Oddly this is not a problem for the many businesses, virtually every business large enough to have an HR department, with codes of conduct and harassment policies. Perhaps these things are not so scary after all?
I really urge you to go see how CoCs are weaponized within the open source community. It's terrifying.
Wouldn't looking at other conventions (who use codes of conduct with much success) be a much closer correlate? The "open source community" is only one, highly-specialized, community and is only one data point. And just because *you* are terrified, doesn't mean they're all bad.
Here's one example, "Guttenberg Taxpayers and Rentpayers Association v. Galaxy Towers Condominium Association". Basically, an association that owned a bunch of condos in New Jersey had a policy against distributing flyers, yet distributed their own flyers for political candidates (who would win, because they owned something like 25% of the homes in the district). They were sued and the courts decided that by distributing their own flyers, this resulted in the “dedication of this property from private to political and thus public use”. The judge found that the refusal to allow flyers violated the state constitution because “a level playing field requires equal access to this condominium because it has become in essence a political ‘company town,’ in which political access controlled by the Association is the only ‘game in town.’” Can you see how this precedent might be relevant to Facebook and Twitter and other social media websites that are selectively allowing some political speech but not others?
You cite that it was a state constitution. I'm fairly sure there are ~50 of those, all of which are very different from each other and from the federal, so this ruling may have been highly specific to that specific state.
It seems like this has become a pattern: you cite highly specific examples as exceptions, but ignore the general rule. That's not a good way to make logical decisions.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Why not? a guest of honour is an important individual put in spotlight and their speech bears impact on the industry and market, directly or indirectly.
Anyway I would be glad to hear about prominent industry figures I many not know.
Could you name last year's speaker without googling it? I sure couldn't. I didn't even know they had keynote speakers. But now we are going to see gamers across the Internet comparing her negatively to past, present and future speakers at Gencon, giving them more prestige. Picking Sarkesian has raised the profile of the whole speaking gig.
But really, the Gencon guest of honor's speech has an impact on the industry and market? O-kay.
Well, it is apparent here that she can still stir-up controversy just with her name.
She did as she intended and got people talking (still does it looks like).
I just find her too condescending and happily pointing out "problems" with little to offer for solutions.
I always felt she was seeking the spotlight more than being a champion for positive change, my opinion however.
I feel her being there detracts more than adds to events but just like free speech: anyone can choose to listen or ignore.
I really do not want to give an extension to her 15 minutes of fame.
Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
I think if Anita Sarkeesian ever needed an advocate, it would be Sqorgar, because he's really convinced me she has something really important to say and needs a soap-box like Gencon to say it to as many people as possible.
Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
Assuming you don't look at the smouldering dumpster fire of the video game community after she got internet famous.
Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
Assuming you don't look at the smouldering dumpster fire of the video game community after she got internet famous.
The dumpster fire the community ignited over a women with a tiny audience. Sarkeesian showed up with a lighter, the community poured a tanker of gasoline over it. If anything the lesson here is to calm the hell down and not set another fire before anything has happened. It backfired spectacularly last time and some people seem itching for a repeat. Its a woman with opinions, come on people, its not the apocalypse.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: Wouldn't looking at other conventions (who use codes of conduct with much success) be a much closer correlate?
It would, and I can vaguely remember some situations where that has come up too. Generally speaking, I have a problem with CoCs that push a particular political agenda and which broadly define offense in terms of the offended rather than with regards to intent or context.
For instance, the Geek Feminism wiki has a CoC (adopted by others) which has the following:
"Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment."
That's incredibly broad and just waiting to be abused by someone with an agenda against another con goer. It gets WORSE.
The Geek Feminism community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. The Geek Feminism Anti-Abuse Team will not act on complaints regarding:
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ (because these things don’t exist)
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you.”
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
I'm suggesting that anybody who chooses a CoC like this one is pushing an agenda and using the CoC as a way to force others to conform to it.
You cite that it was a state constitution. I'm fairly sure there are ~50 of those, all of which are very different from each other and from the federal, so this ruling may have been highly specific to that specific state.
Yes, and that matters. There was, for example, a case in California where college students were passing out flyers in a mall. The California courts decided that mall had the right to ask them to stop as a private business, but the California constitution allowed for extra protections that meant that the students could still pass out flyers. State constitutions can have broader protections than given at the federal level. However, the specific case I cited, I did so because it seemed most relevant to the biased political censorship on Twitter and Facebook. I think if it were ever tested in the court of law, they'd have no choice but to declare Twitter or Facebook as public forums, and thus guarantee the right of expression be given freely.
It seems like this has become a pattern: you cite highly specific examples as exceptions, but ignore the general rule. That's not a good way to make logical decisions.
Actually, I cited two examples (you forgot Marsh vs Alabama, which was about privately owned company towns) - and I should point out that this is still two more cases than anyone else in this thread has cited.
I found one example of the Supreme Court declaring that malls were private property and could prevent certain forms of speech on them, but I didn't cite that one because in 2003, there was a case of a mall in California asking a man to remove a political shirt. He refuse and was arrested. He claimed a right to free speech. This was never tested in a court of law because the next day, hundreds of people showed up in that mall wearing the same shirt in protest. The mall rescinded the charges and fired the security guard who had him arrested. It seems to me that the people have spoken on this and they didn't think that the mall's right as a private business gave them the right to overrule the freedom of expression of its customers.
There. I've now quoted 5 different cases, including one that does not support my position. How many more do I have to post before I'm allowed to have an opinion?
Nurglitch wrote: I think if Anita Sarkeesian ever needed an advocate, it would be Sqorgar, because he's really convinced me she has something really important to say and needs a soap-box like Gencon to say it to as many people as possible.
What have I ever done that made you think a comment like this was appropriate?
A bodycount because people couldn't keep a handle on their emotions. What did Sarkeesian really achieve before the house got burned down over her opinions?
Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
Assuming you don't look at the smouldering dumpster fire of the video game community after she got internet famous.
The dumpster fire the community ignited over a women with a tiny audience. Sarkeesian showed up with a lighter, the community poured a tanker of gasoline over it. If anything the lesson here is to calm the hell down and not set another fire before anything has happened. It backfired spectacularly last time and some people seem itching for a repeat. Its a woman with opinions, come on people, its not the apocalypse.
That's the weird thing about it. It's like the thing where some women pointed out that men don't believe them, at which point some men stood up and pointed out that they didn't believe those women that men didn't believe women. It's like how some men perceive women to talk disproportionately much when the reverse is true.
As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.
You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.
Apparently that makes her some kind of strategic genius for causing the community to tear itself apart without her having to lift a finger. I'm telling you, it's the Monsters are Due on Maple Street.
Assuming you don't look at the smouldering dumpster fire of the video game community after she got internet famous.
I don't think so either, if anything the industry itself is trying to damage itself with business practices. The vast majority of gamers probably didn't even pay that much attention to the whole Gamergate thing. Videogame journalism was a cesspit of conflicts of interest long before the gate and still is. Meanwhile the 'movement' is pretty much dead.
Galas wrote: As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.
You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.
Except NeoGAF tore itself apart and people started getting fired from jobs in the industry wrongthink as developers try to prove who is the most progressive and anyones criticism of anything can be written off by accusing them of being Xist.
Disciple of Fate wrote: A bodycount because people couldn't keep a handle on their emotions. What did Sarkeesian really achieve before the house got burned down over her opinions?
Here's a very simple example of something that happened. An artist named Tamara Smith complained that Sarkeesian had used her artwork in one of the Tropes vs Women videos without permission. A week later, she tried to do an AMA on reddit, only to find herself banned and the thread deleted. The official reason for the ban is that she was asking for upvotes, which is kind of the jaywalking of reddit. It's rarely enforced and everybody does it. The nonofficial reason is that reddit admins felt that her claims were leading to more harassment for Sarkeesian, and that the AMA, which did not explicitly call out Sarkeesian, was just a backdoor way to talk about it. The thread concerning the ban was also closed and removed from /r/all and /r/gaming.
This has nothing to do with her opinions. This was reddit protecting her, and the fact that she doesn't have to answer for the things she does wrong.
Disciple of Fate wrote: A bodycount because people couldn't keep a handle on their emotions. What did Sarkeesian really achieve before the house got burned down over her opinions?
Here's a very simple example of something that happened. An artist named Tamara Smith complained that Sarkeesian had used her artwork in one of the Tropes vs Women videos without permission. A week later, she tried to do an AMA on reddit, only to find herself banned and the thread deleted. The official reason for the ban is that she was asking for upvotes, which is kind of the jaywalking of reddit. It's rarely enforced and everybody does it. The nonofficial reason is that reddit admins felt that her claims were leading to more harassment for Sarkeesian, and that the AMA, which did not explicitly call out Sarkeesian, was just a backdoor way to talk about it. The thread concerning the ban was also closed and removed from /r/all and /r/gaming.
This has nothing to do with her opinions. This was reddit protecting her, and the fact that she doesn't have to answer for the things she does wrong.
This is an example of when the gakstorm had already ignited. I asked if anyone could point out anything Sarkeesian achieved before this started.
And its Reddit, its an enlightened dictatorship at rhe best of times and a gakhole at the worst. Does this somehow prove her power?
Galas wrote: As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.
You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.
Except NeoGAF tore itself apart and people started getting fired from jobs in the industry wrongthink as developers try to prove who is the most progressive and anyones criticism of anything can be written off by accusing them of being Xist.
The biggest problem of the videogame community are lootboxes and depredatory business practices, developers that lie like No Man's Sky and Sea of Thieves. NeoGAF, whatever, its a internet community, yeah it was the biggest one, and it died, others will come to suplant it.
People gets fired ok. For a ton of different reasons, I don't disagree with that. But after all of that happened, in the aftermath of the battle...are you really trying to say to me that the videogame industry was... destroyed? That things are substantially worse than before (Because of that, as I said, theres many things that are wrong right now)?
Maybe is because I'm spanish and Gamergate didn't affected the hispanic internet community, but I can't really say that I agree with all the hyperbole and exageration that some people gives to those specific events.
Internet is a liberal's dream (The european meaning for liberal). You can do whatever you want. And if you can't, build a space yourself. If people agrees with you, then congratulations.
Disciple of Fate wrote: A bodycount because people couldn't keep a handle on their emotions. What did Sarkeesian really achieve before the house got burned down over her opinions?
Here's a very simple example of something that happened. An artist named Tamara Smith complained that Sarkeesian had used her artwork in one of the Tropes vs Women videos without permission. A week later, she tried to do an AMA on reddit, only to find herself banned and the thread deleted. The official reason for the ban is that she was asking for upvotes, which is kind of the jaywalking of reddit. It's rarely enforced and everybody does it. The nonofficial reason is that reddit admins felt that her claims were leading to more harassment for Sarkeesian, and that the AMA, which did not explicitly call out Sarkeesian, was just a backdoor way to talk about it. The thread concerning the ban was also closed and removed from /r/all and /r/gaming.
This has nothing to do with her opinions. This was reddit protecting her, and the fact that she doesn't have to answer for the things she does wrong.
See? This is an example of something absolutely irrelevant once time has past. If people dislike Reddits another platform will arise.
Galas wrote: As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.
You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.
Except NeoGAF tore itself apart and people started getting fired from jobs in the industry wrongthink as developers try to prove who is the most progressive and anyones criticism of anything can be written off by accusing them of being Xist.
The biggest problem of the videogame community are lootboxes and depredatory business practices, developers that lie like No Man's Sky and Sea of Thieves. NeoGAF, whatever, its a internet community, yeah it was the biggest one, and it died, others will come to suplant it.
People gets fired ok. For a ton of different reasons, I don't disagree with that. But after all of that happened, in the aftermath of the battle...are you really trying to say to me that the videogame industry was... destroyed? That things are substantially worse than before (Because of that, as I said, theres many things that are wrong right now)?
Maybe is because I'm spanish and Gamergate didn't affected the hispanic internet community, but I can't really say that I agree with all the hyperbole and exageration that some people gives to those specific events.
Internet is a liberal's dream (The european meaning for liberal). You can do whatever you want. And if you can't, build a space yourself. If people agrees with you, then congratulations.
The problems you have with the video game industry are mainly a western dev, triple AAA problem. Dozens of games are released without these practices. No one forces you to play Overwatch and Battlefront.
I can only think of one off the top of my head (the sound designer for Subnautica was fired for complaining about SJWs on Twitter), but I can think of multiple examples of the progressives trying to get people fired. For instance, they contacted Bethesda in an attempt to get the lead artist on DOOM fired after he mocked Sarkeesian's complaints against the violence in the game (his words: "HAHA Winning"). Just because he wasn't actually fired doesn't mean that this wasn't extreme harassment and a trying and difficult time for him - feel free to read the Facebook post he made if you doubt the stress he was under.
In another, slightly more hilarious example, people contacted the wife of an author involved in the Sad Puppies thing to let him know how racist he was and that she shouldn't stick by him. His wife is black.
Internet communities tear themselves apart over every little thing. The minecraft community tore itself apart over changes Mojang made, the Skyrim community 'tore' itself apart over paid mods, the warhammer End Times tore the community apart etc etc.
I can only think of one off the top of my head (the sound designer for Subnautica was fired for complaining about SJWs on Twitter), but I can think of multiple examples of the progressives trying to get people fired. For instance, they contacted Bethesda in an attempt to get the lead artist on DOOM fired after he mocked Sarkeesian's complaints against the violence in the game (his words: "HAHA Winning"). Just because he wasn't actually fired doesn't mean that this wasn't extreme harassment and a trying and difficult time for him - feel free to read the Facebook post he made if you doubt the stress he was under.
In another, slightly more hilarious example, people contacted the wife of an author involved in the Sad Puppies thing to let him know how racist he was and that she shouldn't stick by him. His wife is black.
The guy being a racist on Twitter? Have you seen what the man publically posts? Yes, of course only his SJW tweets could have gotten him fired.
As for the rest, both sides tried getting people fired, its not that great of an argument when the pot is calling the kettle black.
Galas wrote: As much as people claim that Gamergate destroyed the "gamer" community... eeeh... I don't think so. After time past, things aren't all that different, at least, not specifically with the videogame industry.
You have the general political climate that splash everything, of course. But anybody that sais the videogame community is in a worse state is just exaggeratting and using specific cases to generalise as if everything is horrible. People (From every "side" in the gamergate thing) that spend too much time arguing on the internet and lose track of reality. You see it all the time. For most of the "videogame community" it didn't changed anything.
Except NeoGAF tore itself apart and people started getting fired from jobs in the industry wrongthink as developers try to prove who is the most progressive and anyones criticism of anything can be written off by accusing them of being Xist.
The biggest problem of the videogame community are lootboxes and depredatory business practices, developers that lie like No Man's Sky and Sea of Thieves. NeoGAF, whatever, its a internet community, yeah it was the biggest one, and it died, others will come to suplant it.
People gets fired ok. For a ton of different reasons, I don't disagree with that. But after all of that happened, in the aftermath of the battle...are you really trying to say to me that the videogame industry was... destroyed? That things are substantially worse than before (Because of that, as I said, theres many things that are wrong right now)?
Maybe is because I'm spanish and Gamergate didn't affected the hispanic internet community, but I can't really say that I agree with all the hyperbole and exageration that some people gives to those specific events.
Internet is a liberal's dream (The european meaning for liberal). You can do whatever you want. And if you can't, build a space yourself. If people agrees with you, then congratulations.
The problems you have with the video game industry are mainly a western dev, triple AAA problem. Dozens of games are released without these practices. No one forces you to play Overwatch and Battlefront.
Oh, I absolutely agree! And thats why I don't play those games, and thats the end of it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This is an example of when the gakstorm had already ignited. I asked if anyone could point out anything Sarkeesian achieved before this started.
So, you are asking what she achieved before she achieved anything? Before her kickstarter, she was making videos about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight that nobody gave a gak about. The gakstorm happened during her kickstarter, before she had even made anything, and it boosted the funding by 10,000%. Literally, the gakstorm is her first achievement.
And its Reddit, its an enlightened dictatorship at rhe best of times and a gakhole at the worst. Does this somehow prove her power?
If it was only Reddit, then no. It wasn't only Reddit.
Disciple of Fate wrote: This is an example of when the gakstorm had already ignited. I asked if anyone could point out anything Sarkeesian achieved before this started.
So, you are asking what she achieved before she achieved anything? Before her kickstarter, she was making videos about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight that nobody gave a gak about. The gakstorm happened during her kickstarter, before she had even made anything, and it boosted the funding by 10,000%. Literally, the gakstorm is her first achievement.
Actually if you look at her wikipedia page she did a bunch of things beforehand. Her kickstarter blew up because people were outraged she dared voice her opinions on "my hobby". The gakstorm others summoned literally made her what she is today. Nobody took notice of the things she did before. People fear a 'monster'they themselves created.
And its Reddit, its an enlightened dictatorship at rhe best of times and a gakhole at the worst. Does this somehow prove her power?
If it was only Reddit, then no. It wasn't only Reddit.
So it was social media with admins who feel like dictators that have existed since the dawn of the internet and video game journalism so financially dependent on the industry they might as well have been parasites? Wow, people must have never been banned anywhere over emotional disagreements before Gamergate that this is such a big deal.
Of course during Gamergate many things happened. That, nobody claims isn't true.
The point here is... now that we are years in the future after gamergate... what, lasting change has she made, or gamergate made, to the gaming community?
Gamer journalists are as corrupt as unprofesional as ever, and the "culture war" is still raging on because the world hasn't really change in that regard.
Peregrine wrote: The only waste of time in that situation would be the two hours I spent before realizing that my opponent is an awful person I do not want to associate with. I would rather know that up front so I can avoid spending my time on someone like that. And I don't care one bit if their awful beliefs becoming public knowledge makes it difficult for them to find willing opponents. Their removal from the community is a thing to be celebrated.
Generally speaking, in literally every single FLGS I've visited, this kind of attitude will get you and everything you bring in physically removed and permanently banned from the premises. Not only that, but we'd make sure word got to every other FLGS to keep this kind of toxic attitude out of our gaming community. The joke is, "We'll see their miniatures on Craigslist soon" because we make it a point, just like you said, to make their 'awful' beliefs public knowledge.
Because I don't know about you, Peregrine, but in the majority of the world- people get together and game and don't harass someone about their personal beliefs. We don't care about how you vote or your personal beliefs, but we do believe that if you want to discuss politics you can leave the shops and go somewhere else and have that discussion. People that make it a point to harass others because they share a different opinion about an issue are best shown the door. In an abrupt, and very public manner. In the community where I play, we are a very diverse and laid-back group of people. We keep it that way because we purge the toxic elements. 'Diversity' means exactly that, it doesn't mean you exclude or bother people because they have a difference in opinion.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
Ouze wrote: Yes, quite. Aside from a redtext to a edgelord there aren't even any in-thread warnings and at this point in the thread it's improved dramatically from where it started.
Well, as evidenced here we don't all have the same 'pass' to call people names on the forum. I'm sure, however, this is just a simple oversight.
And I'm about as 'edgy' as a bowling ball and half as much fun to shove your fingers into.
Peregrine wrote: The only waste of time in that situation would be the two hours I spent before realizing that my opponent is an awful person I do not want to associate with. I would rather know that up front so I can avoid spending my time on someone like that. And I don't care one bit if their awful beliefs becoming public knowledge makes it difficult for them to find willing opponents. Their removal from the community is a thing to be celebrated.
Generally speaking, in literally every single FLGS I've visited, this kind of attitude will get you and everything you bring in physically removed and permanently banned from the premises. Not only that, but we'd make sure word got to every other FLGS to keep this kind of toxic attitude out of our gaming community. The joke is, "We'll see their miniatures on Craigslist soon" because we make it a point, just like you said, to make their 'awful' beliefs public knowledge.
Because I don't know about you, Peregrine, but in the majority of the world- people get together and game and don't harass someone about their personal beliefs. We don't care about how you vote or your personal beliefs, but we do believe that if you want to discuss politics you can leave the shops and go somewhere else and have that discussion. People that make it a point to harass others because they share a different opinion about an opinion are best shown the door. In an abrupt, and very public manner. In the community where I play, we are a very diverse and laid-back group of people. We keep it that way because we purge the toxic elements. 'Diversity' means exactly that, it doesn't mean you exclude or bother people because they have a difference in opinion.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
Ouze wrote: Yes, quite. Aside from a redtext to a edgelord there aren't even any in-thread warnings and at this point in the thread it's improved dramatically from where it started.
Well, as evidenced here we don't all have the same 'pass' to call people names on the forum. I'm sure, however, this is just a simple oversight.
And I'm about as 'edgy' as a bowling ball and half as much fun to shove your fingers into.
Even as a liberal I would do exactly the same thing.
So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
Formosa wrote: Even as a liberal I would do exactly the same thing.
I don't know why people can't just leave this crap at home or in their private groups. FFS, I have a private gaming club and we don't bring this stuff up. We just want some escapism, and in a world where things are volatile and divisive can't we just have something where I can sit across the table from another human being and my only concern be how familiar he is with his Codex?
No, we can't and I'll tell you why. Exactly why.
We have elements of our society that know that they CANNOT cope with other human beings and put aside their differences. They know good and well that as long as people are around that think differently than they do, that their ideas are in danger of being challenged. So they make it a point to harass and bully and make a scene until the only people left are a toxic cesspit of people that no one else wants to be around.
Then, they get on the internet and realize there are actually places that *gasp* don't take their beliefs as the gospel and standard of 'right'. And they have meltdowns.
We see it here quite a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
Yes, but being pro-life or pro-choice isn't one of them. If he was an actual literal Nazi, or racist, or bigot then that'd be one thing. Or someone who demonstrated an attitude like Peregrine's. Socialist? Democrat? Libertarian? Republican? Christian? Atheist? Jew? Pro-gun? Anti-gun? Anti-Military (and I'm a veteran)? I do not give a damn. Keep it to yourself, and if you mention it I'll politely remind you I'm playing to escape the quarrels of reality. Keep it up, and I'll make it a point to have you shown the door. Permanently. And laugh while it happens, too.
But unless they're voicing their politics, I won't know it and won't care. See, I tend to judge persons by the content of their character and not so much by how they vote. Must be doing something right, I've got wonderful friends with a variety of backgrounds and opinions and we can all manage to get along.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
Unless they're yelling racial slurs at me across the table or antagonizing me people around me not really. It's not my place to judge them or their beliefs as long as they're not bombarding me with them for no reason.
Galas wrote: Of course during Gamergate many things happened. That, nobody claims isn't true.
The point here is... now that we are years in the future after gamergate... what, lasting change has she made, or gamergate made, to the gaming community?
Just a technicality, but GamerGate doesn't really have anything to do with Sarkeesian. It was a response to the progressive agenda, sure, but it came along well after Sarkeesian had already changed the industry. It was mostly arguing with indie developers, like Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, and journalists, like Ben Kuchera, Leah Alexander, or anybody who has ever written for Polygon. Honestly, I think GamerGate was afraid to even mention Sarkeesian.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
The nicest way I can put it to you is like this:
If someone is being an actual terrible human being- as in, openly being a bigot of some sort or actively harassing people- then yeah, that's a really solid reason to not want to play with them. But that's less a matter of 'politics' and more a matter of 'someone who shouldn't be in this establishment'. Get 'em booted, instead of sitting on the sidelines and letting the problem persist.
Now, if you just can't play with someone who votes, prays, or thinks differently than you, then I strongly recommend making a private gaming club and recruiting people based on any criteria you like. Otherwise not only is your gaming going to be a difficult experience, but life's gonna come at you fast and hard.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
There are always lines where behaviors/beliefs will get to such a level that you wouldn't want to associate a person, even at such a low level as "playing a game with." It depends on the person and context, though, to determine where a reasonable person would draw that line.
For me personally, if I was halfway through a game and my opponent mentioned having voted for the idiot we have in office, I wouldn't stop the game or anything - hell, I'd try to win harder - but by that same measure, I would definitely not be looking to ask a guy in a MAGA hat to start a game in the first place, even if he were the only one looking for a game - they're not the kind of person I would want to associate with to begin with and I'd consider their personality/reasonableness inherently compromised, which affects my gameplay experience. Conversely, if I'm mid-game with a mega-liberal guy and catch him significantly cheating, that might well be grounds to end it right then and there. Again, that's me personally, and I think acting politely and reasonably is determined in large part by the context. I do think we've wandered pretty far off-topic by now, though.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
Yes, but being pro-life or pro-choice isn't one of them. If he was an actual literal Nazi, or racist, or bigot then that'd be one thing. Or someone who demonstrated an attitude like Peregrine's. Socialist? Democrat? Libertarian? Republican? Christian? Atheist? Jew? Pro-gun? Anti-gun? Anti-Military (and I'm a veteran)? I do not give a damn. Keep it to yourself, and if you mention it I'll politely remind you I'm playing to escape the quarrels of reality. Keep it up, and I'll make it a point to have you shown the door. Permanently. And laugh while it happens, too.
But unless they're voicing their politics, I won't know it and won't care. See, I tend to judge persons by the content of their character and not so much by how they vote. Must be doing something right, I've got wonderful friends with a variety of backgrounds and opinions and we can all manage to get along.
To be fair, Peregrine never said anything about pro-life, that's just what someone else brought up not commented on directly by Peregrine.
And rascist, mysogynist or bigot are highly subjective to a lot of people as evidenced by 1.5 years of Trump debates and this thread right here. The line is an arbitrary concept that would see you chased out of Peregrine's community and vice versa. If anything that is what gamergate showed, people just move into two different armed camps. Even the line you draw will be criticized by those you exclude or people that feel excluded because they feel that the line still allows for some horrible people. That is exactly what Sarkeesian is doing, she is trying to get this response and people are willingly giving in by saying things like cancer and HIV. I draw the line there, does that make me the same 'problem' to the group if I point that out?
These topics go far beyond something as simple as checking a box on a voting form or your current religious affiliation.
Sqorgar wrote: Just a technicality, but GamerGate doesn't really have anything to do with Sarkeesian. It was a response to the progressive agenda, sure, but it came along well after Sarkeesian had already changed the industry. It was mostly arguing with indie developers, like Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, and journalists, like Ben Kuchera, Leah Alexander, or anybody who has ever written for Polygon. Honestly, I think GamerGate was afraid to even mention Sarkeesian.
The general attitude toward Anita I observed was the same attitude people have toward Alex Jones- they would just chuckle and roll their eyes. People who wanted to make a big deal about her often got told that "No one cares" and that she should be simply ridiculed into obscurity.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
I can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.
I understand that’s a really simplistic way to explain it but to me, it’s that simple, if they want to talk politics while playing I will politely decline, if they keep pushing it and ignore my wishes, I will politely explain that I am not interested in political discourse and insist they stop while we play, I may even offer to talk about it after, again if they insist on talking about it, one of two things will happen.
1: if they have been fairly polite up to that point then I will concede the game and explain why.
2: if they have been trying to aggressively insist upon the subject, they will be asked to leave in as expedient a manner as possible and informed why.
I have put this into practice fairly often as there is a gentleman at my local club who I would describe as a classic SJW stereotype, we but heads very often even though we are both considered liberals, usually over how he chooses to push his Liberalism, while we play however we have a blast and all that crap goes out the window until drinks after the game where we usually end up debating this or that, he knows there is a time and place for such talk.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
Unless they're yelling racial slurs at me across the table or antagonizing me people around me not really. It's not my place to judge them or their beliefs as long as they're not bombarding me with them for no reason.
