Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Guerilla said:
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
Two instances = everything. Is good to know, thank you. I struggled with math in high school. I thought "everything" > two anecdotal instances, but it appears in this circumstance I was wrong.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Guerilla said:
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
Two instances = everything. Is good to know, thank you. I struggled with math in high school. I thought "everything" > two anecdotal instances, but it appears in this circumstance I was wrong.
It's not two instances, the Blurred Lines censorship happened in multiple universities after feminists whined about it and that's only two examples I thought off the top of my head.

Generally, there's a very close relationship between feminism and censorship. Every forum I've been to where feminists are prevalent it's full of censorship of opinion: SomethingAwful was a hellhole until they kicked out some SJW crazies this year who were harassing and doxxing even kids, TwoXchromosomes on reddit, ShitRedditSays, neogaf and others are all full of SJWs who ban opinion and make the discussion insufferable with their political correctness and arrogant attitude. Not to mention that they always kill all kinds of humor since even jokes have are being read through their patented Social Justice Goggles to detect any infractions.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Guerilla said:
It's not two instances, the Blurred Lines censorship happened in multiple universities after feminists whined about it and that's only two examples I thought off the top of my head.
Okay, so...just so we're clear...you're comfortable with "everything", then? Everything is being censored? I just want to have your firm stance on this, as this is twice now you've felt the need to correct me on this point, and I want to make sure I fully understand where you are coming from so there are no more misunderstandings. EVERYTHING is being censored. Yes?

Guerilla said:
Generally, there's a very close relationship between feminism and censorship. Every forum I've been where feminists are prevalent it's full of censorship of opinion: SomethingAwful was a hellhole until they kicked out some SJW crazies this year who were harassing and doxxing even kids, TwoXchromosomes on reddit, ShitRedditSays, neogaf are all full of SJWs who ban opinion and make the discussion insufferable with their political correctness and arrogant attitude. Not to mention that they always kill all kinds of humor since even jokes have are being read through their patented Social Justice Goggles.
See, that sounds like anecdotal experience to me, so I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly. I know the anti-social-whatever movement is very concerned with only presenting hard, rational arguments, and not relying on anecdotes, emotion, or hyperbole. So while this appears on the front to be you using anecdotal evidence to prop up a confirmation bias, I'm pretty sure it's just me misreading it due to my own stupidity.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Okay, so...just so we're clear...you're comfortable with "everything", then? Everything is being censored? I just want to have your firm stance on this, as this is twice now you've felt the need to correct me on this point, and I want to make sure I fully understand where you are coming from so there are no more misunderstandings. EVERYTHING is being censored. Yes?
Can you please start arguing like an adult? It's obvious that not everything is being censored and I never argued that but I provided you with examples of feminism's cozy relationship with censorship.

See, that sounds like anecdotal experience to me, so I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly. I know the anti-social-whatever movement is very concerned with only presenting hard, rational arguments, and not relying on anecdotes, emotion, or hyperbole. So while this appears on the front to be you using anecdotal evidence to prop up a confirmation bias, I'm pretty sure it's just me misreading it due to my own stupidity.
Anyone who has been in these places can attest to that. You seem to bury your head under the sand about every single example I provide so I don't think there's anything else to talk about here.
 

Melaphont

New member
Sep 8, 2014
49
0
0
Guerilla said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Okay, so...just so we're clear...you're comfortable with "everything", then? Everything is being censored? I just want to have your firm stance on this, as this is twice now you've felt the need to correct me on this point, and I want to make sure I fully understand where you are coming from so there are no more misunderstandings. EVERYTHING is being censored. Yes?
Can you please start arguing like an adult? It's obvious that not everything is being censored and I never argued that but I provided you with examples of feminism's cozy relationship with censorship.

See, that sounds like anecdotal experience to me, so I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly. I know the anti-social-whatever movement is very concerned with only presenting hard, rational arguments, and not relying on anecdotes, emotion, or hyperbole. So while this appears on the front to be you using anecdotal evidence to prop up a confirmation bias, I'm pretty sure it's just me misreading it due to my own stupidity.
Anyone who has been in these places can attest to that. You seem to bury your head under the sand about every single example I provide so I don't think there's anything else to talk about here.
I dunno man, at least in the US, you normally have to bring your A game to get something censored. I'm not sure Anita and such count as feminism A game, dude. Also Atheism Plus is more an annoyance then anything else. Very few take it seriously.

Also Australia is notorious for doing stuff like that, beyond simply sex, hell violent video games get the same treatment, beyond that though, a private company has every right not to sell something they dont like. As for UK universities? Ya, that is pretty stupid, but I'm not sure that is the kind of censorship we are talking about here. It isn't like all universities banned him, and if some want to lose out on art performers in certain universities, nobody is forced to go there. That would be like complaining a christian college banned them, imo.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Guerilla said:
Can you please start arguing like an adult? It's obvious that not everything is being censored.
Alright then, perhaps you can clarify why it was "funny that I said that", when I took the mick out of a post asking feminists to "stop censoring everything", and then proceeded to provide instances of a song and a book that had been censored in specific places as evidence. Because that reads as "you arguing that".

Guerilla said:
Anyone who has been in these places can attest to that. You seem to bury your head under the sand about every single example I provide so I don't think there's anything else to talk about here.
Ah yes, the personal attack. So far we've had the anecdotal evidence, the sweeping generalizations, the embrace of hyperbole as long as it supports one's existing position, and now we've moved on to the personal attack. What is the...what are they called...social justice whatsits...what is it that they're meant to be doing that's so problematic again? Wasn't it a lot of anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, hyperbole and personal attacks?

I can see why you would find that very troubling.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Alright then, perhaps you can clarify why it was "funny that I said that", when I took the mick out of a post asking feminists to "stop censoring everything", and then proceeded to provide instances of a song and a book that had been censored in specific places as evidence. Because that reads as "you arguing that".
You made a sarcastic post basically denying that feminism likes censorship. I ignored the EVERYTHING part since it was obviously sarcastic and provided you with examples of feminism's cozy relationship with censorship. OBVIOUSLY when the post is sarcastic people don't reply to the sarcasm literally but to what is being implied. I can't believe I have to explain these things to you.

Ah yes, the personal attack. So far we've had the anecdotal evidence, the sweeping generalizations, the embrace of hyperbole as long as it supports one's existing position, and now we've moved on to the personal attack. What is the...what are they called...social justice whatsits...what is it that they're meant to be doing that's so problematic again? Wasn't it a lot of anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, hyperbole and personal attacks?

I can see why you would find that very troubling.
You're the one making one angry post after another and I'm the one making personal attacks? Saying that you purposely dismiss my examples is NOT a personal attack. On the other hand your hostile posting style kind of is but I really wouldn't have mentioned it if you weren't playing the victim card.

Anyway, it's funny how you deny all this when just a few posts ago a feminist was asking for more censorship in this forum:

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.
Yeah, I know, more anecdotal evidence, it's all a big coincidence.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Guerilla said:
You made a sarcastic post basically denying that feminism likes censorship.
I made a sarcastic post making fun of the use of the term "censoring everything". Go back and read the post you quoted. I didn't say anything about "feminists" at all.

Guerilla said:
I ignored the EVERYTHING part since it was obviously sarcastic...
Except you didn't. You carried on debating it through two replies before throwing a strop and becoming openly confrontational/accusatory when I didn't immediately endorse the tone or content of your rebuttals.

Guerilla said:
You're the one making one angry post after another and I'm the one making personal attacks?
I'm making angry posts?

And yes, "head in the sand" and "can you please start arguing like an adult" are attacks. You're welcome to continue attacking me...it doesn't bother me in the slightest...I just find it...you know...kind of telling.

Guerilla said:
Saying that you purposely dismiss my examples is NOT a personal attack.
Oh? Do tell. What's my "purpose".

Guerilla said:
On the other hand your hostile posting style kind of is but I really wouldn't have mentioned it if you weren't playing the victim card.
Ah, another personal attack. You are consistent, I'll give you that.

Guerilla said:
Anyway, it's funny how you deny all this...
What did I deny, exactly? Other than mocking the assertion that "everything is censored", calling anecdotal evidence anecdotal, and posting out how very, very much your style of discourse exactly mirrors the very thing you purport to oppose?
 

thundra

New member
Aug 19, 2014
97
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Guerilla said:
You made a sarcastic post basically denying that feminism likes censorship.
I made a sarcastic post making fun of the use of the term "censoring everything". Go back and read the post you quoted. I didn't say anything about "feminists" at all.

Guerilla said:
I ignored the EVERYTHING part since it was obviously sarcastic...
Except you didn't. You carried on debating it through two replies before throwing a strop and becoming openly confrontational/accusatory when I didn't immediately endorse the tone or content of your rebuttals.

Guerilla said:
You're the one making one angry post after another and I'm the one making personal attacks?
I'm making angry posts?

And yes, "head in the sand" and "can you please start arguing like an adult" are attacks. You're welcome to continue attacking me...it doesn't bother me in the slightest...I just find...you know...kind of telling.

Guerilla said:
Saying that you purposely dismiss my examples is NOT a personal attack.
Oh? Do tell. What's my "purpose".

Guerilla said:
On the other hand your hostile posting style kind of is but I really wouldn't have mentioned it if you weren't playing the victim card.
Ah, another personal attack. You are consistent, I'll give you that.

Guerilla said:
Anyway, it's funny how you deny all this...
What did I deny, exactly? Other than mocking the assertion that "everything is censored", calling anecdotal evidence anecdotal, and posting out how very, very much your style of discourse exactly mirrors the very thing you purport to oppose?
Don't bother with him he is full of himself you are just screaming at the wall at this point.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
thundra said:
Don't bother with him he is full of himself you are just screaming at the wall at this point.
You can't tell me what to do! You're not my Mom!

Also I'm at work and it's super boring.

PS - Also, "screaming"? Do these posts actually read as angry? I'm not angry. When I'm angry it's usually pretty evident. You'll see much more gratuitous employment of the word "fuck", for instance.
 

thundra

New member
Aug 19, 2014
97
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
thundra said:
Don't bother with him he is full of himself you are just screaming at the wall at this point.
You can't tell me what to do! You're not my Mom!

Also I'm at work and it's super boring.

PS - Also, "screaming"? Do these posts actually read as angry? I'm not angry. When I'm angry it's usually pretty evident. You'll see much more gratuitous employment of the word "fuck", for instance.
Then have fun sweatheart. Remember to play nice.

Ps. Screaming at the wall just means that if you actually were screaming at the wall it won't change. It's still the wall
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
thundra said:
Then have fun sweatheart. Remember to play nice.
I'm ALWAYS nice. If there was a town called Niceton in the country of Niceonia, they would have a statue of me in central square.
 

thundra

New member
Aug 19, 2014
97
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
thundra said:
Then have fun sweatheart. Remember to play nice.
I'm ALWAYS nice. If there was a town called Niceton in the country of Niceonia, they would have a statue of me in central square.
Of course. You would be a president even, or founding father even
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
R0guy said:
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".
I think that just goes to illustrate what's inside your head, not what any of the saner voices are putting forth.

One of the things she harps on is the lazy writing which keeps throwing out the same handful of scenarios over and over and over and over and over again. There's barely an attempt to defend many of her examples because, well, they're not terribly interesting. Gamers have largely been bored with Mario for a couple of console generations now and I don't think I've seen anyone put forth the idea that we need more Damsel In Distress games because the concept is just so damn great.

Two of my favorite games have barely been mentioned in her videos despite having some of the most juvenile content imaginable. Those games being Saints Row and Borderlands. Saints Row got represented for its early portrayal of women (which the game devs deliberately moved away from long before these videos) and Borderlands got dinged for a mission where you had to kill a woman to save her (and the writer of said scene publicly kicked himself over it). These are two extremely male games, which seized the opportunity to be more inclusive without losing any of its edge.

I'd also like to point to the comic book Preacher, which was once described by its author, Garth Ennis, as having more female friends than it probably deserved, but this was largely due to Mr. Ennis being very aware of the sort of cheap tricks writers often use to garner cheap drama and tried to use those tricks as little as possible. At one point he found himself abusing one of his female characters two stories in a row and made a point not to go there again for a good long time. Oh, yeah, this was also one of those most critically acclaimed books of its time and a pretty good seller for DC despite being one of the most sexually perverse books they had ever released.

And most recently, we have Star Trek Into Darkness and Fast & Furious 6. There's a brilliant article out there concerning how odd it is that the bro-centric Furious 6 is far more inclusive than the Starship Diversity. Into Darkness having not much to do with its female characters beyond having Uhura act like a petulant child toward Spock much of the movie, while another strips down for a completely gratuitous underwear shot. Meanwhile, Furious 6 goes much, much further in sexualizing women but because it remembers to make them fairly well-rounded characters while also sexualizing the boys in equal measure, it becomes the far more inclusive film despite being geared largely for the male audience.

So, sure, if writers are as unimaginative as you, then it'll be a bad thing; but it really only takes a handful of really well-made books/comics/films/games to point the way. Better written female characters expands the field far, far more than it limits it.
 

Guerilla

New member
Sep 7, 2014
253
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Let's keep this simple because I'm getting tired of quoting everything. First of all, you quoted an exaggeration which every normal person makes (for example if I say "stop commenting on everything" it doesn't mean that you comment on literally EVERYTHING) then you made a sarcastic post which was practically a fallacy and I replied to what is actually being discussed instead of the fallacy you created by purposely taking that post literally. Second, your post is still kind of hostile and you still make up personal attacks out of thin air but it's OK, I'm fine with it.

Anyway, so you don't actually deny that feminism likes censorship? If we take out the everything part, you're alright with everything else I said?
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Guerilla said:
Anyway, so you don't actually deny that feminism likes censorship? If we take out the everything part, you're alright with everything else I said?
Unless you know a person named Feminism Smith or something, and that person likes censorship, I don't see how you can really say "feminism" likes anything. Feminism is an ideology. Ideologies don't like or dislike anything. Individuals like and dislike things, for highly individual reasons. It is no more accurate to say "Feminism likes censorship" than "Gaming likes Misogyny".

It is also worth noting that people in general, and this board in particular, positively LOVES to conflate "criticism" with "censorship". If I say "The Big Bang Theory is brain poison and everyone involved in making it should have a long, hard think about their lives", I'm making it unequivocally apparent I think the Big Bang Theory is without redeeming quality, but I am not censoring the Big Bang Theory.

Although I probably would if I could, because seriously...fuck that show. =P
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Guerilla said:
Dastardly said:
You have some real problems handling statistics, and I simply don't have the time to teach you about how they do and don't work. The fact is, I've done my homework (not yours). You have decided to go "appeal to tradition" and what is or isn't a "gamer" for market purposes, and you've ignored the manifold influences that shape it.

The claim is that many of the AAA products are marketed squarely at men, when market research has shown women will spend just as much on games that are marketed more broadly. (After all, what makes a puzzle game like Candy Crush "pandering toward women?") Your reply is that more men are buying those AAA games.

More men buy THOSE games because they are structured around male characters, male power fantasies, and some flawed male ideas about non-male characters. It's the same reason you'd be less likely to buy a product if it advertised that its use would increase your bust size, or something else largely irrelevant to males.

You can't hang a sign on the door that says, "This part's pretty much just for dudes," and then act surprised when mostly dudes show up. Furthermore, you can't then use the fact that mostly dudes show up as a defense for the sign. It's flipping cause for effect, which is an awful sort of intellectual dishonesty.

Beyond this, you have some real problems with reading someone else's very clearly expressed ideas. You choose instead to filter it through your own assumptions about what you think they are saying. Take the words at face value:

1. Drawing a parallel between racist legislation and the current state of sexism in media is just that: DRAWING A PARALLEL. It is demonstrating how ONE ASPECT of the latter resembles ONE ASPECT of the former.

Think of it this way: If you were unfamiliar with squares, and I told you "Squares have flat sides. You're familiar with triangles, right? Well, the side of a square is a flat, straight line segment, just like the sides on a triangle. It's just there are four of them," would you be so idiotic as to say, "Oh, so you're equating squares and triangles?" For your own sake, I should hope not.

2. It is possible for two injustices to stem from the same personality flaw. Selfishness can cause a person not to share their candy, or it can cause them to steal from a neighbor's house. One is clearly a more serious infraction, but both can rightly be traced back to selfishness. This comparison can be made without arguing for a "slippery slope" (ie, that not sharing candy will lead to robbery) and without saying the two are equal. It is simply showing that both behaviors find their genesis in the same "seed," though the "trees" be of disparate sizes.

Please, really do try to read and comprehend these very simple principles. They aren't difficult. They simply require that you stop, think, and read precisely what I am saying. Not what you assume I'm saying. Not what you guess I'm saying. Not what you think what I'm saying is going to lead to me saying next. Read the words, in their exact sequence, and understand them at face value. I promise you, I say precisely what I mean to, and do not in any way require you to add to or subtract from my statements for me.
 

carnex

New member
Jan 9, 2008
828
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
It is also worth noting that people in general, and this board in particular, positively LOVES to conflate "criticism" with "censorship". If I say "The Big Bang Theory is brain poison and everyone involved in making it should have a long, hard think about their lives", I'm making it unequivocally apparent I think the Big Bang Theory is without redeeming quality, but I am not censoring the Big Bang Theory.

Although I probably would if I could, because seriously...fuck that show. =P
Let me repeat myself... again

Never underestimate power of shaming. In it's purest form social shaming is more powerfull than threat of reliving person of their freedom.

During World War I British high command used "White Feather society" to bolster numbers of their soldiers. White Feather society consisted of middle class women that would surround young men out of the uniform, insult and shame him for several minutes upon which they would put "White Feather of cowardice" somewhere on his person. This proved extremely efficient way of bullying young men into army (UK didn't have laws for conscription). Young men were willing to go to the front line rather then face such shaming again. At a time when going to the front line was considered almost equal to the death sentence. And rightfully so since WWII could not match WWI casualties among western countries and British managed to lose 32.000 army personnel in one single day (no prisoners). Number unmatched even by mass charges of Red Army in WWII!