Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
DM Gray said:
AkaDad said:
I asked you to back up your claims of rampant misandry and instead you rant and call me a bad feminist.

I think we're done here.

Edit: That was for DM Gray.
I provided yo with a great deal of context and said your willful ignorance makes you a bad feminist.
It does.
Just wait a year or two, and you'll have magically evolved; it's coming and you'll pretend to have been totally cool with it all along.

Ten Foot Bunny said:
Sounds more like a Google/Microsoft turf war than some vast feminist conspiracy.
Where did I say conspiracy. I said troll.
A lot of feminists around in the world, and they tend to delight in mocking the concept of misandry, even if they aren't actually bigots themselves.
"ironic misandry" has become VERY mainstream.
You think spellcheck software creators are going to have a turf war over providing the correct spelling for a single word?

That is FAR more crazy that suggesting a lone feminist though it would be funny.
(and feminists do engage in this kinda thing: wiki gets edited for political reasons all the time, and there are few political lobbies as active as feminism, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill)


Every single criticism of gamers and gamergate I see here is a MASSIVE strawman about misogynerds not wanting girls in their club house.
It *might* be funny, if it weren't from people pretending to be seriously fighting against sexism.
By being really fucking sexist themselves.
You know what's really coming? More diverse characters and narratives in gaming and you'll be thanking Anita Sarkeesian.
 

Ten Foot Bunny

I'm more of a dishwasher girl
Mar 19, 2014
807
0
0
DM Gray said:
Ten Foot Bunny said:
Sounds more like a Google/Microsoft turf war than some vast feminist conspiracy.
Where did I say conspiracy. I said troll.
A lot of feminists around in the world, and they tend to delight in mocking the concept of misandry, even if they aren't actually bigots themselves.
"ironic misandry" has become VERY mainstream.
You think spellcheck software creators are going to have a turf war over providing the correct spelling for a single word?
Hmm... I don't see how feminists can troll companies that create spellcheckers into removing the word "misandry." I'd like to know how it can be done, because I take great offense to the current spelling of "sidewalk" and would like to see them embrace the multicultural variant, "sidewok." Because SJW and all that.

Oh, and stupid me thought that when I said...

Next, Microsoft will drop support for the word "Aardvark."
...that my dripping sarcasm pushed through the veil of overt irrationality. I have failed the English language once more, my poor Yorick.
 

Mandalore_15

New member
Aug 12, 2009
741
0
0
Fenrox Jackson said:
Mandalore_15 said:
Fenrox Jackson said:
You realize you agree with me at the end. Parallel structure is your friend.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I disagreed with the majority of points you put out there. If you want to point out flaws in my argument please do it and don't just post a short "you lose" statement (or risk mod wrath).
I hear ya, the mods on this site are terrible. Allowing for horrible threads against women, gays, disabled people as long as it's masked and civil. You can't say Tr*** but you can say that gays can be cured and that women are equal. Hopefully a change out of the attention being brought to all this will be actual moderation of topics.
Pal, I don't know what your problem is, but nobody here has claimed that gays can be "cured" and, as far as I'm aware, that women aren't equal. The topic is about whether feminist grievance over games' content is legitimate or not, end of. Unless you want to contribute to that discussion or respond to any of the comments in my previous long reply, then please just leave it alone, because what you're doing now is getting pretty damn close to trolling, not just of me but now the moderators as well (who in my opinion do a very good job running these boards).

Fenrox Jackson said:
Guerilla said:
Fenrox Jackson said:
Guerilla said:
Fenrox Jackson said:
Mandalore_15 said:
Fenrox Jackson said:
You realize you agree with me at the end. Parallel structure is your friend.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I disagreed with the majority of points you put out there. If you want to point out flaws in my argument please do it and don't just post a short "you lose" statement (or risk mod wrath).
I hear ya, the mods on this site are terrible. Allowing for horrible threads against women, gays, disabled people as long as it's masked and civil. You can't say Tr*** but you can say that gays can be cured and that women are equal. Hopefully a change out of the attention being brought to all this will be actual moderation of topics.
Are you just mocking Mandalore now or something? Nothing makes sense about your last two posts.
It's ok, don't feel bad. I don't know who or what a Mandalore is. Civility is a state within and outside, having a civil discussion about euthanizing the disabled is not a civil discussion, a civil discussion would omit that conversation and find it a home in a more prudent location. That was a forum post on the escapist. Yet you can't say tr***.
First of all, who made you the authority on what civil discussion is? This is how extreme censorship begins, in some forums they ban people who argue with feminists because just disagreeing with them is supposedly misogynistic. Stop backseat moderating and try to argue rationally with people instead of trying to shut them up.

