What do people actually want male gamers to be like?

[Winnosh]

To me it's all about this. Be a decent person and don't make excuses about other people being assholes just because you want to play games with them. If their assholes then why are you letting them hang around you?

That goes for male and female gamers.

 

[BNguyen]

Folks just want male gamers to listen and stop acting like they're the only ones entitled to games or gaming culture.

Like seriously, just listen. That's it. If someone is like "this is sexist" don't just be like "You're a feminazi!" actually listen to what they're saying and give it some thought. If someone is like "this is racist" don't just scream "Artistic integrity!" Actually listen to what they're saying and give it some thought.

And for folks to stop making death and rape threats, and to stop thinking that's "okay" or "just part of the culture." It's not okay.

There is some other stuff too, like how your rant is kinda missing the point. It'd be nice for male gamers to stop doing things like that. Acting like they're this horribly put upon group of people, when really the whole industry and culture still caters to them.

Equality does NOT mean oppression-for-males folks! It just feels like that to you because you've been so privileged. Losing those privileges is gonna hurt for a bit. You gotta role with it and remember it's for a good cause. And that others have had it worse off than you for years and they don't really appreciate it when that's finally acknowledged and some dude comes along with no idea of how good he's got it spouting shit like "well what about MY rights?"

It ain't cool man. It just ain't cool.

but the thing with terms like "sexist" and "racist" is that they are subjective terms to those that the content is directed at - you can listen to one person preach their viewpoint all day long and it still wouldn't be the only way to look at things - the same can be said of a certain female game critic, she says that all of these female-directed tropes are sexist or misogynistic but that can only be said of her standpoint and apparently the thousands that blindly follow on her every word as if it unmistakeable truth - the only thing you can look at are actions and that can be called the truth, but the motivations and thoughts before, during, and after said actions are subjective in perspective - sort of an "are you a terrorist or a freedom fighter" kind of dilemma.

Now as for the OP - you can't expect to please everyone, no matter how you choose to conduct yourself - if you think you're doing people no harm by acting polite, someone is going to in whatever way find a fault with your actions. For instance, one woman may say thank you for holding open a door or offering to help her carry something while another may say "I can do it myself, I don't need any help from a man", or that same woman might think you'll steal her stuff at the first opportunity even if you had no intention of doing so. Like the story of that woman a while back that had too much to drink and got on an elevator followed shortly after by a man who asked if she would like coffee. While I don't know the man's intentions, of which he might have simply asked her out by saying coffee as a start, but for some reason that woman instantly thought it was some kind of means to try and rape her. I guess I'm trying to say that you should pick the people you want to associate with and address yourself to feel comfortable around them and for them to be comfortable around you, but you shouldn't do this at the expense of not being able to do what you want to do. So you like certain games or movies and group A says that's cool and group B thinks of you as some kind of monster, obviously go with A but at the same time if group A doesn't like other aspects about you, then maybe it's time to distance yourself from all groups and do what you want to do.

 

[KrystelCandy]

Sorry, but how is the type of feminism you're describing different from egalitarianism? How is ignoring history in any way a bad thing when it comes to how we should live today? Reparations is a very, very bad model, because it just leads to more oppression.

Egalitarianism is seeking equality in all means and methods, it's not quite the same as feminism but I didnt want to bring up an entire other social system into the conversation. Feminism is seeking to create equal opportunities based on gender, equal pay, equal work, equal skill. It's seeking to put women at the same level as men in terms of opportunities and acceptance. This is more of a focus on a cultural change to a more accepting nature. This however does not say people

Egalitarianism is a bit different, it says everyone is born with natural rights and thus is entitled the exact same rules regardless of any circumstances. It is a profoundly seperate method that is kind of a group think and promotes a kind of same equality of opportunity without concern for individual differentiators that may provide particular benefits.

