The Big Picture: Not Okay

[SanguineSymphony]

This is common in activities/establishments/cultures that views themselves as fraternal or male dominated. The same can be seen at Gyms (Boxing and Fighting ones more often), Shooting Ranges and other places where men feel they can be "liberated". The common thought process behind the jackasses that perpetrate the behavior is simple other men agree with them because they are also men. they do it to posture/pose and generally get attention.

Crying about it in most situations only makes them feel more empowered for their own stupidity. Telling them they're not cool only gives them more of the attention their bolstering so obviously proves they crave.

I agree it is not synonymous with the Fighting Game crowd nor any particular niche genre save possibly the obvious porn sims. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the gamers that use such colorful language have the same charm and beauty as the subject you're lambasting though. So in reality there is little reason to single them out as their behavior IRL probably does that enough for them whenever they choose to slither out of their caves.

anyway TLDR?

This is probably many of the folks on this board only exposure to a supposed predominately male hobby so they're unaware of how rampant it (Harassment/misogyny) is in many others. Get more exposure... Or you know... Don't.

 

[John Funk]

This is probably the most pissed off I've ever heard movie bob sound; I don't blame him, either, as I've said the exact same thing on more than one occasion over the last few years. I remember calling some friends out on throwing the word rape around more casually than I was comfortable with and they looked at me like I grew a second head.

Seriously, nerd culture based sexism is something I would seriously like to see go away. Forever.

using the word rape to mean lose doesn't equate to sexism

No, but it does devalue the concept of rape as one of the most horrifying things a person can do to another human being, and certainly doesn't help deal with widespread rape culture.

Rape Culture 101. [http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html] Educate yourself.

A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes. This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained. Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

-1,000 points for the implication that sexual violence/aggression is something that only women suffer from. Or that society subconsciously encourages sexually aggressive males but not females.

Real life isn't so cut and dry. And there are two sides to every coin.

Reading comprehension, friend. "Encourages male sexual aggression," and "supports violence against women" are two different things. Did you read down to the part about 1 in 30 men being raped over the course of their lives and how it's considered an integral part of our criminal justice system? Pretty interesting if they're saying that only women suffer from it. However, women are OVERWHELMINGLY more vulnerable to sexual aggression, so yes, it does make sense to focus on them. "What about teh menz?" isn't always the answer.

And society does encourage sexually aggressive men and not women. Not subconsciously, either. Look up "slut-shaming."

Like any of that actually needed to be addressed.

1 asshole =/= even a small portion of people who play games. His opinion of gaming-culture, which is a nonsense phrase to begin with, means exactly the same. The only reason that douche got any attention is because he was on some shite TV show.

People like you, responding to this type of behaviour as if it's actually some sort of real issue and not a few lone nuts being retardly backwards are what give the stereotype of 'sexist gamers' credence. Because it gives the impression it's a serious enough issue for it to be addressed.

News flash......... it's not.

And BTW, 'rape' is not a sexist phrase. What is sexist is your assumption that that phrase is in someway, only demeaning to women. You didn't overtly state that, but I don't really see any reason for you to have brought it up if that wasn't your point.

"I'm raping you!" When used in the context of a competition is in no way sexually explicit. It simply means one side/person is dominating the other side/person. If you read any more into it than that, you've got hangups.

It is trivializing one of the most traumatic experiences a person can foist on another human being to a mere "LOLOL I'M WINNING." If you don't see any problem in that, then you're ignorant as hell.

I assume you mean the 'raping' part.

In that case when someone says "we're murdering you" or "I crippled your ass" (which are phrases I've heard just as much as 'raping' when playing fighting games, sports games and shooters against mates) we should reprimand them for being ignorant as hell because they trivialised murder and being crippled. Both things I'd argue are worse than rape.

It's not a trivialisation, it's got nothing to do with the actual act of rape. It just draws on the connotation of dominance that word evokes.

