|
Please don't go calling people racist, misogynists, or any combination therein. Don't start throwing around words like "white Knight" or SJW, these words are at this point used in a derogatory manner regarding this debate. You can discuss that these terms exist, but do not attribute them to any individual user or group of users on this website.
Try to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks and we will all be the better for it. Breaking this rule will result in an automatic temp ban the length of which will depend on the comment you make.
This thread started not so bad. It is getting worse. If you want to have this discussion on TL be respectful of your fellow users, we all live in the same house.
Effective now: Page 21 October 18th 08:31 KST |
On October 19 2014 09:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 19 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:35 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Second, the reason she's making her videos is obviously to reach a broader audience than the people who read academic journals. Whether or not she's specifically interested in video games as a gamer is irrelevant - the point is that, as a feminist, she's interested in fighting sexism. More specifically, she seems to have taken a particular interest in studying and denouncing sexist gender roles in the media. She's worked previously on tv shows and movies, and is now working on video games. What exactly is supposed to be the problem? Perhaps she noticed that video games tend to be less studied than movies and decided to work on the subject. What is supposed to be controversial about this? Why does there have to be a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism leveled at the video games industry from a feminist perspective, instead of acknowledging that, just as is the case for plenty of other cultural vectors out there, there are plenty of things that can be improved in the treatment of women (and of other groups, for that matter)? She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds. The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas. I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! You're an ableist. You just don't care that people with muscular dystrophy are under-represented in videogames. How many wheelchair-bound characters actually do anything in videogames? Practically no videogames even have any. That implies all videogames reinforce the stereotype that the physically handicapped are worthless. And you're defending that. See how ridiculous this sounds? It is true that negative representations of people with disabilities impact negatively the self-image of people with disabilities, and the image that others have of disabled people - that's not ridiculous at all. For studies on the topic, see for example: Beth A. Haller, Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media, The Advocado Press, 2010. Beth A. Haller, Bruce Dorries & Jessica Rahn, "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language", Disability & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 61-75. Shinichi Saitoa & Reiko Ishiyama, "The invisible minority: under‐representation of people with disabilities in prime‐time TV dramas in Japan", Disability & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2005, pp. 437-451. Charles A. Riley, Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change, London, University Press of New England, 2005. Timothy Elliott & Keith Byrd, "Media and Disability", Rehabilitation literature, Vol. 45, No. 11-12, 1982, pp. 348-355. Helen Meekosha & Leanne Dowse, "Distorting Images, Invisible Images: Gender, Disability and the Media", Media International Australia, No. 84, 1997, pp. 91-101. etc. See also Foucault's work on insanity. The problem isn't when you ask "Why aren't there handicapped people in games?" It's when you point at specific games and say "You don't have any handicapped characters who are depicted positively, your game is a problem." Sarkeesian's argument is systemic. Wasn't really talking about Sarkeesian, more about the arguments you've been using.
All you've talked about how certain things are "problematic", and asking why wanting those things changed is such a bad thing.
But these kinds of things change by industry growth and shifts, not by pointing at specific issues and complaining about them. Princess Peach and Zelda will always be Damsel in Distress characters because its grandfathered into their storylines, and its part of the franchise that consumers expect. Duke Nukem will always be a crude, testerone filled caricature.
So when you ask what's so bad about female characters not fitting gender stereotypes, or not having female characters that aren't oversexualized, sometimes these things should remain, and are expected to remain, because of a lot of history and followings.
And sometimes things like handicapped character representation is entirely business related, because individual models, animations and physics can be expensive.
There's a lot more going on than just things being "problematic".
|
On October 19 2014 09:22 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Second, the reason she's making her videos is obviously to reach a broader audience than the people who read academic journals. Whether or not she's specifically interested in video games as a gamer is irrelevant - the point is that, as a feminist, she's interested in fighting sexism. More specifically, she seems to have taken a particular interest in studying and denouncing sexist gender roles in the media. She's worked previously on tv shows and movies, and is now working on video games. What exactly is supposed to be the problem? Perhaps she noticed that video games tend to be less studied than movies and decided to work on the subject. What is supposed to be controversial about this? Why does there have to be a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism leveled at the video games industry from a feminist perspective, instead of acknowledging that, just as is the case for plenty of other cultural vectors out there, there are plenty of things that can be improved in the treatment of women (and of other groups, for that matter)? She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds. The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas. I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! Has it occured to you that yours and Anita's liking may be different to what the vast majority of people's liking is? You even go to admit that she's militant about changing video games to her own liking. What if I don't agree with her analysis, in fact, I think it's full of shit? Or I don't get a say because I haven't got a gender studies degree? I'm just a basement dweller peasant white hetero male nerd who does not get his chance for a moral highground, I guess. Also, you might want to look into her background with pyramid schemes etc. just to see where her real motivation behind "studying games" may lie. Of course I admit that she's trying to change video games to her liking, since "her liking" is avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. I see that as positive changes, yes, and I'm sure plenty of people disagree. I'm also sure that plenty of people would not mind racist or homophobic stereotypes in games either, but cultural changes have made those less and less acceptable (although there is still much work to be done). Things are also moving positively for women, which is a good thing.
Who tried to deny you a say on the matter? You're posting right now, are you not?
Her background in terms of topics of study in her social science research activities clearly point to a genuine interest in the topic of sexism and a genuine desire to fight sexism. She may very well enjoy making money, but I'm not sure how the latter is supposed to invalidate the former.
|
On October 19 2014 09:14 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:03 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 08:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote:kwizach: 3 Points here. 1. She still lied about herself as real gamer by being dishonest here to gain popularity: + Show Spoiler +Verdict: Still a fraud You are now completely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed. I addressed your claim that she was scamming people and debunked that claim. I'm not interested in whether or not she's a "real gamer", whatever that's supposed to mean. Not being an active gamer is irrelevant to her analysis. On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote: 2. So basically because a person graduated from a "political" major, this somehow is a roadblock to learn how to perform other tasks? Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers because they have passion elsewhere.
Apparently this is her passion but she doesn't want to code herself.
Instead of traveling around, she should demonstrate better examples to others by doing what she preaches. She does what she preaches by not being sexist and by not denouncing sexism. Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers and plenty of folks have decided not to switch careers. Her passion is studying gender roles - that's what she's currently doing on the topic of video games. There is no reason for her to switch to developing video games. That's not what she's interested in doing, and that's not necessary at all for her to be making the points she's making. Another irrelevant accusation that was not being discussed. It seems to be the case that she used images she found online without properly referencing their origin, yes. And? No the entire point is to prove that she is horrible human being. You went into semantic nitpicking and went full Anita apologist by giving her excuse of her own unwillingness to code. All evidences points to her being lying, scheming, unethical individual that only used gaming to gain political points and financial gains. Case closed. So far, what you have to support your claim that she is a "terrible human being" is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. While that's something to be critical of, it hardly makes her a "terrible human being". I certainly did not go into semantic nitpicking, unless you mean that explaining to you why there is no factual basis whatsoever to the claim that she "scammed people" is "semantic nitpicking". If you want to ascribe new meaning to words like "scam", that's your problem. I explained to you repeatedly why your argument that she should start a career as a video games developer is completely asinine. It is not relevant with regards to her interests and it is not relevant with regards to her argument. You never addressed what I said and instead proceeded to repeat your ridiculous argument over and over again. "All evidence" points to her not scamming people and being honest in her desire to fight sexism. Again, you have no factual basis to claim that she scammed people and no factual basis to claim that she's only doing what she's doing for "political points" (?) and "financial gains", just like you had no factual basis to claim, as you did earlier in the thread, that Zoe Quinn traded sex for favorable reviews. Yes, case closed: you do not understand feminism, you do not understand the study of gender roles, and you have a knee-jerk reaction because someone (a feminist at that!) has dared to argue that video games are not devoid of flaws.
Traditional feminism is about giving women the same level of responsibility as a man in the work field so as long they are qualified, no discrimination are allowed by law.
It isn't to artificially inject into a market w/ a certain type of product w/ no monetary incentive in demand for the producers to supply.
Anita Sarkessian have abused the hard fought sweat and blood of the early feminism to her advantage. She manipulated the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry. She mislead people into thinking that she is gaming expert when she clearly isn't and haven't done enough research to make her points valid.
In turn, she have gained both political and financial gains.
Much like how certain historical leaders have banded the entire country against a certain group of people for his personal gain, Anita, albeit a lesser version, is following those steps close at hearts.
If this isn't considered as the characteristic of being a horrible human being, then you and the average people have a very different definition of horror.
|
On October 19 2014 09:28 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:35 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Second, the reason she's making her videos is obviously to reach a broader audience than the people who read academic journals. Whether or not she's specifically interested in video games as a gamer is irrelevant - the point is that, as a feminist, she's interested in fighting sexism. More specifically, she seems to have taken a particular interest in studying and denouncing sexist gender roles in the media. She's worked previously on tv shows and movies, and is now working on video games. What exactly is supposed to be the problem? Perhaps she noticed that video games tend to be less studied than movies and decided to work on the subject. What is supposed to be controversial about this? Why does there have to be a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism leveled at the video games industry from a feminist perspective, instead of acknowledging that, just as is the case for plenty of other cultural vectors out there, there are plenty of things that can be improved in the treatment of women (and of other groups, for that matter)? She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds. The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas. I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! You're an ableist. You just don't care that people with muscular dystrophy are under-represented in videogames. How many wheelchair-bound characters actually do anything in videogames? Practically no videogames even have any. That implies all videogames reinforce the stereotype that the physically handicapped are worthless. And you're defending that. See how ridiculous this sounds? It is true that negative representations of people with disabilities impact negatively the self-image of people with disabilities, and the image that others have of disabled people - that's not ridiculous at all. For studies on the topic, see for example: Beth A. Haller, Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media, The Advocado Press, 2010. Beth A. Haller, Bruce Dorries & Jessica Rahn, "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language", Disability & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 61-75. Shinichi Saitoa & Reiko Ishiyama, "The invisible minority: under‐representation of people with disabilities in prime‐time TV dramas in Japan", Disability & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2005, pp. 437-451. Charles A. Riley, Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change, London, University Press of New England, 2005. Timothy Elliott & Keith Byrd, "Media and Disability", Rehabilitation literature, Vol. 45, No. 11-12, 1982, pp. 348-355. Helen Meekosha & Leanne Dowse, "Distorting Images, Invisible Images: Gender, Disability and the Media", Media International Australia, No. 84, 1997, pp. 91-101. etc. See also Foucault's work on insanity. There are many genres with simply no place for the disabled though. How do you have an FPS that includes positive representations of the disabled? Try being stuck in a wheelchair during a firefight, you won't last long. The PC police would say that that's mocking the disabled. But if the game is designed in such a way that being in a wheelchair is not a disadvantage in a firefight, it's plainly ridiculous. Its a huge plothole. The bad guy can just hide on a different floor in the building and turn the elevator off. If he loses to someone in a wheelchair when he himself is not in a wheelchair, its absurd. Now, you might say "Oh, but you could have a scientist or a commander in a wheelchair in the narrative". In which case the PC police will STILL say that the physically disabled are under represented. They're stuck hidden away behind the scenes while all the important things are done by the able. It doesn't bother me that there are few representations of handicapped people in videogames, because there's pretty much no way to shoehorn them into games without hurting some other aspect of the game. I'm reminded of this quote by Stephen Fry: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." But thanks for linking me to a bunch of things I can't read without paying money. Sure convinced me. You can read plenty of those articles and books without paying money. All you need to do is use google and online resources that I suppose I can't cite on TL.net. You could also look yourself for similar sources on google scholar, or go to your local university and check out their library/online resources. But yes, you not being provided with direct links sure invalidates the contents of those studies analyzing the social and individual impacts of negative representations in the media of people with disabilities.
Yes, I agree with you that any character cannot simply be replaced by a character with a disability. I'm not sure why you think anyone was arguing that. You tried to ridicule the idea that representations matter by invoking the underrepresentation of people with disabilities, while that topic doesn't invalidate the idea at all. Nobody is saying that you should have a character with a disability at every corner killing bad guys by the dozens, but instead that representations matter, and therefore that it would for example be positive to occasionally have characters with disabilities (possibly playable) perform tasks that their disability has no reason of preventing them from doing, and to avoid systematically attaching negative stereotypes to characters with disabilities.
