Switch Theme:

Am I the only one tired of gaming culture?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in jp
Fixture of Dakka





Japan

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Jehan-reznor wrote:
@Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).


And you would say the same about books/movies/television shows/music/etc.?


Yes? why not? art is not a function it is totally subjective.

Squidbot;
"That sound? That's the sound of me drinking all my paint and stabbing myself in the eyes with my brushes. "
My Doombringer Space Marine Army
Hello Kitty Space Marines project
Buddhist Space marine Project
Other Projects
Imageshack deleted all my Images Thank you! 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc




The darkness between the stars

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Jehan-reznor wrote:
@Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).


And you would say the same about books/movies/television shows/music/etc.?


Yes? why not? art is not a function it is totally subjective.


I think the problem is that you quoted it improperly with "I don't agree games can be art, like journey, but most games are products to be sold (lice a car or vacuum cleaner) , they can be artful but that is not their main function if all games are art then everything is art."

At that point, it fell into the catch that you didn't mention that the same is true for other mediums. A book is often made to be sold, a movie is usually made to be sold, a pice of art is usually made to be sold or because some rich person from olden days wanted the art to be made. Heck, even with the most games are products to be sold you can argue that journey was made to be sold because, well the folks that made it needed to make money. The only real exception could be some free game or excessively cheap game to avoid that argument and that's really the big problem that caused the misconception.

Honestly I'll admit that, if we look at it from an art for the sake of art, I feel that most mediums fall into very few being truly "art". Most films? Nope. Most books? Nope. Most drawings/songs? Nope. Games? Yeah sure CoD is totally a piece of art.

Even then, one can argue that art can be created for entertainment. Is conceptual art where people stack chairs artwork? It's a bizarre thing to think about in the end and it doesn't help that art is a very loose term.

2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





Can somebody tell me the guidelines for something being considered art then? I am very confused. Is Picasso still art?Because honestly, his stuff does not do it for me. So my vote is no.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Art is only whatever you need it to be for the sake of an argument at the time you are making that argument.

   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

 Manchu wrote:
Art is only whatever you need it to be for the sake of an argument at the time you are making that argument.


In a way yes, but I think it's actual definition just any form of expression or application of human creativity or imagination, so almost everything is art.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

That reduces the term art to something akin to the term stuff. Almost everything is stuff. Saying something is stuff, however, tells me nothing about it.

I think the word art has become a term which people use to market a product. That is certainly the sense in which it used about video games.

   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
@Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).


How are the two mutually exclusive?
If the existence of bad games makes it so that the gaming medium is invalid as an artform, then wouldn't that be the same for bad paintings?

Also, how could the main function be art? Does that mean that Gothic Cathedrals are not art, as their main function was to serve as a place of worship? Or that Botticelli's Birth of Venus, commissioned by the Medici family is not art, as its primary purpose was to get the artist paid?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/03 08:36:05


What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle

Any creative endeavor is, in my opinion, art. Art that is created for the primary purpose of making money is, not surprisingly, sometimes called "commercial art". It's still art.

You might not like it, but, eh, there's a pithy phrase about opinions and something else everyone possesses that could go here.

Outside of that? No one on these forums is going to be able to provide you with a solid, irrefutable definition of art. Such a thing doesn't exist.

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in fi
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine





somewhere in the northern side of the beachball

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Can somebody tell me the guidelines for something being considered art then? I am very confused. Is Picasso still art?Because honestly, his stuff does not do it for me. So my vote is no.




"What is art?" is a stupid question. Why are you guys even bothering with this?

Every time I hear "in my opinion" or "just my opinion" makes me want to strangle a puppy. People use their opinions as a shield that other poeple can't critisize and that is bs.

If you can't defend or won't defend your opinion then that "opinion" is bs. Stop trying to tip-toe and defend what you believe in. 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 Psienesis wrote:
Any creative endeavor is, in my opinion, art. Art that is created for the primary purpose of making money is, not surprisingly, sometimes called "commercial art". It's still art.

You might not like it, but, eh, there's a pithy phrase about opinions and something else everyone possesses that could go here.

Outside of that? No one on these forums is going to be able to provide you with a solid, irrefutable definition of art. Such a thing doesn't exist.


