Slarg232 wrote: I respectfully disagree, as most people whom are going to murder someone are more messed up in the head than influenced to do it. The influence of games would contribute in that factor, but only because the guy is highly influenced and highly disturbed.
You're assuming that all murders are coldly calculated far in advance, and not the result of poor impulse control. For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.
Actually, I was talking about the highly impressionable crazy people who think WWE is real and try to mimic the moves. A distinct minority, but I've met a guy who was the same with games.
Peregrine wrote: For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.
This is only "for example" if you actually have an example to point to. You're postulating a causal relationship* here, one that no study I'm aware of has ever substantiated.
*Premise: People with anger issues who are exposed to violent media are more likely to engage in violence than people with anger issues who are not so exposed.
Peregrine wrote: For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.
This is only "for example" if you actually have an example to point to. You're postulating a causal relationship* here, one that no study I'm aware of has ever substantiated.
*Premise: People with anger issues who are exposed to violent media are more likely to engage in violence than people with anger issues who are not so exposed.
Good thing no wars or ANY violence/rape was committed before t.v. and magazines came around.
Peregrine wrote: For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.
This is only "for example" if you actually have an example to point to. You're postulating a causal relationship* here, one that no study I'm aware of has ever substantiated.
*Premise: People with anger issues who are exposed to violent media are more likely to engage in violence than people with anger issues who are not so exposed.
Well to be fair, it's not going to be the easiest thing to prove or disprove given the extremely scattered variables involved. When you have X person who has committed a violent crime on impulse, you check their history and they have spent Y hours playing Mortal Kombat the last few months (assuming you're going to find out more than 'yes, they have played violent games') and what does that prove or disprove then?
You can't exactly know if someone would have committed the crime anyway even if they had not played X game. Hindsight only takes you so far. No, it's not something I can prove. However, I really do believe that video games (media in general, in fact) is something that's going to have some effect on our decisions, although obviously for far from all people, and said effect will naturally still be proportional to various other factors yada yada (ergo, no, I do not think that playing MK will make your average person into a criminal, however it's certainly possible that it might increase the risk, even if the percentage is only a teeny tiny bit). It simply makes zero sense for it not to. You can argue that it's never going to make the difference, but why is it never going to make a difference? How come that there is an invisible mental wall that prevents media from having an effect on people's decisions in Y subject when it demonstrably has an effect in X subject (ads)?
As said, we are impressionable creatures. There's a reason even supermarkets have distributed their wares in the building the way they have, even if we rarely consider it. If you spend lots of time around violence (such as media), you get more used to it, and it will seem less extreme over time even if you have far too much sanity to actually turn into crime. But when you are angry? When rage turns your vision red and the common sense leaves you? Can you really be so certain that what you have seen and done will not affect your decisions at that moment?
illuknisaa wrote: Also in how many games you can actually sexually assault something?
Fortunately, none.
I can easily see violence being justified for a protagonist, as violence can be justified in real life - to protect someone else.
However, I am having a difficult time seeing a way to justify a protagonist carrying out sexual assault.
Yes, Mortal Kombat is a thing, but I do not really think anyone wants a version of that game where violence is replaced with rape.
Good thing no wars or ANY violence/rape was committed before t.v. and magazines came around.
You have like a billion factors playing into trends of violence going up and down over the centuries, and I am not even going to try to dive into that mess - not that it is very relevant currently, either.
Edit: Just for additional clarification, I am not a paranoid extremist believing that exposing yourself to violent media will turn you into a murderer. But I do think it seems naïve and careless to dismiss any possibility of it having any effect whatsoever, and it does seem irrational when we know how much effect other types of media can have on other types of decisions.
Good thing no wars or ANY violence/rape was committed before t.v. and magazines came around.
You have like a billion factors playing into trends of violence going up and down over the centuries, and I am not even going to try to dive into that mess - not that it is very relevant currently, either.
Edit: Just for additional clarification, I am not a paranoid extremist believing that exposing yourself to violent media will turn you into a murderer. But I do think it seems naïve and careless to dismiss any possibility of it having any effect whatsoever.
We're not saying it doesn't have any effect, we're saying its grossly exaggerated. Like horribly grossly exaggerated. A lot of people who do really awful things are, secretly, really awful people. Books didn't make em do it. Neither do movies, the rap music, or GTA. They're just fethed up little monsters who grew into fethed up people.
Look at John Wayne Gacy or any other serial killer. All seemingly nice, well-adjusted people who went batgak crazy.
Honestly, human beings are naturally violent, which is fine when you have impulse control. Some people don't.
I am not saying this is something that happens regularly and predictably, but I strongly suspect it might sometimes push someone that tiny bit over the edge. It's not so easy to blame 'some people' since even average joe can raise a fist in anger.
Janthkin wrote: This is only "for example" if you actually have an example to point to. You're postulating a causal relationship* here, one that no study I'm aware of has ever substantiated.
*Premise: People with anger issues who are exposed to violent media are more likely to engage in violence than people with anger issues who are not so exposed.
Obviously you're never going to prove it because the situation is too complicated to analyze conclusively in hindsight and any experiment that would provide a definite answer would be incredibly unethical. But really, this shouldn't be very controversial. All it really says is that people can be influenced by things around them, and I don't think anyone has a plausible argument that we're each perfectly isolated bubbles of thought and are never influenced by anything outside our bubbles.
jreilly89 wrote: A lot of people who do really awful things are, secretly, really awful people. Books didn't make em do it. Neither do movies, the rap music, or GTA. They're just fethed up little monsters who grew into fethed up people.
Look at John Wayne Gacy or any other serial killer. All seemingly nice, well-adjusted people who went batgak crazy.
Yes, but the worst serial killers (and similar monsters) are hardly typical criminals. For every sadistic murderer like that there are countless other "desperate for drug money" or "wouldn't take 'no' for an answer" crimes, and those don't require major psychological issues.
jreilly89 wrote: A lot of people who do really awful things are, secretly, really awful people. Books didn't make em do it. Neither do movies, the rap music, or GTA. They're just fethed up little monsters who grew into fethed up people.
Look at John Wayne Gacy or any other serial killer. All seemingly nice, well-adjusted people who went batgak crazy.
Yes, but the worst serial killers (and similar monsters) are hardly typical criminals. For every sadistic murderer like that there are countless other "desperate for drug money" or "wouldn't take 'no' for an answer" crimes, and those don't require major psychological issues.
Um, I disagree. Those "desperate for drug money" or "wouldn't take not for an answer" have some level of mental instability. Also, your typical criminals rarely play GTA or watch Roadhouse each weekend before going and committing crimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: Who exaggerates it? I do not think I do. I hope.
I am not saying this is something that happens regularly and predictably, but I strongly suspect it might sometimes push someone that tiny bit over the edge. It's not so easy to blame 'some people' since even average joe can raise a fist in anger.
I'm not saying you, I'm saying your own average media is often responsible for exaggerating these claims. Also, I highly doubt it would. There's a difference between raising a fist in anger and mugging or murdering people. Most people committing violent crimes already have some level of instability, I doubt mainstream media pushed them over the edge.
jreilly89 wrote: Most people committing violent crimes already have some level of instability
Source?
As far as I know, violence has a huuuuge amount of calculated unreported events.
Not sure what you mean by unreported events, but by instability I mean violent crimes could be attributed to poverty, social factors, a bunch of other things before I'd reason violent video games or t.v.
I should make a game out of this. Read the first post in some random Off-Topic thread, then read the last post, and be amazed at how far the conversation has gone.
AnomanderRake wrote: I should make a game out of this. Read the first post in some random Off-Topic thread, then read the last post, and be amazed at how far the conversation has gone.
I'd argue that violent video games are popular because most of us have some level of violent tendencies. If this reasoning holds, it creates some rather disturbing conclusions about sexism in media.
If there's not many strong female characters in media because it "doesn't sell" I'd think that would be an impetus to investigate why that is the case, rather than throwing our hands in the air and whining about SJWs.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd argue that violent video games are popular because most of us have some level of violent tendencies. If this reasoning holds, it creates some rather disturbing conclusions about sexism in media.
If there's not many strong female characters in media because it "doesn't sell" I'd think that would be an impetus to investigate why that is the case, rather than throwing our hands in the air and whining about SJWs.
I would probably agree with both the violent and sexism tendencies as an opinion, but not as any sort of fact. My own opinion. I agree with it. Mostly because if the Romans taught us anything, it's that all of us love seeing a little blood spilled every now and again. Also, if you look at most things that are trying to pander to one sex, often times they put the other down. 300 for instance is a Manly Man's movie, and the only woman characters are prostitutes and the queen (Who trades her body for support). I'm not saying that the queen's actions were wrong, just that 300 was kind of one noted in it's portrayal of women. Then you have the flop of Halle Berry's Catwoman, where they are actively putting men down as idiots every chance they get while STILL being incredibly sexist towards women.
Why strong female characters don't sell is actually quite simple really; publishers don't think they sell, so they don't advertise, so the games don't sell.
I'm really tired with this pc crap. A lot of times people focus on pointless gak like can you edit character's nose or how homo can you be. Then you have people like this working in the industry:
Spoiler:
I'd rather have 10 rapelay clones than a single order 1886.
What happened to making games? Why the "game" part of a game no longer important?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd argue that violent video games are popular because most of us have some level of violent tendencies. If this reasoning holds, it creates some rather disturbing conclusions about sexism in media.
If there's not many strong female characters in media because it "doesn't sell" I'd think that would be an impetus to investigate why that is the case, rather than throwing our hands in the air and whining about SJWs.
It might not be the violence that people are after. One of my musing is that violence is more like the wrapper we put around another fantasy to hold it and make it palatable in a way. Violent content can be used as a shot hand for your allowed to like it. (As odd as that sounds)
To look at why something doesn't sell you would want to look at the audience and that would get kind of sticky for gamers. 'i mean we get riled up when people talk about how they want to look at gender issues in our games. One can only imagine the fight back if you looked at gamers themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
illuknisaa wrote: I'm really tired with this pc crap. A lot of times people focus on pointless gak like can you edit character's nose or how homo can you be. Then you have people like this working in the industry:
Spoiler:
I'd rather have 10 rapelay clones than a single order 1886.
What happened to making games? Why the "game" part of a game no longer important?
Why is that one picture? It looks very much like two different topics and two different pictures?
JUst read the first 4 lines, that should source you everything you need to know. 4 times ia a big increase when you consider a factor of 20% of mental instability for the normal population at some point during their lives.
Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.
Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.
Mind you, I was speaking of violence, not just murder.
Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.
Mind you, I was speaking of violence, not just murder.
Still, violence can lead to murder. One of the early signs of a psychopath is someone who likes to hurt animals. There's a difference between "Hey, you cut me off and I want to punch your face" and " I rape people in the dark and mug people in alleyways".
I'd say that those who get pushed over the edge by a video game were already pretty close to the edge.
JUst read the first 4 lines, that should source you everything you need to know. 4 times ia a big increase when you consider a factor of 20% of mental instability for the normal population at some point during their lives.
Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.
Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.
Mind you, I was speaking of violence, not just murder.
Still, violence can lead to murder. One of the early signs of a psychopath is someone who likes to hurt animals. There's a difference between "Hey, you cut me off and I want to punch your face" and " I rape people in the dark and mug people in alleyways".
I'd say that those who get pushed over the edge by a video game were already pretty close to the edge.
Hell, I would have thought that's it is a given that to murder someone you have to be unstable. If you look at it from a completely logical perspective the ability of the police to solve crime now days, science, data mining ect, you'd have to be insane or an idiot in order to murder someone.
Mind you, I was speaking of violence, not just murder.
Still, violence can lead to murder. One of the early signs of a psychopath is someone who likes to hurt animals. There's a difference between "Hey, you cut me off and I want to punch your face" and " I rape people in the dark and mug people in alleyways".
I'd say that those who get pushed over the edge by a video game were already pretty close to the edge.
Except for Lag.
Video Games don't cause violence, but Lag does
Especially in games like Street Fighter 4 and Dark Souls. Nothing is more aggravating than swinging at a guy, then the lag catches up, and you get backstabbed because he teleported. That makes me want to kill people.
Just a question for all the people that want games to be more like "art" and less like arcade games, that do you also want that books have more sound and paintings to have more animations?
Sienisoturi wrote: Just a question for all the people that want games to be more like "art" and less like arcade games, that do you also want that books have more sound and paintings to have more animations?
Spoiler:
Tetris was already an form of art.
Arcade games aren't art?? IMO, video games are as much an art as movies are... The programmers have to spend a ton of time and effort in creating something that is enjoyable. Most successful games have some form of aesthetically pleasing elements to them, and most games that depict people in some way do so in a way that fits the overall style of the game.
Sienisoturi wrote: Just a question for all the people that want games to be more like "art" and less like arcade games, that do you also want that books have more sound and paintings to have more animations?
Spoiler:
Tetris was already an form of art.
Arcade games aren't art?? IMO, video games are as much an art as movies are... The programmers have to spend a ton of time and effort in creating something that is enjoyable. Most successful games have some form of aesthetically pleasing elements to them, and most games that depict people in some way do so in a way that fits the overall style of the game.
I am sorry if I was a bit of unclear in my post, but it's main point was that arcade games are art, and that games should not have to appear like other types of art in order to be art.
It all depends on how you define art, i.e. how narrow your definition is. Techncially, even peeing the floor could be considered art with a very broad definition.
I'd put video games on the same level as movies. There are good examples of games that actually tell an interesting story (Planescape Torment), overly pretentious pieces (Gone Home, Dear Ester) and pee-poor, low quality off-the-line stuff (Call of Doody, Fifa 2105). Same as books...actually. So yeah, if you consider those art, then video games are art as well.
Sigvatr wrote: It all depends on how you define art, i.e. how narrow your definition is. Techncially, even peeing the floor could be considered art with a very broad definition.
I'd put video games on the same level as movies. There are good examples of games that actually tell an interesting story (Planescape Torment), overly pretentious pieces (Gone Home, Dear Ester) and pee-poor, low quality off-the-line stuff (Call of Doody, Fifa 2105). Same as books...actually. So yeah, if you consider those art, then video games are art as well.
It's not about what can be considered art, it's about what can be considered good art.
In terms of ART. Games are art. In the best sense of the word. Games are art. But that doesn't mean that makes them avoid criticism.
Games as art is hotly debated among designers, I mean hell we still haven't figured out if games are art. WE are still talking about it.
To be honest though I do see some points about that games aren't art. There are some great points but the best ones are the points that say games are art. As games lend experience and teach us about things that happen in the game.
Games are art due to the work and effort put into it that makes normal art pieces look uncompetitive in comparison.
Sienisoturi wrote: Just a question for all the people that want games to be more like "art" and less like arcade games, that do you also want that books have more sound and paintings to have more animations?
Spoiler:
Tetris was already an form of art.
Arcade games aren't art?? IMO, video games are as much an art as movies are... The programmers have to spend a ton of time and effort in creating something that is enjoyable. Most successful games have some form of aesthetically pleasing elements to them, and most games that depict people in some way do so in a way that fits the overall style of the game.
I am sorry if I was a bit of unclear in my post, but it's main point was that arcade games are art, and that games should not have to appear like other types of art in order to be art.
Ya. Games are already art and now it's more about expanding the kinds of art they can b. You know the different styles emotions and questions you can play with.
Ya. Games are already art and now it's more about expanding the kinds of art they can b. You know the different styles emotions and questions you can play with.
Games are art. And most of us are glad, we are just hoping they will become just as credible as movies are.
Even though games make more money than movies have been.
In the past few years the entertainment industry has been dominated by the games industry.
Games matter to the people who care and that can be enough. I mean there is more we can do. You know like have awards that aren't the VGAs and more critical talk and commentary. Maybe a better way to distribute our more eccentric art games. (and you know less of GG if we want to bring it up.)
nomotog wrote: Games matter to the people who care and that can be enough. I mean there is more we can do. You know like have awards that aren't the VGAs and more critical talk and commentary. Maybe a better way to distribute our more eccentric art games. (and you know less of GG if we want to bring it up.)
Ever heard of GDC?
At GDC we have an awards ceremony for the best developers, awards for people that deserve it. GDC awards are probably the best bet in terms of video game awards.
Games are meant for our customers
Games help people out and to be honest there is so much more we could do with them.
Sigvatr wrote: It all depends on how you define art, i.e. how narrow your definition is. Techncially, even peeing the floor could be considered art with a very broad definition.
I'd put video games on the same level as movies. There are good examples of games that actually tell an interesting story (Planescape Torment), overly pretentious pieces (Gone Home, Dear Ester) and pee-poor, low quality off-the-line stuff (Call of Doody, Fifa 2105). Same as books...actually. So yeah, if you consider those art, then video games are art as well.
It's not about what can be considered art, it's about what can be considered good art.
Sigvatr wrote: It all depends on how you define art, i.e. how narrow your definition is. Techncially, even peeing the floor could be considered art with a very broad definition.
I'd put video games on the same level as movies. There are good examples of games that actually tell an interesting story (Planescape Torment), overly pretentious pieces (Gone Home, Dear Ester) and pee-poor, low quality off-the-line stuff (Call of Doody, Fifa 2105). Same as books...actually. So yeah, if you consider those art, then video games are art as well.
Oh man, I can't wait for Torment: Tides of Numenura. Going to be SOOOO EPIC.
I've been debating whether to post this story or not. I'm not even sure of the point I'm trying to make with it, or how it's relevant or even my entire opinion on it but... Anyhow, my gut says it's related, somehow.
I was at a show to see a comedian (who will remain unnamed) recently. I'll be honest, I didn't particularly enjoy the show, or even find him funny.
But anyhow. He had a bit of a question / answer session with the audience at the end and this woman was practically dancing, waving her hands for her question. He finally picked her.
W: "So, in your act, you made all these comments about why someone being sexist is a really stupid thing to be. Why then do you make jokes about rape?"
C: *Stands, looking confused.* "I didn't make any rape jokes."
W: "Not tonight but." *Points* "You, always make rape jokes."
C: *Looks even more confused, doesn't say anything for several seconds.* "I can't even think of any rape jokes, can you tell examples of what ones I've said and we'll go from there."
W: *Flusters and stutters...* "Um, um, well, I don't know any, but you tell them all the time!" *Points*
C: "Well, uh... Sorry... I guess?" *Woman sits down*
He then moves on to another question, still appearing at least, rather confused.
But yeah, I don't really want to say too much more on that, but to be honest, it was the most interesting part of the show for me and I couldn't help but go away thinking about it.
Now, I do think this fits into this topic, but the way it fits in probably does depend greatly upon your point of view and, as I've said, I'm not entirely sure what my opinion of it is, especially considering I don't exactly follow the comedian (he could be playing dumb, for example).
Compel wrote: I've been debating whether to post this story or not. I'm not even sure of the point I'm trying to make with it, or how it's relevant or even my entire opinion on it but... Anyhow, my gut says it's related, somehow.
I was at a show to see a comedian (who will remain unnamed) recently. I'll be honest, I didn't particularly enjoy the show, or even find him funny.
But anyhow. He had a bit of a question / answer session with the audience at the end and this woman was practically dancing, waving her hands for her question. He finally picked her.