The argument is not "I'm rather offended by that". If you think it is, it means you don't understand it.
|
On October 19 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:28 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:35 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Second, the reason she's making her videos is obviously to reach a broader audience than the people who read academic journals. Whether or not she's specifically interested in video games as a gamer is irrelevant - the point is that, as a feminist, she's interested in fighting sexism. More specifically, she seems to have taken a particular interest in studying and denouncing sexist gender roles in the media. She's worked previously on tv shows and movies, and is now working on video games. What exactly is supposed to be the problem? Perhaps she noticed that video games tend to be less studied than movies and decided to work on the subject. What is supposed to be controversial about this? Why does there have to be a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism leveled at the video games industry from a feminist perspective, instead of acknowledging that, just as is the case for plenty of other cultural vectors out there, there are plenty of things that can be improved in the treatment of women (and of other groups, for that matter)? She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds. The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas. I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! You're an ableist. You just don't care that people with muscular dystrophy are under-represented in videogames. How many wheelchair-bound characters actually do anything in videogames? Practically no videogames even have any. That implies all videogames reinforce the stereotype that the physically handicapped are worthless. And you're defending that. See how ridiculous this sounds? It is true that negative representations of people with disabilities impact negatively the self-image of people with disabilities, and the image that others have of disabled people - that's not ridiculous at all. For studies on the topic, see for example: Beth A. Haller, Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media, The Advocado Press, 2010. Beth A. Haller, Bruce Dorries & Jessica Rahn, "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language", Disability & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 61-75. Shinichi Saitoa & Reiko Ishiyama, "The invisible minority: under‐representation of people with disabilities in prime‐time TV dramas in Japan", Disability & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2005, pp. 437-451. Charles A. Riley, Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change, London, University Press of New England, 2005. Timothy Elliott & Keith Byrd, "Media and Disability", Rehabilitation literature, Vol. 45, No. 11-12, 1982, pp. 348-355. Helen Meekosha & Leanne Dowse, "Distorting Images, Invisible Images: Gender, Disability and the Media", Media International Australia, No. 84, 1997, pp. 91-101. etc. See also Foucault's work on insanity. There are many genres with simply no place for the disabled though. How do you have an FPS that includes positive representations of the disabled? Try being stuck in a wheelchair during a firefight, you won't last long. The PC police would say that that's mocking the disabled. But if the game is designed in such a way that being in a wheelchair is not a disadvantage in a firefight, it's plainly ridiculous. Its a huge plothole. The bad guy can just hide on a different floor in the building and turn the elevator off. If he loses to someone in a wheelchair when he himself is not in a wheelchair, its absurd. Now, you might say "Oh, but you could have a scientist or a commander in a wheelchair in the narrative". In which case the PC police will STILL say that the physically disabled are under represented. They're stuck hidden away behind the scenes while all the important things are done by the able. It doesn't bother me that there are few representations of handicapped people in videogames, because there's pretty much no way to shoehorn them into games without hurting some other aspect of the game. I'm reminded of this quote by Stephen Fry: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." But thanks for linking me to a bunch of things I can't read without paying money. Sure convinced me. You can read plenty of those articles and books without paying money. All you need to do is use google and online resources that I suppose I can't cite on TL.net. You could also look yourself for similar sources on google scholar, or go to your local university and check out their library/online resources. But yes, you not being provided with direct links sure invalidates the contents of those studies analyzing the social and individual impacts of negative representations in the media of people with disabilities. Yes, I agree with you that any character cannot simply be replaced by a character with a disability. I'm not sure why you think anyone was arguing that. You tried to ridicule the idea that representations matter by invoking the underrepresentation of people with disabilities, while that topic doesn't invalidate the idea at all. Nobody is saying that you should have a character with a disability at every corner killing bad guys by the dozens, but instead that representations matter, and therefore that it would for example be positive to occasionally have characters with disabilities (possibly playable) perform tasks that their disability has no reason of preventing them from doing, and to avoid systematically attaching negative stereotypes to characters with disabilities. The argument is not "I'm rather offended by that". If you think it is, it means you don't understand it. You might not be offended by that, but you're basically claiming other people are, else you wouldn't have brought up self-esteem.
I don't know why you even bothered citing a ton of books you know I cant read in time to make a response. By the time I go through all the effort of acquiring those books and reading those sections, the conversation will have moved on and anything I will have gleaned will be irrelevant.
I'm saying there are many games that simply have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. Either they're on the frontlines and disadvantaged, or they're behind the lines and hidden away and unimportant. There's no winning with the PC police.
|
On October 19 2014 09:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:15 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 19 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:35 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Second, the reason she's making her videos is obviously to reach a broader audience than the people who read academic journals. Whether or not she's specifically interested in video games as a gamer is irrelevant - the point is that, as a feminist, she's interested in fighting sexism. More specifically, she seems to have taken a particular interest in studying and denouncing sexist gender roles in the media. She's worked previously on tv shows and movies, and is now working on video games. What exactly is supposed to be the problem? Perhaps she noticed that video games tend to be less studied than movies and decided to work on the subject. What is supposed to be controversial about this? Why does there have to be a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism leveled at the video games industry from a feminist perspective, instead of acknowledging that, just as is the case for plenty of other cultural vectors out there, there are plenty of things that can be improved in the treatment of women (and of other groups, for that matter)? She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds. The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas. I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote: [quote]
You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! You're an ableist. You just don't care that people with muscular dystrophy are under-represented in videogames. How many wheelchair-bound characters actually do anything in videogames? Practically no videogames even have any. That implies all videogames reinforce the stereotype that the physically handicapped are worthless. And you're defending that. See how ridiculous this sounds? It is true that negative representations of people with disabilities impact negatively the self-image of people with disabilities, and the image that others have of disabled people - that's not ridiculous at all. For studies on the topic, see for example: Beth A. Haller, Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media, The Advocado Press, 2010. Beth A. Haller, Bruce Dorries & Jessica Rahn, "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language", Disability & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 61-75. Shinichi Saitoa & Reiko Ishiyama, "The invisible minority: under‐representation of people with disabilities in prime‐time TV dramas in Japan", Disability & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2005, pp. 437-451. Charles A. Riley, Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change, London, University Press of New England, 2005. Timothy Elliott & Keith Byrd, "Media and Disability", Rehabilitation literature, Vol. 45, No. 11-12, 1982, pp. 348-355. Helen Meekosha & Leanne Dowse, "Distorting Images, Invisible Images: Gender, Disability and the Media", Media International Australia, No. 84, 1997, pp. 91-101. etc. See also Foucault's work on insanity. The problem isn't when you ask "Why aren't there handicapped people in games?" It's when you point at specific games and say "You don't have any handicapped characters who are depicted positively, your game is a problem." Sarkeesian's argument is systemic. Wasn't really talking about Sarkeesian, more about the arguments you've been using. All you've talked about how certain things are "problematic", and asking why wanting those things changed is such a bad thing. But these kinds of things change by industry growth and shifts, not by pointing at specific issues and complaining about them. Princess Peach and Zelda will always be Damsel in Distress characters because its grandfathered into their storylines, and its part of the franchise that consumers expect. Duke Nukem will always be a crude, testerone filled caricature. So when you ask what's so bad about female characters not fitting gender stereotypes, or not having female characters that aren't oversexualized, sometimes these things should remain, and are expected to remain, because of a lot of history and followings. And sometimes things like handicapped character representation is entirely business related, because individual models, animations and physics can be expensive. There's a lot more going on than just things being "problematic". These kinds of things change by mentalities changing/people becoming aware of (or convinced that there are) issues that need to be addressed. What can change mentalities? Education, being persuaded by new ideas and demonstrations you're exposed to, integrating social norms, etc. Sarkeesian's videos is one example of something that can convince some people that there is a problem at the systemic level that needs to be addressed, and the exposure the videos have gotten may add to the tendency to move in that non-sexist direction.
Sarkeesian is not arguing that Princess Peach should never again be a Damsel in Distress. She's arguing that there's a problem when you can see that female characters tend to be systematically attached to these passive and helpless roles. There will always be plenty of exceptions - in fact, one of her upcoming videos is apparently set to be about existing positive representations of female characters. The point is that at the systemic level, female characters tend to be overly sexualized and tend to be assigned to stereotypical gender roles. Of course, individual clear instances of sexism can also be denounced as such, if the intent is to have the player adhere to sexist ideas/practices.
|
On October 19 2014 09:42 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:14 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:03 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 08:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote:kwizach: 3 Points here. 1. She still lied about herself as real gamer by being dishonest here to gain popularity: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw Verdict: Still a fraud You are now completely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed. I addressed your claim that she was scamming people and debunked that claim. I'm not interested in whether or not she's a "real gamer", whatever that's supposed to mean. Not being an active gamer is irrelevant to her analysis. On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote: 2. So basically because a person graduated from a "political" major, this somehow is a roadblock to learn how to perform other tasks? Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers because they have passion elsewhere.
Apparently this is her passion but she doesn't want to code herself.
Instead of traveling around, she should demonstrate better examples to others by doing what she preaches. She does what she preaches by not being sexist and by not denouncing sexism. Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers and plenty of folks have decided not to switch careers. Her passion is studying gender roles - that's what she's currently doing on the topic of video games. There is no reason for her to switch to developing video games. That's not what she's interested in doing, and that's not necessary at all for her to be making the points she's making. Another irrelevant accusation that was not being discussed. It seems to be the case that she used images she found online without properly referencing their origin, yes. And? No the entire point is to prove that she is horrible human being. You went into semantic nitpicking and went full Anita apologist by giving her excuse of her own unwillingness to code. All evidences points to her being lying, scheming, unethical individual that only used gaming to gain political points and financial gains. Case closed. So far, what you have to support your claim that she is a "terrible human being" is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. While that's something to be critical of, it hardly makes her a "terrible human being". I certainly did not go into semantic nitpicking, unless you mean that explaining to you why there is no factual basis whatsoever to the claim that she "scammed people" is "semantic nitpicking". If you want to ascribe new meaning to words like "scam", that's your problem. I explained to you repeatedly why your argument that she should start a career as a video games developer is completely asinine. It is not relevant with regards to her interests and it is not relevant with regards to her argument. You never addressed what I said and instead proceeded to repeat your ridiculous argument over and over again. "All evidence" points to her not scamming people and being honest in her desire to fight sexism. Again, you have no factual basis to claim that she scammed people and no factual basis to claim that she's only doing what she's doing for "political points" (?) and "financial gains", just like you had no factual basis to claim, as you did earlier in the thread, that Zoe Quinn traded sex for favorable reviews. Yes, case closed: you do not understand feminism, you do not understand the study of gender roles, and you have a knee-jerk reaction because someone (a feminist at that!) has dared to argue that video games are not devoid of flaws. Traditional feminism is about giving women the same level of responsibility as a man in the work field so as long they are qualified, no discrimination are allowed by law. It isn't to artificially inject into a market w/ a certain type of product w/ no monetary incentive in demand for the producers to supply. Anita Sarkessian have abused the hard fought sweat and blood of the early feminism to her advantage. She manipulated the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry. She mislead people into thinking that she is gaming expert when she clearly isn't and haven't done enough research to make her points valid. In turn, she have gained both political and financial gains. Much like how certain historical leaders have banded the entire country against a certain group of people for his personal gain, Anita, albeit a lesser version, is following those steps close at hearts. If this isn't considered as the characteristic of being a horrible human being, then you and the average people have a very different definition of horror. You are repeating claims I have already rebutted without addressing what I said. You do not have the slightest idea about feminism and its evolution, as evidenced in the "Dating, how's your luck?" thread. Gender studies have existed for decades and many feminist authors have studied gender roles in the media, which is what Sarkeesian is doing here.
She did not "manipulate the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry". She pointed out problematic aspects found at the systemic level with regards to sexist representations of female characters, stressing that there were plenty of counter-examples. She is an expert on what she's doing, namely studying gender roles in the media.
She did make financial gains, just like you're making financial gains by doing your job (if you have any). You have no factual basis to claim that's the sole reason she engaged in that work. In fact, factual information on her previous work in academia suggests a genuine interest for the study of gender roles and a genuine feminist engagement.
