Target and Kmart have pulled video game Grand Theft Auto V (GTA V) off shelves over controversy about the game's depiction of violence against women.
The R-rated game has been available on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 for more than a year but was re-released last month on Xbox One and PlayStation 4.
A Change.org petition calling on the retailer to withdraw the game from sale gained more than 44,000 signatures.
The women behind the petition, named on the site as Nicole, Claire and Kat, said as survivors of sexual violence they felt the game sent a dangerous message.
"It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points – and now Target are stocking it and promoting it for your Xmas stocking," the petition said.
"This misogynistic GTA V literally makes a game of bashing, killing and horrific violence against women."
Target general manager of corporate affairs Jim Cooper said the decision to stop selling the game was made following extensive community and customer concern.
"We've been speaking to many customers over recent days about the game, and there is a significant level of concern about the game's content," Mr Cooper said in a statement.
"We've also had customer feedback in support of us selling the game, and we respect their perspective on the issue.
"However, we feel the decision to stop selling GTA V is in line with the majority view of our customers."
A Kmart spokesman said: "Following a significant review of all content in Grand Theft Auto Games, Kmart has taken the decision to remove this product immediately.
"Kmart apologises for not being closer to the content of this game."
The Australian Classification Board said it was a matter for individual retailers to determine which games they wished to stock and make available for consumers.
The board introduced the R 18+ category for computer games on January 1, 2013.
"This category was specifically introduced to ensure that high-impact content would be appropriately restricted to adults, and that minors would be protected from material that is not suitable for them," the board said in a statement.
That was pretty much predictable. I don't think it should be banned for this, myself.
Though that said, I certainly see why they're bothered by a game which is nothing more than a poorly written power fantasy, where the devs made the poor decision to actively include a sex scene where you graphically (if in poor quality) pork a (female, of course, can't have gay sex) hooker and then allowing violence against said hooker afterwards, even rewarding it through the hooker dropping money.
It's not really hard to see their point about how tasteless and stupid GTA5 is, even if you disagree with what they think should be done about it.
Just my personal take on this, this is not feminism, nor is it good to get rid of actual sexism in games. It's just another scapegoating of video games as the new target for hate. You can't make women a protected class in games, which is actually sexist. It's saying that women have to be protected. Now I don't care much for GTA, it is just violence for the sake of violence, this violence is not directed at women in particular. It is directed at everybody. Not only that, this is censorship of an art-form. Not state censorship (although Aus. has gotten pretty good at that ), but corporate censorship pushed by a group that isn't even the consumers for this game. Video games are just another form of media, like movies, television, books, ect. People like to treat them differently, but they are the same, and this should be treated as any other attempt by "morality protectors" to censor any other type of media. From what I've read of game of thrones, it depicts plenty of violence against women, sexual and otherwise. Should we now pull that off shelves? And in GTA you have the choice to not kill women*, you don't have that option. There is even one guy, the "GTA pacifist" goldvision, who is endeavoring to play through GTA online without harming anybody than what is necessary (like missions you have to do).
This is feminism. We might call the petitioners misaimed or misguided feminists, but I still think they're feminists.
That said, I very much disagree when the response to something stupid, tasteless, and misogynistic-- like GTA5-- is an instant "BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT" instead of looking at the underlying causes of the stupid, tasteless, and misogynistic thing.
This misogynistic GTA V literally makes a game of bashing, killing and horrific violence against women.
Ah yes, because there is no horrific violence against men in the GTA games.
The only difference between the sexes in GTA games in terms of the player interacting with random unnamed NPCs is that you can have sex with some of the women.
Yes, and it is a common theme in the most violently misogynistic of societies-- such as Sub-Saharan Africa-- that women are sexually used, killed, and discarded by men with power, and with men in power using rape as a weapon against them to terrify and keep everyone in line.
GTA5 does not yet do the second part. But the first it has done, and the person in power is the player.
Melissia wrote: Yes, and it is a common theme in the most violently misogynistic of societies-- such as Sub-Saharan Africa-- that women are sexually used, killed, and discarded by men with power, and with men in power using rape as a weapon against them to terrify and keep everyone in line.
GTA5 does not yet do the second part. But the first it has done, and the person in power is the player.
But again, the game does not make the player do that.
You could have sex with the prostitute, pay her and let her go.
Or not have sex with the prostitute at all.
Or kill everyone in a 5 block radius with a machine gun MWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Melissia wrote: This is feminism. We might call the petitioners misaimed or misguided feminists, but I still think they're feminists.
That said, I very much disagree when the response to something stupid, tasteless, and misogynistic-- like GTA5-- is an instant "BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT" instead of looking at the underlying causes of the stupid, tasteless, and misogynistic thing.
I said that this is not feminism, not that it's not feminists. Bit confusing, but I tend to ramble . What I mean is that I don't consider this feminism. Sort of a personal thing with me. Probably no true scotsman when I think about it, but oh well. I essentially mean that this an action that does nothing to advance female equality. If they were pushing to have a a female playable character or something, then yes, I would probably support them, but they are just going, "violence against women, lets ban it" which, while technically true, there is at least an equal amount of violence against women. The sex thing I agree with you on, they should get some male prostitutes as well, that way everybody will be happy . Or something
Although I was thinking about the player in control thing that you said, and when you think about it, isn't all sex in video games rape, as the NPCs have no capacity to refuse.. I probably shouldn't look so far into this.
I've always found the GTA games to be rather crass and tasteless in general. They've definitely got some specific problems with how women are treated, but I've never found that to be the most problematic of their content. Though, that really says more about the games other content than it does about the misogyny. Which is sad because I like the general concept of the GTA games and some of their mechanics. However, they hit that perfect sort of uncanny valley between full silly immaturity and more gritty realism that just comes off as gross.
I remember I went over my buddies house one time when he was playing GTAV and he was in the middle of an actual torture mini-game.Just ick. ick, ick, ick.
I'd certainly wouldn't be upset if GTA didn't exist and I think gaming general would be better for it, but censorship isn't the right way to get us there.
Which, yes, is less of an issue than buying a woman's body, using it, and then killing her afterwards.
Maybe we should just go the extra mile and make male prostitutes as well for equality sake.
I'd certainly wouldn't be upset if GTA didn't exist and I think gaming general would be better for it, but censorship isn't the right way to get us there.
Not really, it's what defined that brand of Sand box genre to begin with, the genre really didn't take off till GTA 3 and previous attempts were clunky and undefined.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I essentially mean that this an action that does nothing to advance female equality.
I certainly agree. I don't like it when feminists basically side with the religious moral guardians, the same moral guardians whom would love to banish feminism to begin with and blame feminism for just about everything wrong with society (one of them recently blamed the Furgeson riots on feminism!).
Co'tor Shas wrote: Although I was thinking about the player in control thing that you said, and when you think about it, isn't all sex in video games rape, as the NPCs have no capacity to refuse.. I probably shouldn't look so far into this.
NPCs are also not actual, real living beings, either. Preventing harm to real people is worth more than anyone's moral crusade, no matter what that crusade is, but NPCs aren't by any stretch of the word sentient.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Maybe we should just go the extra mile and make male prostitutes as well for equality sake.
We should, yes. And their sex scenes should be just as graphic as the female prostitute sex scenes, too.
But they didn't. To me, it's rather telling that they only see women as fit to be used and discarded sexually.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I essentially mean that this an action that does nothing to advance female equality.
I certainly agree. I don't like it when feminists basically side with the religious moral guardians, the same moral guardians whom would love to banish feminism to begin with and blame feminism for just about everything wrong with society (one of them recently blamed the Furgeson riots on feminism!).
Seriously? I'm not sure if that's more stupid or hilarious.
Not really, it's what defined that brand of Sand box genre to begin with, the genre really didn't take off till GTA 3 and previous attempts were clunky and undefined.
I think sandbox games would have happened just fine without GTA. It's a rather natural point for games to reach. If GTA(3) never happened, someone else would have done it within a few years time. Obviously, short of having a time machine this is just speculation but in general if an idea is good, it will be found independently by multiple people or groups. Modern sandboxes would have still appeared, just perhaps a couple years later.
NPCs are also not actual, real living beings, either. Preventing harm to real people is worth more than anyone's moral crusade, no matter what that crusade is, but NPCs aren't by any stretch of the word sentient.
We should, yes. And their sex scenes should be just as graphic as the female prostitute sex scenes, too.
But they didn't. To me, it's rather telling that they only see women as fit to be used and discarded sexually.
So are they using Real Living Beings as prostitutes in video games now, or are your messages becoming rather mixed, because now your equating the actions of people against NPC's as those of their opinion of actual people.
I think you should keep in mind that I'm not advocating banning GTA5, I'm simply saying GTA5 is tasteless and does gak without really wondering about the message it's sending to people-- or perhaps even actively embracing the misogynistic messages it sends.
Maybe we should just make women unkillable in videogames. Just like children in skyrim. That wouldn't be misogynistic at all.
/sarcasm
Seriously though, my wife and I have both played GTA V. Neither of us feels that the game encourages the abuse of women. That said, if you are letting video games determine your behavior, there are much deeper underlying problems at heart.
I don't really like bans. I would rather see something criticized then ban it outright. I think most people kind of think that way already though so I don't know why I bother mentioning it.
The weird prostitute ritual is something that, well it boggles the mind why it has gone unchallenged for so long. Maybe because it's freaky when you think about it, but not when you do it? I didn't actively notice it till it was shown in one of the tropes v women videos. It's almost an automatic response that swims underneath.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There is even one guy, the "GTA pacifist" goldvision, who is endeavoring to play through GTA online without harming anybody than what is necessary (like missions you have to do).
Good games allows you to kill no-one. Like Postal². In Postal², it is really your choice if you decide to kill someone in a gruesome, extremely cruel and violent and crude fashion .
(However, you have no female skin other than for the “flags” in the multiplayer mode ).
Postal² is much more silly satire than GTA though. They have a reinstatement of the Waco siege, a reinstatement of the Pulp Fiction abduction scene, Krotchy, pissing on yourself when you are one fire, and all that.
Chongara wrote: Which is sad because I like the general concept of the GTA games and some of their mechanics. However, they hit that perfect sort of uncanny valley between full silly immaturity and more gritty realism that just comes off as gross.
As far as I can tell, the Saint Row franchise totally qualifies for full silly immaturity, at least in the latter installments, while being very close to the mechanics of GTA.
Chongara wrote: I remember I went over my buddies house one time when he was playing GTAV and he was in the middle of an actual torture mini-game.Just ick. ick, ick, ick.
Never play Punisher, the game based on the Marvel character, then. Completely full of those. If you screw up, you kill the guy before he gives you the information you need. If you do not, you kill him afterward.
Melissia wrote: even actively embracing the misogynistic messages it sends
Yep. Video games, especially big budget AAA games, are the product of intentional, reflective design. GTA revels in its tasteless chauvinism. That tone is not a mistake or accident.
Never play Punisher, the game based on the Marvel character, then. Completely full of those. If you screw up, you kill the guy before he gives you the information you need. If you do not, you kill him afterward.
Ick Ick ick. At least in GTA V the torture was framed as a bad thing. Even Trever goes on a rant about how torture is bad.. After being the one who did it...
I played the punisher once.
Yeah, it was pretty brutal.
Then again, Frank Castle is a pretty brutal guy, so it works.
I would not advise it if one is squeamish though.
Never play Punisher, the game based on the Marvel character, then. Completely full of those. If you screw up, you kill the guy before he gives you the information you need. If you do not, you kill him afterward.
Ick Ick ick. At least in GTA V the torture was framed as a bad thing. Even Trever goes on a rant about how torture is bad.. After being the one who did it...
I found it, for your eyes . NSFW because extreme violence:
Never play Punisher, the game based on the Marvel character, then. Completely full of those. If you screw up, you kill the guy before he gives you the information you need. If you do not, you kill him afterward.
Ick Ick ick. At least in GTA V the torture was framed as a bad thing. Even Trever goes on a rant about how torture is bad.. After being the one who did it...
I found it, for your eyes .
NSFW because extreme violence:
Having actually read the punisher comics, that's nothing compared to some of the stuff he does in Punisher Max, there's a reason why many Heroes in that universe never want to be near or work with Frank because unlike most he really is a man who went so far over the edge in believing "Pay Evil Unto Evil".
They also tried putting him in Jail, he simply promised to murder all those in with him too, short of killing him he won't exactly stop that.
Never play Punisher, the game based on the Marvel character, then. Completely full of those. If you screw up, you kill the guy before he gives you the information you need. If you do not, you kill him afterward.
Ick Ick ick. At least in GTA V the torture was framed as a bad thing. Even Trever goes on a rant about how torture is bad.. After being the one who did it...
I found it, for your eyes . NSFW because extreme violence:
Having actually read the punisher comics, that's nothing compared to some of the stuff he does in Punisher Max, there's a reason why many Heroes in that universe never want to be near or work with Frank because unlike most he really is a man who went so far over the edge in believing "Pay Evil Unto Evil".
They also tried putting him in Jail, he simply promised to murder all those in with him too, short of killing him he won't exactly stop that.
I heard things about punisher max, scary things. Didn't Bullseye once try to think like Castle by
Spoiler:
kidnapping families, pretending to be their Father, and hiring assassins to kill them all to re-enact the murder of Castles' family?
Melissia wrote: even actively embracing the misogynistic messages it sends
Yep. Video games, especially big budget AAA games, are the product of intentional, reflective design. GTA revels in its tasteless chauvinism. That tone is not a mistake or accident.
I find the difference between GTA's chauvinism and that of Duke Nukem Forever (where it's a part of the main character's personality, but they tried to build it to discourage abusiveness) is pretty stark.
Never play Punisher, the game based on the Marvel character, then. Completely full of those. If you screw up, you kill the guy before he gives you the information you need. If you do not, you kill him afterward.
