So, quick explanation:
Before pro Starcraft II player Kas was going to play against his opponent Maddelisk in a qualifying match for tournament “Fragbite Masters”, he tweeted “Going to rape some girl soon. #fragbitemasters”. The organizers of tournament decided that Kas would be disqualified as a result. Maddelisk had a discussion with Kas, who deleted the comment, apologized and accepted the disqualification. Maddelisk accepted the apology and both her and her opponent seemed on the same page. Everything could have stopped with this conclusion that would have been the best possible for the incident… if gamer culture was not so full of fething idiotic waste of life. Because immediately people that are most certainly not linked to GamerGate in any way started to harass Maddelisk for, well, they do not really know. Yes, the tournament organizers decided to exclude Kas without Maddelisk having said anything. No, the angry hordes of idiots did not decide to harass them, and instead directly went for Maddelisk.
And that includes other pro player NightEnDD and Snovski.
You can read her account of the situation here:
http://esport.aftonbladet.se/team/maddelisk/drama-never-seems-end and an article on this:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pro-starcraft-ii-player-booted-from-tournament-aft/1100-6423795/
Conclusion:
Kas seems like a genuinely nice person that just did not realize how he was influenced by some very toxic aspect of gamer culture.
Maddelisk seems like a very nice person who completely understand why Kas wrote what he wrote and acknowledge having done something similar before.
Fragbite Masters staff seems like nice person that cares about setting up a better atmosphere in pro gaming.
NightEnDD seems like a fething idiot that should mind his own gak or die trying.
If gamers are not dead yet, I hope they do soon.
Inb4 “Actually it is about ethics in tournament organization”?
It's disgusting, and I think all competitive online gamers (including MOBA players) should feel ashamed of themselves.
Also I'm not sure why you mentioned GamerGate, as it isn't mentioned in either of the two articles you linked. Is it possible you are projecting a bad event onto a group you dislike?
Crude sexual comments and/or references aren't exactly new to the gaming community. Teabagging, for instance. Nor is that limited to the gaming community. Calling people Teabaggers, for instance.
He still should have known better.
And, sadly, the response to the actions by the tournament organizers is the same kind of action that you'd expect among the members of any competitive crowd. Remember the response to the actions taken against Joe Patterno just a few years ago? Same vein, and possibly even greater levels of vitriol.
We see this every time regardless of the group involved.
And regardless of the medium. I've known TV writers to get death threats for killing off a character. Greater Internet fethkwad theory. It's a reality.
But no, no. Let's let the OP try and turn this into another bout of mah soggy knees, or how a collectivist hive mind of "gamers" need to be stopped.
VorpalBunny74 wrote:Also I'm not sure why you mentioned GamerGate, as it isn't mentioned in either of the two articles you linked. Is it possible you are projecting a bad event onto a group you dislike?
To be fair, given the context ... a bunch of gamers being offended not at the initial offence, but by something being done against it, thus trivialising rape in favour of the sanctity of their game - and likely regarding the action taken by the organisers as the work of some "feminist agenda" ... shotgun principle, I'd say. It's the same mindset; I don't see how someone could protest the disqualification and not support the gamergate movement, provided they know it exists.
On the other hand, this would still just mean a potential overlap with a very disorganised and splintered movement. Also, I don't really see why this would warrant its own thread - doesn't this sort of stuff (sadly) happen every other week or so? A discussion about attitudes amongst the various gamer subgroups might be more appropriate. But then again, I guess we know that wouldn't really lead anywhere except to another locked thread.
Given the context of the statement, it is in no way unacceptable. That he was disqualified was an absolute sham and the organisers should be disgusted with themselves.
Krellnus wrote: Given the context of the statement, it is in no way unacceptable. That he was disqualified was an absolute sham and the organisers should be disgusted with themselves.
Really? Saying you are going to rape someone is never acceptable (and in some countries is considered illegal behaviour). Most tournaments have a code of conduct and I would imagine this would be against it. Evidently the organisers considered his behaviour unacceptable and consequently removed him from the event. I fully support their choice and would have made the same decision in their place.
Lynata wrote: To be fair, given the context ... a bunch of gamers being offended not at the initial offence, but by something being done against it, thus trivialising rape in favour of the sanctity of their game - and likely regarding the action taken by the organisers as the work of some "feminist agenda" ... shotgun principle, I'd say. It's the same mindset; I don't see how someone could protest the disqualification and not support the gamergate movement, provided they know it exists.
On the other hand, this would still just mean a potential overlap with a very disorganised and splintered movement. Also, I don't really see why this would warrant its own thread - doesn't this sort of stuff (sadly) happen every other week or so? A discussion about attitudes amongst the various gamer subgroups might be more appropriate. But then again, I guess we know that wouldn't really lead anywhere except to another locked thread.
Thanks for the polite response. I can't agree with the equivalence, though, I just don't see HOW any overlap between the two groups could be anything but coincidental. Hybrid twisted himself into knots trying to do it.
Krellnus wrote: Given the context of the statement, it is in no way unacceptable. That he was disqualified was an absolute sham and the organisers should be disgusted with themselves.
Really? Saying you are going to rape someone is never acceptable (and in some countries is considered illegal behaviour). Most tournaments have a code of conduct and I would imagine this would be against it. Evidently the organisers considered his behaviour unacceptable and consequently removed him from the event. I fully support their choice and would have made the same decision in their place.
It was clearly a taunt and a boast, nothing more nothing less, if you cannot see that then I really don't know what to say.
tl;dr
Proplayer does something dumb, and its handled in a reasonable way.
Other proplayer decides since it involves the internet it requires the mandatory level of drama.
Same proplayer wants attention.
For a moment I thought Stephano was back. I honestly didn't expect something like this from Kas. Shame. Although NightEnd is known for his outbursts and general bad manner.
A professional sports player (working with the assumption that e-sports are to be respected at the same level as regular sports) threatens another professional sports player with rape. The second player, upon receiving this threat, reported it to the agency which runs the professional sport in question, and said agency put the first player on a ban for conduct that violated the policies its players must follow.
Then an unrelated third player has a hissy fit because he's mad that someone got punished for breaking the rules.
So... if anyone is "freaking out" about anything... it's the third player-- and you.
A professional sports player (working with the assumption that e-sports are to be respected at the same level as regular sports) threatens another professional sports player with rape. The second player, upon receiving this threat, reported it to the agency which runs the professional sport in question, and said agency put the first player on a ban for conduct that violated the policies its players must follow.
Then an unrelated third player has a hissy fit because he's mad that someone got punished for breaking the rules.
So... if anyone is "freaking out" about anything... it's the third player-- and you.
Freaking out? Me? I posted a response on a forum, guess that's freaking out now. Right.
My point is that this is bs. Etiquette hasn't been apart of the internet scene since forever, it's fething lame that some 'institution' thinks they can enforce it now.
Frankenberry wrote: Etiquette hasn't been apart of the internet scene since forever, it's fething lame that some 'institution' thinks they can enforce it now.
If you don't want to follow the rules of the organizer of a tournament, don't join the tournament.
Frankenberry wrote: My point is that this is bs. Etiquette hasn't been apart of the internet scene since forever, it's fething lame that some 'institution' thinks they can enforce it now.
Then I guess the only appropriate thing for you to do is to say that you will rape the people that work for those institutions and eat their unborn babies?
Frankenberry wrote: , it's fething lame that some 'institution' thinks they can enforce it now.
Except they can. The player agreed to the rules of conduct in the tournament when they joined the tournament, and when the broke that conduct the tournament can enforce the contract as they see fit. If anything, they MUST do so otherwise the contact is null and void to all parties.
Frankenberry wrote:My point is that this is bs. Etiquette hasn't been apart of the internet scene since forever, it's fething lame that some 'institution' thinks they can enforce it now.
It's only bs to people who are unable to restrain themselves.
There is etiquette for normal human interaction, and it shouldn't matter where it happens. You shouldn't treat people like gak on the phone, or when you write them letters. Why should this be different on the web, exactly? Because lol anonymity? Is etiquette something that only matters if you can "enforce" it?
Sorry to hear that you think that way. "This is why we can't have nice things."
Luke_Prowler wrote:The player agreed to the rules of conduct in the tournament when they joined the tournament, and when the broke that conduct the tournament can enforce the contract as they see fit. If anything, they MUST do so otherwise the contact is null and void to all parties.
I don't think the rules of that tournament dealt with rape threats between players. It's probably just something along the lines of "we don't need the likes of him here". And it was the right thing to do, even if the guy was actually sorry rather than faking it. Signals matter.
The rules of the tournament include good sportsmanship, and that's anything but.
The TO almost invariably wants you to treat the participants with respect, and for organized sports where you get paid for playing, this is part of the contract.
A professional sports player (working with the assumption that e-sports are to be respected at the same level as regular sports) threatens another professional sports player with rape. The second player, upon receiving this threat, reported it to the agency which runs the professional sport in question, and said agency put the first player on a ban for conduct that violated the policies its players must follow.
Then an unrelated third player has a hissy fit because he's mad that someone got punished for breaking the rules.
So... if anyone is "freaking out" about anything... it's the third player-- and you.
Freaking out? Me? I posted a response on a forum, guess that's freaking out now. Right.
My point is that this is bs. Etiquette hasn't been apart of the internet scene since forever, it's fething lame that some 'institution' thinks they can enforce it now.
This isn't some random spat on the internet; this is from a professional to his opponent. That does call for etiquette.
If we are to take Esports seriously, it must be treated as such.
This is PROFESIONAL Starcraft II gaming. He violated the rules of his work place and was punished. He also associated sexual assault with the tournament in that tweet.
I don't understand how people are defending his tweet or a small groups response to he being disqualified. It seems pretty clear cut and he accepted his punishment.
People might not get it if they don't watch (very closely) competitive* e-sports, but unfortunately this is horribly necessary. Ignore the 'women and games' angle for a moment. Just set that aside.
E-Sports have a horrible problem with really gakky attitudes amongst its players. I'm not talking about your last LoL game where some troll told you you sucked, I'm talking about the pro players having horrible attitudes. You know how rappers have fake feuds with each other to boost their hype? Pro gamers have real feuds with each other (and all their fans) over the dumbest gak and it's been really, really toxic.
I still remember when St. Vicious was banned by Riot for trolling players in Solo que, and when another Pro player did basically this same thing (only to his own girlfriend) simply because his opponent picked Lee Sin for a pick up game. He got banned too (Riot has been really ban happy with pro players who take their gak off the competitive scene). Between games at a tournament, SoloMid nearly started a fist fight with fans of another team. The pro player team, nearly started a fist fight with fans.
These are people whose egos haven't just rampaged out of control but have been encouraged for years to run rampant. Its high time this started to get pulled back and for the events and the organizers to start pulling this gak show together, especially if they want to be taken seriously as a sport.
*I literally sat here spelling that word with an 'a' for five minutes. I knew there was no a in there, but I'm sitting here thinking "why the feth do I keep putting an A in here?"
I been watching SC II for awhile and I am taken aback by this incident. SC II, IMO, is usually known as one of the more polite E-Sports. What they call BM (Bad Manners) usually pales in comparison to other games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously...people on this thread don't understand the difference between a rape threat and Rekted? Come on.
Luke_Prowler wrote:The player agreed to the rules of conduct in the tournament when they joined the tournament, and when the broke that conduct the tournament can enforce the contract as they see fit. If anything, they MUST do so otherwise the contact is null and void to all parties.
I don't think the rules of that tournament dealt with rape threats between players. It's probably just something along the lines of "we don't need the likes of him here". And it was the right thing to do, even if the guy was actually sorry rather than faking it. Signals matter.
The rules may not include rape threats specifically, but as Mel points out a general Good Sportsmanship clause would be included. If there wasn't, the Tournament might have still kicked him out but it would be harder to enforce, if at all.
@illuknisaa that's not a double standard. Two different insults or smack talk can have varying amounts of disrespect, and can follow the same standard with one just being acceptable and the other not.
Edit: For example: If I were to say "Your mother is a whore who feths three people at the same time" and "You smell bad", wouldn't you take the second as less seriously?
@illuknisaa that's not a double standard. Two different insults or smack talk can have varying amounts of disrespect, and can follow the same standard with one just being acceptable and the other not.
Edit: For example: If I were to say "Your mother is a whore who feths three people at the same time"[A] and "You smell bad"[B], wouldn't you take the second as less seriously?
Your example is bad. Where do you draw this connection between A and B because I don't see it. "I will rape" is in this context literally means "I will utterly defeat".
Some time ago in dota I said to my teammate that he will get raped in mid and replied "my anus is ready". What do you think I and he meant?
Your example is bad. Where do you draw this connection between A and B because I don't see it. "I will rape" is in this context literally means "I will utterly defeat".
Your example is bad. Where do you draw this connection between A and B because I don't see it. "I will rape" is in this context literally means "I will utterly defeat".
Some time ago in dota I said to my teammate that he will get raped in mid and replied "my anus is ready". What do you think I and he meant?