Again, the only factual thing you have against her is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. That hardly makes her a "horrible human being".
|
On October 19 2014 10:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 09:14 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:03 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 08:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote:kwizach: 3 Points here. 1. She still lied about herself as real gamer by being dishonest here to gain popularity: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw Verdict: Still a fraud You are now completely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed. I addressed your claim that she was scamming people and debunked that claim. I'm not interested in whether or not she's a "real gamer", whatever that's supposed to mean. Not being an active gamer is irrelevant to her analysis. On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote: 2. So basically because a person graduated from a "political" major, this somehow is a roadblock to learn how to perform other tasks? Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers because they have passion elsewhere.
Apparently this is her passion but she doesn't want to code herself.
Instead of traveling around, she should demonstrate better examples to others by doing what she preaches. She does what she preaches by not being sexist and by not denouncing sexism. Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers and plenty of folks have decided not to switch careers. Her passion is studying gender roles - that's what she's currently doing on the topic of video games. There is no reason for her to switch to developing video games. That's not what she's interested in doing, and that's not necessary at all for her to be making the points she's making. Another irrelevant accusation that was not being discussed. It seems to be the case that she used images she found online without properly referencing their origin, yes. And? No the entire point is to prove that she is horrible human being. You went into semantic nitpicking and went full Anita apologist by giving her excuse of her own unwillingness to code. All evidences points to her being lying, scheming, unethical individual that only used gaming to gain political points and financial gains. Case closed. So far, what you have to support your claim that she is a "terrible human being" is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. While that's something to be critical of, it hardly makes her a "terrible human being". I certainly did not go into semantic nitpicking, unless you mean that explaining to you why there is no factual basis whatsoever to the claim that she "scammed people" is "semantic nitpicking". If you want to ascribe new meaning to words like "scam", that's your problem. I explained to you repeatedly why your argument that she should start a career as a video games developer is completely asinine. It is not relevant with regards to her interests and it is not relevant with regards to her argument. You never addressed what I said and instead proceeded to repeat your ridiculous argument over and over again. "All evidence" points to her not scamming people and being honest in her desire to fight sexism. Again, you have no factual basis to claim that she scammed people and no factual basis to claim that she's only doing what she's doing for "political points" (?) and "financial gains", just like you had no factual basis to claim, as you did earlier in the thread, that Zoe Quinn traded sex for favorable reviews. Yes, case closed: you do not understand feminism, you do not understand the study of gender roles, and you have a knee-jerk reaction because someone (a feminist at that!) has dared to argue that video games are not devoid of flaws. Traditional feminism is about giving women the same level of responsibility as a man in the work field so as long they are qualified, no discrimination are allowed by law. It isn't to artificially inject into a market w/ a certain type of product w/ no monetary incentive in demand for the producers to supply. Anita Sarkessian have abused the hard fought sweat and blood of the early feminism to her advantage. She manipulated the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry. She mislead people into thinking that she is gaming expert when she clearly isn't and haven't done enough research to make her points valid. In turn, she have gained both political and financial gains. Much like how certain historical leaders have banded the entire country against a certain group of people for his personal gain, Anita, albeit a lesser version, is following those steps close at hearts. If this isn't considered as the characteristic of being a horrible human being, then you and the average people have a very different definition of horror. You are repeating claims I have already rebutted without addressing what I said. You do not have the slightest idea about feminism and its evolution, as evidenced in the "Dating, how's your luck?" thread. Gender studies have existed for decades and many feminist authors have studied gender roles in the media, which is what Sarkeesian is doing here. She did not "manipulate the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry". She pointed out problematic aspects found at the systemic level with regards to sexist representations of female characters, stressing that there were plenty of counter-examples. She is an expert on what she's doing, namely studying gender roles in the media. She did make financial gains, just like you're making financial gains by doing your job (if you have any). You have no factual basis to claim that's the sole reason she engaged in that work. In fact, factual information on her previous work in academia suggests a genuine interest for the study of gender roles and a genuine feminist engagement. Again, the only factual thing you have against her is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. That hardly makes her a "horrible human being".
So now you are saying that "Oh, the definition of feminism can be almost anything! We can change (or evolve) it however we wish it too!"
No the term feminism have to have a rigid definition or else the word is useless. You need to grab a hold of one definition and the sentence I wrote is exactly on the most common description.
And oh you are just fixating on that one piece of evidence I've posted while ignoring how I've said that she is long passed overdue in her coming date, how she mislead the public with misinformation on her videos or how she lied to everybody on how credible it is.
Do you not understand that despite our great advances in the past couple of years, gaming is still actually a niche? And not everybody knows all about gaming?
Well now she basically smeared us all to dirts.
And while at it, it just happens that she is gaining fame + money from it.
At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you?
|
On October 19 2014 09:54 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:28 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:35 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Second, the reason she's making her videos is obviously to reach a broader audience than the people who read academic journals. Whether or not she's specifically interested in video games as a gamer is irrelevant - the point is that, as a feminist, she's interested in fighting sexism. More specifically, she seems to have taken a particular interest in studying and denouncing sexist gender roles in the media. She's worked previously on tv shows and movies, and is now working on video games. What exactly is supposed to be the problem? Perhaps she noticed that video games tend to be less studied than movies and decided to work on the subject. What is supposed to be controversial about this? Why does there have to be a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism leveled at the video games industry from a feminist perspective, instead of acknowledging that, just as is the case for plenty of other cultural vectors out there, there are plenty of things that can be improved in the treatment of women (and of other groups, for that matter)? She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds. The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas. I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 01:51 kwizach wrote:No, that's not necessarily true at all. The fact that people buy games which contain sexist tropes cannot be taken to necessarily mean that the people in question actually largely support the presence of those sexist elements and would not be buying the same games were those aspects removed or toned down. The option "buy the exact same game without the sexist elements" is simply not there. You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote: [quote]
You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! You're an ableist. You just don't care that people with muscular dystrophy are under-represented in videogames. How many wheelchair-bound characters actually do anything in videogames? Practically no videogames even have any. That implies all videogames reinforce the stereotype that the physically handicapped are worthless. And you're defending that. See how ridiculous this sounds? It is true that negative representations of people with disabilities impact negatively the self-image of people with disabilities, and the image that others have of disabled people - that's not ridiculous at all. For studies on the topic, see for example: Beth A. Haller, Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media, The Advocado Press, 2010. Beth A. Haller, Bruce Dorries & Jessica Rahn, "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language", Disability & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 61-75. Shinichi Saitoa & Reiko Ishiyama, "The invisible minority: under‐representation of people with disabilities in prime‐time TV dramas in Japan", Disability & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2005, pp. 437-451. Charles A. Riley, Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change, London, University Press of New England, 2005. Timothy Elliott & Keith Byrd, "Media and Disability", Rehabilitation literature, Vol. 45, No. 11-12, 1982, pp. 348-355. Helen Meekosha & Leanne Dowse, "Distorting Images, Invisible Images: Gender, Disability and the Media", Media International Australia, No. 84, 1997, pp. 91-101. etc. See also Foucault's work on insanity. There are many genres with simply no place for the disabled though. How do you have an FPS that includes positive representations of the disabled? Try being stuck in a wheelchair during a firefight, you won't last long. The PC police would say that that's mocking the disabled. But if the game is designed in such a way that being in a wheelchair is not a disadvantage in a firefight, it's plainly ridiculous. Its a huge plothole. The bad guy can just hide on a different floor in the building and turn the elevator off. If he loses to someone in a wheelchair when he himself is not in a wheelchair, its absurd. Now, you might say "Oh, but you could have a scientist or a commander in a wheelchair in the narrative". In which case the PC police will STILL say that the physically disabled are under represented. They're stuck hidden away behind the scenes while all the important things are done by the able. It doesn't bother me that there are few representations of handicapped people in videogames, because there's pretty much no way to shoehorn them into games without hurting some other aspect of the game. I'm reminded of this quote by Stephen Fry: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." But thanks for linking me to a bunch of things I can't read without paying money. Sure convinced me. You can read plenty of those articles and books without paying money. All you need to do is use google and online resources that I suppose I can't cite on TL.net. You could also look yourself for similar sources on google scholar, or go to your local university and check out their library/online resources. But yes, you not being provided with direct links sure invalidates the contents of those studies analyzing the social and individual impacts of negative representations in the media of people with disabilities. Yes, I agree with you that any character cannot simply be replaced by a character with a disability. I'm not sure why you think anyone was arguing that. You tried to ridicule the idea that representations matter by invoking the underrepresentation of people with disabilities, while that topic doesn't invalidate the idea at all. Nobody is saying that you should have a character with a disability at every corner killing bad guys by the dozens, but instead that representations matter, and therefore that it would for example be positive to occasionally have characters with disabilities (possibly playable) perform tasks that their disability has no reason of preventing them from doing, and to avoid systematically attaching negative stereotypes to characters with disabilities. The argument is not "I'm rather offended by that". If you think it is, it means you don't understand it. You might not be offended by that, but you're basically claiming other people are, else you wouldn't have brought up self-esteem. I don't know why you even bothered citing a ton of books you know I cant read in time to make a response. By the time I go through all the effort of acquiring those books and reading those sections, the conversation will have moved on and anything I will have gleaned will be irrelevant. I'm saying there are many games that simply have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. Either they're on the frontlines and disadvantaged, or they're behind the lines and hidden away and unimportant. There's no winning with the PC police. Self-esteem goes way beyond being offended by something. Someone's self-esteem can very much be reduced because of being confronted with negative representations of the group(s) one belongs to, even if there is no direct feeling of being offended. The impacts of such representations (pertaining to sex, color, age, physical abilities, whatever) on the self-images and self-esteems of individuals are extremely well documented in social science research.
I bothered citing sources because that's how you give your interlocutor the opportunity to see and check, if he or she wants to, that you're not inventing things out of thin air. If you want to educate yourself on the topic, feel free to read them. If not, feel free not to read them. What's the problem exactly?
Sure, there are plenty of games that have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. "Pong", for example ,-) But the point is not that some games leave little room for such positive representations, the point is that at the systemic level you can often notice in the media that the disabled are underrepresented, and that when they are represented it's often negatively, which impacts perceptions of disabled people among both the disabled and the non-disabled.
|
On October 19 2014 10:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 09:54 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:28 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:35 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Second, the reason she's making her videos is obviously to reach a broader audience than the people who read academic journals. Whether or not she's specifically interested in video games as a gamer is irrelevant - the point is that, as a feminist, she's interested in fighting sexism. More specifically, she seems to have taken a particular interest in studying and denouncing sexist gender roles in the media. She's worked previously on tv shows and movies, and is now working on video games. What exactly is supposed to be the problem? Perhaps she noticed that video games tend to be less studied than movies and decided to work on the subject. What is supposed to be controversial about this? Why does there have to be a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism leveled at the video games industry from a feminist perspective, instead of acknowledging that, just as is the case for plenty of other cultural vectors out there, there are plenty of things that can be improved in the treatment of women (and of other groups, for that matter)? She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds. The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas. I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 03:28 sevencck wrote: [quote]
You're missing my point. You've defined those elements as sexist. That certain things are sexist or the degree to which they're sexist is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You've defined the choices the consumer has as limited based on your own definition of sexism. No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters. Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote: [quote] No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters.
Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! You're an ableist. You just don't care that people with muscular dystrophy are under-represented in videogames. How many wheelchair-bound characters actually do anything in videogames? Practically no videogames even have any. That implies all videogames reinforce the stereotype that the physically handicapped are worthless. And you're defending that. See how ridiculous this sounds? It is true that negative representations of people with disabilities impact negatively the self-image of people with disabilities, and the image that others have of disabled people - that's not ridiculous at all. For studies on the topic, see for example: Beth A. Haller, Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media, The Advocado Press, 2010. Beth A. Haller, Bruce Dorries & Jessica Rahn, "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language", Disability & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 61-75. Shinichi Saitoa & Reiko Ishiyama, "The invisible minority: under‐representation of people with disabilities in prime‐time TV dramas in Japan", Disability & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2005, pp. 437-451. Charles A. Riley, Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change, London, University Press of New England, 2005. Timothy Elliott & Keith Byrd, "Media and Disability", Rehabilitation literature, Vol. 45, No. 11-12, 1982, pp. 348-355. Helen Meekosha & Leanne Dowse, "Distorting Images, Invisible Images: Gender, Disability and the Media", Media International Australia, No. 84, 1997, pp. 91-101. etc. See also Foucault's work on insanity. There are many genres with simply no place for the disabled though. How do you have an FPS that includes positive representations of the disabled? Try being stuck in a wheelchair during a firefight, you won't last long. The PC police would say that that's mocking the disabled. But if the game is designed in such a way that being in a wheelchair is not a disadvantage in a firefight, it's plainly ridiculous. Its a huge plothole. The bad guy can just hide on a different floor in the building and turn the elevator off. If he loses to someone in a wheelchair when he himself is not in a wheelchair, its absurd. Now, you might say "Oh, but you could have a scientist or a commander in a wheelchair in the narrative". In which case the PC police will STILL say that the physically disabled are under represented. They're stuck hidden away behind the scenes while all the important things are done by the able. It doesn't bother me that there are few representations of handicapped people in videogames, because there's pretty much no way to shoehorn them into games without hurting some other aspect of the game. I'm reminded of this quote by Stephen Fry: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." But thanks for linking me to a bunch of things I can't read without paying money. Sure convinced me. You can read plenty of those articles and books without paying money. All you need to do is use google and online resources that I suppose I can't cite on TL.net. You could also look yourself for similar sources on google scholar, or go to your local university and check out their library/online resources. But yes, you not being provided with direct links sure invalidates the contents of those studies analyzing the social and individual impacts of negative representations in the media of people with disabilities. Yes, I agree with you that any character cannot simply be replaced by a character with a disability. I'm not sure why you think anyone was arguing that. You tried to ridicule the idea that representations matter by invoking the underrepresentation of people with disabilities, while that topic doesn't invalidate the idea at all. Nobody is saying that you should have a character with a disability at every corner killing bad guys by the dozens, but instead that representations matter, and therefore that it would for example be positive to occasionally have characters with disabilities (possibly playable) perform tasks that their disability has no reason of preventing them from doing, and to avoid systematically attaching negative stereotypes to characters with disabilities. The argument is not "I'm rather offended by that". If you think it is, it means you don't understand it. You might not be offended by that, but you're basically claiming other people are, else you wouldn't have brought up self-esteem. I don't know why you even bothered citing a ton of books you know I cant read in time to make a response. By the time I go through all the effort of acquiring those books and reading those sections, the conversation will have moved on and anything I will have gleaned will be irrelevant. I'm saying there are many games that simply have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. Either they're on the frontlines and disadvantaged, or they're behind the lines and hidden away and unimportant. There's no winning with the PC police. Self-esteem goes way beyond being offended by something. Someone's self-esteem can very much be reduced because of being confronted with negative representations of the group(s) one belongs to, even if there is no direct feeling of being offended. The impacts of such representations (pertaining to sex, color, age, physical abilities, whatever) on the self-images and self-esteems of individuals are extremely well documented in social science research. I bothered citing sources because that's how you give your interlocutor the opportunity to see and check, if he or she wants to, that you're not inventing things out of thin air. If you want to educate yourself on the topic, feel free to read them. If not, feel free not to read them. What's the problem exactly? Sure, there are plenty of games that have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. "Pong", for example ,-) But the point is not that some games leave little room for such positive representations, the point is that at the systemic level you can often notice in the media that the disabled are underrepresented, and that when they are represented it's often negatively, which impacts perceptions of disabled people among both the disabled and the non-disabled. It's whole genres though, not just individual games. Where could a wheelchair be in an FPS? How about a racing game? How about a sports game?
It's called self-esteem because its how you feel about yourself. You decide your own self-esteem. Anyone who has low self-esteem because some group they're in isn't represented exactly how they'd like didn't pay enough attention in nursery school. Sticks and stones.
|
On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:01 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 09:14 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:03 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 08:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote:kwizach: 3 Points here. 1. She still lied about herself as real gamer by being dishonest here to gain popularity: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw Verdict: Still a fraud You are now completely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed. I addressed your claim that she was scamming people and debunked that claim. I'm not interested in whether or not she's a "real gamer", whatever that's supposed to mean. Not being an active gamer is irrelevant to her analysis. On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote: 2. So basically because a person graduated from a "political" major, this somehow is a roadblock to learn how to perform other tasks? Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers because they have passion elsewhere.
Apparently this is her passion but she doesn't want to code herself.
Instead of traveling around, she should demonstrate better examples to others by doing what she preaches. She does what she preaches by not being sexist and by not denouncing sexism. Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers and plenty of folks have decided not to switch careers. Her passion is studying gender roles - that's what she's currently doing on the topic of video games. There is no reason for her to switch to developing video games. That's not what she's interested in doing, and that's not necessary at all for her to be making the points she's making. Another irrelevant accusation that was not being discussed. It seems to be the case that she used images she found online without properly referencing their origin, yes. And? No the entire point is to prove that she is horrible human being. You went into semantic nitpicking and went full Anita apologist by giving her excuse of her own unwillingness to code. All evidences points to her being lying, scheming, unethical individual that only used gaming to gain political points and financial gains. Case closed. So far, what you have to support your claim that she is a "terrible human being" is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. While that's something to be critical of, it hardly makes her a "terrible human being". I certainly did not go into semantic nitpicking, unless you mean that explaining to you why there is no factual basis whatsoever to the claim that she "scammed people" is "semantic nitpicking". If you want to ascribe new meaning to words like "scam", that's your problem. I explained to you repeatedly why your argument that she should start a career as a video games developer is completely asinine. It is not relevant with regards to her interests and it is not relevant with regards to her argument. You never addressed what I said and instead proceeded to repeat your ridiculous argument over and over again. "All evidence" points to her not scamming people and being honest in her desire to fight sexism. Again, you have no factual basis to claim that she scammed people and no factual basis to claim that she's only doing what she's doing for "political points" (?) and "financial gains", just like you had no factual basis to claim, as you did earlier in the thread, that Zoe Quinn traded sex for favorable reviews. Yes, case closed: you do not understand feminism, you do not understand the study of gender roles, and you have a knee-jerk reaction because someone (a feminist at that!) has dared to argue that video games are not devoid of flaws. Traditional feminism is about giving women the same level of responsibility as a man in the work field so as long they are qualified, no discrimination are allowed by law. It isn't to artificially inject into a market w/ a certain type of product w/ no monetary incentive in demand for the producers to supply. Anita Sarkessian have abused the hard fought sweat and blood of the early feminism to her advantage. She manipulated the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry. She mislead people into thinking that she is gaming expert when she clearly isn't and haven't done enough research to make her points valid. In turn, she have gained both political and financial gains. Much like how certain historical leaders have banded the entire country against a certain group of people for his personal gain, Anita, albeit a lesser version, is following those steps close at hearts. If this isn't considered as the characteristic of being a horrible human being, then you and the average people have a very different definition of horror. You are repeating claims I have already rebutted without addressing what I said. You do not have the slightest idea about feminism and its evolution, as evidenced in the "Dating, how's your luck?" thread. Gender studies have existed for decades and many feminist authors have studied gender roles in the media, which is what Sarkeesian is doing here. She did not "manipulate the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry". She pointed out problematic aspects found at the systemic level with regards to sexist representations of female characters, stressing that there were plenty of counter-examples. She is an expert on what she's doing, namely studying gender roles in the media. She did make financial gains, just like you're making financial gains by doing your job (if you have any). You have no factual basis to claim that's the sole reason she engaged in that work. In fact, factual information on her previous work in academia suggests a genuine interest for the study of gender roles and a genuine feminist engagement. Again, the only factual thing you have against her is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. That hardly makes her a "horrible human being". So now you are saying that "Oh, the definition of feminism can be almost anything! We can change (or evolve) it however we wish it too!" No the term feminism have to have a rigid definition or else the word is useless. You need to grab a hold of one definition and the sentence I wrote is exactly on the most common description. No, feminism as a social movement has evolved over the years and diversified itself, spawning different strands. That you seem to be unaware of this speaks volumes about your knowledge on the topic. This doesn't mean that feminism isn't still a "belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities", and a support for the "political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" (Merriam-Webster). Sarkeesian subscribes to exactly that, and her work in her videos is aimed at working for the social equality of the sexes through their representations in the media. Such representations are notably analyzed in gender studies.
On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: And oh you are just fixating on that one piece of evidence I've posted while ignoring how I've said that she is long passed overdue in her coming date, how she mislead the public with misinformation on her videos or how she lied to everybody on how credible it is. You're mixing your claim that she's scamming people with your claim that she's a terrible/horrible human being. I did not ignore that she was producing the videos slower than initially announced - in fact I addressed it by saying that being late could not be equated to scamming people when she was still doing exactly what she said she would be doing. The only calendar she put up on her kickstarter was about gifts to people having donated.
She did not mislead the public, the points she made in her videos stand. She didn't "lie to everybody on how credible it is", whatever that's supposed to mean.
On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: Do you not understand that despite our great advances in the past couple of years, gaming is still actually a niche? And not everybody knows all about gaming?
Well now she basically smeared us all to dirts.
And while at it, it just happens that she is gaining fame + money from it.
At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? Why exactly would being a niche (and that's debatable) prevent gaming from being subject to legitimate criticism? Addressing valid criticism is how you grow/get better. If anything, she's helping gaming, and the dumbasses who are harassing her (and whom you are supporting) are perpetuating negative stereotypes that we should all be fighting.
She didn't smear anyone, she pointed out sexist elements present in gaming, just like there are sexist elements present in movies, in tv shows, in literature, etc.
Good for her if she's gaining money while fighting for a worthy cause.
On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? The kind who understands what feminism is about, who understands what gender studies are about, who understands what Sarkeesian's point is, and who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction against the messenger who dared point out that everything isn't perfect in the video games industry.
|
On October 19 2014 10:19 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:13 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:54 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:28 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:35 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Second, the reason she's making her videos is obviously to reach a broader audience than the people who read academic journals. Whether or not she's specifically interested in video games as a gamer is irrelevant - the point is that, as a feminist, she's interested in fighting sexism. More specifically, she seems to have taken a particular interest in studying and denouncing sexist gender roles in the media. She's worked previously on tv shows and movies, and is now working on video games. What exactly is supposed to be the problem? Perhaps she noticed that video games tend to be less studied than movies and decided to work on the subject. What is supposed to be controversial about this? Why does there have to be a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism leveled at the video games industry from a feminist perspective, instead of acknowledging that, just as is the case for plenty of other cultural vectors out there, there are plenty of things that can be improved in the treatment of women (and of other groups, for that matter)? She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds. The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas. I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote:On October 19 2014 07:34 kwizach wrote: [quote] No, I'm not missing your point at all. You said that the fact that people are purchasing the games that some are arguing contain sexist elements means that these people have "spoken with their dollars" and that they do not consider those games sexist/problematic. What I said to you was that this is not necessarily true at all. Many people may very well consider that aspects of a game are sexist/problematic but still buy it anyway, for example because they still want to enjoy what is considered to be a great gameplay experience despite its flaws on the front of its treatment of male/female characters.