My definition is a bit different.
To me its the physical manifestation of one's competences.
Consequently, it means that there are grades of art - something like the Mona Lisa, which took careful planning and a keen understanding of human anatomy, perspective and landscape, is higher quality than something like a Pollock.
Not all art is created equal, as it were.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter




Seattle

Oh, certainly. But, again, it's still all "art". I mean, Cubist art is certainly loved by certain people and considered hot gak... I, personally, don't think it's all that, but I won't deny its contributions to the world of art.

Some people don't like Impressionist paintings, I love 'em. Some people don't like Surrealist films, I will sit down and watch Jan Svankmajer films on a rainy day all the freakin' time.

It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

That is true. Art is art, no matter the quality or what form it comes in.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

 illuknisaa wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Can somebody tell me the guidelines for something being considered art then? I am very confused. Is Picasso still art?Because honestly, his stuff does not do it for me. So my vote is no.




"What is art?" is a stupid question. Why are you guys even bothering with this?


Probably because 'Illuknisaa must not consider it stupid' is usually not a criteria for discussing something.

I think Psienesis is right that art is made with creative intent. Wikipedia has a nice (although admittedly somewhat vague) definition.

Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in fi
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine





somewhere in the northern side of the beachball

 Ashiraya wrote:


Probably because 'Illuknisaa must not consider it stupid' is usually not a criteria for discussing something.



Maybe not, but usually the topic title is.

"Am I the only one tired of gaming culture?" is the title and "what is art?" is off topic and ot gets threads locked.

Every time I hear "in my opinion" or "just my opinion" makes me want to strangle a puppy. People use their opinions as a shield that other poeple can't critisize and that is bs.

If you can't defend or won't defend your opinion then that "opinion" is bs. Stop trying to tip-toe and defend what you believe in. 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

Well if you think it's bad because it's OT, then just say so to begin with?

Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Heres a novel idea:

Consult a dictionary.

1. [mass noun] The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:

2. (the arts) The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance:


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/art



To get back to the original topic. The premise is a little silly. What is "Gaming Culture" anyway? It seems to me to be some kind of vague, amorphous term that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. You might as well say you're tired of movie culture, or book culture.

Its much better I think to discuss specific aspects of "gaming culture", because that is something we can actually nail down and define.
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





"Gaming culture" is never used when people want to identify themselves with it, it's only used to negatively talk about gamers.

Let that sink in for a second.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/03 21:44:51


   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





4th Obelisk On The Right

True I've personally never used it to describe myself yet I have used it in a negative way.

I think there are so many subgroups of gamers that some do not personally associate themselves with a greater whole. While there is a negative element to all of the subgroups they do have a unified theme of just being terrible people in general.

 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc




The darkness between the stars

 BrotherGecko wrote:
True I've personally never used it to describe myself yet I have used it in a negative way.

I think there are so many subgroups of gamers that some do not personally associate themselves with a greater whole. While there is a negative element to all of the subgroups they do have a unified theme of just being terrible people in general.


I dunno, I wouldn't even say that is correct. What is gaming culture? Well I'm assuming we are talking Steam oriented PC games, PS4, XBOXONE, WiiU, and maybe the handheld games. I think the biggest unification of all is that the common theme is we like games but not all games and like to bicker and nitpick over the smallest to biggest of things I think a problem is that a lot of gaming culture is over online which is... well a wild wasteland of wacky and ludicrous things. The internet's probably both the most offensive vile places I've ever been to but also the touchiest, prone to being offended at the slightest mistaken or even imagined slight. That and if I've learned anything from enjoying any form of community it is that the worst and most obnoxious individuals tend to be the ones that get the most press and attention. Did I forget to mention that small group is really really loud?

2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





4th Obelisk On The Right

See when I hear "gamer" I think of table top boxed games, pen and paper, wargames, TCGs and video games.

 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc




The darkness between the stars

 BrotherGecko wrote:
See when I hear "gamer" I think of table top boxed games, pen and paper, wargames, TCGs and video games.


Ah. I was assuming we were going for the vg gamer considering this was originally on the vg thread. Honestly I also tend to lump in tabletop, rpgs, wargames, and tcgs as other gamer hobbies.

2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
   
Made in jp
Fixture of Dakka





Japan

StarTrotter wrote:
 Jehan-reznor wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Jehan-reznor wrote:
@Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).


And you would say the same about books/movies/television shows/music/etc.?