Why does it mean that in that context, though? I don't see why it should be treated as a fun little slang word. "Rape" is not something that ought to be thrown around lightly. Really. It's not. I don't care how many times that twelve year old said it over your XBOX. It's something that the gaming community really ought to move away from slinging around as trash talk.
Would you say that you were about to rape an opponent in a 40k game? How about a tournament?
I do think it's cool that the situation was handled calmly and politely by Kas, Maddelisk, and the tourney people, though.
AdeptSister wrote: Yes. The main professionals (the two players involved and the officials) involved handled the results well.
And E-Sports is definitely a thing.
The pros are all handling it well, the question is if the gamers, here and around the web, will mess this up... The impression I am getting is we are doing better? I mean you still have the people defending toxic behavior, but it's at a lower ratio then you expect. So better then normal handling of this for now.
Soladrin wrote: To be fair, Kas is from eastern-Europe (maybe Russia even?) They don't tend to be that forward thinking on that side...
No, he just used an expression that is quite common among gamers without thinking about it twice. When called on it, he did notice it was wrong and apologized. Kudos to him for doing that. The problem is more with all the players saying this is a good side of gamer culture that should definitely be kept, and I highly doubt all of those are from eastern Europe. Well, in this thread, Illuknisaa is, but unlike Russia, Finland is not exactly famous for being very "backward thinking on that side" .
Lynata wrote: I don't think the rules of that tournament dealt with rape threats between players. It's probably just something along the lines of "we don't need the likes of him here".
Melissia wrote:The rules of the tournament include good sportsmanship, and that's anything but.
The TO almost invariably wants you to treat the participants with respect, and for organized sports where you get paid for playing, this is part of the contract.
Good point.
I still maintain that we shouldn't even need rules to treat each other like decent human beings, but I guess this thread demonstrates once more that "common" sense is subjective.
Your example is bad. Where do you draw this connection between A and B because I don't see it. "I will rape" is in this context literally means "I will utterly defeat".
And if you're incapable of explaining why you think that's a double standard, it clearly isn't.
I could understand this if it wasn't posted on the same day.
Spinner wrote:
Your example is bad. Where do you draw this connection between A and B because I don't see it. "I will rape" is in this context literally means "I will utterly defeat".
Some time ago in dota I said to my teammate that he will get raped in mid and replied "my anus is ready". What do you think I and he meant?
Why does it mean that in that context, though? I don't see why it should be treated as a fun little slang word. "Rape" is not something that ought to be thrown around lightly. Really. It's not. I don't care how many times that twelve year old said it over your XBOX. It's something that the gaming community really ought to move away from slinging around as trash talk.
Would you say that you were about to rape an opponent in a 40k game? How about a tournament?
I do think it's cool that the situation was handled calmly and politely by Kas, Maddelisk, and the tourney people, though.
It's like words and their meaning change.
"Would you say that you were about to rape an opponent in a 40k game? How about a tournament? "
Yes if I was confident that I would win and it's not againts tournament rules.
Oh. The other half of this often said bit. You have the defense of toxicity on one end and then the other end is this attack on people pointing out toxicity. I kind of dislike the silencing comments most.
Soladrin wrote: To be fair, Kas is from eastern-Europe (maybe Russia even?) They don't tend to be that forward thinking on that side...
No, he just used an expression that is quite common among gamers without thinking about it twice. When called on it, he did notice it was wrong and apologized. Kudos to him for doing that. The problem is more with all the players saying this is a good side of gamer culture that should definitely be kept, and I highly doubt all of those are from eastern Europe. Well, in this thread, Illuknisaa is, but unlike Russia, Finland is not exactly famous for being very "backward thinking on that side" .
Lynata wrote: I don't think the rules of that tournament dealt with rape threats between players. It's probably just something along the lines of "we don't need the likes of him here".
I was talking about his fans, not Kas himself. Should have clarified that.
Also, I would also say the SC2 pro's are among the most polite in e-sports. The fans sadly are not. A single twitch stream from a tournament will teach you this. Dat chat.
Also, frankenberry, is there a reason you have to come into every thread related to E-sports to just say e-sports isn't a thing. Are you somehow threatened by video games becoming a sport?
Your example is bad. Where do you draw this connection between A and B because I don't see it. "I will rape" is in this context literally means "I will utterly defeat".
That's not your call to make.
...
Concession accepted.
Maybe you could agree that, even if that were the intended meaning, it's still an incredibly poorly chosen way of making that statement in any capacity, let alone a professional one?
Actually, I have gone to 40k tournaments where you would be disqualified for saying that. Many of them invoke a family-friendly environment where it is not intended to be hostile. And there is very little that is more hostile than rape threats.
The times ive heard someone say or write gonna rape you or similar is something I can count on two hands from 20 years of online multiplayer gaming. all of them from twelve year olds, well text is a bit harder to dechiper someones age.
Non gamers have called me way worse and wished fates upon me way worse than any gamer ever has called me. And ive heard just about everything out there.
Melissia wrote: Taunting someone that you're going to rape them makes you a gakky person.
As opposed to saying that you're going to utterly wreck them or say they are going to get dunked?
Yes.
Nice double standard.
"Getting wrecked" (like a car) or "getting dunked" (like a basketball) is in no way, shape or form equal to "being assaulted in a sexual manner against your will and without your consent" (which is what "rape" means).
Meanwhile, I had someone say something to me along those lines as recently as Monday of this week, while playing league of legends.
Your personal experiences are fine and all, but scientific evidence has shown that women receive far more insults, negative attention, and general harassment while playing video games than men do, so don't discount the existence of the problem when you're not the target to begin with.
Melissia wrote: Meanwhile, I had someone say something to me along those lines as recently as Monday of this week, while playing league of legends.
Your personal experiences are fine and all, but scientific evidence has shown that women receive far more insults, negative attention, and general harassment while playing video games than men do, so don't discount the existence of the problem when you're not the target to begin with.
The most recent data I've seen actually suggests the opposite - men receive more online threats, harassment, etc... But the types of harassment directed at women tend to be more offensive.
Melissia wrote: Meanwhile, I had someone say something to me along those lines as recently as Monday of this week, while playing league of legends.
Your personal experiences are fine and all, but scientific evidence has shown that women receive far more insults, negative attention, and general harassment while playing video games than men do, so don't discount the existence of the problem when you're not the target to begin with.
The most recent data I've seen actually suggests the opposite - men receive more online threats, harassment, etc... But the types of harassment directed at women tend to be more offensive.
Of the studies I've seen (several of which have been part of rotation of quotes in my signature in the past, actually), the number has been well above a 3:1 ratio of harassment sent towards women vs sent towards men. My personal experience mirrors this. Not only is the harassment greater in quantity, but it also tends to be more vicious.
Melissia wrote: Meanwhile, I had someone say something to me along those lines as recently as Monday of this week, while playing league of legends.
Your personal experiences are fine and all, but scientific evidence has shown that women receive far more insults, negative attention, and general harassment while playing video games than men do, so don't discount the existence of the problem when you're not the target to begin with.
I merly see it as banter that exceeded the line of whats acceptable while you see it as specific harassment of female gamers, and this is why your often associated with demanding special treatment of women in gaming because you do, and while you do bring out other issues aswell they almost instantly fall to the sidelines. Equality is a broad brush when you try to paint all the nooks and crannies.
AdeptSister wrote: Can we at least agree that it not acceptable to threaten to rape someone? Please.
I think the problem we're running into here is that there are two definitions of rape at work. The tradition, forced sexual contact version we uniformly abhor and a common parlance version that means 'to easily defeat'.
Had he said he was going to murder his opponent, or destroy or utterly annihilate none of us would for a moment believe he actually meant to do those things to the opposing player. He could have said he was going to slap his opponent silly or spank them and we still wouldn't actually believe any physical harm was going to come to anyone.
So why do we pretend that when someone says 'rape' it's suddenly a literal threat? It does seem to me like special pleading.
This is not to say that I think such language is acceptable- I don't.
It's not so much that it's a threat. It's that rape itself is considered a particularly serious crime that can have very long-lasting psychological effects on the victim.
The general thinking is that it's not something that should be trivialized by throwing it around in casual competitive threats.
Kojiro wrote: a common parlance version that means 'to easily defeat'.
That's not common. That's a specific quirk of the underlying misogyny in gamer culture.
Are you actually making the assertion that a general member of the public- let alone the kind of people following a pro SC2 player- would interpret that tweet as an actual threat of sexual assault?
More over, would it still be a quirk of 'misogyny in gamer culture' had he used the exact same expression against a male opponent?
Eumerin wrote: It's not so much that it's a threat. It's that rape itself is considered a particularly serious crime that can have very long-lasting psychological effects on the victim.
The general thinking is that it's not something that should be trivialized by throwing it around in casual competitive threats.
Which is an interesting point, I think. I mean... "rape is a particularly serious crime". Murder isn't? Hell, beating someone to within an inch of their life isn't a serious crime?
Yet, there's a standard within our society that one very particular, very specific serious crime is ultra-serious and shouldn't be trivialized while everything else is fair game, and there's very little appeals to logic that support that standard.
My official stance on matters like this is that if you're going to participate in a league or be apart of an organization, you must play by their rules, whatever they may be, and suffer the consequences for breaking them. If a league encourages a non-offensive, family-friendly environment, or whatever, then they have the right to give you the D if they feel that your behavior is inappropriate.
But on meta level, between random people playing each other in a non-official environment, I don't think "it's offensive" is ever a valid reason to not say something, simply by virtue of the fact that any word or statement is potentially offensive in the right context. "You're about to get whipped" would be considered pretty casual banter to 90% of the gaming community. But I'm black, and I could certainly construe a highly offensive reference to an unfortunate time of pain and suffers for my ancestors from that statement.
Kojiro wrote:So why do we pretend that when someone says 'rape' it's suddenly a literal threat? It does seem to me like special pleading.
Well, it's currently a "hot topic" in society, seeing that news are full of articles about university fraternities that plan "rape trips", or attempted cover-ups about actual cases of sexual abuse where the incident was quietly swept under the rug by school authorities/law enforcement/military/etc.
I'm linking to the "rape trip" issue specifically because apparently there it was only meant "jokingly" as well, which to me suggests it's about time that perhaps we should rethink the gamer culture's stance on this term, or "trash talk" in general, as I believe that the creation of an atmosphere where it's okay to make such jokes or comments actually has a risk of slowly eroding the moral barriers that may otherwise keep people from engaging in such behaviour. This is how human group dynamics work, people. See this article for another university example, where the perpetrator apparently did not even realise he had done something utterly, inherently wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I've used the word "raped" myself when chatting to friends during a game, but I would never use it in a public manner or towards people I don't know very well, specifically because I know that (a) I do not want to contribute to a toxic atmosphere, that (b) it can be misinterpreted and that (c) it could be unintentionally harmful, given that the person on the other side may have in fact been really raped in the past (for which you do not need to be female, just as a reminder), which would create a pretty awkward situation.
tl;dr: Perhaps it is time we took steps to "dial back" this trash talk culture a bit and prevent it from either placing other human beings at psychological distress or downplay real life atrocities by comparing them to losing at some videogame.
Truth be told, I'm not even sure "murder" would be okay, but I have a feeling this is less controversial because (a) like most posters here I am affected by contemporary western culture that teaches us that violence is okay, or (b) because this can actually refer to something that might really happen in the game. At the very least I've seen plenty of competitive games where you can murder the other player's character ... but none where you can rape them.
Kojiro wrote: a common parlance version that means 'to easily defeat'.
That's not common. That's a specific quirk of the underlying misogyny in gamer culture.
Are you actually making the assertion that a general member of the public- let alone the kind of people following a pro SC2 player- would interpret that tweet as an actual threat of sexual assault?
"Going to rape some girl soon." is, literally, an admission of intent to rape someone. Someone saying that in most situations would be looked at as if they're insane or criminal.
Refusing to consider hte ramifications of saying gakky, horrific things to other people is not a sign of a good person.
My official stance on matters like this is that if you're going to participate in a league or be apart of an organization, you must play by their rules, whatever they may be, and suffer the consequences for breaking them. If a league encourages a non-offensive, family-friendly environment, or whatever, then they have the right to give you the D if they feel that your behavior is inappropriate.
But on meta level, between random people playing each other in a non-official environment, I don't think "it's offensive" is ever a valid reason to not say something, simply by virtue of the fact that any word or statement is potentially offensive in the right context. "You're about to get whipped" would be considered pretty casual banter to 90% of the gaming community. But I'm black, and I could certainly construe a highly offensive reference to an unfortunate time of pain and suffers for my ancestors from that statement.
BlaxicanX has pretty much hit the nail on the head.
All I'll add is that people are trying too damned hard to turn this into a gender/my soggy knees thing, when it really isn't. And if a guy had said this to a guy, we wouldn't even have this thread.
Lynata wrote: I believe that the creation of an atmosphere where it's okay to make such jokes or comments actually has a risk of slowly eroding the moral barriers that may otherwise keep people from engaging in such behaviour. This is how human group dynamics work, people.
I disagree. People use this same line of logic to attack video games and, before that, movies: "making a game out of committing violent acts encourages youth to commit violence." Yet, the majority of research has shown that playing violent games does not enhance aggression or encourage violent acts, and neither do movies.