Ick Ick ick. At least in GTA V the torture was framed as a bad thing. Even Trever goes on a rant about how torture is bad.. After being the one who did it...
I found it, for your eyes .
NSFW because extreme violence:
Having actually read the punisher comics, that's nothing compared to some of the stuff he does in Punisher Max, there's a reason why many Heroes in that universe never want to be near or work with Frank because unlike most he really is a man who went so far over the edge in believing "Pay Evil Unto Evil".
They also tried putting him in Jail, he simply promised to murder all those in with him too, short of killing him he won't exactly stop that.
I heard things about punisher max, scary things.
Didn't Bullseye once try to think like Castle by
Spoiler:
kidnapping families, pretending to be their Father, and hiring assassins to kill them all to re-enact the murder of Castles' family?
He did far more then that, studied every location Frank went to and killed people at, slept in his clothes, all his safehouses, interrogated and tortured friends to discover every little detail he could, and essentially even modeled himself to look exactly like frank would have been in those situations.
He also did indeed kill a father, kidnap the wife and kids and then had them killed..He didn't really do well the first time, but he figured he had it down by the fourth family he did it too...
Homophobia is often intrinsically tied to misogyny to begin with-- most homophobic insults are based off of applying feminine attributes to men and asserting that this is a bad thing.
Melissia wrote: I find the difference between GTA's chauvinism and that of Duke Nukem Forever (where it's a part of the main character's personality, but they tried to build it to discourage abusiveness) is pretty stark.
Well sure -- Duke Nukem is a parody.
OffT -- I wish Marvel would do an omnibus of Ennis's Punisher Max run. It makes no sense that this has not happened.
Melissia wrote: I find the difference between GTA's chauvinism and that of Duke Nukem Forever (where it's a part of the main character's personality, but they tried to build it to discourage abusiveness) is pretty stark.
Well sure -- Duke Nukem is a parody.
While GTA is a power fantasy. Perhaps even the quintessential straight white male power fantasy, even.
Melissia wrote: I find the difference between GTA's chauvinism and that of Duke Nukem Forever (where it's a part of the main character's personality, but they tried to build it to discourage abusiveness) is pretty stark.
Melissia wrote: Homophobia is often intrinsically tied to misogyny to begin with-- most homophobic insults are based off of applying feminine attributes to men and asserting that this is a bad thing.
That seems kind of a stretch to think Man acting feminine is bad, there for woman is bad? (though im not saying some people dont think that)
Melissia wrote: I find the difference between GTA's chauvinism and that of Duke Nukem Forever (where it's a part of the main character's personality, but they tried to build it to discourage abusiveness) is pretty stark.
Well sure -- Duke Nukem is a parody.
While GTA is a power fantasy. Perhaps even the quintessential straight white male power fantasy, even.
As you know, I agree. You might remember I once called it a "privilege simulator." And I don't think Duke Nukem Forever is actually a power fantasy at all (and I'm not claiming that was your point just extending the contrast). It's much more in the vein of Blood Dragon, a game about a genre.
Melissia wrote: Homophobia is often intrinsically tied to misogyny to begin with-- most homophobic insults are based off of applying feminine attributes to men and asserting that this is a bad thing.
That seems kind of a stretch to think Man acting feminine is bad, there for woman is bad? (though im not saying some people dont think that)
The philosophy of macho culture's misogyny goes like this: men and masculinity is superior to women and femininity. A man acting womanly is therefor making himself less of a man, and as such, lowering his worth as a human being..
Melissia wrote: Homophobia is often intrinsically tied to misogyny to begin with-- most homophobic insults are based off of applying feminine attributes to men and asserting that this is a bad thing.
That seems kind of a stretch to think Man acting feminine is bad, there for woman is bad? (though im not saying some people dont think that)
The philosophy of macho culture's misogyny goes like this: men and masculinity is superior to women and femininity. A man acting womanly is therefor making himself less of a man, and as such, lowering his worth as a human being..
Meh then il drop it as iv never grew up with that kinda culture.
Melissia wrote: I find the difference between GTA's chauvinism and that of Duke Nukem Forever (where it's a part of the main character's personality, but they tried to build it to discourage abusiveness) is pretty stark.
Well sure -- Duke Nukem is a parody.
While GTA is a power fantasy. Perhaps even the quintessential straight white male power fantasy, even.
As you know, I agree. You might remember I once called it a "privilege simulator." And I don't think Duke Nukem Forever is actually a power fantasy at all (and I'm not claiming that was your point just extending the contrast). It's much more in the vein of Blood Dragon, a game about a genre.
There was a interview where pitchfork talked about how the duke was meant to be like an ideal and not someone to be mocked. You want to be the duke because the duke is cool. I can't find the quote right now though, so I might be recalling it wrong.
Desubot wrote: That seems kind of a stretch to think Man acting feminine is bad, there for woman is bad?
I get what you mean -- that even if it were bad for a man to woman-like it would not necessarily be bad for a woman to be woman-like. The issue goes a bit deeper however because this worldview also assumes chauvinism. That is, being woman-like means being passive and objectified. That's why it is bad for man to be compared to woman in the first place, because no sane man in this way of thinking would want to be woman-like. It turns out, a lot of women don't actually want to be woman-like in that sense, either.
Melissia wrote: Homophobia is often intrinsically tied to misogyny to begin with-- most homophobic insults are based off of applying feminine attributes to men and asserting that this is a bad thing.
That seems kind of a stretch to think Man acting feminine is bad, there for woman is bad? (though im not saying some people dont think that)
The philosophy of macho culture's misogyny goes like this: men and masculinity is superior to women and femininity. A man acting womanly is therefor making himself less of a man, and as such, lowering his worth as a human being..
Meh then il drop it as iv never grew up with that kinda culture.
nomotog wrote: There was a interview where pitchfork talked about how the duke was meant to be like an ideal and not someone to be mocked. You want to be the duke because the duke is cool. I can't find the quote right now though, so I might be recalling it wrong.
That doesn't really discount the idea of Duke Nukem being a parody. He's not any less cool because he is the Frankenstein monster of every wince-inducing 80s-90s action hero stereotypes. That is actually what made him cool. But it also poked fun at the straight-faced way those tropes appeared in the actual action movies of the 80s and 90s.
I'd like to see a similar parody of the GTA/CoD-era of video games. It will have to wait, of course. If it was made today, I suspect not many would get the joke.
nomotog wrote: There was a interview where pitchfork talked about how the duke was meant to be like an ideal and not someone to be mocked. You want to be the duke because the duke is cool. I can't find the quote right now though, so I might be recalling it wrong.
That doesn't really discount the idea of Duke Nukem being a parody. He's not any less cool because he is the Frankenstein monster of every wince-inducing 80s-90s action hero stereotypes. That is actually what made him cool. But it also poked fun at the straight-faced way those tropes appeared in the actual action movies of the 80s and 90s.
Dose it poke fun or dose it just do them because there is a difference.
Melissia wrote: Homophobia is often intrinsically tied to misogyny to begin with-- most homophobic insults are based off of applying feminine attributes to men and asserting that this is a bad thing.
That seems kind of a stretch to think Man acting feminine is bad, there for woman is bad? (though im not saying some people dont think that)
The philosophy of macho culture's misogyny goes like this: men and masculinity is superior to women and femininity. A man acting womanly is therefor making himself less of a man, and as such, lowering his worth as a human being..
Meh then il drop it as iv never grew up with that kinda culture.
Where did you grow up?
Southern California
Edit: Assuming the question will be asked. Im a Straight Male Asian (korean)
nomotog wrote: Dose it poke fun or dose it just do them because there is a difference.
None of the Duke Nukem games are played straight. It's all overtly tongue in cheek. The tropes they draw on, however, are mostly po-faced in the source material.
Melissia wrote: Homophobia is often intrinsically tied to misogyny to begin with-- most homophobic insults are based off of applying feminine attributes to men and asserting that this is a bad thing.
That seems kind of a stretch to think Man acting feminine is bad, there for woman is bad? (though im not saying some people dont think that)
The philosophy of macho culture's misogyny goes like this: men and masculinity is superior to women and femininity. A man acting womanly is therefor making himself less of a man, and as such, lowering his worth as a human being..
Meh then il drop it as iv never grew up with that kinda culture.
Where did you grow up?
Southern California
Edit: Assuming the question will be asked. Im a Straight Male Asian (korean)
I grew up in northern Michigan, so ya we basically grew up worlds apart. I have been to Southern California before it's nice.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: As far as I can tell, the Saint Row franchise totally qualifies for full silly immaturity, at least in the latter installments, while being very close to the mechanics of GTA.
More on this:
A dev from Saint Row 3 and 4 wrote:In contrast, on Saints Row we deliberately tried to respect the sexuality of female characters and remember our female audience
Melissia wrote: I find the difference between GTA's chauvinism and that of Duke Nukem Forever (where it's a part of the main character's personality, but they tried to build it to discourage abusiveness) is pretty stark.
Well sure -- Duke Nukem is a parody.
Isn't GTA supposed to be somewhat humorous too, like they have a lot of products and ideas have silly names like e-cola (the game's version of coca cola), all the TV shows are parodies, some juvenile stuff like the logo for the bowling place is a pin with two bowling balls (looks like a
Melissia wrote: I find the difference between GTA's chauvinism and that of Duke Nukem Forever (where it's a part of the main character's personality, but they tried to build it to discourage abusiveness) is pretty stark.
Well sure -- Duke Nukem is a parody.
Isn't GTA supposed to be somewhat humorous too, like they have a lot of products and ideas have silly names like e-cola (the game's version of coca cola), all the TV shows are parodies, some juvenile stuff like the logo for the bowling place is a pin with two bowling balls (looks like a
penis), etc.
GTA jokes for sure even in the midst of violence, but the violence itself is not played for a joke nor does it seem meant as a criticism or deliberation on the events. The violence itself is played straight and the targets of violence in GTA are portrayed experiencing the violence in a realistic enough way in terms of suffering. However, the framing of it is so much juvenile glorification, and the exploration of the nature of that violence is shallow to non-existent. The whole package winds up coming off feeling very uncomfortable for me and it doesn't feel like that's by design.
Like I don't mind a game where the player can beat a dude to death with a baseball bat. However, either distance that beating enough from reality I can just enjoy the release of the absurd action, or treat the violence with some level of respect. GTA really seems to do neither.
Alex C wrote: Now, time to get back to my multitude of games that involve myriad crimes against men which people don't seem to give a feth about.
And women. Have you noticed fatalities work just as well on female characters as they do on male characters in Mortal Kombat? And how it was never a problem for anyone?
Just saying .
Alex C wrote: Now, time to get back to my multitude of games that involve myriad crimes against men which people don't seem to give a feth about.
And women. Have you noticed fatalities work just as well on female characters as they do on male characters in Mortal Kombat? And how it was never a problem for anyone?
Just saying .
And that's how you get a mod to come into a thread and give it one warning. Anything else remotely like what was said will get the thread locked and further warnings issued
Melissia wrote: Though that said, I certainly see why they're bothered by a game which is nothing more than a poorly written power fantasy, where the devs made the poor decision to actively include a sex scene where you graphically (if in poor quality) pork a (female, of course, can't have gay sex) hooker and then allowing violence against said hooker afterwards, even rewarding it through the hooker dropping money.
Nice misrepresentation there Anita.
You are not rewarded for assaulting hookers. Killing anyone in that game gets you money. At no point during the game are you enticed, incentivised, encouraged, directed or otherwise rewarded for committing acts of sexual violence or violence towards women in general. The entire petition is based on a lie - almost every word of the complaint is untrue, unverified, unsubstantiated or exaggerated - and Target were morons for taking it off general sale.
But enough from me. I'll let the dulcet tones of John Bain cover the rest for me:
Melissia wrote: Though that said, I certainly see why they're bothered by a game which is nothing more than a poorly written power fantasy, where the devs made the poor decision to actively include a sex scene where you graphically (if in poor quality) pork a (female, of course, can't have gay sex) hooker and then allowing violence against said hooker afterwards, even rewarding it through the hooker dropping money.
Nice misrepresentation there
Everything I said was true. It's sad that the truth offends you.
This game is a power fantasy-- "poorly written" is subjective, to be sure, but it's pretty hard to argue it's not a power fantasy. The devs made the decision to actively include and code for a sex scene where you graphically pork a female hooker, as a participant rather than just watching it. And the devs also allow violence against said hooker afterwards, rewarding you for killing her by giving you in-game money.
No. Nothing you said was true. You're parroting the same crap from the lie-and-misrepresentation-filled complaint that got the game banned in the first place.
I mean, just take this one: "The devs made the decision to actively include and code for a sex scene where you graphically pork a female hooker, as a participant rather than just watching it."
This is not only provably true, it's been advertised as a new feature for the game.
Melissia wrote: This is feminism. We might call the petitioners misaimed or misguided feminists, but I still think they're feminists.
That said, I very much disagree when the response to something stupid, tasteless, and misogynistic-- like GTA5-- is an instant "BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT" instead of looking at the underlying causes of the stupid, tasteless, and misogynistic thing.
That's because you are not a militant extremist.
At least this stupid gak DOES actually reward you for shagging prozzies and killing them, we argued at length about that video Anita Sarkeesian made because I called her a female version of Joel Osteen (cynical businesswoman that has more interest in making money than a cause) after seeing that stupid Hitman part where she drags the dead strippers around and dumps them in a suitcase even though the game actively punishes you for it!
She should have used this as an example, then I wouldn't have called her a cynical dishonest hack and we wouldn't have had an argument.
I definitely agree with you though, rushing to ban almost anything is usually counter-productive... Look at prohibition.