I really wish we didn't have to bubble wrap our words incase they bounce off the wrong person.

Again, refer to "Rape Culture 101."

 

[SanguineSymphony]

This was the best episode in a while. Pretty much everything that needs saying about nerd culture is here. Just replace 'women' with any other subject matter and its pretty much 100% interchangeable.

Although, in defense of the 'Why are we even talking about this?' argument, I don't think that necessarily means people don't want to admit that these problems exist, more just 'Why is it my responsibility to tell these assholes to grow up? Why can't I just be free to not be associated with them?'

With due respect, if you don't take responsibility, and I don't take responsibility, then no one will, and they will never change.

But they'll probably die sad and alone... So who gives a fuck?

If you're going to be a dumbass manchild chances are good eventually it will bite you in the ass. Me telling someone to stop being stupid is unlikely to have much effect. Ignoring them and allowing them to rot (assuming as a society we don't empower the behavior by associating with it much) is the easier option. And the one with most long lasting effects. Unless we're going to do something more effective then just call them assholes...

 

[Random berk]

Sexual harassment is an important part of the fighting game culture? Did this ever actually happen?

 

[lizabeth19]

Snip

Can you please not use the phrase "beta male", please. Everytime I hear it, a little bit of my hope in humanity dies a little

 

[KarlMonster]

Snip

Can you please not use the phrase "beta male", please. Everytime I hear it, a little bit of my hope in humanity dies a little

Alloflifedecays used the term [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beta+male] incorrectly.

Despite your revulsion, I will have you know that I am a Beta Male, and quite proud of it.
Kindly reserve your cringing for memes that serve no function.

Capcha thinks I'm being presumptuous: hobby-horse

 

[Aureliano]

Reasonable episode, Bob. Fairly 'first lecture in womens' studies 101' (or whatever numbering system your local university uses), but an entirely sensible set of points brought about nonetheless.

It also serves to remind me that we should take Thomas Jefferson with a grain of salt. I may not agree with a thing you say, and if it's hate speech there is no sense in which I will defend your right to abuse me or anyone else with it.

Here's hoping we get a 'fun' episode as you call them next week.

 

[thomaskattus]

Wow, the verbal gymnastics that are going on in this thread to justify shitty, sexist, neanderthal-like behaviour are nothing short of Olympic worthy.

 

[Igen]

Sadly I left my bag of torches at the vets office.

Well said Bob. These things do need to be talked about. Ignoring it wont solve anything. I was attending a convention last year that also had a BlazBlue tournament. Sadly there was only males participating in the tournament, but there was a good mix of races and I thankfully didnt hear any bigotry being spouted, just the usual chest thumping. So it was an enjoyable experience in that sense.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

Disclaimer: The first sentence or the post that follows it is not meant to be baiting. I am a professor of philosophy and this is a sincere statement of my feelings.

Some of the views expressed in this video hurt me on a deep emotional level. If it was just one man's views then I wouldn't give it much thought since mistakes happen and it's often very hard to see, admit and correct one's own mistake. However, the delusion in question seems to have spread over large portions of humanity, including some of our best and brightest (Movie Bob being an example for both), and I am starting to feel like a the last sane guy in the asylum.

The mistake I am talking about is:


Unlike saying proven objective truths (for example "Randomly attacking people on the street will not make you popular among the police officers."), expressing purely subjective opinions does not obligate other people to agree with you (for example, I believe that the answer to most of philosophical question can be found in one or more episodes of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', but I do not think that the fact Stanford didn't include that show in their curriculum makes Stanford's philosophy program inadequate.)


So far, I am sure that most of you are on board with me. However, for reasons that are entirely mysterious to me, most people believe that, if they wish it REALLY hard, their subjective opinions will MAGICALLY BECOME OBJECTIVE TRUTHS! Aalakazam!