And what's this tr*** word? I don't even know about which word you're talking about.
Yeah see that is exactly the problem. Civility doesn't stop within the conversation. If you thought someone was inferior, would you raise that point with them? No, it would be rude at the very least. Also look up censorship, not being allowed to have a "discussion" that is really a furthering of harassment is not in any way censorship. Your point is that you should enable bigots? Gay conversion therapy is a lie, some people want to believe that it can happen and therefore try and strike up a "conversation" about it. There is no conversation to be had. To allow the conversation to take place is to enable and support a "side" that isn't anything more than a hate group pushing a violent agenda. Conversion therapy is proven brainwashing, but if you choose to allow the conversation you legitimize it as a "side" in an argument. Do you not see the danger there? Censorship isn't in play, sides are not always equal.
I totally agree with Guerilla here; I thought we were having a civil discussion until your attempts to derail it with nonsense and non sequiturs. The point is that nothing is beyond the realm of discussion. When you start deciding what it is and isn't OK for people to talk about that's when you get fascism.

The only other thing I'll say on this is that if you think discussing these points "furthers harassment" or "enables bigots" then you're deluded. Yes those people exist but it doesn't stop normal people from discussing whether we should make the types of claims made by Anita Sarkeesian and her ilk seriously.

And that's it, I'm done. As I say Fenrox, if you want to respond to any of my longer points then you'll get a response, otherwise we have nothing else to discuss.
 

R0guy

New member
Aug 27, 2014
56
0
0
AkaDad said:
You know what's really coming? More diverse characters and narratives in gaming and you'll be thanking Anita Sarkeesian.
Not really.

Less cleavage (Bioshock infinite), smaller boobs (dragon crown), the inability to harm female npcs in singleplayer (and multiplayer?) games even if they are sandboxes (hitman, gtaIV, saints row), the inability to help female npcs in singleplayer (and multiplayer?) games (super mario). Inability to adress in any shape or form (negatively) : prostitution (Watchdogs), household violence (mafia), adultery/promiscuity (the witcher), slavery (red dead redemption, watchdogs), racism (unless it's a fictional race aka elves), rape (red dead redemption). Also, male sexual fantasies are wrong (because.....?).

And that's just off the top of my head.

I would have so much less trouble with Anita's arguments if she gave examples of something "not sexist" or which doesn't encourage "rape culture". But that would be expecting too much, since she's never made any argument that doesn't include a "no true scotsman".
 

Mandalore_15

New member
Aug 12, 2009
741
0
0
Melaphont said:
I'm trying to read this topic, I honestly am, but everytime I read the topic title I cringe and cant keep looking. Whoever thought of this topic title is terrible at topic titles and you should feel bad.

That said, without reading past the topic title,cause I cringe just reading it. No feminists or ANYONE else shouldn't step off. We should debate, and show why they are wrong or ignore them. Everyone should be welcome in games and all criticism should be welcomed(as long as it isnt Jack Thompson, all games should be banned crap). We should revel in challenge and debate with culture critics, cause that just means the game industry is becoming even more relevant in pop culture.

sorry if I missed the point of the topic, but damn that title.
Please consider me to be feeling very bad. I guess I am not immune to the charms of clickbait titles, but y'know... if you want a good discussion you have to lure a few people in. At any rate, a lot of posters seem to not have read the first post and just posted reactions to the title, so I will try harder in future!

As to the meat of your comment, I agree with what you're saying in theory, but in practice I think it is unlikely to work. Feminists that are active online more-often-than-not attempt to shut down any form of debate by categorising anything but complete agreement with them as misogyny or enabling things such as "the patriarchy" or "rape culture". I for one would love to properly debate a feminist about the depiction of women in videogames, but there don't seem to be many who would share my interest.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
Fenrox Jackson said:
Yeah see that is exactly the problem. Civility doesn't stop within the conversation. If you thought someone was inferior, would you raise that point with them? No, it would be rude at the very least. Also look up censorship, not being allowed to have a "discussion" that is really a furthering of harassment is not in any way censorship. Your point is that you should enable bigots? Gay conversion therapy is a lie, some people want to believe that it can happen and therefore try and strike up a "conversation" about it. There is no conversation to be had. To allow the conversation to take place is to enable and support a "side" that isn't anything more than a hate group pushing a violent agenda. Conversion therapy is proven brainwashing, but if you choose to allow the conversation you legitimize it as a "side" in an argument. Do you not see the danger there? Censorship isn't in play, sides are not always equal.
So let me get this straight, as a socialist I can claim that every thread that is negative towards socialism (=equality!) should be banned because the moderators by allowing that thread to exist are indirectly supporting a "side". So instead of taking the time to make rational arguments to show how wrong the other "side" is, I can just censor them by backseat moderating. That's definitely a neat trick you got there.
 