It's a subtle nuance, basically feminism wants equal opportunities for each gender through cultural changes and shifts that promote and support the fact that while our gender, skin color, religions are different, we can aspire and reach the same goals without them getting in the way. Egalitarianism wants everyone to have the exact same rights in all ways as those are the rights we are born with, and does not differentiate based on individual circumstances nor promote exceptional individuality based on any of the above circumstances. While there is still an equality of opportunity, it does not celebrate our positive differences from each other.

Also wut, reparations? Nu. That's something else and I don't believe in reparations except when the government goes out of its way to ruin the lives of people who up till that point had been living just fine within the country (The Japanese during WW2 for example).

 

[DC_78]

Sorry, but how is the type of feminism you're describing different from egalitarianism? How is ignoring history in any way a bad thing when it comes to how we should live today? Reparations is a very, very bad model, because it just leads to more oppression.

Egalitarianism is seeking equality in all means and methods, it's not quite the same as feminism but I didnt want to bring up an entire other social system into the conversation. Feminism is seeking to create equal opportunities based on gender, equal pay, equal work, equal skill. It's seeking to put women at the same level as men in terms of opportunities and acceptance. This is more of a focus on a cultural change to a more accepting nature. This however does not say people

Egalitarianism is a bit different, it says everyone is born with natural rights and thus is entitled the exact same rules regardless of any circumstances. It is a profoundly seperate method that is kind of a group think and promotes a kind of same equality of opportunity without concern for individual differentiators that may provide particular benefits.

It's a subtle nuance, basically feminism wants equal opportunities for each gender through cultural changes and shifts that promote and support the fact that while our gender, skin color, religions are different, we can aspire and reach the same goals without them getting in the way. Egalitarianism wants everyone to have the exact same rights in all ways as those are the rights we are born with, and does not differentiate based on individual circumstances nor promote exceptional individuality based on any of the above circumstances. While there is still an equality of opportunity, it does not celebrate our positive differences from each other.

Also wut, reparations? Nu. That's something else and I don't believe in reparations except when the government goes out of its way to ruin the lives of people who up till that point had been living just fine within the country (The Japanese during WW2 for example).

Basically I have always seen it described simply as a race.

Equalitarians want everyone to start at the same time next to each other and to address cheating/adversity in the race by occasionally giving a boost to some racers so they can catch up. Yet no one is entitled to place or even complete the race.

Some feminists think the race's starting points should be all over with those that have it the worst farther ahead on the track and those that have it the easiest farther back. Everyone however should finish the race but winning does not actually count because everyone gets the same trophy.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Social "Justice" is primarily a movement designed out of hatred for men, with the intention to control them. So they invent lies like "privilege" and "patriarchy" because they can't just come out and say "we hate men". Unfortunately, a large amount of people started believing their lies and now they are associated with a hate group without even knowing it.

This mindset is so paranoid, I don't even understand how people develop this kind of victim mentality.

Like, can you read what you just posted and honestly say that it's a rational point of view?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't know, if you ask me, there aren't as many differences for us to celebrate as people like to think up. The whole idea of drawing attention to differences in race or gender is, by definition, racist and sexist after all. And what in the world is "positive differences" suppose to mean? That honestly just sounds like a meaningless feel-good term that fits more in with the feel of the philosophy rather than holding any tangible real world meaning.

There's no positive outcome for trying to drive a stake between people based on gender/race/ect. Gender might have a difference physically, sure, but race is honestly just skin color, it's pretty much pure chance that humans at some point decided that mattered and put a stigma on it, and it could have just as easily been whether you have attached or free earlobes for all the actual weight it has outside of the meaning we randomly assigned it at some point in history. But honestly gender has largely been the same way.

I'm saying, instead of keeping tabs, marking little notches in the privileged scoreboard, why don't we just shed the notion that these things are important? We can identify as what we want to identify as, the more we try to make these things important, when they're not, the more we give prejudicial people ammo.

Sure, it'd be much better if people got over all those differences. But that's not realistically going to happen in the foreseeable future. There's no point talking about a perfect solution which isn't going to happen. Might as well ask why we have a police force, wouldn't it be better if there was no crime?