They definitely shouldn't reward you for things like this in games though.. if only because it makes no sense. In fact, you should lose health for tackling a hooker considering syphilis is particularly bad for your health (I hasten to add I do not speak from experience)
The ban is silly as the series - at least the last GTA I played; I've stopped buying them in favour of Saint's Row with GTA IV and its bad, bad console-to-PC port - glorifies violence in general, thus the criticism comes off as shallow and uninformed, and may even be considered counter-productive to the actual controversies (referring to both the portrayal of women in general, as well as violence in general, as separate discussions on this game) by deflecting discussion away from them.
This thread is silly as well, for as predicted it's just the same old arguments by the same old posters about how feminism supposedly makes no sense and is full of lies, or how bad the poor misunderstood straight white males supposedly have it by getting called out on their privileges all the time. Honestly, I've seen these news a couple hours ago at work, and I knew instantly it would turn into a thread at dakka, and I knew the kind of posts I could expect clicking on it.
Then again, I suppose these things being discussed at all should mean something. I consider it unlikely that there will ever be a consensus within the current generation, as perceptions differ too much from one another to allow understanding (at least if dakka and similar comment outlets on the web are an indicator), but a debate actually happening means people started to get fed up with the status quo.
I actually find myself agreeing about GTA being a "power fantasy" game. The sandbox nature of it is intentionally designed to entertain the player by enabling them to commit random acts of violence in an increasingly graphical manner. Hell, I enjoyed playing the exact same way when I was younger, though in retrospect I must consider this to be juvenile and possibly even unhealthy. I disagree, however, that the violence targets women more than men, and I do recall my younger self happily butchering people regardless of their sex. That being said, I have absolutely no problem believing that people with a specific hatred against a certain race and/or gender may actively use these games to hunt down "preferred targets" (there are some sick videos on youtube; I'm sure you'll have no trouble thinking of keywords to find them if you are interested), and I do believe that the GTA series has "problems" with the portrayal of women in general, albeit not as glaring as certain other games.
It's a bit of a shame, because the last GTA game that I actually finished - San Andreas - had a pretty compelling story with some good characters (plus you actually played a black dude for a change, and yes, I do remember thinking that this was strange back then!).
Can't say that I'm shocked, Aussie's tend to get shafted (snicker) when it comes to violence in media, especially video games. Not saying that it's a totally, out of nowhere thing, but seriously...it's a game.
I think if I lived in a place where 99% of the gak living there was interested in killing me just because NATURE, violent video games wouldn't really be a thing to worry about.
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.
Haven't you learned these topics are basically the equivalent of the off-topic forums? Well hopefully you will soon.
I find myself more hating the idea of feminism as a whole. My reason is that it's about making things equal for women and not men or at least better where there's a perceived injustice towards the woman but not the man. A part of it is because it would be better just to call it equality to make everything equal. Why even leave men out of the equation or make them feel like the aggressors. Possibly they wouldn't feel the need to be aggressive if the movement was not only called something else but a little more helpful towards the men and less demanding of them specifically rather than asking them (it's more a problem when you demand than ask politely for something). I mean there are issues with equality there's no doubt. That said even if you're right and women tend to have it worse than men then why is it women getting things much, much better a worse deal then men getting things only a little better for it in your view?
Why not just call it equality and be done with it? Even then nobody is equal. It's part of living in the world. Deal with it. There's always going to be somebody better looking, with more money or seemingly a better life than you. It isn't fair but life's not fair. In a sense these girl gamers that complain have plenty of privileges too (they live in a first world nation, they live in a country that's good to women by world standards and holy crap i'd kill to have a gamer girlfriend they seem so few and far between). They are fewer than the male gamers and yet get more attention whether good or bad. I find it a little odd we'd have to bow down to the demands of not just fewer gamers which are gamer girls but also a very broad category. I mean who's to say every girl likes the same games (perhaps they like 'hello kitty'?, shooters, bejewelled or something) or that making girls as more main characters in some games would even influence them enough to take part of those games (maybe most girls don't like warhammer believe it or not). I mean how much did that work for the 'sisters of battle' in wh40k (probably a bit but probably not enough to justify them being made). Oddly enough girls seemed to like tyranids and orks more in general which are very gender neutral if anything (or elves for being colorful).
Also please don't say i'm privileged. To an extent yes but i was often socially awkward like possibly many of you (warhammer isn't exactly a super popular non-nerdy thing). People also haven't waited on me hand and foot like some of the more attractive women seem to do to their significant others back when i was in high school. Also as for privilege my half sister whom i lived with for a couple years starting at 19 got her kids and myself to work around the yard. They were rich yes but it's not always privilege when they get you to work for your money and have to work on a yard large enough to be a small zelda adventure.
---------
More on topic i don't really particularly like shooters but everything appeals to different groups. I don't feel any need to destroy them because they want a little juvenile fun. It's like you can't do anything without getting judged. I'd get into it more but sometimes i want to watch an action movie for the sake of watching an action movie. I get to watch stuff blow up and i don't need people to tear it apart for lack of story. As for the hooker live sex scene it's about knowing your audience. It's kind of like how AXE shower gel generally appeals to d-bags or is at least marketed with them in mind.
Oh and on the topic of game controversies i take them only a little more serious than celebrity break-ups.
It's slacktivist feminism at its best. You hype something in the name of feminism to get attention, well-knowing that you will neither change nor achieve anyhing besides direly needed self-affirmation.
This in itself isn't a terrible thing as intelligent people can see through it, but the problem is that what this *does* is generate a negative image of feminism among youngsters who get that false image of what feminism is about and get their negative image reinforced.
It's slacktivist feminism at its best. You hype something in the name of feminism to get attention, well-knowing that you will neither change nor achieve anyhing besides direly needed self-affirmation.
This in itself isn't a terrible thing as intelligent people can see through it, but the problem is that what this *does* is generate a negative image of feminism among youngsters who get that false image of what feminism is about and get their negative image reinforced.
Well put. It was what I was ineptly trying to say.
Torga_DW wrote: It's australia. I'm honestly surprised that the game wasn't banned outright*, but give it time.
*not saying i think it should be banned, just that i'm surprised it wasn't
I too was surprised, especially since they'd already banned Saints Row IV (well, originally banned it), but that's a whole other story.
I personally don't enjoy the GTA series as a whole because of the story mode (though I do think mayhem of GTA V multiplayer looks fun from videos I've seen on the YouTubes) but this is ridiculous.
GTA allows you to kill anyone in the game. Male or female. It's not "anti woman", it's "anti everyone". Address the real issues, not the adjusted ones. Yes, you can bang a hooker. Then do the same violence to her as you can to everyone else. personally, I find it boring as hell, but have friends who love it.
That is exactly the point, timetowaste. It's the same mechanism (kill civilian, get cash) for every civilian in the game, not just hookers. It's just one specific example picked out for populistic reasons.
timetowaste85 wrote: GTA allows you to kill anyone in the game. Male or female. It's not "anti woman"
This so-called point has been addressed so many times, and yet people still bring it up as if it's relevant. Yes, there is a distinct difference between a game mechanic where you pay a pimp's sex slaves for sex to gain health, and then kill them afterwards for money, and a game mechanic where you just get money for killing people. That difference imakes the former rather creepier and more abusive than the latter.
HBMC's inflammatory trolling is also irrelevant. Accusing people of being feminazis is neither subtle nor clever.
timetowaste85 wrote: GTA allows you to kill anyone in the game. Male or female. It's not "anti woman"
This so-called point has been addressed so many times, and yet people still bring it up as if it's relevant. Yes, there is a distinct difference between a game mechanic where you pay a pimp's sex slaves for sex to gain health, and then kill them afterwards for money, and a game mechanic where you just get money for killing people. That difference imakes the former rather creepier and more abusive than the latter.
HBMC's inflammatory trolling is also irrelevant. Accusing people of being feminazis is neither subtle nor clever.
I don't think there are pimps. If there were, then there might be more consequences to killing hookers.
I'd offer that the game-world is marginally more progressive than ours. In-game prostitution, by itself, runs no risk of LEO trouble. Murder, OTOH, does. AFAIK, there is no "pimp NPC. So GTA characters live in a world where hookers are self employed entrepreneurs that ply their legal trade and are offered the same protection from crime as the rest of society.
feeder wrote: I'd offer that the game-world is marginally more progressive than ours
Hahaha... no. It's a pretty backwards violent world where might makes right. Makes for an action setting that could be fun (but probably won't because it's GTA), but it does not make for a place I'd want to actually live.
Also, a lot of "freelance" prostitutes aren't in much better of a situation than a pimp's sex slaves.
feeder wrote: I'd offer that the game-world is marginally more progressive than ours. In-game prostitution, by itself, runs no risk of LEO trouble. Murder, OTOH, does. AFAIK, there is no "pimp NPC. So GTA characters live in a world where hookers are self employed entrepreneurs that ply their legal trade and are offered the same protection from crime as the rest of society.
I can get behind that.
I disagree. Crime goes virtually unpunished as you get out of jail all the time, avoiding a killing spree is possible by hiding in a backyard, weapons are easily obtainable etc. I agree with Melissia that it's a "power makes right" world and that, fortunately, isn't how reality works (mostly).
feeder wrote: I'd offer that the game-world is marginally more progressive than ours
Hahaha... no. It's a pretty backwards violent world where might makes right. Makes for an action setting that could be fun (but probably won't because it's GTA), but it does not make for a place I'd want to actually live.
Also, a lot of "freelance" prostitutes aren't in much better of a situation than a pimp's sex slaves.
Agreed, the world is pretty backwards, but its been like this for a very long time and shows no signs of changing. Meanwhile going after a computer game instead of the real thing is somehow moralistic? Art imitates life - focus on the cause of the problems and the symptoms will go away. Games like this are not the cause of the problems.
Stupid Twitter, turning text into an image…
So, you cannot have a female character that is drunk, or else it will be considered sexist? What is this affirmation based on, because I cannot think of any female character being deemed sexist because she was a drunk. Actually, I cannot think of a female character being a drunk anyway. A female character being a mentally disturbed soldier would be deemed sexist? Show me any evidence of that. Because I know one game which entirely revolve on a female character that is not only literally insane, but also locked into an asylum for the whole duration of the game, and it was not deemed sexist by anyone.
And that ending of Guybrush, why does it work? Because it is a subversion of a classic trope. If you consider Galbrush, it would not be a subversion of a classic trope, not until we get the non-subverted version into a bunch of games.
Really, it is not that hard to understand.
Get the hero out first, and then the anti-hero and all the subversions will follow. Get thousand of fearless soldiers with ovaries of steel that kill without remorse or second thought to accomplish whatever mission their superior assign to them, and suddenly, having a mentally disturbed soldier who's mind is unraveling as she walks through the battlefield takes a whole new meaning than if the only female ever featured as a walking the hell of modern battlefield is insane while all the male soldiers that have been depicted as walking the hell of modern battlefield are depicted as unflinching though guys.
In other word, start using the SMBC method of gender determination for all your characters, and nobody in their right mind will ever accuse you of racism.
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:
So, they are asking Christina “I never played a video game and I do not care about them” Sommers about video games. Recipe for a success .
Well to be fair the perspective of an outsider can be a valuable thing. They will notice things and ask questions about elements people immersed in games might not think about.
nomotog wrote: Well to be fair the perspective of an outsider can be a valuable thing. They will notice things and ask questions about elements people immersed in games might not think about.
They are valuable if they are only observations. If they are verdicts, they are worthless for any fruitful discussion. Would you let your living room get decorated by a blind man?
nomotog wrote: Well to be fair the perspective of an outsider can be a valuable thing. They will notice things and ask questions about elements people immersed in games might not think about.
They are valuable if they are only observations. If they are verdicts, they are worthless for any fruitful discussion. Would you let your living room get decorated by a blind man?
A blind man might do better then me to be honest and you know I can always rearrange anything if It doesn't work out. I feel like you might be referring to something that your not saying though.
^i think that tweet sums it up perfectly. Equality through discrimination.
Melissia wrote: Ah, so it's the old "you can't do more than one thing" argument, then.
No its the old "how is this in any way related to the actual problem" argument. Banning a R18+ game isn't going to fix the problems, its not going to come close. This sort of thing is somehow fine in movies, music and books, but put it in a game and son you've crossed the line.
Melissia wrote: They are both a symptom AND a cause, as it reinforces the machismo nonsense that it embraces, and tells you this is a good thing.
Its an inanimate object. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Spoons don't make people fat. Games don't make people act them out in real life.
The reward for killing a hooker after sleeping with her in the game are no different than not sleeping with her and killing her anyway. It doesn't say anything, other than that its a violent game. If someone doesn't like it, they probably shouldn't play it. Saying that its the cause of problems in society is laughable - these things have been going on long before computers were even invented.
I think that tweet is massively ignorant and stupid.
It attacks a parody of feminism because the author realizes he has no actual argument otherwise. It's just fething pathetic, and it's even more pathetic that people cite it as if it's saying something deep or important. Its intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.
Torga_DW wrote: No its the old "how is this in any way related to the actual problem" argument. Banning a R18+ game isn't going to fix the problems, its not going to come close. This sort of thing is somehow fine in movies, music and books, but put it in a game and son you've crossed the line.
You should re-read this conversation. I haven't supported banning it, and in fact opposed the ban. Doesn't mean I don't see GTA as the trashy game it is, or that I don't recognize the problematic messages it sends to the children and adults that play it (and yes, children play it)
If this paragraph had a point, it failed to make it. The bible is an inanimate object as well. It's still had a massive impact on society. GTA won't have as big of an impact to be sure, but it HAS an impact, however small.
What a surprise to see how this thread turned out. I've mostly-ignored almost all of "gamergate" because the crusaders on both sides appear to almost all be a collection of terrible people.
While I disagree with some things that Anita says, I enjoy her videos and think she has some interesting points to make. I just wish she'd do her research a little better, since she unfortunately omits information or twists facts in order to make her (opinion) points a bit too often.
