This is a valid thought, and one I have some serious problems with.BRex21 said:The reason sexism like this is bad is that it encourages gamer A to go and thread female B as a sex object.
No, it is not the responsibility of every person to make sure an influence isn't negative. It IS the DUTY AND RIGHT of every person in ANY society to speak freely and openly, and especially so in cultures that have outlawed free speech. I live in the United States, and I will comment on and do my best to get others to not engage any media or behavior I believe to be truly harmful, but censorship, as you are suggesting, is NEVER the answer. No, you did not use 'censorship' specifically, but "negative influence" is an inherently empty phrase that may be used arbitrarily. Also, while you did mention sexism and racism as being "negative influences", the overall tone suggests censorship rather than genuine concern for any given society.psyks said:I feel that for better or for worse, it's still a form of art that contributes influence to society. It's the responsibility of each member of that society to make sure the influence isn't negative, and I feel, as I assume you do, that racism and sexism contributes negatively to society. The question then resolves itself to "does this game contribute to that influence?". Neither of us can know that for sure, partly because we haven't played the game yet, and partly because we're not omniscient. That's why debate and enquiry exists.Espsychologist said:As to the first point: Yes that blanket statement would still apply, though it would receive far less sympathy and support. In the end, however, what is being discussed is DIGITAL REPRESENTATIONS. Any "person" being butt-slapped (or lynched) would ultimately be a computer-generated fantasy.
That's not really a straw man and you really just backed up my claim. Casual sexism displayed in popular culture translates much more easily to real world actions than war does. As you said, everyone can be influenced to participate in war, but it was a huge propaganda campaign, as well as nationalistic tensions which were left over from the first world war that polarised people during the second world war. Now, whether or not war games make people violent or polarise them in the same way we saw during the first half of the 20th century is really a moot point since it has little bearing on the argument and isn't at all equivalent to misogyny.As to the second point: You have nice scarecrow [straw-man] there because killing people on a battlefield is, indeed, something in which "everyone" can be influenced to participate. Actually getting "everyone" to do so would require a sociological mastermind, but it could be done. Hell, WWII was as close as we, as a species, have come to doing just that, and that was only 70 years ago! And everyone involved felt completely justified if their side should win!!!
I don't think I mentioned anything particular about the dickwolves thing and I most certainly didn't claim that rape doesn't concern men. Indeed, statistics show that on average, 1 in 33 men are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. The figure for women is 1 in 6. Not that it becomes a less important crime for men, simply that feminist groups are more closely involved.As to the third point: Penny Arcade is so obviously a joke website that anyone who believes the creators of it to be serious needs to get themselves informed, and fast! That said, since comedy MUST have no boundaries placed upon it in order to be ethical, apologizing for anything they have done in the past would be not only unethical but hypocritical. And apparently you think only women can be raped by men, and that men, somehow and for some reason, do not rape other men.
Bottom line: If murder of any sort can be lampooned, then so can anything and everything else.
With regards to the comic, I was simply making the point that Penny Arcade make un-nuanced, obnoxious statements like saying that sexism isn't important or rape is ok to make light of, without thinking about their actions. It's basically the same excuse that the daily show uses, where it's often assumed that nobody takes anything but humour away from comedy, which isn't true. If you think that you aren't constantly analysing everything you absorb, including seemingly harmless comedy, in order to form opinions and world views, then you're mistaken.
Some comedians can work in areas like that successfully because they own it. When it's a webcomic, whose writers aren't the most sensitive of people, the result is much more snidey and superior.
They know the ghost of Sean Connery will haunt them forever.BENZOOKA said:Yeah, it's pointless. And every kind of correctness gone mad.
Why haven't they banned every James Bond movie yet...
I agree that some people just do not understand Duke Nukem.ericphillips said:What a lot of people fail to realise is the Duke Nukem is and always has been a work of satire.
Look at Duke himself, huge muscles, blonde buzzcut weilding huge guns and disrespecting women, this is the picture perfect 70s-80s American action hero that shows that he is in fact a blown up stereotype. As are all of the people that surround him, the women are generically attractive bimbos and his friends are all macho badasses just like he is.
Duke Nukem games are satyrical, they feature sexist content because that's what this american badass stereotype does, and he is frankly hilarious.
If any of you have seen Borat or Bruno then you will see what I mean when I say on the surface these games may seem offensive, but end up being hilarious and very intelligent in that they show us how ridiculous and funny our stereotypes are.
People that complain about Bruno or Borat or Duke Nukem usually haven't seen or played the content, and instead have been handed a list of all of the potentially offensive things that happen in them, and have based their opinions on the content based on these things. Frankly, if i was to read a list of things that occur in Duke Nukem when put in an out of context situation like that, I would probably deem it offensive! But we need to realise the underlying message beneath the macho surface of Duke Nukem.
What these people need to hear is try the content in context, see how ridiculous and fun Duke Nukem is, what will hold us back is telling them that they are wrong and trying to justify what happens in these games.