Yes? why not? art is not a function it is totally subjective.


I think the problem is that you quoted it improperly with "I don't agree games can be art, like journey, but most games are products to be sold (lice a car or vacuum cleaner) , they can be artful but that is not their main function if all games are art then everything is art."

At that point, it fell into the catch that you didn't mention that the same is true for other mediums. A book is often made to be sold, a movie is usually made to be sold, a pice of art is usually made to be sold or because some rich person from olden days wanted the art to be made. Heck, even with the most games are products to be sold you can argue that journey was made to be sold because, well the folks that made it needed to make money. The only real exception could be some free game or excessively cheap game to avoid that argument and that's really the big problem that caused the misconception.

Honestly I'll admit that, if we look at it from an art for the sake of art, I feel that most mediums fall into very few being truly "art". Most films? Nope. Most books? Nope. Most drawings/songs? Nope. Games? Yeah sure CoD is totally a piece of art.

Even then, one can argue that art can be created for entertainment. Is conceptual art where people stack chairs artwork? It's a bizarre thing to think about in the end and it doesn't help that art is a very loose term.


CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Jehan-reznor wrote:
@Sigvatr and @CthuluIsSpy what i am trying to convey is that games primary function is to be well a game, and art-piece main function is to be art. That is why i say games can be art but not all games are art (because i have played some atrocious buggy, crappy games and calling those art would insult some artists).


How are the two mutually exclusive?
If the existence of bad games makes it so that the gaming medium is invalid as an artform, then wouldn't that be the same for bad paintings?

Also, how could the main function be art? Does that mean that Gothic Cathedrals are not art, as their main function was to serve as a place of worship? Or that Botticelli's Birth of Venus, commissioned by the Medici family is not art, as its primary purpose was to get the artist paid?


But even then then it had a function, the cathedrals were to glorify god, kind like an offering and lots of paintings in the past were like photographs or used as propaganda.
I just don't agree with the blanket statement all games are art, if that is true then everything is art, like i said there are games that are beautifully done and can be considered art, but there also enough shovel ware, same with books for the few classics and good books there are enough mediocre crappy books out there as is with movies. it is just my opinion.


Squidbot;
"That sound? That's the sound of me drinking all my paint and stabbing myself in the eyes with my brushes. "
My Doombringer Space Marine Army
Hello Kitty Space Marines project
Buddhist Space marine Project
Other Projects
Imageshack deleted all my Images Thank you! 
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





 Sigvatr wrote:
There's no need to feel or get defensive and especially not in such a tone. You know that I really like you as a poster and wasn't aiming to offend you. The point is that you can't just post blank statements and sell them as a fact when the exact opposite is the case. It's perfectly in order and okay to state that as your opinion or even say that you strongly think so because of several reasons. But please don't misportray information.

Sorry. It was not as much about what you said that because of all of you saying basically the same thing, piling on, and some other personal stuff that got me down. Along with the perpetual attempt from some other posters in the discussion to antagonize me. I got a free forced vacation from the mods, and I am now back with a clearer mind.

I am not going to give you a proof that sexism in media (including video games, but really, if the question is “Does portrayals in video game influence sexism”, basically everything is going to be relevant to many other medias including movies and books…) is perpetuating sexism bias in people, because there are no formal proof either way. But I can certainly explain why extrapolating from the fact violent video games does not make people violent that sexist tropes in video games are not going to reinforce sexist stereotypes is wrong.
Those two assertions, despite trying to make them look similar by how you formulate them, are actually quite different. The first one is based on the very simplistic assumption that “Monkey see, monkey do”. Or, in other word, that we are just going to reproduce in our behavior what we see done in movies or games. The second one is about “Monkey see, monkey believe”. That is quite different. Of course we tend to believe what we see. And of course we also use common sense and will not just believe anything because we see it in a media. But, for instance, let me take an example. Our perception of specific historical periods and peoples are often very influenced by their portrayal in media, even when actual historical research is giving a very different picture. And this is even though we do know that this portrayal is fictional and that we should not take it too seriously.
Here, the bias are likely already there in many of us before we even play (see the video below), so even if the portrayals do not actually create them, they will do nothing to counter them. When I think they should.

 mattyrm wrote:
I had all of those things I was more than happy to take orders from a female of higher rank than me. I think the vast majority of my mates were as well

Well, it is good to know. Still, there are people that would not. I am pretty certain my nephews that are officers in the Foreign Legion would, for instance .

 mattyrm wrote:
Ergo, even though I can certainly see the logic of your point (you might tend to think it makes sense) apparently the experts say otherwise.