People have the mental capacity to identify the distinction between virtual and reality, and people also have the capacity to recognize that behavior that may be acceptable in one situation may be entirely unacceptable in another. If what we see or do in virtual reality had a tangible on us when outside of that environment, movies like Robocop would have turned us all into sociopaths by now.
Melissia wrote: "Going to rape some girl soon." is, literally, an admission of intent to rape someone.
Sure, if you remove any and all context it is.
"Going to totally murder them tomorrow" might refer to someone who's about to play in a basketball game the next day and is confident of their (and their team's) ability to win, or it might refer to someone who's about to shoot up his place of work. Thankfully, with the magic of context, we can determine what that person means.
The first bloke sounds like an absolute moron with little to no understanding of how to speak to people. In British English you sometimes say the word "rape" in a different context, but I think every man with any understanding of social nuance doesn't use it. Actually its so common in soccer I remember that Lee Savage got a bollocking off the BBC for saying "he absolutely raped him" live on air.
The point is, you don't say that stuff to a woman. I have said to a mate playing soccer "Oh you raped me there mate" but do actually remember being sure not to say the same thing in front of a woman if someones girlfriend or sister was present, its just manners and logic.
So yeah, he was a moron for saying it, but its hardly the crime of the century.
I find all this stuff fascinating though, as I said at the time, I was utterly uninterested in modern feminism and blissfully ignorant of it all about three months ago, then saw that whole Anita Sarkeesian story on here and have spent the last three months reading voraciously about third-wave feminism and the many arguments for and against it.
I had an epiphany about my atheism as a result, because It has made me really cynical about feminism. It reminded me of Richard Dawkins being told by some scientists who agreed with his sentiments but disagreed with his combative actions. The said that being super aggressive with creationists might not be the best tactic because it can become self defeating as moderate religious people get offended and then respond in kind. I disagreed when I first heard that ten years ago, but I am in full agreement now.
6 months ago I was very open to any and all advancements of women's place in society, I abhor the ludicrous things misogynists say about women, because I was born of one and I married one, and most importantly, I am not religious (plenty of it comes from holy texts, you cannot ignore the amount of negative things about women in them) as such, disliking women is both utterly illogical and entirely immoral, and yet..... now I am extremely cynical about modern feminism.
Women deserve equality in every aspect of life, but some of the gak I have read about these last few months is just really toxic and churlish and it makes otherwise normal men start to go "fething hell why don't these crazies just shut the hell up?"
TLDR - The bloke was a bit of a moron, but it isn't the fething end of the world.
No one is treating it like the end of the world, Matty.
Except maybe the people who are acting like a person getting punished for breaking the rules is the end of the world, maybe.
As for your ideas on "third wave feminism", if you want that discussion, let's not have it here. Might be better to talk about that in PM, since that's not really the topic of this thread.
But some of us are treating it as an example of "inherent misogyny", or that the event is "eroding... moral barriers", both of which are complete nonsense.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But some of us are treating it as an example of "inherent misogyny", [which is] complete nonsense.
The prevalence of misogynistic insults and rape references directed towards women amongst gamers is an excellent example of misogyny within the culture.
While I'm well aware that you'd prefer to live in denial of the problem, that doesn't make it go away.
And if a guy had said this to a guy, we wouldn't even have this thread.
Honestly, I think we ought to, though. In that hypothetical situation, I mean. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have this thread now, when it was said by a guy to a girl.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But some of us are treating it as an example of "inherent misogyny", [which is] complete nonsense.
The prevalence of misogynistic insults and rape references directed towards women amongst gamers is an excellent example of misogyny within the culture.
I have been "threatened" with rape hundreds of times during online play over the years.
Having someone to threaten me with gaping my anus using their fists, detaching my male genitalia and "ramming" it down my throat and the list goes on has not phased me in the least.
Honestly, in my experience its usually only the people who are annoying who get insulted OR its simply some kid who watches too many youtube videos and wants to replicate it dishing out the insults.
So maybe look at the person giving the insult or look at the person being insulted and see the real reason. Usually that person is simply a pain in the ass. (or its just a dumb kid). If you find yourself being insulted frequently maybe you are just being annoying? I mean, I can certainly see why personally.
Nobody is in denial, we are all aware people insult each other every second. People call the swat on gamers, people go out of their way to troll other gamers in game (ever tried loading a cannon with someone trolling it in mount and blade?), people hack with the sole purpose of ruining other peoples fun and the list goes on. There is no anti women movement with gamers, there is no "misogyny" involved, there is nothing there to see except the fact that gamers like to annoy everyone. Im gonna bold that for you... and caps it.... EVERYONE. I think that is clear. You being part of everyone doesnt mean you have to search for reasons to make your case a special one.
Straight, gay, white, black, women, kid, adult it doesnt matter. There are people who simply have fun pissing you off. Saying rape in front of a women gamer? Gonna annoy them. Just like calling a new player a noob, just like calling the winner a cheater, just like calling the guy with the best stuff a power gamer.
Gamers annoy everyone. Boobs or not. Stop trying to twist it into some ilumaniti style conspiracy. We all get annoyed by gamers. Because there are gamers whose goal is to annoy all.
If that's how you define gamers, then let gaming die.
No thats not at all what I said...
To use your basic and some what typical example.
Lets say there is a 100% rape in the world. Nobody will go their life unraped. Then lets say this group of people think they are being targeted of rape for special reasons. That group then dismiss everything trying to make out their rape is worse than everyone elses and that they need special treatment and help because its clearly the world vs them. That is the situation.
There are gamers who annoy everyone. Dont like then mute your mike and dont read the chat. Or quit the game. We all have to put up with annoying gamers. Deal with it like the rest of us have to.
Also please use whole paragraphs when quoting me. You clearly are attempting to make me look bad. Quote me in context, or you are simply being dishonest. See the end of the sentence you quoted? Stop twisting my words.
The main argument seems to be about if people should accept using "rape" as a term equal to "rekt" or "owned" or "whipped" in relation to beating someone virtually. I have yet to hear convincing argument why it is we should. I still don't understand people's argument on why saying you will murder someone is the equal as telling that you will rape someone. The acts are fundamentally different. They mean different things. I can see people arguing that murder can be a justified crime. But can you guys really justify rape?
And the argument "This only happen because he said to a woman?" : Yes. While people should not say it to anyone, saying to a woman is a profoundly bad idea due to history and the current environment. It silly to pretend otherwise. This is not "special treatment", just an affirmation that you really should not be using terms with such baggage lightly at all.
In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7.
No difference in actions, just different names. Result? 27 times more insults directed at feminine names over masculine ones.
In order to standardize the experimental conditions, verbal messages were pre-recorded in both a male and female voice. These were made up of unassuming things such as “hi everybody,” “nice job so far,” and “thanks for the game, bye.” The researchers then played public matches, transmitting the messages via voice chat. Matches played without engaging in voice chat were used as a control. [...] Findings indicate that, on average, the female voice received three times as many negative comments as the male voice or no voice. In addition, the female voice received more queries and more messages from other gamers than the male voice or no voice.
Again, no difference in actions, nothing "annoying"-- merely a change in voices and usernames. Female voices received three times more harassment and insults than male voices.
That's just the tip of the iceberg; there's studies showing a similar, if less extreme bias even within the scientific community. Pretending that the gamer community doesn't have a problem with misogyny doesn't make the problem go away. It really just makes it worse.
Melissia wrote: Meanwhile, I had someone say something to me along those lines as recently as Monday of this week, while playing league of legends.
Your personal experiences are fine and all, but scientific evidence has shown that women receive far more insults, negative attention, and general harassment while playing video games than men do, so don't discount the existence of the problem when you're not the target to begin with.
The most recent data I've seen actually suggests the opposite - men receive more online threats, harassment, etc... But the types of harassment directed at women tend to be more offensive.
Of the studies I've seen (several of which have been part of rotation of quotes in my signature in the past, actually), the number has been well above a 3:1 ratio of harassment sent towards women vs sent towards men. My personal experience mirrors this. Not only is the harassment greater in quantity, but it also tends to be more vicious.
Actually I've seen statistics that show that men are more likely to be harassed overall. As I spoke with somebody in person as a joke. The internet will never be pleased with you. Ignore it, it'll rage. Accept it, it'll rage. There is no peace, there is no safety. There is only war.
Also Adept really? Murder is a justified crime is a silly thing to argue and it really makes no difference to I am going to murder you. Murder = beat, rape = beat. Both are unsavory terms though. Honestly at most I use rekt and stomped though, maybe owned here and there but that's about it.
And to Swastakowey... on the internet? Being insulted is a part of it. Everyone's annoying on the internet to somebody and there's nobody that's spent a significant time on the internet without being spat at with some negative bile or something of the sort.
Also gamers isn't some lump to toss in some category of misogynists. Some are going to, some are going to be misandrists, a lot are going to be emotional, and a ton are just going to be ordinary people that tend to just live their life, do stupid things, make mistakes, and move on (but from then on all their posts, all their foolish posts will be on the internet. Forever. *screams*)
Ashiraya wrote: And fwiw, 'I am going to murder this girl' sounds pretty nasty to me too.
Not disagreeing with that. The whole "I am going to murder you/thisgirl/thisguy" is all stupid but then again I've seen arguments over homosexuality with the most violent insults lobbed at each other on a video about coffee. It's a shame people can't be as empathetic as they are in person when they are online.
Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment. In addition, they do not escape the heightened rates of physical threats and sustained harassment common to their male peers and young people in general.
Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment. In addition, they do not escape the heightened rates of physical threats and sustained harassment common to their male peers and young people in general.
Honestly that's strange considering what it's immediately followed up with. Still, I think it's important to note that it's more everyone's getting screwed in the end. Also a question as to why it's focused on younger women particularly when added with the on average notation.
StarTrotter: I have not ever seen anyone seriously try to defend rape. There is definitely a difference between the two. You really believe there is no difference in the crimes?
In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7.
No difference in actions, just different names. Result? 27 times more insults directed at feminine names over masculine ones.
In order to standardize the experimental conditions, verbal messages were pre-recorded in both a male and female voice. These were made up of unassuming things such as “hi everybody,” “nice job so far,” and “thanks for the game, bye.” The researchers then played public matches, transmitting the messages via voice chat. Matches played without engaging in voice chat were used as a control.
[...]
Findings indicate that, on average, the female voice received three times as many negative comments as the male voice or no voice. In addition, the female voice received more queries and more messages from other gamers than the male voice or no voice.
Again, no difference in actions, nothing "annoying"-- merely a change in voices and usernames. Female voices received three times more harassment and insults than male voices.
That's just the tip of the iceberg; there's studies showing a similar, if less extreme bias even within the scientific community. Pretending that the gamer community doesn't have a problem with misogyny doesn't make the problem go away. It really just makes it worse.
I would like to see a link to all the accounts made in these tests. I wanna see that there is no bias in these studies. When I read this all I can see is a case of "he said she said".
My partner receives no special insults on the internet. Heck if anything she is treated better. I can use her voice on DayZ and people are surprised and it can get me out of situations. With my own voice I simply get shot. No threats, no rape talk no nothing. Not even on CoD.
Instantly I have the same evidence your studies has (I looked through, found some quotes at best as evidence). Just my word vs someone elses.
I believe women get rape threats online because it annoys them. Just like an asian would receive abuse to match his situation. Just like a kid (commonly called squeakers) would be insulted based on his situation. The list goes on.
To avoid insults, dont be annoying. Or avoid playing with children. I have found I limited the amount of insults greatly by simply shutting up. They will stop insulting you if they get no reaction. Its something we all go through.
BlaxicanX wrote:I disagree. People use this same line of logic to attack video games and, before that, movies: "making a game out of committing violent acts encourages youth to commit violence." Yet, the majority of research has shown that playing violent games does not enhance aggression or encourage violent acts, and neither do movies.
People have the mental capacity to identify the distinction between virtual and reality, and people also have the capacity to recognize that behavior that may be acceptable in one situation may be entirely unacceptable in another. If what we see or do in virtual reality had a tangible on us when outside of that environment, movies like Robocop would have turned us all into sociopaths by now.
This isn't limited to video games. How do you think morality is created and defined? This stuff isn't somehow hardcoded into our genetical makeup - at least the majority isn't; obviously there are certain instincts that lay the groundworks etc yadah yadah, but the details are solely a product of contemporary society, and thus subject to change through the ages.
It's kind of the reason for why we consider something as amoral that used to be an everyday thing centuries or millennia ago.
All of us are a product of their respective collective environments - the values our parents tried to teach us, what we experienced at school, what we are presented with in everyday life. This includes media, and their effect on society. And the media include video games.
Obviously video games are not solely responsible for how a person behaves. This is a silly thesis and, as you said, debunded by numerous studies. That they are entirely irrelevant as a factor of the greater whole, however, is just as false. It merely depends on how an individual was also influenced by the many other factors, and how receptive or stable they are as a person (because, surprise, people do react differently to social stimuli). And here, your "majority of research" does in fact support this statement.
