Clarkson gone!

[Sir Moody]

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.

[Greyblades]

I am really unsure what are you are driving at here?

Bother.

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?

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.

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"

Which is a very counterproductive thing to do if she had any wish to persuade anyone outside her followers.

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?

Hitchens was dead not 3 days and this woman comes out and blasts him, true or not it is highly disrespectful

And again a very counterproductive thing to do if she had any wish to persuade anyone outside her followers.

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.

The oxford English dictionary defines sexism as: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of 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.

[Sarmatian]

Bother.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Greyblades]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

Que?

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.

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.

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.

Nonsense. Prejudices break all the time, when society awareness becomes large enough.

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.

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.

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."

And that would be wrong.

It assumes gamers play games because there is sexism in them.

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.

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?

Sorry Ironside, but Husar has made me tired of arguing minutia, and this guy had been bugging me all thead.

Who is "this guy"? Me? I've been bugging you all thread?

[Greyblades]

Que?

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.

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.

And did it give you an instictual hatred of Ghandi's india?
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.

Nonsense. Prejudices break all the time, when society awareness becomes large enough.

Perhaps a better word would have been preconceptions, less of the overly negative connotations prejudice has earned over the years as an accusation.

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.

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

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?

And that would be wrong.

It assumes gamers play games because there is sexism in them.

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?

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.

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?

If the message is that male orientated games should be neutered to accomodate women then I most certainly have not been 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.

[Husar]

If I may ask this random unrelated question: How many male prostitutes does GTA have?

[Sarmatian]

And did it give you an instictual hatred of Ghandi's india?
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.

No, because the game doesn't encourage you to hate Gandhi. Strategy games are less personal.

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

It is harder to notice when you're not experiencing it yourself.

Also, isn't, "meh, I dont care" only said when someone wants to ignore something?

In this case, with "I don't care" I meant the literal meaning.

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?

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.