For the betterment of the human race, I present you with a short list of things that DO NOT transmogrify your opinions into objective truths:

1. Shouting.
2. The fact that YOU really believe it to be true, despite the lack of conclusive evidence (unless you are being played by Kevin Costner).
3. The fact that you find the opposing opinion offensive does not make you right, it makes you small-minded (or else every racist, homophobe or fanatic of any kind would be a moral authority by virtue of insanity).
4. Equating the act of expressing an opinion that you disagree with or using an expression that you dislike (but which in itself is not meant as an actual threat against the life or well-being of another person) with an act of aggression does not make you extra sensitive; it makes you insane. (this seems to be stupidity du jour these days. As a method of reality check, I invite all of you 'words can hurt just as bad' people to go to find a rape victim and say to him/her: "What happened to you is terrible. It is just as bad as using 'rape' as a casual synonym for defeat.")

People do not need your permission to have or to express an opinion. If you think that they are wrong - challenge them. If you know them to be logically incorrect - prove it. If you can't but you are still bothered that they are allowed to freely speak their mind -

THEN
GROW
THE
*CENSORED FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THIS WORD EXISTS*
UP!!!

EDITED on 3.7.2012. 9.14h
5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

Mr. Psychology professor. I am aware that this was meant for the non-science crowd. However, being a scientist myself and in the interest of further enforcing the validity of your argument, please provide some references for the points you have made, otherwise you are at risk of finding your own statements fall victim to your line of logic.

I personally find your above, unsupported, statement flawed, without reinforcement, and ignorant of the possibly of collective moralities playing a part in supporting a right or wrong ideal. I am no expert but I am aware of the contention in psychology surrounding the idea of morality. I would love to give references myself but it is late and it is not my field of study so I have no grounding to make an informed search of the literature.

First of all, I am not a psychology professor, I am a philosophy professor. The only reason that I have mentioned that in my post has been to explain why I care deeply about people making the mistake that I described in my post. The validity of my objection should be judged solely on it's coherency and the quality of my reasoning. I do not believe that my academic title, by itself, makes my reasoning more or less sound. For the same reason, I see no need to make a reference to other people's work in order to strengthen my case. Non quis, sed quid. (it doesn't matter who said something, it only matters what they said)

As for collective moralities, I believe that, while it is true that many groups of people share certain moral beliefs or whole moral systems, I do not believe that an opinion, moral or otherwise, becomes more valid simply because more people believe in it. Just because something IS does not prove that it OUGHT to be (Hume's Law). The fact that many people believe in something does not prove their belief to be either correct or moral (the moral system shared by the majority of Germans during Third Reich is a commonly quoted example).

In fact, that whole "many people sharing an opinion make that opinion true, will make a nice rule 5 for my original post:

5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

My issue was less against your argument and more that your argument is unsupported. As best I am aware, even philosophy requires that positions be backed up by some 'evidence', in the case of philosophy I know it to be the opinion of other noted Philosophors.
So please find some referenecs to support your position otherwise your distinction of being a philosophy professor (in support of your position being informed) becomes only as valid as any of the other posters here.

The well informed inform, the Scientific refer.

 

[Electrogecko]

Well said Bob.

I never really understood their logic in the first place. These terms are inherent to fighting games more than they are to other genres or other professional competitions? Yea....maybe because the fighting game community tends to be full of more sadistic assholes than others. Why is it that boxers and UFC fighters can be respectful and shake hands at the end of a match, no matter how bloodied up one of them is at the others' hands?

These are the kind of things that are truly holding back our medium in the eyes of society.

 

[RJ Dalton]

And this is why I don't get involved in competitive multiplayer.

 

[blackrave]

Well said Bob.

I never really understood their logic in the first place. These terms are inherent to fighting games more than they are to other genres or other professional competitions? Yea....maybe because the fighting game community tends to be full of more sadistic assholes than others. Why is it that boxers and UFC fighters can be respectful and shake hands at the end of a match, no matter how bloodied up one of them is at the others' hands?