BlaxicanX wrote:But on meta level, between random people playing each other in a non-official environment, I don't think "it's offensive" is ever a valid reason to not say something, simply by virtue of the fact that any word or statement is potentially offensive in the right context. "You're about to get whipped" would be considered pretty casual banter to 90% of the gaming community. But I'm black, and I could certainly construe a highly offensive reference to an unfortunate time of pain and suffers for my ancestors from that statement.
Could you? Because unlike with rape, I am unaware of black people being whipped being a cultural problem right now.
But this comment actually reminds me of the Elite Dangerous premiere event, where one of the novel authors was asked what he liked about the game, and he went on a geeky, cheerful rave about the Empire of Achenar and how you could own slaves there. Talking to a black host.
I now noticed two interesting things: On the wider internet, a bunch of people immediately gakked their pants because in the US, this is apparently against some sort of political correctness and grounds for a scandal, yet those attendees and watchers from Europe didn't even register this as weird until it was pointed out to them. Same goes for the host and the author, both of whom were British folks. A good example for how comments can be taken differently depending on who you are talking to, I suppose, and how pressing certain issues are for their social class.
Melissia wrote:Much like gravity, the meaning is there whether you want it to be there or not.
Boom!
Swastakowey wrote:They will stop insulting you if they get no reaction. Its something we all go through.
The best way to tackle cultural issues. Ignore them, they'll go away on their own! Just ask the military and the universities.
Swastakowey wrote: I would like to see a link to all the accounts made in these tests. I wanna see that there is no bias in these studies. When I read this all I can see is a case of "he said she said".
and then you immediately go list some anecdote after complaining about "he said she said".
Swastakowey wrote: I would like to see a link to all the accounts made in these tests. I wanna see that there is no bias in these studies. When I read this all I can see is a case of "he said she said".
and then you immediately go list some anecdote after complaining about "he said she said".
Please, read the reply.
I said after that, instantly I have the same evidence you have. Meaning my evidence is the same. He said she said.
AdeptSister wrote: StarTrotter: I have not ever seen anyone seriously try to defend rape. There is definitely a difference between the two. You really believe there is no difference in the crimes?
Yeah, murder is worse because at least with rape there is the possibility you will live (both are really gakky though).
Soladrin wrote: I was talking about his fans, not Kas himself. Should have clarified that.
Oh. I am not sure country of origin matters as much for who is going to be fan of some player in esport as in sports that put a lot of emphasis on “national teams” and “regional teams” like soccer, rugby, basketball, baseball, …
I may be wrong though.
mattyrm wrote: The first bloke sounds like an absolute moron with little to no understanding of how to speak to people. In British English you sometimes say the word "rape" in a different context, but I think every man with any understanding of social nuance doesn't use it.
He is not British, and he has no reason to care about British English because he is not targeting a British audience. The audience he was targeting is very used to this kind of language. You ought to take a bit more time to understand how he came to this imo.
mattyrm wrote: So yeah, he was a moron for saying it, but its hardly the crime of the century.
Oh, no, it is not. And you might notice I even explicitly said he seemed like a nice guy. What is actually the problem is third party people jumping to his defense despite his will and harassing Maddelisk. That is not the crime of the century either but there is only one crime of the century for each 100 years, and so I hope we are allowed to talk about other problems .
Kojiro wrote: I think the problem we're running into here is that there are two definitions of rape at work. The tradition, forced sexual contact version we uniformly abhor and a common parlance version that means 'to easily defeat'.
Actually, I think the problem is that there are three definitions of rape at work. The first one is about some bad guy coming to a woman stranger and using physical force to have sex with her without her consent. Straight-out comic book villain style. That form of rape is uniformly abhorred. Then, there is the definition that this is about anyone having sexual intercourse with someone else without explicit, willful consent. The lack of consent may be because of intoxication, or pressure that do not involve actual physical violence, or anything else, really. That one certainly is not uniformly abhorred. This is where you will find tons of people finding excuses for the rapist and/or blaming the victim. If not even celebrating the victim as a hero. The last one means “to easily and completely defeat”.
Now, I personally think that if the second definition was uniformly abhorred, if rape victim did not have to deal with all the stigma attached to it, and if all those problems were solved, saying “I am going to rape you” would not be frowned upon any more than “I am going to murder you”. But it is clearly not the case yet.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And if a guy had said this to a guy, we wouldn't even have this thread.
If a guy said this to a guy, and was banned from the tournament as a result, and people started harassing the victim who had no role in this whole thing by saying that rape taunt are perfectly acceptable, I would have made a thread if I heard about it.
Your retelling of your wife's anecdotal internet experiences are not of equal value to this discussion as several actual peer-reviewed scientific studies on the matter.
If it helps, my own experiences heavily contradict those of Swastakowey's wife, so let our anecdotes cancel each other out there and return to the debate.
AdeptSister wrote: StarTrotter: I have not ever seen anyone seriously try to defend rape. There is definitely a difference between the two. You really believe there is no difference in the crimes?
Yeah, murder is worse because at least with rape there is the possibility you will live (both are really gakky though).
Far point. My argument really comes down that I can't see it ever being acceptable to publicly threaten to rape someone without there being consequences. That people keep arguing that is should continue to be acceptable online seems...strange.
Melissia wrote: Your (supposedly accurate) retelling of your (supposedly existant) wife's (supposedly truthful) internet experiences are not of equal value to this discussion as actual peer-reviewed scientific studies on the matter.
I feel the same about those articles you linked. With so much bull crap on the internet there needs to be proper sources being used. Your sources are a bunch of people supporting your views saying things. Thats it. No sources (some shameless plugs though). The only links are "people writing about her experience". I could make an article only showcasing good experiences and it would have the same credentials.
Find me actual statistics backed up by evidence. If I handed that in at high school as evidence I would have failed. Especially since its so one sided. I went back and looked for more evidence in those articles, yet I only see a bunch of people saying how bad they feel treated on the net (and how offended they are at some comedians etc).
When you look at statistics from a business and look at the graphs and so on. Its full of information. It also has links to relevant info, where the stats came from and the list goes on. It has to be full proof.
Those articles are crap. They have nothing but plugs to people who support that view. Anyone can do that for any topic.You may hold it in high esteem but ultimately as a factual piece its pretty bad.
Lets take link one.
It starts off trying to shock you (already bad as a piece of factual text). No evidence beyond some typed pout quote. Then it goes on to say that mysigony is real because officers didnt take internet threats seriously (and they shouldnt, I mean get real). It then lists "famous" internet female authors most extreme hate mail. Ok im sure anyone remotely famous gets hate mail. It then lists laws from back when telegraphs are in use. Which is a very different and far more controllable situation. It then says women who are harassed online are expected to get over it... LIKE EVERYONE ELSE and that its somehow unfair. It then lists "facts" that are not credited to any source and has a bunch of examples from select people.
Thats pretty much it. Then it complains with how women (not everyone) arent protected from the harsh internet.
Its pretty much a bias article that someone took from a magazine the pacific something. One source for the majority of its facts and that source is the whole article...
So an opinion backed by people of the same opinion is your evidence.
Everyone on the net is insulted. EVERYONE. If a game is played using an internet connection then you will be a victim. That itself is a problem. Not the fact that women are involved.
And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.
Swastakowey wrote: I feel the same about those articles you linked. With so much bull crap on the internet there needs to be proper sources being used.
Tough gak. Your crappy anecdote isn't worth anything compared to real studies.
AdeptSister wrote: And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.
I hate it. But what I hate worse is when someone twists the problem into something its not.
As I have said many times it effects everyone. Someone here is trying to say one group has it worse and is therefore more of a problem. When in fact we all share this burden.
I hate the insults. But im not gonna pretend women have it worse.
But im happy to put up with it simply because im not silly and understand its some faceless person in a random spot on this earth insulting me. I dont view it as a conspiracy against my kind. Im not paranoid and think some hive mind among people is at large persecuting people.
In short, its a problem, but not a pressing one. Certainly not a problem thats worse for a select group.
Swastakowey wrote: I feel the same about those articles you linked. With so much bull crap on the internet there needs to be proper sources being used.
Tough gak. Your crappy anecdote isn't worth anything compared to real studies.
Prove its a real study? The article itself doesnt even try to prove its a real study.
Critical thinking is needed. Find some real sources please.
Tough gak your articles are bull. Find better ones. Or better yet, expect people to read your articles when you post them. Not look at the heading and be fooled.
fwiw, I'd be more surprised if anyone threatening me online would actually make an attempt to deliver, since most of the time it's just keyboard warriors trying to put a scare into their victim.
remilia_scarlet wrote: fwiw, I'd be more surprised if anyone threatening me online would actually make an attempt to deliver, since most of the time it's just keyboard warriors trying to put a scare into their victim.
Actually I got hit by one at a time. I was playing a MMO and somebody got on and basically started to screw with me. Killed the monsters I was working on farming, kept on following my character around and hopping servers, started listing things I liked and then posted a message with my home address. I actually started freaking out. Later found out it was one of my friend's sibling.
As someone who says things in private that would make Melissia throw me off a bridge, I find the actions after the fact by the perpetrator and the organisation to be fine. He's sorry, they brought him up on it, all good.
The guy starting a gak storm should get mocked roundly for being an idiot.
As has been said in a related thing, I feel that if the "I'm gonna rape them" was used against a male player in that tweet, the organisation should follow the exact same course.
Also, anyone whose evidence is solely anecdotal and/or blogs, your argument loses most of its weight. Anyone.
remilia_scarlet wrote: fwiw, I'd be more surprised if anyone threatening me online would actually make an attempt to deliver, since most of the time it's just keyboard warriors trying to put a scare into their victim.
Actually I got hit by one at a time. I was playing a MMO and somebody got on and basically started to screw with me. Killed the monsters I was working on farming, kept on following my character around and hopping servers, started listing things I liked and then posted a message with my home address. I actually started freaking out. Later found out it was one of my friend's siblings.
I was threatened with violence a few times by a couple of crazy TERFs when I used to use tumblr, I got scared at first, but then I realized they had no idea where I lived and it stopped bothering me. I shut down my tumblr, though, because tumblr is gak.
So I'm going to be stepping nout from this whole argument though. Before I go though, I'd just like to put my opinion.
SC pro player said something stupid, he got disqualified from the tournament for it. Alright, everything seems fine. If you want to be treated like something official, well there are consequences. Anybody harassed because of this needs to drop it. It happened because it should have, nothing more nothing less. The pro can play in other tournaments until then, he got a "smack" to put some senses into him.
StarTrotter wrote: So I'm going to be stepping nout from this whole argument though. Before I go though, I'd just like to put my opinion.
SC pro player said something stupid, he got disqualified from the tournament for it. Alright, everything seems fine. If you want to be treated like something official, well there are consequences. Anybody harassed because of this needs to drop it. It happened because it should have, nothing more nothing less. The pro can play in other tournaments until then, he got a "smack" to put some senses into him.
AdeptSister wrote: And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.
Why should gaming be singled out? It's not as if this is limited to gaming. Check out the stuff that Officer Wilson's wife has been getting recently. Or the stuff sent at the masseuse who reported being propositioned by Gore several years ago.
Any time you have anonymity, you're going to get this sort of nonsense because a certain proportion of the population is composed of jerks. And it doesn't need to be all that big of a percentage of the population, either. A piece I read recently claimed that 1% of the population are sociopaths. And while I have no idea if the number is accurate or not, the person claiming that used it to point out that when you have a lot of people, you don't need a very large percentage of them to be screwed up in order to cause lots and lots of trouble. 1% is a tiny percentage, but it's a lot of people when you're talking about the population of the US.
That's what we're dealing with here. Lots and lots of people who have little interest in being empathic, and who are more than happy to use the internet to maintain their anonymity.
AdeptSister wrote: And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.
Why should gaming be singled out? It's not as if this is limited to gaming. Check out the stuff that Officer Wilson's wife has been getting recently. Or the stuff sent at the masseuse who reported being propositioned by Gore several years ago.
Well it is a gameing forum. singleing out gameing is what we do here.
Lynata wrote:
tl;dr: Perhaps it is time we took steps to "dial back" this trash talk culture a bit and prevent it from either placing other human beings at psychological distress or downplay real life atrocities by comparing them to losing at some videogame.
That's just my opinion, mind you.
I for one would rather see witty or humourous trash talk than violent but that's just my preference. All competition inherently involves conflict- you're trying to beat someone else. Language evolves and as much as one may not like it, to rape, slaughter, murder, smash, destroy, decimate and other thoroughly medieval words have been appropriated to facilitate communication in these new fields of competition. It's not a question of 'should'- that time is long past. I completely agree it shouldn't be used but you can't remove the action from the context. In his world- right or wrong- to rape an opponent simply doesn't mean what it means when we talk about sexual assault. But in the same way that none of the other synonyms for solidly defeating your opponent mean to actually do what they mean (really, who destroys 1/10th of an opponent?) neither does rape. And calling someone out for *that* word while others that represent more serious offences go unremarked is special pleading.