AwesomeDave

New member
Feb 10, 2011
87
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Mandalore_15 said:
By that logic all videogame characters would be marginal in novels, seeing as they're completely different mediums with different propensities to explore characterisation.
There is nothing in the medium of gaming that restricts it from having stronger characterization, unless we're referring to blank slate protagonists.

As for television shows, if you think Ellie is on par with characters as seen in The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, et al than I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to STRONGLY disagree. She is a one-note character that would be a relative afterthought in more established media. And I'm not having a go at The Last of Us or Ellie either. I liked both and thought she was a good step forward.
Actually, video games typically do restrict character depth, simply due to the length of content. Most games just don't have the time a TV show or novel has to flesh out characters. You're talking tens, if not hundreds of hours in TV shows, all of it character interaction or decision making. Take an episode of a law enforcement show for example. Most of the episode is spent examining the crime scene, collecting evidence, processing evidence, theorizing, etc. The fistfight/gunfight, IF the arrest in said episode even contains a fight, lasts minutes on average. Let's give that fight a very generous five minute duration. In an episode that occupies an hour time slot, there is about forty to forty-five minutes of actual programming. Once again, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume this episode fills the full forty-five minutes. So forty minutes of story, five minutes of fighting (which in TV shows generally still adds to the story, as the combatants generally converse). This is multiplied by however many episodes per season the show gets (usually around 20ish on average), to give eight hundred minutes, or slightly over 13 hours per season of story, compared to one hundred minutes, or less than two hours, of "combat".

Now let's look at a game. I'll use a forty-hour play time for my example, since that seems to be pretty average. More than double the length of a TV season in duration. Yet, in this forty hours, depending on the game, you'll likely see one to two hours of cutscenes, and spend thirty-eight or thirty-nine hours in "combat", or solving puzzles, or whatever obstacles that game uses (obvious exceptions are games like TellTale's The Walking Dead, which are structured more like a television show than a typical game).

How is a game supposed to flesh out characters as much as a show in less than ten percent of the time that show gets for character development?
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
Congratulations boys, gaming has now become big enough to be used as a soap box for people with strong opinions and no audience to share them with.
This is going to be a permanent fixture of gaming now, so learn to live with it. Engage with those who express their concerns and criticisms with respect and openness, ignore those who seem to just be stirring the pot, or ignore it all and go play some games.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
May 1, 2020
12,010
0
0
Country
United States
AwesomeDave said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Mandalore_15 said:
By that logic all videogame characters would be marginal in novels, seeing as they're completely different mediums with different propensities to explore characterisation.
There is nothing in the medium of gaming that restricts it from having stronger characterization, unless we're referring to blank slate protagonists.

As for television shows, if you think Ellie is on par with characters as seen in The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, et al than I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to STRONGLY disagree. She is a one-note character that would be a relative afterthought in more established media. And I'm not having a go at The Last of Us or Ellie either. I liked both and thought she was a good step forward.
Actually, video games typically do restrict character depth, simply due to the length of content. Most games just don't have the time a TV show or novel has to flesh out characters. You're talking tens, if not hundreds of hours in TV shows, all of it character interaction or decision making. Take an episode of a law enforcement show for example. Most of the episode is spent examining the crime scene, collecting evidence, processing evidence, theorizing, etc. The fistfight/gunfight, IF the arrest in said episode even contains a fight, lasts minutes on average. Let's give that fight a very generous five minute duration. In an episode that occupies an hour time slot, there is about forty to forty-five minutes of actual programming. Once again, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume this episode fills the full forty-five minutes. So forty minutes of story, five minutes of fighting (which in TV shows generally still adds to the story, as the combatants generally converse). This is multiplied by however many episodes per season the show gets (usually around 20ish on average), to give eight hundred minutes, or slightly over 13 hours per season of story, compared to one hundred minutes, or less than two hours, of "combat".