Beyond this point, however, sexism is not more or less subjective than racism, homophobia, etc. Identifying depictions of women which actively perpetuate stereotypes of social roles based on sex equals identifying sexism, whether or not it's recognized as such by everyone. You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote: [quote]
You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! You're an ableist. You just don't care that people with muscular dystrophy are under-represented in videogames. How many wheelchair-bound characters actually do anything in videogames? Practically no videogames even have any. That implies all videogames reinforce the stereotype that the physically handicapped are worthless. And you're defending that. See how ridiculous this sounds? It is true that negative representations of people with disabilities impact negatively the self-image of people with disabilities, and the image that others have of disabled people - that's not ridiculous at all. For studies on the topic, see for example: Beth A. Haller, Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media, The Advocado Press, 2010. Beth A. Haller, Bruce Dorries & Jessica Rahn, "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language", Disability & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 61-75. Shinichi Saitoa & Reiko Ishiyama, "The invisible minority: under‐representation of people with disabilities in prime‐time TV dramas in Japan", Disability & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2005, pp. 437-451. Charles A. Riley, Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change, London, University Press of New England, 2005. Timothy Elliott & Keith Byrd, "Media and Disability", Rehabilitation literature, Vol. 45, No. 11-12, 1982, pp. 348-355. Helen Meekosha & Leanne Dowse, "Distorting Images, Invisible Images: Gender, Disability and the Media", Media International Australia, No. 84, 1997, pp. 91-101. etc. See also Foucault's work on insanity. There are many genres with simply no place for the disabled though. How do you have an FPS that includes positive representations of the disabled? Try being stuck in a wheelchair during a firefight, you won't last long. The PC police would say that that's mocking the disabled. But if the game is designed in such a way that being in a wheelchair is not a disadvantage in a firefight, it's plainly ridiculous. Its a huge plothole. The bad guy can just hide on a different floor in the building and turn the elevator off. If he loses to someone in a wheelchair when he himself is not in a wheelchair, its absurd. Now, you might say "Oh, but you could have a scientist or a commander in a wheelchair in the narrative". In which case the PC police will STILL say that the physically disabled are under represented. They're stuck hidden away behind the scenes while all the important things are done by the able. It doesn't bother me that there are few representations of handicapped people in videogames, because there's pretty much no way to shoehorn them into games without hurting some other aspect of the game. I'm reminded of this quote by Stephen Fry: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." But thanks for linking me to a bunch of things I can't read without paying money. Sure convinced me. You can read plenty of those articles and books without paying money. All you need to do is use google and online resources that I suppose I can't cite on TL.net. You could also look yourself for similar sources on google scholar, or go to your local university and check out their library/online resources. But yes, you not being provided with direct links sure invalidates the contents of those studies analyzing the social and individual impacts of negative representations in the media of people with disabilities. Yes, I agree with you that any character cannot simply be replaced by a character with a disability. I'm not sure why you think anyone was arguing that. You tried to ridicule the idea that representations matter by invoking the underrepresentation of people with disabilities, while that topic doesn't invalidate the idea at all. Nobody is saying that you should have a character with a disability at every corner killing bad guys by the dozens, but instead that representations matter, and therefore that it would for example be positive to occasionally have characters with disabilities (possibly playable) perform tasks that their disability has no reason of preventing them from doing, and to avoid systematically attaching negative stereotypes to characters with disabilities. The argument is not "I'm rather offended by that". If you think it is, it means you don't understand it. You might not be offended by that, but you're basically claiming other people are, else you wouldn't have brought up self-esteem. I don't know why you even bothered citing a ton of books you know I cant read in time to make a response. By the time I go through all the effort of acquiring those books and reading those sections, the conversation will have moved on and anything I will have gleaned will be irrelevant. I'm saying there are many games that simply have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. Either they're on the frontlines and disadvantaged, or they're behind the lines and hidden away and unimportant. There's no winning with the PC police. Self-esteem goes way beyond being offended by something. Someone's self-esteem can very much be reduced because of being confronted with negative representations of the group(s) one belongs to, even if there is no direct feeling of being offended. The impacts of such representations (pertaining to sex, color, age, physical abilities, whatever) on the self-images and self-esteems of individuals are extremely well documented in social science research. I bothered citing sources because that's how you give your interlocutor the opportunity to see and check, if he or she wants to, that you're not inventing things out of thin air. If you want to educate yourself on the topic, feel free to read them. If not, feel free not to read them. What's the problem exactly? Sure, there are plenty of games that have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. "Pong", for example ,-) But the point is not that some games leave little room for such positive representations, the point is that at the systemic level you can often notice in the media that the disabled are underrepresented, and that when they are represented it's often negatively, which impacts perceptions of disabled people among both the disabled and the non-disabled. It's whole genres though, not just individual games. Where could a wheelchair be in an FPS? How about a racing game? How about a sports game? Come on, nobody is advocating having one of the players in each team in FIFA play in a wheelchair. It doesn't mean you can't have characters (playable or not) with a disability in plenty of games. In fact, you can already find plenty of such examples, including in FPS games.
On October 19 2014 10:19 Millitron wrote: It's called self-esteem because its how you feel about yourself. You decide your own self-esteem. Anyone who has low self-esteem because some group they're in isn't represented exactly how they'd like didn't pay enough attention in nursery school. Sticks and stones. Self-esteem is not simply decided by your own "detached" will. You clearly have no idea whatsoever about the scientific studies done on self-images and self-esteem, so I'm not sure what else to tell you than go educate yourself on the topic. Social representations matter in how you perceive yourself and others, whether you realize it or not. It's something you learn in a Social psychology 101 class. If you want me to provide you with more sources, just ask.
|
On October 19 2014 10:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 10:01 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 09:14 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:03 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 08:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote:kwizach: 3 Points here. 1. She still lied about herself as real gamer by being dishonest here to gain popularity: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw Verdict: Still a fraud You are now completely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed. I addressed your claim that she was scamming people and debunked that claim. I'm not interested in whether or not she's a "real gamer", whatever that's supposed to mean. Not being an active gamer is irrelevant to her analysis. On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote: 2. So basically because a person graduated from a "political" major, this somehow is a roadblock to learn how to perform other tasks? Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers because they have passion elsewhere.
Apparently this is her passion but she doesn't want to code herself.
Instead of traveling around, she should demonstrate better examples to others by doing what she preaches. She does what she preaches by not being sexist and by not denouncing sexism. Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers and plenty of folks have decided not to switch careers. Her passion is studying gender roles - that's what she's currently doing on the topic of video games. There is no reason for her to switch to developing video games. That's not what she's interested in doing, and that's not necessary at all for her to be making the points she's making. Another irrelevant accusation that was not being discussed. It seems to be the case that she used images she found online without properly referencing their origin, yes. And? No the entire point is to prove that she is horrible human being. You went into semantic nitpicking and went full Anita apologist by giving her excuse of her own unwillingness to code. All evidences points to her being lying, scheming, unethical individual that only used gaming to gain political points and financial gains. Case closed. So far, what you have to support your claim that she is a "terrible human being" is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. While that's something to be critical of, it hardly makes her a "terrible human being". I certainly did not go into semantic nitpicking, unless you mean that explaining to you why there is no factual basis whatsoever to the claim that she "scammed people" is "semantic nitpicking". If you want to ascribe new meaning to words like "scam", that's your problem. I explained to you repeatedly why your argument that she should start a career as a video games developer is completely asinine. It is not relevant with regards to her interests and it is not relevant with regards to her argument. You never addressed what I said and instead proceeded to repeat your ridiculous argument over and over again. "All evidence" points to her not scamming people and being honest in her desire to fight sexism. Again, you have no factual basis to claim that she scammed people and no factual basis to claim that she's only doing what she's doing for "political points" (?) and "financial gains", just like you had no factual basis to claim, as you did earlier in the thread, that Zoe Quinn traded sex for favorable reviews. Yes, case closed: you do not understand feminism, you do not understand the study of gender roles, and you have a knee-jerk reaction because someone (a feminist at that!) has dared to argue that video games are not devoid of flaws. Traditional feminism is about giving women the same level of responsibility as a man in the work field so as long they are qualified, no discrimination are allowed by law. It isn't to artificially inject into a market w/ a certain type of product w/ no monetary incentive in demand for the producers to supply. Anita Sarkessian have abused the hard fought sweat and blood of the early feminism to her advantage. She manipulated the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry. She mislead people into thinking that she is gaming expert when she clearly isn't and haven't done enough research to make her points valid. In turn, she have gained both political and financial gains. Much like how certain historical leaders have banded the entire country against a certain group of people for his personal gain, Anita, albeit a lesser version, is following those steps close at hearts. If this isn't considered as the characteristic of being a horrible human being, then you and the average people have a very different definition of horror. You are repeating claims I have already rebutted without addressing what I said. You do not have the slightest idea about feminism and its evolution, as evidenced in the "Dating, how's your luck?" thread. Gender studies have existed for decades and many feminist authors have studied gender roles in the media, which is what Sarkeesian is doing here. She did not "manipulate the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry". She pointed out problematic aspects found at the systemic level with regards to sexist representations of female characters, stressing that there were plenty of counter-examples. She is an expert on what she's doing, namely studying gender roles in the media. She did make financial gains, just like you're making financial gains by doing your job (if you have any). You have no factual basis to claim that's the sole reason she engaged in that work. In fact, factual information on her previous work in academia suggests a genuine interest for the study of gender roles and a genuine feminist engagement. Again, the only factual thing you have against her is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. That hardly makes her a "horrible human being". So now you are saying that "Oh, the definition of feminism can be almost anything! We can change (or evolve) it however we wish it too!" No the term feminism have to have a rigid definition or else the word is useless. You need to grab a hold of one definition and the sentence I wrote is exactly on the most common description. No, feminism as a social movement has evolved over the years and diversified itself, spawning different strands. That you seem to be unaware of this speaks volumes about your knowledge on the topic. This doesn't mean that feminism isn't still a "belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities", and a support for" political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" (Merriam-Webster). Sarkeesian subscribes to exactly that, and her work in her videos is aimed at working for the social equality of the sexes through their representations in the media. Such representations are notably analyzed in gender studies. Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: And oh you are just fixating on that one piece of evidence I've posted while ignoring how I've said that she is long passed overdue in her coming date, how she mislead the public with misinformation on her videos or how she lied to everybody on how credible it is. You're mixing your claim that she's scamming people with your claim that she's a terrible/horrible human being. I did not ignore that she was producing the videos slower than initially announced - in fact I addressed it by saying that being late could not be equated to scamming people when she was still doing exactly what she said she would be doing. The only calendar she put up on her kickstarter was about gifts to people having donated. She did not mislead the public, the points she made in her videos stand. She didn't "lie to everybody on how credible it is", whatever that's supposed to mean. Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: Do you not understand that despite our great advances in the past couple of years, gaming is still actually a niche? And not everybody knows all about gaming?
Well now she basically smeared us all to dirts.
And while at it, it just happens that she is gaining fame + money from it.
At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? Why exactly would being a niche (and that's debatable) prevent gaming from being subject to legitimate criticism? Addressing valid criticism is how you grow/get better. If anything, she's helping gaming, and the dumbasses who are harassing her (and whom you are supporting) are perpetuating negative stereotypes that we should all be fighting. She didn't smear anyone, she pointed out sexist elements present in gaming, just like there are sexist elements present in movies, in tv shows, in literature, etc. Good for her if she's gaining money while fighting for a worthy cause. Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? The kind who understands what feminism is about, who understands what gender studies are about, who understands what Sarkeesian's point is, and who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction against the messenger who dared point out that everything isn't perfect in the video games industry.
So I get it, the term is useless.
You are only saying statements after statements with [...]her points still stand."
You are completely ignoring how much criticism is she getting right now w/ all her pseudo-theories debunked by various media and how she clearly mislead the public in presenting herself as someone of "expert" when she clearly doesn't play them.
Every of that have been disproved multiple of times over and over and over again, and you continually decide to ignore those.
What.a.guy.
or not to be sexist, a girl.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 19 2014 10:38 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:25 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 10:01 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 09:14 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:03 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 08:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote:kwizach: 3 Points here. 1. She still lied about herself as real gamer by being dishonest here to gain popularity: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw Verdict: Still a fraud You are now completely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed. I addressed your claim that she was scamming people and debunked that claim. I'm not interested in whether or not she's a "real gamer", whatever that's supposed to mean. Not being an active gamer is irrelevant to her analysis. On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote: 2. So basically because a person graduated from a "political" major, this somehow is a roadblock to learn how to perform other tasks? Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers because they have passion elsewhere.
Apparently this is her passion but she doesn't want to code herself.
