that when they get harassed, women, gays or minorities are being driven out of gaming, that this is some great attack to them that will cause a massive exodus, despite the constant horrible insults the internet has grown only bigger and bigger and attracted more and more people, appearantly this place full of muh soggy knee, hatred and death threats is incredibly appealing to our species.
Almost like it's not about women in gaming but SJW's in gaming getting butthurt by threats and running to their Tumblr hugboxes because they where "triggered".
If the internet was really all that difficult for these poor, poor, oppressed women to deal with, they probably would get off it instead of complaining about it on Twitter and asking people to donate to their Patreon's. Actually this raises and interesting point. I've on the webs for sometime now, and my personal impression is that gaming communities are actually much more toxic than before. Btw you do realise that it is only recently that more women are playing games, so that's why such issues are being raised given that there are more women around. I will definitely give you that the last couple of months gaming communities have become much more toxic yeah. I will however tell you, from actually being in a lot of them, that most of this is because we feel like we're under attack. The garbage that we call "Game Journamism" has been attacking gamers for at least a year now and they've exploded since the start of GG, SJW's and self professed feminists getting the spotlight to spout about how bad we all are for being males, that the future of gaming doesn't belong to us because Farmville, Angry Birds, Candy Crush and other casual garbage are the way of the future. Somehow not understanding that playing a game on your phone while taking a shit and playing an actual video game on a dedicated system like a PC or console are not the same thing. This is an institution that will give glowing reviews to Depression Quest, a bad text based adventure even by that genre's standards, or Dragon Age Inquisition, a game that is worse in every respect to it's predecessors, but which is written by someone who agrees with their politics. And then almost completely ignore fantastic recent games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, the Baldur's Gate remakes and impending sequel, or anything else that's not considered either AAA studio material or fitting with their political agenda. But hey, a lot of sites have already folded and fired the writers of clickbait like the "Gamers are dead" article, Gawker has almost no sponsors left so it's pretty likely that all of this crying about being oppressed in videogames is going to stop in the upcoming months, the people who pay for it are going out of bussiness :^). Wow, there is so many lies in this post I don't know where to start. And a huge LoL to Gawker having no sponsors. They posted well into the black in the last share holder call, but keep telling yourself that they are doing out of business.
Actually, Gawker has been shrinking for a while now, they've had to sell several of their daughter companies, they've even been going into shock marketing for Pepsi (Mein Coke?) recently because every one of their clickbait rags except Jezebel lost massive amounts viewership so they have to find different sources of revenue.
I can give you the list of all the sponsors they lost if you'd like :^)
User was (only) warned for this post on the offchance that the mod post was not seen.
|
On March 12 2015 05:32 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On March 12 2015 05:10 Scootaloo wrote:On March 12 2015 04:39 levelping wrote:On March 12 2015 04:15 Scootaloo wrote:
Y'know what I find amusing, people have been harassed on the internet since day 1 (maybe 3 or 4), most of us here grew up on the internet and have gotten used to the occasional person calling us some kind of slur and all capsing that we should die.
Yet it's only now, with the rise of the radical 3rd wave feminists and the social revenge warriors, that these people have started to claim that when they get harassed, women, gays or minorities are being driven out of gaming, that this is some great attack to them that will cause a massive exodus, despite the constant horrible insults the internet has grown only bigger and bigger and attracted more and more people, appearantly this place full of muh soggy knee, hatred and death threats is incredibly appealing to our species.
Almost like it's not about women in gaming but SJW's in gaming getting butthurt by threats and running to their Tumblr hugboxes because they where "triggered".
If the internet was really all that difficult for these poor, poor, oppressed women to deal with, they probably would get off it instead of complaining about it on Twitter and asking people to donate to their Patreon's. Actually this raises and interesting point. I've on the webs for sometime now, and my personal impression is that gaming communities are actually much more toxic than before. Btw you do realise that it is only recently that more women are playing games, so that's why such issues are being raised given that there are more women around. I will definitely give you that the last couple of months gaming communities have become much more toxic yeah. I will however tell you, from actually being in a lot of them, that most of this is because we feel like we're under attack. The garbage that we call "Game Journamism" has been attacking gamers for at least a year now and they've exploded since the start of GG, SJW's and self professed feminists getting the spotlight to spout about how bad we all are for being males, that the future of gaming doesn't belong to us because Farmville, Angry Birds, Candy Crush and other casual garbage are the way of the future. Somehow not understanding that playing a game on your phone while taking a shit and playing an actual video game on a dedicated system like a PC or console are not the same thing. This is an institution that will give glowing reviews to Depression Quest, a bad text based adventure even by that genre's standards, or Dragon Age Inquisition, a game that is worse in every respect to it's predecessors, but which is written by someone who agrees with their politics. And then almost completely ignore fantastic recent games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, the Baldur's Gate remakes and impending sequel, or anything else that's not considered either AAA studio material or fitting with their political agenda. But hey, a lot of sites have already folded and fired the writers of clickbait like the "Gamers are dead" article, Gawker has almost no sponsors left so it's pretty likely that all of this crying about being oppressed in videogames is going to stop in the upcoming months, the people who pay for it are going out of bussiness :^). Wow, there is so many lies in this post I don't know where to start. And a huge LoL to Gawker having no sponsors. They posted well into the black in the last share holder call, but keep telling yourself that they are doing out of business. Actually, Gawker has been shrinking for a while now, they've had to sell several of their daughter companies, they've even been going into shock marketing for Pepsi (Mein Coke?) recently because every one of their clickbait rags except Jezebel lost massive amounts viewership so they have to find different sources of revenue. I can give you the list of all the sponsors they lost if you'd like :^)
Nope, the mods have asked us to stop and so we are. I'm not going to talk about Gamergate and you should do the same.
|
I think that as a gaming community, we gotta just realise that the people who play games are changing. It isn't just teenage guys anymore with limitless amounts of time to play "hard core" games anymore. It's older people who are working, it's really young kids, and yes it's women. And this idea that gaming "belongs" to us, the core group, and so we can basically do what we want/harass people and expect everyone else to grow a thick skin... this idea is just out of sync with reality. No one owns gaming, in the same way no one owns tennis or bowling. If anything, gaming belongs to people who love games. And all these new people coming in? they want to love games too. Yes, it might be scary sharing what we think are our favourite toys with new people, but the truth is that we never owned those toys anyway.
So this is the paradigm guys. It's not going to change. People who play games will become more and more diversified, and less and less "hardcore" as it was previously. We can either roll with this like sensible human beings, and accomodate the new people coming in, reach out to them and help them feel comfortable, or we can just be that crazy old man that tells kids to get off his lawn. Either way new people will keep coming, just that if you want to be the crazy old man, then you're just going to remove yourself from any future meaningful discussion of what it means to be a gamer.
I think where we are is especially sad. Gamers in general are used to being loners or unpopular in real life. Trust me I know - gaming was that place where I can put aside all that real life crap about sports, or whatever, and just enjoy playing games with other people. Yet now that some new groups are joining us, we are effectively osctracising them in the very same way we might have been ostracised way bad when we were younger. It's just crazy.
Mods, I admit this might be semi-linked to GG, and so I leave this post at your mercy. Will delete if necessary.
|
Also it should be pointed out that games are going to change as the current market gets older. Some game are being made with the idea that adult gamers(who have more disposable cash) have less time on their hands due to being adults. Its a fact that most parents can't play DA:I because its a fucking 70 hour game, but still want to spend money. Someone is going to make a game for them and the gaming press is going to cover it.
Its natural and part of a hobby growing with its expanding audience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