Melissia wrote:"Going to rape some girl soon." is, literally, an admission of intent to rape someone. Someone saying that in most situations would be looked at as if they're insane or criminal.
Just to be clear here, you're saying that this guy had intent to and planned to sexually assault his opponent? That appear to be your claim. To me it looks like you're taking one interpretation- a very literal one- of what was said and disregarding the audience, context and most of all intent of the speaker. Unless you're Draxx the Destroyer, in which case I forgive you.
Actually, I think the problem is that there are three definitions of rape at work. The first one is about some bad guy coming to a woman stranger and using physical force to have sex with her without her consent. Straight-out comic book villain style. That form of rape is uniformly abhorred. Then, there is the definition that this is about anyone having sexual intercourse with someone else without explicit, willful consent. The lack of consent may be because of intoxication, or pressure that do not involve actual physical violence, or anything else, really. That one certainly is not uniformly abhorred. This is where you will find tons of people finding excuses for the rapist and/or blaming the victim. If not even celebrating the victim as a hero. The last one means “to easily and completely defeat”.
Now, I personally think that if the second definition was uniformly abhorred, if rape victim did not have to deal with all the stigma attached to it, and if all those problems were solved, saying “I am going to rape you” would not be frowned upon any more than “I am going to murder you”. But it is clearly not the case yet.
The number of definitions doesn't really matter so long as one of them- the one invoked- isn't one of the terrible ones. I think this guys comment squarely falls into 'easily defeat' them territory and should be treated as such.
AdeptSister wrote: And why should we accept that people should be harassed on the Internet or while gaming? Other that "It's tradition" I have not heard why this is a good thing.
Why should gaming be singled out? It's not as if this is limited to gaming. Check out the stuff that Officer Wilson's wife has been getting recently. Or the stuff sent at the masseuse who reported being propositioned by Gore several years ago.
Well it is a gameing forum. singleing out gameing is what we do here.
Yep. Otherwise it would be off topic.
Like I said, I was surprised to see this in SC II e-sports.
He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl.
That's not really a deniable thing. That's what he ACTUALLY said. Regardless of what he meant, that's what he said. And thankfully he has since retracted it and apologized for it.
Yeah, I was going to come in here and "feelings this" and "social justice that", but looking at the phrasing, I'd say the guy got off easy, and he's lucky he didn't get a criminal investigation.
If you're going to use the 'r' word, don't use it publicly, and don't leave it broad enough that people reading without context might actually think you're going to do it, ya jerk.
Kojiro wrote: The number of definitions doesn't really matter so long as one of them- the one invoked- isn't one of the terrible ones.
Oh, no, the problem is not the number of definition. It is the context. In French, «un nègre» (literally a [see forum posting rules]) is also an expression for someone who writes uncredited for the benefit of a famous writer. You might want to avoid using that expression most of the time though, because of the racist connotation, and doubly so if speaking about black people. Because you cannot ignore the other definitions of the word just because you are not using them.
And again, no one has stated that they think he was going to sexually assault her. No one had said that.
It just comes down that some people believe that using the term "rape" in the context of trash talk is acceptable and others believe that it is not acceptable.
AdeptSister wrote: This is PROFESIONAL Starcraft II gaming. He violated the rules of his work place and was punished.
Yup. And that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
AdeptSister wrote: He also associated sexual assault with the tournament in that tweet.
Now you're just being dramatic.
AdeptSister wrote: It just comes down that some people believe that using the term "rape" in the context of trash talk is acceptable and others believe that it is not acceptable.
So, in other words, people regard different things as acceptable, and find different things offensive to one another?
Melissia wrote: He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl.
No, he made the statement he was going to rape her. Rape has- for better or worse- several different meanings.
Which meaning do you think he was using when he made that tweet?
Rape has a few different uses because words. The sticky point with gameing is that normally rape is a bad word. If you rape something, meteorically or not, then that is a very very bad thing. It's not a boast or something to be prod of. Gameing is about the only place I have seen raped used positively as something you want to do. It's a boast. When Mykhailo Gaida was saying I'm about to go rape a girl he was bragging and that is kind of the part that bugs me the most. Rape shouldn't be a positive thing in metaphor or in real life.
Nomotog, I completely agree. Again I don't advocate this kind of language. But your post could substitute in 'murder' or 'decimation' or 'destroy' or a host of others that are also negative. But we wouldn't see the same backlash.
Either trash talk allows negative words- in the context of different ways to solidly beat your opponent- or you prohibit it. If someone says 'I'm going to murder them!' it should be treated exactly the same as 'I'm going to rape them!'.
Kojiro wrote: Nomotog, I completely agree. Again I don't advocate this kind of language. But your post could substitute in 'murder' or 'decimation' or 'destroy' or a host of others that are also negative. But we wouldn't see the same backlash.
Either trash talk allows negative words- in the context of different ways to solidly beat your opponent- or you prohibit it. If someone says 'I'm going to murder them!' it should be treated exactly the same as 'I'm going to rape them!'.
People consider rape different then destroy/murder/kill mostly because destroying murdering and killing is often times played as a positive. If you do it right. You know killing for your country, destroying evil, murder... Well murder is mostly bad. We maybe shouldn't use murder in trash talk either. Though I don't even think we need trash talk in games. It's not very valuable and I think that is why we call it trash.
AdeptSister wrote: H.B.M.C, please read the original post and explain how I am being dramatic. Because it looks pretty clear cut in the tweet.
Saying "I am going to rape a girl #event" directly associates the rape with the #event. Please explain why you think they are not connected.
For the same reasons why when Mel said "He made the statement that he intended to sexually assault a girl." she was being overly dramatic.
At no point was this person announcing to the world that they intended to actually rape the other party in question. Implying that he did is beyond stupid, and the same applies to any insinuation that he somehow associated the event with actual rape.
Literally read, he did post possible intent to commit rape.
That does however, ignore the context of the post he made.
The post he made is still completely unacceptable.
There are other attributable meanings to the word rape: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape but frankly, it's not a word that should've been used. It's a very charged word, as is obvious, especially when he says "some girl" right after.
Also, on the topic of associating the event with rape? I hadn't even heard of it till now. A stupid fething rape tweet is what brought this event to my attention.
To clarify: Kas tweeted " “Going to rape some girl soon. #fragbitemasters"
My statement is that I'm pretty sure that the Fragbite Masters Tournament organizers were not happy with having the phrase "Rape some girl" attached to their hashtag for their event. Plus I am also sure that it having the current blowback associated with their event stinks as well.
Melissia wrote:You made the assertion that the two are the same. You have yet to prove your assertion.
Prove it.
The situation is that there are two people playin against each other.
Person 1 says:
"I will own you"
or
"I will rape you"
What is the diffrence between first and second statement?
Both mean that person 1 think he is in a superior position and there nothing person 2 can do to win. They derive this from the real world meaning of the word (either sexual assault or ownership as in slavery)
Both statements are used in the same situation despite the real world meaning being different.
Both have same effects. The game gets played to its' conclusion. Somebody might be upset. In real world the first statement would be impossible because many countries forbid slavery completely and rape has lots of legal repercussions.
The only thing that is different how much statement are used. First is fairly common while the second one is not.
Melissia wrote:You made the assertion that the two are the same. You have yet to prove your assertion.
Prove it.
The situation is that there are two people playin against each other.
Person 1 says:
"I will own you"
or
"I will rape you"
What is the diffrence between first and second statement? Both mean that person 1 think he is in a superior position and there nothing person 2 can do to win. They derive this from the real world meaning of the word (either sexual assault or ownership as in slavery) Both statements are used in the same situation despite the real world meaning being different. Both have same effects. The game gets played to its' conclusion. Somebody might be upset. In real world the first statement would be impossible because many countries forbid slavery completely and rape has lots of legal repercussions. The only thing that is different how much statement are used. First is fairly common while the second one is not.
We are going to take notice that your not backing up your assertion, but your in fact making a different one here. Though comparing other taunts to rape doesn't seem to work in convincing me that rape is OK to use. It's making me think that we shouldn't use owned anymore either.
Frankenberry wrote: 'Pro' gamers acting like assclowns, this isn't news, as fething idiotic as the whole thing is. Guys with this much public facing should know better.
Also, inb4 lock for bs arguments about feminism ensue.
*grumble*
Probably.
I've seen rape jokes in games all the time, by all the time I mean rarely.
People don't make them as often as people think.
Though I can see why people would be angry. As comedy is making light of the subject and trying to make it funny.
IT might be distasteful but it is within his rights, but it doesn't mean he can just say it all the time without consequence.
Melissia wrote: You failed to make your point. To use another example, Calling someone a jerk is not the same as calling them an [N-Bomb]. No matter the intent.
Melissia wrote: You failed to make your point. To use another example, Calling someone a jerk is not the same as calling them an [N-Bomb]. No matter the intent.
Not really. Once again you're leaving out context. There are different contexts and different situations where either word could be appropriate.
Melissia wrote: You failed to make your point. To use another example, Calling someone a jerk is not the same as calling them an [N-Bomb]. No matter the intent.
Not really. Once again you're leaving out context. There are different contexts and different situations where either word could be appropriate.
What about “In the context of an e-sport tournament, calling someone a jerk is not the same as calling them a [offensive racial slur]. No matter the intent.”? See, I added the context now. It magically change everything with the mystic powers of the rainbow, does it not .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What about “In the context of an e-sport tournament, calling someone a jerk is not the same as calling them a [offensive racial slur]. No matter the intent.”? See, I added the context now. It magically change everything with the mystic powers of the rainbow, does it not .
1. Now you're being a jerk. 2. There's nothing "magical" about context. It's a common and necessary function of communication and comprehension.
So yes, by adding context to the line above, you can clearly identify what would be appropriate and what would not be. In fact, by demonstrating how adding context gives something meaning you've effectively proven my point on why context is king. Whether that was your aim or not, well done.
Not to condone the comments listed by the OP, but I've heard things said by gamers that make them seem tame by comparison. I think its more the culture involved, and i don't mean 'gamers' themselves. With everything getting mainstreamed and more accessible, you get more representation of the groups that you'd probably rather not know about. Phrases like 'going to rape someone' in this instance are not statements of real-life intent, but cultural metaphors for the level of humiliation and degradation intended upon the other person. Its not pleasant, but until you've seen/heard it for yourself you've got no idea just how common and entrenched this style of behaviour is in online gaming.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: What about “In the context of an e-sport tournament, calling someone a jerk is not the same as calling them a [offensive racial slur]. No matter the intent.”? See, I added the context now. It magically change everything with the mystic powers of the rainbow, does it not .
How about this?
"I'm going to murder my wife!"
Now lacking context that sounds like I am planning to end my wife's life.
If I said this in secret, to my best friend, who has just informed me she's cheating on me, that context would reinforce the narrative of first degree murder.
But if I said this aloud, to a room full of people after learning my wife has just nailed me with a (very unwanted) surprise birthday party the context makes the exact same sentence entirely different.
Claiming he threatened/intended to sexually assault someone when we all know full well that wasn't the intention, nor the meaning in which the term was used stretches intellectual honesty. It's still a poor choice of word, it's still low brow and I'd still prefer not to see it. But this is not a threat of sexual assault any more than my birthday surprise is a declaration to commit serious bodily harm. To call me homicidal at my surprise party would be just as inaccurate.
Kojiro wrote: Nomotog, I completely agree. Again I don't advocate this kind of language. But your post could substitute in 'murder' or 'decimation' or 'destroy' or a host of others that are also negative. But we wouldn't see the same backlash.
Either trash talk allows negative words- in the context of different ways to solidly beat your opponent- or you prohibit it. If someone says 'I'm going to murder them!' it should be treated exactly the same as 'I'm going to rape them!'.
In this case though, rape is a special case, particularly in relation to women, simply because it's statistically more likely that the person you're using the word in relation to in the supposedly inoffensive "I will beat you thoroughly" context has actually been a victim of rape/sexual assault - the chance the person you're jokingly predicting you will "murder" has actually been murdered is zero, the chance they have been the victim of an attempted murder scarcely larger than zero, and I seriously doubt you're going to run into many gamers, or indeed many people full-stop, who have in their lifetimes served in a military unit/been part of a community subject to decimation.
Yes, using any term for a serious and negative event is technically trivialising that event in general, but a lot of people in this thread who're keen to dismiss this kind of behaviour are extremely keen on the idea of "context"; well the context is that large parts of western developed societies have serious problems with the prevalence of rape, and in general while everyone is quick to roundly condemn the act and its perpetrators when discussing rape in the abstract, when you get down to the nitty gritty of individual specific instances of actual rape a lot of troubling attitudes emerge. The article linked earlier talking about the university and fraternities is a prime example; everyone talks a good game, "rape bad" etc etc, but the realities on the ground are cover-ups, victim-blaming, and "humorous" songs about spiking drinks to get anal sex - you simply can't say the same thing about murder - what are the chances, for example, a university would present "report it to the police" and "allow us to run a private inquiry possibly resulting in temporary suspension and/or arbitration" as equivalently valid options to a student who had been the victim of an attempted murder? People don't get to use "context" in the sense of "it was meant as a joke" without also acknowledging that the supposed-joke exists in a societal "context" of its own in which rape is routinely downplayed, trivialised, and brushed under the carpet, and in that context regardless of whether you mean it as a joke or as an actual statement of intent it's a bloody reprehensible thing to say and it is absolutely something that should be singled out and challenged on its own.