W: "So, in your act, you made all these comments about why someone being sexist is a really stupid thing to be. Why then do you make jokes about rape?"
C: *Stands, looking confused.* "I didn't make any rape jokes."
W: "Not tonight but." *Points* "You, always make rape jokes."
C: *Looks even more confused, doesn't say anything for several seconds.* "I can't even think of any rape jokes, can you tell examples of what ones I've said and we'll go from there."
W: *Flusters and stutters...* "Um, um, well, I don't know any, but you tell them all the time!" *Points*
C: "Well, uh... Sorry... I guess?" *Woman sits down*
He then moves on to another question, still appearing at least, rather confused.
But yeah, I don't really want to say too much more on that, but to be honest, it was the most interesting part of the show for me and I couldn't help but go away thinking about it.
Now, I do think this fits into this topic, but the way it fits in probably does depend greatly upon your point of view and, as I've said, I'm not entirely sure what my opinion of it is, especially considering I don't exactly follow the comedian (he could be playing dumb, for example).
Anyhow, some food for thought.
Without knowing who it is, there really isn't a way to verify it, honestly.
She could have just been easily offended by something, he could have just been playing dumb. Alternatively, he could have as you said been playing dumb.
Easiest way to affirm it would be to actually go through and watch his stuff.
Sigvatr wrote: ...and that isn't related to video gaming at all?
Only partially.
Only completely.
I don't agree games can be art, like journey, but most games are products to be sold (lice a car or vacuum cleaner) , they can be artful but that is not their main function if all games are art then everything is art.
The "can be sold" criteria isn't really useful as there also is art that's produced to be sold. The only reason art became that popular, after all, is because rich people wanted stuff
Sigvatr wrote: ...and that isn't related to video gaming at all?
Only partially.
Only completely.
I don't agree games can be art, like journey, but most games are products to be sold (lice a car or vacuum cleaner) , they can be artful but that is not their main function if all games are art then everything is art.
You do realize that there's a market for art right?
I'm pretty sure art collectors don't spend away thousands of dollars for fun.
@Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).
Jehan-reznor wrote: @Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).
And you would say the same about books/movies/television shows/music/etc.?
LordofHats wrote: It's also possible she intended to protest some other comic, and in a stupid moment, ended up at the wrong show.
I could see that. I once mistook a homeless guy for Dane Cook. I think it was the rape jokes.
To make a short story shorter, something similar happened at my college;
A group of Amish came to the school and spent about 4 hours in the middle of campus calling all the girls sluts for wearing short shorts in 100+ degree weather*. Needless to say, the entire student body kind of laughed at the whole ordeal cause it was ridiculous. Two weeks later, there was a seminar by some Amish as part of some local culture event we were having. Their little stand got picked by the local Women's Studies faculty and some students for being sexist, only this group of Amish had no idea what was going on because they were a completely different group of Amish who also though the other group of Amish was ridiculous for doing what they did.
Case and point, just because your an activist doesn't mean you don't do something embarrassingly stupid (like accusing the wrong Amish comic of being a douche).
*Honestly I wanted to wear short shorts too, but I just don't have the thighs
Jehan-reznor wrote: @Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).
Agreed. Some are specifically made to be art, but not all games are. Some are just meant to be fun. I think like everything else, it's objective, because not all books, films, and music are art, but some definitely are.
Jehan-reznor wrote: @Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).
And you would say the same about books/movies/television shows/music/etc.?
Yes? why not? art is not a function it is totally subjective.
Jehan-reznor wrote: @Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).
And you would say the same about books/movies/television shows/music/etc.?
Yes? why not? art is not a function it is totally subjective.
I think the problem is that you quoted it improperly with "I don't agree games can be art, like journey, but most games are products to be sold (lice a car or vacuum cleaner) , they can be artful but that is not their main function if all games are art then everything is art."
At that point, it fell into the catch that you didn't mention that the same is true for other mediums. A book is often made to be sold, a movie is usually made to be sold, a pice of art is usually made to be sold or because some rich person from olden days wanted the art to be made. Heck, even with the most games are products to be sold you can argue that journey was made to be sold because, well the folks that made it needed to make money. The only real exception could be some free game or excessively cheap game to avoid that argument and that's really the big problem that caused the misconception.
Honestly I'll admit that, if we look at it from an art for the sake of art, I feel that most mediums fall into very few being truly "art". Most films? Nope. Most books? Nope. Most drawings/songs? Nope. Games? Yeah sure CoD is totally a piece of art.
Even then, one can argue that art can be created for entertainment. Is conceptual art where people stack chairs artwork? It's a bizarre thing to think about in the end and it doesn't help that art is a very loose term.
Can somebody tell me the guidelines for something being considered art then? I am very confused. Is Picasso still art?Because honestly, his stuff does not do it for me. So my vote is no.
Manchu wrote: Art is only whatever you need it to be for the sake of an argument at the time you are making that argument.
In a way yes, but I think it's actual definition just any form of expression or application of human creativity or imagination, so almost everything is art.
That reduces the term art to something akin to the term stuff. Almost everything is stuff. Saying something is stuff, however, tells me nothing about it.
I think the word art has become a term which people use to market a product. That is certainly the sense in which it used about video games.
Jehan-reznor wrote: @Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).
How are the two mutually exclusive? If the existence of bad games makes it so that the gaming medium is invalid as an artform, then wouldn't that be the same for bad paintings?
Also, how could the main function be art? Does that mean that Gothic Cathedrals are not art, as their main function was to serve as a place of worship? Or that Botticelli's Birth of Venus, commissioned by the Medici family is not art, as its primary purpose was to get the artist paid?
Any creative endeavor is, in my opinion, art. Art that is created for the primary purpose of making money is, not surprisingly, sometimes called "commercial art". It's still art.
You might not like it, but, eh, there's a pithy phrase about opinions and something else everyone possesses that could go here.
Outside of that? No one on these forums is going to be able to provide you with a solid, irrefutable definition of art. Such a thing doesn't exist.
Dreadwinter wrote: Can somebody tell me the guidelines for something being considered art then? I am very confused. Is Picasso still art?Because honestly, his stuff does not do it for me. So my vote is no.
Psienesis wrote: Any creative endeavor is, in my opinion, art. Art that is created for the primary purpose of making money is, not surprisingly, sometimes called "commercial art". It's still art.
You might not like it, but, eh, there's a pithy phrase about opinions and something else everyone possesses that could go here.
Outside of that? No one on these forums is going to be able to provide you with a solid, irrefutable definition of art. Such a thing doesn't exist.
My definition is a bit different.
To me its the physical manifestation of one's competences.
Consequently, it means that there are grades of art - something like the Mona Lisa, which took careful planning and a keen understanding of human anatomy, perspective and landscape, is higher quality than something like a Pollock.
Not all art is created equal, as it were.
Oh, certainly. But, again, it's still all "art". I mean, Cubist art is certainly loved by certain people and considered hot gak... I, personally, don't think it's all that, but I won't deny its contributions to the world of art.
Some people don't like Impressionist paintings, I love 'em. Some people don't like Surrealist films, I will sit down and watch Jan Svankmajer films on a rainy day all the freakin' time.
Dreadwinter wrote: Can somebody tell me the guidelines for something being considered art then? I am very confused. Is Picasso still art?Because honestly, his stuff does not do it for me. So my vote is no.
1. [mass noun] The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:
2. (the arts) Thevarious branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance:
To get back to the original topic. The premise is a little silly. What is "Gaming Culture" anyway? It seems to me to be some kind of vague, amorphous term that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. You might as well say you're tired of movie culture, or book culture.
Its much better I think to discuss specific aspects of "gaming culture", because that is something we can actually nail down and define.
True I've personally never used it to describe myself yet I have used it in a negative way.
I think there are so many subgroups of gamers that some do not personally associate themselves with a greater whole. While there is a negative element to all of the subgroups they do have a unified theme of just being terrible people in general.
BrotherGecko wrote: True I've personally never used it to describe myself yet I have used it in a negative way.
I think there are so many subgroups of gamers that some do not personally associate themselves with a greater whole. While there is a negative element to all of the subgroups they do have a unified theme of just being terrible people in general.
I dunno, I wouldn't even say that is correct. What is gaming culture? Well I'm assuming we are talking Steam oriented PC games, PS4, XBOXONE, WiiU, and maybe the handheld games. I think the biggest unification of all is that the common theme is we like games but not all games and like to bicker and nitpick over the smallest to biggest of things I think a problem is that a lot of gaming culture is over online which is... well a wild wasteland of wacky and ludicrous things. The internet's probably both the most offensive vile places I've ever been to but also the touchiest, prone to being offended at the slightest mistaken or even imagined slight. That and if I've learned anything from enjoying any form of community it is that the worst and most obnoxious individuals tend to be the ones that get the most press and attention. Did I forget to mention that small group is really really loud?
BrotherGecko wrote: See when I hear "gamer" I think of table top boxed games, pen and paper, wargames, TCGs and video games.
Ah. I was assuming we were going for the vg gamer considering this was originally on the vg thread. Honestly I also tend to lump in tabletop, rpgs, wargames, and tcgs as other gamer hobbies.
Jehan-reznor wrote: @Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).
And you would say the same about books/movies/television shows/music/etc.?
Yes? why not? art is not a function it is totally subjective.
I think the problem is that you quoted it improperly with "I don't agree games can be art, like journey, but most games are products to be sold (lice a car or vacuum cleaner) , they can be artful but that is not their main function if all games are art then everything is art."
At that point, it fell into the catch that you didn't mention that the same is true for other mediums. A book is often made to be sold, a movie is usually made to be sold, a pice of art is usually made to be sold or because some rich person from olden days wanted the art to be made. Heck, even with the most games are products to be sold you can argue that journey was made to be sold because, well the folks that made it needed to make money. The only real exception could be some free game or excessively cheap game to avoid that argument and that's really the big problem that caused the misconception.
Honestly I'll admit that, if we look at it from an art for the sake of art, I feel that most mediums fall into very few being truly "art". Most films? Nope. Most books? Nope. Most drawings/songs? Nope. Games? Yeah sure CoD is totally a piece of art.
Even then, one can argue that art can be created for entertainment. Is conceptual art where people stack chairs artwork? It's a bizarre thing to think about in the end and it doesn't help that art is a very loose term.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Jehan-reznor wrote: @Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).
How are the two mutually exclusive?
If the existence of bad games makes it so that the gaming medium is invalid as an artform, then wouldn't that be the same for bad paintings?
Also, how could the main function be art? Does that mean that Gothic Cathedrals are not art, as their main function was to serve as a place of worship? Or that Botticelli's Birth of Venus, commissioned by the Medici family is not art, as its primary purpose was to get the artist paid?
But even then then it had a function, the cathedrals were to glorify god, kind like an offering and lots of paintings in the past were like photographs or used as propaganda.
I just don't agree with the blanket statement all games are art, if that is true then everything is art, like i said there are games that are beautifully done and can be considered art, but there also enough shovel ware, same with books for the few classics and good books there are enough mediocre crappy books out there as is with movies. it is just my opinion.
Sigvatr wrote: There's no need to feel or get defensive and especially not in such a tone. You know that I really like you as a poster and wasn't aiming to offend you. The point is that you can't just post blank statements and sell them as a fact when the exact opposite is the case. It's perfectly in order and okay to state that as your opinion or even say that you strongly think so because of several reasons. But please don't misportray information.
Sorry. It was not as much about what you said that because of all of you saying basically the same thing, piling on, and some other personal stuff that got me down. Along with the perpetual attempt from some other posters in the discussion to antagonize me. I got a free forced vacation from the mods, and I am now back with a clearer mind.
I am not going to give you a proof that sexism in media (including video games, but really, if the question is “Does portrayals in video game influence sexism”, basically everything is going to be relevant to many other medias including movies and books…) is perpetuating sexism bias in people, because there are no formal proof either way. But I can certainly explain why extrapolating from the fact violent video games does not make people violent that sexist tropes in video games are not going to reinforce sexist stereotypes is wrong. Those two assertions, despite trying to make them look similar by how you formulate them, are actually quite different. The first one is based on the very simplistic assumption that “Monkey see, monkey do”. Or, in other word, that we are just going to reproduce in our behavior what we see done in movies or games. The second one is about “Monkey see, monkey believe”. That is quite different. Of course we tend to believe what we see. And of course we also use common sense and will not just believe anything because we see it in a media. But, for instance, let me take an example. Our perception of specific historical periods and peoples are often very influenced by their portrayal in media, even when actual historical research is giving a very different picture. And this is even though we do know that this portrayal is fictional and that we should not take it too seriously. Here, the bias are likely already there in many of us before we even play (see the video below), so even if the portrayals do not actually create them, they will do nothing to counter them. When I think they should.
mattyrm wrote: I had all of those things I was more than happy to take orders from a female of higher rank than me. I think the vast majority of my mates were as well
Well, it is good to know. Still, there are people that would not. I am pretty certain my nephews that are officers in the Foreign Legion would, for instance .
mattyrm wrote: Ergo, even though I can certainly see the logic of your point (you might tend to think it makes sense) apparently the experts say otherwise.
Which experts? And no, violence is not the same thing as sexism, see above.
mattyrm wrote: I agree that on the face of it at least, to people like you and I (not professional psychiatrists) you would think that maybe seeing misogynistic tropes might make you more likely to be sexist, but apparently they actually don't, just like how violent games don't make you violent.
I mean, I'm happy to have my mind changed like, have you got any credible intelligence that suggests men (or women) and more likely to hate women because of minor things like the gender of the love interest in a video game?
I'm not saying I don't believe it because I don't want to, I'm saying I don't believe it because me and all my mates grew up in the 80s and I dont think any of them are bigoted or scornful of women, so why would it be true for one thing and not the other?
I think here, the problem is that you think I am talking about an all-out hate on women, MRA-style. I am not. I am speaking about small, unconscious bias, like those explained in there for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjFTHTgEVU Yeah, of course, you do believe you are sexist. Because you do not want to be sexist. Neither want I, nor basically anyone worth speaking to. That does not mean we are not subject to some unconscious bias that do influence us daily. The more we become conscious about them, the more we can fight them, and similarly, the more we are able to identify sexist tropes in media, the less they are likely to affect us. I spoke about refusing to serve under a woman mostly because that seemed a more obvious, easier to see example, but maybe that was a bad call.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I think we should all just calm down and take in a relaxing Rape and Revenge movie festival together
What exactly is your point here? Do you think those movies are perpetuating sexism or something?
jreilly89 wrote: Sexism has existed for centuries, and guess what? Super Mario was invented in the 80's
So, what is your conclusion? Let me help you: people have been dying since there has been people, and yet machine guns are pretty much recent inventions. Does that mean a machine gun cannot kill you? No, it only means that some other stuff can kill you too. I guess the only reasonable conclusion from your witty retort is that video games are not the sole, only source of all sexism ever. Which nobody argued, ever. Congratulation on defeating that strawman, Don Quichotte.
jreilly89 wrote: Good thing no wars or ANY violence/rape was committed before t.v. and magazines came around.
See just above .
sirlynchmob wrote: Well if modern psychology is cuckoo land territory for you, that certain explains your outburst here. Which of your parents where prone to the childish outburst you just had?
A good way to think about the childhood mind is being like a big block of stone. For roughly the first six years of your life your parents were the sole sculptors of that stone. They slowly chipped away at it and shaped it in their own image. This sculpted stone then became the base of who you are as a person today and what the other sculptors in your life will have to work with.
So… I guess you stopped getting new ideas at six. This explains stuff. Seriously, arguing that adults always share the political and social views of their parents (which is basically what you did there) is something you will find very, very hard to prove when there are so many counter-examples.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: There's a bit of difference between "that's a cool thing; I want to buy it" and "Time to murder someone like in GTA"
Well ya some things are easier to influence then others. I actually believe this debate started because someone said they thought videogames encouraged sexism, but not violence. People kind of jumped up and said how can it be one and not the other, but it's basically the same thing here.
Indeed. That someone was me and it sure was not a popular statement.
illuknisaa wrote: I'm really tired with this pc crap. A lot of times people focus on pointless gak like can you edit character's nose or how homo can you be. Then you have people like this working in the industry:
Spoiler:
I'd rather have 10 rapelay clones than a single order 1886.
I am very tempted to answer with a picture of the joker saying “U mad bro”. Seriously, are you even arguing that most video game studio are anything like this and that you therefore cannot find enough games you like? Or that you fear it will be the case in the future?
Sigvatr wrote: "Gaming culture" is never used when people want to identify themselves with it, it's only used to negatively talk about gamers.
Let that sink in for a second.
Well, not “gaming culture”, but “fighting game culture” is used in a way I am really unsure on whether I should call negatively or not. Because they guy who is speaking seems to see nothing bad about it, but…
I am not going to give you a proof that sexism in media (including video games, but really, if the question is “Does portrayals in video game influence sexism”, basically everything is going to be relevant to many other medias including movies and books…) is perpetuating sexism bias in people, because there are no formal proof either way. But I can certainly explain why extrapolating from the fact violent video games does not make people violent that sexist tropes in video games are not going to reinforce sexist stereotypes is wrong.
Those two assertions, despite trying to make them look similar by how you formulate them, are actually quite different. The first one is based on the very simplistic assumption that “Monkey see, monkey do”. Or, in other word, that we are just going to reproduce in our behavior what we see done in movies or games. The second one is about “Monkey see, monkey believe”. That is quite different. Of course we tend to believe what we see. And of course we also use common sense and will not just believe anything because we see it in a media. But, for instance, let me take an example. Our perception of specific historical periods and peoples are often very influenced by their portrayal in media, even when actual historical research is giving a very different picture. And this is even though we do know that this portrayal is fictional and that we should not take it too seriously.
Here, the bias are likely already there in many of us before we even play (see the video below), so even if the portrayals do not actually create them, they will do nothing to counter them. When I think they should.
The reason why people are equating the two has to do with a larger issue, does art imitate art or does life imitate art. Or to put it a different way does the entertainment a society produce change that society for good or il, or does it have no real effect either way. A far as video games goes if you believe that art imitates life, then proof that video games don't make people violent does matter when it comes to the issue of whether or not they make people sexist. I would also point out that with both sexism and violence in video games, they are both monkey see, monkey do and monkey see, monkey believe. This is due to your opinions/beliefs affecting your behavior.
To use an example if a person played a video game where the main character kills "bad guys" for committing crimes and then goes out in the real world and kills someone in cold blood who he thinks is trying to steal a car and beliefs what he did was just. Then that is case of a video game changing his behavior and beliefs.
Personally I am far more in the art imitates life camp personally, that these problems are much more complex than just little Jimmy is violent because he played GTA. Also there are plenty of examples of people using different forms of media as scape goats for societies problems. To quote a book a I read recently, The Proteus Paradox by Nick Yee, "It's easier to put warning labels on video games than to address all the very real social, cultural, and psychological factors that lead to gun violence."
Also you have to understand that there are people in the entertainment world who are like Jay Leno in that they want to entertain their audience, in Jay's case make people laugh, while pissing off as few people as possible. In video games you see this all the various companies that have either been completely silent on Gamer Gate one way or another, or companies give very diplomatic responses. A lot of these people understand that sexism is a problem but at the same time they just want make some video games, have fun doing it, and make some money in the process. They don't want to make any big political statements either way, and also want piss off as few people as possible.
Edit: Also I think that society has a profound effect on what entertainment is produced or what people are allowed to write or say. There is a video that talks about this that I rather like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQlqjONEsKQ
Blood Hawk wrote: Not everyone would agree that art shapes society though, is my point.
Given the vast number of people in history who have been outspoken about how books, film, music, etc have changed and shaped their lives, I think such people have no legs to stand on.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What exactly is your point here? Do you think those movies are perpetuating sexism or something?
I was subtly implying that your complaining against speculative sexism in games is a bit confusing when weighed against your enjoyment of movies with actual sexual assault as one of their main themes.
How can you support one form of expression like 'Irreversible' and be against another form like 'Smite'?
Please note, not judging you for enjoying such movies, I just don't understand the appeal. I'd never dream of taking those movies away though
(for the record my best boss was female, as was my worst)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What exactly is your point here? Do you think those movies are perpetuating sexism or something?
I was subtly implying that your complaining against speculative sexism in games is a bit confusing when weighed against your enjoyment of movies with actual sexual assault as one of their main themes.
How can you support one form of expression like 'Irreversible' and be against another form like 'Smite'?
Please note, not judging you for enjoying such movies, I just don't understand the appeal. I'd never dream of taking those movies away though
(for the record my best boss was female, as was my worst)
Females are equally capable of being pricks in the work place.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What exactly is your point here? Do you think those movies are perpetuating sexism or something?
I was subtly implying that your complaining against speculative sexism in games is a bit confusing when weighed against your enjoyment of movies with actual sexual assault as one of their main themes.
How can you support one form of expression like 'Irreversible' and be against another form like 'Smite'?
Please note, not judging you for enjoying such movies, I just don't understand the appeal. I'd never dream of taking those movies away though
(for the record my best boss was female, as was my worst)
Well you know because the themes, messages and emotions invoked are different. I an not really well informed on R&R stories though. I think they are stories like kill bill was an example I heard?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I was subtly implying that your complaining against speculative sexism in games is a bit confusing when weighed against your enjoyment of movies with actual sexual assault as one of their main themes.
But having sexual assault as one of their main theme does not necessarily makes them sexist. Far from it, actually, as far as I can tell. Feminists tends to speak quite a lot about sexual assault. Have you seen “A gun for Jennifer”, for instance? Every character that is portrayed in a positive light is a feminist. That movie is just basically one big feminist power fantasy about punishing rapists. Trailer, NSFW because boobs and violence:
Are Rape and revenge movies exploitative? Yes, they usually, though not necessarily always, are. But sexist? Well, most of them are not, as far as I can tell. Really, the main reproach I would have against them on that front is that they most of the time perpetuate the idea that rape is committed by a random stranger when apparently actually most rape comes from someone who is actually somehow close to the victim.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: How can you support one form of expression like 'Irreversible' and be against another form like 'Smite'?
Well, I would not count Irreversible as a “rape and revenge” movie, because it is not the victim who is enacting her revenge, it is her husband. And that makes quite a big difference, especially when discussing if those movies are sexist or feminist. My problem with Smite is that I feel that their perceived need to have every goddamn female goddesses extremely sexualized is completely unfit to the theme of the game, and greatly cheapens and restrict their character design. That is not something you would find on many Rape and revenge movies, that do not actually sexualize their heroin most of the time. If you watched the above trailer, you have seen basically all the most sexually explicit scenes in the movie, and you can notice that the vigilante group's outfit, when going to kill people, is certainly not sexy. Or take Thriller – A Cruel Picture. While it does have very explicit sex scene, it could basically be used as a contraceptive given how disturbing and repulsive they are. And when the heroin starts enacting violent revenge, they made her look just like a complete bad-ass, without sexualizing her at all (which would be of terrible taste given what happened previously).
But do not get me wrong, I am not against sexualization in general, neither in movies or in video games. If it fits the theme and is done right, why not? I really enjoyed watching Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! with some friends (and that movie at least also give something for people that are more into men, especially in one scene where the camera lingers on Vegetable's body (yeah, Vegetable is the actual name of one on the characters )), and I would similarly enjoy playing games like Lollipop Chainsaw. I just wish there were more, and better, male sexualization too, and less, but better, female sexualization. I just wish having your female character being sexy was not the default, because I do believe having them all sexy by default, and basically none of the male one, is rooted in some sexist bias. And I really feel Smite is all about “sexy by default”, even when it really does not fit the lore of the goddess, while not really sexualizing any of the male god (except maybe Apollo, iirc, and even then more in jest rather than actually trying to make him attractive).
By the way, I do not consider every movie I like to be above criticism of sexism either. For instance, I just love The FP (Uh, boobies warning again, I am afraid. For one second.), it is a great, highly enjoyable movie, but it does have everything that make the damsel in distress trope bad and then some more. I am not denying either the fact I love the movie, or the fact it uses terrible sexist tropes. I just wish it did not contain them, that would make it even better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blood Hawk wrote: Or to put it a different way does the entertainment a society produce change that society for good or il, or does it have no real effect either way.
I am pretty sure the entertainment do influence a society, but not necessarily in obvious ways, and not necessarily by changing it. Strengthening the status quo is an influence.
Blood Hawk wrote: Also there are plenty of examples of people using different forms of media as scape goats for societies problems. To quote a book a I read recently, The Proteus Paradox by Nick Yee, "It's easier to put warning labels on video games than to address all the very real social, cultural, and psychological factors that lead to gun violence."
I am not trying to scapegoat medias. I would never deny another source of sexism by “but video games”, and I never did it. I speak about sexist tropes in video games when I am on a forum about video games, but if I was on a forum about feminism, those would certainly not be my main concern.
[edit]I forgot to put a link to Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!'s trailer. Now corrected [/edit]
nomotog wrote: Well you know because the themes, messages and emotions invoked are different. I an not really well informed on R&R stories though. I think they are stories like kill bill was an example I heard?
While true, that can be argued about any movie/game, none will have an exact match of themes, messages and emotions.
Unless you mean the R&R genre, in which case I don't think there are any R&R video games? The closest I can think of is 'Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance' but Gina's implied sexual assault (if she isn't the selected character) isn't a driving force behind the plot.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: But having sexual assault as one of their main theme does not necessarily makes them sexist. Far from it, actually, as far as I can tell. Feminists tends to speak quite a lot about sexual assault.
I would argue that a film (or game) that includes sexual assault for the semi-guilty titillation of its audience is a bit sexist. It also makes me question the 'Revenge' part, and wonder if it was included so the audience could relieve their guilt at having privately enjoyed the first act.
I'll admit that I've never seen a R&R movie, though, so I might be wrong.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I just wish there were more, and better, male sexualization too, and less, but better, female sexualization. I just wish having your female character being sexy was not the default, because I do believe having them all sexy by default, and basically none of the male one, is rooted in some sexist bias. And I really feel Smite is all about “sexy by default”, even when it really does not fit the lore of the goddess, while not really sexualizing any of the male god (except maybe Apollo, iirc, and even then more in jest rather than actually trying to make him attractive).
So you're not against sexualisation, but EXCESSIVE sexualisation? Where do you draw the line at excessive sexualisation?
Believe it or not, I can get behind that viewpoint if you want to reduce sexualisation in some games for style reasons. I cannot get behind it if it's driven by 'think of the children' or feeling guilty because seeing a scantilly clad character made a pants party happen
nomotog wrote: Well you know because the themes, messages and emotions invoked are different. I an not really well informed on R&R stories though. I think they are stories like kill bill was an example I heard?
While true, that can be argued about any movie/game, none will have an exact match of themes, messages and emotions.
Unless you mean the R&R genre, in which case I don't think there are any R&R video games? The closest I can think of is 'Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance' but Gina's implied sexual assault (if she isn't the selected character) isn't a driving force behind the plot.
I can't think of any video games that could fit. Most don't want to actually get close the subject. It's just like a wholly different way of handing it then how video games do.
The big difference in that in a video game R would be something that happens to an NPC or a side character and the revenge would be the main character's job. (The main character would often be male, or batman.) The R ends up being the motivation and justification for someone else. Well in a R&R the victim gets to revenge themselves.
It's the old actor vs object thing actually. A ton of feminist critic boils down to it. (or maybe I just boil it down to that a lot.)
nomotog wrote: I can't think of any video games that could fit. Most don't want to actually get close the subject. It's just like a wholly different way of handing it then how video games do.
The big difference in that in a video game R would be something that happens to an NPC or a side character and the revenge would be the main character's job. (The main character would often be male, or batman.) The R ends up being the motivation and justification for someone else. Well in a R&R the victim gets to revenge themselves.
It's the old actor vs object thing actually. A ton of feminist critic boils down to it. (or maybe I just boil it down to that a lot.)
Apart from
Spoiler:
Fear 2
I can't think of any player character that gets sexually assaulted as part of the story, and that happened at the end so doesn't fit the R&R genre.
nomotog wrote: I can't think of any video games that could fit. Most don't want to actually get close the subject. It's just like a wholly different way of handing it then how video games do.
The big difference in that in a video game R would be something that happens to an NPC or a side character and the revenge would be the main character's job. (The main character would often be male, or batman.) The R ends up being the motivation and justification for someone else. Well in a R&R the victim gets to revenge themselves.
It's the old actor vs object thing actually. A ton of feminist critic boils down to it. (or maybe I just boil it down to that a lot.)
Apart from
Spoiler:
Fear 2
I can't think of any player character that gets sexually assaulted as part of the story, and that happened at the end so doesn't fit the R&R genre.
Sounds like a gap in the market!
There was going to be a part in alien isolation where the alien would act like a creepy rape monster, but it was changed from the actual release.
Assaulting the player like that would be rather different. I don't know if it whould be good or bad, just really uncomfortable.
nomotog wrote: There was going to be a part in alien isolation where the alien would act like a creepy rape monster, but it was changed from the actual release.
Assaulting the player like that would be rather different. I don't know if it whould be good or bad, just really uncomfortable.
It'd probably be bad and very uncomfortable, but I wonder if it would be an effective way to make the player hate the villain on a deeper level.
nomotog wrote: There was going to be a part in alien isolation where the alien would act like a creepy rape monster, but it was changed from the actual release.
Assaulting the player like that would be rather different. I don't know if it whould be good or bad, just really uncomfortable.
It'd probably be bad and very uncomfortable, but I wonder if it would be an effective way to make the player hate the villain on a deeper level.
It could, but I doubt that you should. If your going to do something like that to your player, then you should have a good reason and I don't think making the villain hateable would be sufficient.
nomotog wrote: It could, but I doubt that you should. If your going to do something like that to your player, then you should have a good reason and I don't think making the villain hateable would be sufficient.
I disagree, isn't most of the point behind villains in R&R using sexual assault to make them completely hateable, to the extent that brutally murdering them is fine because they're no longer human in the eyes of the audience?
Naturally for video games we can't be sure because no one has done it. Unless I've guessed the intro to Hatred
Blood Hawk wrote: Not everyone would agree that art shapes society though, is my point.
Given the vast number of people in history who have been outspoken about how books, film, music, etc have changed and shaped their lives, I think such people have no legs to stand on.
Yea but how many people went and saw James Cameron's Avatar and actually started panting themselves blue and going out in the wilderness to act like Navi. The answer, almost no one. I have no doubt that art/entertainment can effect the lives a specific person but the question is not whether or not you can affect specific people but society.
I mean we are talking about is more behavior for larges groups of people, specifically does playing video games potentially make one less or more sexist. Is it something you could actually measure with a study. I mean we talking about outcomes here.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am pretty sure the entertainment do influence a society, but not necessarily in obvious ways, and not necessarily by changing it. Strengthening the status quo is an influence.
But what do mean by strengthening the status quo exactly?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I am not trying to scapegoat medias. I would never deny another source of sexism by “but video games”, and I never did it. I speak about sexist tropes in video games when I am on a forum about video games, but if I was on a forum about feminism, those would certainly not be my main concern.
Blood Hawk wrote: I have no doubt that art/entertainment can effect the lives a specific person but the question is not whether or not you can affect specific people but society.
That's like saying evidence of Micro-Evolution isn't evidence of Macro-Evolution. It's patently obvious that art/entertainment effects people. Art effects people. Art effects society. Given that society is made of people it is impossible for the former to be true and the later to be false (the reverse is equally true). The question isn't does it happen but how influential the connection is.
nomotog wrote: There was going to be a part in alien isolation where the alien would act like a creepy rape monster, but it was changed from the actual release.
Assaulting the player like that would be rather different. I don't know if it whould be good or bad, just really uncomfortable.
It'd probably be bad and very uncomfortable, but I wonder if it would be an effective way to make the player hate the villain on a deeper level.
It could, but I doubt that you should. If your going to do something like that to your player, then you should have a good reason and I don't think making the villain hateable would be sufficient.
But Alien has always been heavily rape and sexually horrific in its orientation to begin with. I mean heck, look at the entire design of the alien from birthing to fully grown, look how it's implied it kills things. ALIEN is heavily sexual.
Blood Hawk wrote: I have no doubt that art/entertainment can effect the lives a specific person but the question is not whether or not you can affect specific people but society.
That's like saying evidence of Micro-Evolution isn't evidence of Macro-Evolution. It's patently obvious that art/entertainment effects people. Art effects people. Art effects society. Given that society is made of people it is impossible for the former to be true and the later to be false (the reverse is equally true). The question isn't does it happen but how influential the connection is.
Yes the question is whether or not it is significant, which you would test for in this case. I say affect I mean significant affect, from more a stats prescriptive. And yes it is possible to have specific cases that are not representative or the overall situation, I am talking about anecdotal evidence.
nomotog wrote: It could, but I doubt that you should. If your going to do something like that to your player, then you should have a good reason and I don't think making the villain hateable would be sufficient.
I disagree, isn't most of the point behind villains in R&R using sexual assault to make them completely hateable, to the extent that brutally murdering them is fine because they're no longer human in the eyes of the audience?
Naturally for video games we can't be sure because no one has done it. Unless I've guessed the intro to Hatred
I am not well versed on the genre, but I don't think it's about the villain; more about the victim and their transformation. Not really knowledgeable on the genre though.
nomotog wrote: There was going to be a part in alien isolation where the alien would act like a creepy rape monster, but it was changed from the actual release.
Assaulting the player like that would be rather different. I don't know if it whould be good or bad, just really uncomfortable.
It'd probably be bad and very uncomfortable, but I wonder if it would be an effective way to make the player hate the villain on a deeper level.
It could, but I doubt that you should. If your going to do something like that to your player, then you should have a good reason and I don't think making the villain hateable would be sufficient.
But Alien has always been heavily rape and sexually horrific in its orientation to begin with. I mean heck, look at the entire design of the alien from birthing to fully grown, look how it's implied it kills things. ALIEN is heavily sexual.
They don't really do it to you though. One big reason is that most alien games are SM shooters. They trim down on the face hungers and some of the other sexual assault imagery and protect you by giving you a big gun. NPCs are more the victims rather then the player.
Alien isolation is the one game that gets close to what the alien is because they don't give you a big gun. It doesn't include much imagery though. They ended up cutting it.
Blood Hawk wrote: I have no doubt that art/entertainment can effect the lives a specific person but the question is not whether or not you can affect specific people but society.
That's like saying evidence of Micro-Evolution isn't evidence of Macro-Evolution. It's patently obvious that art/entertainment effects people. Art effects people. Art effects society. Given that society is made of people it is impossible for the former to be true and the later to be false (the reverse is equally true). The question isn't does it happen but how influential the connection is.
That's not an apt comparison. And even if you are correct about art, the answer could also be "none at all"
The question really is, "does art effect people" and if yes, than how does it effect people.
We should have a poll, as everyone here qualifies as a gamer, and I'd assume everyone posting also plays video games.
#1 on a scale of 0-10 with 0 being not sexist and 10 being a misogynist, how sexist were you before you started playing games?
#2 on a scale of 0-10, how sexist are you now?
#3 Did any game have a great impact on your increased sexism?
#4 Did any game cause you to think that your sexism isn't cool and you should change your ways?
if "Mr noproof ever given" is correct we should see a increase between 1 & 2.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: So you're not against sexualisation, but EXCESSIVE sexualisation?
Well, I would say “out of character” and/or pervasive sexualization, rather than excessive sexualization. But yeah, I never meant to have all female characters in video games in burka .
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Believe it or not, I can get behind that viewpoint if you want to reduce sexualisation in some games for style reasons. I cannot get behind it if it's driven by 'think of the children' or feeling guilty because seeing a scantilly clad character made a pants party happen
Funnily, I remember being heavily mocked for suggesting exactly that about female models in wargaming.
sirlynchmob wrote: #1 on a scale of 0-10 with 0 being not sexist and 10 being a misogynist, how sexist were you before you started playing games?
Oh, and please include your age when starting playing video games, for funsies. I was about 10, iirc. 17 years ago.
I certainly remember my mindset well enough to grade how sexist I was . Not that I could in any way realistically rate how sexist I am today, see below.
sirlynchmob wrote: if "Mr noproof ever given" is correct we should see a increase between 1 & 2.
Hey, did you miss the part about a guy with a PhD which work is to study those unconscious bias about women telling you your methodology is flawed and proved inefficient?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Do you honestly believe anyone would rate themselves as more sexist?
You mean we don't live is a misogynistic rape culture? If we do than there should be nothing to fear about admitting how sexist you are?
surely those who are claiming as fact, that games make people sexist, can admit that they are now more sexist as a result of playing games.
Or you could stop with the strawmen, but where would the fun be in that?
Further, your methodology is bunk. You're assuming that people can accurately gauge their own biases, which would mean said biases did not exist in the first place. As an example, just because some self-professed "nice guy" claims to be a nice guy it does not have to follow that he actually is. The Ku Klux Klan probably believes they are in the right, that does not mean that they are not douchebags of the highest magnitude.
It is worth nothing though than even Sirlynchmob himself decided to grade himself as having 3 levels of sexism. If that is how much he admits to himself, how much more can we expect him to be .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: It is worth nothing though than even Sirlynchmob himself decided to grade himself as having 3 levels of sexism. If that is how much he admits to himself, how much more can we expect him to be .
We don't know. That's the entire point, for all we know he could be overestimating his sexism. I dare say there's enough flaws in the argument being put forth to sink it without resorting to character sniping.
Given how precise the scale is, I am not even sure he is estimating his sexism. He is giving a number, but what does this number correspond to? No idea.
@OP: Honestly the only "misogyny" I've ever encountered in my years of gaming was from Counter-strike numerous times and ONLY Counter-strike. There's probably a valid reason for this somewhere, but this narrative that's been painted that (male) gamers exist to harass women is utter horse crap. If anything, gamer culture LIKES women due to the popularity of 'girl gamer' streams.
Beyond that I don't really see any problems with "gamer culture". That is, unless I'm missing the secret meetings because I'm simply not 1337 enough.
sirlynchmob wrote: That's not an apt comparison. And even if you are correct about art, the answer could also be "none at all"
Its perfectly apt. It's not even a matter of proof but a matter of logic. If one state is true, it is impossible for the other to be false, and it would take an incredible amount of ignorance and/or obtuseness to honestly believe that people do not use media to help shape their views (i.e. influence).
Just looks at Ayn Rand and how her books almost single handed spawned modern Libertarianism, or how Uncle Tom and Gone with the Wind as books have shaped (to the point of subverting history) the perception of Antebellum and Civil War Southern America. All those celebrities and fans who talk about how much they loved <insert fictional hero> as a kid and how embracing that character got them through hard times. Everytime some moron with a 6th grade level of critical reading offers a banal argument about how the US government is an Orwellian conspiracy and that's why they hate the US Government. All the people who describe themselves as "South Park Republicans."
EDIT: Now that I think about it, another good example is Anarchy. How many people honestly understand the political philosophy of Anarchism, and how many simple assume it means "no government!" You can honestly blame popular media for perpetuating that misconception.
The show really isn't (it is accurately described as Libertarian), but many Conservatives and Liberals cherry pick the show because it tends to lampoon both sides. They just ignore when it lampoons their side or conveniently forget. Other times the show is just really subtle in who it is poking fun at. Honestly the same thing happened for years with Steven Colbert. Even now, I regularly run into ardent Conservatives who don't realize his entire show is making fun of them.
@OP: Honestly the only "misogyny" I've ever encountered in my years of gaming was from Counter-strike numerous times and ONLY Counter-strike. There's probably a valid reason for this somewhere, but this narrative that's been painted that (male) gamers exist to harass women is utter horse crap. If anything, gamer culture LIKES women due to the popularity of 'girl gamer' streams.
Try playing almost any MMO. Pay attention to how people treat/act around or towards female characters. You can see sexism in action (or, hey, experience it yourself, if you choose a female avatar, regardless of your RL gender).
I played DCUO. I did not notice anything, but I barely ever spoke to anyone in that game. And barely anyone ever spoke to me.
Also, I had a female character, but which was really not the eye-catching kind:
@OP: Honestly the only "misogyny" I've ever encountered in my years of gaming was from Counter-strike numerous times and ONLY Counter-strike. There's probably a valid reason for this somewhere, but this narrative that's been painted that (male) gamers exist to harass women is utter horse crap. If anything, gamer culture LIKES women due to the popularity of 'girl gamer' streams.
Try playing almost any MMO. Pay attention to how people treat/act around or towards female characters. You can see sexism in action (or, hey, experience it yourself, if you choose a female avatar, regardless of your RL gender).
sirlynchmob wrote: That's not an apt comparison. And even if you are correct about art, the answer could also be "none at all"
Its perfectly apt. It's not even a matter of proof but a matter of logic. If one state is true, it is impossible for the other to be false, and it would take an incredible amount of ignorance and/or obtuseness to honestly believe that people do not use media to help shape their views (i.e. influence).
Just looks at Ayn Rand and how her books almost single handed spawned modern Libertarianism, or how Uncle Tom and Gone with the Wind as books have shaped (to the point of subverting history) the perception of Antebellum and Civil War Southern America. All those celebrities and fans who talk about how much they loved <insert fictional hero> as a kid and how embracing that character got them through hard times. Everytime some moron with a 6th grade level of critical reading offers a banal argument about how the US government is an Orwellian conspiracy and that's why they hate the US Government. All the people who describe themselves as "South Park Republicans."
You do know Ayn Rand said libertarians were the hippies of the right, and they stole her ideas, she also rejected the idea she was a libertarian. the libertarian idea was around long before Rand was even born. Libertarians aren't even a culture, they're a sub culture.
So you'd say that one book spawned the modern libertarian movement? What about Isabel Paterson's & Rose Wilder Lane's? What influence did their books have on the movement? Obviously none at all. How have south park republicans effected society? None at all, comes to mind. Did the gobots, any effect on society? nope.
How did the Iliad effect you personally? what world or cultural views changed after you read it? What art spawned the gun culture?
Art imitates life, it doesn't affect cultures. Cultures make art to reflect their culture. Rarely some really good art might cause a person to rethink his views on something, but more often than not, the persons existing views led them to examine the art.
No, destroying my methodology? it never even address it. Try again. I doubt you even watched it, or you did and totally missed the point.
Where in that video did they discuss where these biases come from? Where did it say they come from video games?
Does everyone have biases? Of course. Parents each their biases to their kids and kids spend the first 6 years of their life absorbing all of their parents biases.
sirlynchmob wrote: No, destroying my methodology? it never even address it.
.
Do you understand English, sir? Methodology. It is an English word, learn its meaning. Just click on the video link, you will be directly at the part of the video where he explains that asking people to rate themselves the way you proposed does not work. I went through the trouble to just point to it so I could rub it in your face! I cut through the whole implicit association test and went right at the “this test was invented because sirlynchmob's methodology does not work”.
sirlynchmob wrote: No, destroying my methodology? it never even address it.
.
Do you understand English, sir? Methodology. It is an English word, learn its meaning. Just click on the video link, you will be directly at the part of the video where he explains that asking people to rate themselves the way you proposed does not work. I went through the trouble to just point to it so I could rub it in your face! I cut through the whole implicit association test and went right at the “this test was invented because sirlynchmob's methodology does not work”.
You should spend more time finding proof that video games leads to sexism.
my methodology works fine, it was a clever way to ask, "are you more sexist because you play video games?" well are you? If what you keep claiming is true, you should be.
sirlynchmob wrote: my methodology works fine, it was a clever way to ask, "are you more sexist because you play video games?"
Yeah, it was a (supposedly) clever way to ask a dumb question. Asking people if they are more or less sexist do not work to find if they are more or less sexist. That is what the video explained.
I happened to stumble over something well trawling the internet. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effect The sexual objection spillover effect. It's a post talking about experiments that found showing images of sexualized women made people think less of women. They rated them as less intelligence, competent and moral. Not just the sexualized women, but other women too. One study showed this perception extending to people in real life
Spoiler:
The findings are supportive of an additive versus an interactive model, whereby either chronic or temporary construct accessibility may be sufficient to produce sex discriminatory behavior.
sirlynchmob wrote: You do know Ayn Rand said libertarians were the hippies of the right,
Yes I know. Ayn Rand was an odd duck. Quite happy to insult Libertarians while at the same time espousing the same ideals and producing their gospel.
the libertarian idea was around long before Rand was even born.
And? Modern Libertarianism in the US is quite different from that of previous times. Today it's become much closer to Republicanism, where as previously is was just a wee bit of authority away from Anarchy.
So you'd say that one book spawned the modern libertarian movement?
I said almost. The influence of Rand on Libertarianism as we know it today is overwhelming. That isn't a statement that no one else ever influenced it, merely an acknowledgement of the most obvious influence.
How did the Iliad effect you personally?
Not particularly much, but then, the entire idea of 'Heroes' as we know it was born by the Greeks and works like the Iliad. Arguably the effect of the Iliad is so widespread in Western culture and so deeply rooted that we can't escape it, meaning yes it's effected all of us. So much so we can't even fathom how much.
As for books that did effect me, try Starship Troopers, The Forever War, the papers of Tolkein, a whole gakton of history books that would take forever to list, etc etc. You're entire world view has been shaped by media, whether you realize it or not.
Art imitates life,
Yep. And likewise Cultures reflect their art. It's a two way street. Culture is nothing more than ideas, art being one of the more evocative ways of sharing ideas. If one were to as
it doesn't affect cultures.
?
Art is culture. If you really don't think art changes culture, then you must have missed Art History or something, because the entire field is basically nothing but the study of art and culture and their mutual evolution over time.
Rarely some really good art might cause a person to rethink his views on something
nomotog wrote: I happened to stumble over something well trawling the internet. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effect The sexual objection spillover effect. It's a post talking about experiments that found showing images of sexualized women made people think less of women. They rated them as less intelligence, competent and moral. Not just the sexualized women, but other women too. One study showed this perception extending to people in real life
Spoiler:
The findings are supportive of an additive versus an interactive model, whereby either chronic or temporary construct accessibility may be sufficient to produce sex discriminatory behavior.
Wow that is a dry read, but interesting.
It's also the second listed source for this, funnily enough
LordofHats wrote: You're entire world view has been shaped by media, whether you realize it or not.
The idea that media doesn't influence is laughable, but it is significantly less laughable than statements like "Games cause sexism!" or "Games cause violence!".
nomotog wrote: I happened to stumble over something well trawling the internet. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/the-sexual-objectification-spillover-effect The sexual objection spillover effect. It's a post talking about experiments that found showing images of sexualized women made people think less of women. They rated them as less intelligence, competent and moral. Not just the sexualized women, but other women too. One study showed this perception extending to people in real life
Spoiler:
The findings are supportive of an additive versus an interactive model, whereby either chronic or temporary construct accessibility may be sufficient to produce sex discriminatory behavior.
Wow that is a dry read, but interesting.
It's also the second listed source for this, funnily enough
H.B.M.C. wrote: The idea that media doesn't influence is laughable, but it is significantly less laughable than statements like "Games cause sexism!" or "Games cause violence!".
What's laughable is that people keep harping "games cause sexism lol thats stupid" as a means of completely dismissing all discussion on how media influences people and society. As though it's impossible for games to have any role in sexism unless they directly turn eight year olds in to woman hating rapists even though no one (not even certain internet personalities) ever made that argument.
Personally I'm sick of hearing about it, but i do weirdly enjoy reading these threads. I do think that there is always a fantasy element of games that is failed to be taken into account by the pro group. I mean in mount and blade warband I have a great time killing horses left ,right, and centre. I intesnsely hate horses in RL and being able to belt the things in a game is very cathartic, and it's not like i get to do that often in a game. In RL i would never harm a horse.
Awesome another horse hater,that makes 3 i have met now on Dakka. Next time you come to australia we shall have to go horse Bola'ing , I happen to know a suburb where there are lots of evil horseses.
I think the title of the thread should be internet culture, not gaming culture. A lot of the themes of the whole feminism v gaming thing can be seen all over the internet.
My biggest complaint in all of this is how often now we're calling criticism harassment. Hell a lot of the time we're basically labelling annoyance as harassment.
"Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive." wikipedia
"Behaviour intended to disturb or upset and it is characteristically repetitive." That basically sounds like what I put myself through just using the net half the time, hell I get upset often engaging with fellow humans online, even sharing an opinion often it's not hard to predict the individual you're engaging with may be "disturbed" or "upset by" it's often enough simply hearing that they're wrong on a certain topic. As for repetition, that speaks not just to topics that come up again and again that always go unresolved but also the very act of constantly checking forums or twitter or what have you. But I mean it's so easy now "mr admin or moderator or community manager, even through I totaly engage in an unhealthy amount of bad air amongst my fellow humans online, this individual replies to me with stuff I don't like, being told I'm wrong upsets me and I find it disturbing".
We've created a far too simplistic dichotomy of what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable. At this point basically any criticism = negative, negative = harassment, harassment = bully/troll. We're on the level of scientology, if you disagree with me you're suppressive person.
There are plenty of fringe individuals who have had a total blast fanning the flames on both sides because it's so easy. Look at 40k right now, every other day you've got bols running competing articles, one decrying 40k isn't and can never be played competitively, then an op ed claiming it's very competitive and if you don't like it it's because you're bad at the game. The comment war generates more hits than the articles ever would because now it's time to fight it out. We're all left whining about whining.
Bullockist wrote: I do think that there is always a fantasy element of games that is failed to be taken into account by the pro group. […]In RL i would never harm a horse.
Stuck in the “Monkey see, monkey do” interpretation of influence, are you not?
That is just not how it works!
I am not going to give you a proof that sexism in media (including video games, but really, if the question is “Does portrayals in video game influence sexism”, basically everything is going to be relevant to many other medias including movies and books…) is perpetuating sexism bias in people, because there are no formal proof either way. But I can certainly explain why extrapolating from the fact violent video games does not make people violent that sexist tropes in video games are not going to reinforce sexist stereotypes is wrong.
Assuming that there is a connection, then, doesn't make much sense to me.
Those two assertions, despite trying to make them look similar by how you formulate them, are actually quite different. The first one is based on the very simplistic assumption that “Monkey see, monkey do”.
This is incorrect. The imitiation theory has long been debunked and is no longer used in any science related to it. It was used at the very beginning when scientists tried to prove a direct correlation between violence and behavior by letting children watch violent movies and then watch whether they copied the behavior or not e.g. by hitting an inflatable clown doll. For a very long time now, supporters of the violence theory refer to a habitualization thesis which means that prolonged exposure to any stimulus leads to a lowered tolerance towards the behavior in question - which is precisely what you refer to in the second part of your post and which is exactly the same as it is with people who claim that video games lower tolerance / increase the acceptance of sexism.
There is no correlation between video games and violence / sexism. There is no proof for it and evidence very strongly points towards the exact opposite. Assuming the opposite therefore is irrational.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Stuck in the "I don't gotta prove the stuff I say" interpretation of evidence, are you not?
Unlike you and your beautiful, masterfully detailed proof! Oh wait, you do not need proof, you are better than that. Only I need proof. Because, uh, reasons!
Sigvatr wrote: There is no proof for it and evidence very strongly points towards the exact opposite.
What evidence? I would say that evidence very strongly points toward this. But at least we agree that there is no definite, formal proof either way.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh, I was referring to the violence discussion, as the two are largely comparable.
So what you're doing is slamming someone for not having evidence for his claims with a claim that has no evidence?
Not sure how you can misunderstand it...it's...simple. If you don't have proof, you don't assume anything. Is there proof? No. Assuming a correlation therefore is foolish. If you don't have direct proof, all you can do is to look at evidence to back up your opinion. In this very case, due to being directly comparable, you can look at the violence discussion that proved there not being a correlation. This isn't a formal proof / disproval as you can never directly cross-relate an issue, as similar as it might be. It's used to debunk opinions, not facts.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh, I was referring to the violence discussion, as the two are largely comparable.
So what you're doing is slamming someone for not having evidence for his claims with a claim that has no evidence?
Not sure how you can misunderstand it...it's...simple. If you don't have proof, you don't assume anything. Is there proof? No. Assuming a correlation therefore is foolish. If you don't have direct proof, all you can do is to look at evidence to back up your opinion. In this very case, due to being directly comparable, you can look at the violence discussion that proved there not being a correlation. This isn't a formal proof / disprovable as you can never directly cross-relate an issue, as similar as it might be. It's used to debunk opinions, not facts.
I don't think you have made a convincing argument as to why sexism and violence are directly comparable here. They are different in a few ways. Violence is often an active thing (punch punch), Sexism is often not active (bias bias). Violence is strongly discouraged by society. Sexism isn't as strongly discouraged and in some places is accepted.
It's like how an AD can convince you to eat a hamburger, but an AD likely won't convince you to kill someone. (Outside of some other odd examples. Such as ADs for the army.)
Sigvatr wrote: Oh, I was referring to the violence discussion, as the two are largely comparable.
So what you're doing is slamming someone for not having evidence for his claims with a claim that has no evidence?
Not sure how you can misunderstand it...it's...simple. If you don't have proof, you don't assume anything. Is there proof? No. Assuming a correlation therefore is foolish. If you don't have direct proof, all you can do is to look at evidence to back up your opinion. In this very case, due to being directly comparable, you can look at the violence discussion that proved there not being a correlation. This isn't a formal proof / disprovable as you can never directly cross-relate an issue, as similar as it might be. It's used to debunk opinions, not facts.
I don't think you have made a convincing argument as to why sexism and violence are directly comparable here. They are different in a few ways. Violence is often an active thing (punch punch), Sexism is often not active (bias bias). Violence is strongly discouraged by society. Sexism isn't as strongly discouraged and in some places is accepted.
It's like how an AD can convince you to eat a hamburger, but an AD likely won't convince you to kill someone. (Outside of some other odd examples. Such as ADs for the army.)
This. Sigvatr saying that they are comparable does not have to mean it is so.
Bullockist wrote: I do think that there is always a fantasy element of games that is failed to be taken into account by the pro group. […]In RL i would never harm a horse.
Stuck in the “Monkey see, monkey do” interpretation of influence, are you not?
That is just not how it works!
No, just not stuck in the women as victims thing.
As i have explained before, I grew up in a very feminist family (ffs my sister was a grey overall baby). That feminism was very much in the mold of country women ( you fix it yourself) instead of whinging about it. I feel blessed that i grew up with 2 so capable women as it clears my head to this patriarchy gak. In my mums and my sisters head there is no patriarchy, that is a ridiculous concept, all there is is a chance for women to improve themselves through their actions, not by over analysing the status quo and blaming gak on men.
I particularly like talking to country women as the whole gender boundary to tasks idea doesn't seem to exist and they just do what has to be done.Country women get gak done.(whilst the women in city universities argue over weird arse semantics.)
The only way for women to improve their lot is to DO, not act the victim and act like society is trying to destroy them.
In my house growing up, monkey see, monkey do was in action, just a lot different to whatever bs you were thinking.
I'll give you an example I was working in a charity shop with a young girl we had a wardrobe to lift, she pulled the whole "i can't lift that it's too heavy I'm a girl schtick" and i said ( due to the influence of my family) "yes you can, lets just lift it you and me" and fething lo and behold she did.
she could do it , just thought she couldn't and the "monkey see monkey do" interpretation i grew up with showed her she could.
So feth your patriarchy, all that does is depower women. Women can do anything, why inflict them with the idea that the whole society is against them when it isn't? BY declaring a patriarchy exists all you are saying is society creates what women can do and essentially depowers women.
WHAT A LOAD OF gak.
Women can do whatever they want.
keep your gender guilt bollocks,
In my family women do what they want
and tend to be quite forceful I don't identify with the "women as victims" mentality at all.
I don't think you have made a convincing argument as to why sexism and violence are directly comparable here. They are different in a few ways. Violence is often an active thing (punch punch), Sexism is often not active (bias bias). Violence is strongly discouraged by society. Sexism isn't as strongly discouraged and in some places is accepted.
This. Sigvatr saying that they are comparable does not have to mean it is so.
You two are at a misunderstanding. You rushed to conclusions and didn't notice the important distinction. I never compared sexism and violence. I compared the suggested cause / effect for media benefiting those two, i.e. habitualization. Habitualization was the claim made by pro-violence activists and it is the same claim made by pro-sexism activists. It's highly important to be able to differentiate between those two or else you cannot understand the issue and it's even more important to stop looking at it with a very strong bias.
I don't think you have made a convincing argument as to why sexism and violence are directly comparable here. They are different in a few ways. Violence is often an active thing (punch punch), Sexism is often not active (bias bias). Violence is strongly discouraged by society. Sexism isn't as strongly discouraged and in some places is accepted.
This. Sigvatr saying that they are comparable does not have to mean it is so.
You two are at a misunderstanding. You rushed to conclusions and don't noticed the important distinction. I never compared sexism and violence. I compared the suggested cause / effect for media benefiting those two, i.e. habitualization. Habitualization was the claim made by pro-violence activists and it is the same claim made by pro-sexism activists. It's highly important to be able to differentiate between those two or else you cannot understand the issue and it's even more important to stop looking at it with a very strong bias.
And we're explaining why we feel a comparsion with violence is not apt; violence is (generally) not accepted in society, whereas sexism to a much greater extent is. Thus, the causal relation may very well be there in the case of sexism but not violence, because violence is not encouraged in everyday life.
We've only said this like three or four times already.
And we're explaining why we feel a comparsion with violence is not apt; violence is (generally) not accepted in society, whereas sexism to a much greater extent is. Thus, the causal relation may very well be there in the case of sexism but not violence, because violence is not encouraged in everyday life.
We've only said this like three or four times already.
Again, you're rushing to conclusions. You already are one step further. You got it backwards: you perceive anything as problematic (i.e. sexism) and then look for anything that might benefit it or, in general, fit your idea. That's a very flawed perspective as you are not neutrally looking at things, instead, you actively want your initial thesis to be reaffirmed. This almost invalidates any findings by people who want to prove anything and would never make it past any review. The only thing you could prove with such an attitude is that individual motifs can be found in other forms of media...and then, you're at a dead end.
The correct way would be to do it the other way around: you look at media and then prove that media have a direct influence on attitudes, then go more specific and explicitely look at a special motion, e.g. sexism, identify motifs in one media and then show how those motifs lead to a change in behavior / attitude in any individual. You then setup a large field study over one generation and then evaluate the findings. You could then use those results to make well-funded arguments on the matter and present them as actual findings.
Those are the two ways of looking at the problem and tackling it. The latter is the tool to pick if you want to get actual results. The former serves merely as personal reaffirmation.
the causal relation might be totally distorted by the views you went in with.
WOmen have the chance to do anything, feth up and let them do it.
"victim mentality" is actually so much more sexist than anything else and propogated by the movement. ridiculous.
While I generally agree with you, Bullockist, the thing with that is...
It kinda lets guys off the hook really, doesn't it? I think it's probably a bit of both at the end of the day. - The big, important changes and things may need to be driven by your average women.
But, it might ease the road a tiny little bit if guys were to follow Wheaton's Law a bit closer.
Bullockist wrote: I'll give you an example I was working in a charity shop with a young girl we had a wardrobe to lift, she pulled the whole "i can't lift that it's too heavy I'm a girl schtick" and i said ( due to the influence of my family) "yes you can, lets just lift it you and me" and fething lo and behold she did.
she could do it , just thought she couldn't and the "monkey see monkey do" interpretation i grew up with showed her she could.
I am a bit confused. You seem to say that having examples of women being active and getting stuff done rather than standing helpless is great for feminism, and yet you seem to oppose that to the push for women in video games to be shown as more active and getting stuff done and less being helpless.
I mean, your whole message could be taken as an argument for why the Damsel trope is bad!
Sigvatr, just to understand where you stand, a few questions:
- Do you believe that there are a bunch of unconscious bias about women in society in general?
- Do you believe that the sexist tropes used in video game exists as a results of those bias?
- Do you believe that challenging those tropes and explaining what is wrong with them may challenge people to face their bias, and possibly allow them to counter-act them better?
- Do you believe that being exposed to a lot of video games where the gender expectations are reversed and subverted can reduce those bias?
And we're explaining why we feel a comparsion with violence is not apt; violence is (generally) not accepted in society, whereas sexism to a much greater extent is. Thus, the causal relation may very well be there in the case of sexism but not violence, because violence is not encouraged in everyday life.
We've only said this like three or four times already.
Again, you're rushing to conclusions. You already are one step further. You got it backwards: you perceive anything as problematic (i.e. sexism) and then look for anything that might benefit it or, in general, fit your idea. That's a very flawed perspective as you are not neutrally looking at things, instead, you actively want your initial thesis to be reaffirmed. This almost invalidates any findings by people who want to prove anything and would never make it past any review. The only thing you could prove with such an attitude is that individual motifs can be found in other forms of media...and then, you're at a dead end.
The correct way would be to do it the other way around: you look at media and then prove that media have a direct influence on attitudes, then go more specific and explicitely look at a special motion, e.g. sexism, identify motifs in one media and then show how those motifs lead to a change in behavior / attitude in any individual. You then setup a large field study over one generation and then evaluate the findings. You could then use those results to make well-funded arguments on the matter and present them as actual findings.
Those are the two ways of looking at the problem and tackling it. The latter is the tool to pick if you want to get actual results. The former serves merely as personal reaffirmation.
I'm quite aware of how to formulate a hypothesis correctly, thankyouverymuch.
Where in this thread have I argued that video games DO increase sexism? All I've done is to point out that your counter-arguments as to why it wouldn't aren't as solid as you seem to believe. That's the entire point; I'm saying it could (i.e. requires more studies) affect the levels of sexism, you are adamantly denying that it could.
As for the claim that sexism is not accepted in society, my response will have to wait until I'm at home, but suffice it to say that I find the claim hilariously naïve.
Where in this thread have I argued that video games DO increase sexism?
I am not arguing with anyone personally in this thread, I'm arguing general motions.
@Ox:
I don't want to get my personal opinion in this thread. It often doesn't go hand-in-hand with what would be logical and would cause confusion among users which would then lead to contiously explaining my posts. Like, for example, despite there not being any proof for motifs in media leading to a change in behavior among humans, we still don't let our 7 year old daughter watch adult movies (i.e. violent, not the *other* adult...).
The main problem of the entire discussion is that one side, moreso than the other, lets itself be overwhelmed and overimpress by personal opinion, turning the entire discussion into an even stinkier piece of poo-poo. No need to further mud the waters. We already have our resident "MY OPINION IZ BETTER ZAN FACTS" poster.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: All I've done is to point out that your counter-arguments as to why it wouldn't aren't as solid as you seem to believe. That's the entire point; I'm saying it could (i.e. requires more studies) affect the levels of sexism, you are adamantly denying that it could.
Given the counter-argument is largely 'prove it' I think it is pretty solid. Hitchen's Razor and all that.
Some more scientific studies would be nice, though.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's the entire point; I'm saying it could (i.e. requires more studies) affect the levels of sexism, you are adamantly denying that it could.
Incorrect. I am stating that there is no proof for any correlation and that due to the suggested influence effect being the same as in comparable fields, i.e. violence, it is irrational to assume that there is an actual influence.
the causal relation might be totally distorted by the views you went in with.
WOmen have the chance to do anything, feth up and let them do it.
"victim mentality" is actually so much more sexist than anything else and propogated by the movement. ridiculous.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's the entire point; I'm saying it could (i.e. requires more studies) affect the levels of sexism, you are adamantly denying that it could.
Incorrect. I am stating that there is no proof for any correlation and that due to the suggested influence effect being the same as in comparable fields, i.e. violence, it is irrational to assume that there is an actual influence.
And we're disputing your argument that the fields are comparable. I'll give you that you've been clear on arguing the irrationality though, missing that was sloppy of me.
And we're disputing your argument that the fields are comparable. I'll give you that you've been clear on arguing the irrationality though, missing that was sloppy of me.
We're not arguing the former - that's important. Violence and sexism are two vastly different subjects. I merely stated that the reasoning for why media might have a influence on both, i.e. its effect on those two topics, is the exact same and that therefore, assuming that there is a connection for one whereas it's been proven that there isn't for the other doesn't make much sense.
Yes, that's why you quoted me specifically and mansplained ( ) how creating a hypothesis works, I'm sure.
You brought the motion up I wasn't trying to "teach" you or anything in person, but felt that making a short explanation on how this works was necessary because I have seen others not being aware of how it works and because of a few detail-misunderstandings before. All good :*
Sigvatr wrote: I don't want to get my personal opinion in this thread. It often doesn't go hand-in-hand with what would be logical and would cause confusion among users which would then lead to contiously explaining my posts.
Okay, then do you think any of those claims should logically be believed true, or logically believed false, or all be considered undetermined?
Sigvatr wrote: Like, for example, despite there not being any proof for motifs in media leading to a change in behavior among humans, we still don't let our 7 year old daughter watch adult movies (i.e. violent, not the *other* adult...).
I am confused now. Are you letting her watch the other adult movies?
Okay, then do you think any of those claims should logically be believed true, or logically believed false, or all be considered undetermined?
Everyone should believe what he wants to believe. That is my point. On a more global level, it would be more logical to assume that there is no correlation as for the reasons pointed out above, but such a level only becomes interesting when you want to make blanket statements or explicitely refer to it. In a discussion, an opinion is an opinion.
Answering those reliably would mean that I'd endulge in a lot of studies and ground work on that matter and with my current schedule, I can't dedicate so much time to it. Some aren't possible to discussed on a higher level anyway as they explicitely demand one's opinion.
Sexist content in games exist because sexism is a thing in society as well; as is the case with any media. Media reflects society, not the other way around. I, personally, think that there might be a bias towards women as most gamers are male by a large margin. Similarly as to why e.g. there's always a woman on a box of diapers - you cater to the main demography.
Sigvatr wrote: Answering those reliably would mean that I'd endulge in a lot of studies and ground work on that matter and with my current schedule, I can't dedicate so much time to it. Some aren't possible to discussed on a higher level anyway as they explicitely demand one's opinion.
Sexist content in games exist because sexism is a thing in society as well; as is the case with any media. Media reflects society, not the other way around. I, personally, think that there might be a bias towards women as most gamers are male by a large margin. Similarly as to why e.g. there's always a woman on a box of diapers - you cater to the main demography.
Yea Gender based marketing is really common in video games, more commonly catered towards men but there are video games that try to cater towards women they just aren't as common and generally aren't the AAA games like game of duty.
The industry probably does it because gender based marketing works from a business perspective, don't believe look me look at the Twilight series. Made lots of money for those involved and very clearly marketed towards women (more specifically teenage girls).
Edit: The fact that the main character of Twilight was a teenage girl and most main characters of video games are dudes are not coincidences.
Sigvatr wrote: Sexist content in games exist because sexism is a thing in society as well
That was actually one of the questions .
Sigvatr wrote: Media reflects society, not the other way around.
Sure, but changing media can change society, I believe.
Sigvatr wrote: I, personally, think that there might be a bias towards women as most gamers are male by a large margin.
I do not believe people watching a comedy like Welcome to the jungle are male by a large margin, but the bias was strong and broad in that movie . Well, nothing that would be so bad in isolation, as usual, but given how this is so prevalent in so many movies… So, I do not think gamers being mostly male is the sole reason, even though it certainly is a contributing factor.
Blood Hawk wrote: The industry probably does it because gender based marketing works from a business perspective
It isn't just that, in entertainment especially a lot of products have specific targeted demographics ahead of time and the choices made about the product are done to cater to what the stereotypical person in that demographic wants.
A few examples: All the hosts on the View are women and the commonly have female guests and talk about issues that the stereotypical American women cares about, video games with masculine male protagonists and sexy female costars, and the twilight books that were very popular amongst teenage girls.
All of these have more specific demographics that they cater to.
This is often done because once again from business perspective this works.
Sure, but changing media can change society, I believe.
That's a logical fallacy. Media and society aren't mutually exclusive, in the contrary, media are part of society. Thus media can never change a society, a society always has to change on its own. A very common thought experiment is North Korea. If North Korea suddenly had access to international media, it would be very likely that a social revolution would break loose in the near future. One could quickly say "See? Media changed society!" but that would be wrong as in the end, it's people actively doing something to change their circumstances.
...and in the end, it would be a very different case as portrayed before in this thread.
Sure, but changing media can change society, I believe.
That's a logical fallacy. Media and society aren't mutually exclusive, in the contrary, media are part of society. Thus media can never change a society, a society always has to change on its own. A very common thought experiment is North Korea. If North Korea suddenly had access to international media, it would be very likely that a social revolution would break loose in the near future. One could quickly say "See? Media changed society!" but that would be wrong as in the end, it's people actively doing something to change their circumstances.
...and in the end, it would be a very different case as portrayed before in this thread.
So giving people the impetus to change something isn't changing anything at all whatsoever?
Further, if media is part of a society changing media would per definition change society, as part of it will have changed.
Blood Hawk wrote: It isn't just that, in entertainment especially a lot of products have specific targeted demographics ahead of time and the choices made about the product are done to cater to what the stereotypical person in that demographic wants.
Yeah, I know. It is just both funny and sad when they do this on stuff that was previously completely gender-neutral because there is no damn reason for it to be gendered.
And I would like to provide a quite funny unexpected counter-example with My Little Pony : Friendship is Magic, which was targeted both at young girls and adults, mostly neckbeards .
Sigvatr wrote: That's a logical fallacy. Media and society aren't mutually exclusive, in the contrary, media are part of society.
Up until here, alright.
Sigvatr wrote: Thus media can never change a society, a society always has to change on its own.
You lost me here. If media are part of a society and media change, a part of society has changed, hence society has changed. Even assuming the strange idea that one part of society cannot change another part of society.
Sigvatr wrote: A very common thought experiment is North Korea. If North Korea suddenly had access to international media, it would be very likely that a social revolution would break loose in the near future. One could quickly say "See? Media changed society!" but that would be wrong as in the end, it's people actively doing something to change their circumstances.
It is funny you should say that, because you basically said “If you manage to give every North Korean access to the international media, the North Korean society would change”, which seems not that far away from “If you manage to make mainstream video games break all the sexist tropes, you will get video games players to change”. If I understand what you said well, you are saying the media are just giving people the will to change, but then they force the change themselves. I am okay with that. If video games breaking the sexist tropes just give people the will to be less sexist, and they do the change themselves, the starting point is still getting video games to break the sexist tropes, the end result is still people being less sexist, it is all the same to me.
It is funny you should say that, because you basically said “If you manage to give every North Korean access to the international media, the North Korean society would change”, which seems not that far away from “If you manage to make mainstream video games break all the sexist tropes, you will get video games players to change”. If I understand what you said well, you are saying the media are just giving people the will to change, but then they force the change themselves. I am okay with that. If video games breaking the sexist tropes just give people the will to be less sexist, and they do the change themselves, the starting point is still getting video games to break the sexist tropes, the end result is still people being less sexist, it is all the same to me.
As above, the two cases aren't comparable at all. I just gave the example to portray a possible function media could have, the thought experiment and the thread's topic cannot be compared on any level.
Blood Hawk wrote: It isn't just that, in entertainment especially a lot of products have specific targeted demographics ahead of time and the choices made about the product are done to cater to what the stereotypical person in that demographic wants.
Yeah, I know. It is just both funny and sad when they do this on stuff that was previously completely gender-neutral because there is no damn reason for it to be gendered.
And I would like to provide a quite funny unexpected counter-example with My Little Pony : Friendship is Magic, which was targeted both at young girls and adults, mostly neckbeards .
Or how playgirl was originally marketed towards women and it turns its biggest demographic was gay men. While these exceptions do exist they aren't all that common vs. the alternative.
Not going to delve too far into it, so just a few points to consider:
1) NK is able to go on because it has zero information. If the cases were comparable, you'd have to assume that people were completely uninformed about sexism. Not the case. In the contrary.
2) Widespread media would drastically improve life for most NK citizens as they'd immediately see the vast advantages our societies have over theirs. Not the case with video games at all, let alone they don't target all citizens.
3) NK citizens are in an incredibly crappy situation and would happily grasp for the tiniest straw. Not the case with gamers at all.
4) In the thought experiment, the change would be initiated by information, perceived sexism cannot be changed by information.
5) The reason for sexist motifs in media is profit / free market. The reason for oppression is...oppression. Power.
There's a lot more, but those gotta suffice. The two cases are vastly different.
And I would like to provide a quite funny unexpected counter-example with My Little Pony : Friendship is Magic, which was targeted both at young girls and adults, mostly neckbeards .
MLP wasn't targeted at adults, it was explicitely targeted at young girls, even surprising the authors to a large extent.
Sigvatr wrote: MLP wasn't targeted at adults, it was explicitely targeted at young girls, even surprising the authors to a large extent.
I thought it was meant to be attractive to both from the start. But okay, Kaeloo, then. You do not put references to the Pulp Fiction accidental shooting scene in a kid show if you only expect it to be watched by kids!
*continues to brandish Hitchens' Razor in the hope Hybrid might finally catch on*
Meanwhile, from the wizened words of TotalBiscuit:
I am consistently bothered by this throw-away phrase "media affects people" as if its some kind of argument winner, an inarguable statement of fact. In reality it's lazy, it's too vague, it's pseudo-intellectual at its worst. It makes a gigantic broadstroke which is so heinous in its inaccuracy as to render it an utterly meaningless buzz-phrase. Media affects people. Yes but what kind of people, what kind of media and in what kind of ways? We know of course that news media can affect peoples political views or the amount of fear they have in their day to day lives of the possibility of say a terrorist attack. This in turn has knock-on effects. News media can incite panic buying, protests, you name it. But news media is (supposedly) a completely factual representation of what is actually going on in the real world. There's a reason why a video of a real death has more impact than a death in a movie, a videogame, a book or a television series.
So I ask you this. In what way, specifically, do videogames affect people? What kind of people do they affect? Is it universal or are some people more susceptible than others? To what degree does it affect people? What attitudes can it inspire? We already know, based on uncountable studies that videogames do not cause violent behavior, so that indeed is one way in which videogames DO NOT affect people. What about the current hot-topic, sexism? We know for instance that gender portrayal in advertising can influence buying behaviors and even the perception of gender roles, but can videogames do the same thing or more to the point, do they have to TRY to do that? Advertising is the finely honed apex of the manipulation of consumer thought. It's sole goal is to change your mind, make you want to buy something, or act a certain way. It's entire purpose is laser-focused on just that. But again, advertising at least to some degree is factual, it's based in the real world on real products. Can you really apply the same standard to videogames and if so, where is your proof?
See I've been asking for proof for a while (Funny, so have I... -HB). Does a game like Dead or Alive foster sexist attitudes within its players? Where is the proof of that and more to the point why are we listening to people that say that it does who don't have a hint of a background that would make us believe them? Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us "yes, X media can cause Y behavior". We've heard this argument before, it came from Jack Thompson. Jack didn't have any evidence either and study after study has rebuked his assertion that videogames cause violence. As a result I remain skeptical, as is healthy, about games causing anything else and continue to believe in the consumers ability to separate fantasy from reality.
"Media affects people". 3 little words with no meaning. Ask for the rest of the sentence, then the rest of the paragraph and then the list of studios pertaining to videogames.
I'll continue to push for more diverse characters in videogames because I think that makes videogames more interesting and has the potential to make them appeal to a wider demographic. These are all good reasons to do it. I'd rather we reach a goal where videogame writing is better and we have better characters because we used positive reasoning to get there, rather than scaremongering tactics and pseudoscience.
I am consistently bothered by this throw-away phrase "media affects people" as if its some kind of argument winner, an inarguable statement of fact. In reality it's lazy, it's too vague, it's pseudo-intellectual at its worst. It makes a gigantic broadstroke which is so heinous in its inaccuracy as to render it an utterly meaningless buzz-phrase. Media affects people. Yes but what kind of people, what kind of media and in what kind of ways? We know of course that news media can affect peoples political views or the amount of fear they have in their day to day lives of the possibility of say a terrorist attack. This in turn has knock-on effects. News media can incite panic buying, protests, you name it. But news media is (supposedly) a completely factual representation of what is actually going on in the real world. There's a reason why a video of a real death has more impact than a death in a movie, a videogame, a book or a television series.
So I ask you this. In what way, specifically, do videogames affect people? What kind of people do they affect? Is it universal or are some people more susceptible than others? To what degree does it affect people? What attitudes can it inspire? We already know, based on uncountable studies that videogames do not cause violent behavior, so that indeed is one way in which videogames DO NOT affect people. What about the current hot-topic, sexism? We know for instance that gender portrayal in advertising can influence buying behaviors and even the perception of gender roles, but can videogames do the same thing or more to the point, do they have to TRY to do that? Advertising is the finely honed apex of the manipulation of consumer thought. It's sole goal is to change your mind, make you want to buy something, or act a certain way. It's entire purpose is laser-focused on just that. But again, advertising at least to some degree is factual, it's based in the real world on real products. Can you really apply the same standard to videogames and if so, where is your proof?
See I've been asking for proof for a while (Funny, so have I... -HB). Does a game like Dead or Alive foster sexist attitudes within its players? Where is the proof of that and more to the point why are we listening to people that say that it does who don't have a hint of a background that would make us believe them? Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us "yes, X media can cause Y behavior". We've heard this argument before, it came from Jack Thompson. Jack didn't have any evidence either and study after study has rebuked his assertion that videogames cause violence. As a result I remain skeptical, as is healthy, about games causing anything else and continue to believe in the consumers ability to separate fantasy from reality.
"Media affects people". 3 little words with no meaning. Ask for the rest of the sentence, then the rest of the paragraph and then the list of studios pertaining to videogames.
I'll continue to push for more diverse characters in videogames because I think that makes videogames more interesting and has the potential to make them appeal to a wider demographic. These are all good reasons to do it. I'd rather we reach a goal where videogame writing is better and we have better characters because we used positive reasoning to get there, rather than scaremongering tactics and pseudoscience.
Hi, I am a real social scientist who studies video games and their impact. I would have happily used my real name a year ago, but GG has made me very reluctant to do so, since I have neither the time or energy to be harassed. I have written some popular stuff on games, and have published peer-reviewed research. I have also been involved in educational game design and worked with a lot of well-known game companies. My background is in sociology and economics, but I work psychologists as well. I am not a member of DiGRA, and my work is quantitative (experimental and economentric) not qualitative. This is the answer to TB's recent question ("Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us 'yes, X media can cause Y behavior'"), sticking to peer-reviewed research.
First, the good stuff. Video games can make you a better surgeon, people who are good at video games make 1/3 to 1/2 the errors of those who are not [1]. Video games can also teach you how to lead [2], can increase satisfaction and happiness [3], and do a whole bunch of other amazing stuff: see von Ahn's work on games and computing, for example. So there are certainly positive real-world effects. That is, after all, why I study games, to see if I can put these positive effects to good use.
Prior to GG, I may have focused more on the good than the bad, but TB and GG in general has made it important to examine the negative effects as well. I think everyone here knows that video games are not linked to violence, even among vulnerable populations [4]. However, that doesn't mean that video games can't have negative real-world consequences, as there is a difference between linkages to violence and links to aggression and other negative effects. This has long been controversial, one early meta-study of 54 other studies [5], found strong links between video games and aggression, though these early studies were subject to considerable criticism[6].
As bad news for fellow lovers of games: in the past couple of years, there has been much better evidence of the link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. A quite impressive recent long-term longitudinal study in JAMA pediatrics concluded "This study found that habitual violent VGP [video game play] increases long- term AB [Aggressive Behavior] by producing general changes in AC [Aggressive Cognition],and this occurs regardless of sex, age, initial aggressiveness, and parental involvement." [7] Further, some populations seem particularly vulnerable, especially those with three Big Five traits: "high neuroticism (prone to anger and depression, highly emotional, and easily upset), disagreeableness (cold, indifferent to other people), and low levels of conscientiousness (prone to acting without thinking, failing to deliver on promises, breaking rules)." [8]
On the gender and video games side, there is less good empirical quantitative work, but what is there goes against the arguments of TB. One study exposed individuals to either sexist video game depictions of women or else control images of women, and then asked them to judge a real-life sexual harassment case. Men exposed to the video game depictions were more likely to tolerate harassment than those not exposed, and higher levels of exposure to video game violence had similar effects. [9] A second study found "that playing a video game with the theme of female “objectification” may prime thoughts related to sex, encourage men to view women as sex objects, and lead to self-reported tendencies to behave inappropriately towards women in social situations." [10] There is still more work to be done, but the early evidence strongly suggests that games matter on views of gender.
So, what does it all mean? I am strongly inclined to believe games are a force for good, but that they also have potential negative consequences, as can all media. We have evidence that what happens in games matter, and I worry that, by ignoring science, that groups like GG will only cause the focus to be on the negative, not the positive. I'll answer questions in the comments if you have any...
[added on reflection] Let me also say on other thing. There are a number of us in academia who love games, care about games, and believe games are important. We have been working for years to make games a legitimate tool for education and for study, and we were making progress. People were starting to take games seriously. And then came GamerGate. I have seen the careful progress of a decade come crashing down, and now, when I go to talk about games to industry groups or fellow academics, GamerGate always comes up as an example of how terrible and immature people who play games are. It will take years and years to repair the damage, and it is absolutely devastating to the serious study and application of the power of games to real problems. We are going to have trouble getting grants, getting foundations to fund games, and getting people to take us seriously. It is devastating and makes me very sad.
[1] Rosser, J. C., Lynch, P. J., Cuddihy, L., Gentile, D. A., Klonsky, J., & Merrell, R. (2007). The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st century. Archives of surgery, 142(2), 181-186.
[2] Reeves, B., Malone, T. W., & O’Driscoll, T. (2008, May). Leadership’s online labs. Harvard Business Review.
[3] Przybylski, A., N. Weinstein, K. Murayama, M. F. Lynch, and R. Ryan, 2012 “The ideal self at play: the appeal of video games that let you be all you can be.” Psychological science, 23: 69–76. SAGE Publications.
[4] Ferguson, C.J., Olson, C.K. Video game use among “vulnerable” populations: The impact of violent games on delinquency and bullying among children with clinically elevated depression or attention deficit symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2014
[5] The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance DA Gentile, PJ Lynch, JR Linder, DA Walsh - Journal of adolescence, 2004
[6] Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video games be a force for good?. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 68.
[7] Gentile, D. A., Li, D., Khoo, A., Prot, S., & Anderson, C. A. (2014). Mediators and moderators of long-term effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: practice, thinking, and action. JAMA pediatrics, 168(5), 450-457.
[8] Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2010). Vulnerability to violent video games: a review and integration of personality research. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 82.
[9] Dill, K. E., Brown, B. P., & Collins, M. A. (2008). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1402-1408.
[10] Yao, M. Z., Mahood, C., & Linz, D. (2010). Sexual priming, gender stereotyping, and likelihood to sexually harass: Examining the cognitive effects of playing a sexually-explicit video game. Sex roles, 62(1-2), 77-88.
Yeah, I'm more than a bit disappoint. While on the one hand, I do get what TB means but at the same time the only way to not be aware of the numerous studies that have been published in the last few years alone is nothing if not a sign that someone is not paying attention.
Really, TB shouldn't be asking "where are the experts." he and everyone should be asking "Why is this complex subject being so ludicrously dumbed down to the inane?"
I am consistently bothered by this throw-away phrase "media affects people" as if its some kind of argument winner, an inarguable statement of fact. In reality it's lazy, it's too vague, it's pseudo-intellectual at its worst. It makes a gigantic broadstroke which is so heinous in its inaccuracy as to render it an utterly meaningless buzz-phrase. Media affects people. Yes but what kind of people, what kind of media and in what kind of ways? We know of course that news media can affect peoples political views or the amount of fear they have in their day to day lives of the possibility of say a terrorist attack. This in turn has knock-on effects. News media can incite panic buying, protests, you name it. But news media is (supposedly) a completely factual representation of what is actually going on in the real world. There's a reason why a video of a real death has more impact than a death in a movie, a videogame, a book or a television series.
So I ask you this. In what way, specifically, do videogames affect people? What kind of people do they affect? Is it universal or are some people more susceptible than others? To what degree does it affect people? What attitudes can it inspire? We already know, based on uncountable studies that videogames do not cause violent behavior, so that indeed is one way in which videogames DO NOT affect people. What about the current hot-topic, sexism? We know for instance that gender portrayal in advertising can influence buying behaviors and even the perception of gender roles, but can videogames do the same thing or more to the point, do they have to TRY to do that? Advertising is the finely honed apex of the manipulation of consumer thought. It's sole goal is to change your mind, make you want to buy something, or act a certain way. It's entire purpose is laser-focused on just that. But again, advertising at least to some degree is factual, it's based in the real world on real products. Can you really apply the same standard to videogames and if so, where is your proof?
See I've been asking for proof for a while (Funny, so have I... -HB). Does a game like Dead or Alive foster sexist attitudes within its players? Where is the proof of that and more to the point why are we listening to people that say that it does who don't have a hint of a background that would make us believe them? Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us "yes, X media can cause Y behavior". We've heard this argument before, it came from Jack Thompson. Jack didn't have any evidence either and study after study has rebuked his assertion that videogames cause violence. As a result I remain skeptical, as is healthy, about games causing anything else and continue to believe in the consumers ability to separate fantasy from reality.
"Media affects people". 3 little words with no meaning. Ask for the rest of the sentence, then the rest of the paragraph and then the list of studios pertaining to videogames.
I'll continue to push for more diverse characters in videogames because I think that makes videogames more interesting and has the potential to make them appeal to a wider demographic. These are all good reasons to do it. I'd rather we reach a goal where videogame writing is better and we have better characters because we used positive reasoning to get there, rather than scaremongering tactics and pseudoscience.
Hi, I am a real social scientist who studies video games and their impact. I would have happily used my real name a year ago, but GG has made me very reluctant to do so, since I have neither the time or energy to be harassed. I have written some popular stuff on games, and have published peer-reviewed research. I have also been involved in educational game design and worked with a lot of well-known game companies. My background is in sociology and economics, but I work psychologists as well. I am not a member of DiGRA, and my work is quantitative (experimental and economentric) not qualitative. This is the answer to TB's recent question ("Where are the scientists? Where are the psychologists who can tell us 'yes, X media can cause Y behavior'"), sticking to peer-reviewed research.
First, the good stuff. Video games can make you a better surgeon, people who are good at video games make 1/3 to 1/2 the errors of those who are not [1]. Video games can also teach you how to lead [2], can increase satisfaction and happiness [3], and do a whole bunch of other amazing stuff: see von Ahn's work on games and computing, for example. So there are certainly positive real-world effects. That is, after all, why I study games, to see if I can put these positive effects to good use.
Prior to GG, I may have focused more on the good than the bad, but TB and GG in general has made it important to examine the negative effects as well. I think everyone here knows that video games are not linked to violence, even among vulnerable populations [4]. However, that doesn't mean that video games can't have negative real-world consequences, as there is a difference between linkages to violence and links to aggression and other negative effects. This has long been controversial, one early meta-study of 54 other studies [5], found strong links between video games and aggression, though these early studies were subject to considerable criticism[6].
As bad news for fellow lovers of games: in the past couple of years, there has been much better evidence of the link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. A quite impressive recent long-term longitudinal study in JAMA pediatrics concluded "This study found that habitual violent VGP [video game play] increases long- term AB [Aggressive Behavior] by producing general changes in AC [Aggressive Cognition],and this occurs regardless of sex, age, initial aggressiveness, and parental involvement." [7] Further, some populations seem particularly vulnerable, especially those with three Big Five traits: "high neuroticism (prone to anger and depression, highly emotional, and easily upset), disagreeableness (cold, indifferent to other people), and low levels of conscientiousness (prone to acting without thinking, failing to deliver on promises, breaking rules)." [8]
On the gender and video games side, there is less good empirical quantitative work, but what is there goes against the arguments of TB. One study exposed individuals to either sexist video game depictions of women or else control images of women, and then asked them to judge a real-life sexual harassment case. Men exposed to the video game depictions were more likely to tolerate harassment than those not exposed, and higher levels of exposure to video game violence had similar effects. [9] A second study found "that playing a video game with the theme of female “objectification” may prime thoughts related to sex, encourage men to view women as sex objects, and lead to self-reported tendencies to behave inappropriately towards women in social situations." [10] There is still more work to be done, but the early evidence strongly suggests that games matter on views of gender.
So, what does it all mean? I am strongly inclined to believe games are a force for good, but that they also have potential negative consequences, as can all media. We have evidence that what happens in games matter, and I worry that, by ignoring science, that groups like GG will only cause the focus to be on the negative, not the positive. I'll answer questions in the comments if you have any...
[added on reflection] Let me also say on other thing. There are a number of us in academia who love games, care about games, and believe games are important. We have been working for years to make games a legitimate tool for education and for study, and we were making progress. People were starting to take games seriously. And then came GamerGate. I have seen the careful progress of a decade come crashing down, and now, when I go to talk about games to industry groups or fellow academics, GamerGate always comes up as an example of how terrible and immature people who play games are. It will take years and years to repair the damage, and it is absolutely devastating to the serious study and application of the power of games to real problems. We are going to have trouble getting grants, getting foundations to fund games, and getting people to take us seriously. It is devastating and makes me very sad.
[1] Rosser, J. C., Lynch, P. J., Cuddihy, L., Gentile, D. A., Klonsky, J., & Merrell, R. (2007). The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st century. Archives of surgery, 142(2), 181-186.
[2] Reeves, B., Malone, T. W., & O’Driscoll, T. (2008, May). Leadership’s online labs. Harvard Business Review.
[3] Przybylski, A., N. Weinstein, K. Murayama, M. F. Lynch, and R. Ryan, 2012 “The ideal self at play: the appeal of video games that let you be all you can be.” Psychological science, 23: 69–76. SAGE Publications.
[4] Ferguson, C.J., Olson, C.K. Video game use among “vulnerable” populations: The impact of violent games on delinquency and bullying among children with clinically elevated depression or attention deficit symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2014
[5] The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance DA Gentile, PJ Lynch, JR Linder, DA Walsh - Journal of adolescence, 2004
[6] Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video games be a force for good?. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 68.
[7] Gentile, D. A., Li, D., Khoo, A., Prot, S., & Anderson, C. A. (2014). Mediators and moderators of long-term effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: practice, thinking, and action. JAMA pediatrics, 168(5), 450-457.
[8] Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2010). Vulnerability to violent video games: a review and integration of personality research. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 82.
[9] Dill, K. E., Brown, B. P., & Collins, M. A. (2008). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1402-1408.
[10] Yao, M. Z., Mahood, C., & Linz, D. (2010). Sexual priming, gender stereotyping, and likelihood to sexually harass: Examining the cognitive effects of playing a sexually-explicit video game. Sex roles, 62(1-2), 77-88.
And that is a different set of studies that I ended up posting a few pages back. I guess it's not a case of where is the evidence, but more if people have read it.
Thanks for the links Hybrid. Have only had a quick look, but the first study (Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment) uses a lot of loaded language, which makes me question their bias. They even use the phrase social justice at one point
For the second study (Sexual Priming, Gender Stereotyping, and Likelihood to Sexually Harass) the language is a lot more neutral, although it should be noted that it is not without its limitations. First, the study focused primarily on immediate cognitive effects of playing sexually-oriented games, not long-term effects. In addition, a typical video game may take hundreds of hours of playing time to complete. The effects of repeated experience on players’ cognition, emotion, attitude, and behavior should also be addressed.
Although the sexually-oriented video game chosen in the research was a popular game title, the use of a single game as treatment may have limited the generalizability of the findings. We cannot be sure if the findings can be extended to all sexually oriented video games.
And speaking of loaded language, let's see what the ADL's been up to lately:
Spoiler:
Thanks for the links Hybrid. Have only had a quick look, but the first study (Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment) uses a lot of loaded language, which makes me question their bias. They even use the phrase social justice at one point
For the second study (Sexual Priming, Gender Stereotyping, and Likelihood to Sexually Harass) the language is a lot more neutral, although it should be noted that it is not without its limitations. First, the study focused primarily on immediate cognitive effects of playing sexually-oriented games, not long-term effects. In addition, a typical video game may take hundreds of hours of playing time to complete. The effects of repeated experience on players’ cognition, emotion, attitude, and behavior should also be addressed.
Although the sexually-oriented video game chosen in the research was a popular game title, the use of a single game as treatment may have limited the generalizability of the findings. We cannot be sure if the findings can be extended to all sexually oriented video games.
Even if you take the first study at its word and assume no Bias the results are mixed though. The men exposed to the video game images do in fact show higher tolerance to sexual harassment but at the same time the women shown those same images show lower tolerance. Meaning that video game images had the opposite effect on women. Also in terms of rape there was no significant difference in either group.
The second was...weird honestly. The lexical decision task was used. The thing I found strange is that test is used to test people memory (for those unfamiliar they give a series of scrambled words as well as just random letters and you have to tell which one is a basically an anagram and which ones are just random letters). The individuals that played Leisure Time Larry where faster at picketing out sexually words like penis, but is that due to them have increased thoughts of sexual objectification or are they just recognizing them due just playing the game that was about sex. I mean to put it this way, what if the game they used to test was Rome Total War and the words they were testing where all associated with Rome and well War. Wouldn't one expect the individuals you played Rome Total War to guess those words faster due to just playing a game where those words were used. But just because they guessed the words faster does that mean they now have more violent thoughts? I don't know its weird. I have a degree in Social Science but not psychology so maybe the lexical decision task is considered perfectly fine to test sexual objectification or whatever but as outsider it looked weird to test it that way.
And speaking of loaded language, let's see what the ADL's been up to lately:
Spoiler:
for the "tl;dr" crowd (I made it about 2 minutes in) what was the general idea?? For the record, that lady was boring as feth to listen to, and very "mom-preachy" so it was off-putting to me
for the "tl;dr" crowd (I made it about 2 minutes in) what was the general idea?? For the record, that lady was boring as feth to listen to, and very "mom-preachy" so it was off-putting to me
Can you read the Partial transcript?
Spoiler:
“Is Gaming A Boy’s Club?” is the name of a school lesson plan developed by the Anti-Defamation League—ADL for short. The ADL is a well-respected organization that has fought anti-Semitism and racism for decades. As a long-time admirer of the ADL, I am baffled by its sponsorship of such a biased and dogmatic curriculum. The lesson plan advertises itself as meeting standards for inclusion in the Common Core—an influential national curriculum. The entire lesson plan is dedicated to the proposition that video games are a hotbed of sexism and misogyny, and it gives students the message that anyone who dares to suggest that games should be more inclusive can expect to be terrorized by malevolent gamers. Lesson materials include a video and an article by feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian—both are harsh indictments of the world of gaming. That would be fine if she were not the only assigned author. In another part of the lesson plan, the teacher places seven posters around the room—each bearing a statement about video games. Students are then told to attach Post-Its to those they agree with. Three are neutral—for example: “I have played video games” and “I have watched other people play video games.” But four are affirmations about sexism: “I have witnessed sexism in video games,” “I believe video games can perpetuate sexism.” None says anything positive about games—such as, “Gaming is an exciting activity for both women and men,” or “Sexism in video games is exaggerated.”The curriculum also includes a small group discussion on sexism and video games and “additional resources” that focus on—guess what?-- harassment, misogyny, and terror in the culture of video games. The curriculum is not only obsessively one-sided—much it is false, misleading, or exaggerated. Let’s start with the very first sentence. “Video games do not have a good track record when it comes to positively including girls and women.” But on page 3 of the curriculum students learn that women now constitute 48 percent of video game players—up from 40 percent in 2010. An important study has shown that there has been a major demographic shift in the video game industry toward the inclusion of women, but men and women prefer to play different types of games. The world of games is rich and diverse and there is room for everyone. Why give young women the discouraging message that they are not wanted? What about the idea that video games—especially those most popular with men-- perpetuate sexism? The lesson plan promotes this idea, yet offers no evidence. The fact is, as video games have thrived in the U.S., so have women’s freedoms and opportunities and participation in sports and games. As I have said in an earlier videos on gaming, gender critics have to show, not dogmatically assume, that video games make men sexist and unjust—or hold women back in some way. They have not even tried to meet burden of proof. Finally, what about the claim that when women criticize video games, they receive abusive messages or even threats. Unfortunately, this is sometimes true. Feminist critics have received threats, and that’s deplorable. But what the ADL fails to mention is that no one knows who sent them—and males (and females) who challenge the feminist critique receive them too. Milo Yianappoulos, a British writer who defends gamers from the charge of sexism received a letter that contained dead mouse impaled by a razor blade.
To sum it up the ADL made a very biased one sided lesson plan for teachers that basically reads like it was written by Anita Sarkeesian. Most of the sources are either Sarkessian's work, news articles about her work or the threats she received or one study that breaks up types of online harassment on gender and type.
I just wish video games had progressed as an art to the point where we could start applying new criticism, new historicism, deconstructionism, or formalist analysis to them a bit more frequently without coming off as fanboys as opposed to facile feminism analysis nearly exclusively.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I just wish video games had progressed as an art to the point where we could start applying new criticism, new historicism, deconstructionism, or formalist analysis to them a bit more frequently without coming off as fanboys as opposed to facile feminism analysis nearly exclusively.
Well everyone is a fan, so don't worry about that. I mean the only people who care enough to critically look at anything are fans. If you want, try out your criticisms. I might be fun seeing what your talking about.
To sum it up the ADL made a very biased one sided lesson plan for teachers that basically reads like it was written by Anita Sarkeesian. Most of the sources are either Sarkessian's work, news articles about her work or the threats she received or one study that breaks up types of online harassment on gender and type.
Indeed I can, and in much less than 6 minutes
And I kind of agree that it is extremely biased and made to look negative... But then again, if we're assuming this is supposed to be taught at a school, anything other than "graduate and go to COLLEGE, or you will be an utter failure in life" will be made to look "bad". It's a large reason why (IMO) programs like wood and metal shops, home econ, and most other "life skill" classes/curriculum have been cut from most school districts. (Then theres the whole view of Football/Basketball/Baseball> music/arts/life skills, etc. so when budgets come out its usually sports that are the safest from being cut.... but that's a different thread)
Gordon Shumway wrote: I just wish video games had progressed as an art to the point where we could start applying new criticism, new historicism, deconstructionism, or formalist analysis to them a bit more frequently without coming off as fanboys as opposed to facile feminism analysis nearly exclusively.
Well everyone is a fan, so don't worry about that. I mean the only people who care enough to critically look at anything are fans. If you want, try out your criticisms. I might be fun seeing what your talking about.
It's more the tone and background research I was referring to. I am starting to see a bit more in the academic journals (I am a teacher) but the debate in popular culture seems almost exclusively gender driven. Certainly some game designers are making some interesting narrative choices (swery, Kojima, maybe Levine) but the debates seem obsessed with easy targets with little depth. Really, all of the discussions currently going on about video games were had with literature and film from the 1940s-1960s but with much less academic rigor than then. I mean just look at a comparison between a "credible" gaming blog (take your pick) vs a credible film blog (davidbordwell.net or movie mezzanine.com for example) and you will see pretty quickly that the tone and maturity level is markedly different. The question begins to arise--is it the art or the consumers of the art that account for this disparity?
dementedwombat wrote: Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.
Despairing the end of gamer culture is a pretty big factor in gamer culture, actually.
Rant time:
Here's the problem. For about 20 years, from the first Video game crash of 1983 through the mid 2000s, video gamers were mostly kids and what we'll charitably call individuals in the social hinterlands. In other words, losers.
As gaming gains more and more mainstream acceptance, a lot of gamer types are realizing a horrible truth: they're not losers because they play games. They're just losers, and they happen to play games. Now, just because their losers doesn't mean they want to accept that. They've blamed external forces for so long, that they cannot accept that the problem is them.
That's why hard core, fedora and trench coat wearing Gamer Culture is so toxic. These are people that lived under the delusion that their alienation and marginalization was due to their hobby. That gak simply ain't true, not when you've got frat boys playing Xbox and Homecoming queens that play WOW. But they can't handle it. They want gaming (and nerd culture in general) to go back to being niche, so at least they can pretend to be normal sized fish in a small pond.
Quoted for fething truth.
My god we aren't some sort of super cool underground. Can't we all accept that we are simply....
Gordon Shumway wrote: I just wish video games had progressed as an art to the point where we could start applying new criticism, new historicism, deconstructionism, or formalist analysis to them a bit more frequently without coming off as fanboys as opposed to facile feminism analysis nearly exclusively.
Well everyone is a fan, so don't worry about that. I mean the only people who care enough to critically look at anything are fans. If you want, try out your criticisms. I might be fun seeing what your talking about.
It's more the tone and background research I was referring to. I am starting to see a bit more in the academic journals (I am a teacher) but the debate in popular culture seems almost exclusively gender driven. Certainly some game designers are making some interesting narrative choices (swery, Kojima, maybe Levine) but the debates seem obsessed with easy targets with little depth. Really, all of the discussions currently going on about video games were had with literature and film from the 1940s-1960s but with much less academic rigor than then. I mean just look at a comparison between a "credible" gaming blog (take your pick) vs a credible film blog (davidbordwell.net or movie mezzanine.com for example) and you will see pretty quickly that the tone and maturity level is markedly different. The question begins to arise--is it the art or the consumers of the art that account for this disparity?
Both? Gaming is still a very young medium and we are still figuring out how to talk about and criticize games. Currently we talk a lot about the genre stuff well ya because it's easy. People make videos to explain different concepts and what they mean. It's kind of an easy concept to grasp. (I don't even understand some of the other words you used. ) I think people would be willing to explore other aspects, but they need to be taught some of the basics. You can't dive until you can swim I guess is the point I am making here.
Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.
Yes, it's a good sign of it being a thing in society.
...besides the fact that the man in question was found GUILTY by a court. And the fact that the entire issue has nothing to do with sexism. But apart from that, yes.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.
That doesn't speak to acceptability though. Only to practicality. I mean, the woman suggesting that women just get their bone on even says "this isn't right, but it's what you'll have to do to keep your career", doesn't she?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.
That doesn't speak to acceptability though. Only to practicality. I mean, the woman suggesting that women just get their bone on even says "this isn't right, but it's what you'll have to do to keep your career", doesn't she?
In that particular case I don't think it's so much about sexism as it is about Human Resources policies and societal behavior in general. Male doctor pressures female doctor for sex, gets turned down, female doctor lodges complaint/charges against male doctor, male doctor's career is ruined, other doctors and administrators now see the female doctor as a person who might create a very messy PR situation and expensive litigation if somebody says or does something she objects to so they collectively ostracize her and keep her away from working in nice hospitals to avoid any incidents with her. The male doctor was punished for his wrongful actions but the reporting doctor also ends up being punished because even though on one hand we repeatedly encourage people to report incidents on the other hand we always hold people who file the incident reports as at least partially responsible for the fallout of those reports. All we've done is create a messy litiguous no win situation for people.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Regarding the claim from a few pages back that sexism isn't accepted in today's society, I think the subject discussed in this thread in our very own OT forum is more than enough to shoot so many holes in the statement that it'll sink faster than a Jell-O submarine.
Yes, it's a good sign of it being a thing in society.
...besides the fact that the man in question was found GUILTY by a court. And the fact that the entire issue has nothing to do with sexism. But apart from that, yes.
KiloFiX put it better than I could in that thread:
The women that brought on the sexual harassment suit against her superior won the case. But the simple act of filling the charges usually means that the person that makes the complaint never works in that field again.
I know she won, but what I was getting at is that if sexual harassment were taken seriously, there would also be a component that protects against reprisal.
There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.
Sigvatr wrote: There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.
After they are re-employed, is there a guarantee that their careers will advance as they would have if they didn't whistleblow? Just having a legal framework does not mean the problem is solved.
Sigvatr wrote: There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.
After they are re-employed, is there a guarantee that their careers will advance as they would have if they didn't whistleblow? Just having a legal framework does not mean the problem is solved.
Hell no. How would you be able to work with such a relationship? You will get a sizeable amount of money and then have to look for another job. There's only so much the law can do. You can't force people to trust.
Sigvatr wrote: There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.
After they are re-employed, is there a guarantee that their careers will advance as they would have if they didn't whistleblow? Just having a legal framework does not mean the problem is solved.
Hell no. How would you be able to work with such a relationship? You will get a sizeable amount of money and then have to look for another job. There's only so much the law can do. You can't force people to trust.
Also, how the hell do you judge how well a person's career would have progressed if they hadn't done XYZ? By consulting a crystal ball?
Sigvatr wrote: Please don't just post videos, but briefly gives us some keypoints on what it's about / what point you want to make :/
Femnism and GamerGate are "Thought Germs" (think memes). Angry Thought Germs are shared more. Opposing thought germs actually cooperate in a symbiotic way -when everyone agrees, its hard to stay interested and engaged. -angry competing Thought Germs create a more vocal and engaging debate, therefore sucking in and involving more bystanders. When opposing groups get big, they don't argue with each other. They argue with themselves about how angry the other side makes them.
So applying the logic presented in the video to video games, basically, SJW's and GamerGaters create a feedback loop. Both sides feed off each other.
Yes, I fully agree. Both sides share one attribute: they don't want to make any compromise or have a discussion, they just want themselves and their own opinion re-affirmed.
It's basically Richard Dawkins Selfish Gene / meme theory explained directly relating to the internet.
Which, actually thinking about it... Is an evil genius move. Take the whole 'God is dead / religion is evil' concept to manufacture the opposing side, allowing the original selfish gene / meme theory stuff to propagate and bounce off of the opposing anger.
That's like, Joker level diabolicalness...
Anyhow, the point was pretty easy / obvious really, the opposing sides of any debate, no matter what it is, will always create a boogeyman of the worst elements of the other sides debate and the loudest volumes will be taking against that boogeyman, as opposed to the reality of anything.
To sum it up even more. Gaming culture isn't any different from any other culture anywhere ever. :p
Personally, I don’t understand grown men wasting their lives playing computer games. It seems a bit sad to me... I’m more relaxed about violent video games than most, because it seems unlikely that they alone make people act out in real life. So what if they’re the last resort of the frustrated beta male? It’s not for me to legislate what weirdos in yellowing underpants get up to in their spare time.
I'm not even talking about that*. Milo has twitter posts, articles, and a book or two where he expresses contempt for gamers and uses really mean language to describe them. He only jumped onto Gamer Gate as a means to attack his political opponents, not to defend gamers.
*And talking about that, if we're calling Christina Summers a feminist, we might as well call Obama a Republican and Putin a duly elected official
Ok I have to be honest that video somehow reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from a movie.
Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
Sigvatr wrote: Please don't just post videos, but briefly gives us some keypoints on what it's about / what point you want to make :/
Femnism and GamerGate are "Thought Germs" (think memes).
Angry Thought Germs are shared more.
Opposing thought germs actually cooperate in a symbiotic way
-when everyone agrees, its hard to stay interested and engaged.
-angry competing Thought Germs create a more vocal and engaging debate, therefore sucking in and involving more bystanders.
When opposing groups get big, they don't argue with each other. They argue with themselves about how angry the other side makes them.
So applying the logic presented in the video to video games, basically, SJW's and GamerGaters create a feedback loop. Both sides feed off each other.
Yep. That's... nothing new, really. After all, that's how political discourse in the US functions. In fact, the media designs it to function that way. They don't actually care all that much, so long as people keep watching.
Compel wrote: He doesn't sound like the nicest guy (getting into a fight with Stephen Fry would generally be seen as unforgivable with the British public).
However, I believe the key phrase in that sentence would be the "received a letter that contained dead mouse impaled by a razor blade."
I don't know maybe the guy just thought he was hungry.
In all seriousness though the dead mouse thing is a little fethed up.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not even talking about that*. Milo has twitter posts, articles, and a book or two where he expresses contempt for gamers and uses really mean language to describe them. He only jumped onto Gamer Gate as a means to attack his political opponents, not to defend gamers.
Yeah, I know, that is why I picked this part of the transcript out. The very first article from him I ever read was about how Elliot Rodger killed not because of his sexist ideas, but because of video games. But “his political opponents”, as quite well illustrated by this article, are feminists. Hence the reference to Christina Summers. See, it all ties in .
Compel wrote: He doesn't sound like the nicest guy (getting into a fight with Stephen Fry would generally be seen as unforgivable with the British public).
However, I believe the key phrase in that sentence would be the "received a letter that contained dead mouse impaled by a razor blade."
I think the key argument in this sentence is the implication that he received it because he “defends gamers from the charge of sexism”. I believe it has much more to do with the fact he is “not the nicest guy”, and him acting as such.
So you're saying he deserved it? Blame the victim much?
What most people are saying about milo I feel is pretty accurate. He only latched on to one side to benefit himself and he's a bit of a phony who plays fast and loose with his own past. He's basically sarkeesian with a penis.
We were pointing out that the idea he is defending gamers is a shallow thing for him, given how many times he's insulted gamers over the course of his career
LordofHats wrote: We were pointing out that the idea he is defending gamers is a shallow thing for him, given how many times he's insulted gamers over the course of his career
Agreed.
I'll simply posit that he has his contemporaries on the other side of things.
LordofHats wrote: *And talking about that, if we're calling Christina Summers a feminist, we might as well call Obama a Republican and Putin a duly elected official
So you're just going to insult her huh? I presume you have something to show that she's not a feminist? Perhaps that she writes for a conservative youtube channel (/spooky voice).
Really Hat, let Hybrid be the person posting nonsense. Don't take his role in this thread.
Sigvatr wrote: There already /are/ components against reprisal, at least in Germany, i.e. you can either sue on getting re-employed or getting a financial compensation. Saying that sexual harassment isn't taken seriously despite an offender being found guilty by a court of law is nonsense.
After they are re-employed, is there a guarantee that their careers will advance as they would have if they didn't whistleblow? Just having a legal framework does not mean the problem is solved.
Hell no. How would you be able to work with such a relationship? You will get a sizeable amount of money and then have to look for another job. There's only so much the law can do. You can't force people to trust.
I was replying to your statement that people can sue to be reemployed. You said that was a component to prevent reprisal. I basically asked if that was so, and you just scoffed and said get real. So, what was your point? It sounds like you are claiming the German system works in ways that others don't, except that it doesn't work.
Someone who studied to be a surgeon for years and years is hardly going to be able to leave the field and find a career at the same status in a new field. Whistleblowers in Germany still seem to face a huge drop in their expected quality of life.
LordofHats wrote: And talking about that, if we're calling Christina Summers a feminist, we might as well call Obama a Republican and Putin a duly elected official
I don't think people who've built their entire careers around criticizing (read demonizing) feminism, should be able to go around calling themselves feminists with a straight face That's the joke Hybrid and I are making. We're talking about two people who've basically built careers as contrarians. It isn't even close to NTS to call someone who wrote a book that basically amounts to "everything Feminists believe and do is wrong" not a feminist, even if they add a line at the beginning of the same book that says they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Agreed, hoff summers has actually had plenty to say that's been pretty much right on the mark.
No one is saying she is always wrong, but both her main books (Who Stole Feminism, and The War Against Boys) are pretty much just high class trolling. It be like me walking around saying "I am a Libertarian and support the Tea Party" which makes no sense, because I spend a fair deal of time trying to explain why I don't think Libertarianism works and suggesting the Tea Party is crazy
It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).
LordofHats wrote: I don't think people who've built their entire careers around criticizing (read demonizing) feminism, should be able to go around calling themselves feminists with a straight face That's the joke Hybrid and I are making. We're talking about two people who've basically built careers as contrarians. It isn't even close to NTS to call someone who wrote a book that basically amounts to "everything Feminists believe and do is wrong" not a feminist, even if they add a line at the beginning of the same book that says they are.
So you guys have decided that feminists can't criticise feminism, and can decide what a feminist is? Have you read her book?
Sounds dangerously close to mansplaining to me
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).
LordofHats wrote: And talking about that, if we're calling Christina Summers a feminist, we might as well call Obama a Republican and Putin a duly elected official
I'm keen to see the criteria for being a feminist
I am keen to see the criteria for being a Republican or a duly elected official
VorpalBunny74 wrote: So you guys have decided that feminists can't criticise feminism
No. Just pointing that criticizing/demonizing feminism is all she ever do. Kind of like Milo. Does Milo fits your definition of a feminist then ?
Her two main books are all about that. Maybe once, when she was alone in the middle of a forest, she said something different and actually feminist. But then again, maybe Milo did so too! So, tell me again, does Milo fits your definition of a feminist ?
It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).
What's so demonic about feminism so you have to ridicule it at every opportunity, anyway?
Was he duly elected? I'm serious, I don't follow Russian politics. I'm a very poor 'Gotcha!' unfortunately.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Her two main books are all about that. Maybe once, when she was alone in the middle of a forest, she said something different and actually feminist. But then again, maybe Milo did so too! So, tell me again, does Milo fits your definition of a feminist ?
So what is the criteria for being a feminist, Hybrid? I'm not the one making the claim to know what a feminist truly is
As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.
It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).
What's so demonic about feminism so you have to ridicule it at every opportunity, anyway?
Ashiraya wrote: As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.
Feminists are typically only concerned with Women's rights, so no. It is not an adequate catch all term for everyone who thinks the sexes should be equal.
Would you call someone who campaigns for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers, a Feminist? An egalitarian? Or would you scoff and deride them as a Mens Rights Activist?
It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).
What's so demonic about feminism so you have to ridicule it at every opportunity, anyway?
The fact that the vocal extreme fringes of feminism have seemingly hijacked the movement and become the mainstream?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Feminists are typically only concerned with Women's rights, so no. It is not an adequate catch all term for everyone who thinks the sexes should be equal.
Would you call someone who campaigns for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers, a Feminist? An egalitarian? Or would you scoff and deride them as a Mens Rights Activist?
When you're a feminist, you don't have to be that to the exclusion of everything else.
I can certainly see the merit of focusing on women's rights in the status quo - as I have previously said, everything I have seen indicates that things need to go more in one direction than the other before it actually becomes equal. Obviously I am not arguing that this is what everyone should do, but it has merits.
Not saying this custody debacle should be ignored either, but forcing it in everywhere seems to be the quotaism that people here so vehemently dislike? 'When debating equality, bring up custody rights X times otherwise you're feminazi'?
I would call someone who campaigns for more equal custody rights different things depending on their other opinions and actions.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The fact that the vocal extreme fringes of feminism have seemingly hijacked the movement and become the mainstream?
I dunno, I have not seen any real indications of this in the mainstream outside of blogs and forumites trying to outdo each other in sensationalism.
Other than internet attention-seeking, I have not encountered evidence of ''''''''''''''''''feminazis'''''''''''''''' in real life. Sure, newspapers - again, sensationalism.
Ashiraya wrote: As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.
By that logic, would you call anyone who wants effective law enforcement a fascist? One of the tenets of fascism is desire for a strong police force.
Or those who wants their government to regulate education a communist? One of the characteristics of communism is government controlled education.
I disagree with the notion that merely agreeing that women should have rights automatically makes one a feminist. It does not appear to add up.
Ashiraya wrote: As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.
By that logic, would you call anyone who wants effective law enforcement a fascist? One of the tenets of fascism is desire for a strong police force.
No, and in the same way I would not call someone who is entirely apathetic in terms of wanting social equality except wanting equality in some petty and irrelevant thing a feminist.
Because honestly, a strong police force is one of the least defining parts of fascism.
It might have something to do with seeing the domineering "patriarchy" behind every corner, under every bed, and hovering in the sky above you, not checking its privilege, and thinking that women are the most oppressed group in existence (in the Western world!).
What's so demonic about feminism so you have to ridicule it at every opportunity, anyway?
That would be the feminists' job, I imagine. If you can't reign in the idiots who are making your cause look bad, then how credible is your cause?
It isn't just feminism that has this issue. Every time Kanye West opens his mouth, the black community looks a little bit dumber. The Occupy movement in San Francisco was more or less killed by the fact that people who didn't even care about the movement were associating with it just for the opportunity to act crazy, and it made the entire movement look crazy, etc.
It's human nature for people to pay attention to the loudest, flashiest representatives for a cause or organization, and the loudest ones tend to be the dumbest ones. Rational feminists would benefit from publicly denouncing the radical ones, but they won't do it because feminism has such an "us vs. them" quality to it that solidarity at all costs is idealized, and to concede anything at all is perceived as conceding the concept of gender equality altogether.
BlaxicanX wrote: That would be the feminists' job, I imagine. If you can't reign in the idiots who are making your cause look bad, how credible is your cause?
How do you do that, exactly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Egalitarianism? Isn't that the promotion of equality?
I dunno, to me it sounds like it implies both sides have equal problems. Like trying to 'de-fang' feminism and rationalise it away, implying that women's rights aren't necessary as both have equal problems anyway. Or maybe that's too strong an expression, but you know what I mean, I'm sure.
Also, I was asking specifically for the belief that women's rights need to be improved to equality and no further. Nothing else. What would you call that?
Not in my experience, so I am going to ask you for any reference on that. A very few are, but the relevant one are not, for the reasons I mention below.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Would you call someone who campaigns for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers, a Feminist?
Did you miss what she wrote? “As far as I know, arguing for, working for, or really just agreeing with that women's rights need improvement to the point of equality makes you a feminist.” No, arguing for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers alone does not make you a feminist. However, you can be a feminist and also campaign for more equal custody rights for divorced fathers. However, it will very likely then be part of a greater effort to destroy gender roles, that assigns women to care-taking and home-keeping tasks, and men to money-bringing jobs. If you just stop short at “equal custody”, and miss the big picture, that will make you quite short-sighted. But certainly one cannot advocate that women should be able to be active and dedicate a lot of time to their careers while arguing against men becoming house-husband and taking care of the kids, which means directly combating the mindset that makes women get custody most of the time. Gender expectations tend to hurt women more, because their roles are usually worse, but really, they hurt anyone that does not fit into the assigned role. See Billy Elliot, for instance.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The fact that the vocal extreme fringes of feminism have seemingly hijacked the movement and become the mainstream?
I would be more convinced if I did not know you would likely consider me part of the “vocal extreme fringue” .
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I disagree with the notion that merely agreeing that women should have rights automatically makes one a feminist. It does not appear to add up.
Such as Christina Sommers, who advocates equal legal rights for men and women?
Are you reading what I wrote? Everything I ever heard about or from her is that there are already equal rights or that men have it worse. So, she is not “trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women”. Address that.
BlaxicanX wrote: It isn't just feminism that has this issue. Every time Kanye West opens his mouth, the black community looks a little bit dumber. The Occupy movement in San Francisco was more or less killed by the fact that people who didn't even care about the movement were associating with it just for the opportunity to act crazy, and it made the entire movement look crazy, etc.
It's human nature for people to pay attention to the loudest, flashiest representatives for a cause or organization, and the loudest ones tend to be the dumbest ones. Rational feminists would benefit from publicly denouncing the radical ones, but they won't do it because feminism has such an "us vs. them" quality to it that solidarity at all costs is idealized, and to concede anything at all is perceived as conceding the concept of gender equality altogether.
Where do all these radicals even come from?
I have spent a not-insignificant part of my life arguing for feminism, demonstrating, debating in various groups and organisations, talking with representatives from more organisations and the whole damn shebang you'd expect from an activist, and I have never in my entire life encountered a 'feminazi'.
Are they really such a big problem? It seems absurd that something so obscure and so absent from where things actually happen would get to represent the movement.
It's like letting my neighbour Klas represent the movie industry as a whole because he made a home movie.
The problem is not the radical. The problem is people telling them there is a problem, and that they may be part of it. That is what they cannot tolerate. Because, you know, they have no problem, they are perfectly non-sexists, and they cannot suffer anyone saying otherwise. The non-radical is either people that only focus on issues that happens abroad, or those that tell them they are perfect, like Christina Sommers .
VorpalBunny74 wrote: So you guys have decided that feminists can't criticise feminism, and can decide what a feminist is?
They can and they do, but given how much time Summers dedicates to attacking feminism at every point her claims to be a feminist become absurdly hollow. It is literally her career to argue with feminists about everything, from the basic premise of feminism to its goals. I could probably cut her slack if she could actually produce a model of what she thinks feminism should be but all she's done up to this point is attack what feminism is and provide no cohesive alternative argument or premise. Her work is more akin to an attack ad than criticism.
Again. I can say "I'm a Libertarian" but just saying that doesn't make the statement true when I don't agree with Libertarians on anything.
EDIT: Well to be fair here, she does have this thing she calls "equality feminism" which she pretends is an alternative to vanilla Feminism. The problem with her premise is that when you boil down her idea of equality feminism, you're basically left with nothing. Equality Feminism is nothing more than a denial that sexism or gender discrimination exists in modern America, and that there's nothing to do. It's just 'nothing wrong here shut up and go away' masquerading as an argument of substance. SO when I say I want a "cohesive alternative" I mean something that she actually expects feminism to be, because arguing for it to stop existing isn't really striking me as something for feminism to aspire to. EDIT: because I'm really trying to make the point here; Equality Feminism is not Feminism. It is in fact Feminism's Nihilistic Mirror Universe Counterpart demanding that Feminism should cease to exist.
Have you read her book?
About half of the first, only about 20 pages of the second. The first was pretty bad (about 50% attack ad against feminism, 50%... Something. She's one of those authors who runs around pretending she has an overarching point but never seemed to get around to explaining what the point is and it all just becomes a jumbled blob of nothing speak). I tossed the second because it seemed to be the first book all over again. I usually only give an author five pages to lay down their point, so I was went above and beyond on that one
I'm not the one making the claim to know what a feminist truly is
Someone did?
Was he duly elected? I'm serious, I don't follow Russian politics. I'm a very poor 'Gotcha!' unfortunately.
No. Again, that's the joke. Russian elections are rigged (to the point that everyone knew Putin would be President in 2012 in 2008, since the only reason he allowed Medvedev to be president was to appease internal party politics and to adhere to the Constitution, which didn't allow 3 consecutive terms).
It does reek of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Only if you completely miss the point of the fallacy, but then it's kind of a thing in OT to misapply logical fallacies so *shrug* I never once claimed "No feminist would Y." I claimed "X calling herself a feminist is meaningless because X doesn't agree with feminism." And it is blatantly obvious she doesn't agree with Feminism simply from the fact she wrote an entire book about how she disagreed with Feminism. I'm not even the one making the claim she disagrees. She did that all on her own.
They can and they do, but given how much time Summers dedicates to attacking feminism at every point her claims to be a feminist become absurdly hollow. It is literally her career to argue with feminists about everything, from the basic premise of feminism to its goals.
Is Camille Paglia a true feminist? Are scottish people?
Such as Christina Sommers, who advocates equal legal rights for men and women?
Are you reading what I wrote? Everything I ever heard about or from her is that there are already equal rights or that men have it worse. So, she is not “trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women”. Address that.
How can you tell if you admittedly do not know what a feminist is?
So you don't do any research again, going purely on hear-say, you claim she's not a feminist?
others clearly think she is:
The National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC), a U.S. organization co-founded by feminist Gloria Steinem with a mission statement "dedicated to increasing women’s participation in the political process and creating a true women’s political power base to achieve equality for all women", awarded Sommers with a 2013 Exceptional Merit in Media Award[38] for her New York Times article, "The Boys at the Back".[39] The NWPC summarizes the article as, "Author Christina Sommers asks whether we should allow girls to reap the advantages of a new knowledge based service economy and take the mantle from boys, or should we acknowledge the roots of feminism and strive for equal education for all?"
Feminist is one of those wide ranging labels like gamer, or christian. As the dictionary shows "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" They all use the No True Scotsman fallacy as well. Like you just did with Summers.
Anyone who points out the lies feminists are claiming as fact gets labeled anti-feminists. It creates a culture of, agree with whatever nonsense a feminist claims to be true or we'll denounce you as the enemy. The fun part is, if there are true feminist, and criticizing them makes you an anti-feminist. Then it is logical to conclude that those who disagree with summers are anti-feminists. Summers is advocating for political equality of the sexes like a true feminist would, you're disagreeing with her, you're an anti-feminist.
It's exactly like what happened with gamer gate, people disagreed on the premise that video games causes sexism as no evidence was ever provided to support that idea. They got labeled anti-feminists because they disagreed with a "feminist". So we can see the reluctance of feminists to speak out against some of the nonsense coming out of their camp. Yet many feminists did speak out and helped form #notyourshield, they deserve many thanks.
sirlynchmob wrote: So you don't do any research again, going purely on hear-say,
I wish you applied your own standard to yourself . Because, yeah, I did check that Wikipedia article you did not bother cutting the reference numbers off before posting about Sommers.
sirlynchmob wrote: you claim she's not a feminist?
others clearly think she is:
Oh my god, some people are disagreeing with me. Definite proof I am wrong!
The NWPC summarizes the article as, "Author Christina Sommers asks whether we should allow girls to reap the advantages of a new knowledge based service economy and take the mantle from boys, or should we acknowledge the roots of feminism and strive for equal education for all?"
In other word, “should women be privileged over men or should we be equal”. Her whole stick is that the statu quo is perfect and that we have achieved equality and that actually women are better off. Hence she is not “trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women”, only dismissing those inequalities as existent.
See, if you has read what I wrote and took some time to think about it, it would have been obvious why this was not going to show me she was a feminist.
sirlynchmob wrote: It creates a culture of, agree with whatever nonsense a feminist claims to be true or we'll denounce you as the enemy.
More precisely, it means “denounce whatever nonsense a feminist claim and all the people that agree with her/him will denounce you for calling it nonsense”. Oh gosh, people disagreeing. Color me shocked!
sirlynchmob wrote: It's exactly like what happened with gamer gate, people disagreed on the premise that video games causes sexism as no evidence was ever provided to support that idea.
Gamergate wall full of nonsense. Let me denounce it.
What GamerGate will tell you:
Spoiler:
So, let us just launch DotA2 and have a look at the heroes.
Spoiler:
Who could ever call that a “form-fitting costume that seems to have shrunken under the wash” when really, it is a “non-sexualized strong female character”. Thank you Gamergate for your based opinion .
As for Orogion, there is a quite interesting thread about his original artwork and rant on Steam:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/230230/discussions/0/617320628292995689/#c617320628358322648 And of course, there is what Orogion himself has written about the original art:
Secondly you are right about the key art that the male and female form are not represented equal on that image. There is no counter argument to that and I will admit that indeed there has been a bad judgement call on that part. Partially with me, partially with the marketing departement at Larian. Having done the reflection excersice more than once I do realise I made a big mistake on this part and I have only myself to blame for not seeing this issue when creating this image, as an artists it was my responsibility to say "guys, we're sending the wrong message with this image."
So that was a short overview of the kind of nonsense that Gamergate constantly brew. If you are baselessly attacking journalists for mentioning sexualization and it just takes launching a free game to find out your criticism was based on a lie, yeah, people are going to assume that this was not out of a genuine error .
sirlynchmob wrote: They got labeled anti-feminists because they disagreed with a "feminist".
You know, TERF do not get labeled as anti-feminists by outsiders, no more than trans-inclusionary feminists. They might sometime call each other anti-feminists occasionally (most of the time, they just call each other terrible persons, I guess ), but that is all. Why? Maybe because they are not dedicated to attack feminism, they just disagree with each other. That might be a good explanation.
sirlynchmob wrote: So we can see the reluctance of feminists to speak out against some of the nonsense coming out of their camp.
Again, they have no problem to speak out against what they see as nonsense. They just disagree with you on what is nonsense and what is just true.
Excuse-me, was Idi Amin Dada Scottish? Surely he was, because he claimed to be the last king of Scotland. If you dare say otherwise, you are making a true Scotsman's fallacy.
(It is sarcasm. This would not be a true Scotsman's fallacy, and Idi Amin Dada was not Scottish. Learn what the true Scotsman fallacy is.)
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").
The Scotsman is move of a moving the goal post fallacy and doesn't seem enter into this argument. This argument seems more about what makes a feminist or something.
And I would like to provide a quite funny unexpected counter-example with My Little Pony : Friendship is Magic, which was targeted both at young girls and adults, mostly neckbeards .
MLP wasn't targeted at adults, it was explicitely targeted at young girls, even surprising the authors to a large extent.
Lauren Faust has said that MLP:FIM was designed from the point of view that it should be something that parents can watch with their kids and enjoy, rather than just endure. That's always been Lauren Faust's MO, hence why there has been a Big Lebowski bowling reference in both Fosters Home For Imaginary Friends and MLP, along with loads of other film references.
The size of the adult fanbase took them by surprise, not the fact that adults enjoyed it at all.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Are you reading what I wrote? Everything I ever heard about or from her is that there are already equal rights or that men have it worse. So, she is not “trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women”. Address that.
I'm reading everything you wrote, my friend. You've decided she is not a feminist, and that your definition of a feminist is someone who is 'trying to dismantle the gender inequalities that hurts women'
Considering she advocates completely equal legal rights for men and women, how is she not a feminist? Not to mention, the women and men who call themselves feminists, but do nothing to advance any cause just to say that they agree with feminist ideals, are they feminists? According to your definition, they are not. You'd better let them know!
How can you tell if you admittedly do not know what a feminist is?
If you she meets your definition of a feminist, as per above, how can you claim she isn't a feminist? I didn't make the claim she isn't a feminist. You did. You tried to exclude her, because you don't like her, which is fine, but be honest about it.
LordofHats wrote: Only if you completely miss the point of the fallacy, but then it's kind of a thing in OT to misapply logical fallacies so *shrug* I never once claimed "No feminist would Y." I claimed "X calling herself a feminist is meaningless because X doesn't agree with feminism." And it is blatantly obvious she doesn't agree with Feminism simply from the fact she wrote an entire book about how she disagreed with Feminism. I'm not even the one making the claim she disagrees. She did that all on her own.
You joked she's not a feminist, it was pointed out she considered herself an equity feminist, you said that's not true feminism in your opinion, invoking nihilism for some reason.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: You joked she's not a feminist, it was pointed out she considered herself an equity feminist, you said that's not true feminism in your opinion, invoking nihilism for some reason.
How isn't that a No True Scotsman?
In the exact same way that not considering Idi Amin Dada a Scottish is not a true scotsman fallacy. The true Scotsman fallacy is about saying “A true X will never do Y”, and setting enough of those rules that nobody is a true X. Here we are just saying that someone claiming to be something is not always something. For instance, Idi Amin Dada claims to be the last Scottish king, but he is not the last Scottish king. All of this has already been explained to you, and you failed to address it.
Sorry, we'll be sure to call in the femistasi next time we see her going on tour.
Except, you know, Sarkeesian is not a misandrist in any way. I know 'Anita sucks xd' memeposting is fun to bandwagon all night long, but she has a few valid things to say and she matches the criteria for feminism as far as I know
Her 'business' practices, which I am sure will be complained on shortly, do not actually matter for that definition.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: In the exact same way that not considering Idi Amin Dada a Scottish is not a true scotsman fallacy. The true Scotsman fallacy is about saying “A true X will never do Y”, and setting enough of those rules that nobody is a true X. Here we are just saying that someone claiming to be something is not always something. For instance, Idi Amin Dada claims to be the last Scottish king, but he is not the last Scottish king. All of this has already been explained to you, and you failed to address it.
I'm happy to compromise and create a new fallacy called the No True Feminist, if you'd like.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm happy to compromise and create a new fallacy called the No True Feminist, if you'd like.
I would rather you explained to me how saying Idi Amin Dada is not Scottish is a fallacy. Or how this is somehow different from Sommers calling herself a feminist. Maybe you will finally answer that. Thanks.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm happy to compromise and create a new fallacy called the No True Feminist, if you'd like.
I would rather you explained to me how saying Idi Amin Dada is not Scottish is a fallacy. Or how this is somehow different from Sommers calling herself a feminist. Maybe you will finally answer that. Thanks.
Sure, point out where I said Idi Amin Dada is not Scottish is a fallacy, and I'll address that.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm happy to compromise and create a new fallacy called the No True Feminist, if you'd like.
I would rather you explained to me how saying Idi Amin Dada is not Scottish is a fallacy. Or how this is somehow different from Sommers calling herself a feminist. Maybe you will finally answer that. Thanks.
Sure, point out where I said Idi Amin Dada is not Scottish is a fallacy, and I'll address that.
I can wait.
Fine Sommers isn't a feminist and therefore she is a liar. In that being, Anita is also not a gamer and lied to everyone on that. We can also agree that Anita, Simmers, and Milo are also pretty shifty people that are generally playing us to get views revenue and attention and the delicious sensationalism that they all crave.
StarTrotter wrote: Fine Sommers isn't a feminist and therefore she is a liar. In that being, Anita is also not a gamer and lied to everyone on that. We can also agree that Anita, Simmers, and Milo are also pretty shifty people that are generally playing us to get views revenue and attention and the delicious sensationalism that they all crave.
I agree with this.
Anita is a feminist, but that doesn't have to mean I agree with her business practices.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I would rather you explained to me how saying Idi Amin Dada is not Scottish is a fallacy. Or how this is somehow different from Sommers calling herself a feminist. Maybe you will finally answer that. Thanks.
Sure, point out where I said Idi Amin Dada is not Scottish is a fallacy, and I'll address that.
?
)