Instead of traveling around, she should demonstrate better examples to others by doing what she preaches. She does what she preaches by not being sexist and by not denouncing sexism. Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers and plenty of folks have decided not to switch careers. Her passion is studying gender roles - that's what she's currently doing on the topic of video games. There is no reason for her to switch to developing video games. That's not what she's interested in doing, and that's not necessary at all for her to be making the points she's making. Another irrelevant accusation that was not being discussed. It seems to be the case that she used images she found online without properly referencing their origin, yes. And? No the entire point is to prove that she is horrible human being. You went into semantic nitpicking and went full Anita apologist by giving her excuse of her own unwillingness to code. All evidences points to her being lying, scheming, unethical individual that only used gaming to gain political points and financial gains. Case closed. So far, what you have to support your claim that she is a "terrible human being" is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. While that's something to be critical of, it hardly makes her a "terrible human being". I certainly did not go into semantic nitpicking, unless you mean that explaining to you why there is no factual basis whatsoever to the claim that she "scammed people" is "semantic nitpicking". If you want to ascribe new meaning to words like "scam", that's your problem. I explained to you repeatedly why your argument that she should start a career as a video games developer is completely asinine. It is not relevant with regards to her interests and it is not relevant with regards to her argument. You never addressed what I said and instead proceeded to repeat your ridiculous argument over and over again. "All evidence" points to her not scamming people and being honest in her desire to fight sexism. Again, you have no factual basis to claim that she scammed people and no factual basis to claim that she's only doing what she's doing for "political points" (?) and "financial gains", just like you had no factual basis to claim, as you did earlier in the thread, that Zoe Quinn traded sex for favorable reviews. Yes, case closed: you do not understand feminism, you do not understand the study of gender roles, and you have a knee-jerk reaction because someone (a feminist at that!) has dared to argue that video games are not devoid of flaws. Traditional feminism is about giving women the same level of responsibility as a man in the work field so as long they are qualified, no discrimination are allowed by law. It isn't to artificially inject into a market w/ a certain type of product w/ no monetary incentive in demand for the producers to supply. Anita Sarkessian have abused the hard fought sweat and blood of the early feminism to her advantage. She manipulated the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry. She mislead people into thinking that she is gaming expert when she clearly isn't and haven't done enough research to make her points valid. In turn, she have gained both political and financial gains. Much like how certain historical leaders have banded the entire country against a certain group of people for his personal gain, Anita, albeit a lesser version, is following those steps close at hearts. If this isn't considered as the characteristic of being a horrible human being, then you and the average people have a very different definition of horror. You are repeating claims I have already rebutted without addressing what I said. You do not have the slightest idea about feminism and its evolution, as evidenced in the "Dating, how's your luck?" thread. Gender studies have existed for decades and many feminist authors have studied gender roles in the media, which is what Sarkeesian is doing here. She did not "manipulate the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry". She pointed out problematic aspects found at the systemic level with regards to sexist representations of female characters, stressing that there were plenty of counter-examples. She is an expert on what she's doing, namely studying gender roles in the media. She did make financial gains, just like you're making financial gains by doing your job (if you have any). You have no factual basis to claim that's the sole reason she engaged in that work. In fact, factual information on her previous work in academia suggests a genuine interest for the study of gender roles and a genuine feminist engagement. Again, the only factual thing you have against her is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. That hardly makes her a "horrible human being". So now you are saying that "Oh, the definition of feminism can be almost anything! We can change (or evolve) it however we wish it too!" No the term feminism have to have a rigid definition or else the word is useless. You need to grab a hold of one definition and the sentence I wrote is exactly on the most common description. No, feminism as a social movement has evolved over the years and diversified itself, spawning different strands. That you seem to be unaware of this speaks volumes about your knowledge on the topic. This doesn't mean that feminism isn't still a "belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities", and a support for" political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" (Merriam-Webster). Sarkeesian subscribes to exactly that, and her work in her videos is aimed at working for the social equality of the sexes through their representations in the media. Such representations are notably analyzed in gender studies. On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: And oh you are just fixating on that one piece of evidence I've posted while ignoring how I've said that she is long passed overdue in her coming date, how she mislead the public with misinformation on her videos or how she lied to everybody on how credible it is. You're mixing your claim that she's scamming people with your claim that she's a terrible/horrible human being. I did not ignore that she was producing the videos slower than initially announced - in fact I addressed it by saying that being late could not be equated to scamming people when she was still doing exactly what she said she would be doing. The only calendar she put up on her kickstarter was about gifts to people having donated. She did not mislead the public, the points she made in her videos stand. She didn't "lie to everybody on how credible it is", whatever that's supposed to mean. On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: Do you not understand that despite our great advances in the past couple of years, gaming is still actually a niche? And not everybody knows all about gaming?
Well now she basically smeared us all to dirts.
And while at it, it just happens that she is gaining fame + money from it.
At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? Why exactly would being a niche (and that's debatable) prevent gaming from being subject to legitimate criticism? Addressing valid criticism is how you grow/get better. If anything, she's helping gaming, and the dumbasses who are harassing her (and whom you are supporting) are perpetuating negative stereotypes that we should all be fighting. She didn't smear anyone, she pointed out sexist elements present in gaming, just like there are sexist elements present in movies, in tv shows, in literature, etc. Good for her if she's gaining money while fighting for a worthy cause. On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? The kind who understands what feminism is about, who understands what gender studies are about, who understands what Sarkeesian's point is, and who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction against the messenger who dared point out that everything isn't perfect in the video games industry. So I get it, the term is useless. You are only saying statements after statements with [...]her points still stand." You are completely ignoring how much criticism is she getting right now w/ all her pseudo-theories debunked by various media and how she clearly mislead the public in presenting herself as someone of "expert" when she clearly doesn't play them. Every of that have been disproved multiple of times over and over and over again, and you continually decide to ignore those. What.a.guy. or not to be sexist, a girl. The term isn't useless. I just provided you with the Merriam-Webster definition and explained to you why Sarkeesian and her work fit right in.
Don't make me laugh - in this discussion, you're the one who's kept repeating his claims while I was rebutting them each time.
You don't seem to understand what "to dispove" means either, apparently. Again, it's one thing to dispute the relevancy/accuracy of individual examples, but her broader points about sexist tropes and problematic representations of female characters are well documented in social science research in the particular area of video games and more extensively with regards to other media. Those points have not been "disproved", they're factual.
Going to bed now, so I'll answer further comments tomorrow. You keep repeating yourself anyway.
|
On October 19 2014 10:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 10:01 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 09:14 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:03 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 08:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote:kwizach: 3 Points here. 1. She still lied about herself as real gamer by being dishonest here to gain popularity: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw Verdict: Still a fraud You are now completely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed. I addressed your claim that she was scamming people and debunked that claim. I'm not interested in whether or not she's a "real gamer", whatever that's supposed to mean. Not being an active gamer is irrelevant to her analysis. On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote: 2. So basically because a person graduated from a "political" major, this somehow is a roadblock to learn how to perform other tasks? Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers because they have passion elsewhere.
Apparently this is her passion but she doesn't want to code herself.
Instead of traveling around, she should demonstrate better examples to others by doing what she preaches. She does what she preaches by not being sexist and by not denouncing sexism. Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers and plenty of folks have decided not to switch careers. Her passion is studying gender roles - that's what she's currently doing on the topic of video games. There is no reason for her to switch to developing video games. That's not what she's interested in doing, and that's not necessary at all for her to be making the points she's making. Another irrelevant accusation that was not being discussed. It seems to be the case that she used images she found online without properly referencing their origin, yes. And? No the entire point is to prove that she is horrible human being. You went into semantic nitpicking and went full Anita apologist by giving her excuse of her own unwillingness to code. All evidences points to her being lying, scheming, unethical individual that only used gaming to gain political points and financial gains. Case closed. So far, what you have to support your claim that she is a "terrible human being" is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. While that's something to be critical of, it hardly makes her a "terrible human being". I certainly did not go into semantic nitpicking, unless you mean that explaining to you why there is no factual basis whatsoever to the claim that she "scammed people" is "semantic nitpicking". If you want to ascribe new meaning to words like "scam", that's your problem. I explained to you repeatedly why your argument that she should start a career as a video games developer is completely asinine. It is not relevant with regards to her interests and it is not relevant with regards to her argument. You never addressed what I said and instead proceeded to repeat your ridiculous argument over and over again. "All evidence" points to her not scamming people and being honest in her desire to fight sexism. Again, you have no factual basis to claim that she scammed people and no factual basis to claim that she's only doing what she's doing for "political points" (?) and "financial gains", just like you had no factual basis to claim, as you did earlier in the thread, that Zoe Quinn traded sex for favorable reviews. Yes, case closed: you do not understand feminism, you do not understand the study of gender roles, and you have a knee-jerk reaction because someone (a feminist at that!) has dared to argue that video games are not devoid of flaws. Traditional feminism is about giving women the same level of responsibility as a man in the work field so as long they are qualified, no discrimination are allowed by law. It isn't to artificially inject into a market w/ a certain type of product w/ no monetary incentive in demand for the producers to supply. Anita Sarkessian have abused the hard fought sweat and blood of the early feminism to her advantage. She manipulated the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry. She mislead people into thinking that she is gaming expert when she clearly isn't and haven't done enough research to make her points valid. In turn, she have gained both political and financial gains. Much like how certain historical leaders have banded the entire country against a certain group of people for his personal gain, Anita, albeit a lesser version, is following those steps close at hearts. If this isn't considered as the characteristic of being a horrible human being, then you and the average people have a very different definition of horror. You are repeating claims I have already rebutted without addressing what I said. You do not have the slightest idea about feminism and its evolution, as evidenced in the "Dating, how's your luck?" thread. Gender studies have existed for decades and many feminist authors have studied gender roles in the media, which is what Sarkeesian is doing here. She did not "manipulate the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry". She pointed out problematic aspects found at the systemic level with regards to sexist representations of female characters, stressing that there were plenty of counter-examples. She is an expert on what she's doing, namely studying gender roles in the media. She did make financial gains, just like you're making financial gains by doing your job (if you have any). You have no factual basis to claim that's the sole reason she engaged in that work. In fact, factual information on her previous work in academia suggests a genuine interest for the study of gender roles and a genuine feminist engagement. Again, the only factual thing you have against her is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. That hardly makes her a "horrible human being". So now you are saying that "Oh, the definition of feminism can be almost anything! We can change (or evolve) it however we wish it too!" No the term feminism have to have a rigid definition or else the word is useless. You need to grab a hold of one definition and the sentence I wrote is exactly on the most common description. No, feminism as a social movement has evolved over the years and diversified itself, spawning different strands. That you seem to be unaware of this speaks volumes about your knowledge on the topic. This doesn't mean that feminism isn't still a "belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities", and a support for" political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" (Merriam-Webster). Sarkeesian subscribes to exactly that, and her work in her videos is aimed at working for the social equality of the sexes through their representations in the media. Such representations are notably analyzed in gender studies. Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: And oh you are just fixating on that one piece of evidence I've posted while ignoring how I've said that she is long passed overdue in her coming date, how she mislead the public with misinformation on her videos or how she lied to everybody on how credible it is. You're mixing your claim that she's scamming people with your claim that she's a terrible/horrible human being. I did not ignore that she was producing the videos slower than initially announced - in fact I addressed it by saying that being late could not be equated to scamming people when she was still doing exactly what she said she would be doing. The only calendar she put up on her kickstarter was about gifts to people having donated. She did not mislead the public, the points she made in her videos stand. She didn't "lie to everybody on how credible it is", whatever that's supposed to mean. Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: Do you not understand that despite our great advances in the past couple of years, gaming is still actually a niche? And not everybody knows all about gaming?
Well now she basically smeared us all to dirts.
And while at it, it just happens that she is gaining fame + money from it.
At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? Why exactly would being a niche (and that's debatable) prevent gaming from being subject to legitimate criticism? Addressing valid criticism is how you grow/get better. If anything, she's helping gaming, and the dumbasses who are harassing her (and whom you are supporting) are perpetuating negative stereotypes that we should all be fighting. She didn't smear anyone, she pointed out sexist elements present in gaming, just like there are sexist elements present in movies, in tv shows, in literature, etc. Good for her if she's gaining money while fighting for a worthy cause. Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? The kind who understands what feminism is about, who understands what gender studies are about, who understands what Sarkeesian's point is, and who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction against the messenger who dared point out that everything isn't perfect in the video games industry.
/facepalm Yes, she finds sexist elements from Mario 64 to racing games, everywhere. That's moderate paranoia to say the least, in addition to having a very shallow previous gaming experience which undermines her credibility anyway. She's helping gaming towards what? Making the ultimate utopia simulator, or the most boring game ever? Because that's what the self-styled journalists are after now, and in large part thanks to the likes of Anita and her followers.
I don't want my hobbies thought policed for some shady "worthy cause" that exists only in some 0,01% minority's twisted minds. I don't want to read guilt inducing articles based on made up theories that did not exist 5 years ago, telling me what a terrible person I am. I'm not interested in seeing dozens of developers repent for their "sins" they've committed before Anita showed up. I want them to work on actual issues that concern games.
