By who, precisely? Anita? You started the post talking about how Anita isn't critical and the like (though I'd like to see an argument in which she isn't), so is it her? Someone else?PerfectDeath said:
The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Except that the only performance evaluation the game gives you tells you that doing exactly that is the wrong way to play the game. Just because a person can choose to fuck around in a game does not mean that they are *meant* to fuck around.bobdole1979 said:
Not giving you a "game over" screen for screwing around is not a form of encouragement and not a way to imply intent (which is what the line "players are meant to" does). Her statement is factually false, simple as that.
This, so very much.WhiteNachos said:
Ignoring this plain fact - the fact that just because you can do something in a game, doesn't mean that that's the point of the game - means that you completely miss the point of why Anita's Hitman argument is so flawed.
Heck, you don't even need to use video games to show why this is true.
Take a ballpoint pen. You can write with it. You can also stab people in the eyes with it. Guess which of the two are the intended use of the product?
Now tell me: If you insist that pens are exclusively made for eye-stabbing, wouldn't that make you sound kinda crazy? Paranoid?
Insisting that a game where you can (but by absolutely no means have to) kill innocent bystanders is all about that, is just so damn wrong.
So lets try again:
Hitman, a game about sneaking around and not being seen while assassinating various virtual targets... or a game about strangling hookers and toying around with their corpses. Which of these purposes does it sound more likely that the game was aimed towards?
Which of these to, did everything from marketing to legal departments at the devs and publishers involved in this game, sign off on being made?
So, Anita makes statements that video games make you internalize misogyny even if you think it does not and she shows no credible source to support this. Generally those who want to use her as a source to support their belief.Zachary Amaranth said:
Then, Anita retweets and agrees with these articles, she also finds articles and videos that make similar claims as herself as further reinforcement for what she has said.
That is not how you make a critical discussion. If you find a group of people who all believe the world is flat and all agree with each other, that does not mean the world is flat.
pretty clearly its the second one.webkilla said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVElJbjDqOs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVElJbjDqOsiTomes said:
except as people defending it have pointed out THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. The game designers had to program the game so this was all possible. They had to program the strippers AI so they cower in fear instead of fighting back or running away. The only reason they would be designed in such a way is as she said as to give the players pleasure in killing them. The strippers will even stand still and not notice that you have killed the girl standing right next to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPqTm3KgABM
Wonderful video, Bob. I actually felt the need to register an account finally to tell you how much I enjoyed it.
I find it interesting how people point to Thompson and go, "he said there's a correlation between violence and video games, and he was wrong, therefor Anita Sarkeesian is wrong about the correlation between video games and misogyny." So weird.
Don't people understand that murder is something socially frowned upon, easier to prove than misogyny, illegal? That sexism, on the other hand, is much easier to do, much more subtle, much harder to prove, much more accepted socially? Don't they get that a game can have you mow down old ladies and it's still never going to be legal to mow down old ladies but that in a world where subtle sexism still leads to disparity in gender violence and a wage gap that games just MIGHT, like movies and other forms of art, be contributing to the larger cultural zeitgeist? And maybe not always in positive ways?
Of course, Bob, I'm in my thirties, started playing games on the Apple IIe, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend I've always behaved my best on the internet. Twenty-plus years means that maybe I was kind of an asshole on 4chan back when we didn't talk about 4chan. It makes me hopeful that some of the younger, more vocal members of this weird mob may one day change their minds about the value of critical analysis to art. Some members of the community are so young that it's possible they just don't know what critical analysis is, after all. They see it as an attack on games rather than a win for games. Feminist criticism of games is a good thing. It means games matter as much as movies, books, art, and music. It means they're more than just games. They're art.
Anyway, great video. What a weird trip down memory lane. I'd forgotten about Thompson's document "JANET RENO TOTAL 100% LEGAL LESBIAN SIGN HERE" and I'd forgotten he was from Florida. (You'd think I could have guessed that last part.) Keep talking about the things that matter. You're not the only gamer out there who cares about social equality, no matter what narrative some comments put forward.
I find it interesting how people point to Thompson and go, "he said there's a correlation between violence and video games, and he was wrong, therefor Anita Sarkeesian is wrong about the correlation between video games and misogyny." So weird.
Don't people understand that murder is something socially frowned upon, easier to prove than misogyny, illegal? That sexism, on the other hand, is much easier to do, much more subtle, much harder to prove, much more accepted socially? Don't they get that a game can have you mow down old ladies and it's still never going to be legal to mow down old ladies but that in a world where subtle sexism still leads to disparity in gender violence and a wage gap that games just MIGHT, like movies and other forms of art, be contributing to the larger cultural zeitgeist? And maybe not always in positive ways?
Of course, Bob, I'm in my thirties, started playing games on the Apple IIe, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend I've always behaved my best on the internet. Twenty-plus years means that maybe I was kind of an asshole on 4chan back when we didn't talk about 4chan. It makes me hopeful that some of the younger, more vocal members of this weird mob may one day change their minds about the value of critical analysis to art. Some members of the community are so young that it's possible they just don't know what critical analysis is, after all. They see it as an attack on games rather than a win for games. Feminist criticism of games is a good thing. It means games matter as much as movies, books, art, and music. It means they're more than just games. They're art.