Now let's look at a game. I'll use a forty-hour play time for my example, since that seems to be pretty average. More than double the length of a TV season in duration. Yet, in this forty hours, depending on the game, you'll likely see one to two hours of cutscenes, and spend thirty-eight or thirty-nine hours in "combat", or solving puzzles, or whatever obstacles that game uses (obvious exceptions are games like TellTale's The Walking Dead, which are structured more like a television show than a typical game).

How is a game supposed to flesh out characters as much as a show in less than ten percent of the time that show gets for character development?
You could make the same argument about film though. I adored Ellie and Last of Us as well, and generally prefer games over movie experiences, but I too have to admit that characters in well written films are generally far more fleshed out and interesting. I'm not really sure why that is, honestly.

That said, like Ellie, there are a lot of well-written characters that do standout in the medium. I suppose it's just a matter of this becoming the standard for narrative-driven games, and then eventually growing beyond that.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
AwesomeDave said:
How is a game supposed to flesh out characters as much as a show in less than ten percent of the time that show gets for character development?
They're not. They can't.

From the OP...

Ellie is perhaps one of the best written characters in any medium ever...
You're about the third person to crawl up my ass for rebutting that statement, as though I winkled the comparison out of thin air because I felt like being unfair to games. I don't think games are shit because they don't do character or narrative as well as other mediums. A lot of the games I love don't even HAVE characters worth talking about. You only really see strong characterization in games when they try to ape films or novels. And surprise surprise, they're generally not as good as the more established medium.
 

AwesomeDave

New member
Feb 10, 2011
87
0
0
Fappy said:
AwesomeDave said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Mandalore_15 said:
By that logic all videogame characters would be marginal in novels, seeing as they're completely different mediums with different propensities to explore characterisation.
There is nothing in the medium of gaming that restricts it from having stronger characterization, unless we're referring to blank slate protagonists.

As for television shows, if you think Ellie is on par with characters as seen in The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, et al than I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to STRONGLY disagree. She is a one-note character that would be a relative afterthought in more established media. And I'm not having a go at The Last of Us or Ellie either. I liked both and thought she was a good step forward.
Actually, video games typically do restrict character depth, simply due to the length of content. Most games just don't have the time a TV show or novel has to flesh out characters. You're talking tens, if not hundreds of hours in TV shows, all of it character interaction or decision making. Take an episode of a law enforcement show for example. Most of the episode is spent examining the crime scene, collecting evidence, processing evidence, theorizing, etc. The fistfight/gunfight, IF the arrest in said episode even contains a fight, lasts minutes on average. Let's give that fight a very generous five minute duration. In an episode that occupies an hour time slot, there is about forty to forty-five minutes of actual programming. Once again, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume this episode fills the full forty-five minutes. So forty minutes of story, five minutes of fighting (which in TV shows generally still adds to the story, as the combatants generally converse). This is multiplied by however many episodes per season the show gets (usually around 20ish on average), to give eight hundred minutes, or slightly over 13 hours per season of story, compared to one hundred minutes, or less than two hours, of "combat".

Now let's look at a game. I'll use a forty-hour play time for my example, since that seems to be pretty average. More than double the length of a TV season in duration. Yet, in this forty hours, depending on the game, you'll likely see one to two hours of cutscenes, and spend thirty-eight or thirty-nine hours in "combat", or solving puzzles, or whatever obstacles that game uses (obvious exceptions are games like TellTale's The Walking Dead, which are structured more like a television show than a typical game).

How is a game supposed to flesh out characters as much as a show in less than ten percent of the time that show gets for character development?
You could make the same argument about film though. I adored Ellie and Last of Us as well, and generally prefer games over movie experiences, but I too have to admit that characters in well written films are generally far more fleshed out and interesting. I'm not really sure why that is, honestly.

That said, like Ellie, there are a lot of well-written characters that do standout in the medium. I suppose it's just a matter of this becoming the standard for narrative-driven games, and the eventually growing beyond that.
Good points. I guess it would have to depend on the genre of film in question. There aren't many action movies with well-developed characters.

In games, I think a limiting factor is that games are meant to be interactive, and in television/film we just sit back and watch. A lot of people lose interest if they have to sit through a barrage of ten-minute cut scenes with five minutes of play in between. They play games to play, not watch.

Personally, my favourite games are the ones with character creation where I choose the character and flesh out any missing details in my head. <3 Fallout :p
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
Mandalore_15 said:
Melaphont said:
I'm trying to read this topic, I honestly am, but everytime I read the topic title I cringe and cant keep looking. Whoever thought of this topic title is terrible at topic titles and you should feel bad.