The moron behind the "death of gamers" article is simply someone trying for a bit of controversy and attention, and seems to have gotten it.
I wouldn't give a feth about any of this, if it hadn't resulted in self-righteous uninformed people starting a petition so that a collection of dickheads managed to make two of the largest retailers in the country pull a game that's been out for a year from their shelves. Then again, people who want the game still have plenty of choices, and I picked up my own and my wife's copies without an issue already.
And yes, kids play it. But that's a fault of lazy or disinterested parenting. I'm an adult, and I presume that you (Melissa, for this bit of my post) are as well - and I certainly don't want my adult R18+ rated (by the Federal Government, not some industry-run ESRB) entertainment defined or regulated by the fact that some kiddywinks play it due to either the ignorance or indifference of their parents. (And I know quite a few who do.)
I do find it amusing that the rather rapey GoT or 50 Shades are both things that Target and KMart continue to think are fine to continue selling. But then, moral crusaders are never strangers to hypocrisy, are they?
Azazelx wrote: The moron behind the "death of gamers" article is simply someone trying for a bit of controversy and attention, and seems to have gotten it.
You never actually read the article in question, then. It wasn't an attempt at controversy, but rather, a congratulatory article-- an article saying games and gamers are now mainstream, and the stereotypes that once defined gaming are diminishing. And that devs should take note of this.
I wonder if people will just look at video games as what they are instead of using them as a soapbox to spout their rhetoric. Neither side ever makes an headway and both end up falling back on the same arguments; it all sounds like a very broken record.
Melissia wrote: It attacks a parody of feminism because the author realizes he has no actual argument otherwise. It's just fething pathetic, and it's even more pathetic that people cite it as if it's saying something deep or important. Its intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.
Its an accurate portrayal of stereotypes in real life. He was right - if galbrush threepwood had been released, some people's heads would have spontaneously exploded. The situation is pathetic, but that's how the world operates.
Melissia wrote: You should re-read this conversation. I haven't supported banning it, and in fact opposed the ban. Doesn't mean I don't see GTA as the trashy game it is, or that I don't recognize the problematic messages it sends to the children and adults that play it (and yes, children play it)
My apologies, i wasn't intending to imply you personally, i was referring to target (and probably should have said that) in regards to the ban. That children are playing the game is highly indicative of the source of the problems existing outside and separate to the game - children aren't supposed to be playing it. The influence on the children (who may grow up to do bad things) isn't coming from the game it's coming from the parents/friends that are allowing the child to play in the first place. What else are these parents allowing/not allowing their children to do? What kind of examples are they setting? This is where the problems stem from, not a computer game that has a: 'illegal to sell to children' label on it.
Melissia wrote: If this paragraph had a point, it failed to make it. The bible is an inanimate object as well. It's still had a massive impact on society. GTA won't have as big of an impact to be sure, but it HAS an impact, however small.
You provide a good example. The bible says: thou shalt not kill, and yet people do it anyway. The old testament had passages like: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Banning the old testament wouldn't prevent these things from occuring. Everything has an impact, but this game doesn't have a relevant one. People don't like that these things are occurring and fair enough. But shooting the messenger won't change anything.
Torga_DW wrote: He was right - if galbrush threepwood had been released, some people's heads would have spontaneously exploded.
Pointless, baseless speculation. This wouldn't have happened.
Torga_DW wrote: The influence on the children (who may grow up to do bad things) isn't coming from the game
That's exactly where it comes from, however. Just like drunkenness comes from alcohol.
Torga_DW wrote: Everything has an impact, but this game doesn't have a relevant one.
In the video game world, the Grand Theft Auto series is one of the most influential, both for how devs expect to make sandbox games, and for how gamers expect games to work-- including callous, thoughtless violence.
I always thought this sort of behavior was more in line with robbing a shopkeeper after buying stuff to get your money back. I can see how the combination of having an explicit sex scene with this sort of behavior may rub some the wrong way but I don't think GTA should be banned. Prostitutes are an exploited group of women and some are forced into this line of work. Not only is the player abating the exploitation of these unfortunate souls but they are shooting them afterwards too. I can see how that would come across as exceptionally cruel to a lot of folks. But, I don't believe that makes GTA misogynistic. It's just a combination of game mechanics that produces unfortunate implications. Perhaps in the future Rockstar could call the player out on their cruel behavior.
I do think the first person sex scenes are juvenile attempts at stirring a bit of controversy to make their game relevant again.
TheCustomLime wrote: I always thought this sort of behavior was more in line with robbing a shopkeeper after buying stuff to get your money back. I can see how the combination of having an explicit sex scene with this sort of behavior may rub some the wrong way but I don't think GTA should be banned. Prostitutes are an exploited group of women and some are forced into this line of work. Not only is the player abating the exploitation of these unfortunate souls but they are shooting them afterwards too. I can see how that would come across as exceptionally cruel to a lot of folks. But, I don't believe that makes GTA misogynistic. It's just a combination of game mechanics that produces unfortunate implications. Perhaps in the future Rockstar could call the player out on their cruel behavior.
I do think the first person sex scenes are juvenile attempts at stirring a bit of controversy to make their game relevant again.
Do you get your money back for killing a shop owner? One of the big difference is that attacking a shopkeeper is more risky because you will get a wanted level and or attacked. (It's different in every game the kind of response you get.)
Azazelx wrote: The moron behind the "death of gamers" article is simply someone trying for a bit of controversy and attention, and seems to have gotten it.
You never actually read the article in question, then. It wasn't an attempt at controversy, but rather, a congratulatory article-- an article saying games and gamers are now mainstream, and the stereotypes that once defined gaming are diminishing. And that devs should take note of this.
I have actually read it. And it is indeed in part an attempt to stir up some controversy. But feel free to ascribe things to me that you have no idea about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: I can see how the combination of having an explicit sex scene
Frankenberry wrote: Of course you would, it doesn't align with yours so naturally, feigning ignorance is the only proper response.
People are "looking at video games as what they are". What's what caused this thread to begin with. Many people just came to a different conclusion than you.
Yes it is. You're controlling the main character from first person view as you pork a hooker-- controlling them in the sex act itself. That is explicit. It's explicit enough that I really don't want to link to a vid as I think that'll violate Dakka's rules.
Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the hp mechanic in GTAV was tied to having consensual sex with a paid sex worker. Not beating, mauling, maiming or killing said sex worker. Consensual sex.
I mean, the concept of increasing your resistance to shotgun shells by having sex is silly, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. There doesn't seem to be any element of sexual abuse involved, unless one considers prostitution to be a form of sexual abuse (which it obviously can be, when a third party is involved).
What am I missing here?
Melissia wrote: Many people just came to a different conclusion than you.
Melissia wrote: It's explicit enough that I really don't want to link to a vid as I think that'll violate Dakka's rules.
Let me do that for you then:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/623802.page If I get banned because linking to another post in Dakka that has already been seen by moderators, it would not make sense, so I am pretty confident it is not against the rules .
His Master's Voice wrote: Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the hp mechanic in GTAV was tied to having consensual sex with a paid sex worker. Not beating, mauling, maiming or killing said sex worker. Consensual sex.
I mean, the concept of increasing your resistance to shotgun shells by having sex is silly, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. There doesn't seem to be any element of sexual abuse involved, unless one considers prostitution to be a form of sexual abuse (which it obviously can be, when a third party is involved).
What am I missing here?
That a lot of players will kill the hookers they have sex with to get their money back. It's like a GTA tradition.
Melissia wrote: There are more players than just you, and you don't speak for anyone but yourself.
I do. Looking at the sales numbers of all former GTA games where it was possible and the fact that the number of people who actually complained about it being possible being tiny, I can, with a clear conscience, say that it's a tiny, tiny problem most people do not care about as they prefer what might be the best game of the decade.
Sigvatr wrote: Looking at the sales numbers of all former GTA games
Just because someone buys something does not mean that they have no problems with it. I bought Dishonored even though I think its plot is crap, because it was five bucks and its gameplay was fun. And of course, its gameplay has been fun and its plot has been crap, so there you go.
The first one was me responding to someone asserting that "if people will just look at video games as what they are" they'll see things his way. The second one was me saying I thought the conclusion was wrong. I never said that my conclusion was the only one that it was possible to come to. Only that it was the one I think is right.
Melissia wrote: Just because someone buys something does not mean that they have no problems with it.
If you buy a game, you fully support everything in that game. At the same time, you don't. What?
You might disagree with some decisions and not like them. The developer, however, doesn't care most of the time. Some indies do, most give a damn. If a game sells as well as GTA V, then Rockstar doesn't give the tiniest damn about what a tiny, tiny minority might think.
If you buy a game, that's +1 game sold. If a game sells extraordinarily well, that means, to the publisher, that people absoluteley loved it and they'll strife to repeat the success by doing the same. GTA, Call of Duty etc.
Sigvatr wrote: Looking at the sales numbers of all former GTA games
Just because someone buys something does not mean that they have no problems with it. I bought Dishonored even though I think its plot is crap, because it was five bucks and its gameplay was fun. And of course, its gameplay has been fun and its plot has been crap, so there you go.
The first one was me responding to someone asserting that "if people will just look at video games as what they are" they'll see things his way. The second one was me saying I thought the conclusion was wrong. I never said that my conclusion was the only one that it was possible to come to. Only that it was the one I think is right.
But any problems they do have with it are not enough to affect their purchase.
Let's then go and look at the amazon reviews, then. After all, maybe people bought it but were then upset at the content.
Looking at Amazon.co.uk, PS3 version (has most reviews) and out of 1668 reviews, 1401 are 5 star, 170 are 4 star, 55 are 3 star, 22 are 2 star, 40 are 1 star. The only 1 star review that mentions sex in any way was from a woman who apparently bought the game for her son and didn't like that there was a sex shop.
Found a 2 star review that says:
This is the most vulgar gaming video I have ever seen. Why does it have to have strip clubs and prostitutes etc. I really don't understand how this can be censored. Young boys are playing this game for the missions and exposing them to this vile porn is disgusting.
so, another person who doesn't understand what an 18 in a red circle means, apparently.
A Town Called Malus wrote: But any problems they do have with it are not enough to affect their purchase.
Which doesn't mean that there are no problems. Basically, asserting you know why the average person buys or doesn't buy a product is foolhardy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Let's then go and look at the amazon reviews, then. After all, maybe people bought it but were then upset at the content.
That's a much better measure than Sigvatr's "I don't care so no one else does stfu" attitude, but you should still keep in mind that a lot of people, if they're unhappy with a console game, will bring it back to have it exchanged for a different game.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: The thread is about a company making a decision to not sell a product anymore, actually, rather than a handful of people having a problem.
I wasn't aware that there was a full-blown first person sex scene in GTA V, but speaking as a man who always hits escape as soon as the baps come out in Mass Effect because he cringes while alone in his own room (overly animated children's TV presenters also make me cringe with shame so I have to hit the off switch) I am actually embarrassed that it exists.
And I'm not a pensioner or anything, I watch porn (although far less frequently since I hit 30!) fully support people having a very liberated and adventurous sex life, and think even the recent legislation about covering lingerie on the front of FHM and such in petrol stations is preposterous. I think we are evolved apes and sex is the most natural thing in the world, so we should always embrace those feelings... but proper digi-shagging just makes me laugh out loud.
I would have been ashamed to admit to playing on it at 15, let alone at 25. Is it proper like.. Bash the buttons and fiddle the analog to control the hips or something?! What type of ridiculous weirdo's actually want to play that type of thing?
It doesn't even seem that bad when its bad 2d graphics. Like I could get behind a humorous bad-graphic sex scene in the first GTA followed by getting on the sidewalk and running a bunch of Hare Krishnas over with a Camero, but what possible point does this stuff have other than making me too embarrassed to buy it incase my friends think I'm off home to crack a digi-tug?
Sigvatr wrote: Meh, I'm used to her "He disagrees, must be a strawman!" scheme. Irrational behavior 101.
If this thread is any indication, and having read a number of others I would say it is, most of your posts are strawmen and you are running plays straight from "Opinion as fact" and "Misrepresentation, an introduction"
And as another white male it is my privilege to let you know this
Sigvatr wrote: Meh, I'm used to her "He disagrees, must be a strawman!" scheme. Irrational behavior 101.
If this thread is any indication, and having read a number of others I would say it is, most of your posts are strawmen and you are running plays straight from "Opinion as fact" and "Misrepresentation, an introduction"
And as another white male it is my privilege to let you know this
Yeah I disagree with Sigavatr onsome issues and firmly agree on others, obviously because I am a sensible and educated gentleman so I like to think I can come to an unbiased view of each individual case in the ongoing dakka gender wars.
On the internet you do see plenty of needless black or whiting of an issue when it comes to arguments where there are a thousand shades of gray. The above back and forth is a classic example. You don't have to 100% support everything in a game to want to buy it, nor dislike something 100% to ignore it. Its fething obvious. I will play GTA happily, I don't like some aspects of it though. Ill just ignore the whole.. getting a chew off a hooker bit.
Just because it sold well, you cant say "Oh well 99.99% of people have no issue" because I guarantee that many people who happily bought it, will do the same, and skip that bit thinking "feth me, I'm 30 years old, I don't want to control a virtual hand on the back of some digi-prozzies head, not least because if the missus walks in to offer me a cup of tea and she sees how I spend my time infront of the Playstation I will die from embarrassment. In fact feth it I would rather she caught me getting a gobble off an actual prostitute in the kids bedroom"
Everything boils down to absolutes on here, I suppose because its the internet and people find it easier to be obnoxious. I always bring up politics and religion in the real world and people are nowhere near as aggressive when it comes to making a point. In the real world people sit down, drink cans, and then try to understand the others point of view. They don't firmly plant both feet in their neighbors garden and then utterly refuse to move an inch.
mattyrm wrote: Everything boils down to absolutes on here, I suppose because its the internet and people find it easier to be obnoxious. I always bring up politics and religion in the real world and people are nowhere near as aggressive when it comes to making a point. In the real world people sit down, drink cans, and then try to understand the others point of view. They don't firmly plant both feet in their neighbors garden and then utterly refuse to move an inch.
I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.
mattyrm wrote: Everything boils down to absolutes on here, I suppose because its the internet and people find it easier to be obnoxious. I always bring up politics and religion in the real world and people are nowhere near as aggressive when it comes to making a point. In the real world people sit down, drink cans, and then try to understand the others point of view. They don't firmly plant both feet in their neighbors garden and then utterly refuse to move an inch.
I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.
I'm much happier as an Internet user now.
What have you got against sunglasses? DON'T YOU WANT YOUR FRIENDS TO LOOK COOL?!
Sigvatr wrote: Meh, I'm used to her "He disagrees, must be a strawman!" scheme. Irrational behavior 101.
If this thread is any indication, and having read a number of others I would say it is, most of your posts are strawmen and you are running plays straight from "Opinion as fact" and "Misrepresentation, an introduction"
And as another white male it is my privilege to let you know this
Nah, I just have a completely different point of view. It's fine to not like anything or such, and you're free to express your opinion. That's the micro level, though, and while it matters a lot to the individual, on the larger scale, noone cares. The game sold millions, it promoted extremely questionable content and blatantly catered to a certain audience. Rockstar doesn't give a damn about what a tiny group of people think, they're huge and just don't have to anymore. Realizing this hurts people's feelings because they don't want to acknowledge what happens above their heads. This goes for video games and other, similar products. Did McDonals decided to buff up their burgers after the "This is what it really looks like" campaign? Nah.
On this special matter, you have a tiny group of people who got a problem with those scenes. You got another group of people who enjoy those scenes (and that group is, safe to assume, heaps larger as in most teenagers) and then there's the, usual, giant group of people who just don't care. The latter can be found with pretty much every topic. Just take this very forum as an example and compare the amount of GW-hate and GW-love threads. The former make up the vast majority. And yet that is far from what the scene is like in real life.
There are tons of topics where one tiny, vocal minority wants to speak for a much larger group and tries to look big while actually being not of any importance on a larger scale. Like it or like it not.
Not sure, but the alternative is that they removed the game on ethical ground, so… really, they think it will give them more money .
His Master's Voice wrote: I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.
Is a picture enough, or do you need videoconference?
As far as I've seen, the sex scenes in GTAV are about as non-interactive as you can get. It's basically an animation that plays out, with some bad sound effects. In first person they appear to be even less explicit, as the camera is on your PoV and remains pretty locked. So really anyone worried about interactivity or how the 1st person view changes it, really it just makes it more awkward.
His Master's Voice wrote: I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.
What if someone's avatar was a picture of their eyes? Would that do?
His Master's Voice wrote: I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.
What if someone's avatar was a picture of their eyes? Would that do?
Somebody has a weird eye fetish . It's rather funny because i feel like i have really nice eyes myself. You wouldn't be keeping a picture of those would you? Sometimes i feel like this is what optometrists do for sexual arousal ;P.
His Master's Voice wrote: I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.
That rules me out - these things are glued on
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: As far as I've seen, the sex scenes in GTAV are about as non-interactive as you can get. It's basically an animation that plays out, with some bad sound effects. In first person they appear to be even less explicit, as the camera is on your PoV and remains pretty locked. So really anyone worried about interactivity or how the 1st person view changes it, really it just makes it more awkward.
Yeah, it seems less interactive than Hot Coffee was.
Which was itself less interesting than Hot Chocolate was in Steambot Chronicles. If you played your cards right, a female companion could clean your
Yes it is. You're controlling the main character from first person view as you pork a hooker-- controlling them in the sex act itself. That is explicit. It's explicit enough that I really don't want to link to a vid as I think that'll violate Dakka's rules.
1) Thanks for telling me what conclusions I should or shouldn't come to as an (attempted) rebuttal. Your argumentative skills are appalling.
2) Nah, the carefully chosen wording, use of loaded terms and outright insults makes it clear that it was an attempt to stir up some controversy and attention - and it worked.
3) Methinks you need to look up the word "explicit". Perhaps we're splitting hairs, as it is explicitly a sex scene, but it's notan explicit sex scene. If you think it is, then your understanding of English terminology is right up there with your argumentative skills. Your flag says US, though I'll cut you some slack here if English isn't your native/first language - which is always possible, I suppose.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The really amusing thing is that despite disagreeing vehemently with almost everything you post here, I just glanced at your blog, and seeing that it's entirely political, TLRed all the written stuff (that almost all seems to be reblogged anyway) but I do agree with the sentiments in the images.
Then again, I'm not one for people who just reblog what others produce, or those people who's facebook feed seems to be an endless string of other people's political/inspirational messages.
What type of sex scene would they show on the six o'clock news?
No. It's not an explicit sex scene. It's just the same animation that plays out from 3rd person, except now from first person, meaning you see even less.
Such as? You seem to be assuming some kind of conspiracy to cause controversy, which I find laughable. I might have agreed with you if you said it was poorly worded and poorly thought out in how it said things, but you seem to be saying that it was intentionally put out this way in some sort of bizarre conspiracy, rather than just someone making a carelessly celebratory post that happened to insult a few loud and obnoxious people.
Azazelx wrote: 3) Methinks you need to look up the word "explicit".
Explicit, adjective; "describing or representing sexual activity in a graphic fashion."
That is really damn graphic as far as representatives of sexual activity go. Just because she's still wearing a tube-top doesn't mean it's not explicit. About the only mainstream game that I've seen with more graphic sex in it is South Park: The Stick of Truth.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films?
All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?
Depends on the film. I've seen a few Hollywood films where the actors gave the appearance of being nude (they may not have actually been nude, though).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films? All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?
Depends on the film. I've seen a few Hollywood films where the actors gave the appearance of being nude (they may not have actually been nude, though).
H.B.M.C. wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films? All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?
Umm... no. Nudity is pretty common.
So...mainstream films are more explicit then? I don't see what's so shocking about the scene in GTA V then. It's badly done, but I wouldn't call it explicit.
Melissia wrote: Such as? You seem to be assuming some kind of conspiracy to cause controversy, which I find laughable. I might have agreed with you if you said it was poorly worded and poorly thought out in how it said things, but you seem to be saying that it was intentionally put out this way in some sort of bizarre conspiracy, rather than just someone making a carelessly celebratory post that happened to insult a few loud and obnoxious people.
Well, this is still on twitter if you check efighter3's tweets:
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm not being snarky, by the by. Unlike Ms Alexander, you're actually conversing about this.
In her defense, you realize how many random people are trying to "converse" with her bout it, all of them wanting to have the same conversation and refusing to look at other conversations she's had in the past on the exact same topic?
I don't blame her for blocking #gamergate on twitter, given that. Let's face it, there's probably been thousands of people before you, and a good portion of them were not looking for any sort of honest conversation-- they were looking for gotchas and to pin insults on her and goad her in to things.
If you did, it would actually be funny, unlike your previous statement, which was either silly because it was serious (and yes, plenty of people have said that exact thing to me being quite serious about it), or so Poe it wasn't funny.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm not being snarky, by the by. Unlike Ms Alexander, you're actually conversing about this.
In her defense, you realize how many random people are trying to "converse" with her bout it, all of them wanting to have the same conversation and refusing to look at other conversations she's had in the past on the exact same topic?
I don't blame her for blocking #gamergate on twitter, given that. Let's face it, there's probably been thousands of people before you, and a good portion of them were not looking for any sort of honest conversation-- they were looking for gotchas and to pin insults on her and goad her in to things.
If you did, it would actually be funny, unlike your previous statement, which was either silly because it was serious (and yes, plenty of people have said that exact thing to me being quite serious about it), or so Poe it wasn't funny.
Still lacking a sense of humour I see.
Hybrid made a joke (mocking HBMC)
I responded in kind and ran with it.
If you still can't detect the irony in my comments, then all I can say is...
They got bored of mana so they swapped over to drain cooldown from Shadowrun before mixing it up with some good old fashion chaos roll and hope you don't roll bad enough for the warp to flip out
Ocam's Razor. It is far more likely, given Hybrid's track record with "jokes" and "humour", that Hybrid is simply unaware of how Dakka's word filter works.
If you did, it would actually be funny, unlike your previous statement, which was either silly because it was serious (and yes, plenty of people have said that exact thing to me being quite serious about it), or so Poe it wasn't funny.
Anyways...
I'm off to do a search for Anita Sarkeesian on InfoWars. I bet Alex Jones has a lot to say about her.
Melissia wrote: In her defense, you realize how many random people are trying to "converse" with her bout it, all of them wanting to have the same conversation and refusing to look at other conversations she's had in the past on the exact same topic?
I don't blame her for blocking #gamergate on twitter, given that. Let's face it, there's probably been thousands of people before you, and a good portion of them were not looking for any sort of honest conversation-- they were looking for gotchas and to pin insults on her and goad her in to things.
Oh, I can understand that. I wouldn't be surprised if her tweets following the article might have been born of frustration.
However, unless I've missed it, she hasn't clarified her article since publishing it. Which would be nice considering an argument can be made about its intent in either direction.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ocam's Razor. It is far more likely, given Hybrid's track record with "jokes" and "humour", that Hybrid is simply unaware of how Dakka's word filter works.
Jokes? What are those?
I know how the filter works: it gets you banned if you do misspell, intentionally or not, any of the filtered word, that is how it works .
But yeah, since I do not usually use this word, I did not know that witch was censored as witch. Which is a weird insult to use, and a weird replacement too. Because if anyone used the literal sense of the original word, the result will sound… very strange.
Apparently, the male equivalent dick is not censored, and I blame Richard for that.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: However, unless I've missed it, she hasn't clarified her article since publishing it. Which would be nice considering an argument can be made about its intent in either direction.
At the same time, can you blame her for just wanting to drop it because at this point, she doesn't see continued talk about as improving anything with much of anyone?
... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.
Melissia wrote: At the same time, can you blame her for just wanting to drop it because at this point, she doesn't see continued talk about as improving anything with much of anyone?
... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.
Yeah, I've suspected that myself and do have some sympathy for her, but the problem is we're left with an article where we can't agree on the meaning of. Which is fair enough.
I don't see how GG is harming ethics in game journalism, a lot of undisclosed conflicts of interest have turned up, and pretending they don't exist won't make them go away. If this leads to actual disclosing of conflicts of interest in future, as seems to be happening, I'll be a happy camper. Too many game journalists are acting like children with lightsabers.
It also looks like this has become a thread about Bayonetta
By attacking any game journalist that says something they don't like, no matter how unrelated to ethics that thing is, thus causing game journalists to become less responsive and less likely to listen to input to begin with.
This is something that's actually happened, unfortunately-- I'm not assuming you personally did it, only that a substantial number of very loud people did it, in #gamergate's name. Which is why so many people are distancing themselves from the movement.
By attacking any game journalist that says something they don't like, no matter how unrelated to ethics that thing is, thus causing game journalists to become less responsive and less likely to listen to input to begin with.
Really? I wasn't aware they ever listened to input to begin with.
I don't know, I think a lot of GG/antiGG is arguing at cross purposes.
GG wants professional standards from games journalists, with a small section wanting women out of gaming. I won't argue there isn't. Every movement has its witches.
AntiGG wants (I think) better standards in online multiplayer conduct, and. . . stuff?
So this will never end, because both sides are arguing about different things.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: GG wants professional standards from games journalists, with a small section wanting women out of gaming.
Unfortunately, the most noticeable and loudest portion are the latter, and we may be in disagreement on just how big that section actually is.
And for the former, I haven't seen a real agreement over what exactly "professional standards" actually are. Because a lot of gamergaters get upset when someone IS professional and looks critically at a game they love-- which is antithetical to professional standards in video game journalism. In actual journalism, you need people to be critical of things, even things you love.
ESPECIALLY things you love.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: AntiGG wants (I think) better standards in online multiplayer conduct, and. . . stuff?
I think most of them would like the harassment to stop. Both in game and out of game. Especially the rape threats and sexual harassment delivered towards women gamers and women game journalists.
Unfortunately, again, many people who are part of the #gamergate movement see those two things as valid tools to get what they want, even though both of them are antithetical to their supposed purpose.
Melissia wrote: And for the former, I haven't seen a real agreement over what exactly "professional standards" actually are. Because a lot of gamergaters get upset when someone IS professional and looks critically at a game they love-- which is antithetical to professional standards in video game journalism. In actual journalism, you need people to be critical of things, even things you love.
A number of GG agree on the journalistic standards set out by the SPJ code of Ethics:
I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up. I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.
I think most of them would like the harassment to stop. Both in game and out of game. Especially the rape threats and sexual harassment delivered towards women gamers and women game journalists.
Unfortunately GG and anti-GG of both genders are both being harassed to blazes. Too many people are passionate about their cross purposes.
It might be naïve, but I'm hopeful that positive things will come out of it all.
A nebulous term that, at this point, is devoid of any real meaning. The presence of the term in a person's post often indicates that the discussion is devolving in to something not worth reading to begin with.
It's unfortunate what happened to her, and I think that the people who did that shouldn't get away with it. But I also dispute your assertion that "both sides are just as bad", that is an unproven assertion. Centrism for centrism's sake is not in and of itself anything resembling wisdom.
And I also assert that claiming, without any evidence, that "both sides are just as bad" is a very big part of the reason why people CAN get away with things like this, because it is an inherently dismissive claim, a claim that makes it appear as if the speaker thinks there is no solution because everyone does it.
At this point it seems like GG is all about defending GG. Anti-GG seems to just hate GG or gamers. Honestly some times it hard to tell which with some comments.
In theory this could be considered off topic, but realistically this is all about the same topic.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up.
I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.
Unfortunately, this is not really a thing that is discussed amongst gamergate very often. More often, they are upset that game reviewers say anything remotely resembling feminism, and that is the core of what the movement's backlash has targeted thus far.
I believe strongly that you can't have professional game journalism without having space for feminist or racial minority critiques of video games. And, throughout the entirety of its history from its sordid beginnings, gamergate as a general whole has set out to attack and eliminate that space. And equally unfortunately, that's been the core of what it has accomplished, as well.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Unfortunately GG and anti-GG of both genders are both being harassed to blazes.
Yes, but it's not in equal amounts. Gamergate was a movement formed around sexual harassment towards women; whether or not you think it has redeemed itself of that, its members do a massive amount of it, and it is heavily documented. It has been the norm, for the movement, not the exception.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: It might be naïve, but I'm hopeful that positive things will come out of it all.
A nebulous term that, at this point, is devoid of any real meaning.
Sounds a lot like how you and others refer to GamerGate.
"Someone said something nasty to a Feminist, despite not identifying themself as GamerGate? MUST BE GAMERGATE.
The presence of the term in a person's post often indicates that the discussion is devolving in to something not worth reading to begin with.
I meant to insert quote "marks" round it. "SJW " because thats how the author of the video (MundaneMatt) addressed them as. Which you can see I did later on in the comment. (The "SJW" side).
Also, your habit of nit picking a single term of phrase in a post and then saying "You said X! Ergo all your opinions are stupid and not worth reading!" is getting old and quite irritating, frankly.
It's unfortunate what happened to her, and I think that the people who did that shouldn't get away with it.
Oh how magnanimous of you. Do you remember what Zoe Quinn did to The Fine Young Capitalists? Would you say that she got away with it?
Besides, this is what the vast majority of GamerGate says whenever someone is harassed, but you always ignore it. Some members of the movement even attempt to police themselves by calling out harassment.
But I also dispute your assertion that "both sides are just as bad", that is an unproven assertion.
I dispute your assertion that the vocal minority of trolls who label themselves "GamerGate" are anywhere near as large as you claim it is. That too is an unproven assertion.
Centrism for centrism's sake is not in and of itself anything resembling wisdom.
Good thing I'm not pretending to be a Centrist then.
The "SJW" side is every bit as vitriolic as GamerGatesupposedly is.
And I also assert that claiming, without any evidence,
Huh. Perhaps you should look in a mirror on occasion?
that "both sides are just as bad" is a very big part of the reason why people CAN get away with things like this, because it is an inherently dismissive claim,
But people DO get away it. Zoe Quinn got away with sabotaging The Fine Young Capitalists. Jim Sterling gets away with using sexist, misogynistic language as insults when he abuses his critics. Anita Sarkeesian gets away with lying about the games she covers. Journalists get away with labeling gamers ""worse than ISIS". Developers get away with denying games and crowd funding benefits to their backers if they're part of GamerGate.
a claim that makes it appear as if the speaker thinks there is no solution because everyone does it.
But I DO think there is a solution. Stop injecting social justice politics into video games and fighting gender wars that are only divisive. Stop these Feminist witch hunts. The video gaming industry is already changing, naturally and organically, to respond to market pressures as demographics change with ever more women becoming gamers.
Melissia wrote: And for the former, I haven't seen a real agreement over what exactly "professional standards" actually are. Because a lot of gamergaters get upset when someone IS professional and looks critically at a game they love-- which is antithetical to professional standards in video game journalism. In actual journalism, you need people to be critical of things, even things you love.
A number of GG agree on the journalistic standards set out by the SPJ code of Ethics:
I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up. I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.
I think most of them would like the harassment to stop. Both in game and out of game. Especially the rape threats and sexual harassment delivered towards women gamers and women game journalists.
Unfortunately GG and anti-GG of both genders are both being harassed to blazes. Too many people are passionate about their cross purposes.
It might be naïve, but I'm hopeful that positive things will come out of it all.
Honestly I liked the SPJ code standards. Nice to see Escapist work on it a bit. That aside, honestly, it's a bit unrelated, but I really think that if metacritic scores at large went down the industry would be far better. Not only does it not cheat people out of money (Obsidian) but it'd probably kill a lot of the flip outs when it comes to customers becoming upset with a specific score that a game gets.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up.
I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.
Unfortunately, this is not really a thing that is discussed amongst gamergate very often. More often, they are upset that game reviewers say anything remotely resembling feminism, and that is the core of what the movement's backlash has targeted thus far.
I believe strongly that you can't have professional game journalism without having space for feminist or racial minority critiques of video games. And, throughout the entirety of its history from its sordid beginnings, gamergate as a general whole has set out to attack and eliminate that space. And equally unfortunately, that's been the core of what it has accomplished, as well.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Stop injecting social justice politics into video games and fighting gender wars that are only divisive. Stop these Feminist witch hunts.
Arguing that things are fine the way they are and that nothing should change isn't avoiding politics, it's advocating politics.
Regardless, games have always been political. Sometimes unintentionally so, sometimes quite intentionally so. Refusing to talk about it doesn't really make it go away, and being angry at those who talk about it doesn't make it go away, either.
Melissia wrote: Arguing that things are fine the way they are and that nothing should change isn't avoiding politics, it's advocating politics.
Regardless, games have always been political. Sometimes unintentionally so, sometimes quite intentionally so. Refusing to talk about it doesn't really make it go away, and being angry at those who talk about it doesn't make it go away, either.
No, I'm angry when those talking about those political issues employ double standards, lie, and engage in witch hunts that cost people - women no less - their jobs.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No, I'm angry when those talking about those political issues employ double standards, lie, and engage in witch hunts that cost people - women no less - their jobs.
Gamergate is massively political, and has done exactly that. Yet you have shown no anger towards gamergate.
Perhaps you should be angry at yourself, for advocating politics yet engaging in double standards while doing so. Because... you are.
Melissia wrote: I believe strongly that you can't have professional game journalism without having space for feminist or racial minority critiques of video games. And, throughout the entirety of its history from its sordid beginnings, gamergate as a general whole has set out to attack and eliminate that space. And equally unfortunately, that's been the core of what it has accomplished, as well.
I don't agree with that at all, and I think the popularity and promotion of #NotYourShield is proof of that. Patricia Henandez isn't slammed because she's female, she's slammed because she can't stop writing reviews for friends or people that have paid her money, without disclosing that.
I agree that there is a space for feminism or racial minority critiques of video games - its a shame such websites don't currently exist.
Yes, but it's not in equal amounts. Gamergate was a movement formed around sexual harassment towards women; whether or not you think it has redeemed itself of that, its members do a massive amount of it, and it is heavily documented. It has been the norm, for the movement, not the exception.
GG, as a movement, formed out of the censorship in the wake of the Quinnspiracy. It wasn't the crime, it was the cover up which gave it wings. The GG harassment patrol has been tireless in reporting harassment on twitter, unfortunately there has been very little of that sort of policing on the Anti-GG side.
If Nathan Grayson had been suspended for two weeks in August, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I agree that there is a space for feminism or racial minority critiques of video games - its a shame such websites don't currently exist.
There are plenty of such places. GeekFeminism, TheMarySue, etc.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Tbh neither can I. Its a stupid name. but the issues over nepotism, censorship and collusion that it exposed are serious.
lol, you mean the issue where a certain group of gamers went on a pathetic, sexist crusade instead of fact-checking claims that were easily disprovable just by spending five seconds on a search engine of your choice?
It exposed something, alright ... but I don't think it is what you think it is.
The main things that particular controversy revealed were that Zoe Quinn's ex was a sad, lonely, bitter shell of a man, and that a lot of other men are quick to believe everything he says without fact checking any of it.
"Hearsay" people say-- unless a man says it about a woman, apparently.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Tbh neither can I. Its a stupid name. but the issues over nepotism, censorship and collusion that it exposed are serious.
lol, you mean the issue where a certain group of gamers went on a pathetic, sexist crusade instead of fact-checking claims that were easily disprovable just by spending five seconds on a search engine of your choice?
It exposed something, alright ... but I don't think it is what you think it is.
He mentioned Depression Quest in a Rock Paper Shotgun article on the 8th of Jan, and a Kotaku article on the 31st of March. He didn't mention that he was a tester for 'powerful Twine darling Depression Quest' which is a bit of a conflict of interest.
But no, I don't think he ever formally reviewed it.
The first thing that pops to mind when thinking of that topic is the original spat between Zoe Quinn and her ex. That's not a strawman to reference that.
Melissia wrote: The first thing that pops to mind when thinking of that topic is the original spat between Zoe Quinn and her ex. That's not a strawman to reference that.
Evidently, but he was not referring to that, so assuming he was is still a strawman argument.
Melissia wrote: Someone making a quick reference of a game isn't really something to be gaking your pants over.
Eh, it was a minor breach of ethics that wasn't addressed, people pulled the threads leading to more and more corruption, leading to this tangled web we're in today.
Haemonculus wrote: Evidently, but he was not referring to that, so assuming he was is still a strawman argument.
No it isn't. It just means he failed to make it clear what he was talking about.
This could go on all day, Melissia He did not say what you thought he did, and he was, I believe, very clear. You could have sought clarification instead of just going for one thing given that you now think he was 'unclear'. Regardless of you disagreeing with me, it's still a strawman. But let's agree to disagree.
Most of which ended up being also fake or minor issues, too.
Meanwhile, bigger issues have long been ignored, and are still ignored, by gamergate.
In favor of instead attacking women.
Most GG posts/tweets have not been attacking women, and there is plenty of evidence to show that GG has its own review body to bring forward or highlight abuse of women and men by people purporting to be pro-GG. I note that you are ignoring this aspect. There's also mounting evidence that people neutral to the argument are just trolling both sides for 'LOLZ', but no one is discussing this.
Now, I think GG could have handled things better, but they are not the women-hating organisation you seem to desire them to be. There's plenty of evidence (see above) that shows the other side is engaging in less than professional behaviour (such as doxxing pro-GG members).
I dispute this. Most of them have been along those lines, or covering for people who are doing so.
Haemonculus wrote: and there is plenty of evidence to show that GG has its own review body to bring forward or highlight abuse
Citation needed; no such thing exists.
Haemonculus wrote: they are not the women-hating organisation you seem to desire them to be.
I don't desire them to be abusive. They are abusive, and I wish they'd fething stop.
But they aren't.
Haemonculus wrote: He did not say what you thought he did, and he was, I believe, very clear.
Yes. His post was very clearly referring to the original fight between exes. He then later stated that wasn't his intent, but never actually clarified waht he intent was.
His failure to make it clear what he really intended does not make responses to his post strawman posts. That you could go on all day doesn't change anything.
An unsourced, self-congratulatory article which provides no real examples and stinks of a circle jerk by someone who wants to make themselves feel better.
Did not dispute my assertions. Sadly, Twitter demanded that he take down his actual data.
As an aside, reading that article brings to mind the laughably ironic idea that people think that the Breitbart "journalist" Milo Yiannopoulos is some kind of hero when it comes to ethics in games journalism, as well as the sad fact that he's celebrated as a hero amongst many gamergaters. This is the guy that tweets stuff like "Few things are more embarrassing than grown men getting over-excited about video games." and "Unlike video game console launches, where the only ones "present" are pungent male beta bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds." If you want to see someone that hates gamers, you need only look towards people like him. And yet he's celebrated by gamergate, not derided by it.
Because men insulting gamers is okay or something, I guess. Then again, when Jack Thompson said he hated feminism, many of the tweets for pro-gamergate were defending him. Because apparently, a feminist talking about games without ever advocating a ban or any kind of censorship is bad, but a man saying he wants to ban a great number of games and censor the rest games is good. Or something.
To try and head in the vague direction of the original topic, i think the 'problem' with the game (violence and criminal behaviours) has been distorted by a trendy buzzword being thrown around. Not everything in life that negatively impacts a female is misogyny. The original copy/post states:
"It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points – and now Target are stocking it and promoting it for your Xmas stocking," the petition said.
"This misogynistic GTA V literally makes a game of bashing, killing and horrific violence against women."
Which is taken way out of context. If i were reading this for the first time and had no knowledge of the gta games, i might assume that it's a game purely about killing and/or raping women. It is not. A misogynist is a person who hates women. A criminal, however, is someone who breaks the law, and their targets may be male and/or female. This is a game about criminals, not misogynists. To put it in context of another sort of criminal, a drug dealer who sells to women is not a misogynist. How much damage will be done to the feminist cause by exploiting and abusing social attention?
I'd never heard of a SJW before this thread, but I'm starting to see the 'problem'. Playing the gender card is a double-edged sword because while it may be effective for knee-jerk reactions, some people do pay attention to when it gets misused. Then when an actual case of misogyny occurs, people who might otherwise have cared instead shrug their shoulders or worse, side with the offending party because they're sick of hearing how everything in life is nothing but misogyny. It's like the boy who cried wolf: It gets a lot of attention until people start to recognize the behaviour for what it is.
I'd never heard of a SJW before this thread, but I'm starting to see the 'problem'. Playing the gender card is a double-edged sword because while it may be effective for knee-jerk reactions, some people do pay attention to when it gets misused. Then when an actual case of misogyny occurs, people who might otherwise have cared instead shrug their shoulders or worse, side with the offending party because they're sick of hearing how everything in life is nothing but misogyny. It's like the boy who cried wolf: It gets a lot of attention until people start to recognize the behaviour for what it is.
Yeah exact same, I had never heard the term, or gave much thought to feminism in general until a few short months ago, something else interesting I have lerarned thanks to dakka, and then spent many hours reading as a result. It all makes interesting reading, and as always the truth, ever a fleeting harlot, lies somewhere between the two warring factions.
Loads of the gak the GG lot have said has been over the top, which is a shame, because loads of it is clearly a valid complaint. I saw actual footage of that Anita Sarkeesian actually saying she doesnt play or like video games, so unless she was taking part in a play during a drama class, she is clearly a cynical businesswoman with actually no interest in games. Why not simply point that out instead of jumping to conclusions, judging a young woman because of her hair, or accepting everything some ex-boyfriend said about his missus said as gospel? At the same time, there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi because as I pointed out last week, fething tens of millions of socially liberal women and men say the same thing, they have a fething image problem and it isn't going to vanish by constantly saying "Oh well go and educate yourself then"
Seriously that is all they ever say. If you ever see a woman or a man saying like "Oh I think this latest hubub is needlessly aggressive/storm in a teacup" they just get super aggressive if you are male, or say "I implore you to go and educate yourself better" if you are a woman. They never say "fair one, maybe we should try and pick our battles/words more carefully so we don't drive people into the "feminists are all militant wackos" camp. They say it to my missus all the time, they say it to every woman, no matter how well educated they happen to be. "Go and learn more about feminism then you will definitely agree with us" isn't going to make feminism more popular, not behaving almost as badly as the bad-tempered misogynists is.
Well, thats my take on it anyway, I still enjoy seeing it all unfold though.
I have a theory about the always irrational disgusting misogyny if you want to hear it, but as it centers around Islam, Christianity, and Judaism I had better keep that for PM lest I get banned from the last forum I actually find engaging and can still comment in.
mattyrm wrote: I saw actual footage of that Anita Sarkeesian actually saying she doesnt play or like video games, so unless she was taking part in a play during a drama class, she is clearly a cynical businesswoman with actually no interest in games.
Or she developed interest in video games afterwards, both as a feminist critic and as someone who enjoys playing them as a hobby.
Is that really so strange that you cannot accept it? I mean I don't find it odd at all. Hell, it wasn't until about a year ago that my mother was interested in video games at all. Now I can't seem to get her to stop playing her damn phone games, and she's starting to show interest in the 3ds and its games, too (she wants things she can take with her on her various errands or visits with friends or what have you).
mattyrm wrote: At the same time, there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi
That's usually not what happens, however.
mattyrm wrote: They never say "fair one, maybe we should try and pick our battles/words more carefully so we don't drive people into the "feminists are all militant wackos" camp.
Matty, have you actually not paid any attention whatsoever to our conversations?
Or hell, the fact that there are fights between feminists over things like this? As one explained, and similarly to how I explained it: "We all want to raise the status of women to the level of men, to feel safe and respected, and to have a fair and equal chance for all our opinions to be heard. Since the movement is all about choice and the ability to make our own decision that affect us, then it’s necessarily going to be a group fraught with differences. We’re all making our own choices. That’s the commonality. Trying to actively be allowed these choices is the movement. Butting heads along the way from time to time is the reality."
Feminism is not a monolith, nor is it dogma. Just look at the fights between anti-pornography feminism vs sex-positive feminism. Or liberal vs radical feminism. Or the fights about what femininity is and if it should be embraced. edit: Or the disputes over how important it is to consider race when talking about feminism, or sexuality, or gender identity. There's still arguments over whether or not transwomen should be included under feminism at all, which I find sad (I think all women should be included). Or Labor Feminism's focus on economic equality as a harbinger of all other types of equality.
It's like on one hand people try to claim "feminism is a bad movement because you guys fight all the time" then another guy comes up and says "feminism is a bad movement because you guys are all the same"...
Melissia wrote: It's like on one hand people try to claim "feminism is a bad movement because you guys fight all the time" then another guy comes up and says "feminism is a bad movement because you guys are all the same"...
When I saw this it reminded me of something else I have seen, such as in the CEO thread:
People saying it's okay to have 90%+ of all CEOs/nation leaders/what have you be men, because men have more testosterone, which means they take more risks, which supposedly is good for leadership. Ssssssure. But then, when statistics on violence come in, men turn out to be more likely to be subject to assault, and when it's suggested that this may again be due to men taking more risks and leaning towards physical rather than verbal/passive-aggressive aggression (thus getting themselves into dangerous situations much more frequently) then they fiercely deny it and say it's due to... uhh.... misandry?
On topic (ish):
mattyrm wrote: there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi
While true, I still can't see how so many oppose feminism. Feminism, in its very core rather than what any extremists go on about, wants to work towards equality. To me, saying 'I oppose feminism' sounds dangerously close to 'I don't like equality'. While it's true that you can want equality but go about it in a different method, this rarely seems to be the case and it seems more to be people mentally spamming HBMC's signature quote completely without sarcasm.
Edit: Removed a paragraph that might be interpreted as offensive.
I think most of the people who say they oppose feminism are basing their view off the more radical side; you know the extremely vocal side that aren't looking for true feminism ('equality' or more accurately, equity) and rather women being placed higher than men. Seriously, I don't think anyone likes those types.
I may be completely wrong in my view, though.
Of course, saying "Feminists piss me off" isn't the same as "Feth Feminism, I oppose it!", just that in their experience a majority of [vocal] feminists are annoying, which to be fair on the internet many are annoying; though that's true for every group on the internet.
Yeah, but what's the point of even saying that? I doubt anyone here is advocating oppression of men, so it seems needlessly redundant and vague to proclaim one's opposition to something no one is going to contest, and it only risks people interpreting it as opposition of mainstream feminism.
I don't say 'Muslims piss me off' just because there's really vocal groups of Muslims who'd want me dead.
Melissia wrote: It's like on one hand people try to claim "feminism is a bad movement because you guys fight all the time" then another guy comes up and says "feminism is a bad movement because you guys are all the same"...
When I saw this it reminded me of something else I have seen, such as in the CEO thread:
People saying it's okay to have 90%+ of all CEOs/nation leaders/what have you be men, because men have more testosterone, which means they take more risks, which supposedly is good for leadership. Ssssssure. But then, when statistics on violence come in, men turn out to be more likely to be subject to assault, and when it's suggested that this may again be due to men taking more risks and leaning towards physical rather than verbal/passive-aggressive aggression (thus getting themselves into dangerous situations much more frequently) then they fiercely deny it and say it's due to... uhh.... misandry?
On topic (ish):
mattyrm wrote: there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi
While true, I still can't see how so many oppose feminism. Feminism, in its very core rather than what any extremists go on about, wants to work towards equality. To me, saying 'I oppose feminism' sounds dangerously close to 'I don't like equality'. While it's true that you can want equality but go about it in a different method, this rarely seems to be the case and it seems more to be people mentally spamming HBMC's signature quote completely without sarcasm.
Edit: Removed a paragraph that might be interpreted as offensive.
What do you think of when you hear the term furry, brony, 4channer, and the sorts? Furry? Some annoying freak that's shoving their fetish down your throat. Brony? Some weirdo that likes a show WAY too much and won't stop talking about it and they are probably getting into that porn, 4channer, literally the cancer of the internet absolutely disgusting (basically /b/ and /pol/). What about people that fight and work for equality? The "SJW", I put it in quotes because the term doesn't really mean much but the stereotype is real, a group of people that stand on soapboxes preaching of lies and generally being rather nasty people that will go on to explain that being super fat isn't bad and that persecuting them is wrong. Feminism? What is more memorable? The feminists that are reasonable or the nutcases screaming about the death of men and how any vaginal sex is rape. It's flamboyant, the minority is loud, and it's in the internet where anybody with a crazy extreme attitude can yell it at the top of their lungs. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if humans generally are predisposed to look at the negatives far more than the positive traits in groups. Heck, look at the X-Box, PS, PC, Nintendo(?) wars, it's just a bunch of people screaming over which is best and calling each other stereotypes. Then there's things like popular people where some of them will have problems handling with large audiences despite the fact that the vast majority of people will praise them yet the few that post vitriol will slowly break their mind. Pewdiepie, I'll be honest I don't care for his videos, has a massive group of people that don't like him despite the fact that the only real big reason is because he's popular and that some of the people that watch his show are obnoxious. Question is, how many of those people obnoxiously post and spam it? Probably a small few.
Welcome to the internet where everything has to have excrement slung at them in a world of pillows! Sure the pillows are comfy but you have excrement on you.
Also Strawman and all the other things like Red Herrings. Trust me, on the internet we've all used it before and probably on this one argument we've used it a few times
As per opposition to feminism, it's probably a mixture of seeing the vocal minority along with a certain perception. What am I getting out of it? If somebody starts talking about how they are privileged, it's often going to make people get irritated especially if they aren't (poverty and whatever other factors might be included). Then there's the other things. Some people just feel that feminism, by the nature of the term is inherently just for women so they'll retort that it's not about equallity. Heck, I've seen a lot of people that would agree with the big things like equality but don't want to call themself a feminist but instead an equalist. They say basically we're all getting screwed over and it'd be nice to make it where sex, either way, won't screw you over in any way and race/sexuality/blahblahblah won't.
People tend to judge a group by its absurdly extreme but rather loud extremist edges (and it's debatable whether to call those crazies feminists at all - I, personally, don't), sure. It is explainable, but that does not make it acceptable. Complaining on SJWs and throwing up horror stories about what 'feminazis' will do to you makes it incredibly cheap and easy to dismiss mainstream feminism, and seeing how quickly ' reasonably criticising feminism' becomes infested with hatred is jarring to say the least.
Even '''''''''''''''''harmless fun'''''''''''''''''' like this
Melissia wrote: Is that really so strange that you cannot accept it? I mean I don't find it odd at all. Hell, it wasn't until about a year ago that my mother was interested in video games at all. Now I can't seem to get her to stop playing her damn phone games, and she's starting to show interest in the 3ds and its games, too (she wants things she can take with her on her various errands or visits with friends or what have you).
No Mel that is perfectly fine, everybody can change their mind. I take umbrage with her because Ive seen things with her on news and TV interviews where she is called a "lifelong gamer" and when you combine the two I get pissed off.
First impressions count and she is firmly in the "motivational speaker" category in my book thanks to that, she never botherd to tell anybody that she only recently developed an interest in the hobby. Maybe I am being unfair but I'm too old and stuck in my ways to change now.
Fair enough, but you are answering as yourself, it does happen, just most women don't do it. Both sides have extremists that make the rest look bad.
Melissia wrote: Matty, have you actually not paid any attention whatsoever to our conversations? Or hell, the fact that there are fights between feminists over things like this?
Obviously I have! The fact that feminism isn't a dogma is the very reason why I can say the above and it actually make sense. For example, you always debate with me because you feel I often make controversial statements about feminism that you inherently lean towards disputing, but its for the same reason that I can say that some very public and very vocal feminists do indeed give the movement a bad rep. Its leading on from what our last back and forth was about. Some women (and occasionally men!) do drive people into the "feminists are wackos" camp and it is those people I am talking about. It makes sense precisely because there isn't a "grand feminist" to give the movement direction. Seriously you always pull me as if I haven't been listening because you are projecting your own personal behavior (pleasant, not man hating, openly discussed well thought out feminism) with "feminism" in the same breath you are telling me that I am not listening because clearly feminism has nobody like that!
Like I told you, look at the figures, feminism has a really bad name. We have had this same discussion plenty of times, and I feel we are constantly going over the same ground. You think nothing is wrong because you are projecting, nothing would be wrong if every feminist was like you, but they arent, bad news sells, and the really loud, really obnoxious women get plenty of press and make both women and men go "bloody feminists!"
Its like that last article I showed you, animal rights (another fine and just cause) are the same, they suffer from really bad press thanks to the nutters.
As always, you keep saying everything is fine, and I keep saying it isn't. It doesn't mean we disagree about feminism, It means we disagree about what action to take, because I firmly believe that life is essentially a popularity contest, and the general public have less interest in educating themselves about things than they do in watching their house burn down. Both of those things combined make me think that the movement that means so much to you, and quite a lot to me, is hamstringing itself and I find it baffling that so many women are happy to just leave their response as "educate yourself"
Ashiraya wrote: Yeah, but what's the point of even saying that? I doubt anyone here is advocating oppression of men, so it seems needlessly redundant and vague to proclaim one's opposition to something no one is going to contest, and it only risks people interpreting it as opposition of mainstream feminism.
There may not be much point in saying it, but what Im saying is that some of the stuff that a random bloke, who certainly isn't going to sit on the internet and learn about feminism, sees on the news while he has his dinner is going to make him say that, and this is what I think needs addressing. Sticking your fingers in your ears to the criticism that people level at feminism isn't going to win the movement any popularity contests. To the layman, feminism isnt a sensible but ultimately very large movement with numerous different demographics and an entirely just and sensible goal, its a load of mad women in comfortable shoes who loathe men and spend their days demanding that the Oxford English dictionary change the spelling of women to wimmin, picketing shops that sell FHM, or chastising children that build snowmen.
My point, as always, is that you have to engage these ignorant people, not just write them off as wackos yourself, or say "educate yourself" because they wont bother.
Ashiraya wrote: I don't say 'Muslims piss me off' just because there's really vocal groups of Muslims who'd want me dead.
A fair point, and a relevant one. If we find a Muslim bloke living in Birmingham has started to lean towards extremism what do we do? Do we go "meh, educate yourself" and leave it at that, or do we actually take the time to reach out, look at our own behavior, and try and engage the guy?
Like all movements, feminsm has extremists too, and they get too much air time while all the moderates say "We aren't like that"
Just like moderate Muslims, who marched in their tens of millions when cartoons were published but didn't put half as much effort into slamming ISIS, moderate feminists need their own voices to be better heard.