These are the kind of things that are truly holding back our medium in the eyes of society.

To be good at martial sports or arts you have to be able to control yourself
It is pain issue, those who cannot control themselves, looses adequacy with first received damage, and without adequate reaction to opponents actions you become easy target
Cases when professional martial athletes go nuts are either marketing tricks, or totally on purpose

You don't need any self-control to mash buttons

 

[Rijacki]

Thank you!
Well said.

 

[chadachada123]

"What about teh menz?" isn't always the answer.

So you don't think people should bring up rape against males in a discussion about rape in general? Good to know.

Like any of that actually needed to be addressed.

1 asshole =/= even a small portion of people who play games. His opinion of gaming-culture, which is a nonsense phrase to begin with, means exactly the same. The only reason that douche got any attention is because he was on some shite TV show.

People like you, responding to this type of behaviour as if it's actually some sort of real issue and not a few lone nuts being retardly backwards are what give the stereotype of 'sexist gamers' credence. Because it gives the impression it's a serious enough issue for it to be addressed.

News flash......... it's not.

And BTW, 'rape' is not a sexist phrase. What is sexist is your assumption that that phrase is in someway, only demeaning to women. You didn't overtly state that, but I don't really see any reason for you to have brought it up if that wasn't your point.

"I'm raping you!" When used in the context of a competition is in no way sexually explicit. It simply means one side/person is dominating the other side/person. If you read any more into it than that, you've got hangups.

It is trivializing one of the most traumatic experiences a person can foist on another human being to a mere "LOLOL I'M WINNING." If you don't see any problem in that, then you're ignorant as hell.

I assume you mean the 'raping' part.

In that case when someone says "we're murdering you" or "I crippled your ass" (which are phrases I've heard just as much as 'raping' when playing fighting games, sports games and shooters against mates) we should reprimand them for being ignorant as hell because they trivialised murder and being crippled. Both things I'd argue are worse than rape.

It's not a trivialisation, it's got nothing to do with the actual act of rape. It just draws on the connotation of dominance that word evokes.

I really wish we didn't have to bubble wrap our words incase they bounce off the wrong person.

Again, refer to "Rape Culture 101."

Nothing in that article refers to how the use of rape in trash talk trivializes it.

How often have you heard "my parents are going to murder me because of my bad grades". Is murder trivialized? No. Far from it.

You can talk about how it makes people uncomfortable and is immature and you'd be right but the idea that it trivializes rape is debatable.

Although I'm only annecdotal, I'm a good example of what you're saying. I use abhorrent language all of the time for a variety of reasons, with the key among all of them being that, unless I intend to offend, I am not trivializing anything by using intense language.

I am one of the most anti-rape people that I know, and freely admit that I would murder or maim someone that raped or molested (forcibly) a family member or friend. It is one of the most serious things to me, and I pay a lot of attention to news related to the law and how they relate to women.

On the other hand, I also pay a lot of attention to this news to watch for cases where men are punished by insane women who lie about being molested, because I'm a male and want to watch out, you know.

Unrelated note, are you the same Father Time from GamePolitics? If so, I totally remember you! I had this username, in the unlikely event that you remember some of my posts.

 

[chadachada123]

Double post. Damn internet.

 

[Shjade]

because when people are in direct competition of a violent nature, the important thing is being polite.

Playing a game, even a game that depicts violence, isn't a violent competition. Guys talking serious shit to one another in the middle of, say, a boxing match, or on the line in football, or something like that - sure, yeah, pretty much anything goes. 'Cause I'm sure as hell not going to try to get between them and ask them to speak nicely to each other.

Playing a videogame is a completely different situation. It's not much to ask people to behave in a more civil fashion there. Will it happen? Probably not.

I can see you've never played a competitive fighting game.

Have I ever played a fighting game in a tournament? No. (Edit: Actually, I take it back: I did play in a Mortal Kombat back when I was, oh, maybe 10 or so. As you might imagine, racial epithets were all the rage amongst the middle school crowd participating in that particular event with our parents supervising. That totally counts, right?)