Which experts? And no, violence is not the same thing as sexism, see above.

 mattyrm wrote:
I agree that on the face of it at least, to people like you and I (not professional psychiatrists) you would think that maybe seeing misogynistic tropes might make you more likely to be sexist, but apparently they actually don't, just like how violent games don't make you violent.

I mean, I'm happy to have my mind changed like, have you got any credible intelligence that suggests men (or women) and more likely to hate women because of minor things like the gender of the love interest in a video game?

I'm not saying I don't believe it because I don't want to, I'm saying I don't believe it because me and all my mates grew up in the 80s and I dont think any of them are bigoted or scornful of women, so why would it be true for one thing and not the other?

I think here, the problem is that you think I am talking about an all-out hate on women, MRA-style. I am not. I am speaking about small, unconscious bias, like those explained in there for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLjFTHTgEVU
Yeah, of course, you do believe you are sexist. Because you do not want to be sexist. Neither want I, nor basically anyone worth speaking to. That does not mean we are not subject to some unconscious bias that do influence us daily. The more we become conscious about them, the more we can fight them, and similarly, the more we are able to identify sexist tropes in media, the less they are likely to affect us.
I spoke about refusing to serve under a woman mostly because that seemed a more obvious, easier to see example, but maybe that was a bad call.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I think we should all just calm down and take in a relaxing Rape and Revenge movie festival together

What exactly is your point here? Do you think those movies are perpetuating sexism or something?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Sexism has existed for centuries, and guess what? Super Mario was invented in the 80's

So, what is your conclusion? Let me help you: people have been dying since there has been people, and yet machine guns are pretty much recent inventions. Does that mean a machine gun cannot kill you? No, it only means that some other stuff can kill you too.
I guess the only reasonable conclusion from your witty retort is that video games are not the sole, only source of all sexism ever. Which nobody argued, ever. Congratulation on defeating that strawman, Don Quichotte.
 jreilly89 wrote:
Good thing no wars or ANY violence/rape was committed before t.v. and magazines came around.

See just above .

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well if modern psychology is cuckoo land territory for you, that certain explains your outburst here. Which of your parents where prone to the childish outburst you just had?

http://www.eruptingmind.com/the-effect-of-parents-on-a-childs-psychological-development/
A good way to think about the childhood mind is being like a big block of stone. For roughly the first six years of your life your parents were the sole sculptors of that stone.
They slowly chipped away at it and shaped it in their own image. This sculpted stone then became the base of who you are as a person today and what the other sculptors in your life will have to work with.

So…
I guess you stopped getting new ideas at six. This explains stuff.
Seriously, arguing that adults always share the political and social views of their parents (which is basically what you did there) is something you will find very, very hard to prove when there are so many counter-examples.

nomotog wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
There's a bit of difference between "that's a cool thing; I want to buy it" and "Time to murder someone like in GTA"


Well ya some things are easier to influence then others. I actually believe this debate started because someone said they thought videogames encouraged sexism, but not violence. People kind of jumped up and said how can it be one and not the other, but it's basically the same thing here.

Indeed. That someone was me and it sure was not a popular statement.

 illuknisaa wrote:
I'm really tired with this pc crap. A lot of times people focus on pointless gak like can you edit character's nose or how homo can you be. Then you have people like this working in the industry:

Spoiler:


I'd rather have 10 rapelay clones than a single order 1886.

I am very tempted to answer with a picture of the joker saying “U mad bro”. Seriously, are you even arguing that most video game studio are anything like this and that you therefore cannot find enough games you like? Or that you fear it will be the case in the future?

 Sigvatr wrote:
"Gaming culture" is never used when people want to identify themselves with it, it's only used to negatively talk about gamers.

Let that sink in for a second.