Anyway, great video. What a weird trip down memory lane. I'd forgotten about Thompson's document "JANET RENO TOTAL 100% LEGAL LESBIAN SIGN HERE" and I'd forgotten he was from Florida. (You'd think I could have guessed that last part.) Keep talking about the things that matter. You're not the only gamer out there who cares about social equality, no matter what narrative some comments put forward.
But we aren't a hate mob.crimsonshrouds said:
Like I said, we age those threads.
We in the trenches say little about them and to do so is to have your thread sage bombed.
Then again it's good to remember that while 8chan has some of the nicest members from 4chan I have ever met. (I loved my terrain thread in /tg/, we turned whining into something constructive, also nobody screaming sexism showed up. Yes people doing that is a problem even on a traditional game board on 4chan.)
(also there's no quest threads, generals or much Cyoa (one thread). that's the best part.)
h8chan is still a image board from 4chan, we are still more rude then the majority of people you've met but I would never say hate mob.
For that to be true we'd have to band together to harass people which we don't do, we actively police those sorts of activity, heck there's a sub movement dedicated to that.
Now for the Stream, I suppose that's the tone they took, They like to talk about Tumblr and those sorts of things but I watched a bit further a didn't find much more about them.
Even then, Anita Cemented herself as a opposing force when that threat came in and she been used as a human shield by the opposition like Zoe and Wu since, the only real criticism of the GG i find is along the lines of hate group or misogynistic/racist/ewwwstraightwhitemen and that's just plan wrong or lol conspiracy. most importantly I've gone looking the criticism here any example i can dredge up come from here.
Further more we have never gone after people jobs because conspiracy crap, if someone told you that they are wrong.
We have only ever gone after corrupt journalists, To the point Sargon was quite clear about not going after people he suggested were collaboration, the whole marxism and that BS is a different discussion for the below.
Others like total biscuit do not care about it and only care about the corruption.
But frankly those journalists should have lost their jobs, Sam Biddle should have been fired the moment he tweeted bring back bullying and should not have tweeted he got a raise for it. Leigh Alexander's comments about "hood rats" and other racist lines should have killed her career if her article on gamers being over didn't. All we have done is boycott their website and informed their advertisers of what the companies that they support are doing. Nothing more.
No attacks on some jerk from DiGRA.
No attacks on the so called feminist academia.
Just game journos, only corrupt game journos.
Damn you are too right with this, no sarcasm meant.crimsonshrouds said:
That's good ol' Sargon, in a nut shell.
Sometimes I balk at how he handles himself but he's the way his and I'll sit through it for the history pieces.
It's what his group the rationalists do, their goal is sort of pulling the pants out for the conceited, there are a lot of stupid things in this world that area bit too full of themselves and while I doubt a fat middle aged brit could really take them down.
The cultural Marxisms is an interesting realm of discussion but I'm with total biscuit, Corruption first, Corruption above all.
Then we discuss those..... matters when everyone has a choice to.
From what I pieced together, the cultural Marxism stuff was a bit weird, it took me some thought but I think the idea is it sets up a hierarchy or cultural class. For example you see the SJWs talk about Straight white cis men like nothing happens to those sorts of people, like they own the means of production. Then they start dripping down a list of cultures to the most oppressed. Further more it seems to create a want for cultural sameness, where differences are not mentioned. for further reading i suggest brave new world, I think that's what they are getting at.
Further more, I suspect the people talking about cultural Marxism are largely, Atheists and from what I've gathered it's because of Atheism+ a research stream with ThunderFoot, Justicar and IA confirmed this. I suspect a lot of the people on about it are from /pol/ or we burned by a what they were on about. I'd think it was stupid but Sargon himself did a video why he left comics. Now before this I've looked at the people referring to fake geek girls like most everyone else, poorly and was rather surprised when he uploaded a video on it. It's nice seeing the counter point of an argument because not even villains see themselves as evil. and it was really interesting.
That being said I remain skeptical, as I should.
but that being said the DiGRA video and the research streams are interesting. check it out. They seem outlandish, especially when I think the key to everything going wrong is greed not Misandry but they are fun.
Again, we have not attacked these people.
WE are not focusing on this as a discussion, corruption comes first, crazy jibjab second.
Further more I would not try to paint a entire group with a brush you gathered from 11min of a stream.
Now you're a tricky one, yes indeed.crimsonshrouds said:
I never said that my friend, I have had enough information to why she is wrong, between thunderfoot, my own perspective and just about everyone. I don't need more negative. I want positive. I want a reason why she matters to these people. I want a reason why anyone would view her work is meaningful.
It confuses me, why waste time on her, she has nothing interesting to say in my eyes.
[/quote]
I agree with the central point, here, that making comparisons between Jack Thompson and modern critics like Sarkeesian is just false equivalence. I also agree that people should stop talking about public figures who aren't in any way relevant to the current situation as if they were, though I must admit that this Big Picture episode is the most focus I've seen him get recently.