Now lacking context that sounds like I am planning to end my wife's life.
If I said this in secret, to my best friend, who has just informed me she's cheating on me, that context would reinforce the narrative of first degree murder.
But if I said this aloud, to a room full of people after learning my wife has just nailed me with a (very unwanted) surprise birthday party the context makes the exact same sentence entirely different.
Normally I'd say "That's a perfect example! No way Hybrid could fail to understand that.", but Hybrid has shown an uncanny ability to miss the bleedingly obvious almost to the point where I'm sure Hybrid is just trolling. Nevertheless, valiant effort.
Kojiro wrote: Nomotog, I completely agree. Again I don't advocate this kind of language. But your post could substitute in 'murder' or 'decimation' or 'destroy' or a host of others that are also negative. But we wouldn't see the same backlash.
Either trash talk allows negative words- in the context of different ways to solidly beat your opponent- or you prohibit it. If someone says 'I'm going to murder them!' it should be treated exactly the same as 'I'm going to rape them!'.
In this case though, rape is a special case, particularly in relation to women, simply because it's statistically more likely that the person you're using the word in relation to in the supposedly inoffensive "I will beat you thoroughly" context has actually been a victim of rape/sexual assault - the chance the person you're jokingly predicting you will "murder" has actually been murdered is zero, the chance they have been the victim of an attempted murder scarcely larger than zero, and I seriously doubt you're going to run into many gamers, or indeed many people full-stop, who have in their lifetimes served in a military unit/been part of a community subject to decimation.
Yes, using any term for a serious and negative event is technically trivialising that event in general, but a lot of people in this thread who're keen to dismiss this kind of behaviour are extremely keen on the idea of "context"; well the context is that large parts of western developed societies have serious problems with the prevalence of rape, and in general while everyone is quick to roundly condemn the act and its perpetrators when discussing rape in the abstract, when you get down to the nitty gritty of individual specific instances of actual rape a lot of troubling attitudes emerge. The article linked earlier talking about the university and fraternities is a prime example; everyone talks a good game, "rape bad" etc etc, but the realities on the ground are cover-ups, victim-blaming, and "humorous" songs about spiking drinks to get anal sex - you simply can't say the same thing about murder - what are the chances, for example, a university would present "report it to the police" and "allow us to run a private inquiry possibly resulting in temporary suspension and/or arbitration" as equivalently valid options to a student who had been the victim of an attempted murder? People don't get to use "context" in the sense of "it was meant as a joke" without also acknowledging that the supposed-joke exists in a societal "context" of its own in which rape is routinely downplayed, trivialised, and brushed under the carpet, and in that context regardless of whether you mean it as a joke or as an actual statement of intent it's a bloody reprehensible thing to say and it is absolutely something that should be singled out and challenged on its own.
And people saying 'owned' in computer games is a special cased in relation to the descendants of slaves. These are all negative words used to describe negative feelings and negative actions. Note that its not confined to players - mobs (computer controlled npcs) can do these things and have them done to them in the same vocabulary (eg i was raped by nagafen). Context comes into play when you need to consider the limitations and extents of the phrase/saying. With my example, people don't assume that a computer character (a big dragon) came to life and sexually assaulted me. They tend to assume that it did bad things to me ingame and in the context of 'dying' in a computer game, it is a bad thing.
Whether its right or wrong is largely irrelevant to my point: it exists in a very significant proportion of online gamers, enough to have formed a culture. If people want to dismiss the culture out of hand and automatically decry it as being something else, that's fine. But you're more likely to enable and support that culture than you are to take it apart. Thats why understanding what is being said and the context it is being said in is *important*. Saying the phrases and behaviors are unacceptable is all well and good, saying they are intended as something other than what they are is disingenuous and will not strengthen that position/cause. The factors leading to this type of culture in online gaming start in the real world, and lead to a lot of problems in real world (such as actual rape). Attacking the symptom won't cure the disease. And if you want to cure the disease, you first need to understand it.
A good example of this is when in the last year or so and american teenager posted on his facebook that he'd taken his gun (rifle? bazooka?) and killed his neighbour's pet dinosaur. The police swooped in and found neither weapon nor dinosaur corpse (absolutely nothing in the way of either, no dead pets, nothing resembling his post) and yet he was charged and convicted over it *despite not having committed or attempted or planned it*. That's the danger of going to far down the 'other' path and treating things out of context - you kill free speech and impose punishments for non-existant crimes.
My personal opinion on the situation: it was a tournament, and his disqualification was legit. If you're going to compete for big bucks and public attention, then you'll have higher levels of scrutiny and morality applied. My personal opinion on the phrase itself: its too complicated to pass judgement so easily. These are virtual 'games' that impose a player-vs-player environment on the said players - the idea is almost always to 'kill' the other player, which is bad in real life. But this is not in real life, the intent to actually kill someone in real life isn't there. Its a grey and slippery slope. Its not so easy to paint it as black and white, and i'd suspect the people who try to do so as not fully understanding it, which leads to credibility issues on their positions.
Torga_DW wrote: My personal opinion on the situation: it was a tournament, and his disqualification was legit. If you're going to compete for big bucks and public attention, then you'll have higher levels of scrutiny and morality applied. My personal opinion on the phrase itself: its too complicated to pass judgement so easily. These are virtual 'games' that impose a player-vs-player environment on the said players - the idea is almost always to 'kill' the other player, which is bad in real life. But this is not in real life, the intent to actually kill someone in real life isn't there. Its a grey and slippery slope. Its not so easy to paint it as black and white, and i'd suspect the people who try to do so as not fully understanding it, which leads to credibility issues on their positions.
I don't really know how much more this can be stressed. This. A thousand times this.
All I have to say is this. A sportsman of high caliber, even an E-sportsman, should always apply professionalism to his game, Regardless of context, morality and "athlete" worship will still apply. How many kids would watch something like that, and if they see a tweet like that from their role model, then think that saying that stuff is OK?
Basically boils down to making an example for all those who actually watch the matches that being derogatory is not a good thing.
Now lacking context that sounds like I am planning to end my wife's life.
If I said this in secret, to my best friend, who has just informed me she's cheating on me, that context would reinforce the narrative of first degree murder.
But if I said this aloud, to a room full of people after learning my wife has just nailed me with a (very unwanted) surprise birthday party the context makes the exact same sentence entirely different.
Normally I'd say "That's a perfect example! No way Hybrid could fail to understand that.", but Hybrid has shown an uncanny ability to miss the bleedingly obvious almost to the point where I'm sure Hybrid is just trolling. Nevertheless, valiant effort.
H.B.M.C. wrote:1. Now you're being a jerk.
Double standards are super fun. (:
Also, yes, context is important... and I fail to think of any public context whatsoever in which saying 'I'm going to rape this girl tomorrow' would be appropriate. Zero. Null. Nada.
Kojiro wrote: Nomotog, I completely agree. Again I don't advocate this kind of language. But your post could substitute in 'murder' or 'decimation' or 'destroy' or a host of others that are also negative. But we wouldn't see the same backlash.
Either trash talk allows negative words- in the context of different ways to solidly beat your opponent- or you prohibit it. If someone says 'I'm going to murder them!' it should be treated exactly the same as 'I'm going to rape them!'.
In this case though, rape is a special case, particularly in relation to women, simply because it's statistically more likely that the person you're using the word in relation to in the supposedly inoffensive "I will beat you thoroughly" context has actually been a victim of rape/sexual assault - the chance the person you're jokingly predicting you will "murder" has actually been murdered is zero, the chance they have been the victim of an attempted murder scarcely larger than zero, and I seriously doubt you're going to run into many gamers, or indeed many people full-stop, who have in their lifetimes served in a military unit/been part of a community subject to decimation.
Yes, using any term for a serious and negative event is technically trivialising that event in general, but a lot of people in this thread who're keen to dismiss this kind of behaviour are extremely keen on the idea of "context"; well the context is that large parts of western developed societies have serious problems with the prevalence of rape, and in general while everyone is quick to roundly condemn the act and its perpetrators when discussing rape in the abstract, when you get down to the nitty gritty of individual specific instances of actual rape a lot of troubling attitudes emerge. The article linked earlier talking about the university and fraternities is a prime example; everyone talks a good game, "rape bad" etc etc, but the realities on the ground are cover-ups, victim-blaming, and "humorous" songs about spiking drinks to get anal sex - you simply can't say the same thing about murder - what are the chances, for example, a university would present "report it to the police" and "allow us to run a private inquiry possibly resulting in temporary suspension and/or arbitration" as equivalently valid options to a student who had been the victim of an attempted murder? People don't get to use "context" in the sense of "it was meant as a joke" without also acknowledging that the supposed-joke exists in a societal "context" of its own in which rape is routinely downplayed, trivialised, and brushed under the carpet, and in that context regardless of whether you mean it as a joke or as an actual statement of intent it's a bloody reprehensible thing to say and it is absolutely something that should be singled out and challenged on its own.
And people saying 'owned' in computer games is a special cased in relation to the descendants of slaves. These are all negative words used to describe negative feelings and negative actions. Note that its not confined to players - mobs (computer controlled npcs) can do these things and have them done to them in the same vocabulary (eg i was raped by nagafen). Context comes into play when you need to consider the limitations and extents of the phrase/saying. With my example, people don't assume that a computer character (a big dragon) came to life and sexually assaulted me. They tend to assume that it did bad things to me ingame and in the context of 'dying' in a computer game, it is a bad thing.
Whether its right or wrong is largely irrelevant to my point: it exists in a very significant proportion of online gamers, enough to have formed a culture. If people want to dismiss the culture out of hand and automatically decry it as being something else, that's fine. But you're more likely to enable and support that culture than you are to take it apart. Thats why understanding what is being said and the context it is being said in is *important*. Saying the phrases and behaviors are unacceptable is all well and good, saying they are intended as something other than what they are is disingenuous and will not strengthen that position/cause. The factors leading to this type of culture in online gaming start in the real world, and lead to a lot of problems in real world (such as actual rape). Attacking the symptom won't cure the disease. And if you want to cure the disease, you first need to understand it.
A good example of this is when in the last year or so and american teenager posted on his facebook that he'd taken his gun (rifle? bazooka?) and killed his neighbour's pet dinosaur. The police swooped in and found neither weapon nor dinosaur corpse (absolutely nothing in the way of either, no dead pets, nothing resembling his post) and yet he was charged and convicted over it *despite not having committed or attempted or planned it*. That's the danger of going to far down the 'other' path and treating things out of context - you kill free speech and impose punishments for non-existant crimes.
My personal opinion on the situation: it was a tournament, and his disqualification was legit. If you're going to compete for big bucks and public attention, then you'll have higher levels of scrutiny and morality applied. My personal opinion on the phrase itself: its too complicated to pass judgement so easily. These are virtual 'games' that impose a player-vs-player environment on the said players - the idea is almost always to 'kill' the other player, which is bad in real life. But this is not in real life, the intent to actually kill someone in real life isn't there. Its a grey and slippery slope. Its not so easy to paint it as black and white, and i'd suspect the people who try to do so as not fully understanding it, which leads to credibility issues on their positions.
That's very interesting and all, but would you care to point out where in my post I actually made the argument you're addressing? Hint; I didn't.
One person in this thread on the "take this kind of gak seriously" side of the discussion has perhaps taken the line of argument a bit too far(frankly I think you're just talking past each other; they say "it CAN mean an actual threat of rape so should be unacceptable regardless of intended meaning", you guys say "it wasn't meant as a threat of rape, context is important", but you seem to be understanding each other as "this person literally threatened to rape another person" and "because people have used the anonymity of the internet to be donkey-caves for a long time, that tradition is now at least partial justification for them continuing to be donkey-caves"), but nobody else myself included has even implied that the context of the phrase is irrelevant or that an actual threat of rape was intended.
I simply disagree with the idea that context in the sense of understanding the intended meaning in this specific instance should take precedence over context in the wider sense of using such a charged phrase in a society in which rape is under-reported, trivialised, and leaves a disturbing number of people(some of whom will be gamers and thus subject to this kind of unjustifiably aggressive rhetoric) with lifelong physical and/or psychological damage.
And considering how often you and HBMC bring up the importance of "context", is it not a bit disingenuous to continue arguing that all negative words are equivalently bad? You bring up the term "owned", and you're correct that there is a specific group to whom it may cause grievous offence, but once again you focus on one specific context and ignore the wider one; slavery is not widespread in developed society, anyone arrested for enslaving another human being will not have defence lawyers or media columnists arguing that they did nothing wrong because the slave brought their enslavement on themselves by looking too much like a good worker with a strong back, there are no nationwide higher education societies with tens of thousands of members "jokingly" planning "enslavement vacations", and the chances that you will interact with an actual victim of enslavement or a close friend of theirs/member of their immediate family is infinitesimally small and gets smaller still in the context of online gaming. Rape is widespread, there is a fairly large portion of the general populace and plenty of "establishment" legal, media, and political figures who do blame victims of rape for what they were subjected to, there are large organisations in many developed countries which trivialise or even outright encourage rape, and there is a good chance that you know well or are acquainted with at least one person who has been raped and I'd wager that chance does not significantly decrease if you were to consider only online acquaintances.
Out of context, and in extremely specific contexts, yes, all negative words are equivalently bad, but considered in a broader and more relevant societal context it is entirely possible and entirely logically consistent to have a "hierarchy of dickery" and treat different levels of negativity with different levels of condemnation.
What double standards? I'm mocking him in one post, and then mocking him in the either. That's not a double standard. That's consistency.
Ashiraya wrote: Also, yes, context is important... and I fail to think of any public context whatsoever in which saying 'I'm going to rape this girl tomorrow' would be appropriate. Zero. Null. Nada.
Funny how the original people in question resolved things between them.
The organization hosting the competition determined the comment was not befitting of a competitor and disqualify the individual.
Then a bunch of us on the net get all excited over this and make it more than it was.
I suspect those who are rather fond of alternative uses for the word "rape" are trying to justify it's casual use.
There may be some fear of consequences and many are mistakenly thinking the "victim" has pushed for the punishment (which would still be justified!).
Funny how these public exchanges can be hijacked for personal agendas.
Talizvar wrote: Funny how the original people in question resolved things between them.
The organization hosting the competition determined the comment was not befitting of a competitor and disqualify the individual.
Which is exactly what they should have done. I see very few people disagreeing with the actions the organisers took.
Talizvar wrote: Funny how these public exchanges can be hijacked for personal agendas.
Any more than people claiming that this examples proves "inherent misogyny" in gaming culture, when it actually does nothing of the sort? That's what we're railing against; people immediately jumping to ideological conclusions devoid of context (or even critical thought).
I see plenty of people, including at least one in this thread, saying that they were in the wrong to ban the player. And yes, saying "she shouldn't have reported him" is the same as saying "he shouldn't have been banned", as far as the end result goes.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Any more than people claiming that this examples proves "inherent misogyny" in gaming culture, when it actually does nothing of the sort? That's what we're railing against; people immediately jumping to ideological conclusions devoid of context (or even critical thought).
This is pretty much the crux of when I get upset.
A moment of thoughtlessness turned into another item of evidence to condemn gaming culture as a bastion of bigotry and misogyny.
I even dislike the word "misogyny" it is like a way to corner the market for being prejudiced against: why assign a gender to it?
It seems to allow the argument that if you are male you would not understand.
We have ALL experienced prejudice against us at some point, I do not care who you are.
There, now I am getting on my high horse...
This individual case was handled in a reasonable fashion and proportionate to the "intent" that went into that thoughtless comment: a professional competitor must conduct themselves to a higher standard since they are an example to others and are answerable for their actions.
Adding any more hysteria or spin to this event will only feed the trolls.
Talizvar wrote: This is pretty much the crux of when I get upset. A moment of thoughtlessness turned into another item of evidence to condemn gaming culture as a bastion of bigotry and misogyny.
It's not "a moment of thoughtlessness". It's many, many "moments of thoughtlessness" adding up in to one big gak-fest, of which this is merely the most recent public example.
edit: whoops, didn't intend to slip that past the forum's censor.
Torga_DW wrote: Not to condone the comments listed by the OP, but I've heard things said by gamers that make them seem tame by comparison. I think its more the culture involved, and i don't mean 'gamers' themselves. With everything getting mainstreamed and more accessible, you get more representation of the groups that you'd probably rather not know about. Phrases like 'going to rape someone' in this instance are not statements of real-life intent, but cultural metaphors for the level of humiliation and degradation intended upon the other person. Its not pleasant, but until you've seen/heard it for yourself you've got no idea just how common and entrenched this style of behaviour is in online gaming.
As entrenched as it may be, it's still not acceptable. And until we, that is, gamer culture in general, start shutting down people who insist on using language like that, then gamers are going to be viewed as a bastion of misogyny and bigotry. It's that simple, basically.
Talizvar wrote:A moment of thoughtlessness turned into another item of evidence to condemn gaming culture as a bastion of bigotry and misogyny.
Maybe you should re-read the OP:
"Everything could have stopped with this conclusion that would have been the best possible for the incident… if gamer culture was not so full of fething idiotic waste of life. Because immediately people that are most certainly not linked to GamerGate in any way started to harass Maddelisk for, well, they do not really know. Yes, the tournament organizers decided to exclude Kas without Maddelisk having said anything. No, the angry hordes of idiots did not decide to harass them, and instead directly went for Maddelisk."
This thread is less about the tweet itself, it was meant to discuss the phenomena of a bunch of people immediately starting to harass the "victim" because the perpetrator got banhammer'd.
And then, thanks to dakka's own posters, this thread turned into a debate about whether using the word "rape" in this context is really a bad thing or should be okay.
If that doesn't make you pause and think, I don't know what would.
Talizvar wrote:I even dislike the word "misogyny" it is like a way to corner the market for being prejudiced against: why assign a gender to it?
It seems to allow the argument that if you are male you would not understand.
We have ALL experienced prejudice against us at some point, I do not care who you are.
I'm male, and I am perfectly capable of understanding misogyny simply because of what I have seen and an innate ability to mentally put myself into other peoples' shoes (part of my job, actually).
Besides, the "you're not me, you don't understand" is an argument that could, in theory, be applied anywhere regardless of whether or not it has its own term. Even if "misogyny" and "misandry" would not exist and people would only debate "sexism", it would be brought up by men or women who feel misunderstood by the opposite gender.
And as i said in my first post on this topic: this isn't about 'gamer' culture. Its about negative cultures of which some gamers are a part of, and which is becoming more noticeable as mainstream whatever (in this case, computer games) attract higher percentages of the various demographics.
Again, it comes back to attacking the symptom and not the disease. Its like that simpsons episode where they burn down the observatory so that they can never be hit by a meteorite again.
Perhaps not in the cultures you're familiar with. I just have to look at that new eminem song where he 'rapes' iggy izalea (sp) to know thats not true.
One could posit that "gamer culture" took contemporary cultural issues and, due to internet anonymity and group dynamics, gradually worsened/deepened them simply because nobody spoke up for so long that it has become accepted behaviour to some (as this thread shows).
I mean, such attitudes are obviously not unique to gamer culture, and neither did it invent these problems. In essence, "gamer culture" - or at least that which is commonly understood as such - is just yet another club house where groups of people have the opportunity to show their worst sides without perceived fear of actual consequences and receive applause for it. Exactly like the aforementioned university frats, and other such assemblies.
I'd say its more the anonymity factor, which games are one way of providing, that is involved. But like a university frat, that sort of behaviour takes place regardless. Look at situations where people post stuff on their facebook (or whatever the latest trendy site is) - they get caught for committing crimes doing that. Anonymity is part of the problem but again its more of a symptom. I can't say what causes these problems, although i strongly suspect parenting (or lack thereof) and/or early influences are involved, but nonetheless the problem exists with or without computer games.
Something should be done, but the problem has become institutionalized to the point that its a representative culture with its own powers and rights. The people who sent the harassing messages would surely fall under cyberstalking, cyber harassment or cyber bullying but i'd bet dollars to donuts that nothing will be attempted to be done about them because the problem is too big at this point.
Torga_DW wrote: I'd say its more the anonymity factor, which games are one way of providing, that is involved. But like a university frat, that sort of behaviour takes place regardless. Look at situations where people post stuff on their facebook (or whatever the latest trendy site is) - they get caught for committing crimes doing that. Anonymity is part of the problem but again its more of a symptom. I can't say what causes these problems, although i strongly suspect parenting (or lack thereof) and/or early influences are involved, but nonetheless the problem exists with or without computer games.
Something should be done, but the problem has become institutionalized to the point that its a representative culture with its own powers and rights. The people who sent the harassing messages would surely fall under cyberstalking, cyber harassment or cyber bullying but i'd bet dollars to donuts that nothing will be attempted to be done about them because the problem is too big at this point.
I don't really believe the problem stems from anonymity. I think it kind of comes from the culture and some viewpoints not being challenged (or weren't challenged before). Anonymity isn't bullet prof. You do have an identity on the internet and people can keep track of you. You have more anonymity on a public street then you would on a public forum. There are more controls of bad behavior online. I think it's more that the culture doesn't always call out the bad behavior or even consider it bad behavior.
Torga_DW wrote: I'd say its more the anonymity factor, which games are one way of providing, that is involved. But like a university frat, that sort of behaviour takes place regardless. Look at situations where people post stuff on their facebook (or whatever the latest trendy site is) - they get caught for committing crimes doing that. Anonymity is part of the problem but again its more of a symptom. I can't say what causes these problems, although i strongly suspect parenting (or lack thereof) and/or early influences are involved, but nonetheless the problem exists with or without computer games.
Something should be done, but the problem has become institutionalized to the point that its a representative culture with its own powers and rights. The people who sent the harassing messages would surely fall under cyberstalking, cyber harassment or cyber bullying but i'd bet dollars to donuts that nothing will be attempted to be done about them because the problem is too big at this point.
I don't really believe the problem stems from anonymity. I think it kind of comes from the culture and some viewpoints not being challenged (or weren't challenged before). Anonymity isn't bullet prof. You do have an identity on the internet and people can keep track of you. You have more anonymity on a public street then you would on a public forum. There are more controls of bad behavior online. I think it's more that the culture doesn't always call out the bad behavior or even consider it bad behavior.
That is kind of my observation.
Agreed and we'll said. A lack of consequences or challenges breeds such an environment.
I would agree with Nomotog's observation . Mostly, gamers usually just don't speak up when other gamers say stupid, offensive gak, out of some misplaced sense of solidarity. I'm a bit guilty of that myself.
Talizvar wrote: A moment of thoughtlessness turned into another item of evidence to condemn gaming culture as a bastion of bigotry and misogyny.
[…]
Adding any more hysteria or spin to this event will only feed the trolls.
If you are going to look at my original post, you will see it is not the moment of thoughtlessness that triggered my criticism. It was the attempt to defend it as acceptable, and the subsequent attacks of Maddelisk, which are something else entirely. This “extra hysteria and spin”.
But Lynata already explained it really nicely.
Well, at least I certainly triggered some discussion with this topics.
Lynata wrote: One could posit that "gamer culture" took contemporary cultural issues and, due to internet anonymity and group dynamics, gradually worsened/deepened them simply because nobody spoke up for so long that it has become accepted behaviour to some (as this thread shows).
I mean, such attitudes are obviously not unique to gamer culture, and neither did it invent these problems. In essence, "gamer culture" - or at least that which is commonly understood as such - is just yet another club house where groups of people have the opportunity to show their worst sides without perceived fear of actual consequences and receive applause for it. Exactly like the aforementioned university frats, and other such assemblies.
More like the Brovasion that occured with consoles gaining a considerable online foothold in the early 2000, gaming culture was rather friendly and polite prior to that mostly due to it took some basic intelligence to play online before then, publishers saw an untapped consumer base and focused on them. Its not a coincidence that alot of game genres died out around 2000, games becoming dumbed down and the increase of idiot "gamers" and gaming becoming a multi billion dollar industry.
Lynata wrote: One could posit that "gamer culture" took contemporary cultural issues and, due to internet anonymity and group dynamics, gradually worsened/deepened them simply because nobody spoke up for so long that it has become accepted behaviour to some (as this thread shows).
I mean, such attitudes are obviously not unique to gamer culture, and neither did it invent these problems. In essence, "gamer culture" - or at least that which is commonly understood as such - is just yet another club house where groups of people have the opportunity to show their worst sides without perceived fear of actual consequences and receive applause for it. Exactly like the aforementioned university frats, and other such assemblies.
More like the Brovasion that occured with consoles gaining a considerable online foothold in the early 2000, gaming culture was rather friendly and polite prior to that mostly due to it took some basic intelligence to play online before then, publishers saw an untapped consumer base and focused on them. Its not a coincidence that alot of game genres died out around 2000, games becoming dumbed down and the increase of idiot "gamers" and gaming becoming a multi billion dollar industry.
I want to call bull on this idea that this problem stems from a console/dubbro army that exists outside of hard ore gameing. I was on the internet before 2000 and it wasn't all that enlighten back then. (It was different, but not like sexism free.) Star craft 2 isn't a dudebro console game is maybe a good point to make here too. It's more the hard core gammers that get into problems because well it's the hard core gammers who talk about games, who hashtag, who go to cons, who read a gaming comics. The people who don't care about gameing, don't make our problems because they don't care.
Lynata wrote: One could posit that "gamer culture" took contemporary cultural issues and, due to internet anonymity and group dynamics, gradually worsened/deepened them simply because nobody spoke up for so long that it has become accepted behaviour to some (as this thread shows).
I mean, such attitudes are obviously not unique to gamer culture, and neither did it invent these problems. In essence, "gamer culture" - or at least that which is commonly understood as such - is just yet another club house where groups of people have the opportunity to show their worst sides without perceived fear of actual consequences and receive applause for it. Exactly like the aforementioned university frats, and other such assemblies.