That said, without reading past the topic title,cause I cringe just reading it. No feminists or ANYONE else shouldn't step off. We should debate, and show why they are wrong or ignore them. Everyone should be welcome in games and all criticism should be welcomed(as long as it isnt Jack Thompson, all games should be banned crap). We should revel in challenge and debate with culture critics, cause that just means the game industry is becoming even more relevant in pop culture.

sorry if I missed the point of the topic, but damn that title.
Please consider me to be feeling very bad. I guess I am not immune to the charms of clickbait titles, but y'know... if you want a good discussion you have to lure a few people in. At any rate, a lot of posters seem to not have read the first post and just posted reactions to the title, so I will try harder in future!

As to the meat of your comment, I agree with what you're saying in theory, but in practice I think it is unlikely to work. Feminists that are active online more-often-than-not attempt to shut down any form of debate by categorising anything but complete agreement with them as misogyny or enabling things such as "the patriarchy" or "rape culture". I for one would love to properly debate a feminist about the depiction of women in videogames, but there don't seem to be many who would share my interest.
I agree we are getting a lot of 3rd wave feminists, who seem to be using it more as a platform for self promotion, then a cause... but honestly, the only power they have, beyond their limited followers, is the controversy they can create. Rational debate with them normally works, in terms of showing where the holes are in their idea's, and if they refuse to listen and start attacking people, just highlight it to everyone and ignore them, as individual's. If they are just ranting about the vile misogynistic patriarchy that is making everyone's lives miserable...well let them keep preaching in their corner. The only thing they are doing at that point is preaching to the choir, they wont have converts.

Find the stuff they say is true: SOME games have some form of sexism, and need to represent women better and narrative in games have a ways to go still. After that, either point out why their observations are less supported in facts and only in sentiment, and if all they do is call you "empowering misogyny" or some other foolish insult, just ignore them, imo. They go away if you dont feed them.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
May 1, 2020
12,010
0
0
Country
United States
AwesomeDave said:
Fappy said:
AwesomeDave said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Mandalore_15 said:
By that logic all videogame characters would be marginal in novels, seeing as they're completely different mediums with different propensities to explore characterisation.
There is nothing in the medium of gaming that restricts it from having stronger characterization, unless we're referring to blank slate protagonists.

As for television shows, if you think Ellie is on par with characters as seen in The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, et al than I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to STRONGLY disagree. She is a one-note character that would be a relative afterthought in more established media. And I'm not having a go at The Last of Us or Ellie either. I liked both and thought she was a good step forward.
Actually, video games typically do restrict character depth, simply due to the length of content. Most games just don't have the time a TV show or novel has to flesh out characters. You're talking tens, if not hundreds of hours in TV shows, all of it character interaction or decision making. Take an episode of a law enforcement show for example. Most of the episode is spent examining the crime scene, collecting evidence, processing evidence, theorizing, etc. The fistfight/gunfight, IF the arrest in said episode even contains a fight, lasts minutes on average. Let's give that fight a very generous five minute duration. In an episode that occupies an hour time slot, there is about forty to forty-five minutes of actual programming. Once again, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume this episode fills the full forty-five minutes. So forty minutes of story, five minutes of fighting (which in TV shows generally still adds to the story, as the combatants generally converse). This is multiplied by however many episodes per season the show gets (usually around 20ish on average), to give eight hundred minutes, or slightly over 13 hours per season of story, compared to one hundred minutes, or less than two hours, of "combat".

Now let's look at a game. I'll use a forty-hour play time for my example, since that seems to be pretty average. More than double the length of a TV season in duration. Yet, in this forty hours, depending on the game, you'll likely see one to two hours of cutscenes, and spend thirty-eight or thirty-nine hours in "combat", or solving puzzles, or whatever obstacles that game uses (obvious exceptions are games like TellTale's The Walking Dead, which are structured more like a television show than a typical game).

How is a game supposed to flesh out characters as much as a show in less than ten percent of the time that show gets for character development?
You could make the same argument about film though. I adored Ellie and Last of Us as well, and generally prefer games over movie experiences, but I too have to admit that characters in well written films are generally far more fleshed out and interesting. I'm not really sure why that is, honestly.

