OK, I've done some poking around and this Jim guy is NOT the sort of person I want representing me and my preferred pastime on the Internet. These tweets http://www.bettween.com/jimsterling/daphaknee/desc
Are evidence enough for me to petition the Escapist to take him off the site. I don't think the Escapist is doing itself any favors by associating themselves with him: I think it is more likely the opposite. He is representative of everything that is wrong with gaming culture today and he should NOT be given a platform like the Escapist to spread his message.
NO. Jim does not speak for me. He's an asshole. He's nonconstructive. He's unfortunate. He embodies a plethora of negative gaming stereotypes.
No, you know what? I might read him. I hate downing on a guy who's clearly just starting out, just trying to find his niche, but this just isn't it. What he's doing makes us as a community, you as a website, and himself as a human being LOOK BAD.
Pull the fucking show, repurpose as a column, I'll give him another shot. But THIS? Jimmy, buddy, give up with this. This isn't going to catch on. Try something ELSE.
I can't even tell if you have a valid and intellectual opinion because you can't be heard over yourself. Some people aren't cut out for this. I'm sorry.
So much hate... so many sticks up so many asses....
I was actually surprised Jim wasn't censored or made to be less vulgar. At least after what happened to the first few movie bob videos, I thought the Escapist would shutdown any vulgarity(audio and visual) that wasn't Yahtzee or the occasional LRR show. It just turns off so many people.
Now, I like the show. I don't mind the cursing or other vulgar bits. I just don't really get the people who are complaining about this show not covering new topics. I don't think any show on the escapist has recently covered a topic that wasn't already beaten into the ground. All of gaming's issues are fairly old(internet time). And seriously, how many times do we get "half naked dudes" as an answer to sexism rather than the obligatory and neutered response "We shouldn't objectify women." I don't think either sex minds being thought of as sexy. As long as the character isn't vapid, who cares how much clothing is being worn?
Jim's style is to be half tongue in cheek, half making a point. Which doesn't seem to resonate with a lot of people here. But I think it's mostly the cursing/penises that skew everyone's opinions, not necessarily the actual content. Keep the show, I like it... might want to slap a NSFW warning on it, though.
... He made plenty of intelligent points. Chicks in bikinis is not a bad thing because men like to look at titties. But have more games designed to turn women on as well. How do you not get this? ...
You know what? You and Rotting are right. I was just blinded by my support of a developer's right to depict titties. If this is the extent of his capabilities, I'm more than qualified to work for this site. I want to watch people who are better at arguing than I am. Because there's nothing in this video that I wouldn't have thought to say myself. And nothing that particularly made me laugh. Not saying that Jim should be sacked. But just that he should try to expand a bit. If I were to defend boobage, I'd go into a long explanation about free speech and the subjectivity of "art".
I'm going to disagree with your objection to his sunglasses though. I see nothing wrong with hiding your face but still talking with it. It's a way of addressing your audience more directly without having to reveal yourself. Though on the other hand, I'm not sure if he's aiming for anonymity or it's just a style preference.
I like this guy, he's smart and pretty funny. But what i cant understand is why he's allowed to put dicks all over his videos while we get banned or put on probation for a snide comment or 2.
What part of "The key words banned by online shop Dejipare include things like torture, bondage, loli and rape. Regular Christian sex will still be perfectly acceptable, but it seems that the whole underage rape thing that has been seen in many an ero title will no longer be tolerated ... Thanks a lot, RapeLay. This is why we can't have nice things!" is defensible?
If it were anyone else, I would say it isn't defensible, obviously. But knowing Jim, and seeing how exaggerated that quote is, there's no way in hell I think he's serious. Anywhere else, such a comment would be called satire. Do I think that article was funny or "satirical"? No. But do I think it was sexist? No.
I don't like Jim and agree with the majority for the most part. I just don't think he's sexist and I believe throwing around the word is a disservice to everyone. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
... He made plenty of intelligent points. Chicks in bikinis is not a bad thing because men like to look at titties. But have more games designed to turn women on as well. How do you not get this? ...
You know what? You and Rotting are right. I was just blinded by my support of a developer's right to depict titties. If this is the extent of his capabilities, I'm more than qualified to work for this site. I want to watch people who are better at arguing than I am. Because there's nothing in this video that I wouldn't have thought to say myself. And nothing that particularly made me laugh. Not saying that Jim should be sacked. But just that he should try to expand a bit. If I were to defend boobage, I'd go into a long explanation about free speech and subjectivity.
I'm going to disagree with your objection to his sunglasses though. I see nothing wrong with hiding your face but still talking with it. It's a way of addressing your audience more directly without having to reveal yourself. Though on the other hand, I'm not sure if he's aiming for anonymity or it's just a style preference.
His content (although inane, backwards, outdated and flamebait) is not the entire problem. Yes, near-on anyone could replace him. Yes he is ill-informed and has nothing to say of any relevance that someone has already said more intelligently and on a whole better. Yes he is offensive to many. These things aren't the most damning issue. No. The problem with Jim is that he is a prick. A sexist prick. A sexist prick who describes women as "3D porn". A sexist prick who laments his inability to any longer purchase video games that allow one to rape small children.
This guy is still around? I thought he was booted off or just left quietly last week. Damn it. I'll go check it out. Maybe he listened to the criticism and deserves another-
*watches vid* HE HASN'T CHANGED SHIT!! It's still thoughtless, nearly-to-totally witless ranting stating the bloody obvious over and over! I thought he'd change his act up a bit, but nooo~
_Another waste of my time. Best bet, Escapist obviously won't get rid of him so let's all just not click on his vids anymore. Eventually the numbers will ad up and he'll leave.
Unless people click on his vids more than once. Then I guess we're stuck with him. Just ignore the big elephant in the room (and by elephant I mean the sudden drop in quality between the great shows and comics and articles here...and Jim).
Least we'll always have Extra Credits and Yahtzee. *breathes sigh of relief and goes back to watching the AAA shows this site has to offer*
Belated said:
... He made plenty of intelligent points. Chicks in bikinis is not a bad thing because men like to look at titties. But have more games designed to turn women on as well. How do you not get this? ...
God of War games
James Bond games
Every fantasy game with a hero who can get his shirt off
Every recent Final Fantasy game Every fighting game on the market
Mortal Kombat,
Street Fighter,
Tekken,
King of Fighters,
Blaz Blue,
Soul Calibur, etc.
Mass Effect
Dragon Age
Persona 4
Oh, and lesbians. Yeah, there's plenty of gay and bisexual women who fall for big titty pandering.
I won't continue because we'll be here all day. Er, night. There's plenty of pandering to women in videogames. PLENTY. Women get turned on like men, you know. Guy's not naked, or shirtless, but he's a badass, handsome, and has a tight ass. That description (aside from "not shirtless") fits just about every male character in videogaming.
The real issue with sexism in gaming isn't the friggin outfits or pandering. It's that as an industry we often fail at making truly admirable and respectable female protagonists (especially) and characters. There will always be pandering, but that doesn't mean there needs to be sexism. By writing better female characters we can evolve the idea of games and gamers alike. What I believe is that the answer isn't to one-up the other sex's fap material, it's to make more respectable characters to match the pandering: both for men and women.
...By the way, I realized this to it's fullest from Extra Credits. That show rocks.
EDIT: Belated, if you were being sarcastic or if you changed your idea in your original post I apologize for quoting you through another person's quote of you. I also don't mean to offend you since, from what I read, your point is Jim's point and I wanted to explain why I saw it as wrong.
EDIT 2: Yeah, I know Jim is joking. I also note that the guy didn't give a real answer to sexism in videogaming. Not. One. So, taking his joke as the only "solution" he gives, I made my rebuttal to his stupid.
I like this guy, he's smart and pretty funny. But what i cant understand is why he's allowed to put dicks all over his videos while we get banned or put on probation for a snide comment or 2.
One, the above quote is very true, save for liking the guy, I hate him.
Two. I refused to watch this video ,and any subsequent Jimquistion videos, because I knew from the first video that I would end up watching poorly drawn penises while being cussed at. Remove Jimquistion from your video line up, Escapist.
If you truly feel that what your site needs for its featured content is a troll shouting shallow, poorly-reasoned arguments interspersed with gratuitous and unfunny obscenities, the Internet abounds with perfectly qualified candidates entirely willing to perform such work for free.
What part of "The key words banned by online shop Dejipare include things like torture, bondage, loli and rape. Regular Christian sex will still be perfectly acceptable, but it seems that the whole underage rape thing that has been seen in many an ero title will no longer be tolerated ... Thanks a lot, RapeLay. This is why we can't have nice things!" is defensible?
What part of "The key words banned by online shop Dejipare include things like torture, bondage, loli and rape. Regular Christian sex will still be perfectly acceptable, but it seems that the whole underage rape thing that has been seen in many an ero title will no longer be tolerated ... Thanks a lot, RapeLay. This is why we can't have nice things!" is defensible?
If it were anyone else, I would say it isn't defensible, obviously. But knowing Jim, and seeing how exaggerated that quote is, there's no way in hell I think he's serious. Anywhere else, such a comment would be called satire. Do I think that article was funny or "satirical"? No. But do I think it was sexist? No.
I don't like Jim and agree with the majority for the most part. I just don't think he's sexist and I believe throwing around the word is a disservice to everyone. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
It's not okay to throw around insults, call people cunts, continually refer to women as sex objects, wish for child raping video games, or to troll for a living. It doesn't matter how much of a joke it is. It isn't funny. It isn't clever. It is indefensible.
... He made plenty of intelligent points. Chicks in bikinis is not a bad thing because men like to look at titties. But have more games designed to turn women on as well. How do you not get this? ...
You know what? You and Rotting are right. I was just blinded by my support of a developer's right to depict titties. If this is the extent of his capabilities, I'm more than qualified to work for this site. I want to watch people who are better at arguing than I am. Because there's nothing in this video that I wouldn't have thought to say myself. And nothing that particularly made me laugh. Not saying that Jim should be sacked. But just that he should try to expand a bit. If I were to defend boobage, I'd go into a long explanation about free speech and subjectivity.
I'm going to disagree with your objection to his sunglasses though. I see nothing wrong with hiding your face but still talking with it. It's a way of addressing your audience more directly without having to reveal yourself. Though on the other hand, I'm not sure if he's aiming for anonymity or it's just a style preference.
His content (although inane, backwards, outdated and flamebait) is not the entire problem. Yes, near-on anyone could replace him. Yes he is ill-informed and has nothing to say of any relevance that someone has already said more intelligently and on a whole better. Yes he is offensive to many. These things aren't the most damning issue. No. The problem with Jim is that he is a prick. A sexist prick. A sexist prick who describes women as "3D porn". A sexist prick who laments his inability to any longer purchase video games that allow one to rape small children.
Such video games actually existed? Wait, are you talking about the ones done in anime style? Actually, I agree with that. Although it's highly objectionable and many people find it disturbing, it's still art and somebody else's free speech. And you cannot ban something just because you disagree with it, or just because you think it's harmful. What, so a ban is only censorship when it's something you like?
Even if the creator himself is the only one left on this earth who agrees with the content of his games, he should still be allowed to make them. This is the true nature of free speech. It means ALL speech. You should be allowed to depict ANYTHING, as long as you're not in DIRECT violation of another person's rights. If the game doesn't use real children, it should be legal. Yes, it's filthy and disturbing. But it shouldn't land the developer jail time. We are no wiser about right and wrong than the developer is. Art is subjective, so everybody's subjective opinion of art should be allowed.
I agree with him wholheartedly.
Still, he needs a better style of presentation. His swearing and his sunglasses don't make him appear tongue-in-cheek, but more like something along the lines of "trying too hard".
... He made plenty of intelligent points. Chicks in bikinis is not a bad thing because men like to look at titties. But have more games designed to turn women on as well. How do you not get this? ...
You know what? You and Rotting are right. I was just blinded by my support of a developer's right to depict titties. If this is the extent of his capabilities, I'm more than qualified to work for this site. I want to watch people who are better at arguing than I am. Because there's nothing in this video that I wouldn't have thought to say myself. And nothing that particularly made me laugh. Not saying that Jim should be sacked. But just that he should try to expand a bit. If I were to defend boobage, I'd go into a long explanation about free speech and subjectivity.
I'm going to disagree with your objection to his sunglasses though. I see nothing wrong with hiding your face but still talking with it. It's a way of addressing your audience more directly without having to reveal yourself. Though on the other hand, I'm not sure if he's aiming for anonymity or it's just a style preference.
His content (although inane, backwards, outdated and flamebait) is not the entire problem. Yes, near-on anyone could replace him. Yes he is ill-informed and has nothing to say of any relevance that someone has already said more intelligently and on a whole better. Yes he is offensive to many. These things aren't the most damning issue. No. The problem with Jim is that he is a prick. A sexist prick. A sexist prick who describes women as "3D porn". A sexist prick who laments his inability to any longer purchase video games that allow one to rape small children.
Such video games actually existed? Wait, are you talking about the ones done in anime style? Actually, I agree with that. Although it's highly objectionable and many people find it disturbing, it's still art and somebody else's free speech. And you cannot ban something just because you disagree with it, or just because you think it's harmful. What, so a ban is only censorship when it's something you like?
Even if the creator himself is the only one left on this earth who agrees with the content of his games, he should still be allowed to make them. This is the true nature of free speech. It means ALL speech. You should be allowed to depict ANYTHING, as long as you're not in DIRECT violation of another person's rights. If the game doesn't use real children, it should be legal. Yes, it's filthy and disturbing. But it shouldn't land the developer jail time. We are no wiser about right and wrong than the developer is. Art is subjective, so everybody's subjective opinion of art should be allowed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