More like the Brovasion that occured with consoles gaining a considerable online foothold in the early 2000, gaming culture was rather friendly and polite prior to that mostly due to it took some basic intelligence to play online before then, publishers saw an untapped consumer base and focused on them. Its not a coincidence that alot of game genres died out around 2000, games becoming dumbed down and the increase of idiot "gamers" and gaming becoming a multi billion dollar industry.
I don't fully agree with that as I remember dealing with the ...silliness back in the 90s online and on LAN with associates. It has always been there but we allowed it to flourish by not challenging it. I don't blame the "Brovasion", as these issues were there before. I don't think a golden age ever existed.
I concur, there was still a large amount of harassment in those days. Hell, that's when the G.I.R.L. and "tits or gtfo" memes were born-- sexual harassment was the norm back then, too. in fact, in some ways, it's probably a little bit better these days as website admins are less likely to put up with it (now, when website admins don't put their foot down, it gets bad fast).
H.B.M.C. wrote: What double standards? I'm mocking him in one post, and then mocking him in the either. That's not a double standard. That's consistency.
Ah, I assumed it would be double standards, but it appears it was 'just' mocking someone else. Carry on then, I guess?
Talizvar wrote: A moment of thoughtlessness turned into another item of evidence to condemn gaming culture as a bastion of bigotry and misogyny.
[…]
Adding any more hysteria or spin to this event will only feed the trolls.
If you are going to look at my original post, you will see it is not the moment of thoughtlessness that triggered my criticism. It was the attempt to defend it as acceptable, and the subsequent attacks of Maddelisk, which are something else entirely. This “extra hysteria and spin”.
But Lynata already explained it really nicely.
Well, at least I certainly triggered some discussion with this topics.
I guess I should have been more clear that I have no problem with most of what we discuss here in the forum, it is not as much of a witch-hunt as it can get.
I was observing attacks in general, the culprit and the victim: culprit gets jumped on and various white-knights try to defend his actions, wash, rinse, repeat.
Forum moderators are getting better at dealing with these issues as observed.
These moments have played out many times and it just may take this painful "case by case" basis to get people to think more of why they use the words they do.
Lynata wrote: One could posit that "gamer culture" took contemporary cultural issues and, due to internet anonymity and group dynamics, gradually worsened/deepened them simply because nobody spoke up for so long that it has become accepted behaviour to some (as this thread shows).
I mean, such attitudes are obviously not unique to gamer culture, and neither did it invent these problems. In essence, "gamer culture" - or at least that which is commonly understood as such - is just yet another club house where groups of people have the opportunity to show their worst sides without perceived fear of actual consequences and receive applause for it. Exactly like the aforementioned university frats, and other such assemblies.
More like the Brovasion that occured with consoles gaining a considerable online foothold in the early 2000, gaming culture was rather friendly and polite prior to that mostly due to it took some basic intelligence to play online before then, publishers saw an untapped consumer base and focused on them. Its not a coincidence that alot of game genres died out around 2000, games becoming dumbed down and the increase of idiot "gamers" and gaming becoming a multi billion dollar industry.
I want to call bull on this idea that this problem stems from a console/dubbro army that exists outside of hard ore gameing. I was on the internet before 2000 and it wasn't all that enlighten back then. (It was different, but not like sexism free.) Star craft 2 isn't a dudebro console game is maybe a good point to make here too. It's more the hard core gammers that get into problems because well it's the hard core gammers who talk about games, who hashtag, who go to cons, who read a gaming comics. The people who don't care about gameing, don't make our problems because they don't care.
I hope I explained that right.
I get what he's saying to an extent. Yes, in part things worsened heavily online as the internet gained wider and wider use, and as more and more people came into gaming. But I would definitely disagree that gaming was some kind of polite utopia prior. Gaming was more insular back then. Filled with inside jokes and terms that only a small number of people really had the context to understand and it was very very sexist. It was just a lot harder to notice back then.
Used to be, gamers had a sort of "us vs the world" mentality, because gaming was not popular, it was viewed as a hobby for geeks, nerds and shut-ins (and it was), and all the geeks, nerds and shut-ins kind of took up arms against pop culture in general (because, at the time, they weren't part of it).
Then a funny thing happened: Gamers won the pop-culture war. Gaming is now one of the most-popular of pop-culture hobbies. Mention World of Warcraft, and almost anyone on the planet knows what you're talking about. Mention an Xbox or a Playstation, and just about everyone knows what it is, and probably owns one (or both) of at least 1 generation.
But a small section of the nerds, geeks and shut-ins, who have basically built a shell out of their hate for The World At Large, are unable to recognize their victory. Now that gaming is popular, they're not special. So they lash out against those they perceive are "part of the problem"... which is girls/women and minorities, in the main.
What's amusing is that the apparently infamous "gamers are dead" article basically said exactly what you just said, Psienesis. That gamers won the culture war, and gaming is now mainstream. Like in my signature, gamer is dead, long live gaming.
Melissia wrote: What's amusing is that the apparently infamous "gamers are dead" article basically said exactly what you just said, Psienesis. That gamers won the culture war, and gaming is now mainstream. Like in my signature, gamer is dead, long live gaming.
It also said stuff like
It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there.
These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.
capped by
A new generation of fans and creators is finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary
Oh Leigh, you card!
(I'd LOVE to have hyper-consumers as my audience. That'd be the BEST audience to sell things to. And I'm not even selling anything!)
daedalus wrote: It's sort of like pornography for newspeak supporters, I think. I really don't get how anyone can read that and not have an involuntary twitch.
It's just confusing. Unlike Leigh, I want to see young men and women wearing plush mushroom hats.
I want to see young men and women buying posters of things they like.
I want to see young men and women queuing for game/console/whatever releases they're fans of.
I want to see young men and women reading reviews (with conflicts of interest disclosed when they exist).
I want to see young men and women dressed dorkily.
I want to see young men and women being socially awkward.
But nooooo, there's something wrong with all that.
Melissia wrote: Or perhaps because a certain type of person was looking for a reason to be offended at women game journalists.
If you're referring to me specifically don't worry, I'm offended by most games journalists regardless of their gender Besides, do you think it would have had less of an effect if Nathan Grayson had written the article? I think that would have made things worse.
I agree with your sig though - she wasn't attacking the negative gamer stereotype in the first three paragraphs, she was perpetuating it.
daedalus wrote: It's sort of like pornography for newspeak supporters, I think. I really don't get how anyone can read that and not have an involuntary twitch.
It's just confusing. Unlike Leigh, I want to see young men and women wearing plush mushroom hats.
I want to see young men and women buying posters of things they like.
I want to see young men and women queuing for game/console/whatever releases they're fans of.
I want to see young men and women reading reviews (with conflicts of interest disclosed when they exist).
I want to see young men and women dressed dorkily.
I want to see young men and women being socially awkward.
But nooooo, there's something wrong with all that.
Socially awkward is one thing... but it is this same social awkwardness that gets twelve year olds screaming racial epithets into my earpiece in CoD and telling women three times their age "TOGTFO". There's a limit to how far your social awkwardness (hereafter "SocAwk") will carry you in whatever interpersonal interactions you might find yourself in. SocAwk does not give you carte blanche to say whatever you want to say to whomever you want to say it to, and it does not protect you and the things you love from criticism.
SocAwk is no excuse for being a raging, mouth-foaming racist, misogynist, misandrist or mis-anything.
But anonymity is. People act like jerks when they're annonymous because anonymity removes many of the repercussions. Face to face these people would never do these things, but behind the Internet Shield they can do whatever vile crap they want to because they're basically free from censure.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I agree with your sig though - she wasn't attacking the negative gamer stereotype in the first three paragraphs, she was perpetuating it.
No, she was saying those stereotypes were false, proven false because gamers AREN'T those stereotypes.
To which many people seem to be responding with "well no, we are, and feth you for saying we aren't, we hope you get raped to death!".
Psienesis wrote: Socially awkward is one thing... but it is this same social awkwardness that gets twelve year olds screaming racial epithets into my earpiece in CoD and telling women three times their age "TOGTFO". There's a limit to how far your social awkwardness (hereafter "SocAwk") will carry you in whatever interpersonal interactions you might find yourself in. SocAwk does not give you carte blanche to say whatever you want to say to whomever you want to say it to, and it does not protect you and the things you love from criticism.
SocAwk is no excuse for being a raging, mouth-foaming racist, misogynist, misandrist or mis-anything.
12 year olds being immature is no surprise - they are literally immature. Expecting them to have a fully formed, sensitive social conscience is a bit unrealistic.
So yes, I'll forgive a young man for being a bit misogynistic because he's not mature yet, and I'll forgive a young woman for being a bit misandristic because she's not mature yet.
I'll forgive no one for being a misocynist, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: No, she was saying those stereotypes were false, proven false because gamers AREN'T those stereotypes.
To which many people seem to be responding with "well no, we are, and feth you for saying we aren't, we hope you get raped to death!".
I disagree, she was saying that the stereotype exists and shouldn't be catered to. Such as:
This is hard for people who’ve drank the kool aid about how their identity depends on the aging cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex medium. It’s hard for them to hear they don’t own anything, anymore, that they aren’t the world’s most special-est consumer demographic, that they have to share.
That doesn't sound like 'the stereotype is over'
Count the loaded adjectives. It was not a essay on hope, it was an essay on hate.
She's correct, though, the stereotype shouldn't be catered to. It does exist, most certainly, but it isn't the majority of gamers anymore, and doesn't deserve to be treated like it is somehow "special".
... and 12 year olds screaming racist things in my ear is a failure of parenting. I have... words for their parents.
Wait, are we talking about Leigh Alexander's article here?
Yeah feth that harpy (and I say that fully aware of the irony of what I'm about to say). Her and her other "gamers are dead" compatriots are some of the most vile people I've ever seen online. The amount of hateful crap spewing from those people during the first few weeks of #GG left me baffled as to why people think pro-#GG = pro-harassment when Leigh and her ilk were sharing views 10 times worse than the imaginary dragons they were railing against.
The title is inflammatory but the meat of the article is reasonable enough (please allow me to "mansplain"... ):
She is trying to say that the basement trolls that the software industry was targeting has moved on.
That stereotype is few and far between, it has been replaced with the more "traditional" consumers as gaming has moved into mainstream.
She has rightly pointed out the industry is too slow in recognizing it, almost like it is trying to convert some of these consumers into the old stereotype they are comfortable with.
As the "market" realizes the new demographics, the product will better reflect the true audience and not cater to the socially inept...
Leigh is a bit brutal at times but her articles read well enough (her multiple links are interesting).
So, now gamers are "athletes" held in the same lofty status that all entails.
It appears the participants also have to get used to the fact of being held accountable for what they say like an NHL hockey player (think about the children!).
I'm not so sure that the "athlete" tag applies... but I think it's sort of on the right track. Moreso, the people you're likely to be in communication with are going to be less-tolerant of your "ist" gak than the small sub-culture of CHUDs you used to have was.
APG: Let’s talk about the “Death of Gamers” prediction that has been going around as of late. Why is it happening and how should gamers react?
Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers: The gaming industry is exploding right now. Developers are finding that almost every human activity can be turned into a video game — story telling, art appreciation, even psychotherapy and saving the planet. Games have a unique capacity to entertain, educate, and motivate people. We are only beginning to understand their power. Video games have never enjoyed much respect as an art form, but as gaming evolves, that could change. So I can understand why some critics would look with impatience at popular mass-market games like Grand Theft Auto.
But here is where these critics go wrong. Grand Theft Auto can co-exist with sensitive, literary games like Gone Home. It is not an either/or. Many gamers are angry because these cultural critics are not merely calling for greater creativity and diversity — they have declared war on gamer culture. Consider Leigh Alexander’s cri de coeur in Gamasutra. She declared that “gamers are over.” She spoke of gaming culture as a “petri dish” full of losers and deadbeats. I think “shitslingers” was her term. She has a vision of a more elevated gamer society — filled with decorous, gender-sensitive players. Games, she says, should be more like literature. “We want tragicomedy, vignette, musicals, dream worlds, family takes, ethnographies, abstract art. We will get this, because we’re creating culture now.”
If I were a gamer, I would say, fine, go ahead. Create your vignettes and your dream worlds. No one cares. Just please leave us alone.
APG: Let’s talk about the “Death of Gamers” prediction that has been going around as of late. Why is it happening and how should gamers react?
Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers:
Again, I am not quite sure why the opinion of someone who does not play games, is not interested about games and knows very few about game is more relevant than the opinion of someone who is playing game, is interested by games and is quite knowledgeable about them.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Again, I am not quite sure why the opinion of someone who does not play games, is not interested about games and knows very few about game is more relevant than the opinion of someone who is playing game, is interested by games and is quite knowledgeable about them.
Hey now, Anita Sarkeesian has just as much right to talk about video games as anyone else
I honestly didn't expect something like this from Kas. Shame. Although NightEnd is known for his outbursts and general bad manner.
.
):