That said, like Ellie, there are a lot of well-written characters that do standout in the medium. I suppose it's just a matter of this becoming the standard for narrative-driven games, and the eventually growing beyond that.
Good points. I guess it would have to depend on the genre of film in question. There aren't many action movies with well-developed characters.

In games, I think a limiting factor is that games are meant to be interactive, and in television/film we just sit back and watch. A lot of people lose interest if they have to sit through a barrage of ten-minute cut scenes with five minutes of play in between. They play games to play, not watch.

Personally, my favourite games are the ones with character creation where I choose the character and flesh out any missing details in my head. <3 Fallout :p
I have likely spent around 3,000 hours playing Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim, so I know exactly where you are coming from XD

I have backstories for all my characters in my head and have roleplyed their actions throughout the games. Open-world RPGs are infinitely more interesting when you treat it like a single player D&D campaign, imo.
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
You're about the third person to crawl up my ass for rebutting that statement, as though I winkled the comparison out of thin air because I felt like being unfair to games. I don't think games are shit because they don't do character or narrative as well as other mediums. A lot of the games I love don't even HAVE characters worth talking about. You only really see strong characterization in games when they try to ape films or novels. And surprise surprise, they're generally not as good as the more established medium.
Yuuup, I get the feeling we have a lot of people in the industry, writing for games or directing/producing, that would rather be in the Movie/TV industry but cant.
 

C.S.Strowbridge

New member
Jul 22, 2010
330
0
0
DM Gray said:
Every single criticism of gamers and gamergate I see here is a MASSIVE strawman about misogynerds not wanting girls in their club house.
Massive? Are you sure you want to say that?

The original post talks about feminists stepping off games. To claim there is a large group of "misogynerds" who wants games to be boys only isn't a strawman. It is backed up by evidence.
 

Canyoureadmydeadpan

New member
Mar 14, 2011
32
0
0
I think it is time we separate the term feminist from Social Justice Warrior.

I think this group of SJW circle jerkers are a problem in EVERY PLACE they go. They caused problems in atheism with the stupid atheism plus movement, radio enthusiests, they caused problems in acedimia, and now they found a way to monitize professional victimhood in videogames (almost to a point of racketeering).

It's not that they should be silenced, it's that they need to be:
1) held to reality
2) held to factuality
3) stop censoring everything

Maddox made an excellent video a year ago about videogames and sexism and what the solution is. http://youtu.be/MpJGkG1g-Lk
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
C.S.Strowbridge said:
DM Gray said:
Every single criticism of gamers and gamergate I see here is a MASSIVE strawman about misogynerds not wanting girls in their club house.
Massive? Are you sure you want to say that?

The original post talks about feminists stepping off games. To claim there is a large group of "misogynerds" who wants games to be boys only isn't a strawman. It is backed up by evidence.
Oh my, never knew that people who have a problem with feminism's bullying tactics and its often holier than thou followers are apparently both misogynists aka HATE WOMEN and nerds. Your post sounds awfully like the strawman DM Gray was talking about.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Canyoureadmydeadpan said:
3) stop censoring everything
Inorite? I used to have so much fun before those darned Socially Justification Battlers came along and censored EVERYTHING.

Movies? Censored.
Games? Censored.
Books? Censored.
Music? Censored.

It's like living in a police state, man!
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
C.S.Strowbridge said:
DM Gray said:
Every single criticism of gamers and gamergate I see here is a MASSIVE strawman about misogynerds not wanting girls in their club house.
Massive? Are you sure you want to say that?

The original post talks about feminists stepping off games. To claim there is a large group of "misogynerds" who wants games to be boys only isn't a strawman. It is backed up by evidence.
Define large? Are we going per capita? Or just a numbers game? Are there some people who want their hobby to be a boys only club? Sure. Are there even more people not good at explaining what they mean? Yup. My guess, some of these people are trying to say they like the games that the like, and dont want to lose them, because of feminists. While I agree this thought is paranoia, it doesn't mean they are misogynists, just means they are paranoid.

That doesnt mean misogyny doesnt exist, it just mean large broad strokes to define the problems with culture is normally inaccurate.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Canyoureadmydeadpan said:
3) stop censoring everything
Inorite? I used to have so much fun before those darned Socially Justification Battlers came along and censored EVERYTHING.

Movies? Censored.
Games? Censored.
Books? Censored.
Music? Censored.

It's like living in a police state, man!
Funny you say that. Recent news: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/backlash-after-roald-dahl-classic-4134833

edit: Music? Censored. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/nov/12/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-banned-another-university