We can't get people to stop noticing differences. We can get more of them to say "But it's ok to be different" afterwards.

 

[loa]

That seems more trouble than it's worth just to identify as a "gamer".

 

[Caostotale]

Social "Justice" is primarily a movement designed out of hatred for men, with the intention to control them. So they invent lies like "privilege" and "patriarchy" because they can't just come out and say "we hate men". Unfortunately, a large amount of people started believing their lies and now they are associated with a hate group without even knowing it.

It might be time to step back from the internet for a couple of months, mate...maybe instead spend some time interacting with some of those 99.99999% of real folks who don't know anything, don't participate, and definitely don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about this whole SJW/Gamergate non-troversy. Such an experience might make you quickly discover that, surprise, a subset of that 99.99999% of the total population also comprises a crushing majority of the gaming's money-spending audience, i.e. no matter which side of this crusade outlasts the other (I won't say 'triumphs', as there would need to be actual spoils of some kind, or even a mere victory circle), the whole thing will still just be a little fart in the wind for the actual gaming industry.

You might also want to drop into a library and read one or two well-regarded history books. Unless you're hopelessly beholden to some fanatical idea that all intellectual activity is part of a massive Marxist/feminist/minority conspiracy, you'll quickly find that those 'lies' you've identified are actually real patterns of behavior that extend back hundreds of years and, for the most part, are still going quite strong. Historians, economists, and other social scientists have been researching and writing about it for over a century and, like the idea that climate change is real and the idea that the earth's not flat, they're ideas that pretty much all intellectuals and academics see as correct. To be accurate, I'm not suggesting that those sinister SJWs are completely well-versed in this information (truth be told, I'm still waiting to see one of those elusive devils somewhere on this forum).

 

[ZiggyE]

Social "Justice" is primarily a movement designed out of hatred for men, with the intention to control them. So they invent lies like "privilege" and "patriarchy" because they can't just come out and say "we hate men". Unfortunately, a large amount of people started believing their lies and now they are associated with a hate group without even knowing it.

This mindset is so paranoid, I don't even understand how people develop this kind of victim mentality.

Like, can you read what you just posted and honestly say that it's a rational point of view?

I find the suggestion that anyone other than these SJWs has a victim mentality to be pretty amusing, since they're the ones trying to claim they're victimised all the time.

It isn't a victim mentality. I don't believe I'm a victim because I'm targeted by these people. Because they're thankfully irrelevant to pretty much everything.

 

[Caostotale]

I find the suggestion that anyone other than these SJWs has a victim mentality to be pretty amusing, since they're the ones trying to claim they're victimised all the time.

It isn't a victim mentality. I don't believe I'm a victim because I'm targeted by these people. Because they're thankfully irrelevant to pretty much everything.

Wait, now...in your last post, you spoke of them as a 'hate group' spreading 'lies' with an intention to 'control men', but now you're claiming that they're completely 'irrelevant.' If you're going to go to the trouble of propping up such a big, nasty scarecrow, you might want to leave it up for a little bit longer than ten minutes.

 

[ZiggyE]

I find the suggestion that anyone other than these SJWs has a victim mentality to be pretty amusing, since they're the ones trying to claim they're victimised all the time.

It isn't a victim mentality. I don't believe I'm a victim because I'm targeted by these people. Because they're thankfully irrelevant to pretty much everything.

Wait, now...in your last post, you spoke of them as a 'hate group' spreading 'lies' with an intention to 'control men', but now you're claiming that they're completely 'irrelevant.' If you're going to go to the trouble of propping up such a big, nasty scarecrow, you might want to leave it up for a little bit longer than ten minutes.

A group's intention and a group's ability to carry out that intention are two different...

I find the suggestion that anyone other than these SJWs has a victim mentality to be pretty amusing, since they're the ones trying to claim they're victimised all the time.

It isn't a victim mentality. I don't believe I'm a victim because I'm targeted by these people. Because they're thankfully irrelevant to pretty much everything.

Wait, now...in your last post, you spoke of them as a 'hate group' spreading 'lies' with an intention to 'control men', but now you're claiming that they're completely 'irrelevant.' If you're going to go to the trouble of propping up such a big, nasty scarecrow, you might want to leave it up for a little bit longer than ten minutes.

There are lots of hateful groups that are trying to do bad things that are completely irrelevant. I don't see how relevance relates to intention.

Thanks for saying it for me.

 

[KrystelCandy]

Basically I have always seen it described simply as a race.

Equalitarians want everyone to start at the same time next to each other and to address cheating/adversity in the race by occasionally giving a boost to some racers so they can catch up. Yet no one is entitled to place or even complete the race.

Some feminists think the race's starting points should be all over with those that have it the worst farther ahead on the track and those that have it the easiest farther back. Everyone however should finish the race but winning does not actually count because everyone gets the same trophy.

That's not quite accurate, egalitarians is more like how you described feminism, and feminism is more like how you described "equalitarians".

Although if I was to describe it as a race, it'd be feminism wants everyone's goals to be the same distance, nobody should have extra hurdles placed on THEIR race track jst because of race or gender or anything else. Can the people with the hurdles finish first? Yes, but it's still HARDER. Nobody is entitled to anything in the race, they just have the same race track and same finish line.

Egalitarians say "everyone has the exact same starting line, the exact same course, and if anyone falls behind they get a boost or benefit in order to put them into line with everyone else." Everyone ends up with the same goal and ending up in the same place, and disadvantages are smoothed over, people who try their hardest to get ahead however may find their abilities or work ends up being not as recognized as being a high achiever isn't as big a deal in such a communal style of society.

Snip~

That's working with a fantasy reality, the only way to make your particular view come forth is through effort to try and get past the prejudices that exist in the first place. Bringing attention to differences between people and genders is not racism and sexism, associating negative stereotypes based on race or gender IS. Positive differences? Culture and history are our primary positive differentiators, and the things people celebrate the most, religion and belief systems are also part of positive differences.

Race is not just skin color, it is history, it is a shared past and shared belief system amongst those who choose to follow their historical roots. Some don't, that's perfectly acceptable, there is no right answer, but that is no reason to ignore the differences and different kinds of thought people bring to the table based on their own personal history and culture.

Nobody is trying to craft differences, but acknowledging differences exist is not a bad thing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But the differences don't matter! Why are we trying to make them matter?

Because very many other people won't let them not matter.

All we need to do is keep giving hell to the people who try to pretend like we're all so goddamn different based on our race and gender and sexuality, and since most reasonable people can agree to that

Then it would seem that reasonable people are in the minority. Racism, sexism, homophobia and any number of other prejudices are very much alive.

For example, there are 196 countries in the world today. 16 of them allow gay marriage to all their citizens. In the remaining 180 countries, people have decided that the difference matters enough to ban gay marriage, (though some allow it in parts of their country). Gay people can stop talking about their differences, and it would not change this.

and this can all happen the moment we stop trying to pretend like any prejudice can ever be a good thing (E.G. "privilege" arguments).

That's really, really not what privilege is about.

 

[Ichiro Oogami]

But the differences don't matter! Why are we trying to make them matter? I don't think it's unrealistic, Hell, the internet is an amazing medium for this sort of thing, as you don't really know anything about anyone's gender, age, or race. All we need to do is keep giving hell to the people who try to pretend like we're all so goddamn different based on our race and gender and sexuality, and since most reasonable people can agree to that, eventually we can weed out all the jerkoffs trying to incite prejudice, and this can all happen the moment we stop trying to pretend like any prejudice can ever be a good thing (E.G. "privilege" arguments).

So if I understand correctly, we're "not allowed" to talk about these differences in any way, since talking about the differences results in discrimination and injustice. Everyone must be an identical gray blob, though they are free to decorate themselves how they wish.

The solution is always heavy-handed, dogmatic thought control, it seems. All in the name of justice, of course.