Well, not “gaming culture”, but “fighting game culture” is used in a way I am really unsure on whether I should call negatively or not. Because they guy who is speaking seems to see nothing bad about it, but…

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/04 18:24:43


"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I am not going to give you a proof that sexism in media (including video games, but really, if the question is “Does portrayals in video game influence sexism”, basically everything is going to be relevant to many other medias including movies and books…) is perpetuating sexism bias in people, because there are no formal proof either way. But I can certainly explain why extrapolating from the fact violent video games does not make people violent that sexist tropes in video games are not going to reinforce sexist stereotypes is wrong.
Those two assertions, despite trying to make them look similar by how you formulate them, are actually quite different. The first one is based on the very simplistic assumption that “Monkey see, monkey do”. Or, in other word, that we are just going to reproduce in our behavior what we see done in movies or games. The second one is about “Monkey see, monkey believe”. That is quite different. Of course we tend to believe what we see. And of course we also use common sense and will not just believe anything because we see it in a media. But, for instance, let me take an example. Our perception of specific historical periods and peoples are often very influenced by their portrayal in media, even when actual historical research is giving a very different picture. And this is even though we do know that this portrayal is fictional and that we should not take it too seriously.
Here, the bias are likely already there in many of us before we even play (see the video below), so even if the portrayals do not actually create them, they will do nothing to counter them. When I think they should.

The reason why people are equating the two has to do with a larger issue, does art imitate art or does life imitate art. Or to put it a different way does the entertainment a society produce change that society for good or il, or does it have no real effect either way. A far as video games goes if you believe that art imitates life, then proof that video games don't make people violent does matter when it comes to the issue of whether or not they make people sexist. I would also point out that with both sexism and violence in video games, they are both monkey see, monkey do and monkey see, monkey believe. This is due to your opinions/beliefs affecting your behavior.

To use an example if a person played a video game where the main character kills "bad guys" for committing crimes and then goes out in the real world and kills someone in cold blood who he thinks is trying to steal a car and beliefs what he did was just. Then that is case of a video game changing his behavior and beliefs.

Personally I am far more in the art imitates life camp personally, that these problems are much more complex than just little Jimmy is violent because he played GTA. Also there are plenty of examples of people using different forms of media as scape goats for societies problems. To quote a book a I read recently, The Proteus Paradox by Nick Yee, "It's easier to put warning labels on video games than to address all the very real social, cultural, and psychological factors that lead to gun violence."

Also you have to understand that there are people in the entertainment world who are like Jay Leno in that they want to entertain their audience, in Jay's case make people laugh, while pissing off as few people as possible. In video games you see this all the various companies that have either been completely silent on Gamer Gate one way or another, or companies give very diplomatic responses. A lot of these people understand that sexism is a problem but at the same time they just want make some video games, have fun doing it, and make some money in the process. They don't want to make any big political statements either way, and also want piss off as few people as possible.

Edit: Also I think that society has a profound effect on what entertainment is produced or what people are allowed to write or say. There is a video that talks about this that I rather like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQlqjONEsKQ

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/04 21:33:04


 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




There isn't really a war between the two camps. Art shapes society and then society shapes art.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

nomotog wrote:
There isn't really a war between the two camps. Art shapes society and then society shapes art.

Not everyone would agree that art shapes society though, is my point.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Not everyone would agree that art shapes society though, is my point.


Given the vast number of people in history who have been outspoken about how books, film, music, etc have changed and shaped their lives, I think such people have no legs to stand on.

   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran






Canberra

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What exactly is your point here? Do you think those movies are perpetuating sexism or something?
I was subtly implying that your complaining against speculative sexism in games is a bit confusing when weighed against your enjoyment of movies with actual sexual assault as one of their main themes.

How can you support one form of expression like 'Irreversible' and be against another form like 'Smite'?

Please note, not judging you for enjoying such movies, I just don't understand the appeal. I'd never dream of taking those movies away though

(for the record my best boss was female, as was my worst)

   
Made in nl
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What exactly is your point here? Do you think those movies are perpetuating sexism or something?
I was subtly implying that your complaining against speculative sexism in games is a bit confusing when weighed against your enjoyment of movies with actual sexual assault as one of their main themes.

How can you support one form of expression like 'Irreversible' and be against another form like 'Smite'?

Please note, not judging you for enjoying such movies, I just don't understand the appeal. I'd never dream of taking those movies away though

(for the record my best boss was female, as was my worst)


Females are equally capable of being pricks in the work place.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran






Canberra

 Soladrin wrote:
Females are equally capable of being pricks in the work place.
Agreed, incompetence is gender blind

And I'd know!

   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: