for the sake of clarity - your wish is my command...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Printable View
for the sake of clarity - your wish is my command...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Thanks.
I'll address the rest tomorrow as I have been extremely distracted by the milk thread and now I have family matters to attend to, but this is rather pertinent:
Being called a Brit isnt considered an insult except to the irish, being called sexist is an insult to everyone (British culture can also be whatever we are willing to make it be. Rather an apropriate comparison to what sexism has become, but I digress.) and the societal effects of being accused have become extremely damaging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
The accusation of sexist is a verbal nuke. Sarkeesian and many liker have been throwing it about incessantly on the blurry, messy and outright flimsy foundation that is a selective interpritation of a wide subset of media.
It gives a similar effect as the boy crying wolf; any credibility the accusation might once have had is diminished by it's repeated utterance on such a weak platform. The point doesnt have enough proof to stick while at the same time the subject of the accusation and those who associate with them not already a believer becomes polarised against it.
That is why ms sarkeesian's arguments, above all else, are counterproductive to her very movment, when the sexism button is falsely pressed so often people stop believeing the legitimate cases.
Yes, but you are dodging the real issue. You're arguing how she was wrong to label that part of the game sexist, not whether there is sexism in game industry.
Ahem:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
One thing at a time, and he chose this first. Plus, burden of proof is upon the accuser, gamers dont have to prove anything merely successfully refute the case laid against us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Well I said I'd respond to the rest today, and so I will:
Anonyminity on the internet means that anyone can essentially claim to be anything, but despite the claims the harassers are not a fair representation of gamers,a community in the 100's of millions of people, or even of the supporters of gamergate, whose only real criteria for entry is "want to stop the people we rely on for news and reviews colluding for cash"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
We cannot gain any sense that the creator considered it "ok" from the mere fact that it is not a fail state, the points system indicates the opposite.Quote:
So in summary, occasional deaths are ok. And more accepted than in the original game. Gameplay is a major part on how it ended up like that.
Which is false because strip clubs are not bordellos, "look dont touch", the strippers in a legal strip club have no obligation to have sex with anyone.Quote:
I would say yes. The choice of a strip club as the level is sort of demanding strippers. And a major reason for why strippers/prostitutes are so popular is that you can get sex while also setting the mood (as in "gritty mood").
And too obtuse to catch without rigerous training apparantly. Subliminal might be a thing, but a lot of this is on the far end of so imperceptable as to be asbsurd.Quote:
Most sexism are in the category of them being too non-reflective to make it otherwise.
Trends which are neither strong or widespread enough to make concrete value judgments on a buisness sector larger than hollywood and a worldwide community with a population around that of india, yet she does it anyway and her evidence is obviously shakey.Quote:
If it would be unique, sure. If that would be a big trend, its an odd coincidence though. Even if each individual game has valid reasons for doing so. And she talking very much in trends with examples, rather than each game for itself.
So, why is this theory being so clung to?Quote:
Social science. "This theory is correct because of this and that.
Nope, you've totally gotten this and that wrong. It means something else."
It's a messy field and most of it is going to end up as being called wrong in the end.
The blurriness does not excuse such a flagrant misrepresentation of the game. All her arguments are weak but the hitman one is the most objectively wrong and dishonest: the game/developer cannot be proven to want you to kill and manipulate these women, the score system is quite clear in it's opposition to that and not preventing the possibility of the player doing something cannot be a deciding indication of the devs' intending the player to do anything.Quote:
Depends on what level you're asking the question. The level you are talking: Their concious intent. Or the level where their intent starts to become less relevant. In that one, the question aren't if the intent was voyeurism or the make you creeped out. It was why choosing that scene in either case? "Meant" is supposed to be read at this level, not at the concious intent. Or at least that the concious intent doesn't need to be stronger than finding out that this was possible and then go "working as intended". She's setting that interpretation up previously.
Hmm, this is actually a core thing, you're on the blunt level, while the argument is mostly on the more blurry levels like symbolism and subconscious thinking. It is a weak argument as you pointed out with the insinuations and a weaker statement would've been better, but it's a difference between finding your opponents argument weak/wrong and that it would be an outright lie.
Of a 20 mission game she picks out the 1 mission with a strip club, she goes out of her own way to beat up those strippers and drag around the bodies for a 20 second clip, it didnt come from another player's lets play or anything it was her footage. The game is very clear with the points system that it doesn't condone the player doing anything to them.
She wants us to conclude that "the player cannot help but treat these female bodes as things to be acted upon because they were designed constucted and placed in the enviroment for that singular purpose, the player is meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" but when her clip is compared to the actual game and the multitude of lets plays of the level on youtube at the time it does not corroberate her viewpoint in the least. Her statements shows she either missed the game's point completely or she went out of her way to make a clip that she knew was misrepresenting the game in an attempt to support her point.
Certainly. But that group exists, is very noisy and is one part of the atmosphere when talking about these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
We can gain the sense that it's quite a bit above intolerable, since you normally don't include things you're borderline with and certainly not things you find intolerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It's in a computer game. Unless you have some super-special equipment on your gaming rig, it's only "look dont touch" there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I admit I phrased it poorly, "get sex" should've been "get the sexy", as in making sexually titillating women in a game is intended to be sexually titillating.
A major issue is that people want to have things that they like to be non-problematic even when they are problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Take the chainmail bikini as an example. Is it sexist? Yes. If you disagree with that part, would you say that if that's the only gear for female characters, would that be sexist? Can you find a woman in chainmail bikini attractive without being a sexist? Yes, but a lot of people act like they think its impossible (Sarkeesian doesn't, that's why she states that it's ok to like problematic media all the time). And since people don't want to feel like they could possibly be sexist (and a lot of the time they aren't), they resort to chainmail bikinis aren't sexist (because they like them).
It's a scale, yet a lot of people act like the lower scale is completely unrelated to the upper scale. Part of the problem is that the chainmail bikini is something else than simply sexy, yet the only word that are on that scale is sexist.
In general? It blatantly obvious that it's there. It's not universal, but it's there. And not really sublime, unless you choose to overlook it. Take the original art for Divinity: Original Sin. It did not occur to the maker that having a chainmail bikini warrior next to a armoured male warrior is sort of sexist. It got changed after PC brigade complaints.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Because it's the details rather than the general theory that's blurry. The direct influence of killing prostitutes in a video game is hard to measure. But the general media exposure is notable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Role models are an actual thing and people will take after, even if they're glorified eye candy (Italy got an issue with this after Berlusconi).
Chainmail bikinis as normal is talked about above.
Media is shown to be a major part of influencing norm behaviour.
Add in some facts that females are generally considered as less normative (thus creating that 66% male 33% female are seen as the fair 50/50) are facing a lot more harassment in general, in particular the sexual harassment.
It's coming from somewhere.
We're starting to go in circles. But this is mixing up intentional sexism and casual sexism again. The argument she does in the context she's made before is that we are on casual sexism level, even if the statement by itself would be red as intentional sexism (which I agree would be incorrect. Parts of it is intentional, but the whole is not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
To take an example. Having a female protagonist are very rare compared to a male protagonist (we'll exclude the "pick you gender" type here) and has never been equal in number. Clearly there is a selection process here, even if it is unconscious. This influences marketing. Since women protags are rare, clearly the market doesn't want female protags (this thinking is real and affects funding). This thinking creates gender discrimination, yet no single game is to blame. So without any intentional move, you have discrimination.
To show this and to counter it, it's pretty much impossible to talk about the devs' proven intentions, since each case you look at won't show gender discrimination. It's only taken as a whole and in context, it becomes obvious.
The second picture looks far better in my opinion aesthetically as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
*sigh* Ok I see this is getting nowhere. The hitman thing was to prove that anita sarkeesian is a liar, if she was a liar she was useless to the feminist cause due to being considered as irreperably biased by gamers.
However the definition of lie has apparantly become subjective these days, and there is an easier way to show how she alienates the people feminism must convert.
Thus:
1. She has shown herself ignorant of the things she preaches about:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/521781974017388544
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/561761720834592768
2. She used a tragedy to push her agenda:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/525793436025118721
Said on the same day as a mass shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysvi...chool_shooting
3. She has shown disrespect for the dead.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/148217327236808704
Christopher hitchens had died three days before.
4. She has stated she believes men cannot be disciminated against:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585
I could go on but the point is clear: ms sarkeesian has no concept of Public Relations and is a detriment to the goal of presuading gamers to your side. I am once again annoyed that it took this bloody long for me to figure out arguing the minutia is pointless.
1a) The fact the character was designed by a Woman doesn't change the fact Bayonetta is the personification of several Male fantasies - I am really unsure what are you are driving at here?
1b) Again she is stating a fact. Peach saves Mario a few times only to be relegated to DiD sometimes in the very same game... so she is 2 for 2 on stating obvious facts...
2) Shes actually right here - the fact we don't see Women mass shooters does suggest we have a problem in Male culture which is creating these monsters - I don't agree with her that it is "Toxic Masculinity" (primarily because thats far to generic a term for way too many cultural facets) but the point stands.
3) And? Hitchens was all she said - just because they are dead doesn't mean we should revere them and ignore their faults... I am pretty sure you have criticised a number of dead people in any number of threads - does this make all your arguments invalid? even when they are totally unrelated?
4) this one is difficult - technically she is right, she is using the technical definition of Sexism - she is not saying Men cannot be discriminated against only that any Discriminations men suffer cannot be Sexist as they hold the power. Personally I think the term Sexist has grown beyond its technical definition and now means any Discrimination which is purely based on Sex.
Bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
I wasnt driving at anthing in particular with the first 2, I was baiting, and I am somewhat dissapointed that I hooked the moderate and not the fringe.
Still, while we're here, why is it a bad thing that the damsel in distress exist? Why would the fact that bayonetta is as she is be worth of comment?
Your point, not hers, and her point is a rather blatant correlation equals causation fallacy, combine that with the date coinciding with a massacre it tells the people reading "I have an agenda and I dont care if I anger people who are mourning this tragedy by using it to prove a petty (in comparison) point"Quote:
2) Shes actually right here - the fact we don't see Women mass shooters does suggest we have a problem in Male culture which is creating these monsters - I don't agree with her that is is "Toxic Masculinity" (primarily because thats far to generic a term for way too many cultural facets) but the point stands.
Which is a very counterproductive thing to do if she had any wish to persuade anyone outside her followers.
Hitchens was dead not 3 days and this woman comes out and blasts him, true or not it is highly disrespectfulQuote:
3) And? Hitchens was all she said - just because they are dead doesn't mean we should revere them and ignore their faults... I am pretty sure you have criticised a number of dead people in any number of threads - does this make all your arguments invalid? even when they are totally unrelated?
And again a very counterproductive thing to do if she had any wish to persuade anyone outside her followers.
The oxford English dictionary defines sexism as: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.Quote:
4) this one is difficult - technically she is right, she is using the technical definition of Sexism - she is not saying Men cannot be discriminated against only that any Discriminations men suffer cannot be Sexist as they hold the power. Personally I think the term Sexist has grown beyond its technical definition and now means any Discrimination which is purely based on Sex.
Typically but not exclusively, and there's nothing about this prejudice+power in it, by claiming otherwise ms sarkeesian is validating the often mentioned idea that feminists are attempting to rewrite language to suit their purposes... Actually now that I think about it why is there be any need for the "Typically women" bit?
The intent of the last 3 was to establish how little ms sarkeesian seems to care about avoiding the stereotypes of the crazy feminist.
See I dont mind the moderate stuff, I wouldnt mind seeing more games geared towards women, I like equality, I shouldnt have to say it but I do, however the impression we get from anita is that she wont stop at equality, she keeps attacking things geared towards men as if they must be eliminated.
She keeps reading too far into things and assuming the worst intent; "no its not a cliche that comes from the natural desire of young men to be a hero and by doing so earn the affection of a mamber of the oppsite sex, it's an insulting convention that is made to degrade women." "No it's not the creator trying to pander to immature young men by giving them some pretty women, it must be the male developers systematically objectifying women and making young men think of the opposite sex as objects. "
It's as if she's willfully misintepriting companies pandering to male immaturity as oppressing women.
Instead of asking for more to be made for women she is shaming people with the seeming intent that less be made for men, and surely, cant the market grow to accomidate both?
If most Feminists want equality, that's great, I'd love to see it, but to uplift themselves they shouldnt have to drag men down to do it, and the impression that is given when people like sarkeesian keep showing up in the news or on television instead of moderates is that all feminists want to do so.
I don't understand who you actually wanted to bait. The Org is generally a moderate discussion board. I would have answered it in the same way as Moody, but he saved me the trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It's very hard to be a moderate when most people don't even perceive a problem. You have been consistently arguing "how she says stuff" instead of "why she says stuff". You didn't acknowledge that there is an issue to discuss here - you tried to discredit her rather than admit it. Since that failed, you've been consistently "upping the ante", coming with all new ways to show just how wrong her examples were. That just put you on a downward spiral.Quote:
If most Feminists want equality, that's great, I'd love to see it, but to uplift themselves they shouldnt have to drag men down to do it, and the impression that is given when people like sarkeesian keep showing up in the news or on television instead of moderates is that all feminists want to do so.
When we reach the point that majority of people understand that there is a problem, there won't be need for people like Sarkeesian any more, and moderates will take over.
And it seems my bait has worked in a roundabout fashion: hanging back and showing up only when it seems that the moderates have put the opposition on the defensive. Congratulations, despite your belief, you are the fringe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Or maybe I did that because the idea that games can affect human behavior is a false assumption that was discredited in the age of jack thompson and I no longer felt like bashing my head against the brick wall that was proving a lie to ironside. Thus did I attempt something to end the monotony and caught a rather smug fish.Quote:
It's very hard to be a moderate when most people don't even perceive a problem. You have been consistently arguing "how she says stuff" instead of "why she says stuff". You didn't acknowledge that there is an issue to discuss here - you tried to discredit her rather than admit it.
Of course, neither your explanation, or mine, of my action's intent can be proven to the level of satisfaction that will break through any observer's particular prejudices, which funnily enough was my point during my bout with ironside.
You got precident for that assumption? 'cause way I see it if you keep letting her get center stage you wont ever get to that point.Quote:
When we reach the point that majority of people understand that there is a problem, there won't be need for people like Sarkeesian any more, and moderates will take over.
To explain I must modify something I said earlier:
"For the gaming industry to shift the developers cannot just dissassociate themselves with thier core costumer base for the promise of a new one. Sure, for a time there will be greater diversity but unless the new customer base proves itself as profitable as the old one the developers will be faced with the choice of switching back or accept being outpaced by the competition and made irrelevant.
Unless you can pad this customer base with enough people to become as profitable as the old base, people willing to keep paying for new products for years to come and wont leave after a fasion, it will devolve to another niche market and become largely ignored by the mainstream."
The people most suited to pad that base are the preexisting gamers, the same people Sarkeesian is apparantly uninterested in talking with, though for that matter she seems uninterested in talking to anyone who doesn't already believe.
Good cop-Bad cop requires an actual good cop, and only the bad cop has reached mainstrean television.
Sorry Ironside, but Husar has made me tired of arguing minutia, and this guy had been bugging me all thead.
Que?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Everything affects human behavior. The time I spend as a kid playing a game called Civilization got me interested into history, geography, politics and economy, personally.Quote:
Or maybe I did that because the idea that games can affect human behavior is a false assumption that was discredited in the age of jack thompson and I no longer felt like bashing my head against the brick wall that was proving a lie to ironside. Thus did I attempt something to end the monotony and caught a rather smug fish.
Nonsense. Prejudices break all the time, when society awareness becomes large enough.Quote:
Of course, neither your explanation, or mine, of my action's intent can be proven to the level of satisfaction that will break through any observer's particular prejudices, which funnily enough was my point during my bout with ironside.
This reminded me of a conversation I had with some friends about Gay Pride parade in Serbia a couple of years ago. They were all understanding of gay people, at least that's how they tried to portray themselves but in reality were intolerant.Quote:
You got precident for that assumption? 'cause way I see it if you keep letting her get center stage you wont ever get to that point.
"I don't mind gay people, but why do they have to have a parade?"
That question is actually the reason why they have to have a parade. When we get to a point when a parade is announced and everybody goes "Meh, I don't care" and go about their business, that will be the last Gay Pride parade.
History is full of precedents. Whenever a movement is excluded from the main stream and ignored, it tends to radicalize.
And that would be wrong.Quote:
To explain I must modify something I said earlier:
"For the gaming industry to shift the developers cannot just dissassociate themselves with thier core costumer base for the promise of a new one. Sure, for a time there will be greater diversity but unless the new customer base proves itself as profitable as the old one the developers will be faced with the choice of switching back or accept being outpaced by the competition and made irrelevant.
Unless you can pad this customer base with enough people to become as profitable as the old base, people willing to keep paying for new products for years to come and wont leave after a fasion, it will devolve to another niche market and become largely ignored by the mainstream."
It assumes gamers play games because there is sexism in them.
I don't care about Sarkeesian. Why are you under this assumption that this is about her? You don't like the messenger, so you're ignoring the message?Quote:
The people most suited to pad that base are the preexisting gamers, the same people Sarkeesian is apparantly uninterested in talking with, though for that matter she seems uninterested in talking to anyone who doesn't already believe.
Who is "this guy"? Me? I've been bugging you all thread?Quote:
Sorry Ironside, but Husar has made me tired of arguing minutia, and this guy had been bugging me all thead.
Well, fringe, or maybe a person less prone to pedantry, I can't tell these days but oddly enough it is refreshing, I think I am going to enjoy this more than husar and ironside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
And did it give you an instictual hatred of Ghandi's india?Quote:
Everything affects human behavior. The time I spend as a kid playing a game called Civilization got me interested into history, geography, politics and economy, personally.
Did it make you believe that all the other nationalities in the world serve only as vassals or targets of conquest?
Because the idea that games like bayonetta encourages sexism is based upon the same logic that civilization encourages nationalism, and the idea of altering civilization to take out the nationalist "elements" is just as absurd.
Perhaps a better word would have been preconceptions, less of the overly negative connotations prejudice has earned over the years as an accusation.Quote:
Nonsense. Prejudices break all the time, when society awareness becomes large enough.
When a group is fighting for equal rights under the law everyone who believes in equal rights cheers, but once the equal rights issue has ended in thier success and they go on to demand more, that people themselves change thier own views to conform with thiers, that's when the support evaporates.Quote:
This reminded me of a conversation I had with some friends about Gay Pride parade in Serbia a couple of years ago. They were all understanding of gay people, at least that's how they tried to portray themselves but in reality were intolerant.
"I don't mind gay people, but why do they have to have a parade?"
That question is actually the reason why they have to have a parade. When we get to a point when a parade is announced and everybody goes "Meh, I don't care" and go about their business, that will be the last Gay Pride parade.
History is full of precedents. Whenever a movement is excluded from the main stream and ignored, it tends to radicalize.
People are entitled to thier opinion, despite the derision that phrase has endured, and when the only proof of the need for a parade is that people question "Why do they have to have a parade" instead of a legitimate injustice, the people doing it come off not as a wronged party but a bunch of agitators looking for any reason to protest no matter how petty
Not giving up until everyone thinks like you, tell me if you didnt agree with them, would you tolerate such things?
Would you tolerate without protest, say, a vegan group who wont stop protesting until everyone stops disagreeing that meat is murder? Or an animal Right's group that wont go away until everyone says they agree that fur and leather are evil? Or perhaps a Yugoslavian Nationalist who wont stop getting in your face?
Also, isn't, "meh, I dont care" only said when someone wants to ignore something?
Tell me, are you sure it is sexist because you could see it on your own or did you need someone else to explain why it is sexist? And if you needed for it to be explained to you, what makes you think the people who consume it are any more aware of the connotations? The Jack Thompson debacle put to rest the idea that games can affect behavior subliminaly so if they are not aware of it, why does it matter?Quote:
And that would be wrong.
It assumes gamers play games because there is sexism in them.
What you call sexist the rest of the world calls pandering to adolescence and immaturity in men, which despite the protests is not inheriently oppressive to women.
If the message is that male orientated games should be neutered to accomodate women then I most certainly have not been ignoring the message.Quote:
I don't care about Sarkeesian. Why are you under this assumption that this is about her? You don't like the messenger, so you're ignoring the message?
Strawman aside I dont see the interpriations of tropes as reason to edit games popular fiction shouldnt be censored to accomidate those the fiction isnt targeting and I find it abhorrant to shame creators into carrying out that censorship or to shame people for enjoying something that is literaly harmless.
I believe the problem is that the gaming industry does not produce enough material directed at women and needs to make more, the gaming industry can grow to accomidate that just like the movie industry and like the movie industry it does not have to ditch the stuff directed towards men to do it.
My understanding of the industry is that right now a large part of the gaming industry is geared towards men because men are it's main moneymaker, they concist of a majority of the consumer base and buy the most games. With time and encouragment the gaming industry can grow to accomidate womens interests as well but currently the female part of the consumer base is not large enough to make the same amount of money as the male. Most gaming devs wont make games if they would be unprofitable and to make female orientated games as profitable as male ones the gaming industry has to draw in more women into gaming.
That will be a slow process and the games that bring them in will still have to sell enough copies to keep the makers afloat and interested, and to do that the first projects will need to also attract some men just to break even.
You should care about sarkeesian because she is actively sabotaging this, attacking men's media with absurd assertions that games want the player "to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" based on mere interpritation, combine that with a lack self control in exploiting tragedy and an attitude bordering on mysandry resulting in a talking head that alienates the consumer base and in doing so making the growth she apparantly wants harder to accomplish.
I would say you need a MLK to this Malcom X, but I fear malcom would take it as an insult.
If I may ask this random unrelated question: How many male prostitutes does GTA have?
None, that I know of and I predict your intepritation of the reason why is going to be full of bad implications that you will think is the only reason.
I wouldnt mind seeing some included, but neither the creator or consumer deserves to be judged as anything for it's lack, nor is the idea that thier absence inadverntently encourages homophobia or whatever correct.
No, because the game doesn't encourage you to hate Gandhi. Strategy games are less personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It is harder to notice when you're not experiencing it yourself.Quote:
When a group is fighting for equal rights under the law everyone who believes in equal rights cheers, but once the equal rights issue has ended in thier success and they go on to demand more, that people themselves change thier own views to conform with thiers, that's when the support evaporates.
People are entitled to thier opinion, despite the derision that phrase has endured, and when the only proof of the need for a parade is that people question "Why do they have to have a parade" instead of a legitimate injustice, the people doing it come off not as a wronged party but a bunch of agitators looking for any reason to protest no matter how petty
In this case, with "I don't care" I meant the literal meaning.Quote:
Also, isn't, "meh, I dont care" only said when someone wants to ignore something?
There are three cases (that I know of, maybe there's more) in which murders were committed by kids or adolescent males where they themselves admitted they did because they were inspired by GTA.Quote:
Tell me, are you sure it is sexist because you could see it on your own or did you need someone else to explain why it is sexist? And if you needed for it to be explained to you, what makes you think the people who consume it are any more aware of the connotations? The Jack Thompson debacle put to rest the idea that games can affect behavior subliminaly so if they are not aware of it, why does it matter?
In 2003, Devin Smith, a 16 year old, was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle. After being taken into custody, he took the gun from police officers, shot and killed three. He showed no remorse later and said "Life is a game. You've got to die sometimes." GTA fan.
An 8 year old played GTA in 2013, and shot his grandmother in the back of her head. Investigators discovered that just prior to the shooting, he was playing GTA.
A 14 year old boy, Eldon Samuel, admitted to a premeditated murder of his father and brother. He shot his father three times in the head and shot his brother four times with a shotgun and failed to kill him. After that, he stabbed his brother several times. He later admitted he was inspired by Trevor from GTA V, and wanted to emulate him.
Also, The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychiatric Association and The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, all believe there is a causal link between violent virtual behavior and real world violence.
If there is a link between violence in games and violence in real life, it is logical enough to assume there is a link between sexism in games and sexism in real life.
Maybe all those cases are coincidences, maybe top medical and psychiatry association got it all wrong, but it is enough for me to seriously consider what they have to say.
I recind my assensment, you are fringe. Drinking the "games make you violent and sexist, except the ones I play" Kool-aid with gusto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Hi, gamer here.Quote:
It is harder to notice when you're not experiencing it yourself.
Our community has been constantly threatened by a moarlistic minority who have been trying to censor my media, something I care about, for decades.
We were and still are judged for liking something other people dont, the right used to call us murderers in waiting and now the left call us mysogynists.
The only thing keeping censorship away has been an earnest effort by the majority of our community to dispell the fearmongering that has seeped into the mass media and only recently are we being accepted by the mainstream as something other than a tickng timebomb, we still have to work on the mysigynistic pigs thing but we'll get there all the same. .
And he goes and ignores everything I have been sayingQuote:
In this case, with "I don't care" I meant the literal meaning.
Hey, @Ironside, @Husar, @Sir Moody, you know when I mentioned the Horseshoe theory? That the far right and far left are closer related to eachother than the center? This is what I meant.:
The guy who has been supporting you with thanks and snide comments has just gone full Jack Thompson.Quote:
There are three cases (that I know of, maybe there's more) in which murders were committed by kids or adolescent males where they themselves admitted they did because they were inspired by GTA.
In 2003, Devin Smith, a 16 year old, was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle. After being taken into custody, he took the gun from police officers, shot and killed three. He showed no remorse later and said "Life is a game. You've got to die sometimes." GTA fan.
An 8 year old played GTA in 2013, and shot his grandmother in the back of her head. Investigators discovered that just prior to the shooting, he was playing GTA.
A 14 year old boy, Eldon Samuel, admitted to a premeditated murder of his father and brother. He shot his father three times in the head and shot his brother four times with a shotgun and failed to kill him. After that, he stabbed his brother several times. He later admitted he was inspired by Trevor from GTA V, and wanted to emulate him.
Also, The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychiatric Association and The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, all believe there is a causal link between violent virtual behavior and real world violence.
If there is a link between violence in games and violence in real life, it is logical enough to assume there is a link between sexism in games and sexism in real life.
Maybe all those cases are coincidences, maybe top medical and psychiatry association got it all wrong, but it is enough for me to seriously consider what they have to say.
I cant believe my bait actually worked, holy crap.
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3b6d...83541feee7.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I don't know if you're trying to practice your debate skills and are trying to work out if ignoring the point and making another one make you appear right or smart, but I can tell you that it is failing, at least with me. Maybe it works on some of those reading this, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Not all games have sexism in them, just like not all games are violent.
Also, a "causal link" between violence/sexism in games and in real life doesn't mean that everyone playing violent/sexist games will commit violence or be a sexist
So? Now you want to disregard valid criticism because it threatens your (and mine) favourite hobby? Cry me a river.Quote:
Hi, gamer here.
Our community has been constantly threatened by a moarlistic society who has been trying to censor my media, something I care about, for decades.
A lot of resentment in those words. I think we are approaching the crux of the issue. How old were you when your parents tried to limit your gaming time? How did it make you feel.Quote:
We were and still are judged for liking something other people dont, the right used to call us murderers in waiting and now the left call us mysogynists.
The only thing keeping censorship away has been an earnest effort by the majority of our community to dispell the fearmongering that has seeped into the mass media and only recently are we being accepted by the mainstream as something other than a tickng timebomb, we still have to work on the mysigynistic pigs thing but we'll get there all the same.
And Jack Thompson is...?Quote:
The guy who has been supporting you with thanks and snide comments has just gone full Jack Thompson.
I cant believe my bait actually worked, holly crap.
http://www.wikihow.com/Get-over-an-ObsessionQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
cute.
A prominent game Critic from the 90's and early 00's who called for a ban on violent games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Ironically enough he is now a major supporter of the Gamergate moment... I kid you not...
I read a wikipedia article just now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
So, Greyblades, anyone who disagrees with you is Jack Thompson? :laugh4: You're cute, indeed.
So you mean he finally played some computer games and the DID break him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
nope he still calls for a ban on violent games - he just hates Feminists more than Gamers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm not sure if I am surprised by that.
No, you're just repeating his arguments while also supporting sarkeesian's arguments for the same reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
My impression is that Moody and Ironside seem to be operating upon the idea that what they advocate is different to what he did because it's the left saying sexism and not the right saying violence, I beleive they are allowing political affiliation to override any objections they have against censorship and they need a wakeup call. So I gambled and attempted to provoke a reaction that I could use prove my point.
And here you are coming out of the sidelines; advocating both side's censorship with no political idealism to hide a belief that full grown adults cannot be trusted to view fiction without being negatively affected by it.
When I saw it happen I was giddy that it worked out better than I had ever imagined.
Now I am depressed that a single gamble did more to prove my point than hours of thought and effort.
Who exactly is calling for censorship?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Anita isn't, Ironside isn't, I am not and I haven't seen Sarmatian calling for it either (unless I am misreading him).
Sarmatian is arguing there is a link between Violence and Violent games but he hasn't suggested banning them...
I am on the fence on the issue - I don't believe Violent games create violent people but I do believe it desensitises people to violence (and I think that is true of all media not just games) - we aren't as shocked at graphic violence as we used to be (I can remember watching the opening of Saving Private Ryan and being openly horrified - now I don't bat an eyelid).
I think the same is true of sexism in games (and other media) - while it wont make gamers sexist it does reinforce sexist ideas within our culture which makes people less likely to question them.
I must congratulate sarkeesian for not taking the suicidal route and going to the courts, using shame to coerce the consumers to stop buying games they like is a big step up in effective agenda pushing. A different method does not change the same lack of credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
It might sound right to you, but being desensitized to fictional violence does not translate to being desensitized to real life violence, when Jack Thompson attempted to prove otherwise to the american courts it was dismissed as baseless. He tried again and failed again, doing it so many times so many times that he was disbarred.Quote:
Sarmatian is arguing there is a link between Violence and Violent games but he hasn't suggested banning them...
I am on the fence on the issue - I don't believe Violent games create violent people but I do believe it desensitises people to violence (and I think that is true of all media not just games) - we aren't as shocked at graphic violence as we used to be (I can remember watching the opening of Saving Private Ryan and being openly horrified - now I don't bat an eyelid).
I think the same is true of sexism in games (and other media) - while it wont make gamers sexist it does reinforce sexist ideas within our culture which makes people less likely to question them.
The sexism argument works on the same logic, as samaritan exhibits, so why would it be any more legitimate?
I'd like to correct this part:I think I got a bit carried away there.Quote:
I must congratulate sarkeesian for not taking the suicidal route and going to the courts, using shame to coerce the consumers to stop buying games they like is a big step up in effective agenda pushing. A different method does not change the same lack of credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
She isnt and you arent, these guys are:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Sarkeesian's ideas are unsubstantial and rather counterproductive as I explained but they are being used by these guys to shame and coerce the consumers to stop buying games this group doesnt like.
Sarkeesian is like ayn rand, her ideas are unsubstantiated and imo wrong, but they're just an opinion. However like rand she gains ire she doesnt deserve (including mine, sadly) due to others using thier ideas to justify deplorable behavior, like Ayn Rand is used to justify tax dodging these are used to shame men for likeing juvinile materiel they are painting as sexist.
Now, as to why the gaming news websites exhibited are being so blatant about their agenda, that comes down to gamergate and another discussion altogether.