Extremes have always been called out (Postal, Carmageddon for example), but we've gone too far. Every second week there's a fabricated social justice controversy while gaming coverage and quality of new releases are hitting an all time low.
|
On October 19 2014 10:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:19 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 10:13 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:54 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 09:46 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:28 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 09:06 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:35 Millitron wrote:On October 19 2014 08:21 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:05 EtherealBlade wrote: [quote]
She's not just studying the subject. If only that was the case, noone would know her name, as I'm quite certain there are many other studies published in academic circles about gamer attitude, online bullying and so on that don't go out of their way on a crusade against the evil basement nerds.
The problem is she's determined to change even AAA games to her liking, games she does not even play, and never even heard of before she went on to make her videos. And the gaming "journalists" are happy to jump on the subject. When I read an interview with my favourite fantasy RPG developers, I don't want half of the questions to be about gay characters and them explaining how there's going to be warrior women in every village. I never asked for anyone to come and set their bullshit moral standards over my hobby, and we are approaching a point where every major title is more or less influenced by "SJW pressure", I can't find a more fitting term atm. Gamergate shows exactly how there's no consumer demand for their meddling. While the overwhelming majority will not care either way, they surely never wished for these ideas specifically to be implemented, especially when it's at a cost of other vital development areas.
I don't mind these people having an opinion. I'm even happy if they dissect games and gaming culture from various perspectives, so we can learn more about it. But I'm not happy when some self righteous people are starting to get a firm grip on the industry through moral blackmail, purely for their personal financial interests. She's studying the subject and putting her findings on a platform which can help her reach a broader audience than academic papers. She is also a militant trying to fight sexism. When you say "change [...] games to her liking", "her liking" means avoiding stereotypical gender roles, avoiding oversexualized characters, and generally avoiding the sexist treatment of characters. The horror! I'm still not sure what is supposed to be the problem here. Also, arguing that she's only doing this "for [her] personal financial interests" seems to be clearly false, as she is visibly genuinely interested in promoting gender equality, as evidenced by her previous work. On October 19 2014 08:06 sevencck wrote: [quote] You're saying an option doesn't exist for people who might view something as sexist to buy the alternative "non-sexist" product. I guess that's true for anything. Everything is flawed if you compare it to the non-existent flawless version. My point is that as long as sexism is partially subjective, there will never be a "non-sexist" version of anything for some consumer monolith to recognize, for the same reason that it's hard to claim anything currently existing is objectively sexist. Yes, that's true for almost anything, which is why your original argument isn't necessarily true - you'd have more of a point if there was a non-sexist version of the same product and if people overwhelmingly still bought the sexist version (yet, even then, that would not mean we should not fight sexism). And like I said, it's not harder to claim anything currently existing is "objectively sexist" than "objectively racist", etc. On October 19 2014 08:10 Millitron wrote: [quote] And further, if you look hard enough, everything is "problematic" in some way. I've got muscular dystrophy. Should I go on a big crusade about how objectifying Wii Fit is? And how ableist it is since I can't play it? Yes, everything is problematic in some way, so we should really not denounce the objectification of women and, while we're at it, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and anything else that can be called "problematic". Great point! You're an ableist. You just don't care that people with muscular dystrophy are under-represented in videogames. How many wheelchair-bound characters actually do anything in videogames? Practically no videogames even have any. That implies all videogames reinforce the stereotype that the physically handicapped are worthless. And you're defending that. See how ridiculous this sounds? It is true that negative representations of people with disabilities impact negatively the self-image of people with disabilities, and the image that others have of disabled people - that's not ridiculous at all. For studies on the topic, see for example: Beth A. Haller, Representing Disability in an Ableist World: Essays on Mass Media, The Advocado Press, 2010. Beth A. Haller, Bruce Dorries & Jessica Rahn, "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language", Disability & Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 61-75. Shinichi Saitoa & Reiko Ishiyama, "The invisible minority: under‐representation of people with disabilities in prime‐time TV dramas in Japan", Disability & Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2005, pp. 437-451. Charles A. Riley, Disability and the media: Prescriptions for change, London, University Press of New England, 2005. Timothy Elliott & Keith Byrd, "Media and Disability", Rehabilitation literature, Vol. 45, No. 11-12, 1982, pp. 348-355. Helen Meekosha & Leanne Dowse, "Distorting Images, Invisible Images: Gender, Disability and the Media", Media International Australia, No. 84, 1997, pp. 91-101. etc. See also Foucault's work on insanity. There are many genres with simply no place for the disabled though. How do you have an FPS that includes positive representations of the disabled? Try being stuck in a wheelchair during a firefight, you won't last long. The PC police would say that that's mocking the disabled. But if the game is designed in such a way that being in a wheelchair is not a disadvantage in a firefight, it's plainly ridiculous. Its a huge plothole. The bad guy can just hide on a different floor in the building and turn the elevator off. If he loses to someone in a wheelchair when he himself is not in a wheelchair, its absurd. Now, you might say "Oh, but you could have a scientist or a commander in a wheelchair in the narrative". In which case the PC police will STILL say that the physically disabled are under represented. They're stuck hidden away behind the scenes while all the important things are done by the able. It doesn't bother me that there are few representations of handicapped people in videogames, because there's pretty much no way to shoehorn them into games without hurting some other aspect of the game. I'm reminded of this quote by Stephen Fry: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." But thanks for linking me to a bunch of things I can't read without paying money. Sure convinced me. You can read plenty of those articles and books without paying money. All you need to do is use google and online resources that I suppose I can't cite on TL.net. You could also look yourself for similar sources on google scholar, or go to your local university and check out their library/online resources. But yes, you not being provided with direct links sure invalidates the contents of those studies analyzing the social and individual impacts of negative representations in the media of people with disabilities. Yes, I agree with you that any character cannot simply be replaced by a character with a disability. I'm not sure why you think anyone was arguing that. You tried to ridicule the idea that representations matter by invoking the underrepresentation of people with disabilities, while that topic doesn't invalidate the idea at all. Nobody is saying that you should have a character with a disability at every corner killing bad guys by the dozens, but instead that representations matter, and therefore that it would for example be positive to occasionally have characters with disabilities (possibly playable) perform tasks that their disability has no reason of preventing them from doing, and to avoid systematically attaching negative stereotypes to characters with disabilities. The argument is not "I'm rather offended by that". If you think it is, it means you don't understand it. You might not be offended by that, but you're basically claiming other people are, else you wouldn't have brought up self-esteem. I don't know why you even bothered citing a ton of books you know I cant read in time to make a response. By the time I go through all the effort of acquiring those books and reading those sections, the conversation will have moved on and anything I will have gleaned will be irrelevant. I'm saying there are many games that simply have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. Either they're on the frontlines and disadvantaged, or they're behind the lines and hidden away and unimportant. There's no winning with the PC police. Self-esteem goes way beyond being offended by something. Someone's self-esteem can very much be reduced because of being confronted with negative representations of the group(s) one belongs to, even if there is no direct feeling of being offended. The impacts of such representations (pertaining to sex, color, age, physical abilities, whatever) on the self-images and self-esteems of individuals are extremely well documented in social science research. I bothered citing sources because that's how you give your interlocutor the opportunity to see and check, if he or she wants to, that you're not inventing things out of thin air. If you want to educate yourself on the topic, feel free to read them. If not, feel free not to read them. What's the problem exactly? Sure, there are plenty of games that have no place for a positive representation of the physically disabled. "Pong", for example ,-) But the point is not that some games leave little room for such positive representations, the point is that at the systemic level you can often notice in the media that the disabled are underrepresented, and that when they are represented it's often negatively, which impacts perceptions of disabled people among both the disabled and the non-disabled. It's whole genres though, not just individual games. Where could a wheelchair be in an FPS? How about a racing game? How about a sports game? Come on, nobody is advocating having one of the players in each team in FIFA play in a wheelchair. It doesn't mean you can't have characters (playable or not) with a disability in plenty of games. In fact, you can already find plenty of such examples, including in FPS games. Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:19 Millitron wrote: It's called self-esteem because its how you feel about yourself. You decide your own self-esteem. Anyone who has low self-esteem because some group they're in isn't represented exactly how they'd like didn't pay enough attention in nursery school. Sticks and stones. Self-esteem is not simply decided by your own "detached" will. You clearly have no idea whatsoever about the scientific studies done on self-images and self-esteem, so I'm not sure what else to tell you than go educate yourself on the topic. Social representations matter in how you perceive yourself and others, whether you realize it or not. It's something you learn in a Social psychology 101 class. If you want me to provide you with more sources, just ask. Going to bed now, so I'll answer further comments tomorrow. None of these games are realistic portrayals of disabled people. They all either have amazing prosthetics, or psychic abilities/the Force that give them the exact same, or even better, abilities as anyone else. They may as well not be disabled. Unrealistic portrayals are no better than not portraying them at all. As for Joker, its a huge plothole. Why have someone who is so vulnerable on the front lines? It's completely unbelievable. You don't see any real fighter pilots with brittle bone disease. If there's an emergency and he's knocked down, suddenly your pilot is lying in crippling pain unable to do his duty.
Honestly, I think this is the same kind of bullcrap Jack Thompson fed the media for so long about videogame violence. He said videogames made kids into violent psychos, and Sarkeesian et. al. are saying they make gamers into sexist assholes. If someone believes women are sex objects because they're dressed scantily in Dead or Alive, they were never going to be a paragon of equality to begin with.
My self-esteem is decided by my own will because I'm an adult, not an emotionally stunted child that needs society's approval for everything.
|
Gamergate is the "thanksObama" video games. Its a worthless hash tag that has no meaning and is just used by anyone who wants it. Its not a movement any more that "thanksObama" is. If you search them both via twitter, you will find the same level of discordant non-sense.
Also, many of the people who try to debunk Anita Sarkeesian have never fully watched her work. The majority of people I have interacted with have only watched the "response videos" which are clearly bias and cherry pick from her videos the points they want to make. Its funny, because many of them do the exact same thing they accuse her of.
Anita Sarkeesian begins the majority of her videos with a phrase along the lines of "It is ok to love a game with problematic elements". And with this, all problems should be solved. We can criticize the things we love and its fine. I love the movie Hook, but I know its a terribly made movie and sort of bad(you can see boom mics in several shots and its a hot mess of a film). The same goes for video games, as we grow up with them, we see the problematic elements. Like Street Fight is sort of super racist, but its ok, because it was made in a different era. But that doesn't stop me from realizing that T-hawk is sort of a fuck up character.
The most amusing part about all of this is the only people scream about Anita Sarkeesian are players. The people she is criticizing, game developers, gave her an award for her work and thanked her for it. Many of them talk about how they made her look at how they make their games and how to change it to make them more welcoming to women. Because the people who make games want everyone to play them, because thats why they make games.
|
On October 19 2014 10:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:38 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 10:25 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 10:01 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 09:14 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 09:03 Xiphos wrote:On October 19 2014 08:34 kwizach wrote:On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote:kwizach: 3 Points here. 1. She still lied about herself as real gamer by being dishonest here to gain popularity: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw Verdict: Still a fraud You are now completely changing the subject to something that was not being discussed. I addressed your claim that she was scamming people and debunked that claim. I'm not interested in whether or not she's a "real gamer", whatever that's supposed to mean. Not being an active gamer is irrelevant to her analysis. On October 19 2014 08:16 Xiphos wrote: 2. So basically because a person graduated from a "political" major, this somehow is a roadblock to learn how to perform other tasks? Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers because they have passion elsewhere.
Apparently this is her passion but she doesn't want to code herself.