Not sure about why the notion of a gamer identity is "bizarre". People craft their identities with basis (in part) in hobbies and what they enjoy doing all the time-- I know people who do so with films and books; it's no more "bizarre" to do it with games.
Not sure about why the notion of a gamer identity is "bizarre". People craft their identities with basis (in part) in hobbies and what they enjoy doing all the time-- I know people who do so with films and books; it's no more "bizarre" to do it with games.
Now, I hear people say that, but it's never been sourced. I've watched some of her videos and I've never heard her expressly say that. Not "causing" sexism anyway. More, I hear her saying they show a dependence on old tropes that have sexism built into them because they are outdated, more or less. And as for desensitizing people to sexual violence, that's a thing. Just as TV can desensitize people to other forms of violence, or how nobody's bothered by swearing anymore because it's constant in movies. It's a thing that can happen. Her argument is not that we should ban video games because of this, but that we should be more aware of what we're portraying and how we're portraying it. To my knowledge, she's never at any point called for bans on anything. And she's doing this because it is what she believes, not because she's trying to build up political points. So, the Jack Thompson comparison isn't accurate in the slightest.WhiteNachos said:
Before you try to criticize what somebody else is saying, you probably ought to make sure you know what's being said in the first place.
And so what if she was, huh? As Bob said, it doesn't matter if she was calling for bans, that fight is over. The Supreme Court decided video game bans were unconstitutional. That's the last word on the matter unless congress can get a constitutional amendment and, as we've seen repeatedly, congress can't do anything. Besides that, even if she is saying games cause sexism, she's got the same right to speak her opinion as you do. This "must destroy" attitude is flat out wrong, regardless of what she's actually saying. Stifling the discussion is worse by far than any wrong thing a person could say.
Except that, again, the only performance evaluation in the game clearly states there is. Players can however choose to ignore said evaluation, however, that doesnt mean that it isnt there or that somehow doing the exact opposite is encouraged.bobdole1979 said:
And the game was dessigned in a fashion that is meant to allow the player to play an assassin. Your job is generally (though the fifth game mixes it up with missions where you are supposed to escape from a place and so on) to kill a certain target. The game however does not give you a failstate if you end up getting discovered or end up killing a guard or even civilian/bystander. As a part of that both guard and civilian NPCs need to show reactions to player behaviour, ie shooting at the player character or covering in fear (among others). Civilian NPCs all act roughly the same because they all use the same AI. As a result of this no AI was actually programmed specifically for the strippers, but rather as a "regular bystander" AI.
And Im not really too sure where you got the idea that the civilian AI was somehow designed to behave in a way that is supposed to give the player "pleasure" in killing them.
What is it with people that havent actually played these games pretending like they have any clue what theyre talking about? Is that somehow a new 'thing' in the hipster scene?
I wouldnt necessarily say its a false equivalence. Jack Thompsons primary line of arguing was (from what I can tell, Im not from the US so I did not follow that particular debate too closely, though we had essentially the same debate but worse over here in Germany) "Videogames make you X (X in Thompsons case being "violent"), hence the logical conclusion would be censorship". If we were to assume that that statement was indeed true, then yes, he would be correct. However, the issue and the reason that Thompsons argument fell apart and as a result his case was that theres actually no evidence that videogames do in fact make you violent or anything else for that matter, in fact trends within society (ie crime rate etc) would show the opposite if anything, from what I can tell.Silvanus said:
As a result of this it would seem to be perfectly valid to point back towards Thompson when somebody claims "Videogames make you X" and ask "what changed?". After all, having the same debate over and over again only changing the X seems silly and rather redundant. As a result a lot of people, myself inclued, want to either see what new evidence has been revealed to show that something has changed (so far neither Sarkeesian nor any of her supporters have provided any) or want the argument dismissed because, quite frankly, having the same discussion with the same type of idiots and the same stupid and thus far unproven or even factually wrong talking points again is something that can generally be considered undesirable.
One or two people on Twitter brought up Jack Thompson, nobody's bringing him up as much as Bob is exaggerating they are. What he is definitely doing though is using his program to knowingly/unknowingly inject new lifeblood into the "Anita is the new Jack Thompson" argument. As for your statement on a gamer identity, I agree.Silvanus said:
I found it a bit strange he said he was apart of us, or the way he put it "games media" (not sure if he was referring to himself more as a journalist and less a gamer when he said media), referred to us as gamers and then tried to cast aside the idea of a gamer identity as "absurd". I mean, what? I'm a bit confused.
So he's allowed to identify himself with our media, as a critic, and someone who's wrote a BOOK ABOUT SUPER MARIO..but the gamer identity is absurd? I mean just..what??
Have you already forgotten about that nugget of intelligence that went something to the tune of, "the more you think you aren't affected, the more you are" and "mistreatment of women in videogames causes people to mistreat women in real life". Statements made based on research that doesn't exist.Silverspetz said:
She is a liar and a fraud. Saying that her opinions are shit, because she has no idea of what research is doesn't make anyone a misogynist.