And what if he isn't slinging them at you but off handedly inserting them into the game?
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
I can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.
I understand that’s a really simplistic way to explain it but to me, it’s that simple, if they want to talk politics while playing I will politely decline, if they keep pushing it and ignore my wishes, I will politely explain that I am not interested in political discourse and insist they stop while we play, I may even offer to talk about it after, again if they insist on talking about it, one of two things will happen.
1: if they have been fairly polite up to that point then I will concede the game and explain why.
2: if they have been trying to aggressively insist upon the subject, they will be asked to leave in as expedient a manner as possible and informed why.
I have put this into practice fairly often as there is a gentleman at my local club who I would describe as a classic SJW stereotype, we but heads very often even though we are both considered liberals, usually over how he chooses to push his Liberalism, while we play however we have a blast and all that crap goes out the window until drinks after the game where we usually end up debating this or that, he knows there is a time and place for such talk.
But this still means that you have politics in your hobby, not just directly in the game itself.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [To be fair, Peregrine never said anything about pro-life, that's just what someone else brought up not commented on directly by Peregrine.
Well, dude, that was the point he chose to tackle and the hill he chose to die on, so yes. That's the issue he tackled and that's the kind of person he is, based on my experience with him.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [And rascist, mysogynist or bigot are highly subjective to a lot of people as evidenced by 1.5 years of Trump debates and this thread right here.
Yes, often idealogues do move the goalposts but there are clear and commonly accepted standards for this. In fact, if someone votes for Trump and that makes them 'racist' in your eyes, then perhaps you should be the one ejected from the community for making baseless accusations. (Not 'you' but the proverbial, general 'you').
Disciple of Fate wrote: [The line is an arbitrary concept that would see you chased out of Peregrine's community and vice versa.
If "I don't want to discuss politics" gets me removed from a community, I'm pretty sure that's the same collective cesspit of toxic tumors I was referencing before. Zero loss. In fact, it's a den of TFG's that probably needs to be exposed to the greater community.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [If anything that is what gamergate showed, people just move into two different armed camps. Even the line you draw will be criticized by those you exclude or people that feel excluded because they feel that the line still allows for some horrible people. That is exactly what Sarkeesian is doing, she is trying to get this response and people are willingly giving in by saying things like cancer and HIV. I draw the line there, does that make me the same 'problem' to the group if I point that out?
She's a huckster, you've got that right. She needs the outrage. Granted, my actual strategy (that no one wants to listen to) is to hold her accountable for her behavior on previous panels and then consider her removal. Ignore her altogether. The thing about insane ideologues is usually if you just snicker at them or ignore them altogether, they'll ramp up the rhetoric and do the work for you to make themselves look like absolute lunatics.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [These topics go far beyond something as simple as checking a box on a voting form or your current religious affiliation.
Only if you can't control your emotions like an adult. The majority of human society manages to work, play, cooperate, and even cohabitate despite these trivial little differences.
I'll even say this- if you are genuinely passionate about this hobby and are a healthy, rational adult human being- then you can sit/stand across from someone and have plenty of discussions that aren't politics. If 'politics' is the only topic you can manage to discuss, I mean... you probably need to meet a woman (or man, however you roll) or go see some movies or something. Maybe try some new food. (again, not 'you' specifically).
Also one thing about the people that always bring politics into everything? I've never really seen them with many friends. People get sick of it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
Unless they're yelling racial slurs at me across the table or antagonizing me people around me not really. It's not my place to judge them or their beliefs as long as they're not bombarding me with them for no reason.
And what if he isn't slinging them at you but off handedly inserting them into the game?
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
I can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.
I understand that’s a really simplistic way to explain it but to me, it’s that simple, if they want to talk politics while playing I will politely decline, if they keep pushing it and ignore my wishes, I will politely explain that I am not interested in political discourse and insist they stop while we play, I may even offer to talk about it after, again if they insist on talking about it, one of two things will happen.
1: if they have been fairly polite up to that point then I will concede the game and explain why.
2: if they have been trying to aggressively insist upon the subject, they will be asked to leave in as expedient a manner as possible and informed why.
I have put this into practice fairly often as there is a gentleman at my local club who I would describe as a classic SJW stereotype, we but heads very often even though we are both considered liberals, usually over how he chooses to push his Liberalism, while we play however we have a blast and all that crap goes out the window until drinks after the game where we usually end up debating this or that, he knows there is a time and place for such talk.
But this still means that you have politics in your hobby, not just directly in the game itself.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [To be fair, Peregrine never said anything about pro-life, that's just what someone else brought up not commented on directly by Peregrine.
Well, dude, that was the point he chose to tackle and the hill he chose to die on, so yes. That's the issue he tackled and that's the kind of person he is, based on my experience with him.
I'm familiar with Peregrine. But being pro-life can be a BIG deal, certainly to women amd the opinions your opponent holds can absolutely influence willingness to play. For example a women being pro-choice feeling like the beliefs her opponents hold devalue her as a person. Its incredibly personal where the line falls, there is no clear right and wrong we can all agree one.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [And rascist, mysogynist or bigot are highly subjective to a lot of people as evidenced by 1.5 years of Trump debates and this thread right here.
Yes, often idealogues do move the goalposts but there are clear and commonly accepted standards for this. In fact, if someone votes for Trump and that makes them 'racist' in your eyes, then perhaps you should be the one ejected from the community for making baseless accusations. (Not 'you' but the proverbial, general 'you').
You say that there are clear and commonly accepted standards, but the fact that these debates have been raging for years show that it isn't the case. Even if the person get labelled as not a something, to what extent does their tolerance towards that something come into play then. For example, if someone wasn't a mysogynist themselves but had no problem hanging out with them or being friends with them, would the company they keep not affect your view of them?
Disciple of Fate wrote: [The line is an arbitrary concept that would see you chased out of Peregrine's community and vice versa.
If "I don't want to discuss politics" gets me removed from a community, I'm pretty sure that's the same collective cesspit of toxic tumors I was referencing before. Zero loss. In fact, it's a den of TFG's that probably needs to be exposed to the greater community.
I think blanket banning any real life politics just to preserve "the hobby" doesn't work. Should a community be frozen in time and then not evolve because it would be too political? There are obviously some gakky people in the community that skirt the line, when people like Sarkeesian draw them out shouldn't we clean house at times?
Disciple of Fate wrote: [These topics go far beyond something as simple as checking a box on a voting form or your current religious affiliation.
Only if you can't control your emotions like an adult. The majority of human society manages to work, play, cooperate, and even cohabitate despite these trivial little differences.
And that is exactly the issue with part of the community when people like Sarkeesian show up. Even if she had valid points in your opinion, would you expect any less vitriol from part of the community?
The hobby isn't set in stone, but each time topics like this come up certain people act like it should be.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
Unless they're yelling racial slurs at me across the table or antagonizing me people around me not really. It's not my place to judge them or their beliefs as long as they're not bombarding me with them for no reason.
And what if he isn't slinging them at you but off handedly inserting them into the game?
Disciple of Fate wrote: So for those so adament to keep politics out of it, is there nothing when it comes to beliefs of your opponent that would cross the line of "I'm not playing with that person"?
I can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.
I understand that’s a really simplistic way to explain it but to me, it’s that simple, if they want to talk politics while playing I will politely decline, if they keep pushing it and ignore my wishes, I will politely explain that I am not interested in political discourse and insist they stop while we play, I may even offer to talk about it after, again if they insist on talking about it, one of two things will happen.
1: if they have been fairly polite up to that point then I will concede the game and explain why.
2: if they have been trying to aggressively insist upon the subject, they will be asked to leave in as expedient a manner as possible and informed why.
I have put this into practice fairly often as there is a gentleman at my local club who I would describe as a classic SJW stereotype, we but heads very often even though we are both considered liberals, usually over how he chooses to push his Liberalism, while we play however we have a blast and all that crap goes out the window until drinks after the game where we usually end up debating this or that, he knows there is a time and place for such talk.
But this still means that you have politics in your hobby, not just directly in the game itself.
Sweet Jebus and all the orphans
Really? You yourself admit you have a "classic SJW stereotype" that you debate with and going by your description you're not going to be friends with the guy outside of the hobby. That man is clearly part of the hobby community/enviroment as you describe it. How does that not make politics part of the overal hobby? Is the hobby just narrowed down to the physical act of pushing miniatures around for two hours and nothing else? So adressing all the topics is perfectly fine if you just don't do it directly during the game itself?
I'm familiar with Peregrine. But being pro-life can be a BIG deal, certainly to women amd the opinions your opponent holds can absolutely influence willingness to play. For example a women being pro-choice feeling like the beliefs her opponents hold devalue her as a person. Its incredibly personal where the line falls, there is no clear right and wrong we can all agree one.
Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm familiar with Peregrine. But being pro-life can be a BIG deal, certainly to women amd the opinions your opponent holds can absolutely influence willingness to play. For example a women being pro-choice feeling like the beliefs her opponents hold devalue her as a person. Its incredibly personal where the line falls, there is no clear right and wrong we can all agree one.
Then let me put this bluntly, and I am not flaming you: Gaming communities are not a hugbox, therapy session, safe space, or anything other than a place for people to get together and have fun. If the idea that someone in your community may have different feelings than you is such a troubling and traumatic experience, then you need to stay at home or create your own private gaming group. Gaming should be inclusive, and that means even people who don't like abortion and people who don't like guns should be allowed to enjoy it in the FLGS.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You say that there are clear and commonly accepted standards, but the fact that these debates have been raging for years show that it isn't the case. Even if the person get labelled as not a something, to what extent does their tolerance towards that something come into play then. For example, if someone wasn't a mysogynist themselves but had no problem hanging out with them or being friends with them, would the company they keep not affect your view of them?
If they are unaware of it, then I would make them aware. However, in a PUG I'm less concerned than I would be if they were always together. And you would have to demonstrate some clear evidence they were a bigot, and even then it's on the storekeeper/owner to determine who uses his facilities. If you choose not to play with someone, freedom of association and all, that's on you. For whatever reason you choose. Just don't be expecting everyone to adhere to a fringe definition of 'bigot' when you start accusing someone of hating minorities and women because he had a MAGA hat in his car.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think blanket banning any real life politics just to preserve "the hobby" doesn't work. Should a community be frozen in time and then not evolve because it would be too political? There are obviously some gakky people in the community that skirt the line, when people like Sarkeesian draw them out shouldn't we clean house at times?
I think blanket banning politics works really well, I just think there are some people who can't shut the hell up about their personal politics and it upsets them when they come to realize they're just as unwelcome as the crazy Bible-beaters and fascists.
And yes, there's gakky people in the community. But criticizing Mrs. Sarkeesian's work- and as a public figure, people will hate her just like they hate any other public figure. If you believe people should be 'purged' for hating and mocking Mrs. Sarkeesian, then should not the same standard be held to those that hate Donald Trump or Jordan Petersen? Remember that any little regulation, law, or policy you come up with can always be used against you.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: The hobby isn't set in stone, but each time topics like this come up certain people act like it should be.
And certain people go absolutely bananas when they realize the world isn't all as left or right wing as they are. Every side has its idiots, and we do our best to keep them out. But there is not, nor will their ever be a zero sum solution.
Formosa wrote: Go ahead and ignore the rest of my post disciple, the whole thing that gives it context and not the small part you have quoted that fits your agenda.
Bad show mate, bad show.
I did, you stated multiple times you don't want to talk politics while playing. So I'm asking if that means you're ok with politics in the hobby itself or not.
ScarletRose wrote: Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.
"Privilege". That's a lame, cheap, and intellectually dishonest position to take. "Oh well, the only reason you're able to look past this is because you're privileged and you don't count!"
You mean 'maturity'. I think most rational adults know an actual Nazi when they see one. If there's Nazis at your local PUG, I will honestly say something is certainly wrong with your community and I have to ask what you've done to purge them. If you've made it this far in life and you don't know how to deal with something as pathetic and comical as a modern-day Nazi, then I can't help you. I'm sorry but you'll have to just suffer through this one until you figure it out.
I've been gaming since the 1990's, and the only place I've ever seen Nazis is inside Achtung! Cthulu or Bolt-Action.
Formosa wrote: Go ahead and ignore the rest of my post disciple, the whole thing that gives it context and not the small part you have quoted that fits your agenda.
Bad show mate, bad show.
I did, you stated multiple times you don't want to talk politics while playing. So I'm asking if that means you're ok with politics in the hobby itself or not.
And I answered, you chose to wilfully ignore it and quote me out of context and make an assertion based on that snippet, while ignoring my answer.
“can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.”
That adequately explains my thought process on it, during the game it’s a no go, after it’s fine, I’ve covered in previous posts my opinion on whether or not current real world politics belongs in the fluff.
You’ve been pretty decent so far mate so don’t go down the road of trying to cherry pick parts of replies to try and suit your narrative, it’s beneath you.
ScarletRose wrote: Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.
"Privilege".
You mean 'maturity'. I think most rational adults know an actual Nazi when they see one. If there's Nazis at your local PUG, I will honestly say something is certainly wrong with your community and I have to ask what you've done to purge them.
I've been gaming since the 1990's, and the only place I've ever seen Nazis is inside Achtung! Cthulu or Bolt-Action.
I mean privilege. I'm sure some people aren't up on the world of women's healthcare, but it was not an unpopular statement when a prominent anti-choice politician said women who have had abortions should all be hung. Or I could list any of number of similarly bad anti-LGBT sentiments out there.
Strawmanning that it's always obvious by the brownshirts and armbands is pretty ridiculous.
But since those don't effect the majority of gamers some can pretend to be "mature" and "tolerant" of the people who advocate for those types of actions. Like I said it's easy when you're not on the kill list.
That's a lame, cheap, and intellectually dishonest position to take.
lol "maturity" at it's finest folks. I don't like your position so I'm gonna name call and pretend that's a stance
We expelled a couple of guys that where genuinely creeps towards women, and once a woman that did make fun of a MTG player, a typical player of the store, that its in a whellchair after she lost agaisnt him.
But outside of that I have never encounter anyone as radical as people describe here playing games in a FLGS.
Of course, thats like "But he was so nice!" when people discover their neighbour was a serial killer or a pedophile, but if they keep that to themselves is not like you can do anything about that.
Then theres the more normal "You have political ideas that I believe go agaisnt the interest of my economical group/race/gender/religion/nationality".
And to avoid that is that we have the "No politics, no football, no religion". But if you know that person has ideas you that make yourself unconfortable... normally theres other people you can play with.
I actually agree with Adeptus Doritos that if in your FLGS you have people that has said things like women that have had an abortion should be hung, you have a big problem.
The biggest political statement I have saw in 10 years of gaming was once a militar enginer of the army that said "My space marines never run! Only heretics and communist run!" in a game, and clearly joking. He could have been an absolute homophobe, I don't know, and yeah, I wouldn't have been comfortable playing with people that has very hatefull ideas... but the fact we don't share those ideas makes things easier.
If one is internally bigot but never tells anybody and doesnt do anything to reflect that bigotry... does it make a sound?
ScarletRose wrote: I mean privilege. I'm sure some people aren't up on the world of women's healthcare, but it was not an unpopular statement when a prominent anti-choice politician said women who have had abortions should all be hung. Or I could list any of number of similarly bad anti-LGBT sentiments out there.
And where were you at the point where I mentioned something about being able to push out 'actual bigots'? I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to your imaginary concept of 'privilege' being used as a convenient means to discount and discredit an argument. Sure, you can 'What about' all day long. What about child molesters? Rapists? People with Swine Flu?
And yes, that was a pretty damned unpopular statement unless your only source of information was extreme left-wing publications with the credibility of a Bill Cosby Cocktail.
ScarletRose wrote: Strawmanning that it's always obvious by the brownshirts and armbands is pretty ridiculous.
Pretending that you are surrounded by invisible Nazis is pretty ridiculous, too. What do you suggest, witch hunts? Interrogations? Background checks? If you live in some absurd state of paranoia where ANYONE could be a super secret Nazi in my cereal, then I honestly mean this when I say it: Go get some professional counseling, because this cannot be a healthy way to live your life.
Seriously, just how many Nazis are there stomping into your FLGS? I'm dying to know, I'll make a trip up there on my way to Jersey and snap photographs.
ScarletRose wrote: But since those don't effect the majority of gamers some can pretend to be "mature" and "tolerant" of the people who advocate for those types of actions. Like I said it's easy when you're not on the kill list.
Do you encounter this a lot? Because if you are, then all I can say is that your community is flat-out terrible and you're apparently dealing with more bigots than I've seen even in the deep south. Or, you know, exaggerating a very minor problem to make a very weak point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScarletRose wrote: lol "maturity" at it's finest folks. I don't like your position so I'm gonna name call and pretend that's a stance
"Maturity" is knowing the difference between attacking your position and statement, and name-calling. I suggest you do the research on that before throwing out more baseless accusations.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm familiar with Peregrine. But being pro-life can be a BIG deal, certainly to women amd the opinions your opponent holds can absolutely influence willingness to play. For example a women being pro-choice feeling like the beliefs her opponents hold devalue her as a person. Its incredibly personal where the line falls, there is no clear right and wrong we can all agree one.
Then let me put this bluntly, and I am not flaming you: Gaming communities are not a hugbox, therapy session, safe space, or anything other than a place for people to get together and have fun. If the idea that someone in your community may have different feelings than you is such a troubling and traumatic experience, then you need to stay at home or create your own private gaming group. Gaming should be inclusive, and that means even people who don't like abortion and people who don't like guns should be allowed to enjoy it in the FLGS.
From the reverse, if gaming communities aren't "safe spaces", why can people expect to have their opinions go unchallenged? Why does the opinion they hold trump your (as in general) opinion on what counts as inclusive?
Abortion is a lot different from guns in that respect. Guns are divisive, but they don't go to the core of a significant part of the identity of women like abortion. That's the issue. If you have one player that feels like abortion should be illegal and the other that this would devalue them as a person, which person are you going to side with? Or do you throw them both out? Making these decisions already makes it political, regardless of the fact that you might agree with neither. Its almost unavoidable. There is no line as such, one group would kick one out and the next group the other. It doesn't matter how toxic either person might have been, its already made the group political from the outside.
Disciple of Fate wrote: You say that there are clear and commonly accepted standards, but the fact that these debates have been raging for years show that it isn't the case. Even if the person get labelled as not a something, to what extent does their tolerance towards that something come into play then. For example, if someone wasn't a mysogynist themselves but had no problem hanging out with them or being friends with them, would the company they keep not affect your view of them?
If they are unaware of it, then I would make them aware. However, in a PUG I'm less concerned than I would be if they were always together. And you would have to demonstrate some clear evidence they were a bigot, and even then it's on the storekeeper/owner to determine who uses his facilities. If you choose not to play with someone, freedom of association and all, that's on you. For whatever reason you choose. Just don't be expecting everyone to adhere to a fringe definition of 'bigot' when you start accusing someone of hating minorities and women because he had a MAGA hat in his car.
Problem is, depending on the political color of the majority, the 'fringe' opinion might actually be the majority one. This swings both ways. You might try to keep it as neutral as possible, but making these decisions is going to start moving you towards a box from the outside.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think blanket banning any real life politics just to preserve "the hobby" doesn't work. Should a community be frozen in time and then not evolve because it would be too political? There are obviously some gakky people in the community that skirt the line, when people like Sarkeesian draw them out shouldn't we clean house at times?
I think blanket banning politics works really well, I just think there are some people who can't shut the hell up about their personal politics and it upsets them when they come to realize they're just as unwelcome as the crazy Bible-beaters and fascists.
And yes, there's gakky people in the community. But criticizing Mrs. Sarkeesian's work- and as a public figure, people will hate her just like they hate any other public figure. If you believe people should be 'purged' for hating and mocking Mrs. Sarkeesian, then should not the same standard be held to those that hate Donald Trump or Jordan Petersen? Remember that any little regulation, law, or policy you come up with can always be used against you.
I think it is really hard for people to police everything they say to avoid showing their colors. It might work for some groups with regulars I guess.
People can hate and mock her, the issue I have is when this crosses the line into rape and death threats. Personally I dislike Trump and Peterson for many reasons, but it crosses the line when people go their and start wishing violence upon them. Do we really want people sending rape and death threats in the community?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The hobby isn't set in stone, but each time topics like this come up certain people act like it should be.
And certain people go absolutely bananas when they realize the world isn't all as left or right wing as they are. Every side has its idiots, and we do our best to keep them out. But there is not, nor will their ever be a zero sum solution.
I think the great irony is that the most emotional defenders end up doing the most damage. Lets see how Sarkeesians visit turns out on that front.
ScarletRose wrote: Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.
"Privilege".
You mean 'maturity'. I think most rational adults know an actual Nazi when they see one. If there's Nazis at your local PUG, I will honestly say something is certainly wrong with your community and I have to ask what you've done to purge them.
I've been gaming since the 1990's, and the only place I've ever seen Nazis is inside Achtung! Cthulu or Bolt-Action.
I mean privilege. I'm sure some people aren't up on the world of women's healthcare, but it was not an unpopular statement when a prominent anti-choice politician said women who have had abortions should all be hung. Or I could list any of number of similarly bad anti-LGBT sentiments out there.
Strawmanning that it's always obvious by the brownshirts and armbands is pretty ridiculous.
That's a lame, cheap, and intellectually dishonest position to take.
lol "maturity" at it's finest folks. I don't like so I'm gonna name call and pretend that's a stance
But since those don't effect the majority of gamers some can pretend to be "mature" and "tolerant" of the people who advocate for those types of actions. Like I said it's easy when you're not on the kill list.
It’s pretty obvious you’re using the word “privilege” to shut down conversation here. The background of the poster is irrelevant to the topic at hand. For all you know Adeptus Doritos is a black transperson. Keep the privilege-posting out of it.
Galas wrote: If one is internally bigot but never tells anybody and doesnt do anything to reflect that bigotry... does it make a sound?
No, it doesn't. And to be fair, my policy has always been that if you keep whatever radical or insane ideas you have to yourself around me, I'll never know and can't judge you for them.
Formosa wrote: Go ahead and ignore the rest of my post disciple, the whole thing that gives it context and not the small part you have quoted that fits your agenda.
Bad show mate, bad show.
I did, you stated multiple times you don't want to talk politics while playing. So I'm asking if that means you're ok with politics in the hobby itself or not.
And I answered, you chose to wilfully ignore it and quote me out of context and make an assertion based on that snippet, while ignoring my answer.
“can only speak for myself but it should never get to that point during a game, now if after we get to know each other and they say something... I don’t know anything specifically, maybe they eat babies, but that is the time and place to talk about the merits of baby eating or whatever, at that time I will decide if I want to associate with that person, or even go further and be mates.”
That adequately explains my thought process on it, during the game it’s a no go, after it’s fine, I’ve covered in previous posts my opinion on whether or not current real world politics belongs in the fluff.
You’ve been pretty decent so far mate so don’t go down the road of trying to cherry pick parts of replies to try and suit your narrative, it’s beneath you.
I didn't do it based on the snippit, I'm spoilering to avoid huge quote blocks on my phone.
What you're saying there is that you decide if the person is too horrible too engage with, not that you don't want to engage in politics at all. Based on you other example it shows that you do allow for a certain amount of politics in the 'hobby' at large, just nothing too extreme. You don't want it in your fluff, but for example can it be taken into the company's future if nothing is retroactively changed and depending on the subject matter. I'm trying to figure out the limits of no politics in the hobby.
Disciple of Fate wrote: From the reverse, if gaming communities aren't "safe spaces", why can people expect to have their opinions go unchallenged? Why does the opinion they hold trump your (as in general) opinion on what counts as inclusive?
Who said your opinion was going unchallenged? No one can talk about your penis if you don't take it out and wave it at people, however.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Abortion is a lot different from guns in that respect. Guns are divisive, but they don't go to the core of a significant part of the identity of women like abortion. That's the issue. If you have one player that feels like abortion should be illegal and the other that this would devalue them as a person, which person are you going to side with? Or do you throw them both out? Making these decisions already makes it political, regardless of the fact that you might agree with neither. Its almost unavoidable. There is no line as such, one group would kick one out and the next group the other. It doesn't matter how toxic either person might have been, its already made the group political from the outside.
Simple, I'm going to throw out the one that doesn't shut up about it after they'e been warned to keep it to themselves and avoid one another.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Problem is, depending on the political color of the majority, the 'fringe' opinion might actually be the majority one. This swings both ways. You might try to keep it as neutral as possible, but making these decisions is going to start moving you towards a box from the outside.
Well, considering I've lived from one end of the US to the other, I've never seen any large group of people that believes 'racism' is anything other than 'discriminating or harassing someone based on their race'. Maybe individuals in small groups, but I'm pretty sure in all of them if you run in there cracking jokes about ANY race, you'll find yourself out in the street. And generally banned from ALL local establishments.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think it is really hard for people to police everything they say to avoid showing their colors. It might work for some groups with regulars I guess.
I think it's really easy to keep things to yourself and not act out whenever you hear someone voted a different way or suspect they hold different beliefs. It's called 'being civil' and most places that aren't surrounded by barbed wire or Nannies tend to do fine with 'being civil'.
Disciple of Fate wrote: People can hate and mock her, the issue I have is when this crosses the line into rape and death threats. Personally I dislike Trump and Peterson for many reasons, but it crosses the line when people go their and start wishing violence upon them. Do we really want people sending rape and death threats in the community?
Challenge: Find me people making threats and I'll wholeheartedly support punishing them to the fullest extent of the law. No, we don't. This is not related to ridiculing, disagreeing, or disliking the speaker in question.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the great irony is that the most emotional defenders end up doing the most damage. Lets see how Sarkeesians visit turns out on that front.
As it stands now, it's not a popular decision- even among left-leaning feminists.
ScarletRose wrote: Exactly, the whole "no politics" stance is coming from a place of privilege that's not being accounted for. It's easy to say "oh well I don't do politics, you should tolerate your opponent" when the people calling for mass murder don't have you or people like you on their list.
"Privilege".
You mean 'maturity'. I think most rational adults know an actual Nazi when they see one. If there's Nazis at your local PUG, I will honestly say something is certainly wrong with your community and I have to ask what you've done to purge them.
I've been gaming since the 1990's, and the only place I've ever seen Nazis is inside Achtung! Cthulu or Bolt-Action.
I mean privilege. I'm sure some people aren't up on the world of women's healthcare, but it was not an unpopular statement when a prominent anti-choice politician said women who have had abortions should all be hung. Or I could list any of number of similarly bad anti-LGBT sentiments out there.
Strawmanning that it's always obvious by the brownshirts and armbands is pretty ridiculous.
But since those don't effect the majority of gamers some can pretend to be "mature" and "tolerant" of the people who advocate for those types of actions. Like I said it's easy when you're not on the kill list.
That's a lame, cheap, and intellectually dishonest position to take.
lol "maturity" at it's finest folks. I don't like your position so I'm gonna name call and pretend that's a stance
I always like it when people that were born on third and think they hit a home run lecture women and minorities that there isn't a problem because it's not their problem.