Please, nowhere did I say we should censor anything. Free speech is great up to a point, but that doesn't mean that no one is obliged to analyse the content of what others are saying. For example, in a free democracy, I have the right to shout "FIRE!" at the top of my lungs, but it would be irresponsible to do so in a crowded theatre where I might start a riot. Like I said, it's through debate and enquiry that we can further a "leftist" agenda for a happier society, if that's how you wish to put it. If you can't see how rational debate can further discourse and help to eliminate tensions like casual sexual discrimination, there's not really much I can say to you.Espsychologist said:No, it is not the responsibility of every person to make sure an influence isn't negative. It IS the DUTY AND RIGHT of every person in ANY society to speak freely and openly, and especially so in cultures that have outlawed free speech. I live in the United States, and I will comment on and do my best to get others to not engage any media or behavior I believe to be truly harmful, but censorship, as you are suggesting, is NEVER the answer. No, you did not use 'censorship' specifically, but "negative influence" is an inherently empty phrase that may be used arbitrarily. Also, while you did mention sexism and racism as being "negative influences", the overall tone suggests censorship rather than genuine concern for any given society.psyks said:I feel that for better or for worse, it's still a form of art that contributes influence to society. It's the responsibility of each member of that society to make sure the influence isn't negative, and I feel, as I assume you do, that racism and sexism contributes negatively to society. The question then resolves itself to "does this game contribute to that influence?". Neither of us can know that for sure, partly because we haven't played the game yet, and partly because we're not omniscient. That's why debate and enquiry exists.Espsychologist said:As to the first point: Yes that blanket statement would still apply, though it would receive far less sympathy and support. In the end, however, what is being discussed is DIGITAL REPRESENTATIONS. Any "person" being butt-slapped (or lynched) would ultimately be a computer-generated fantasy.
That's not really a straw man and you really just backed up my claim. Casual sexism displayed in popular culture translates much more easily to real world actions than war does. As you said, everyone can be influenced to participate in war, but it was a huge propaganda campaign, as well as nationalistic tensions which were left over from the first world war that polarised people during the second world war. Now, whether or not war games make people violent or polarise them in the same way we saw during the first half of the 20th century is really a moot point since it has little bearing on the argument and isn't at all equivalent to misogyny.As to the second point: You have nice scarecrow [straw-man] there because killing people on a battlefield is, indeed, something in which "everyone" can be influenced to participate. Actually getting "everyone" to do so would require a sociological mastermind, but it could be done. Hell, WWII was as close as we, as a species, have come to doing just that, and that was only 70 years ago! And everyone involved felt completely justified if their side should win!!!
I don't think I mentioned anything particular about the dickwolves thing and I most certainly didn't claim that rape doesn't concern men. Indeed, statistics show that on average, 1 in 33 men are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. The figure for women is 1 in 6. Not that it becomes a less important crime for men, simply that feminist groups are more closely involved.As to the third point: Penny Arcade is so obviously a joke website that anyone who believes the creators of it to be serious needs to get themselves informed, and fast! That said, since comedy MUST have no boundaries placed upon it in order to be ethical, apologizing for anything they have done in the past would be not only unethical but hypocritical. And apparently you think only women can be raped by men, and that men, somehow and for some reason, do not rape other men.
Bottom line: If murder of any sort can be lampooned, then so can anything and everything else.
With regards to the comic, I was simply making the point that Penny Arcade make un-nuanced, obnoxious statements like saying that sexism isn't important or rape is ok to make light of, without thinking about their actions. It's basically the same excuse that the daily show uses, where it's often assumed that nobody takes anything but humour away from comedy, which isn't true. If you think that you aren't constantly analysing everything you absorb, including seemingly harmless comedy, in order to form opinions and world views, then you're mistaken.
Some comedians can work in areas like that successfully because they own it. When it's a webcomic, whose writers aren't the most sensitive of people, the result is much more snidey and superior.
Penny Arcade was not making light of sexism, but good on 'em if they had because it is THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! What they were saying is that, when compared to the fact that a player is able to, quite easily, commit GENOCIDE repeatedly, the "utter outrage" many people loudly proclaimed over The Duke's ass-tapping shenanigans is next to worthless. As to Penny Arcade being snidey, insensitive and superior, allow me to refer you to one of the oldest sayings in the book: "You can't please all the people all of the time." If they were more "diplomatic", then they would be hypocrites, as I stated above, as well as actually being racist, sexist, etc. for holding one particular subject above others.
Side note: If you have a leftist agenda to push, or are in favor of censorship in any form, find somewhere else to peddle the bullshit. 90% of the people that frequent this website are in favor of completely free and open speech, and the other 10% generally don't worry about it unless something starts to sting too much.
Me thinks the Feminists don't want to be slapped by their men after playing Duke. Won't be much of a change for me though I already slap my fiance on the ass.AllLagNoFrag said:As alot of you are aware, the "babe slapping" mode in Duke Nukem's multi player has been critisized about by a fair amount of people (not forgetting FOX). After thinking for a while, yes, it is sexist and yes, it is meant to be a total joke (its duke nukem ffs).
If you are even considering to buy a game like Duke Nukem, you should be able to accept the nature of the material.
Sexist: sexism (ˈsɛksɪzəm)
? n
discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men
This bring me to my point: If these types of sexist games are created for males to play, why the hell are the people that dont want to play the game complaining?
Take this for example, smoking is bad for health, not only for those that smoke, but to those that don't smoke too as they get second hand smoke. Therefore it is valid that those that do not smoke complain and go against smoking. Whereas sexist games that are created which targets males (who are meant to be of mature age) are being criticized by those who do not play them. Yes, it is offensive material to some but, is being advertised as such to warn them. If people are afraid of their kids getting affected, them Im sorry but, look at the day and age we live in.
Discuss.