Instead of traveling around, she should demonstrate better examples to others by doing what she preaches. She does what she preaches by not being sexist and by not denouncing sexism. Plenty of folks have decided to switch careers and plenty of folks have decided not to switch careers. Her passion is studying gender roles - that's what she's currently doing on the topic of video games. There is no reason for her to switch to developing video games. That's not what she's interested in doing, and that's not necessary at all for her to be making the points she's making. Another irrelevant accusation that was not being discussed. It seems to be the case that she used images she found online without properly referencing their origin, yes. And? No the entire point is to prove that she is horrible human being. You went into semantic nitpicking and went full Anita apologist by giving her excuse of her own unwillingness to code. All evidences points to her being lying, scheming, unethical individual that only used gaming to gain political points and financial gains. Case closed. So far, what you have to support your claim that she is a "terrible human being" is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. While that's something to be critical of, it hardly makes her a "terrible human being". I certainly did not go into semantic nitpicking, unless you mean that explaining to you why there is no factual basis whatsoever to the claim that she "scammed people" is "semantic nitpicking". If you want to ascribe new meaning to words like "scam", that's your problem. I explained to you repeatedly why your argument that she should start a career as a video games developer is completely asinine. It is not relevant with regards to her interests and it is not relevant with regards to her argument. You never addressed what I said and instead proceeded to repeat your ridiculous argument over and over again. "All evidence" points to her not scamming people and being honest in her desire to fight sexism. Again, you have no factual basis to claim that she scammed people and no factual basis to claim that she's only doing what she's doing for "political points" (?) and "financial gains", just like you had no factual basis to claim, as you did earlier in the thread, that Zoe Quinn traded sex for favorable reviews. Yes, case closed: you do not understand feminism, you do not understand the study of gender roles, and you have a knee-jerk reaction because someone (a feminist at that!) has dared to argue that video games are not devoid of flaws. Traditional feminism is about giving women the same level of responsibility as a man in the work field so as long they are qualified, no discrimination are allowed by law. It isn't to artificially inject into a market w/ a certain type of product w/ no monetary incentive in demand for the producers to supply. Anita Sarkessian have abused the hard fought sweat and blood of the early feminism to her advantage. She manipulated the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry. She mislead people into thinking that she is gaming expert when she clearly isn't and haven't done enough research to make her points valid. In turn, she have gained both political and financial gains. Much like how certain historical leaders have banded the entire country against a certain group of people for his personal gain, Anita, albeit a lesser version, is following those steps close at hearts. If this isn't considered as the characteristic of being a horrible human being, then you and the average people have a very different definition of horror. You are repeating claims I have already rebutted without addressing what I said. You do not have the slightest idea about feminism and its evolution, as evidenced in the "Dating, how's your luck?" thread. Gender studies have existed for decades and many feminist authors have studied gender roles in the media, which is what Sarkeesian is doing here. She did not "manipulate the public's perception on the entirely of gaming industry". She pointed out problematic aspects found at the systemic level with regards to sexist representations of female characters, stressing that there were plenty of counter-examples. She is an expert on what she's doing, namely studying gender roles in the media. She did make financial gains, just like you're making financial gains by doing your job (if you have any). You have no factual basis to claim that's the sole reason she engaged in that work. In fact, factual information on her previous work in academia suggests a genuine interest for the study of gender roles and a genuine feminist engagement. Again, the only factual thing you have against her is that she used video game screenshots without properly indicating their origin. That hardly makes her a "horrible human being". So now you are saying that "Oh, the definition of feminism can be almost anything! We can change (or evolve) it however we wish it too!" No the term feminism have to have a rigid definition or else the word is useless. You need to grab a hold of one definition and the sentence I wrote is exactly on the most common description. No, feminism as a social movement has evolved over the years and diversified itself, spawning different strands. That you seem to be unaware of this speaks volumes about your knowledge on the topic. This doesn't mean that feminism isn't still a "belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities", and a support for" political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" (Merriam-Webster). Sarkeesian subscribes to exactly that, and her work in her videos is aimed at working for the social equality of the sexes through their representations in the media. Such representations are notably analyzed in gender studies. On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: And oh you are just fixating on that one piece of evidence I've posted while ignoring how I've said that she is long passed overdue in her coming date, how she mislead the public with misinformation on her videos or how she lied to everybody on how credible it is. You're mixing your claim that she's scamming people with your claim that she's a terrible/horrible human being. I did not ignore that she was producing the videos slower than initially announced - in fact I addressed it by saying that being late could not be equated to scamming people when she was still doing exactly what she said she would be doing. The only calendar she put up on her kickstarter was about gifts to people having donated. She did not mislead the public, the points she made in her videos stand. She didn't "lie to everybody on how credible it is", whatever that's supposed to mean. On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: Do you not understand that despite our great advances in the past couple of years, gaming is still actually a niche? And not everybody knows all about gaming?
Well now she basically smeared us all to dirts.
And while at it, it just happens that she is gaining fame + money from it.
At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? Why exactly would being a niche (and that's debatable) prevent gaming from being subject to legitimate criticism? Addressing valid criticism is how you grow/get better. If anything, she's helping gaming, and the dumbasses who are harassing her (and whom you are supporting) are perpetuating negative stereotypes that we should all be fighting. She didn't smear anyone, she pointed out sexist elements present in gaming, just like there are sexist elements present in movies, in tv shows, in literature, etc. Good for her if she's gaining money while fighting for a worthy cause. On October 19 2014 10:12 Xiphos wrote: At the same time, feminists wants to associate with that?
If this is the kind of feminism you want to associate with, what kind of sociopaths are you? The kind who understands what feminism is about, who understands what gender studies are about, who understands what Sarkeesian's point is, and who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction against the messenger who dared point out that everything isn't perfect in the video games industry. So I get it, the term is useless. You are only saying statements after statements with [...]her points still stand." You are completely ignoring how much criticism is she getting right now w/ all her pseudo-theories debunked by various media and how she clearly mislead the public in presenting herself as someone of "expert" when she clearly doesn't play them. Every of that have been disproved multiple of times over and over and over again, and you continually decide to ignore those. What.a.guy. or not to be sexist, a girl. The term isn't useless. I just provided you with the Merriam-Webster definition and explained to you why Sarkeesian and her work fit right in. Don't make me laugh - in this discussion, you're the one who's kept repeating his claims while I was rebutting them each time. You don't seem to understand what "to dispove" means either, apparently. Again, it's one thing to dispute the relevancy/accuracy of individual examples, but her broader points about sexist tropes and problematic representations of female characters are well documented in social science research in the particular area of video games and more extensively with regards to other media. Those points have not been "disproved", they're factual. Going to bed now, so I'll answer further comments tomorrow. You keep repeating yourself anyway.
I keep repeating myself because you keep run away.
Anyone can just go through the thread that is that the only quote you've posted disputing the rebuttals is this post:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/469193-gamergate-and-video-game-journalism?page=28#556
It reads:
How exactly is that youtube search supposed to address/rebut anything I've said? If your point was that there exist people who are critical of Sarkeesian, I'm not sure who's disputing that.
And subsequently you haven't touched upon any of them otherwise.
Quit lying.
And as others(EtherealBlade, Millitron, and WolfintheSheep) have shown here how ridiculous you are making yourself to be here.
|
On October 19 2014 10:54 Plansix wrote: Gamergate is the "thanksObama" video games. Its a worthless hash tag that has no meaning and is just used by anyone who wants it. Its not a movement any more that "thanksObama" is. If you search them both via twitter, you will find the same level of discordant non-sense.
Also, many of the people who try to debunk Anita Sarkeesian have never fully watched her work. The majority of people I have interacted with have only watched the "response videos" which are clearly bias and cherry pick from her videos the points they want to make. Its funny, because many of them do the exact same thing they accuse her of.
Anita Sarkeesian begins the majority of her videos with a phrase along the lines of "It is ok to love a game with problematic elements". And with this, all problems should be solved. We can criticize the things we love and its fine. I love the movie Hook, but I know its a terribly made movie and sort of bad(you can see boom mics in several shots and its a hot mess of a film). The same goes for video games, as we grow up with them, we see the problematic elements. Like Street Fight is sort of super racist, but its ok, because it was made in a different era. But that doesn't stop me from realizing that T-hawk is sort of a fuck up character.
The most amusing part about all of this is the only people scream about Anita Sarkeesian are players. The people she is criticizing, game developers, gave her an award for her work and thanked her for it. Many of them talk about how they made her look at how they make their games and how to change it to make them more welcoming to women. Because the people who make games want everyone to play them, because thats why they make games. I don't WANT everyone to play games though. The last time a big group joined gaming was with Call of Duty 4: MW. And with it I saw many of my favorite franchises turned into CoD clones, or otherwise altered to grab the largest demographic, in this case, short attention spans.
Red Orchestra 1 was a fairly accurate simulation of WW2 combined arms warfare. Red Orchestra 2 was Red Orchestra: Call of Duty edition. They added levelling up, shortened the ranges to unrealistically close to speed up the action, and made it all about quick reactions and not about being smart. Ace Combat used to be a fun, goofy arcade flight sim. Ace Combat: Assault Horizon threw out everything that made the other AC games fun, and added quick time events and rail shooter sections, to be more like CoD. It was practically Call of Duty: Planes. Red Alert 2 is one of my top 5 games, and is my favorite RTS. EA saw how big the Starcraft audience was, and tried to nab it, and RA3 ended up being a pisspoor Starcraft clone. Every time I've seen a series try to attract a larger demographic, I've seen it alienate the core playerbase.
Of course devs thank Sarkeesian. If they do anything but kiss her feet, they'll be the next target of the witch hunt.
|
On October 19 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 10:54 Plansix wrote: Gamergate is the "thanksObama" video games. Its a worthless hash tag that has no meaning and is just used by anyone who wants it. Its not a movement any more that "thanksObama" is. If you search them both via twitter, you will find the same level of discordant non-sense.
Also, many of the people who try to debunk Anita Sarkeesian have never fully watched her work. The majority of people I have interacted with have only watched the "response videos" which are clearly bias and cherry pick from her videos the points they want to make. Its funny, because many of them do the exact same thing they accuse her of.
Anita Sarkeesian begins the majority of her videos with a phrase along the lines of "It is ok to love a game with problematic elements". And with this, all problems should be solved. We can criticize the things we love and its fine. I love the movie Hook, but I know its a terribly made movie and sort of bad(you can see boom mics in several shots and its a hot mess of a film). The same goes for video games, as we grow up with them, we see the problematic elements. Like Street Fight is sort of super racist, but its ok, because it was made in a different era. But that doesn't stop me from realizing that T-hawk is sort of a fuck up character.
The most amusing part about all of this is the only people scream about Anita Sarkeesian are players. The people she is criticizing, game developers, gave her an award for her work and thanked her for it. Many of them talk about how they made her look at how they make their games and how to change it to make them more welcoming to women. Because the people who make games want everyone to play them, because thats why they make games. I don't WANT everyone to play games though. The last time a big group joined gaming was with Call of Duty 4: MW. And with it I saw many of my favorite franchises turned into CoD clones, or otherwise altered to grab the largest demographic, in this case, short attention spans. Red Orchestra 1 was a fairly accurate simulation of WW2 combined arms warfare. Red Orchestra 2 was Red Orchestra: Call of Duty edition. They added levelling up, shortened the ranges to unrealistically close to speed up the action, and made it all about quick reactions and not about being smart. Ace Combat used to be a fun, goofy arcade flight sim. Ace Combat: Assault Horizon threw out everything that made the other AC games fun, and added quick time events and rail shooter sections, to be more like CoD. It was practically Call of Duty: Planes. Red Alert 2 is one of my top 5 games, and is my favorite RTS. EA saw how big the Starcraft audience was, and tried to nab it, and RA3 ended up being a pisspoor Starcraft clone. Every time I've seen a series try to attract a larger demographic, I've seen it alienate the core playerbase. Of course devs thank Sarkeesian. If they do anything but kiss her feet, they'll be the next target of the witch hunt. Gaming is a 70 billion dollar industry, they are making more games, not less. People are coming if you want it or not. Girls are coming and they will have opinions and they may not agree that "boob armor" is super realistic, so we might see a little less of that. And that is totally ok. The games you like are not going to go away. There is away going to be a Red Orchestra, but it might not have that name(also, Red Orchestra was a mod, while 2 was a commercial release where people had to play the bills for health insurance and shit.) They are making more types of games, not less. Of course the hard core game are going to be a smaller market, but people still make them for you. Look at dark souls.
And I listen to numerous video games industry podcast with any number of people from all parts of the industry and they all have no problem with her. I have heard her on numerous podcast and she likes board games and does play games, and is no where near the monster out to destroy boy-games as we know it. They have no problem having their games criticized, since many of them are their own biggest critics. There isn't a single game developer that is afraid of her.
And I don't know why people think she is going to get rid of specific types of games. The movie industry has proven that any type of movie can be made, including unlimited Saw and Resident Evil movies. People are going to make dumb, weird games with sexist over tones and we will all survive.
|
|
|
|