I do have to say: when we talk about “privilege,” it is more often than not the ability to *not* engage in things. For example, I’m a gay guy. When the marriage debate was happening, I’d hear my straight friends often say, “Who cares? It’s not a big deal” because it wasn’t...for them. They had the ability to not engage with the issue because it didn’t affect them. And it was infuriating, because it does affect *me*, their friend, massively. The LGBT community had no choice but to engage to try and get equal treatment, where they could just check out. That’s what people often mean when they say “privilege” - the ability to check out and not have your life made harder by those sorts of things.
I think often times “privilege” gets tossed around as a buzzword that people either latch onto or see it and instantly toss it aside. Neither does justice to the reality.
Nurglitch wrote: I always like it when people that were born on third and think they hit a home run lecture women and minorities that there isn't a problem because it's not their problem.
I was born on third? Please, tell me more about my life. I'd like to know about my ethnic background, too, since you've made it a point to assume my race, upbringing, economic background, heritage, family situation, etc.
Because you know what I love? People that assume that everyone else has it just as easy as they do, and then try to play White Male Messiah.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I do have to say: when we talk about “privilege,” it is more often than not the ability to *not* engage in things. For example, I’m a gay guy. When the marriage debate was happening, I’d hear my straight friends often say, “Who cares? It’s not a big deal” because it wasn’t...for them. They had the ability to not engage with the issue because it didn’t affect them. And it was infuriating, because it does affect *me*, their friend, massively. The LGBT community had no choice but to engage to try and get equal treatment, where they could just check out. That’s what people often mean when they say “privilege” - the ability to check out and not have your life made harder by those sorts of things.
I think often times “privilege” gets tossed around as a buzzword that people either latch onto or see it and instantly toss it aside. Neither does justice to the reality.
Just FYI, the 'who cares' generally meant, "Who cares if gays want to get married? What's the actual problem with that" but it's really cool that you assumed your friends didn't care about your feelings.
But we aren't talking about political discussion, or privilege, etc... in general context about life or debates in whatever place they may take.
We are talking about not allowing political discussion in a FLGS. Thats what many communities do to thrive.
Other option, that other communities do, of course, is to declare their intentions, what they acept and what they don't. Is another legitimate way of building a community.
That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.
Nurglitch wrote: Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up....
No, it's telling them "I am assuming your entire life based on general factors, often with as little as your skin color as a basis, to discredit your opinion and silence and shame you." And no, I will not be checking any 'privilege'. Nor will I be seeking sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, or the Illuminati.
Nurglitch wrote: That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.
I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”
Nurglitch wrote: I always like it when people that were born on third and think they hit a home run lecture women and minorities that there isn't a problem because it's not their problem.
I was born on third? Please, tell me more about my life. I'd like to know about my ethnic background, too, since you've made it a point to assume my race, upbringing, economic background, heritage, family situation, etc.
Because you know what I love? People that assume that everyone else has it just as easy as they do, and then try to play White Male Messiah.
Perhaps you could revisit what you just wrote. Maybe consider what I said, and try to paraphrase in your own words. It might be interesting to you. It might not.
Sinful Hero wrote: I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”
Yeah, I kinda thought we got rid of ridiculous ideas like "Your thoughts are only worth about 3/5 of someone else's". A long time ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Perhaps you could revisit what you just wrote. Maybe consider what I said, and try to paraphrase in your own words. It might be interesting to you. It might not.
What you said has been considered, and disregarded.
Nurglitch wrote: That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.
I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”
Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.
Nurglitch wrote: Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.
Sinful Hero wrote: I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”
Yeah, I kinda thought we got rid of ridiculous ideas like "Your thoughts are only worth about 3/5 of someone else's". A long time ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Perhaps you could revisit what you just wrote. Maybe consider what I said, and try to paraphrase in your own words. It might be interesting to you. It might not.
What you said has been considered, and disregarded.
Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the effort you've made.
Nurglitch wrote: Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the effort you've made.
You're welcome. I'm sorry we didn't agree. Please have a nice day. We can discuss other things another time if you like, but I do not believe we will agree on this topic and will have to move on from it for fear of causing a disruption or rift where one is not warranted.
Nurglitch wrote: That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.
I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”
Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.
In my experience, I have not encountered the phrase used that way. Based upon that I must disagree.
Just FYI, the 'who cares' generally meant, "Who cares if gays want to get married? What's the actual problem with that" but it's really cool that you assumed your friends didn't care about your feelings.
Just FYI, I love that you assume you knew the context and intent of conversations you didn't hear with people you never met...and then come down on other people for making assumptions. Really paints you in a great light...but it does set a nice example for everyone reading this thinking, "Hey, I wonder if those anti-SJW types like Doritos have a point...oh. Nvm." All it does it throw more dirt on your own grave.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: Just FYI, I love that you assume you knew the context and intent of conversations you didn't hear with people you never met...and then come down on other people for making assumptions. Really paints you in a great light.
Well, I didn't want to just flat-out say your friends were jerks, and I was speaking from personal experience, just as you were. But it sounds to me like you did quite a bit of presumption as well based on your own personal experience. Neither of ours are universal.
But it sounds to me like your statement implies that you didn't understand much of the context. Believe what you like, if the interpretation you take bothers you- then that's on you to deal with. If anything, I was trying to be helpful. But choose your own adventure here.
Sinful Hero wrote: I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”
Yeah, I kinda thought we got rid of ridiculous ideas like "Your thoughts are only worth about 3/5 of someone else's". A long time ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Perhaps you could revisit what you just wrote. Maybe consider what I said, and try to paraphrase in your own words. It might be interesting to you. It might not.
What you said has been considered, and disregarded.
Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the effort you've made.
You're far more kind to the troll than you need to be, but I thank you for your well-worded points here.
Nurglitch wrote: Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.
OK I checked. All of my points still stand.
Now what?
Checking your privilege is something you do with someone, the person who you're talking to, not some moment of introspection where you decide that you were right after all. Checking your own word is like being your own editor or lawyer or whatever - it doesn't work well. What's your background? I'm a white middle-aged Canadian guy, second-generation immigrant of Anglo-Irish parents. I'm married with kids, I work as a technical writer, and while my family managed to achieve upper-middle class economically I'm moved down to what I suppose can be called lumpen-proleteriat, or office-worker working-class. I play a bunch of board games and war-gamers, and I'm trying to combine the two in a game project called Titanomachina. I first encountered feminism through my mother, but it took an elective during my undergraduate degree to really realize just how good I had it. I've been a feminist ever since, and like I said it's a bit like the sun-glasses from They Live in that when I have it forefront of my mind I notice all of those little things that both white feminists and intersectional feminists point out. As you can see, I have a lot of privilege despite failing economically with the deck stacked in my favour.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: Just FYI, I love that you assume you knew the context and intent of conversations you didn't hear with people you never met...and then come down on other people for making assumptions. Really paints you in a great light.
Well, I didn't want to just flat-out say your friends were jerks, and I was speaking from personal experience, just as you were. But it sounds to me like you did quite a bit of presumption as well based on your own personal experience. Neither of ours are universal.
But it sounds to me like your statement implies that you didn't understand much of the context. Believe what you like, if the interpretation you take bothers you- then that's on you to deal with. If anything, I was trying to be helpful. But choose your own adventure here.
No, you weren't trying to be helpful, you were trying to troll or incite. If you were trying to be helpful, you would've said something like, "Usually when I've heard it, it's meant X. Could that have been what was up?" and I would've explained that no, I was paraphrasing conversations for convenience and the intent was as I originally intended. What you did was the literal opposite of "trying to be helpful." If it was an honest mistake, okay, but you need to check your writing (in addition to priviledge? lol).
Nurglitch wrote: That's the weird thing about privilege, is that it is the privilege of not having to trouble yourself with the problems of Others. It's a blind-spot. Telling someone to check their privilege isn't a left-PC way of telling someone to shut up, it's telling them to revise their comment with some consideration for the differences, nay inequalities, between us.
I disagree. Telling someone to “check their privilege” is a bludgeon used to silence opposition. It’s just another way to say, “Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re X.”
Nope. The appropriate response is to check how your privilege is not shared by the person saying that. Ask how you could have re-phrased your opinion. Ask about the person you're talking to and engage rather than presuming any commonality. Checking your privilege is like checking your work, not like checking your coat.
In my experience, I have not encountered the phrase used that way. Based upon that I must disagree.
I also have that issue where the dictionary definition of a word or phrase doesn't match the way I've heard it used in everyday life. It can make things confusing. I blame descriptivist approaches to language.
Disciple of Fate wrote: From the reverse, if gaming communities aren't "safe spaces", why can people expect to have their opinions go unchallenged? Why does the opinion they hold trump your (as in general) opinion on what counts as inclusive?
Who said your opinion was going unchallenged? No one can talk about your penis if you don't take it out and wave it at people, however.
That only works if no one never ever lets personal views slip into amy conversation, which seems pretty impossible.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Abortion is a lot different from guns in that respect. Guns are divisive, but they don't go to the core of a significant part of the identity of women like abortion. That's the issue. If you have one player that feels like abortion should be illegal and the other that this would devalue them as a person, which person are you going to side with? Or do you throw them both out? Making these decisions already makes it political, regardless of the fact that you might agree with neither. Its almost unavoidable. There is no line as such, one group would kick one out and the next group the other. It doesn't matter how toxic either person might have been, its already made the group political from the outside.
Simple, I'm going to throw out the one that doesn't shut up about it after they'e been warned to keep it to themselves and avoid one another.
And here is the start of a toxic group. One person starts believing the group is letting baby murderers stay in and the other person someone that treats women as second class people. The rift has just been plastered over, how are you going to avoid people privately starting to take sides? If it really is that important to them its going to eventually come to a head again. And whoever gets kicked out is going to paint the group as whoever stays in. A certain level of politics is impossible to avoid just because you don't have absolute control over what individuals do.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Problem is, depending on the political color of the majority, the 'fringe' opinion might actually be the majority one. This swings both ways. You might try to keep it as neutral as possible, but making these decisions is going to start moving you towards a box from the outside.
Well, considering I've lived from one end of the US to the other, I've never seen any large group of people that believes 'racism' is anything other than 'discriminating or harassing someone based on their race'. Maybe individuals in small groups, but I'm pretty sure in all of them if you run in there cracking jokes about ANY race, you'll find yourself out in the street. And generally banned from ALL local establishments.
Sure, but what you feel like would be crossing the line isn't objective is what I'm saying. Most of us agree rascism is bad and give the above description, but there certainly seems to be wiggle room between people on when it actually crosses into said description. For the Netherlands there are certain issues related to a specific rascism debate that have a pretty strong majority going for the tradition route because culture/heritage. Some people say it should be obvious, but it sure as hell isn't.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think it is really hard for people to police everything they say to avoid showing their colors. It might work for some groups with regulars I guess.
I think it's really easy to keep things to yourself and not act out whenever you hear someone voted a different way or suspect they hold different beliefs. It's called 'being civil' and most places that aren't surrounded by barbed wire or Nannies tend to do fine with 'being civil'.
Haha, you say that. But I know someone in a different community for which it really isn't easy and it sorts of flops out each time. He still is in the group, I don't know whether that is because they think its just stupidity or they don't care.
Disciple of Fate wrote: People can hate and mock her, the issue I have is when this crosses the line into rape and death threats. Personally I dislike Trump and Peterson for many reasons, but it crosses the line when people go their and start wishing violence upon them. Do we really want people sending rape and death threats in the community?
Challenge: Find me people making threats and I'll wholeheartedly support punishing them to the fullest extent of the law. No, we don't. This is not related to ridiculing, disagreeing, or disliking the speaker in question.
Exactly, luckily enough I haven't seen that kind of sentiment here (and to be fair Dakka would quickly kick that to the curb). This is the issue the gamergate 'community' faced, they inadvertendly ended up in the same camp as people doing that. Its problematic and the "hobby" community should avoid crossing into that at all cost.
Over on boardgamegeek its already devolved in certain posters arguing that rape threats are just jokes or not a big deal/don't be so sensitive in relation to Sarkeesian speaking up. I haven't heard about any threats yet, knock on wood people.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the great irony is that the most emotional defenders end up doing the most damage. Lets see how Sarkeesians visit turns out on that front.
As it stands now, it's not a popular decision- even among left-leaning feminists.
Well as they saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Checking your privilege is something you do with someone, the person who you're talking to, not some moment of introspection where you decide that you were right after all.
In other words, ask someone you disagree with what you can do to agree with them.
Sorry, I don't like this game. I'll be standing by my points.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I do have to say: when we talk about “privilege,” it is more often than not the ability to *not* engage in things. For example, I’m a gay guy. When the marriage debate was happening, I’d hear my straight friends often say, “Who cares? It’s not a big deal” because it wasn’t...for them. They had the ability to not engage with the issue because it didn’t affect them. And it was infuriating, because it does affect *me*, their friend, massively. The LGBT community had no choice but to engage to try and get equal treatment, where they could just check out. That’s what people often mean when they say “privilege” - the ability to check out and not have your life made harder by those sorts of things.
I think often times “privilege” gets tossed around as a buzzword that people either latch onto or see it and instantly toss it aside. Neither does justice to the reality.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That only works if no one never ever lets personal views slip into amy conversation, which seems pretty impossible.
No, it only fails if the peoples' only passion in life are political views. Find new interests- cars, movies, food, vacation spots, beer, something. Life is full of things. Crazy thought- you're playing a game with some of the richest lore and plenty of points of debate exist in that. Focus there.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And here is the start of a toxic group. One person starts believing the group is letting baby murderers stay in and the other person someone that treats women as second class people. The rift has just been plastered over, how are you going to avoid people privately starting to take sides? If it really is that important to them its going to eventually come to a head again. And whoever gets kicked out is going to paint the group as whoever stays in. A certain level of politics is impossible to avoid just because you don't have absolute control over what individuals do.
No, here is the start of a smaller group with less drama. Again, you paint them like they're both lunatics that can't stow it. Toss 'em both out and everyone else can enjoy some peace and fun.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Sure, but what you feel like would be crossing the line isn't objective is what I'm saying. Most of us agree rascism is bad and give the above description, but there certainly seems to be wiggle room between people on when it actually crosses into said description. For the Netherlands there are certain issues related to a specific rascism debate that have a pretty strong majority going for the tradition route because culture/heritage. Some people say it should be obvious, but it sure as hell isn't.
How about this: If it's racist, by definition, then it's racist. If some white guy says, "I'm white, I suck at basketball" then that's probably not really on the same level.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Haha, you say that. But I know someone in a different community for which it really isn't easy and it sorts of flops out each time. He still is in the group, I don't know whether that is because they think its just stupidity or they don't care.
Everyone has an 'idiot cousin', dude. That's the truth.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Exactly, luckily enough I haven't seen that kind of sentiment here (and to be fair Dakka would quickly kick that to the curb). This is the issue the gamergate 'community' faced, they inadvertendly ended up in the same camp as people doing that. Its problematic and the "hobby" community should avoid crossing into that at all cost.
And yes, I fully agree- Anita may deserve a lot of ridicule, at most- but not threats. At no point should anyone, no matter what their beliefs are, be threatened with violence of any sort. However, as I said before, "Everyone has an idiot cousin". Let's not say 'Gamergate' should be painted the same because a small handful of morons did something stupid (that was, as a matter of record, a problem for most Gamergate participants and supporters- they encouraged the release of the names and information and offered to cooperate with authorities).
Disciple of Fate wrote: Over on boardgamegeek its already devolved in certain posters arguing that rape threats are just jokes or not a big deal/don't be so sensitive in relation to Sarkeesian speaking up. I haven't heard about any threats yet, knock on wood people.
They're 'jokes' with your buddies in a private place, at most. I'll look at my bestie and tell him I'm going to rape him if he sticks his hand in my chip bag. He threatens it right back. Now, we're not making these 'jokes' in public. Because 'know your audience'.
Absolutely. I think nothing short of people saying, "Look, this is how the woman conducted herself on previous panels" should be all that is needed as a 'case' against her speaking. But people are gonna fire up the flames, and I honestly think that's the intent here.
Galas wrote: Of course during Gamergate many things happened. That, nobody claims isn't true.
The point here is... now that we are years in the future after gamergate... what, lasting change has she made, or gamergate made, to the gaming community?
Gamer journalists are as corrupt as unprofesional as ever, and the "culture war" is still raging on because the world hasn't really change in that regard.
Really good points.
I think that was what I was trying to get at: no sustainable change really occurred after all that turmoil, somehow celebrity still lends some weight to her arguments.
It is like a reverse ad hominem fallacy where by attacking her arguments automatically nulls them since she is a member of the wronged group (at least if you happen to be male).
Speaking of fallacies, it would be the good old "slippery slope" to think her going to Gencon could "ruin" or greatly improve the experience, it would be largely based on your preference.
Checking your privilege is something you do with someone, the person who you're talking to, not some moment of introspection where you decide that you were right after all.
In other words, ask someone you disagree with what you can do to agree with them.
Sorry, I don't like this game. I'll be standing by my points.
I think it's moreso about being considerate of others, although coming to an agreement or find common ground seems more constructive than some sort of medieval scholarly competition. I suggest it's preferable to a game in which we dogmatically reiterate that we are Right and therefore Justified. I mean, if you were playing a game would you rather get on with the game or rules-lawyer it for everyone?
Gamergate had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism. Gamergate started when someone posted their unsubstantiated claim that their ex-girlfriend cheated on them with 5 other men and that had apparently done so for favourable coverage of her game (even though none of the people she supposedly slept with ever reviewed her game or even mentioned her except one who included her game in a list of games coming out in the future).
How many actual instances of corruption did gamergate uncover and expose?
Nurglitch wrote: I think it's moreso about being considerate of others, although coming to an agreement or find common ground seems more constructive than some sort of medieval scholarly competition. I suggest it's preferable to a game in which we dogmatically reiterate that we are Right and therefore Justified. I mean, if you were playing a game would you rather get on with the game or rules-lawyer it for everyone?
It is. And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being 'considerate' to someone else's position, but at the same time we're not discussing debate- we're discussing the matter of keeping an open establishment civil and peaceful. At a certain point, you can't worry yourself with an individual being buttmad because their personal feelings weren't taken into consideration when they breached the peace and wouldn't stow it.
It takes a bit of maturity to come to terms with a place not being 'your spot' for whatever reason. I've had to do it, you just up and find a new place to play where people either see things more your way or where no one makes a big deal out of their beliefs.
Checking your privilege is something you do with someone, the person who you're talking to, not some moment of introspection where you decide that you were right after all.
In other words, ask someone you disagree with what you can do to agree with them.
Sorry, I don't like this game. I'll be standing by my points.
I mean, if you were playing a game would you rather get on with the game or rules-lawyer it for everyone?
I think you might reconsider that question considering that you're posting on Dakka.
Didn't that girl end up coming out and admitting to an affair with one of the employees of the publication? Or was it the man himself when his spouse caught him.
And not long after, quite a few publications were disclosing their conflicts of interest.
You're still wrong about how it started. It started because as soon as that happened, publications started pissing all over gamers. But hey, interpret it how you like. I think their passion was misguided on an already dead industry that has been well-known to be incestuous and shady.
Disciple of Fate wrote: That only works if no one never ever lets personal views slip into amy conversation, which seems pretty impossible.
No, it only fails if the peoples' only passion in life are political views. Find new interests- cars, movies, food, vacation spots, beer, something. Life is full of things. Crazy thought- you're playing a game with some of the richest lore and plenty of points of debate exist in that. Focus there.
Issue is, even inside the lore debate you come across it, we have had discussions on the realism of female guardsmen in 40K on Dakka. People drag politics into everything if the want to, nothing is safe. One follow up sentence on how you feel about a certain lore aspect can quickly slip into the political. Remember the debate on Grey Knights when they suddenly started to wear the latest fashion made from 100% Sister of Battle?
Disciple of Fate wrote: And here is the start of a toxic group. One person starts believing the group is letting baby murderers stay in and the other person someone that treats women as second class people. The rift has just been plastered over, how are you going to avoid people privately starting to take sides? If it really is that important to them its going to eventually come to a head again. And whoever gets kicked out is going to paint the group as whoever stays in. A certain level of politics is impossible to avoid just because you don't have absolute control over what individuals do.
No, here is the start of a smaller group with less drama. Again, you paint them like they're both lunatics that can't stow it. Toss 'em both out and everyone else can enjoy some peace and fun.
And ends in both sides trying to paint your little group as bad to the general public. People are dramatic, I've seen it happen. And this is how the general public came to view the gamergate 'community' as bad so easily, people went "look, they're shutting me out" and showing the bad eggs to them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Sure, but what you feel like would be crossing the line isn't objective is what I'm saying. Most of us agree rascism is bad and give the above description, but there certainly seems to be wiggle room between people on when it actually crosses into said description. For the Netherlands there are certain issues related to a specific rascism debate that have a pretty strong majority going for the tradition route because culture/heritage. Some people say it should be obvious, but it sure as hell isn't.
How about this: If it's racist, by definition, then it's racist. If some white guy says, "I'm white, I suck at basketball" then that's probably not really on the same level.
But you decide the level for yourself, rascists can still believe they aren't rascists and there certainly isn't always objective agreement by everyone on whether someone is.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Haha, you say that. But I know someone in a different community for which it really isn't easy and it sorts of flops out each time. He still is in the group, I don't know whether that is because they think its just stupidity or they don't care.
Everyone has an 'idiot cousin', dude. That's the truth.
Yes, but he is still part of a community in the wider hobby. He is a bad egg tolerated in his group. But its really easy to use him to make all of us look bad. He is part of the hobby. And when people like Sarkeesian point those out, its hard to argue that they aren't bad people. For the good of the overal community he should not be in it, yet he is.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Over on boardgamegeek its already devolved in certain posters arguing that rape threats are just jokes or not a big deal/don't be so sensitive in relation to Sarkeesian speaking up. I haven't heard about any threats yet, knock on wood people.
They're 'jokes' with your buddies in a private place, at most. I'll look at my bestie and tell him I'm going to rape him if he sticks his hand in my chip bag. He threatens it right back. Now, we're not making these 'jokes' in public. Because 'know your audience'.
But they literally are arguing that rape threats are a joke and not a big deal on a publically viewable hobby forum in relation fi her speaking role. I still don't agree with the use in private, but as said, what you don't know you can't adress.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Gamergate had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism. Gamergate started when someone posted their unsubstantiated claim that their ex-girlfriend cheated on them with 5 other men and that had apparently done so for favourable coverage of her game (even though none of the people she supposedly slept with ever reviewed her game or even mentioned her except one who included her game in a list of games coming out in the future).
How many actual instances of corruption did gamergate uncover and expose?
Yeah, you mean you think you uncovered a conflict of interest in an journalistic industry that is dependent on the game industry's good will for survival and being paid by the game industry to go to reveals and conventions? Say it ain't so!
Disciple of Fate wrote: Issue is, even inside the lore debate you come across it, we have had discussions on the realism of female guardsmen in 40K on Dakka. People drag politics into everything if the want to, nothing is safe. One follow up sentence on how you feel about a certain lore aspect can quickly slip into the political. Remember the debate on Grey Knights when they suddenly started to wear the latest fashion made from 100% Sister of Battle?
Let me show you how I handle these things:
*Shrug* "I just don't care that much about it."
Disciple of Fate wrote: And ends in both sides trying to paint your little group as bad to the general public. People are dramatic, I've seen it happen. And this is how the general public came to view the gamergate 'community' as bad so easily, people went "look, they're shutting me out" and showing the bad eggs to them.
Then there's two sides of an argument with conflicting stories, both booted out of my hypothetical store. They can have whatever opinions they want outside, in the street. Other people- more people are inside, having fun.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yes, but he is still part of a community in the wider hobby. He is a bad egg tolerated in his group. But its really easy to use him to make all of us look bad. He is part of the hobby. And when people like Sarkeesian point those out, its hard to argue that they aren't bad people. For the good of the overal community he should not be in it, yet he is.
Well, if someone's actually toxic and you're not putting them out- it's kind of on you, or whoever makes the decisions.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But they literally are arguing that rape threats are a joke and not a big deal on a publically viewable hobby forum in relation fi her speaking role. I still don't agree with the use in private, but as said, what you don't know you can't adress.
Yeah, they're actually wrong. Communicating a threat to someone is wrong. Not a joke.
And you can not agree with what I do in private all day long. It's not going to change it and it's never going to be something you're exposed to. So it's really not a concern.
Didn't that girl end up coming out and admitting to an affair with one of the employees of the publication? Or was it the man himself when his spouse caught him.
And not long after, quite a few publications were disclosing their conflicts of interest.
You're still wrong about how it started. It started because as soon as that happened, publications started pissing all over gamers. But hey, interpret it how you like. I think their passion was misguided on an already dead industry that has been well-known to be incestuous and shady.
She did have a relationship with someone who mentioned her game in a list of upcoming games, as I said. That was all.
And no, Gamergate did not start due to publications pissing on gamers. It started due to people organising harassment campaigns against Zoe Quinn and others.
Yeah, you mean you think you uncovered a conflict of interest in an journalistic industry that is dependent on the game industry's good will for survival and being paid by the game industry to go to reveals and conventions? Say it ain't so!
True, but you're also missing the point.
See, we don't need gaming journalism. We don't need a third party between us and a gaming company. And we damned sure don't need them if they're going to use their position to get laid and when they get called on it, lash out at the community they claim to represent.
Truth is, the target wasn't the gaming journalism industry. It 'changing' wasn't the objective, but it was a second-order effect. The target was the consumer, who should realize exactly what they're buying when they pick up a game journo rag or click on one of their pages.
She did have a relationship with someone who mentioned her game in a list of upcoming games, as I said.
And no, Gamergate did not start due to publications pissing on gamers. It started due to people organising harassment campaigns against Zoe Quinn and others.
She did have a relationship with someone who mentioned her game in a list of upcoming games, as I said.
And no, Gamergate did not start due to publications pissing on gamers. It started due to people organising harassment campaigns against Zoe Quinn and others.
Yeah, you mean you think you uncovered a conflict of interest in an journalistic industry that is dependent on the game industry's good will for survival and being paid by the game industry to go to reveals and conventions? Say it ain't so!
True, but you're also missing the point.
See, we don't need gaming journalism. We don't need a third party between us and a gaming company. And we damned sure don't need them if they're going to use their position to get laid and when they get called on it, lash out at the community they claim to represent.
Truth is, the target wasn't the gaming journalism industry. It 'changing' wasn't the objective, but it was a second-order effect. The target was the consumer, who should realize exactly what they're buying when they pick up a game journo rag or click on one of their pages.
I mean only a a total idiot would not realize the massive conflict of interest these people have. From magazines to websites, almost all their adverts are for videogames. Who do these people think pays for these adds? Why would they ever bite the hand that feeds them? Anyone who considers it more than infotainment really missed the memo since at least the mid 2000's.
People were making mountains out of mole hills. Who cares if it was actually true that a dev slept with reporters for good reviews, everybody already knew the reviews were manufactured to the desire of the client anyway, regardless of any potential sexual favors. It was an absolutely ridiculous 'controversy' that even slowpoke had already moved on from. It was hilarious to see the community attempting to 'convince' game journalists to turn on the people paying their bills though, makes you wonder how many of them didn't even bother turning off add blocker going on the sites.
The community manufactured outrage and drama years after it would have made sense, it exploded in their face. Why did they do it? Well everyone has their theories, but the common one is absolute bollocks.