Have I dominated a Guilty Gear XX Accent Core machine at the arcade for a two hour stretch? Yes. I've also watched groups going back and forth on Capcom vs. SNK, MVC 2, Melty Blood, SF3 3rd Strike, Soul Calibur 2 and 3, a couple other flavors of Guilty Gear XX, some King of Fighters game (way too many editions of that series for me to tell them apart since I don't play it), and so on and so on. Sometimes these gatherings get hectic. Most of the time it was pretty laid back with mostly "light" trash talk and very little on the racial/"heavy" side of things.

In case you're not getting the point: I can see you have no idea what you're talking about but are willing to make observations out of ignorance.

It's only violent if you make it violent. Like I said a couple pages ago, it's an individual thing: some folks are more crude, others aren't. It isn't inherent to the games.

 

[mandalorian2298]

Disclaimer: The first sentence or the post that follows it is not meant to be baiting. I am a professor of philosophy and this is a sincere statement of my feelings.

Some of the views expressed in this video hurt me on a deep emotional level. If it was just one man's views then I wouldn't give it much thought since mistakes happen and it's often very hard to see, admit and correct one's own mistake. However, the delusion in question seems to have spread over large portions of humanity, including some of our best and brightest (Movie Bob being an example for both), and I am starting to feel like a the last sane guy in the asylum.

The mistake I am talking about is:


Unlike saying proven objective truths (for example "Randomly attacking people on the street will not make you popular among the police officers."), expressing purely subjective opinions does not obligate other people to agree with you (for example, I believe that the answer to most of philosophical question can be found in one or more episodes of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', but I do not think that the fact Stanford didn't include that show in their curriculum makes Stanford's philosophy program inadequate.)


So far, I am sure that most of you are on board with me. However, for reasons that are entirely mysterious to me, most people believe that, if they wish it REALLY hard, their subjective opinions will MAGICALLY BECOME OBJECTIVE TRUTHS! Aalakazam!

For the betterment of the human race, I present you with a short list of things that DO NOT transmogrify your opinions into objective truths:

1. Shouting.
2. The fact that YOU really believe it to be true, despite the lack of conclusive evidence (unless you are being played by Kevin Costner).
3. The fact that you find the opposing opinion offensive does not make you right, it makes you small-minded (or else every racist, homophobe or fanatic of any kind would be a moral authority by virtue of insanity).
4. Equating the act of expressing an opinion that you disagree with or using an expression that you dislike (but which in itself is not meant as an actual threat against the life or well-being of another person) with an act of aggression does not make you extra sensitive; it makes you insane. (this seems to be stupidity du jour these days. As a method of reality check, I invite all of you 'words can hurt just as bad' people to go to find a rape victim and say to him/her: "What happened to you is terrible. It is just as bad as using 'rape' as a casual synonym for defeat.")

People do not need your permission to have or to express an opinion. If you think that they are wrong - challenge them. If you know them to be logically incorrect - prove it. If you can't but you are still bothered that they are allowed to freely speak their mind -

THEN
GROW
THE
*CENSORED FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THIS WORD EXISTS*
UP!!!

EDITED on 3.7.2012. 9.14h
5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

Mr. Psychology professor. I am aware that this was meant for the non-science crowd. However, being a scientist myself and in the interest of further enforcing the validity of your argument, please provide some references for the points you have made, otherwise you are at risk of finding your own statements fall victim to your line of logic.

I personally find your above, unsupported, statement flawed, without reinforcement, and ignorant of the possibly of collective moralities playing a part in supporting a right or wrong ideal. I am no expert but I am aware of the contention in psychology surrounding the idea of morality. I would love to give references myself but it is late and it is not my field of study so I have no grounding to make an informed search of the literature.

First of all, I am not a psychology professor, I am a philosophy professor. The only reason that I have mentioned that in my post has been to explain why I care deeply about people making the mistake that I described in my post. The validity of my objection should be judged solely on it's coherency and the quality of my reasoning. I do not believe that my academic title, by itself, makes my reasoning more or less sound. For the same reason, I see no need to make a reference to other people's work in order to strengthen my case. Non quis, sed quid. (it doesn't matter who said something, it only matters what they said)

As for collective moralities, I believe that, while it is true that many groups of people share certain moral beliefs or whole moral systems, I do not believe that an opinion, moral or otherwise, becomes more valid simply because more people believe in it. Just because something IS does not prove that it OUGHT to be (Hume's Law). The fact that many people believe in something does not prove their belief to be either correct or moral (the moral system shared by the majority of Germans during Third Reich is a commonly quoted example).

In fact, that whole "many people sharing an opinion make that opinion true, will make a nice rule 5 for my original post:

5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

My issue was less against your argument and more that your argument is unsupported. As best I am aware, even philosophy requires that positions be backed up by some 'evidence', in the case of philosophy I know it to be the opinion of other noted Philosophers.
So please find some references to support your position otherwise your distinction of being a philosophy professor (in support of your position being informed) becomes only as valid as any of the other posters here.

The well informed inform, the Scientific refer.

This is because you do not understand what 'evidence' means. Which would be excusable were it not for the fact that, despite your ignorance of this you are trying to teach me what evidence means. Since you have not even bothered to wiki 'evidence' or 'proof', I most certainly will not do that work for you. I will, however, demonstrate why your opinion (that a 'proper' philosopher can not make an argument without supporting it with a quote of other 'notable' philosopher saying the same thing) is wrong. This is called reductio ad absurdum (again google it or wiki it)


Let us suppose that it is true that every 'proper argument' in philosophy must be supported by quoting a 'notable philosopher'.

For example, let's say that I support argument A, by quoting Kant who also said wrote that A is true. However, if we are considering Kant to be a 'notable philosopher' and are quoting him as such, then we are surely not quoting some trivial thing he said but a 'proper argument'. Then, ex hypothesi, Kant himself must have had quoted some notable philosopher before him, say Plato, who in turn quoted Socrates. But, alas, Socrates quoted no one, because he is the first philosopher to have come up with argument A. This means that A was not a 'proper argument' when Socrates said it, which means that any argument based on A is also not a 'proper argument'.

In other words if there are such people as philosophers (and supposing that human race does not exist eternally , but that it had a beginning) there must have existed one among them who has been the first philosopher. However, since you claim that it is impossible to be a philosopher without quoting philosophers who came before you, there couldn't have been a first philosopher. Which means that there are no such thing as philosophers.

Or you are simply wrong about your hypothesis.

 

[hooksashands]

The sexist witch hunt continues on the Escapist forums.

It seems like every day is a bad day to be a white hetero male. Because at any given time I am considered a misogynist, a rape apologist, a homophobe or all three--by default viewpoint.

 

[Icehearted]

...and yet not a word about misandry. Oh, that's right, it's only awful when it's happening to women. Way to throw more gas on the fire by stating the obvious as unevenly as possible, pretty much like anyone else lamenting the woes of oppressed women these days.

I don't disagree with you, Bob, but another "save the women, damn the men" speech changes what, exactly?

Did you enjoy knocking down that strawman? It seemed therapeutic.

With this video, and these persistent women in gaming discussions (and that panel with Susan Arendt and others), I don't see the straw man, I see persistent lambasting of anyone that isn't a woman or isn't a man that doesn't side with women on this issue as vehemently as possible. Preemptively suggesting that people of an opposing or even a possibly slightly dissimilar viewpoint will become ugly and hostile (I assume the images of angry mobs with pitchforks served as a visual demonstration to that "fact") doesn't exactly jibe with the notion that any disagreement with the points he'd chosen to make can be even a little rational either.