Melissia wrote: Is that really so strange that you cannot accept it? I mean I don't find it odd at all. Hell, it wasn't until about a year ago that my mother was interested in video games at all. Now I can't seem to get her to stop playing her damn phone games, and she's starting to show interest in the 3ds and its games, too (she wants things she can take with her on her various errands or visits with friends or what have you).
No Mel that is perfectly fine, everybody can change their mind. I take umbrage with her because Ive seen things with her on news and TV interviews where she is called a "lifelong gamer" and when you combine the two I get pissed off.
First impressions count and she is firmly in the "motivational speaker" category in my book thanks to that, she never botherd to tell anybody that she only recently developed an interest in the hobby. Maybe I am being unfair but I'm too old and stuck in my ways to change now.
Fair enough, but you are answering as yourself, it does happen, just most women don't do it. Both sides have extremists that make the rest look bad.
Melissia wrote: Matty, have you actually not paid any attention whatsoever to our conversations? Or hell, the fact that there are fights between feminists over things like this?
Obviously I have! The fact that feminism isn't a dogma is the very reason why I can say the above and it actually make sense. For example, you always debate with me because you feel I often make controversial statements about feminism that you inherently lean towards disputing, but its for the same reason that I can say that some very public and very vocal feminists do indeed give the movement a bad rep. Its leading on from what our last back and forth was about. Some women (and occasionally men!) do drive people into the "feminists are wackos" camp and it is those people I am talking about. It makes sense precisely because there isn't a "grand feminist" to give the movement direction. Seriously you always pull me as if I haven't been listening because you are projecting your own personal behavior (pleasant, not man hating, openly discussed well thought out feminism) as "feminism" in the same breath you are telling me that it a very large and very diverse group.
Like I told you, look at the all the polls about it, and to the general public feminism has a really bad name. We have had this same discussion plenty of times, and I feel we are constantly going over the same ground. You think nothing is wrong because you are projecting your own behavior onto a super diverse group and saying nothing needs to be done. Well nothing would be need to be done if every feminist was like you, but they aren't, bad news sells, and the really loud, really obnoxious women get plenty of press and make both women and men go "bloody feminists!"
Its like that last article I showed you, animal rights (another fine and just cause) are the same, they suffer from really bad press thanks to the nutters.
As always, you keep saying everything is fine, and I keep saying it isn't. It doesn't mean we disagree about feminism, It means we disagree about what action to take, because I firmly believe that life is essentially a popularity contest, and the general public have less interest in educating themselves about things than they do in watching their house burn down. Both of those things combined make me think that the movement that means so much to you, and quite a lot to me, is hamstringing itself and I find it baffling that so many women are happy to just leave their response as "educate yourself"
Ashiraya wrote: Yeah, but what's the point of even saying that? I doubt anyone here is advocating oppression of men, so it seems needlessly redundant and vague to proclaim one's opposition to something no one is going to contest, and it only risks people interpreting it as opposition of mainstream feminism.
There may not be much point in saying it, but what Im saying is that some of the stuff that a random bloke, who certainly isn't going to sit on the internet and learn about feminism, sees on the news while he has his dinner is going to make him say that, and this is what I think needs addressing. Sticking your fingers in your ears to the criticism that people level at feminism isn't going to win the movement any popularity contests. To the layman, feminism isnt a sensible but ultimately very large movement with numerous different demographics and an entirely just and sensible goal, its a load of mad women in comfortable shoes who loathe men and spend their days demanding that the Oxford English dictionary change the spelling of women to wimmin, picketing shops that sell FHM, or chastising children that build snowmen.
My point, as always, is that you have to engage these ignorant people, not just write them off as wackos yourself, or say "educate yourself" because they wont bother.
Ashiraya wrote: I don't say 'Muslims piss me off' just because there's really vocal groups of Muslims who'd want me dead.
A fair point, and a relevant one. If we find a Muslim bloke living in Birmingham has started to lean towards extremism what do we do? Do we go "meh, educate yourself" and leave it at that, or do we actually take the time to reach out, look at our own behavior, and try and engage the guy?
Like all movements, feminsm has extremists too, and they get too much air time while all the moderates say "We aren't like that"
Just like moderate Muslims, who marched in their tens of millions when cartoons were published but didn't put half as much effort into slamming ISIS, moderate feminists need their own voices to be better heard.
mattyrm wrote: No Mel that is perfectly fine, everybody can change their mind. I take umbrage with her because Ive seen things with her on news and TV interviews where she is called a "lifelong gamer" and when you combine the two I get pissed off.
Which may not have been her doing.
mattyrm wrote: First impressions count and she is firmly in the "motivational speaker" category in my book thanks to that, she never botherd to tell anybody that she only recently developed an interest in the hobby. Maybe I am being unfair but I'm too old and stuck in my ways to change now.
My first impression of her was of her first Tropes vs Women video. I found she did just fine, and sounded like someone whom had actually played games and done some research on games as well.
mattyrm wrote: Both sides have extremists that make the rest look bad.
As I keep repeating, false centrism doesn't add up to wisdom. Saying "both sides are bad" is pretty much invariably an excuse to do nothing and accept the status quo.
mattyrm wrote: The fact that feminism isn't a dogma is the very reason why I can say the above and it actually make sense.
No, it doesn't make sense. Feminists DO argue overwhat battles to pick. All the time.
mattyrm wrote: Seriously you always pull me as if I haven't been listening because you are projecting
Not projecting. This is from actual experience with dealing with my fellow feminists, including on various places that I have linked to you directly as reference, such as LoveJoyFeminism.
mattyrm wrote: to the general public feminism has a really bad name
No, I think that your solution is not acceptable. Just because I don't think your solution is acceptable (nor that it'd work in the first place) doesn't mean that I accept there's no problem at all.
Melissia wrote: As an aside, reading that article brings to mind the laughably ironic idea that people think that the Breitbart "journalist" Milo Yiannopoulos is some kind of hero when it comes to ethics in games journalism, as well as the sad fact that he's celebrated as a hero amongst many gamergaters. This is the guy that tweets stuff like "Few things are more embarrassing than grown men getting over-excited about video games." and "Unlike video game console launches, where the only ones "present" are pungent male beta bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds." If you want to see someone that hates gamers, you need only look towards people like him. And yet he's celebrated by gamergate, not derided by it.
But he completely changed, since he tried Postal². Now he loves video games. He even wrote an article about it. There was a study cited on that article to prove that unlike what he wrote in that other article about the MRA killer guy, violent video games does not turn you into a killer! This prove that he is now a very good journalist that does a lot of research rather than a terrible, terrible opportunist with no ethics and no shame. Totally.
Torga_DW wrote: I'd never heard of a SJW before this thread, but I'm starting to see the 'problem'.
Well, as you can see by yourself, nobody in that thread has been neither supporting this statement without at least huge nuances added, and nobody is been arguing in favor of a ban. Yet some of us would certainly be considered SJW. This term is way more far-reaching than this.
mattyrm wrote: I have a theory about the always irrational disgusting misogyny if you want to hear it, but as it centers around Islam, Christianity, and Judaism I had better keep that for PM lest I get banned from the last forum I actually find engaging and can still comment in.
Ahah, well please do . Waiting for your PM.
Melissia wrote: Or she developed interest in video games afterwards, both as a feminist critic and as someone who enjoys playing them as a hobby.
mattyrm wrote: To the layman, feminism isnt a sensible but ultimately very large movement with numerous different demographics and an entirely just and sensible goal, its a load of mad women in comfortable shoes who loathe men and spend their days demanding that the Oxford English dictionary change the spelling of women to wimmin, picketing shops that sell FHM, or chastising children that build snowmen.
Sad but not really important. What is important is whether or not we advance toward a more equal society. So, rather than focusing on changing views on feminism, I would rather focus on changing people's view on those inequalities. Beside, like Melissia, I do not think your solution of a feminist Pope would be a good one. I am not one for the cult of leaders. It is certainly needed in politics (sadly), but I do not think it is the same when trying to make people change their mind.
mattyrm wrote: A fair point, and a relevant one. If we find a Muslim bloke living in Birmingham has started to lean towards extremism what do we do? Do we go "meh, educate yourself" and leave it at that, or do we actually take the time to reach out, look at our own behavior, and try and engage the guy?
Who is “we” here? (Beside, I really believe educating himself/herself could potentially lead to very counterproductive results here, but that is just me.)
Wizards and warriors both start with w, so it is the same acronym anyway. I like necromancer or equivalent. Because then I can just let my summoned minions do all the hard work while I sometime consider helping them by sending a vague curse their way, and spend the rest of the time checking the loot that results from their efforts. I guess that makes me a capitalist or something .
Sad but not really important. What is important is whether or not we advance toward a more equal society. So, rather than focusing on changing views on feminism, I would rather focus on changing people's view on those inequalities.
Fair enough, I'm not talking about changing views on feminism predominantly though, just trying to avoid all of the negative headlines. Personally I think the vast majority of stuff is pretty relevant, but the masses do not feel the same, and they are the people you need to think about if you want to get gak done.
Beside, like Melissia, I do not think your solution of a feminist Pope would be a good one. I am not one for the cult of leaders. It is certainly needed in politics (sadly), but I do not think it is the same when trying to make people change their mind.
Well me either, but I am a cynical pragmatist. I think someone has to be in charge, its like all the class-warriors who drip about politicians, find me a better (actually workable socialism for example) solution that really does tackle inequality and works properly and doesnt require someone being in charge and Im all ears. As it stands, I think a sensible Femi-Pope is the best solution because I dont know another one! It might work though, the Pope is never off the fething telly! The Feminist Prime could properly direct everybody's efforts and tell the media to stick to the big issues when they run a story about spelling "wimmin" differently or fringe nutters start talking about aborting male fetuses because they will grow to be penis-wielding oppressors.
The government, and society in general. The past few weeks have seen European Muslims return to Europe from fighting in Syria, and despite an initially aggressive response, the governments of the west are now open to the idea of a reconciliation of sorts, I read an interesting article about it in the Economist last week, but basically they have gone from the "Go Directly to Jail" stance, the the eminently logical "lets try to engage these people" stance.
One thing I learned in Afghanistan was that you cant bomb, stab, or shoot people into submission. Its a good lesson for life in general. The human spirit is indomitable, and violence begets violence. Unless you are willing to commit mass-genocide (nobody is) the carrot always works better than the stick because human beings (especially in deeply religious communities) are all about revenge. Kill a Muslim bloke and all of his kids join the fight. Taking an aggressive stance is the pathway to eventual defeat. The saber rattling Republicans seem to think you can bomb people into submission, but they are wrong. The British had the same with the IRA. slot an IRA sniper and his kids will soon join the battle, the pathway to peace rubs soldiers up the wrong way, but its the only way to win. Hearts and minds, as difficult as you find it on the ground.
The only way to combat any form of hatred is to take a softly-softly approach, whether it be feminism or anything else, and its why I have the opinion that I do. Tackling a negative view of feminism or anything else isn't best served by equal stubbornness, just constantly arguing equally vehemently with your detractors. Change is best achieved by both educating and reaching out. Saying "educate yourselves" to all those plumbers and bricklayers and women who have little interest in reading and then cracking on as normal isn't going to cut it. I think we need to keep the mad feminists off the platform and out of the news, while the sensible ones (the vast majority) do their best to explain exactly how things stand, what it fething means (who would actually disagree?) and why it matters to almost everyone. They are doing their very best with the second half of that sentence, but doing a really gak job that first bit.
Most random working class men for example, shouldn't have a negative view of feminism, but they do. They are only going to come around if you combine education with shutting the wackos up because those fethers make great news stories!
*change the name, the brand is no good
*you've made things too emotionally charged for real dialogue
*you should care more about this other different thing
*your goals aren't clear enough, you won't achieve anything
*the bad actions of this one person reflect on the whole
Is it weird I'm starting to notice the anti-GG arguments are the same as anti-feminism arguments?
mattyrm wrote: I think someone has to be in charge, its like all the class-warriors who drip about politicians, find me a better (actually workable socialism for example) solution that really does tackle inequality and works properly and doesnt require someone being in charge and Im all ears.
I agree someone has to be in charge to run a country. I disagree someone has to be in charge to change people's opinions.
While I can agree with the idea that having a few prominent figures that get more attention and media coverage and that are sensible, reasonable people, that is not the same as having them in charge.
Maybe like Dawkins and whoever are the big atheism advocates in the U.S., though I must admit I do not know much about them because where I live, atheism already won .
mattyrm wrote: Unless you are willing to commit mass-genocide (nobody is) the carrot always works better than the stick because human beings (especially in deeply religious communities) are all about revenge.
Some people are. So people did .
You are reminding me of Machiavelli. Unlike what one would expect, he spoke a great deal about winning people to your cause. His methods did involve more violence though, but very targeted violence. Have you read The Prince?
Sorry, I am getting completely off-topic. Waiting for your MP too .
), but corporate censorship pushed by a group that isn't even the consumers for this game. Video games are just another form of media, like movies, television, books, ect. People like to treat them differently, but they are the same, and this should be treated as any other attempt by "morality protectors" to censor any other type of media. From what I've read of game of thrones, it depicts plenty of violence against women, sexual and otherwise. Should we now pull that off shelves? And in GTA you have the choice to not kill women*, you don't have that option. There is even one guy, the "GTA pacifist" goldvision, who is endeavoring to play through GTA online without harming anybody than what is necessary (like missions you have to do).
. What I mean is that I don't consider this feminism. Sort of a personal thing with me. Probably no true scotsman when I think about it, but oh well. I essentially mean that this an action that does nothing to advance female equality. If they were pushing to have a a female playable character or something, then yes, I would probably support them, but they are just going, "violence against women, lets ban it" which, while technically true, there is at least an equal amount of violence against women. The sex thing I agree with you on, they should get some male prostitutes as well, that way everybody will be happy 
).
.
.
.