Are you implying that a site dedicated to the opposition of Gamergate should be determined as a credible, unbiased source of information on Gamergate?
Where do you get information on black crime statistics, Stormfront?
"How like me" indeed. Expecting a credible source instead of the absolute worst source someone could scrounge on the internet. Remind me to lower my expectations.
Are you implying that a site dedicated to the opposition of Gamergate should be determined as a credible, unbiased source of information on Gamergate?
Where do you get information on black crime statistics, Stormfront?
"How like me" indeed. Expecting a credible source instead of the absolute worst source someone could scrounge on the internet. Remind me to lower my expectations.
The list has citations and links to the relevant posts. Do you have any evidence that any of what it shows is untrue?
I mean only a a total idiot would not realize the massive conflict of interest these people have. From magazines to websites, almost all their adverts are for videogames. Who do these people think pays for these adds? Why would they ever bite the hand that feeds them? Anyone who considers it more than infotainment really missed the memo since at least the mid 2000's.
And I'm gonna blow your mind here (And just your mind, don't get any cheeky ideas- you haven't bought me dinner and drinks): I agree. Except not mid-2000's. You have no idea how they hyped up shovelware as far back as the 90's and even in the 80's. Gaming Journalism is gonna shill, no matter what. And the GG crowd should have focused instead on the shady activity of gaming companies (lockboxes, release-date DLC, BUYING THE DLC TO GET THE ACTUAL ENDING OF A GAME)- all these things are NOW becoming major issues and should have been tackled back then, and if the game journalists tried to defend them we should have given them the finger and fought harder.
Disciple of Fate wrote: People were making mountains out of mole hills. Who cares if it was actually true that a dev slept with reporters for good reviews, everybody already knew the reviews were manufactured to the desire of the client anyway, regardless of any potential sexual favors. It was an absolutely ridiculous 'controversy' that even slowpoke had already moves on from. It was hilarious to see the community attempting to 'convince' game journalists to turn on the people paying their bills though, makes you wonder how many of them didn't even bother turning off add blocker going on the sites.
Yeah, and her 'favorable review' was almost a sad nod out of obligation. The problem was attacking their customers- and by all standards, the customers had a right to be mad right back.
But yeah, it was a mole hill. It could have sparked a fire that did something decent, but it scattered and went nowhere.
That would be the Kotaku that exposed the corruption which caused Gamespot to fire one of their reviewers? You know, more to expose corruption in gaming journalism than any gamergater?
A Town Called Malus wrote: That would be the Kotaku that exposed the corruption which caused Gamespot to fire one of their reviewers? You know, more to expose corruption in gaming journalism than any gamergater?
You mean 'covering a consumer outrage'? Yeah, they really 'exposed' something that was already getting flash-mob protests (remember those?). Hell, if you want to be specific- Cracked was covering this kind of nonsense long before Kotaku's hipsters started trawling Twitter for a story.
A Town Called Malus wrote: That would be the Kotaku that exposed the corruption which caused Gamespot to fire one of their reviewers? You know, more to expose corruption in gaming journalism than any gamergater?
You mean 'covering a consumer outrage'? Yeah, they really 'exposed' something that was already getting flash-mob protests (remember those?). Hell, if you want to be specific- Cracked was covering this kind of nonsense long before Kotaku's hipsters started trawling Twitter for a story.
Nope. They found the definitive proof to what had previously been rumour and speculation.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Nope. They found the definitive proof to what had previously been rumour and speculation.
Uh... you mean the 'proof' being "The guy wrote an unfavorable review in a magazine full of ads for that game and immediately got fired" that was obvious to literally everyone as soon as it happened?
It's clear that you're completely convinced that I'm a 100% supporter of Gamergate. No, it was like watching your kid pick up a bat and thinking he was finally going to learn to play baseball... and then watching him waste his time smashing watermelons in the back yard.
I mean only a a total idiot would not realize the massive conflict of interest these people have. From magazines to websites, almost all their adverts are for videogames. Who do these people think pays for these adds? Why would they ever bite the hand that feeds them? Anyone who considers it more than infotainment really missed the memo since at least the mid 2000's.
And I'm gonna blow your mind here (And just your mind, don't get any cheeky ideas- you haven't bought me dinner and drinks): I agree. Except not mid-2000's. You have no idea how they hyped up shovelware as far back as the 90's and even in the 80's. Gaming Journalism is gonna shill, no matter what. And the GG crowd should have focused instead on the shady activity of gaming companies (lockboxes, release-date DLC, BUYING THE DLC TO GET THE ACTUAL ENDING OF A GAME)- all these things are NOW becoming major issues and should have been tackled back then, and if the game journalists tried to defend them we should have given them the finger and fought harder.
It doesn't really blow my mind, it depends on age. I'm old enough to remember it in the 90's at least. But the move to the internet made it even more acute which is why I picked the mid 2000's. Magazine sales start to decline and people don't pay to view your site. Income from your reader base takes a large hit. Either the industry steps up with adverts and paid reviews or you go out of business. Nowadays crowdfunding allows some independent voices to more easily survive professionaly.
The GG community focussing on the game industry would have just caused another rift. We already have rifts like the casual rift and the company defender rift. Game companies as such have already gotten away with loads, they won't start backtracking, they just find another model to earn money. In the end, the community is rarely united enough to make an actual difference. Battlefront 2 was perhaps one, but it still has its defenders.
Disciple of Fate wrote: People were making mountains out of mole hills. Who cares if it was actually true that a dev slept with reporters for good reviews, everybody already knew the reviews were manufactured to the desire of the client anyway, regardless of any potential sexual favors. It was an absolutely ridiculous 'controversy' that even slowpoke had already moves on from. It was hilarious to see the community attempting to 'convince' game journalists to turn on the people paying their bills though, makes you wonder how many of them didn't even bother turning off add blocker going on the sites.
Yeah, and her 'favorable review' was almost a sad nod out of obligation. The problem was attacking their customers- and by all standards, the customers had a right to be mad right back.
But yeah, it was a mole hill. It could have sparked a fire that did something decent, but it scattered and went nowhere.
No, they weren't attacking their costumers, that's the whole point. Their costumer is the game industry. The community was threatening their method of financing themselves. Was their cornered rat response really that strange when this was about their jobs? We as readers mean very little to them beyond a few clicks to show the industry they are worth subsidizing. They wouldn't survive clearing up their conflict of interest. Its like the zookeepers siding with the animals, they don't have anything to gain.
The hobby of wargaming has this a lot less, most press is handled by the companies themselves. Its harder to insert yourself between the industry and the consumers.
I mean, of all the people in the world one could have a strong, genuinely moral, exception to....its...its her?
I don't know if the exception is moral for everyone. But in part I understand why people get so vitriolic when people pretend the apocalypse personified has come into town to take away your hobby.
I certainly don't agree with the bitriol though, just saying that I get how we got here. Personally I find it laughable to go this crazy about a woman who you might not share your opinion with, people are pretending she came into their house and shot their dog or something
I mean, of all the people in the world one could have a strong, genuinely moral, exception to....its...its her?
Hold on, lemme stop you. If you're directing this at me.
Earlier in this thread you talked about being raped. Don't get me wrong, I'm a victim of two incidents that I'm not going into here, just because I don't want to and I won't be 'Misery-Measuring'. I'm sorry that happened to you and I hope you got justice or something was done, if not- well I hope it doesn't happen to you again.
But your depiction of 'feminism' and 'misogyny' are coming from a place where, you- as a man, were raped. Not only were you raped, but you were at risk for contracting a disease or bringing a child into the world that you and her were not able to care for, and on top of this you were terrified of being falsely accused of the very crime you were a victim of. And the people who helped you 'realize' your position on feminism and misogyny- this 'BoLS Lesbian Mafia'- instead focused on the fact that there was a problem with men because perhaps you were raised by a man that taught you that emotions and seeking help were wrong (which is not common unless you were abused). Not that you were raped, not that false claims could harm you, not that you could have been literally killed by a disease- but that there's a problem with men. To put it bluntly, that was the absolute worst story you could have told to make me support feminism, because if that's 'real feminism' then it's horrible. I'm sure there's a brand of it out there that wants equality for men and women and fairness, but whatever it is you're following seems more like a matriarchal/gyno-centric cult that shifted blame away from a literal rapist and onto 'men'.
You'll have to pardon me if I don't really care about your definition of misogynist, nor do I particularly think you have any right to call anyone names.
Whether one agrees with her or not - totally fair enough.
But Adeptus Doritos really does seem to have an axe to grind (note the correct spelling, colonials!), but has singularly failed to justify their strength of feeling against this particular person.
She might be a scamming scumbag. I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care. Not when there’s far larger villains out there to be opposed - those with the actual power to change our world, whether or not we simply go ‘well, I don’t agree, shrug’
His axe? I suspect it’s blunt when he needs it to be, to support whatever drivel he wants to support.
I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slightly different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.
Whether one agrees with her or not - totally fair enough.
But Adeptus Doritos really does seem to have an axe to grind (note the correct spelling, colonials!), but has singularly failed to justify their strength of feeling against this particular person.
She might be a scamming scumbag. I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care. Not when there’s far larger villains out there to be opposed - those with the actual power to change our world, whether or not we simply go ‘well, I don’t agree, shrug’
His axe? I suspect it’s blunt when he needs it to be, to support whatever drivel he wants to support.
Why are you refering to him as if he's not in this thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slighlty different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But Adeptus Doritos really does seem to have an axe to grind (note the correct spelling, colonials!), but has singularly failed to justify their strength of feeling against this particular person.
I made my position quite clear. But I'm fairly sure you are just being selective about it. But I'll recap, just for you:
1- She has made her points based on cherry-picked data.
2- She has done, by everything short of legal standards, swindled people who contributed to her.
3- There are far more qualified persons- even feminists.
4- She has conducted herself poorly on previous panels, outright abusing audience members and participants.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: His axe? I suspect it’s blunt when he needs it to be, to support whatever drivel he wants to support.
Please. I have an 8-ball in a crusty tube sock and it seems to work just fine. Must be the quality of the opposition.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slightly different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.
Fair statement. But 'everyone has a different version'.
What many call 'feminism' may be egalitarianism in my book- treat people fairly, equal rights and opportunities.
But some 'brands' of feminism seem to be just self-righteous hate groups.
Maybe it's like being 'conservative'. Not every conservative wants a theocracy, or is even religious.
Whether one agrees with her or not - totally fair enough.
But Adeptus Doritos really does seem to have an axe to grind (note the correct spelling, colonials!), but has singularly failed to justify their strength of feeling against this particular person.
She might be a scamming scumbag. I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care. Not when there’s far larger villains out there to be opposed - those with the actual power to change our world, whether or not we simply go ‘well, I don’t agree, shrug’
His axe? I suspect it’s blunt when he needs it to be, to support whatever drivel he wants to support.
Why are you refering to him as if he's not in this thread?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slighlty different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.
There is no single definition of feminism.
And yet we still have people pretending that the few who hate men are representative.
I mean, of all the people in the world one could have a strong, genuinely moral, exception to....its...its her?
Hold on, lemme stop you. If you're directing this at me.
Earlier in this thread you talked about being raped. Don't get me wrong, I'm a victim of two incidents that I'm not going into here, just because I don't want to and I won't be 'Misery-Measuring'. I'm sorry that happened to you and I hope you got justice or something was done, if not- well I hope it doesn't happen to you again.
But your depiction of 'feminism' and 'misogyny' are coming from a place where, you- as a man, were raped. Not only were you raped, but you were at risk for contracting a disease or bringing a child into the world that you and her were not able to care for, and on top of this you were terrified of being falsely accused of the very crime you were a victim of. And the people who helped you 'realize' your position on feminism and misogyny- this 'BoLS Lesbian Mafia'- instead focused on the fact that there was a problem with men because perhaps you were raised by a man that taught you that emotions and seeking help were wrong (which is not common unless you were abused). Not that you were raped, not that false claims could harm you, not that you could have been literally killed by a disease- but that there's a problem with men. To put it bluntly, that was the absolute worst story you could have told to make me support feminism, because if that's 'real feminism' then it's horrible. I'm sure there's a brand of it out there that wants equality for men and women and fairness, but whatever it is you're following seems more like a matriarchal/gyno-centric cult that shifted blame away from a literal rapist and onto 'men'.
You'll have to pardon me if I don't really care about your definition of misogynist, nor do I particularly think you have any right to call anyone names.
To be fair, my feminism somewhat pre-dates the rape (or legally, sexual assault).
But you seem to be bent out of shape over the actions of someone, actions that had absolutely no impact on you whatsoever.
Did you contribute to her Kickstarter? Evidentially not.
Did those that contributed have a rageboner against her? Seemingly not.
You’re taking exception to a person for an entirely imagined slight that those actually affected don’t seem to care about.
And given your similar rageboner against Kathleen Kennedy (who has helped Disney already nearly break even outlay for the Lucasfilm purchase), and just won’t shut up about either of them?
Yeah. I’m calling you out as a misogynist.
It’s ok. You may lack the introspection to stop, take a breath, and examine your own behaviour. That’s a big step in life, to identify one’s self as the main problem. For me, it happened when I was 29, following feedback (actual, constructive feedback) from a job interview i blobbed.
But you have a really weird, near fetish, for ripping intno Wimmins you happen to disagree with, and going no further.
Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing with a woman,if it’s factual, and there’s a genuine personal impact of their actions upon yourself. Buttholes come in all varieties.
Except that’s just not what I, not seemingly many others, are getting from your posts.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the issue is your perception of feminism. A lot of different people say they are feminist while also all having slightly different views on what it means. Being a feminist doesn't mean male rape isn't a problem, it means recognizing that women have further to go on the issue. Both should absolutely be solved, but you have to pull a little harder on one side to get them both to equal care.
Fair statement. But 'everyone has a different version'.
What many call 'feminism' may be egalitarianism in my book- treat people fairly, equal rights and opportunities.
But some 'brands' of feminism seem to be just self-righteous hate groups.
Maybe it's like being 'conservative'. Not every conservative wants a theocracy, or is even religious.
Every group attracts its militant members and con artists. If you started a group about loving yoghurt you would likely end up with a group of cornflake haters in a week.
While you may call feminism egalitarianism, we can only move on that once we're actually equal. The point is, if we don't recognize that certain social groups have faced historical problems and opposition to attaining parity, not helping them out a little more will always leave them one step behind.
Then prove it. Because as it stands, you've got as much to support that statement as I do to label you a child molester.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Every group attracts its militant members and con artists. If you started a group about loving yoghurt you would likely end up with a group of cornflake haters in a week.
They generally do until certain persons start calling names.
I might have to start utilizing an 'ignore' feature. It was good talking with you, D.O.F. - you at least made valid points worth considering. Moral- 'Idiot Cousins'.
Nah, its too easy to say "bah they are idiots". No. Radical people is people that have been exposed to a constructed idea, normally manipulated to believe thats the absolue truth and to use them as a weapon, for monetary, sociological or political gain.
And I'm talking about radical people in general. You can't say "Bah, feminazis are just a small group of idiots", or "bah, homeopatists are a small group of idiots" (I know, homeopatists aren't as bad as white supremacist... but as they are actually killing people I don't know...), or "bah, white supremacists are a small group of idiots".
No, they aren't. They are people with a ideological and political agenda, they have a reason why they have become what they have become, and they won't just dissapear as long as those issues aren't fixed.
Sinful Hero wrote:For what it’s worth, Sarkeesian has been known to frequent hobby stores before.
Galas wrote:Thats a very nice neckbeard. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
To be fair he does fit the stereotype. I’m more interested in what she’s doing though- looks like a board game of some kind? Could she be testing the expansion/module for the House on Haunted Hill(?) she’s credited for?
Galas wrote: Nah, its too easy to say "bah they are idiots". No. Radical people is people that have been exposed to a constructed idea, normally manipulated to believe thats the absolue truth and to use them as a weapon, for monetary, sociological or political gain.
A key element in dealing with radical elements is that their 'own' have to step in. I was a part of a small group of individuals focused on defending our Constitutionally-protected rights, and preparing for things like disasters, etc. Non-violence, unless we were forced to defend ourselves and our homes. At the time, it seemed like a great idea- we got together and learned to grow food, firearm safety, etc. But then came the crazies that wanted to fight the 'gubbermint' and raid the White House and arrest Obama and gunpoint and a lot of us were like, "No- stop, no." They pushed back, but we had to clearly make it known to them, and everyone else- "They are not us, they're crazy" and it worked... well, sorta. They kinda started their own group and got bored and some of them went on to more extreme Alt-Right type groups. But at least we 'cleaned our own back yard'. And I think that's what it takes.
Galas wrote: Nah, its too easy to say "bah they are idiots". No. Radical people is people that have been exposed to a constructed idea, normally manipulated to believe thats the absolue truth and to use them as a weapon, for monetary, sociological or political gain.
And I'm talking about radical people in general. You can't say "Bah, feminazis are just a small group of idiots", or "bah, homeopatists are a small group of idiots" (I know, homeopatists aren't as bad as white supremacist... but as they are actually killing people I don't know...), or "bah, white supremacists are a small group of idiots".
No, they aren't. They are people with a ideological and political agenda, they have a reason why they have become what they have become, and they won't just dissapear as long as those issues aren't fixed.
Yes, not pushing back against them damages the overall movements they latch on to and sometimes they might make the movements lurch in different directions.
As for homeopatists, these people are freaking scary, pretending to be a medical field while its all mumbo jumbo. White supremacists might be advocating killing people, but homeopatists might actually be actively killing people by making them believe their mumbo jumbo
I would argue that a wikipedia article that does not showcase both sides of the debate and the fact it is locked from been edited except from selected editors has something questionable in it, I have seen more controversial pages in wikipedia have less edit protection and a note that the subject is controversial and both sides dispute it.
Disapproval of someone's methods, ideas, and behavior- hardly a 'grudge'. Hey, Richard Spencer never actually 'wronged' me and I loathe him, too.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Demanding the head of Kathleen Kennedy, despite her clearly turning a profit in her role.
I don't think I've ever uttered her name here, are you certain about this? At worst, I've slammed the writer of TLJ. You may want to fact-check again. I can write this off as an honest mistake if you're willing to admit it, otherwise- then you can just be lying.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And just your general comments. I would quite, but I’m on my iPad, and that’s a lot of faff.
In other words, you don't like how I said something (despite me saying we could find better women and even better feminists), so you're going to use the "I'm too lazy" to prove your blatantly false statement.
Just because you don't like what I said, doesn't suddenly make me one. You're still name-calling and making demonstrably false statements.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Doesn’t make you or I a bad person, or our actions deliberate. But take a step back. Look at your comments, question where they’re really coming from.
Well, I consider people who make false statements about someone 'bad people' so take that for what it's worth.
Galas wrote: Nah, its too easy to say "bah they are idiots". No. Radical people is people that have been exposed to a constructed idea, normally manipulated to believe thats the absolue truth and to use them as a weapon, for monetary, sociological or political gain.
A key element in dealing with radical elements is that their 'own' have to step in. I was a part of a small group of individuals focused on defending our Constitutionally-protected rights, and preparing for things like disasters, etc. Non-violence, unless we were forced to defend ourselves and our homes. At the time, it seemed like a great idea- we got together and learned to grow food, firearm safety, etc. But then came the crazies that wanted to fight the 'gubbermint' and raid the White House and arrest Obama and gunpoint and a lot of us were like, "No- stop, no." They pushed back, but we had to clearly make it known to them, and everyone else- "They are not us, they're crazy" and it worked... well, sorta. They kinda started their own group and got bored and some of them went on to more extreme Alt-Right type groups. But at least we 'cleaned our own back yard'. And I think that's what it takes.
Yeah, thats exactly what I was saying. Calling them a "bunch of idiots" don't actually fixes the problem of their existence and the possibility of them growing in number. Not calling you anything, sorry, I was just disagreeing with the "idiot cousin" idea, at least because I understood it as some kind of "Just leave them be, they don't know what they are doing"
Galas wrote: Nah, its too easy to say "bah they are idiots". No. Radical people is people that have been exposed to a constructed idea, normally manipulated to believe thats the absolue truth and to use them as a weapon, for monetary, sociological or political gain.
And I'm talking about radical people in general. You can't say "Bah, feminazis are just a small group of idiots", or "bah, homeopatists are a small group of idiots" (I know, homeopatists aren't as bad as white supremacist... but as they are actually killing people I don't know...), or "bah, white supremacists are a small group of idiots".
No, they aren't. They are people with a ideological and political agenda, they have a reason why they have become what they have become, and they won't just dissapear as long as those issues aren't fixed.
Yes, not pushing back against them damages the overall movements they latch on to and sometimes they might make the movements lurch in different directions.
As for homeopatists, these people are freaking scary, pretending to be a medical field while its all mumbo jumbo. White supremacists might be advocating killing people, but homeopatists might actually be actively killing people by making them believe their mumbo jumbo
Yeah, I added that about homeopatists after editing my post. Every person that could have been cured of cancer with threatment that didn't chose to do it because a homeopatist used fear to lench economically from them until they died should be considered a murderer. Or the appropiate legal term for it.
Galas wrote: Nah, its too easy to say "bah they are idiots". No. Radical people is people that have been exposed to a constructed idea, normally manipulated to believe thats the absolue truth and to use them as a weapon, for monetary, sociological or political gain.
A key element in dealing with radical elements is that their 'own' have to step in. I was a part of a small group of individuals focused on defending our Constitutionally-protected rights, and preparing for things like disasters, etc. Non-violence, unless we were forced to defend ourselves and our homes. At the time, it seemed like a great idea- we got together and learned to grow food, firearm safety, etc. But then came the crazies that wanted to fight the 'gubbermint' and raid the White House and arrest Obama and gunpoint and a lot of us were like, "No- stop, no." They pushed back, but we had to clearly make it known to them, and everyone else- "They are not us, they're crazy" and it worked... well, sorta. They kinda started their own group and got bored and some of them went on to more extreme Alt-Right type groups. But at least we 'cleaned our own back yard'. And I think that's what it takes.
Everything you've posted is suddenly in very sharp focus.
Nurglitch wrote: Everything you've posted is suddenly in very sharp focus.
I'm a very moderate libertarian and a hunter. If this troubles you, then that's a personal issue for you. Identity politics on all sides are stupid to me. People looking to be part of a special group because of their skin, genitals, etc.- not because of their character, their actions, or their achievements.
All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
What a waste of 25 pages.
Galas wrote: Nah, its too easy to say "bah they are idiots". No. Radical people is people that have been exposed to a constructed idea, normally manipulated to believe thats the absolue truth and to use them as a weapon, for monetary, sociological or political gain.
And I'm talking about radical people in general. You can't say "Bah, feminazis are just a small group of idiots", or "bah, homeopatists are a small group of idiots" (I know, homeopatists aren't as bad as white supremacist... but as they are actually killing people I don't know...), or "bah, white supremacists are a small group of idiots".
No, they aren't. They are people with a ideological and political agenda, they have a reason why they have become what they have become, and they won't just dissapear as long as those issues aren't fixed.
Yes, not pushing back against them damages the overall movements they latch on to and sometimes they might make the movements lurch in different directions.
As for homeopatists, these people are freaking scary, pretending to be a medical field while its all mumbo jumbo. White supremacists might be advocating killing people, but homeopatists might actually be actively killing people by making them believe their mumbo jumbo
Yeah, I added that about homeopatists after editing my post. Every person that could have been cured of cancer with threatment that didn't chose to do it because a homeopatist used fear to lench economically from them until they died should be considered a murder. Or the appropiate legal term for it.
Yep, but like so many, they have become quite adapt at not directly saying it so as not to be liable.
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
What a waste of 25 pages.
People purging about something they don’t like is not a waste, in fact it’s a good thing to moderate personal mental health, bottling things up leads to bad things down the road.
Please stop call each other names. You may have convinced yourself that you are "just stating a fact" and that it may be constructive feedback but despite your intentions name calling is not conducive to productive conversation on a message board or probably anywhere else. First and last warning on this one.
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
What a waste of 25 pages.
Seen worse and it has remained mostly civil, hugely disappointed on people not knowing prominent female industry veterans though, they exist people for decades.
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
I take serious issue with "as good as ever", not because of people like Sarkeesian, but because the industry has mostly demolished the 'mainstream' RTS genre. I'm still bitter about EA smothering C&C with a pillow. The world weeps for the loss of Joe Kucan's acting
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
I take serious issue with "as good as ever", not because of people like Sarkeesian, but because the industry has mostly demolished the 'mainstream' RTS genre. I'm still bitter about EA smothering C&C with a pillow. The world weeps for the loss of Joe Kucan's acting
Man... I miss so much RTS... that gameplay... those campaings, in many cases even better ones than RPG's!
I'm hoping Age of Empires 4 is actually good... maybe in the future we'll have a Rise of Legends or Age of Mythology 2...
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
What a waste of 25 pages.
People purging about something they don’t like is not a waste, in fact it’s a good thing to moderate personal mental health, bottling things up leads to bad things down the road.
Typing furiously is a strange way to gain inner peace, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
I don't get why people get so angry about something that fundamentally they have no real input in or are affected by its outcomes.
By highlighting the ladies panel appearance they are literally giving her and the organisers what they want I.e publicity..
I had barely heard of her or gamergate until this thread started , now I wish I hadn't.
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
I take serious issue with "as good as ever", not because of people like Sarkeesian, but because the industry has mostly demolished the 'mainstream' RTS genre. I'm still bitter about EA smothering C&C with a pillow. The world weeps for the loss of Joe Kucan's acting
Man... I miss so much RTS... that gameplay... those campaings, in many cases even better ones than RPG's!
I'm hoping Age of Empires 4 is actually good... maybe in the future we'll have a Rise of Legends or Age of Mythology 2...
Disciple of Fate wrote: I take serious issue with "as good as ever", not because of people like Sarkeesian, but because the industry has mostly demolished the 'mainstream' RTS genre. I'm still bitter about EA smothering C&C with a pillow. The world weeps for the loss of Joe Kucan's acting
No cred unless you own the GDI and Nod miniature soldiers from C&C:T.S.
But on the topic of female and feminist leaders in the industry, don't we have quite a few to pick from? Wasn't one of the actual original developers of D&D a woman?
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
I take serious issue with "as good as ever", not because of people like Sarkeesian, but because the industry has mostly demolished the 'mainstream' RTS genre. I'm still bitter about EA smothering C&C with a pillow. The world weeps for the loss of Joe Kucan's acting
I mean, these are legitimate grievances for the gamers out there. Instead of being focused on things like tiddies in a bikini top, we have actual genres that are dead- or exploited. Not only that, but there's outright terrible practices in the industry.
Parts of Europe and Asia being banned from MMORPG's and other online games.
Actual 'give money get better gear' practices.
'Open Beta' for Full Price (and game never completed)
Release-date DLC
DLC for actual ending of the game (Asura's Wrath)
Lockboxes
Kind of my grudge against the GG thing and the Journalists. This is all NOW an issue, and I was angry about some of it nearly a decade ago.
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
I take serious issue with "as good as ever", not because of people like Sarkeesian, but because the industry has mostly demolished the 'mainstream' RTS genre. I'm still bitter about EA smothering C&C with a pillow. The world weeps for the loss of Joe Kucan's acting
Yes totally agree with this. All types of gaming has grown and evolved. Many viewed it as a boys only club but I feel it never was. As it grew more people got interested and joined in. I also miss C&C, so many late nights playing Red Alert and Generals with friends .
Exactly what changes can Sarkeesian bring to tabletop that hasn’t already started? Paizo includes non-binary and transpersons in their modules. WotC has been doing similar with D&D and MtG. You even have RPGs and games marketed exclusively to women like Blue Rose, and other demographics as well.
If she wanted to take an issue with something like Brother Vinni’s sculpts, he sells directly to his customers. What change could be effected?
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
I take serious issue with "as good as ever", not because of people like Sarkeesian, but because the industry has mostly demolished the 'mainstream' RTS genre. I'm still bitter about EA smothering C&C with a pillow. The world weeps for the loss of Joe Kucan's acting
Yes totally agree with this. All types of gaming has grown and evolved. Many viewed it as a boys only club but I feel it never was. As it grew more people got interested and joined in. I also miss C&C, so many late nights playing Red Alert and Generals with friends .
Growing up gaming never was a 'boys club' for me with my twin. Nintendo provided huge amounts of entertainment regardless of gender and Heroes of M&M 3 had something for everyone, a staple for years. Sadly another cow milked to the bone and really ready to be taken behind the shed.
Sinful Hero wrote: Exactly what changes can Sarkeesian bring to tabletop that hasn’t already started? Paizo includes non-binary and transpersons in their modules. WotC has been doing similar with D&D and MtG. You even have RPGs and games marketed exclusively to women like Blue Rose, and other demographics as well.
If she wanted to take an issue with something like Brother Vinni’s sculpts, he sells directly to his customers. What change could be effected?
I'm still baffled at how in RPG's where you can play nearly anything you want, why we need these changes. Were there actually 'changes'? Because I'm pretty sure back in D&D 1e if you wanted to be a trans half-orc or whatever, you were more than welcome to it unless your GM said no. And that's when you go get a new GM. A book isn't going to change someone's prejudice.
As far as tiddy models, there's a demand for them- if people wanna buy them or KDM penis-monsters, then that's on them to purchase. Just like others said about going to Anita's panel and "if you don't like her don't go", then the same applies to tiddy and penis monster models- if you don't like them don't buy them or play against people using them. And I say this as I work in a store that doesn't allow them, it's not what I'd call a crisis in the community.
I wonder whether transgendered people who want to play an avatar of themselves in D&D would play a transgendered PC or just play the character as already being of the desired gender. There is such a thing as magic in the world of D&D that solves the conundrum of finding oneself embodied as an undesired gender, or I guess maybe not every transgendered person sees this as a conundrum? I dunno, it seems too complex, personalized, and idiosyncratic to be something addressed by a toy company whose main concern is profitability.
There is this notion of "representativeness" where the idea is that unless a corporation explicitly depicts "you" (a.k.a., someone like you, defined in the most superficial terms possible) enjoying the product then the product is not for you or may even be designed to explicitly exclude you.
D&D's publisher giving explicit permission to play androgynous, transgendered, or non-heterosexual characters strikes me as presumptuous and conniving. Who needed their permission?
To me, it's amazing that anyone could confuse these blunt corporate tactics for "sensitivity." Likewise, GenCon honoring Ms. Sarkeesian seems very cynical.
Manchu wrote: There is this notion of "representativeness" where the idea is that unless a corporation explicitly depicts you (defined in the most superficial terms possible) enjoying the product then the product is not for you or may even be designed to explicitly exclude you.
The only reason I play 40k is because I feel represented by the average Guardsman. I've spent a lot of my time running around with a useless flashlight while people yell at me.
The whole idea of these panels is to get insight from the people who work the industry, since Anita Sarkeesian does not work in the industry and has not contributed anything special to it, why would her insight be more valuable or helpful than say Talima Fox or any of the other woman who are not only experts in the industry but have contributed enormously to it. Even if her only purpose is to bring up "being a woman in gaming" she still offers far less than so many others who again, have followings who would make their opinions and experiences a benefit to hear.
Marxist artist wrote: All this arguing doesn't change anything,she is still on the panel, table top will continue as it c always has, as has video gaming which churns out games that remains. As good as ever.
I take serious issue with "as good as ever", not because of people like Sarkeesian, but because the industry has mostly demolished the 'mainstream' RTS genre. I'm still bitter about EA smothering C&C with a pillow. The world weeps for the loss of Joe Kucan's acting
Yes totally agree with this. All types of gaming has grown and evolved. Many viewed it as a boys only club but I feel it never was. As it grew more people got interested and joined in. I also miss C&C, so many late nights playing Red Alert and Generals with friends .
Growing up gaming never was a 'boys club' for me with my twin. Nintendo provided huge amounts of entertainment regardless of gender and Heroes of M&M 3 had something for everyone, a staple for years. Sadly another cow milked to the bone and really ready to be taken behind the shed.
Heroes of Might and Magic is probably my favourite videogame series of all time. All of them are magic (ha!), the ones I like more are I, III and V. VI was playable and good enough, and I don't have a computer to play the VII, but yeah... the series has reach a very low point.
At least we will always have IV music to remember the saga... Paul Anthony Romero should be much more recognised has a videogame composer.
Spoiler:
For people that don't know what I'm talking about:
Nah, its just for the drama, we all know it. They could have invited other outsider feminists, with more credentals and background than her, but Anita was the one that would have generated more noise for the convention.
I really doubt any convention pays someone to come and tell them things they disagree with. Someone earlier ITT called Ms. Sarkeesian a "change maker" or some such, which I originally read as "change MARKER," like a symbol of some change. I think that is why she is being invited in such a high profile way. The industry, and especially GenCon as a business in itself, wants to preempt criticisms that it is misogynistic, or homophobic, etc, etc, etc.
Please keep in mind that GenCon derailed its own marketing efforts back in 2015, toothlessly threatening to move from Indiana if then-governor Mike Pence signed that "religious liberty" law. This is the context. GenCon is a cynical business interested in leveraging virtue signaling for sales purposes.
Is it wrong to ask what quantifiable effect have Sarkeesian's videos had on the (video) games industry (besides vague possible future nightmare scenarios)? And how does that effect compare to the basic pressure of billion dollar companies who have shareholders to placate and increase profits? Or how about the industry's working conditions? How much worse has her "feminist agenda" been in comparison to games moving to even more DRM, needing constant internet connections, moving to a GaaS model, loot boxes, ever excessive preorder bonuses, and all that. How much have games changed in the last five years due to her? Would her effect even register on a top 10 list of negative influences?
Sqorgar wrote:Yes, and I'm sure that when you were 10, that was fine. But can you say the same thing about how we treat 10 year olds today? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say we have hundreds of new regulations and laws concerning what is acceptable for children than we did 20 or 30 years ago. When I was a kid, I could walk to the park by myself. I read a story last year about a women who was arrested for allowing her daughter to that.
That's a rather distinct US thing and your reaction was to advocate for games to be more exclusionary to "protect them". Essentially a panic about a panic about kids. I mean somebody in the US created this: http://www.freerangekids.com/ because the US drifted away from what other countries consider common sense. I'm sorry that this is happening in the US but it's your own damn fault if you have to reinvent all kinds of basic concepts. You can't blame everything on SJWs, that's just about how the US treats its kids. Why should we over here have to pay the price for your oddities?
What I'm saying is that we treat this as an adult hobby in which children are welcomed, at their own judgment. That is to say, a child who can not handle the content in Warhammer 40k should not play Warhammer 40k, and one that can handle it should. That's different than saying that all miniature games must be designed to meet the needs of all children and the ones that don't must go through an expensive process to get a label saying so. The ESRB has limitations to how video games of certain ratings can sell their product - where they can be placed on store shelves, who their television commercials can be shown to, and what other games they can be advertised with (you can't, for example, advertise an AO game on the same website as non-AO games, so most visual novel publishers are forced to have two different online stores for their adult games and non-adult games).
I'd rather see miniature games treated like books. No ratings. No restrictions. It's up to the booksellers, publishers, and customers, and not some intermediary organization - and that requires an assumption of a basic level of maturity, like books have. Not every book is appropriate for every customer, but there's a certain understanding that they won't be.
It's not about being exclusive. You can still be inclusive without pandering.
And in the end there's no big difference. Regular bookshops won't put controversial stuff up front or they'll exclude certain types of books. The difference with a rating system is that can quantify why a game/movie wasn't available in a specific store while you have to ask the employee in a bookstore if they are selling something. I also would love ratings to be different. Having guidelines for parents is good because nobody can pre-select everything for their kids (and maybe even doesn't want to and might want their kids to explore the fun of reading on their own). But ratings are useful for the big companies because it allows them to force training wheels on their products so they don't accidentally stumble (because they are seen as safe for certain demographics and something they can point at to defend themselves) and also so their investments don't go up in flames (plus they can bully smaller creators).
Books just tend to cost comparatively less to make in comparison to other entertainment products. Even if a book fails or is controversial it's usually doesn't create a deficit in the millions (except if some big author really messes up). If books had similar needs of investment you can be sure that big companies who invest in them would love to have ratings and guides to reduce risk for their own investment while also hindering smaller creators from easily entering the industry. And even despite game ratings you can still make a game (completely uncensored) and sell it directly to customers through your own website to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The only thing that you don't have access to would be certain (mainstream) stores that use ratings to cheaply filter out content. The same goes for movies and other rated media. If you want access to certain mainstream stores you have to play by their rules (ratings and everything else).
Right now miniature games are already treated as books for the most part (like you imagine in your best case scenario). The only restriction is a 12+ rating due to small parts (and I think because of US laws being stricter in that regard that European ones, our stores didn't care and sold up the miniatures anyways). You are the one who said that miniature games should be treated seriously and mentioned excluding kids (except the ones who are mature enough by some standard) thus wanting some sort of implicit, cultural, and invisible "rating system". There's no need to create imaginary fences. I think that's the wrong approach and to just let toys be toys and let people of all ages play and react to them in their own way. You want to treat this hobby as something special and fragile and restrict access instead of as something flexible and accepting that can stand on its own even if you word it in a way that implies the opposite.
Sqorgar wrote:I assume you aren't familiar with the legal term "chilling effect"? Simply put, it is something which discourages people from fully exercising their legal right to the freedom of expression. For instance, if there was a regulating body which could slap a label on your product that made it so that stores would not carry your product - your right is not strictly being limited, but it effectively is because of the consequences of using it are so dire.
For instance, a code of conduct, if done improperly, could have a chilling effect on people expressing their opinions on things because they could get kicked out of the con for speech that is entirely legal, reasonable, and appropriate, but the code of conduct was written in such a way that any speech that could be claimed to be offensive (even when reasonably not, nor intended to be) is against the rules. For instance, male panelists could be terrified of sharing any potentially disagreeable opinions on the chance that a woman labels their opinions as harassment.
There's the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, and while the letter of the law may not be broken, the spirit certainly is. And nobody wants to walk around with a broken spirit.
Wait now you worry about the chilling effect but a few pages ago you said that the solution to her harassment was to give the harassers no target (to shut up?) instead of actually fighting the harassment. Have you ever considered how all that harassment or a loose and abusable CoC could have a chilling effect on her or other critics? Or do their voices just not matter? There are also, for example, many stories of women leaving the tech industry within 10 years due to the behaviour of their colleagues but somehow you need to slippery slope your argument into an imaginary chilling effect that could affects men before even considering that there's already chilling effects that are affecting women (and minorities). There are already implicit biases like this one: https://www.sciencealert.com/women-s-code-found-to-be-better-than-men-s-but-is-rejected-unless-they-hide-their-gender
The findings suggest that female programmers may be better at what they do than their male counterparts, but that attitudes within the software community might be making it harder for them to have their contributions recognised and accepted – unless they're already known by collaborators, or elect to hide their gender, that is.
Manchu wrote: Please keep in mind that GenCon derailed its own marketing efforts back in 2015, toothlessly threatening to move from Indiana if then-governor Mike Pence signed that "religious liberty" law. This is the context. GenCon is a cynical business interested in leveraging virtue signaling for sales purposes.
What happened with that? Did he sign the law and then they did nothing?
He signed the bill, and once various organizations boycotted the state and other states started doing government funded travel bans, they wrote another piece of legislation watering it down a month later, ending the boycotts.
So, the protests were toothless in that they did exactly what they were intended to do and achieved their goal, I guess.
Mario wrote: Is it wrong to ask what quantifiable effect have Sarkeesian's videos had on the (video) games industry (besides vague possible future nightmare scenarios)?
It's not wrong, but it is asking for something that is innately unquantifiable. After all, how can you measure the influence someone has by sharing a public opinion? The only quantifiable thing that I think you can say about Sarkeesian is that if her effort was to make the game industry a kinder, more tolerant place, it had the exact opposite effect.
And how does that effect compare to the basic pressure of billion dollar companies who have shareholders to placate and increase profits? Or how about the industry's working conditions? How much worse has her "feminist agenda" been in comparison to games moving to even more DRM, needing constant internet connections, moving to a GaaS model, loot boxes, ever excessive preorder bonuses, and all that. How much have games changed in the last five years due to her? Would her effect even register on a top 10 list of negative influences?
I would consider her one of the top 10 most negative influences, at least in the last 10 years. I think there's very real consequences of what she was preaching, but it is impossible to say how directly she is responsible. Here are some examples:
* Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 3, despite being more successful in the West for previous iterations, was not considered for release in the US/UK/AUS due to the political climate.
* Nintendo directly censored several of there games that were intended for adults and older teens. Fire Emblem Fates had all the bathing suit models removed and had several scenes changed. The main character, Corrin, had her outfit changed to remove extra thigh in several of her appearances and amiibo. Tokyo Mirage Sessions, an M rated game, had scenarios changed and removed the shadows of hips on a mid-riff baring character (her "vagina bones", as it became known as). Xenoblade Chronicles X had the breast size slider removed and several outfits were changed. (It should be noted that Nintendo no longer appears to do this, and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is surprisingly uncensored outside of a few small dialogue changes)
* NIS America censored multiple releases, such as Criminal Girls 1 + 2. Criminal Girls 2 was changed so that the sexy time scenes removed all restraints from the images, and silenced the squeals the girls made when being punished.
* Omega Labyrinth Z was banned from release in Australia and the UK. It hasn't been banned in the US, but its release has been indefinitely postponed.
* Street Fighter V changed a victory animation in which a character slaps her butt in order to appeal to the US market, which they perceived as being more uptight about that sort of thing.
And so on. It's hard to argue that these changes weren't a result of the cries of sexism going on at the time - especially in the case of games where the rerelease had more censorship than the original.
And in the end there's no big difference. Regular bookshops won't put controversial stuff up front or they'll exclude certain types of books.
Stephen King's IT has a very controversial scene, yet you can find it recommended at regular bookshops. The Song of Ice and Fire books are rather extreme too. Fifty Shades of Grey. This is mass market stuff, sold in Target.
Books just tend to cost comparatively less to make in comparison to other entertainment products. Even if a book fails or is controversial it's usually doesn't create a deficit in the millions (except if some big author really messes up).
Indie games are routinely censored as well. The recent Agony game, which was funded through kickstarter as a very adult game with explicit content, has been censored, even on PCs.
You are the one who said that miniature games should be treated seriously and mentioned excluding kids (except the ones who are mature enough by some standard) thus wanting some sort of implicit, cultural, and invisible "rating system".
Not about excluding. It's about putting the burden of appropriateness on this children and/or their parents rather than the developers. In theory, that's what a rating system is supposed to do, but it ends up dictating content to fit those ratings rather than vice versa. It would be like having a rating system which starts at 12+, so anything that would be typically censored for younger people (drug use, alcohol, sexy clothing, violence) is never censored.
Wait now you worry about the chilling effect but a few pages ago you said that the solution to her harassment was to give the harassers no target (to shut up?) instead of actually fighting the harassment.
I said keep doing what you normally do and don't give any attention to the harassment. If Sarkeesian had just continued to make her videos without publicly addressing the harassment she was getting, it would've dissipated after a week. Her videos were fine. Telling the harassers that they are getting to her was not.
Have you ever considered how all that harassment or a loose and abusable CoC could have a chilling effect on her or other critics? Or do their voices just not matter?
I've weighed the options and I think we'd lose a lot more from abusable regulation than we would for people feeling uncomfortable to speak. It's kind of the whole premise behind the freedom of expression. We allow everybody to speak and we'll hear a cacophony of voices, sometimes offense. If we choose who is allowed to speak, we hear only one permitted voice, who has nothing to say.
There are also, for example, many stories of women leaving the tech industry within 10 years due to the behaviour of their colleagues but somehow you need to slippery slope your argument into an imaginary chilling effect that could affects men before even considering that there's already chilling effects that are affecting women (and minorities).
I think those stories are exaggerated. I mean, I left the game industry within 10 years myself, due largely to the fact that I wanted to have a family and didn't think I could do that when I was working long hours with no vacation time. I'm sure they didn't like their coworkers (I didn't like mine), but a more obvious answer is staring us in the face. I'd honestly question the sanity of someone in the tech industry who didn't leave within 10 years. It's a really, really, really gakky working experience.
The findings suggest that female programmers may be better at what they do than their male counterparts, but that attitudes within the software community might be making it harder for them to have their contributions recognised and accepted – unless they're already known by collaborators, or elect to hide their gender, that is.
I'm going to have to get back to you on this one. I don't have time to dig into another study right now. But I will say, upon a cursory reading of that article, my bs detector is going wild.
Mario wrote: There are also, for example, many stories of women leaving the tech industry within 10 years due to the behaviour of their colleagues...
Just a thought, man- stories don't make evidence. A famous and wise doctor once said, "People Lie". Does that mean all the stories are lies? Absolutely not. But when people get on the internet, and provide a story without evidence... it's best to outright expect the evidence.
I have zero doubts that there are inappropriate behaviors in every work environment. I've seen some myself and had to step in. But I've also seen just as many individuals fabricate stories about why their work life was so difficult for them.
So if you're asking me just to give someone the benefit of the doubt and hear them out, okay- I'll do that. If you're asking me to stand up and take action, and demand some sort of special policies, or something like that? Well, you're going to have to come off with the proof. I don't do witch hunts.
Not sure if it's been brought up in the past few pages (I was honestly surprised that this thread was still open when I logged in), but I think that's the kind of thing Sqorgar is arguing against.
Sqorgar wrote: It's not wrong, but it is asking for something that is innately unquantifiable. After all, how can you measure the influence someone has by sharing a public opinion? The only quantifiable thing that I think you can say about Sarkeesian is that if her effort was to make the game industry a kinder, more tolerant place, it had the exact opposite effect.
You say you can't directly measure the effect, but then you immediately go on to measure that effect when it favors your argument. Make up your mind.
Here are some examples:
Two things:
1) All of your examples are examples of minimal-value porn elements being removed from games, and therefore nothing of value was lost. Can you honestly say that "I don't get bikini outfits to look at while I play my game" is really a negative influence on par with having major parts of a game's content locked away behind recurring microtransactions and/or RNG loot boxes? I mean, I know that if I had to choose one of those things to change it's not going to be the bikini outfits.
2) These are examples of voluntary changes being made. You can cite them as examples of change, but they don't at all support your paranoia about a dystopian future of censorship and poor game quality. The publishers, in all of these cases, voluntarily made the changes to their product without any threat of censorship being imposed (at least in the US, we know Australia's censorship laws are a problem). The publisher looked at the market, realized that the profit to be made from those sex games/features was too small, and cut them. If the demand for those games/features was high enough for them to be profitable then they would have been included as-is. And anyone who wants to make a sex game is 100% free to do so, and say " you" to anyone who objects. The real issue here is that you don't like that "people who feel that bikini outfits are an essential part of a game" is a tiny and irrelevant market, and you have no financial power to compel game publishers to put them in their games.
Stephen King's IT has a very controversial scene, yet you can find it recommended at regular bookshops. The Song of Ice and Fire books are rather extreme too. Fifty Shades of Grey. This is mass market stuff, sold in Target.
This just proves your paranoia wrong. The controversy exists, but there is profit to be made and so the books are sold in regular bookshops.
The recent Agony game, which was funded through kickstarter as a very adult game with explicit content, has been censored, even on PCs.
Really? Censored by who? Which government agency required them to remove content?
Peregrine wrote: 1) All of your examples are examples of minimal-value porn elements being removed from games, and therefore nothing of value was lost.
Not sure if it's been brought up in the past few pages (I was honestly surprised that this thread was still open when I logged in), but I think that's the kind of thing Sqorgar is arguing against.
And we all should. It was awful.
It was also a product of its era, a time when mass publication was out of the reach of most independent authors/publishers. A similar thing would be much harder to organize in 2018, where internet publishing and marketing is a thing and presence on retail store shelves is growing less and less relevant. A store can say "we won't sell this unless you comply with the rating system", but the publisher can just put up an online store and sell directly to their customers. It's much easier to ignore any attempt at a ratings authority now.
It's also important to remember that the CCA was a private organization, not government-imposed censorship. Anyone who wanted to publish comics that violated the code was free to do so (and some did), they just couldn't force stores to sell their product. If there was a greater demand for CCA-violating comics then it's a safe bet that those stores would have promptly dumped the whole thing and taken the profits. The CCA had authority only as long as it had market value.
Peregrine wrote: Are you honestly claiming that being able to stare at women in bikini outfits is an important part of gaming, and removing that is a major loss?
Are you honestly saying there isn't a market for that, and that your feelings on icky girl boobie cooties is an objective position?
YOU don't like it. And that's fine, but don't assume 'nothing of value' was lost. It had SOME value, because there was a demand and in Japan it was fairly successful.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: If you're asking me to stand up and take action, and demand some sort of special policies, or something like that? Well, you're going to have to come off with the proof. I don't do witch hunt.
Congratulations, you've set up a situation where change can never happen because your standard of proof is set to high that it can't be met. Individuals sharing stories are dismissed as untrustworthy, any incident with hard proof (such as a recording of a conversation) can be dismissed as a single outlier, and any industry-wide study that could establish rates of harassment will inherently depend on polling people and trusting their answers. Just what achievable level of proof would be enough to satisfy you and get you to endorse changes?
Agony was censored, yeah, to be able to publish it on consoles, if I remember correctly, but they ended up not releasing the PC patch to un-censore the game, they just released a video.
But that has nothing to do with Anita or feminism, you can't get games with those kind of scenes anywhere near a store, not today, not 5, not 10 years ago.
BTW I have seen the "censored" scenes and they are all very tame, at least if you compared them with regular porn that most people consumes.
In general Agony is just a very bad game that tries very hard to be "edgy". And it is not bad because is very gore. Its just a bad game overall.
EDIT: Wow, 5 post in chat-mode while I was writting this. Adeptus, Peregrine, I know you can't stand each other in this kind of conversations (I know you agree in the forgeworld ones) but can you please don't... make the mods close the thread?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Are you honestly saying there isn't a market for that, and that your feelings on icky girl boobie cooties is an objective position?
There clearly is not much of a market for those games because they are not being sold.
It had SOME value, because there was a demand and in Japan it was fairly successful.
We know Japan has some major cultural issues on stuff like this. I mean, this is the country where they've had to come up with a commonly-known word to describe young men who live with their parents and spend all of their time fantasizing over anime porn. But do you really want to endorse that kind of thing as an important part of the US gaming community, and consider its loss to be a significant problem?
Peregrine wrote: Congratulations, you've set up a situation where change can never happen because your standard of proof is set to high that it can't be met. Individuals sharing stories are dismissed as untrustworthy, any incident with hard proof (such as a recording of a conversation) can be dismissed as a single outlier, and any industry-wide study that could establish rates of harassment will inherently depend on polling people and trusting their answers. Just what achievable level of proof would be enough to satisfy you and get you to endorse changes?
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Show me actual evidence of a problem, and I'll say 'we need to fix that'. But show me stories on the internet, and I'll listen and consider it. But I'm sorry, I don't act just because people have 'stories'. I don't know these people, I have no reason to trust them, and I have no reason to put my credibility on the line or dedicate my time to an anonymous blogger.
Otherwise, if 'stories' are all we need for a panic, then I'll see you in the trenches during the Reptilian Wars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: There clearly is not much of a market for those games because they are not being sold.
Except that they are. I mean, you probably hate KDM and it's still being sold. Not like 40k, but it's still there. Doesn't mean it doesn't have value, it's not your thing- fine, no one's judging you for not liking it. So how about you be respectable and do the same?
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Just like with Anita's panel, right? Don't like her, don't attend. Works both ways.
Peregrine wrote: We know Japan has some major cultural issues on stuff like this. I mean, this is the country where they've had to come up with a commonly-known word to describe young men who live with their parents and spend all of their time fantasizing over anime porn. But do you really want to endorse that kind of thing as an important part of the US gaming community, and consider its loss to be a significant problem?
I want people to be able to purchase a product they are interested in. And between puritans and sex-negative activists behaving the same way, I think I'm getting a bit tired of people playing 'moral authoritarian nanny' to grown adults that are fully capable of determining what sorts of entertainment they'd like to engage in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: EDIT: Wow, 5 post in chat-mode while I was writting this. Adeptus, Peregrine, I know you can't stand each other in this kind of conversations (I know you agree in the forgeworld ones) but can you please don't... make the mods close the thread?
Just watch and pay attention. Please, watch. I promise.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Except that they are. I mean, you probably hate KDM and it's still being sold. Not like 40k, but it's still there. Doesn't mean it doesn't have value, it's not your thing- fine, no one's judging you for not liking it. So how about you be respectable and do the same?
KDM clearly has a market because it is being sold and making money. So what does it say about these bikini outfits, that they couldn't even match the market demand of a niche-market game within the niche market of miniatures games? Nothing of value was lost, literally. The video game publishers concluded that cutting the material would cost them so close to zero dollars that the lost money was not worth considering.
I want people to be able to purchase a product they are interested in. And between puritans and sex-negative activists behaving the same way, I think I'm getting a bit tired of people playing 'moral authoritarian nanny' to grown adults that are fully capable of determining what sorts of entertainment they'd like to engage in.
Ok, you want people to be able to publish a product they are interested in. So what is the solution to allowing them to do so? There are already no government restrictions on the production and sale of those games to adults, anyone who feels that those people are a sufficiently profitable market to be worth selling to is free to produce the exact game they are interested in. If nobody chooses to do so it is only because that market is not a profitable one. So what do you think should be done? Should we introduce more socialism, where the government collects tax money and uses it to subsidize the production of bikini-outfit-filled video games to convince the game industry to make and sell them?
KDM clearly has a market because it is being sold and making money. So what does it say about these bikini outfits, that they couldn't even match the market demand of a niche-market game within the niche market of miniatures games? Nothing of value was lost, literally. The video game publishers concluded that cutting the material would cost them so close to zero dollars that the lost money was not worth considering.
Except, you know, 'they figured'. The results, however, show that they lost even more money. So no, you can't say 'nothing of value' was lost. No more than I can say something you like has no value. Don't assume your moral outrage about digital tiddy is a universally-accepted truth and standard.
I'll even say this- how much more money would they have made had they not caved?
Peregrine wrote: Ok, you want people to be able to publish a product they are interested in. So what is the solution to allowing them to do so? There are already no government restrictions on the production and sale of those games to adults, anyone who feels that those people are a sufficiently profitable market to be worth selling to is free to produce the exact game they are interested in. If nobody chooses to do so it is only because that market is not a profitable one. So what do you think should be done? Should we introduce more socialism, where the government collects tax money and uses it to subsidize the production of bikini-outfit-filled video games to convince the game industry to make and sell them?
No, we should keep moral busybodies out of these decisions. Let adults make their own decisions. You can say this all you want, but bullying a company into changing something isn't 'government intervention' and therefore isn't illegal. But these companies were bullied, threatened- mostly by people who weren't playing the games anyway.
Also, I'll flat-out say it: If someone can't handle a digital tiddy, then they have psychological problems. We need to stop catering to mentally unstable reactionaries.
As to censorship, cleaving to the narrow view that only governments can censor seems outdated. At least in Western society, corporations are extremely influential as to the threshhold of generally acceptable public rhetoric. I doubt this was foreseen by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who envisioned the key conflict as between the government and individuals or at least relatively small communities. I think people today worried about "censorship" assume, mostly correctly, that this is no longer the key conflict when it comes to whether our society is characterizsd more by openness or wariness about what constitutes unacceptable speech.
Back when the white supremacicts marched on Charlottesville, I learned the term "Overton Window" - which means the range of ideas that can be freely discussed publicly. Commentators at the time suggested that white supremacists and neo-Nazis were trying to widen the Overton Window so that certain previously unaccpetable ideas (e.g., white nationalism) could be discussed in the mainstream. The reactionary name-and-shame campaign that resulted in the high publicity firing of a few of the marchers was the same kind of tactic. Notice how at no point was the government a key player in the fight over what's socially acceptable to talk about openly. Instead, the key player were private media outlets and corporate employers.
It seems to me that much of political commentary can be understood as a fight over what can fit into the Overton Window and what should be excluded. I think GenCon invited Ms. Sarkeesian not because it wants to widen or narrow the window but in recognition that the window already has a particular shape. Another metaphor would be "which way the wind is blowing."
Manchu wrote: GenCon =\= protests. IIRC GenCon walked back their original stance pretty quickly.
I think they gave the excuse they have venue booked for the next X years and cannot go back without violating some contracts.
As I recall, the initial bombast was about pulling up stakes and leaving. This was pretty ill-considered because it gave a bad impression of the city the company has chosen as its host for so long. So the company very quickly clarified that it had never had any problems with bigotry and that GenCon had always been "safe" for all attendees. The issue then was, if there has never been a problem then the complaint seems hollow. The notion that the law would create a problem where none had ever existed, according to the company, was baseless. Even the left-leaning news media had to travel a ways out of the metropolitain area go dig up some tiny little business (Memories Pizza) whose owners said they would not cater a gay wedding. Again, GenCon saw an opportunity to virtue signal, blundered, made a clarification that undermined their original self-righteousness, and fortunately the whole thing kind of evaporated because it was never an actual issue to begin with, except for insulting Indianapolis by implication.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Except, you know, 'they figured'. The results, however, show that they lost even more money. So no, you can't say 'nothing of value' was lost. No more than I can say something you like has no value. Don't assume your moral outrage about digital tiddy is a universally-accepted truth and standard.
First of all, the results don't show that they lost even more money because no game company publishes the numbers you need to make that conclusion. If anyone at all has exact information on how much money they lost due to removing bikini outfits it's the company's marketing department and that is extremely valuable business information that is not going to be published. You can not use overall financial information for the industry because that information includes all potential causes of declining profit. You have no way to tell if a company lost sales revenue because of not having bikini outfits, or because players hate RNG loot crates.
Second, I can say it because it is true. This is a capitalist economy and a game publisher's primary goal is to produce profits for its shareholders. If removing bikini outfits is a net loss of profit then bikini outfits will be back in the game as fast as the art department can create the assets. The fact that they have not done so is proof that the publisher looked at the market numbers and concluded that it would not produce additional profits. IOW, nothing of value was lost, literally.
No, we should keep moral busybodies out of these decisions. Let adults make their own decisions. You can say this all you want, but bullying a company into changing something isn't 'government intervention' and therefore isn't illegal. But these companies were bullied, threatened- mostly by people who weren't playing the games anyway.
Adults can make their own decisions. Included in that group of adults making their own decisions are the adults running video game companies, who can choose to listen to criticism or ignore it based on the financial numbers. If these "bullies" were so irrelevant, not being part of the customer base, then the adults in question were 100% free to say " you" and make a game that the "bullies" hate. The fact that you don't like the choice those adults made, or that their choice reveals how powerless people like you are in the video game market, does not mean that their ability to make a decision was denied.
Also, I'll flat-out say it: If someone can't handle a digital tiddy, then they have psychological problems. We need to stop catering to mentally unstable reactionaries.
There is a difference between "can't handle it and become mentally unstable at the sight of one" and "don't want our games to be masturbation fodder for people with no sense of boundaries". If I'm watching a football game I don't need gratuitous naked women all over the screen while my team scores the winning touchdown. And if someone insists on adding them I have to wonder about what kind of issues they must have to be so obsessed with adding low-grade porn to random things.
Manchu wrote: Even the left-leaning news media had to travel a ways out of the metropolitain area go dig up some tiny little business (Memories Pizza) whose owners said they would not cater a gay wedding..
Wasn't that the pizza place that was being blasted for not catering to gay weddings, because... they didn't actually do catering?
I could be wrong, I may be thinking of a smaller side story somewhere in that nontroversy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Second, I can say it because it is true. This is a capitalist economy and a game publisher's primary goal is to produce profits for its shareholders. If removing bikini outfits is a net loss of profit then bikini outfits will be back in the game as fast as the art department can create the assets. The fact that they have not done so is proof that the publisher looked at the market numbers and concluded that it would not produce additional profits. IOW, nothing of value was lost, literally.
"Nothing of value" to YOU. Not everyone, reverend brimstone.
I don't think you understand. You see, when people have their little moral panics- and start demanding harsher censorship, it's under threat that the game will get an unwarranted rating or negative publicity. It's because if you raise enough hell about Tiddy Tackle Trollops 2: Electric Jiggloo, there will be stores refusing to carry it. This hurts sales, and in order to actually try and make a profit- they have to comply or not sell (like DOA 3).
Peregrine wrote: There is a difference between "can't handle it and become mentally unstable at the sight of one" and "don't want our games to be masturbation fodder for people with no sense of boundaries". If I'm watching a football game I don't need gratuitous naked women all over the screen while my team scores the winning touchdown. And if someone insists on adding them I have to wonder about what kind of issues they must have to be so obsessed with adding low-grade porn to random things.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't like the bikini costume? Last I checked they were an option that any adult with any sense of self-control can refuse to utilize. Unless you believe this is a problem for a significant portion of adults (It isn't), then perhaps you should re-evaluate your aversion to tiddy that no one is forcing you to look at. It's not hard.
Let adults be adults, and make their own choices. Stop playing Nanny, please.
Again.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. Or, like some have said defending Star Wars: "Maybe you aren't the target audience"
Weird how that never seems to work both ways, isn't it?
I am pretty sure they got the business owners on the record as saying they would not cater a gay wedding because it would conflict with their religious beliefs. Whether they actual cater any events is of course a separate matter. Everything about this "news story" was principally hypothetical anyhow.
Manchu wrote: I am pretty sure they got the business owners on the record as saying they would not cater a gay wedding because it would conflict with their religious beliefs. Whether they actual cater any events is of course a separate matter. Everything about this "news story" was principally hypothetical anyhow.
Ah. Well, I guess some people don't know how to use gay money or something. Last I checked, it spends just like straight money but smells a bit nicer.
Nothing of value to the publisher was lost. Literally, zero dollars worth of loss. The publisher looked at the results of the decision, concluded that no net profit was lost, and declined to reverse the removal.
I don't think you understand. You see, when people have their little moral panics- and start demanding harsher censorship, it's under threat that the game will get an unwarranted rating or negative publicity. It's because if you raise enough hell about Tiddy Tackle Trollops 2: Electric Jiggloo, there will be stores refusing to carry it. This hurts sales, and in order to actually try and make a profit- they have to comply or not sell (like DOA 3).
IOW, the market for something like DOA3 is so small and irrelevant that people complaining about it is enough to get it taken out of stores.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't like the bikini costume? Last I checked they were an option that any adult with any sense of self-control can refuse to utilize. Unless you believe this is a problem for a significant portion of adults (It isn't), then perhaps you should re-evaluate your aversion to tiddy.
Don't like it? Don't listen to it. Don't like criticism of bikini costumes? Last I checked that was an option that any adult with any sense of self-control can refuse to read. Unless you believe this is a problem for a significant portion of adults (It isn't), then perhaps you should re-evaluate your aversion to feminism.
Let adults be adults, and make their own choices.
Adults are making their own choices. Your problem is not that choice is removed, it's that the adults running video game developers/publishers have concluded that people like you are a market of negligible financial value and are not catering to your desires. Making a choice that you disagree with is not the same as not having the ability to make a choice.
Or, like some have said defending Star Wars: "Maybe you aren't the target audience"
The difference is that Star Wars clearly has a target audience of significant financial value, and is making tons of money. Porn games do not, because even independent publishers (who are free to ignore things like the opinions of retail stores and sell directly to their customers) are not making much money from them.
Peregrine wrote: Nothing of value to the publisher was lost. Literally, zero dollars worth of loss. The publisher looked at the results of the decision, concluded that no net profit was lost, and declined to reverse the removal.
[citation needed]
Peregrine wrote: IOW, the market for something like DOA3 is so small and irrelevant that people complaining about it is enough to get it taken out of stores.
No, in other words, perpetually-triggered idiots that spread false or exagerrated information and raise hell can threaten negative publicity enough that it can send a company into damage-control mode. Don't play silly with this. You're being deliberately silly.
Peregrine wrote: Don't like it? Don't listen to it. Don't like criticism of bikini costumes? Last I checked that was an option that any adult with any sense of self-control can refuse to read. Unless you believe this is a problem for a significant portion of adults (It isn't), then perhaps you should re-evaluate your aversion to feminism.
I assure you, during this conversation, my opinion of it is getting abysmally lower. I'm not really finding much in the way of constructive, mature, and logical arguments in favor of it here, at least.
I'm not sure I can have a productive, reasoned argument with someone as... 'passionate' about protecting the delicate feelings of adults for their own good. I think I may soon be utilizing a little button on the bottom right of your posts that, as I understand, has almost been rubbed smooth by use over time. I'm starting to understand why.
I don't know whether porn games are profitable or not but there is a happy middle ground for you two, which I believe Peregrine has alreay alluded to: if Wal-Mart won't carry your porn game because Christians say it is sinful or Leftists say it is misogynistic, or whatever, why not sell it directly to consumers over the internet? The internet is a great place to trade money for embarassing, socially controversial items and services.
Manchu wrote: I don't know whether porn games are profitable or not but there is a happy middle ground for you two, which I believe Peregrine has alreay alluded to: if Wal-Mart won't carry your porn game because Christians say it is sinful or Leftists say it is misogynistic, or whatever, why not sell it directly to consumers over the internet? The internet is a great place to trade money for embarassing, socially controversial items and services.
I think there's some difficulty buying console games directly from a game developer- I don't know, I've never done it. But if Steam, Amazon, etc. tend to be on the same sheet of music it gets harder. I don't know, I've never bought a porn game. I think the most embarrassing video game I've ever bought was 'Too Human'.
Either way, Peregrine has his particular beliefs on what's best for everyone, and there's no 'middle ground'. Usually someone else will come along and deal with his arguments. I'm probably better off discussing this stuff productively with other participants.
Some years back, a little fuss was made about a card game called Tentacle Bento. It was illustrated in anime-style and IIRC inspired by anime tropes. Which certain bloggers identified as misogynistic. I don't think Ms. Sarkeesian was famous at the time so I doubt she weighed in. But as a GenCon Guest of Honor, I wonder what she'd say about Tentacle Bento. If it is sold at GenCon, would she demand it be ... um boycotted? Excluded? I wonder how GenCon would respond.
Tentacle Bento was originally a Kickstarter project that Kickstarter dumped once the relevant bloggers kicked up a kerfuffle. Seems like a morality police example to me.
A decision can have an objective value to a company because X decision can make the product to sell more or less.
In the video game industry and comic industry there are several examples in franchises that toned down to accommodate the recent heavy social criticism and made less money as a result, there are some franchises that did not and continue to do well or better.
To counter that, there are a few new franchises that are politically correct and inclusive and do well.
What I would take from that is there is market for both and no approach has any advantage over the other, the main big problem comes in my opinion when established franchises get altered to conform a politically correct view that was never their premise.
Most reaction happens when established franchises get toned down it is seen both as censorship and invasion/ ruin of established and loved franchises, on the other hand new franchises get less reaction mostly from entrenched commentators.
I would say it is safe to assume from that, that the vast majority of the target audience has a mild and average political point of view and react to radical changes in things they have become familiar with.
Manchu wrote: Some years back, a little fuss was made about a card game called Tentacle Bento. It was illustrated in anime-style and IIRC inspired by anime tropes. Which certain bloggers identified as misogynistic. I don't think Ms. Sarkeesian was famous at the time so I doubt she weighed in. But as a GenCon Guest of Honor, I wonder what she'd say about Tentacle Bento. If it is sold at GenCon, would she demand it be ... um boycotted? Excluded? I wonder how GenCon would respond.
I get not selling it in stores. That's fine. The shop I part-time at doesn't allow Cards Against Humanity or Kingdom Death to be sold in the store- the rule is, "We don't sell anything in a family store that couldn't be played in front of a family". Yeah, there's a little bit of 'whaddabout muh 40k violence tho' and that's considerably different when the 'violence' is taking models off a table after a dice roll, as opposed to the things that are said and shown for CAH and KD.
I'm pretty sure she'd come along to tell us how these things are influences in real life. Much like a discussion I had on another forum with someone, this individual believed that things like KDM were 'influential' to sexual predators... of course, it seems far more likely that someone who is a sexual predator would be drawn to something sexual, rather than it just turning a perfectly normal adult into a sick twisted pervert.
But my philosophy is that people who get 'corrupted' by some kind of simulated violence or sexual depiction are generally already sick and twisted.
Manchu wrote: I wonder whether transgendered people who want to play an avatar of themselves in D&D would play a transgendered PC or just play the character as already being of the desired gender. There is such a thing as magic in the world of D&D that solves the conundrum of finding oneself embodied as an undesired gender, or I guess maybe not every transgendered person sees this as a conundrum? I dunno, it seems too complex, personalized, and idiosyncratic to be something addressed by a toy company whose main concern is profitability.
Depends. Some might want to play a transgender PC and explore how someone like them would exist in the D&D world (and yes, magic exists, but you have to be obscenely wealthy to afford it), some might just want some escapist fantasy where they can be themselves without their gender ever being a question. It's just like any other question about character motivations. Someone who isn't very athletic might play a scholar-type character as "who would I be in this world", or a STR 25 barbarian as escapist fantasy. And it's certainly not such a complex question that the game can't address it as part of the general subject of how to choose a character that you will enjoy playing.
There is this notion of "representativeness" where the idea is that unless a corporation explicitly depicts "you" (a.k.a., someone like you, defined in the most superficial terms possible) enjoying the product then the product is not for you or may even be designed to explicitly exclude you.
D&D's publisher giving explicit permission to play androgynous, transgendered, or non-heterosexual characters strikes me as presumptuous and conniving. Who needed their permission?
This is apparently hard for people who are not members of under-represented groups to really understand, but yes, it is a problem. If you look at a product that has nobody like you in it, despite the fact that it's a huge world with tons of characters, it's very easy to think that it's a deliberate choice to exclude people like you. I mean, if gay people are 5% of the population and you have a group of 200 straight characters that's a group with a 0.0035% chance of forming by pure chance. IOW, it was almost certainly a case of, consciously or unconsciously, excluding gay characters from that group. The only question is whether the author was oblivious to the subject and didn't consider the possibility of gay characters existing, or actively hostile to gay people and deliberately making a straight-only group. And either way the message is "this isn't for you".
Having those characters explicitly mentioned reverses the message and says "you are a part of this world", even if the percentages don't line up exactly. It shows that the publisher is aware of the real-world issues and is making a statement that they're on the right side of it. Obviously in a game like D&D, where the DM is arguably more important than the rulebook in determining the content of a game, it's not a guarantee of anything. But it's sure a better starting point than the alternative. And it's just a nice bonus that undesirable people will ragequit over the inclusion of LGBT/non-white/etc characters and remove themselves from the pool of people I might have to interact with.
Manchu wrote: I believe the argument made against Tentacle Bento at the time was that it "normalized" rape. The Overton Window strikes again!
I'm not sure that a cartoon drawing can really 'normalize' anything. An old saying I heard is that "people judge by their own emotional and mental condition"... so I'm just saying, if you point to a cartoon girl with a tentacle in her butthole and say "That will make people want to rape" it tells me an awful lot about you.
Yeah, I can imagine all sorts of ways that people might want to play D&D. What's harder to imagine is kidding myself that Hasbro gives a gak about me. As someone said ITT earlier, if X is deemed profitable then X will be added ASAP.
This is why the doctrine of representativeness is a thing as far as I can tell. Once you convince someone to identify on an extremely superficial basis, you have qualified them as much easier marketing targets.
Manchu wrote: I don't know whether porn games are profitable or not but there is a happy middle ground for you two, which I believe Peregrine has alreay alluded to: if Wal-Mart won't carry your porn game because Christians say it is sinful or Leftists say it is misogynistic, or whatever, why not sell it directly to consumers over the internet? The internet is a great place to trade money for embarassing, socially controversial items and services.
The counter argument is why not those that oppose such things not make their own and compete for consumers money instead of trying to censor the platforms they used to have to sell games?
Erotic or Porn games seem to do well in Steam, there are several and it seems they have a large audience, so those that do not like them banded to pressure steam to take them out, that is a big censorship and a marginalising behaviour, why not just not buy such games and make your own games that are not that instead of hurting companies and consumers by censoring their choices?
Peregrine wrote: And it's just a nice bonus that undesirable people will ragequit over the inclusion of LGBT/non-white/etc characters and remove themselves from the pool of people I might have to interact with.
Or, you know, do what people have done for years with elements of fluff and just ignore it.
I'm pretty sure also, that there's never been any rule that says you MUST play a specific race, gender, or sexual orientation... and last I checked, in RPG's you kind of make your own character, not take one from the book.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: But my philosophy is that people who get 'corrupted' by some kind of simulated violence or sexual depiction are generally already sick and twisted.
You're so close to getting it, but you need to make the final step in understanding. It's not a binary choice between inherent vs. corrupted, there's a mix of factors. The most likely path is that some people are inherently potential sexual predators, but what they end up doing depends heavily on the environment they encounter. If they encounter fiction (including games) that endorses predatory behavior and portrays it as something acceptable then they're more likely to act on their impulses, and make up excuses for why it really isn't so bad and everyone's doing it anyway so why are you getting so mad about this. It's like the whole Weinstein thing. Clearly something was wrong with him, but he was enabled by an environment that considered predatory behavior just part of the business and people who knew he was up to something (even if they didn't know the details) and kept it quiet for the sake of their careers or because they didn't care.
Manchu wrote: I don't know whether porn games are profitable or not but there is a happy middle ground for you two, which I believe Peregrine has alreay alluded to: if Wal-Mart won't carry your porn game because Christians say it is sinful or Leftists say it is misogynistic, or whatever, why not sell it directly to consumers over the internet? The internet is a great place to trade money for embarassing, socially controversial items and services.
I imagine it is very difficult to convince potential customer that your porn game is not, in fact, gussied-up malware.
"'Play now my lord'? Nope. Fool me once, shame on you."
I guess we all have our limits. For example, I would scoff at the idea of my local gaming store selling F.A.T.A.L. I don't think of myself as a prude but ... maybe I should think of myself as a hypocrite!
Manchu wrote: Yeah, I can imagine all sorts of ways that people might want to play D&D. What's harder to imagine is kidding myself that Hasbro gives a gak about me. As someone said ITT earlier, if X is deemed profitable then X will be added ASAP.
And "showing LGBT/non-white/etc characters is profitable" is itself a positive statement for us. Even at its most cynical and capitalist it's still an acknowledgement that we exist and matter. And if it happens to be more than just cynical marketing, which it seems to be in at least some cases, then it's even better.
Peregrine wrote: You're so close to getting it, but you need to make the final step in understanding. It's not a binary choice between inherent vs. corrupted, there's a mix of factors. The most likely path is that some people are inherently potential sexual predators, but what they end up doing depends heavily on the environment they encounter. If they encounter fiction (including games) that endorses predatory behavior and portrays it as something acceptable then they're more likely to act on their impulses, and make up excuses for why it really isn't so bad and everyone's doing it anyway so why are you getting so mad about this. It's like the whole Weinstein thing. Clearly something was wrong with him, but he was enabled by an environment that considered predatory behavior just part of the business and people who knew he was up to something (even if they didn't know the details) and kept it quiet for the sake of their careers or because they didn't care.
And this means it should be banned from the remaining 99.99999% of the population? Unless you're not saying that.
Because I'm sorry, we don't take away things from responsible adults just because unhinged psychos in need of mental help see it and get an erection. Sorry, man.
If the guy's going to get perverse, he's going to find his fix somewhere. THE INTERNET IS A THING.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: And this means it should be banned from the remaining 99.99999% of the population? Unless you're not saying that.
I'm not saying that. No such ban exists, and no such ban has been proposed. Owning KDM is not a crime. Selling KDM to adults is not a crime. Individual adults making a choice, of their own free will, that KDM is morally objectionable and they won't sell it is not a ban. The publishers of KDM are free to make their game and sell it to anyone who wants to buy it (including retail stores who wish to sell it to their customers). Nothing about this situation is going to change in the foreseeable future.
However, we should not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the media we (as a society) has zero effect on anyone and people are just inherently monsters who are going to do awful things no matter what.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: But my philosophy is that people who get 'corrupted' by some kind of simulated violence or sexual depiction are generally already sick and twisted.
You're so close to getting it, but you need to make the final step in understanding. It's not a binary choice between inherent vs. corrupted, there's a mix of factors. The most likely path is that some people are inherently potential sexual predators, but what they end up doing depends heavily on the environment they encounter. If they encounter fiction (including games) that endorses predatory behavior and portrays it as something acceptable then they're more likely to act on their impulses, and make up excuses for why it really isn't so bad and everyone's doing it anyway so why are you getting so mad about this. It's like the whole Weinstein thing. Clearly something was wrong with him, but he was enabled by an environment that considered predatory behavior just part of the business and people who knew he was up to something (even if they didn't know the details) and kept it quiet for the sake of their careers or because they didn't care.
Did I read what I read? are humans incapable of empathy and critical thinking? or we must penalise the entire human race for the off chance an oddity that has mental issues may be affected? or we take for granted all humans are mentally ill?
I enjoyed too much the first mission of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 ("Remember, no russian"), being a beta male that isn't even capable of punching a boxing sack because it just feels wrong, to know that minor things like movies, books, videogames portraying rape, violence, etc... don't make people more violent/rapist/whatever
You know because people where so violent in medieval times? Not because FICTION was violent, but because their REALITY was violent.
Peregrine wrote: I'm not saying that. No such ban exists, and no such ban has been proposed. Owning KDM is not a crime. Selling KDM to adults is not a crime. Individual adults making a choice, of their own free will, that KDM is morally objectionable and they won't sell it is not a ban. The publishers of KDM are free to make their game and sell it to anyone who wants to buy it (including retail stores who wish to sell it to their customers). Nothing about this situation is going to change in the foreseeable future.
So then your point is, "Some sicko might find this enjoyable and act on it because he's a sicko or mental case".
OK, solution- don't play with sickos. When sickos do bad things, then arrest them and either institutionalize them, throw them in a cage, or if need be give them the night-night cocktail in a room with a big window.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Did I read what I read? are humans incapable of empathy and critical thinking? or we must penalise the entire human race for the off chance an oddity that has mental issues may be affected? or we take for granted all humans are mentally ill?
Again, there is no penalizing going on. Owning KDM is not a crime. Selling KDM to adults is not a crime. Individual adults making a choice, of their own free will, that KDM is morally objectionable and they won't sell it is not a punishment or taking anything away from you. The publishers of KDM are free to make their game and sell it to anyone who wants to buy it (including retail stores who wish to sell it to their customers). Nothing about this situation is going to change in the foreseeable future.
What happens when the doctrine of representativeness fails? i.e., when a product depicting a character superficially similar to you does not succeed in relieving you of your money? This is a non-hypoethtcial outcome. From what I have seen, the notion that representativeness is a successful, much less morally good, tactic is largely the result of sampling bias. I strongly suspect the actual demogrpahic for representativeness is the majority because the majority has already been qualified to feel good about diversity and inclusivity. But of course this assumes we get that "majority" is not about race, gender, or sexual orientation but rather about income.
Manchu wrote: What happens when the doctrine of representativeness fails? i.e., when a product depicting a character superficially similar to you does not succeed in relieving you of your money? This is a non-hypoethtcial outcome. From what I have seen, the notion that representativeness is a successful, much less morally good, tactic is largely the result of sampling bias. I strongly suspect the actual demogrpahic for representativeness is the majority because the majority has already been qualified to feel good about diversity and inclusivity. But of course this assumes we get that "majority" is not about race, gender, or sexual orientation but rather about income.
If it fails then it fails. Of course it's not 100%, no amount of representativeness in AoS is going to get me to buy it because it's a trash game that I have zero interest in. The game can be full of characters exactly like me, GW can put a giant "PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE AWESOME AND VALID AND WE LOVE YOU" sign on the box, and I'm still not going to buy it. But you're making the mistake of analyzing a market strategy based on the success or failure with a single customer instead of market averages. The strategy can (and will) fail with individuals and still be successful as long as it creates a net increase in sales.
And I'm telling you, as a member of at least one of those under-represented groups, that representation matters and is a positive thing for a game (or other fiction). And I have seen countless anecdotes from people in similar positions expressing appreciation for having people like them added and greater interest in buying the product because they feel welcome and not like a barely-tolerated outsider. Your opinion that it's all about the majority and virtue signalling is just not true, I suspect because you are not a member of any of the groups in question and don't have the first-hand experience of what it's like.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Did I read what I read? are humans incapable of empathy and critical thinking? or we must penalise the entire human race for the off chance an oddity that has mental issues may be affected? or we take for granted all humans are mentally ill?
Again, there is no penalizing going on. Owning KDM is not a crime. Selling KDM to adults is not a crime. Individual adults making a choice, of their own free will, that KDM is morally objectionable and they won't sell it is not a punishment or taking anything away from you. The publishers of KDM are free to make their game and sell it to anyone who wants to buy it (including retail stores who wish to sell it to their customers). Nothing about this situation is going to change in the foreseeable future.
A company sells a porn game at steam the past lets say 10 years, they do well, extremely well and expand update their game make reputation and have a following and suddenly this year Steam because of pressure from the politically correct crowd decides to ban all porn games from their platform, how can you tell me there is no penalty?
Patreon and YouTube has cut off several individuals for political reasons, including several porn creators, over politically correct complains, how are these individuals not penalised for their work out of a sudden they have based their business model for several years on these platforms.
several individuals and businesses are penalised over the latest politically correct crusade that runs the last two years and the consumer base sees only less and less choices and the creators that produce something they like been discriminated.
I think there is a penalty and waiving it away that people could still sell it in the back streets of the internet is not a valid reasoning.
Peregrine wrote: I suspect because you are not a member of any of the groups in question and don't have the first-hand experience of what it's like.
And neither are you, so... why don't they speak for themselves? I hear a lot of things this way and that- so, maybe I'd rather hear a trans-person's opinion. (Spoiler: I have. Her statement was: "I played a woman all the time, anyway. I didn't need their validation"- anecdotal).
PsychoticStorm wrote: A company sells a porn game at steam the past lets say 10 years, they do well, extremely well and expand update their game make reputation and have a following and suddenly this year Steam because of pressure from the politically correct crowd decides to ban all porn games from their platform, how can you tell me there is no penalty?
A private company exercising its right to decide who they wish to do business with is not a "penalty". You don't have a right to Steam's service as a business partner. Those porn game producers are free to take their business elsewhere, including selling directly to their customers, if they wish to do so.
Patreon and YouTube has cut off several individuals for political reasons, including several porn creators, over politically correct complains, how are these individuals not penalised for their work out of a sudden they have based their business model for several years on these platforms.
Again, not a penalty. If you're dumb enough to base your business model on another company's willingness to cooperate with you and provide you with hosting services, do the networking and connect you with advertisers to give you a revenue stream, etc, with no ability to sell your product otherwise then you have only yourself to blame. Those people are still free to make their content and sell it any way they can, if the market for it exists.
I think there is a penalty and waiving it away that people could still sell it in the back streets of the internet is not a valid reasoning.
Of course it's valid. You are not entitled to have Steam/YouTube/etc do your work for you. Nor is it a "penalty" that their participation in your business requires you to comply with their policies. Plenty of people sell stuff without the participation of those companies, this isn't some illegal back-alley drug deal we're talking about. It's more like Walmart doesn't sell your favorite niche-market game, so you go to your local game store or the publisher's web site and buy it. Or should we complain about "penalties" because your local game store doesn't sell every niche-market miniatures ruleset that anyone has ever created?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: And neither are you, so... why don't they speak for themselves? I hear a lot of things this way and that- so, maybe I'd rather hear a trans-person's opinion. (Spoiler: I have. Her statement was: "I played a woman all the time, anyway. I didn't need their validation"- anecdotal).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH. JFC you're clueless and arrogant. You don't know who I am or what groups I belong to, so don't make assumptions.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Yeah, I figured that's the kind of response I would get from you, Peregrine.
I think I'm about done with you. Whatever it is.
What else do you expect when you arrogantly declare your mistaken assumptions about me, accusing me of lying in the process? And now, instead of apologizing for falsely accusing me of lying, you're going to ragequit and handwave the whole thing away with some nonsense about "that's what I expected".
Manchu wrote: People who argue others can't know because of who they are, do you ever wonder how much you yourself can't know if that line of thinking is true?
I don't know, the last I checked humans were capable of empathy. I can at least empathize with someone, when I'm talking to that 'someone'. I'd rather it not be from a self-appointed representative that isn't one of them but speaks on their behalf.
Manchu wrote: People who argue others can't know because of who they are, do you ever wonder how much you yourself can't know if that line of thinking is true?
Of course there are things I can't know because I haven't had first-hand experience of it. For example, I will never truly understand what it's like to have PTSD from war, and I would be a if I refused to listen to someone who had that experience and insisted that I knew everything about how it all works and it's not really a problem.
And do you know the history of the #GG wiki article? The amount of times that anything not anti-GG was deleted from that page? The fact that one of the people "protecting" the page against any pro-GG content was eventually disciplined himself for being too militant in his edits?
Wikipedia is not a resource for topics such as this, not when anything that one side doesn't like can simply be deleted with a few key strokes.
Peregrine wrote: What else do you expect when you arrogantly declare your mistaken assumptions about me, accusing me of lying in the process? And now, instead of apologizing for falsely accusing me of lying, you're going to ragequit and handwave the whole thing away with some nonsense about "that's what I expected".
Haven't you learned that demanding apologies and calling names doesn't work out too well for you, Peregrine?
What I meant was, "I can't believe I expected Peregrine to understand another perspective other than his own. I can't believe I expected him to have any sort of conversation without name-calling, flaming, or trolling."
You know, I really need to start lowering my expectations.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Haven't you learned that demanding apologies and calling names doesn't work out too well for you, Peregrine?
I have learned that even when you lie, make false accusations, etc, you will never apologize for your bad behavior. So yeah, that's not working out as well as I like, but I want it made clear to everyone else here that you are proudly making false accusations and doubling down on your bad behavior when you are called on it.
What I meant was, "I can't believe I expected Peregrine to understand another perspective other than his own. I can't believe I expected him to have any sort of conversation without name-calling, flaming, or trolling."
And you arrogantly declared that the perspective in question is one other than my own, accusing me of lying about it being personal experience. Don't try to change this after the fact and weasel out of what you said, your exact words are there for everyone to read.
Peregrine wrote: I have learned that even when you lie, make false accusations, etc, you will never apologize for your bad behavior. So yeah, that's not working out as well as I like, but I want it made clear to everyone else here that you are proudly making false accusations and doubling down on your bad behavior when you are called on it.
Keep going, tell us what you really think. Put on the show.
Peregrine wrote: And you arrogantly declared that the perspective in question is one other than my own, accusing me of lying about it being personal experience. Don't try to change this after the fact and weasel out of what you said, your exact words are there for everyone to read.
So by all means, Peregrine- tell us what you are. Prove to me I'm wrong for mistaking you for something you're not.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Prove to me I'm wrong for mistaking you for something you're not.
I'd rather not have some things in a public forum associated with this name (which I use elsewhere on the internet), so no. And I don't owe you proof just because you came up with arrogant assumptions about me and declared them to be true.
Peregrine wrote: I'd rather not have some things in a public forum associated with this name (which I use elsewhere on the internet), so no. And I don't owe you proof just because you came up with arrogant assumptions about me and declared them to be true.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
So, not the slightest tinge of guilt here, Peregrine. After all, you're doing a fine job of assuming peoples' identity as well.
If it helps- I don't really care who or what you are. You're just a bit volatile, and by my standards that's saying something.
I am wary of reducing first hand experience to an appeal to authority. In any event, there seems to be basic agreement that pragmatic and even cynical logic is the principal driving force rather than ideological sincerity. I can also agree that ancillary positive outcomes sometimes result anyhow. I just don't see a cause and effect relationship there; to me, the emphasis should be on the "ancillary" nature of these outcomes because there are also negative outcomes.
I am perfectly willing to accept for the sake of discussion that people are who they claim they are. Obviously making such a claim the basis for one's argument carries the risk that it won't be as convincing.
Manchu wrote: I am wary of reducing first hand experience to an appeal to authority. In any event, there seems to be basic agreement that pragmatic and even cyncial logic is the principal driving force rather than ideological sincerity. I can also agree that ancillary positive outcomes sometimes result anyhow. I just don't see a cause and effect relationship there; to me, the emphasis should be on the "ancillary" nature of these outcomes because there are also negative outcomes.
A theory a friend of mine had, in relation to comics, is that the 'virtue signalling' is not even genuine. It's a protective shield. It means that if, for any reason, your product flops, flounders, or fails to perform as expected and comes under harsh criticism- you can assert that the criticism is based on 'bigotry' and point to the evil heterosexual white male devil- which is, of course, usually always the primary consumer and will often be the primary critic because of this.
Lucky me, I can always say that I'm not white but hispanic... it does not matter I'm from Spain and not mexico, is not like people from USA knows the difference.
Manchu wrote: I think inviting Ms. Sarkeesian as a Guest of Honor is absolutely a protective, defensive, preemptive, whatever you want to call it, tactic.
GenCon, and the industry it serves as a profitabl trade show, trends very white and very male.
Yeah, but at this point... it's a moot point. If you believe the hype, you're already certain GenCon is a 'liberal feminist SJW con' (which it's not really). I mean, I don't think the speakers at the con are the primary thing.
Ms. Sarkeesian has pretty pricey speaking roles, as I recall. I'm not sure what the purpose of the panel is going to be... but considering the guy that made Roll20 kind of pissed off a lot of people on Twitter (he said he'd ban mens' gaming groups but not womens')- they might be gearing up for an ideological fight. For what reason, I don't know.
Manchu wrote: I am wary of reducing first hand experience to an appeal to authority.
That isn't an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is "X says so, therefore Y is true" where the authority isn't relevant and/or X's argument for truth isn't explained. But when the question is "what is first-hand experience like" then statements of first-hand experience are the ultimate authority, and citing them is not a fallacy.
In any event, there seems to be basic agreement that pragmatic and even cyncial logic is the principal driving force rather than ideological sincerity.
Well, somewhat. I believe, based on statements by the creators, that there is genuine belief that they are doing the right thing, but obviously it all operates within the limits of a for-profit business.
I just don't see a cause and effect relationship there; to me, the emphasis should be on the "ancillary" nature of these outcomes because there are also negative outcomes.
And, again, I suspect this is something where you just have to have first-hand experience of the situation to see the cause and effect relationship (or at least trust the people who do have first-hand experience). Something that might seem trivial as an outsider can matter significantly to people who are more directly involved. The outcomes are very much a real thing for many of us, if it's "ancillary" it's only because the number of people potentially having a personal stake in it is smaller than the majority who don't.
As for the negative outcomes, what outcomes are those? What is lost by having a more diverse range of characters represented in fiction?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: A theory a friend of mine had, in relation to comics, is that the 'virtue signalling' is not even genuine. It's a protective shield. It means that if, for any reason, your product flops, flounders, or fails to perform as expected and comes under harsh criticism- you can assert that the criticism is based on 'bigotry' and point to the evil heterosexual white male devil- which is, of course, usually always the primary consumer and will often be the primary critic because of this.
That's a nonsense theory that contradicts itself. If the primary customer is straight white men then accusing them of bigotry is hardly a winning strategy in the long run. Sure, you can make that excuse to shareholders as long as they don't care enough to pay attention, but it's sacrificing long-term profits for short-term ability to protect their own jobs. And eventually, if you aren't producing a good product, you're going to lose that job anyway.
Peregrine wrote: That's a nonsense theory that contradicts itself. If the primary customer is straight white men then accusing them of bigotry is hardly a winning strategy in the long run. Sure, you can make that excuse to shareholders as long as they don't care enough to pay attention, but it's sacrificing long-term profits for short-term ability to protect their own jobs. And eventually, if you aren't producing a good product, you're going to lose that job anyway.
A private company exercising its right to decide who they wish to do business with is not a "penalty". You don't have a right to Steam's service as a business partner. Those porn game producers are free to take their business elsewhere, including selling directly to their customers, if they wish to do so.
I do not think advocates of pressuring private companies to their political ideology instead of allowing the market to regulate itself have the right to call for free market.
It is clear the symbiotic nature of these companies existed for a long time and people who did not like them and could not change them went for the wallet, typical tactic.
In the example of Tentacle Bento, the negative outcome was Kickstarter unprecedentedly canceling Ninja Division's project. And that is the kind of non-hypotheticl and non-trivial outcome a lot of folks ITT are concerned about. If Ms. Sarkeesian is the Guest of Honor at GenCon, what kind of products can be traded there?
PsychoticStorm wrote: I do not think advocates of pressuring private companies to their political ideology instead of allowing the market to regulate itself have the right to call for free market.
No, you just don't understand what a free market is. The market is regulating itself, because the market includes things like private citizens commenting on companies and their products. Please do not confuse "free market" and "guaranteed profit and immunity to anything that could disrupt it".
It is clear the symbiotic nature of these companies existed for a long time and people who did not like them and could not change them went for the wallet, typical tactic.
Typical, and apparently effective. Fortunately, if you believe in a free market this is not a problem. Poorly run businesses over-invested in a relationship that is known to be vulnerable to a particular tactic, and had no backup plan for what they would do if their business partner decided to stop doing business with them. These poorly-run companies failed because they made ineffective business choices while their competition continued to make lots of profit, exactly as the free market dictates. What you seem to be advocating is going against the principles of a free market, and intervening to force Steam/YouTube/etc to continue doing business with the failing companies because you don't like the consequences of their failures.
Manchu wrote: In the example of Tentacle Bento, the negative outcome was Kickstarter unprecedentedly canceling Ninja Division's project. And that is the kind of non-hypotheticl and non-trivial outcome a lot of folks ITT are concerned about. If Ms. Sarkeesian is the Guest of Honor at GenCon, what kind of products can be traded there?
I would, though- point out that I think if it's an 'all ages' event they may not allow adult material on the show floor.
I have been to comic conventions where Image titles and Heavy Metal wasn't allowed.
Manchu wrote: In the example of Tentacle Bento, the negative outcome was Kickstarter unprecedentedly canceling Ninja Division's project. And that is the kind of non-hypotheticl and non-trivial outcome a lot of folks ITT are concerned about. If Ms. Sarkeesian is the Guest of Honor at GenCon, what kind of products can be traded there?
Why is this an outcome we should be concerned about? If GenCon decides not to do business with particular companies then that is their choice in the free market. They will either succeed or fail, based on relative demand from various market segments. And the companies excluded by GenCon will either succeed without it because there is a market for their product, or fail because their market is too small to sustain itself without third parties helping to promote and distribute their product. Which goes back to what I was saying earlier to AD: this isn't about fear of censorship, it's about fear by fans of certain games that their market is too small and irrelevant to survive.
In the actual event, Tentacle Bento was a KS project - and KS is a platform ostensibly designed (.as in, according to its own marketing) to fund products that would struggle to get to market via traditional routes. At the time it was unilaterally canceled by the host vendor, the project had met and surpassed its funding goal. Some commenters who self-admittedly knew nothing about either anime or tabletop gaming demanded that it be read as trivialization and even, in some abstract (but nonetheless very real and dangerous) sense, justification of rape specifically and misogyny generally.
Extortion is not a market correction but rather a market distortion. Don't confuse capitalism with its radical subversion. Don't mistake Saul Alinksy for Adam Smith. I mean, this kind of false equivalency is straight out of Alinksy's (literal) handbook.
If this is the future of mainstream gaming then there will be a value loss. I think the long term outcome will be loss of faith in GenCon, much as movie critics have lost a lot of credibility in the past few years. But in the meantime, there will be casualties in terms of game development/sales.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Was that the game they said was 'Anime Tentacles' just to specifically see who'd have an outrage about it without looking into it?
If by 'they' you mean certain feminist bloggers with no interest in either anime or tabletop gaming then yes.
As I recall, it was pretty low quality, too.
It was only ever a cheeky filler game. The art was pretty nice, IMO. Having played it, my impression was it's a sufficiently diverting little game probably best enjoyed by the people who like anime.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: A theory a friend of mine had, in relation to comics, is that the 'virtue signalling' is not even genuine. It's a protective shield. It means that if, for any reason, your product flops, flounders, or fails to perform as expected and comes under harsh criticism- you can assert that the criticism is based on 'bigotry' and point to the evil heterosexual white male devil- which is, of course, usually always the primary consumer and will often be the primary critic because of this.
That's a nonsense theory that contradicts itself. If the primary customer is straight white men then accusing them of bigotry is hardly a winning strategy in the long run. Sure, you can make that excuse to shareholders as long as they don't care enough to pay attention, but it's sacrificing long-term profits for short-term ability to protect their own jobs. And eventually, if you aren't producing a good product, you're going to lose that job anyway.
And yet that is actually what is happening. In case you've been asleep or under a rock for the past several months, you may have noticed that legitimate criticisms of movies and comic books, i.e. pointing out things that don't make sense, useless characters that don't advance a story (actually regressing the story), characters acting in irrational ways, or tearing down much loved characters; has been met with responses of "you feel that way because you're racist, misogynistic, sexist, x-phobic, and a privileged cis white male. But never engaging the paying fans with any reasonable response otherwise.
xraytango wrote: And yet that is actually what is happening. In case you've been asleep or under a rock for the past several months, you may have noticed that legitimate criticisms of movies and comic books, i.e. pointing out things that don't make sense, useless characters that don't advance a story (actually regressing the story), characters acting in irrational ways, or tearing down much loved characters; has been met with responses of "you feel that way because you're racist, misogynistic, sexist, x-phobic, and a privileged c is white male. But never engaging the paying fans with any reasonable response otherwise.
That's a serious misrepresentation of the situation. You're taking quotes specifically about anti-SJW s ranting about how they don't like "diversity" and acting like they're aimed at people who have legitimate criticism about poor writing.
xraytango wrote: And yet that is actually what is happening. In case you've been asleep or under a rock for the past several months, you may have noticed that legitimate criticisms of movies and comic books, i.e. pointing out things that don't make sense, useless characters that don't advance a story (actually regressing the story), characters acting in irrational ways, or tearing down much loved characters; has been met with responses of "you feel that way because you're racist, misogynistic, sexist, x-phobic, and a privileged c is white male. But never engaging the paying fans with any reasonable response otherwise.
I was accused of the very thing twice in this thread.
The idea that it'll 'drive away' the audience is only half-right. It's kind of doing that, to some degree. But more commonly (at least it seems), people are more inclined to just not want to be shamed as some kind of bigot and stay quiet.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: But more commonly (at least it seems), people are more inclined to just not want to be shamed as some kind of bigot and stay quiet.
That doesn't mean they're going to keep buying, so it's still a self-destructive strategy that makes no sense.
Extortion generally works best on individual targets as opposed to a broad section of society. KS didn't want to deal with being called a supporter of "rape culture." But Sony's Ghostbusters remake was a financial loss despite Sony's attempt to brand people who didn't like it as womenhating racists. When it comes to the tabletop game industry, as opposed to perhaps the video game industry, I expect extortion tactics will be more successful because the pressure points are so much more vulnerable.
xraytango wrote: And yet that is actually what is happening. In case you've been asleep or under a rock for the past several months, you may have noticed that legitimate criticisms of movies and comic books, i.e. pointing out things that don't make sense, useless characters that don't advance a story (actually regressing the story), characters acting in irrational ways, or tearing down much loved characters; has been met with responses of "you feel that way because you're racist, misogynistic, sexist, x-phobic, and a privileged c is white male. But never engaging the paying fans with any reasonable response otherwise.
That's a serious misrepresentation of the situation. You're taking quotes specifically about anti-SJW s ranting about how they don't like "diversity" and acting like they're aimed at people who have legitimate criticism about poor writing.
So tell me how I am misrepresenting the situation, when JJ Abrams calls everyone that disliked TLJ a "sexist" or that people that felt the character of Rose was pointless, were called, "sexist" and "racist", or pointing out the incompetence of the Lucasfilm president is, "misogynistic", when commentators have never once said anything disparaging about race, gender, or sexuality. The few troll that have said stupid things like that aren't part of this discussion as they are a) doing it for shock value, b) not really fans of civilized humanity, c) have no real contribution to any discussion; so those are right out of this conversation and are not to be used as an example.
xraytango, Sony removed criticisms of the Ghostbusters trailer in the YT comments section but left up misogynist and racist remarks. The idea is to change the narrative from being about the quality of the product to being about the moral repugnance of (a fraction) of its detractors. Deflection.
I think there are perfectly legitimate concerns about these kinds of tactics polarizing and undermining tabletop gaming.
Manchu wrote: Extortion generally works best on individual targets as opposed to a broad section of society. KS didn't want to deal with being called a supporter of "rape culture." But Sony's Ghostbusters remake was a financial loss despite Sony's attempt to brand people who didn't like it as womenhating racists. When it comes to the tabletop game industry, as opposed to perhaps the video game industry, I expect extortion tactics will be more successful because the pressure points are so much more vulnerable.
One of the key differences would be that tabletop gaming is a very social experience. Video gaming? Eh, I can buy a video game. I can make any number of accounts online. I can't really do much with tabletop gaming without driving a significant distance- and even then, maybe not. Smearing someone as a 'bigot' can follow you. It can stick, regardless of whether or not it's a legitimate complaint. It can start little witch-hunts in communities for people like you. It can hurt the place you play. It can invite unwanted drama.
Reputation in tabletop gaming is kind of important.
Manchu wrote: When it comes to the tabletop game industry, as opposed to perhaps the video game industry, I expect extortion tactics will be more successful because the pressure points are so much more vulnerable.
IMO it's the exact opposite. Aside from the question of whether "extortion" is the right label (IMO it isn't) the tabletop gaming industry is less vulnerable. Video games, at least of the mass-market sort, have a massive barrier to entry. You have to sink a ton of money into developing the game, and then you have to get the critical mass of players required for it to work. And you have to keep doing it, the lifespan of a game is measured in single-digit years at best and you'd better have the next version of it ready ASAP. With tabletop gaming the barriers to entry are lower. You don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on development, you don't need to find as many players, and you don't need to keep up with the relentless cycle of putting out new editions that are each a complete re-do of the previous edition. The industry is a lot friendlier to small publishers and a lot less dependent on a small number of large publishers accepting a project. Really, all you have to do to break the relevance of controlling authorities is to acknowledge that Kickstarter as a publishing method is using a tool for a job it wasn't meant to do and shift to a model of each publisher running their own pre-order system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Shoot me a link to that so I can look it over while I'm having coffee in the morning. I don't want to comment on it without reading it.
TL;DR: Origins mishandled the situation badly and accused Larry Correia (a generic US conservative) of being just short of a Nazi in an attempt to salvage their own reputation. He clearly doesn't have a right to be an invited guest, but we as potential customers of the convention don't have to endorse their behavior.
I would posit that the racist/sexist/misogynistic remarks are actually the minority rather than the rule, and certainly not the bugbear that they are made out to be. Reprehensible, certainly, but not as indicative as these reformers would hold it out to be.
There are many commentators who are women and non-whites, who have spoken out about the shortcomings of the current creative choices of comicbook writers and filmmakers.
Good point that tabletop has lower barriers to entry. I could develop a little game and try to sell it myself. But how would I deal with someone misconstruing my game, even while admitting to no substantial knowledge of it, so that the vendors I need to help fund it don't shut me down? That's the extreme case of the pressure point I'm talking about. Aside from Hasbro, the major players in tabletop are pretty small and pretty vulnerable to optical extortion tactics. When FFG bought Legend of the Five Rings from AEG the lomgstanding custom of doing a banzai chant at the tournamnet carried over until one Chinese nationalist complained via social media that this somehow affirmed Japanese war crimes. His opinion was magnified by a review site and FFG instantly chucked the banzai chant. Just as an example of vulnerability of even one of the big(ger) players.
I would posit that the racist/sexist/misogynistic remarks are actually the minority rather than the rule, and certainly not the bugbear that they are made out to be. Reprehensible, certainly, but not as indicative as these reformers would hold it out to be.
There are many commentators who are women and non-whites, who have spoken out about the shortcomings of the current creative choices of comicbook writers and filmmakers.
There's an element of the internet- the trolls- who just say things for shock value. I'm not doing that to deliberately insult your intelligence, but I'll show an example attachment-
In the attachment, this is someone attacking people who were criticizing a former Bioware employee that was making jokes about the death of Totalbiscuit (the employee was removed).
But there's people online that just... do this. And you can't use this as a means to poison the well. And it'll never go away, either.
xraytango wrote: when JJ Abrams calls everyone that disliked TLJ a "sexist"
He didn't. The quote was taken out of context, and was referring to a specific sort of criticism which was in fact sexist.
Okayyy, whatever, I've read the quote and I've seen the context, as well as the additional anti-criticism criticism in which writers double down on name calling and attempts at shaming that he emboldened with that statement.
Not to mention the remarks from KK and RJ, that if they weren't directed at a certain part of the population would be decried as sexist and racist. But you don't see that stuff do you.
I want to be able to criticize the issues in a game (while praising the good things as well) without being told that I am a bigot because of the identity of a designer. I want designers and artists to be able to exercise their free speech, even if I don't like it. They shouldn't have to worry about 'offense'. The free market will evaluate their efforts.
I would posit that the racist/sexist/misogynistic remarks are actually the minority rather than the rule, and certainly not the bugbear that they are made out to be. Reprehensible, certainly, but not as indicative as these reformers would hold it out to be.
There are many commentators who are women and non-whites, who have spoken out about the shortcomings of the current creative choices of comicbook writers and filmmakers.
There's an element of the internet- the trolls- who just say things for shock value. I'm not doing that to deliberately insult your intelligence, but I'll show an example attachment-
In the attachment, this is someone attacking people who were criticizing a former Bioware employee that was making jokes about the death of Totalbiscuit (the employee was removed).
But there's people online that just... do this. And you can't use this as a means to poison the well. And it'll never go away, either.
I was going to talk about trolls as well there, however I am of the mind that by now we should know that they exist and say horrible things.
Internet death threats are largely a tempest in a teacup. If someone really wanted to get to you they wouldn't tell you aboiut it. The more they squawk, the more time you have to load a couple of magazines. It's the quiet ones you need to worry about.
Intelligence not insulted Adeptus, you're just fine.
Manchu wrote: Interesting, I had never heard about that death threat. But TBH the immediate impact of GamerGate on me was ceasing to follow all "game journalism."
Nah, dude- that was just something I pulled from a random comments section yesterday. In an article talking about the employee that was fired over ridiculing Totalbiscuit's death.
The thing about all these 'rape and death threats'- I've no doubt they happen. A lot. I mean... play a FPS on XBox. Some little 13 year old squeaker will hurl horrible things. I've seen kids saying some pretty nasty stuff online. Also, there's people in countries where they have internet and there's absolutely no repercussions for online sexual harassment and even death threats. I mean, who hasn't had their girl get the "hi dear show bobs and open cloth" from some guy in New Dehli? It happens.
But parts of the conversation are ignored, and this stuff is spotlighted as the 'other side'.
We get lectured constantly that feminism isn't the man-hating lunatics, but the same courtesy is not offered in return.
Everyone has an idiot cousin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: Okayyy, whatever, I've read the quote and I've seen the context, as well as the additional anti-criticism criticism in which writers double down on name calling and attempts at shaming that he emboldened with that statement.
Arguing with Peregrine is like...
...actually, I can't think of anything that's quite as counter-productive. Just rest assured, he really isn't worth engaging. Trust me. Join countless others and smash that little button in the bottom right hand corner of his replies, and you'll get a lot better experience on Dakka. I just did and it's great.
Are you referring to this quote from JJ Abrams: “Star Wars is a big galaxy, and you can sort of find almost anything you want to in Star Wars. If you are someone who feels threatened by women and needs to lash out against them, you can probably find an enemy in Star Wars,” Abrams said. “You can probably look at the first movie that George [Lucas] did and say that Leia was too outspoken, or she was too tough. Anyone who wants to find a problem with anything can find the problem. The internet seems to be made for that.”
I don't see where you are getting "He's saying everyone who disliked TLJ is Sexist". It seems to me that he's saying "Sexist Trolls had a problem with Star wars". You've already dismissed said trolls as existing (thus making his comment true) but irrelevant.
I hate to say it but it sounds to me like you're getting Triggered. Chill. Since you're not a sexist troll, he's not talking about you. He's not code wording or dog whistling you. He's just stating some truth about the internet. You want people to not assume you're sexist if you didn't like X female character - fair enough, but how about extending some assumption of good intentions to the "other side" as well?
I didn't like TLJ all that much, but it was better than The force Awakens, which was the worst star wars movie of all time (including the ewok Christmas special). Just gotta throw that in there. Oh, and I liked Jar Jar.
Manchu wrote: Good point that tabletop has lower barriers to entry. I could develop a little game and try to sell it myself. But how would I deal with someone misconstruing my game, even while admitting to no substantial knowledge of it, so that the vendors I need to help fund it don't shut me down? That's the extreme case of the pressure point I'm talking about. Aside from Hasbro, the major players in tabletop are pretty small and pretty vulnerable to optical extortion tactics. When FFG bought Legend of the Five Rings from AEG the lomgstanding custom of doing a banzai chant at the tournamnet carried over until one Chinese nationalist complained via social media that this somehow affirmed Japanese war crimes. His opinion was magnified by a review site and FFG instantly chucked the banzai chant. Just as an example of vulnerability of even one of the big(ger) players.
But how does this vulnerability translate into real-world consequences? If FFG had said " you, that's not what it means, we're keeping the tradition" where does it go next? Stores aren't going to stop carrying FFG products because they want to stay in business (and game stores are owned by a diverse range of individuals anyway, there is no central store authority to make such a decision), the Chinese companies that FFG uses to print their inventory aren't going to give a about some controversy in the US involving people who don't even know who the Chinese companies are, and the people who like FFG games are going to continue buying. FFG would be free to continue with business as usual if they wanted to do so. FFG made the decision to act on the criticism, but they were not forced to.
And besides that, what would you suggest as a solution? Are we supposed to ban criticism of game companies? Is it "extortion" to point out that AoS is a trash game and encourage people not to buy it? Because it sure seems like the only way to preserve "free speech" by game publishers is to limit the speech of game critics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Yeah, again, Context. Seems like he didn't address the rest of the criticism.
Why would he? The interviewer specifically asked a question about the sexist trolls, not criticism in general. You might as well complain that he didn't include a listing of what he had for breakfast that morning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Join countless others and smash that little button in the bottom right hand corner of his replies, and you'll get a lot better experience on Dakka. I just did and it's great.
And yet you keep responding. No doubt your supposed use of the ignore feature will last just long enough for people to forget about your dramatic exit, until you tell us all again about how you're done interacting with me and then promptly post another reply.
But feel free to actually use the ignore button this time and prove me wrong. I'd love to be able to point out all the ways in which you're wrong without having to deal with your absurd lying and false accusations directed at me.
RE "endorsing" the decisions of the companies that put on conventions:
I don't think attendees buy or don't buy badges to show support or disapproval of the company's political decisions. They want to see and buy and play games.
Let's say this upcoming GenCon continues the trend of year-over-year attendance improvement. We can't conclude that sponsors and attendees thereby approved of the decision host Ms. Sarkeesian as a Guest of Honor. People will have come for the games, per usual. Ms. Sarkeesian's role is tangential as far as these tens of thousands of people are concerned, to the extent they are even aware of it. There is an overriding, preexisting agenda of buying and selling and playing tabletop games.
GenCon is not going to get more people through the turnstyles with Ms. Sarkeesian. But they will preempt the accusation that GenCon somehow supports rape culture or misogyny or whatever, which is a real concern for this business at a certain level. Best result is, they earn this bragging credential and Ms. Sarkeesian can attend or not attend as a regular customer in future. Worst result is, Ms. Sarkeesian senses a career opportunity in deconstructing the tabletop industry and another (admittedly less interesting because lower financial stakes) GamerGate breaks out.
GenCon is not going to get more people through the turnstyles with Ms. Sarkeesian. But they will preempt the accusation that GenCon somehow supports rape culture or misogyny or whatever, which is a real concern for this business at a certain level. Best result is, they earn this bragging credential and Ms. Sarkeesian can attend or not attend as a regular customer in future. Worst result is, Ms. Sarkeesian senses a career opportunity in deconstructing the tabletop industry and another (admittedly less interesting because lower financial stakes) GamerGate breaks out.
Eh, if putting a washed-up huckster at a panel is what it takes to tone down some of the madness and stories out of Gen*Con, then so be it. I think the best we can hope for at this point is that she won't verbally abuse audience members she recognizes or other panel members. It seems to me, based on everything I've seen her do live, she can't really go off script without acting like a lunatic.
Actually Kestrel, I think that I acknowledge the existence of Internet trolls, I just don't think they should be given as much importance as some persons ascribe them.
I don't agree that AoS is a trash game but I think people who say that around here are most likely referencing game design choices they don't like (so giving them the benefit of the doubt really) as opposed to dreaming up some metanarrative about how Stormcast tacitly justify rape culture. Not that there aren't people who have tried to foist such absurdities on GW products.
Manchu wrote: I don't agree that AoS is a trash game but I think people who say that around here are most likely referencing game design choices they don't like (so giving them the benefit of the doubt really) as opposed to dreaming up some metanarrative about how Stormcast tacitly justify rape culture. Not that there aren't people who have tried to foist such absurdities on GW products.
Nah, unless you're talking about the Fimir... then, you might have a point. But I suppose even in that old lore- 'monsters are bad and do bad things', but even I was slightly unnerved by that little tidbit.
Peregrine wrote: TL;DR: Origins mishandled the situation badly and accused Larry Correia (a generic US conservative) of being just short of a Nazi in an attempt to salvage their own reputation. He clearly doesn't have a right to be an invited guest, but we as potential customers of the convention don't have to endorse their behavior.
Fun fact: Correia is a big gamer. He's posted his painted Infinity collection on the official forums a while back (very nice) and wrote books and short stories for Warmachine. Unlike Sarkeesian, this is a dude that belongs at a gaming convention.
Edit: Just saw this part in his blog, "play some games, buy some minis (seriously, I spent $1,000 before lunch the first day of GenCon last time)," - I think I need to become a writer... again.
Sqorgar wrote: Fun fact: Correia is a big gamer. He's posted his painted Infinity collection on the official forums a while back (very nice) and wrote books and short stories for Warmachine. Unlike Sarkeesian, this is a dude that belongs at a gaming convention.
More relevantly, he's also someone with a long history of being an invited guest at conventions and not causing any trouble. So the supposed "we don't hate you, we just worry about your presence being disruptive" excuse they made is a pretty blatant lie and attempt to weasel out of a PR debacle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I don't agree that AoS is a trash game but I think people who say that around here are most likely referencing game design choices they don't like (so giving them the benefit of the doubt really) as opposed to dreaming up some metanarrative about how Stormcast tacitly justify rape culture. Not that there aren't people who have tried to foist such absurdities on GW products.
Well yes, of course the objections are over game mechanics and fluff choices instead of real-world issues, but that's not the point. You can't have a double standard where criticism of one set of things is ok, but criticism of another set of things isn't (and the difference seems to be entirely in how much you agree with the criticism). If it's unacceptable to criticize GW for not having enough women in AoS and encourage people not to buy AoS then it's also unacceptable to criticize GW for removing the point system from AoS and encourage people not to buy it. Either way you're "extorting" the company and expecting them to make the game that you want them to make instead of the game they already make, and expecting changes to an existing product instead of ignoring the existing product and making your own.
Peregrine wrote: More relevantly, he's also someone with a long history of being an invited guest at conventions and not causing any trouble. So the supposed "we don't hate you, we just worry about your presence being disruptive" excuse they made is a pretty blatant lie and attempt to weasel out of a PR debacle.
Reading through his blog, I just don't think there's any way to defend Origins' behavior here. Regardless of whatever else is in this thread, can we all agree on the fact that this, at least, is bull-ploppies?
Sqorgar wrote: Fun fact: Correia is a big gamer. He's posted his painted Infinity collection on the official forums a while back (very nice) and wrote books and short stories for Warmachine. Unlike Sarkeesian, this is a dude that belongs at a gaming convention.
More relevantly, he's also someone with a long history of being an invited guest at conventions and not causing any trouble. So the supposed "we don't hate you, we just worry about your presence being disruptive" excuse they made is a pretty blatant lie and attempt to weasel out of a PR debacle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I don't agree that AoS is a trash game but I think people who say that around here are most likely referencing game design choices they don't like (so giving them the benefit of the doubt really) as opposed to dreaming up some metanarrative about how Stormcast tacitly justify rape culture. Not that there aren't people who have tried to foist such absurdities on GW products.
There is no such thing as "rape culture". Literally, there is no one saying that rape is a good thing and advocating it.
The over usage of the word "rape" in gaming (video and tt) is alarming and uncomfortable, and far more likely as well uncouth. But no one is literally telling people to go out and rape, then subsequently building a belief system on that, or using it for solutions to problems.
I feel that using the word "rape" in a casual way is improper and impolite, but then I was raised in a time when kids were instructed on etiquette. Now the hellions and other inmates have taken over the asylum, so we deal with them as we meet them.
Did the devil just buy ice skates? Because I just agreed with Peregrine.
xraytango wrote: There is no such thing as "rape culture". Literally, there is no one saying that rape is a good thing and advocating it.
The thing you describe in sentence one, and the thing you describe in sentence two are not the same thing. I also would agree that rape culture doesn't exist if we invent a definition for it in which it means something else.
xraytango wrote: There is no such thing as "rape culture". Literally, there is no one saying that rape is a good thing and advocating it.
But that's not what "rape culture" means. Few people outside of the lunatic fringe are advocating rape, but a lot of people are making excuses for it. Look at how short her skirt was, boys will be boys, what did she expect coming up to his hotel room, it was just a miscommunication, etc. We expect the potential victims to be constantly paranoid about rape (don't go out alone, always watch your drinks, etc), and immediately jump to questioning all of their choices. And that's the best-case scenario, when they aren't just accusing rape victims of lying (despite evidence that false accusations are very rare). The end result is dismissing the severity of rape, looking for anyone to blame except the rapist.
xraytango wrote: There is no such thing as "rape culture". Literally, there is no one saying that rape is a good thing and advocating it.
Well, I'd argue that there is, but it is relegated to places like India, places in Africa and the Middle East. Applying the concept to a country that actually has written consent forms that adults are expected to fill out prior to copulation feels a bit misguided though.
Ouze wrote: The thing you describe in sentence one, and the thing you describe in sentence two are not the same thing. I also would agree that rape culture doesn't exist if we invent a definition for it in which it means something else.
Oh, then we really need to revisit some of the definitions that get thrown around these days, then. You sure you wanna do this?
The irony is: There is no rape culture in the US. It's not a tolerated crime. As a matter of fact, we used to execute rapists.
This is a general problem but I think tabletop game publishers are particularly vulnerable: Products are not received by traditional critics but rather social media influencers who have large followings because people, for whatever reason, like them.
The context for L5R is, FFG purchased the IP from AEG as part of a strategy to pivot away from relying on licensed properties. L5R has a significant built-in following, which is both good and bad. FFG decided to relaunch its own L5R product lines rather than acrry on AEG's efforts. So the built-in customer base was wary. Meanwhile, the idea is to sell not only to existing customers but as many people as possible. So now they have a tension between attracting new players and alienating existing ones. This is a very fragile state.
Shut Up & Sit Down reviewed the new L5R LCG to the effect of 'clever game but too boring to finish.' Not great. But the reviewer then went off-book completely to talk about cultural appropriation and sensitivity, including a very crude (in fact, self admittedly crude) discussion of the banzai chant because the reviewer had heard of this one guy's opinion and now was acting as an unwitting megaphone for that guy's racist/nationalist hatred of the Japanese, having confused racist/nationalist hatred for maybe something about diversity or sensitivity or something.
So into this fragile time and in the context of a backhanded review we blunderinly inject a potential narrative explosion via an influenced with a relatuvely huge following. No one put a gun to Christian Petersen's head but the situation was clearly, this is not a hill we should die on. Esepcially since the hill was a molehill that could easily become a mountain.
We live in an age where people and especially companies want to be "in control" of the conversation about themeslves and their products. They are often willing to cave sooner rather than later.
Ouze wrote: The thing you describe in sentence one, and the thing you describe in sentence two are not the same thing. I also would agree that rape culture doesn't exist if we invent a definition for it in which it means something else.
Oh, then we really need to revisit some of the definitions that get thrown around these days, then. You sure you wanna do this?
Get into an intellectually dishonest argument with your moving goalposts? Since Peregrine gave a definition and you ignored it in favor of going back to the made-up one: No, I'm good, I've had enough of that.
My comment was intended for the other people in the thread who perhaps don't know what the concept of rape culture is, and who now perhaps will see that it's not defined the way it was presented in that post.
I don't think criticizing a game mechanic like points-buy list building (or its absence) is anything like or at all connected to the legitimacy of criticisms of a fantasy setting allegedly inspired by IRL ideologies. You can definitely have one without the other. And neither need be a case of extortion. Extortion comes in when someone threatens to (mis)represent a product in extremely polarizing, hyperbolic terms (generally unconnected to the product itself) in order cause a ruinous PR scandal, generally on the backs of the uninformed/misinformed.
"I don't like these mechanics and I will not buy this game," is not the sme thing as "I will ake sure everyone knows that this game excuses rape and the people who support it are creepy rapist-enablers if not also rapists themselves."
Ouze wrote: Get into an intellectually dishonest argument with your moving goalposts? No, I'm good, I've had enough of that. My comment was intended for the other people in the thread who perhaps don't know what the concept of rape culture is, and who now perhaps will see that it's not defined the way it was presented in that post.
Well, at least you admit your arguments are intellectually dishonest. I've yet to see otherwise, at least.
Sorry, the US is not a 'rape culture'. "Rape culture is a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality." Well, we kind of genuinely hate rape and it's not a normal occurrance, and we tend to have harsh punishments for rapists (unless it's a female teacher molesting a child).
And most of the 'symptoms' of 'rape culture' like police asking what the girl was wearing? Yeah, kind of parts of building a case to investigate. Oh, and false accusations DO exist. As a matter of fact, quite a few rape cases are unfounded.
After all, you can just ruin someone's college education by saying they raped you without any evidence whatsoever.
Manchu wrote: Shut Up & Sit Down reviewed the new L5R LCG to the effect of 'clever game but too boring to finish.' Not great.
Fun Fact: One of the guys behind SU&SD is married to Leigh Alexander, writer of the "Gamers Are Dead" article that basically set off GamerGate, and Matt Lees is a beyond the pale male feminist ally that has authored some really terrible articles himself. I'd put them only slightly lower on the crazy scale than Sarkeesian. It's really amazing how incestuous new media really is...
Sqorgar wrote: Fun Fact: One of the guys behind SU&SD is married to Leigh Alexander, writer of the "Gamers Are Dead" article that basically set off GamerGate, and Matt Lees is a beyond the pale male feminist ally that has authored some really terrible articles himself. I'd put them only slightly lower on the crazy scale than Sarkeesian. It's really amazing how incestuous new media really is...
Jesus Christ, that explains quite a bit.
And I wouldn't write Sarkeesian off as crazy. Just dishonest and a swindler. I don't even think she's crazy enough to believe what she says, she just knows there's people who are just crazy enough to eat it up.
Ouze wrote: Get into an intellectually dishonest argument with your moving goalposts? No, I'm good, I've had enough of that. My comment was intended for the other people in the thread who perhaps don't know what the concept of rape culture is, and who now perhaps will see that it's not defined the way it was presented in that post.
Well, at least you admit your arguments are intellectually dishonest. I've yet to see otherwise, at least.
Sorry, the US is not a 'rape culture'. "Rape culture is a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality." Well, we kind of genuinely hate rape and it's not a normal occurrance, and we tend to have harsh punishments for rapists (unless it's a female teacher molesting a child).
And most of the 'symptoms' of 'rape culture' like police asking what the girl was wearing?
So, again to reiterate, the reason I refuse to get into this with you is that we started with this definition:
xraytango wrote: There is no such thing as "rape culture". Literally, there is no one saying that rape is a good thing and advocating it.
And now, 4 posts later, you've moved into a new, slightly more accurate definition without missing a beat while claiming I'm intellectually dishonest. Have fun with your Calvinball.
xraytango wrote: There is no such thing as "rape culture". Literally, there is no one saying that rape is a good thing and advocating it.
But that's not what "rape culture" means. Few people outside of the lunatic fringe are advocating rape, but a lot of people are making excuses for it. Look at how short her skirt was, boys will be boys, what did she expect coming up to his hotel room, it was just a miscommunication, etc. We expect the potential victims to be constantly paranoid about rape (don't go out alone, always watch your drinks, etc), and immediately jump to questioning all of their choices. And that's the best-case scenario, when they aren't just accusing rape victims of lying (despite evidence that false accusations are very rare). The end result is dismissing the severity of rape, looking for anyone to blame except the rapist.
No those are just excuses that bad people make to justify or lessen their responsibility. They are reprehensible and need education on the matter. But it still isn't a 'culture', no fair-minded individual makes excuses for rape. A crime is a crime, that's all there is to it.
One definition of culture is, "a system of operations, i.e. how things are done, or accepted means and standards". The standard for rape is, "don't do it" that is the standard of our society. Our culture does not endorse rape. Rape cannot be a culture to itself, no one is using rape as a standard method of operation.
There are, unfortunately, rapes; but there is no rape culture. It is a made up buzzword.
Sqorgar wrote: Fun Fact: One of the guys behind SU&SD is married to Leigh Alexander, writer of the "Gamers Are Dead" article that basically set off GamerGate, and Matt Lees is a beyond the pale male feminist ally that has authored some really terrible articles himself. I'd put them only slightly lower on the crazy scale than Sarkeesian. It's really amazing how incestuous new media really is...
Thanks, I didn't know that at all. After reading over/listening to about a dozen of his reviews I started to strongly suspect this wasn't just about games and decided to not read/listen to any more.
Ouze wrote: And now, 4 posts later, you've moved into a new, slightly more accurate definition without missing a beat while claiming I'm intellectually dishonest. Have fun with your Calvinball.
Except one of those posts isn't mine. I'll chalk that up to yet another honest mistake.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I didn't claim you said that. You followed that thread. This is how a discussion works.
it's only been half a page and generally that's a smooth read, so I'd rather not create giant quote pyramids just to accommodate the guy who super aggressively claimed racism didn't happen in a thread because he couldn't be bothered to read all of it.
xraytango wrote: There are, unfortunately, rapes; but there is no rape culture. It is a made up buzzword.
You'll find it in very few places. In third world countries and very... I suppose you could say 'behind the times' cultural cesspits (not specifically 'cultures', but their own 'bad clusters'). It's there, but it's not something you're going to find in the FLGS.
The worst you'll ever see as far as anything even remotely relatable is, "Dude put down his Imperial Guard and just raped me by turn 2". Which, of course, I'll be the first to say isn't appropriate for a group setting. Talk any way you like in private, but you shouldn't throw that word around just as much as you should any other vulgarity.
Manchu wrote: So into this fragile time and in the context of a backhanded review we blunderinly inject a potential narrative explosion via an influenced with a relatuvely huge following. No one put a gun to Christian Petersen's head but the situation was clearly, this is not a hill we should die on. Esepcially since the hill was a molehill that could easily become a mountain.
But you can also look at it the other way around. FFG was in a delicate situation with a customer base wary of their beloved game's future. Why pick removing the chant as the hill to die on and accept a backlash from their existing customers? Why not take it as a cheap way of saying "STFU critics, we are loyal to our fans"? Sure, that gets more attention, but it's attention that tells an important part of the market that you are on their side.
Ouze wrote: It's not an accident that virtually every thread about Sisters of Battle turns into a trainwreck.
It becomes a trainwreck because some posters just can't handle the concept that sexy miniatures aren't sexist. Remove that one thing and the discussion would end with "let's agree to disagree". But because it is sexist, and thus immoral and dangerous to women, changing the character and design of the Sisters of Battle isn't just a preference, it is a God given duty!
Ouze wrote: it's only been half a page and generally that's a smooth read, so I'd rather not create giant quote pyramids just to accommodate the guy who super aggressively claimed racism didn't happen in a thread because he couldn't be bothered to read all of it.
Of course you missed the part where I asked if it actually happened, and then said "Nevermind, I see it" or something to that effect. But hey, I'm sure that was another one of your 'honest mistakes'. You really outta work on that, friend. Otherwise one might get the impression you're desperately trying to misrepresent someone. And try not to get too carried away with the name-calling, okay? It cheapens you.
Manchu wrote: I don't think criticizing a game mechanic like points-buy list building (or its absence) is anything like or at all connected to the legitimacy of criticisms of a fantasy setting allegedly inspired by IRL ideologies. You can definitely have one without the other. And neither need be a case of extortion. Extortion comes in when someone threatens to (mis)represent a product in extremely polarizing, hyperbolic terms (generally unconnected to the product itself) in order cause a ruinous PR scandal, generally on the backs of the uninformed/misinformed.
"I don't like these mechanics and I will not buy this game," is not the sme thing as "I will ake sure everyone knows that this game excuses rape and the people who support it are creepy rapist-enablers if not also rapists themselves."
But hyperbole is exactly the sort of thing that happens with game mechanics. Yeah, there was calm and rational criticism, but there was also a whole lot of hyperbolic outrage (remember the guy burning his WHFB army?). Granted, it may have been less hyperbolic because AoS was genuinely a terrible game and there's less room for hyperbole than there would be with a game that is merely mediocre, but there sure was a lot of polarizing discussion going on and a very divided community. So why is it acceptable to do that over one thing but not over a different thing?
Discussion about "rape culture" itself is best left to the OT Forum and most likely some other forum altogether.
The only relevance here is that it is sometimes evoked to criticize game products. Without at all speaking to the concept itself, I can say that it isn't always and by necessity a completely baseless accusation (again, F.A.T.A.L. comes to mind) but the specific example was a blogger who fully admitted to ignornace about a game, its genre, its references, and its context making that particular accusation and being rebroadcast by sympathetic media to the point of Kickstarter unilaterally pulling the plug on a successfully funded game its own editors had marketed as a "project We Love" or whatever the label was in those days.
Sqorgar wrote: It becomes a trainwreck because some posters just can't handle the concept that sexy miniatures aren't sexist. Remove that one thing and the discussion would end with "let's agree to disagree". But because it is sexist, and thus immoral and dangerous to women, changing the character and design of the Sisters of Battle isn't just a preference, it is a God given duty!
Ding-ding-ding.
Really, most people on the rational side are pretty excited to see them come back. I know, honestly, two things: I want people to shut the hell up asking about them in literally every comment section even remotely related to 40k on the internet, and two... oh, man the old ones are so ugly. A guy I know plays them and those girls have been knocked around in a plastic box and repainted and stripped more times than I can count. Please get that boy some new toys...
Only because we define "rape" as "a stranger jumps out of the bushes and drags a victim (preferably young, white, attractive, and a pious virgin) off by force and rapes them as they scream NO as loudly as possible" and insist that things like getting someone drunk and having sex with them while they are unable to consent are just "regretting it the morning after" and not really rape.
And most of the 'symptoms' of 'rape culture' like police asking what the girl was wearing? Yeah, kind of parts of building a case to investigate.
WTF no. Bringing it up in court, with the implication that wearing something "too sexy" is a sign that a woman is consenting to sex, is not a legitimate part of building up an investigation to send a criminal to jail. I mean, this should be pretty obvious from the fact that this question is commonly raised by the defense lawyer, not by the police.
Oh, and false accusations DO exist. As a matter of fact, quite a few rape cases are unfounded.
The actual statistics on this disagree with you. False accusations exist, but they are rare.
I have literally never seen you post anything that wasn't factually untrue, incendiary, or abusive in all the time I've been here... and that's still the case. If I ever become unstuck in time, you will be my rock by which I navigate the multiverse and return home.
TBF I don't think burning your toys is a legitimate criticism. I figured the guy in question was either deranged or angling for clicks/subscriptions/attention. Wait, those things aren't mutually exclusive.
But extortion? No, I don't think so. That was not a credible attempt to disgrace GW by leveraging minstream ignorance/self-righteousness.
Sqorgar wrote: It becomes a trainwreck because some posters just can't handle the concept that sexy miniatures aren't sexist.
Because it's almost inevitably a concept that doesn't exist in the real world. Yes, in some hypothetical porn game where everyone, male or female or not human at all or whatever, is sexy and the game is all about sex having sexy miniatures wouldn't be sexist. But in the real world we're inevitably talking about bikini outfits in a game where the men are wearing practical clothes, and the obvious intent is to make sexy women for the enjoyment of male customers. It presents the sexist message that men are the relevant characters, and women are there as decorative objects.
I suspect FFG didn't double down on the banzai chant because they only knew enough about it to try it at GenCon to emphasize continuity to holdover players and it wasn't actually the key to those players' hearts or anything. Listening to long time L5R CCG players talk about it, a few love it as a custom and tradition. Many more are ambivalent to yelling something in public because a lot of gamers are shy and don't like calling attention to themselves.
In essence, it's a lot easier to just pull the plug on that old custom then explain to people arguing in bad faith or, in the case of people arguing in good faith, from ignorance and disinterest about something as complex as cultural sensitivity at the intersection of history and fanatsy,
Sqorgar wrote: I have literally never seen you post anything that wasn't factually untrue, incendiary, or abusive in all the time I've been here... and that's still the case. If I ever become unstuck in time, you will be my rock by which I navigate the multiverse and return home.
I love you too.
And AoS was a terrible game on release. It was utterly broken and unplayable. Even setting aside the missing point system (which reduced a game of AoS to "whoever spends the most money on GW products wins") GW couldn't even bother to notice and fix issues like models on flying bases being immune to being charged because you had to get into model to model contact (ignoring the bases). There's a good reason why AoS nearly killed GW's fantasy line, and required a desperate second edition in all but name release (which reversed GW's design decisions) to be rushed out before it was too late. Now it's less terrible, but only because GW changed the worst of its flaws and conceded that the criticism was accurate.
Manchu wrote: I suspect FFG didn't double down on the banzai chant because they only knew enough about it to try it at GenCon to emphasize continuity to holdover players and it wasn't actually the key to those players' hearts or anything. Listening to long time L5R CCG players talk about it, a few love it as a custom and tradition. Many more are ambivalent to yelling something in public because a lot of gamers a shy and don't like calling attention to themselves.
And that's the real root of the issue. This wasn't a beloved tradition that FFG abandoned, a devastating injury to the community and triumph of extortion over product quality, it was a case of a game publisher dumping something of marginal value and most of their customers being happy to see it go. TBH I wouldn't be surprised if FFG was already kind of wary of the whole thing because of how awkward it was and secretly glad to have an excuse to get rid of it. As an example of the power of "extortion" it's a pretty weak one.
It's kind of like GW stores and the anecdotes about yelling WAAAAAAAAGH. I don't particularly care what motivates GW to dump the idea, or what ideological group wants to claim credit, as long as it is gone.
I agree it wan't a universally beloved tradition. But it was a tradition. It was something practiced to create a sense of unity and participation. It was successful for some and a non-issue for others. But it had never been a justification of 20th-century Japanese war crimes until one looney racist demanded that it was and a bumbling reviewer misunderstood this and rebroadcast it as an issue of cultural insensitivity. That is what killed it, not shy people who would prefer to avoid yelling in public.
By the bye, it was actually an example of how vulnerable even larger publishers are to bizarro claims deployed by a tiny (in this case, two) number of individuals. I don't think, SU&SD was trying to extort FFG a la the blogger/Tentacle Bento debacle.
.
you" to anyone who objects. The real issue here is that you don't like that "people who feel that bikini outfits are an essential part of a game" is a tiny and irrelevant market, and you have no financial power to compel game publishers to put them in their games.