It's paradoxical that those who shout the loudest for diversity want everyone to be alike. But these differences are at the heart of what makes diversity so interesting. Precisely because we're unlike each other, we see things differently, and thus can notice things that others pass over without comment, or don't even see.

Trying to make everyone the same defeats the entire purpose of encouraging diversity; it is literally the opposite of diversity.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Here's some advice. Adhere to who YOU are and who YOU wanna be. Don't listen to other peoples demands, don't acknowledge them.

If someone blames you for their problems in life, because of your gender, skin colour, physique, hobby or age? Screw them!

Don't try to be someone you're not. Don't change who you are to adjust to others and as long as you're not directly harming people, then don't be sorry for who you are.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

and this can all happen the moment we stop trying to pretend like any prejudice can ever be a good thing (E.G. "privilege" arguments).

That's really, really not what privilege is about.[/quote]

Can you tell me what its about? I would have like some of my straight male privilige last year when I was 10 bucks away from being homeless every month.

Couldn't find that shit anywhere, but I kept getting told I had it.

 

[Ichiro Oogami]

The idea isn't that we should MAKE everyone the same, the idea is we ALREADY ARE the same (in terms of race/gender [gender identity and sexuality being more legitimate reflections of who you are]). If we weren't the same than prejudice would be completely justified. After all, if a positive or negative trait were to be attributed accurately to a specific race, than why wouldn't you discriminate? If there was hard scientific proof that people with attached earlobes were mass murderers 100% of the time, then it would make sense to avoid people with attached earlobes. As it is, all we have is the unfortunate results of the sins of our past still haunting us.

I'm not trying to shut anyone up, but it's frustrating to watch people embrace prejudice and racism and sexism after all the horrible things it's done in the past. Seriously, when did racism become a good thing?

So in order for people to get along, one must insist that they are the same, and anyone who says otherwise must be silenced in the name of justice. And here I thought it was possible to get along with people who were unlike me. So much for diversity, I guess.

Let's say the hypothetical equality endpoint is reached. The draconian restrictions put in place to prevent "discrimination" would have to remain in order to avoid any chance of difference returning. Liberty would be but a half-forgotten memory; everyone would just be puppets on the strings of idealists.

Difference is not scary.

 

[Popido]

Here's something for you all to think about.

Define the difference between Social Justice and Justice.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Can you tell me what its about? I would have like some of my straight male privilige last year when I was 10 bucks away from being homeless every month.

As mentioned several times in this thread already, privilege means you have certain unfair advantages over others that don't have it. It doesn't mean you have a great life, it doesn't mean you don't have other unfair disadvantages.

Have you ever been worried about being attacked due to your sexuality? If not, that's a privilege not everyone shares.

Or do you think that every african american should be required to listen to rap because we have to promote diversity? Or do you just think Martian Luther king was an amoral moron?

That's...quite a remarkable strawman.

You're acting like race has to define who we are, and that's a disgusting notion you should be ashamed to support.

The idea isn't that we should MAKE everyone the same, the idea is we ALREADY ARE the same (in terms of race/gender [gender identity and sexuality being more legitimate reflections of who you are]).

We aren't the same as long as the society we have to live in says we aren't. Sure, if everyone was to wake up tomorrow and stop caring about made up differences, the problem would disappear.

This is not going to happen. We have to deal with the world as it is, not what it should be, not what would make more sense. AS long as society treats people differently, there is a big difference between them.

 

[babinro]

I blame this on the internet being the internet.
People like to exaggerate to get attention.

I've known 3 people in real life who view gamers as something either truly negative/distasteful (fun fact, they've all been woman not that a sample group of 3 people means anything). In reality, people are generally fine with it.

Gamers have a negative stereotype attached to them which may never go away. I accept this as being unfair just like I do any other stereotype that promotes something positive or negative in a persons gender/hobbies/race/culture/sexual preference/religious belief/political stance/appearance, etc.

Fun Fact #2: I'm very much the stereotypical male Caucasian gamer that brings us all that hate. Mid-30's, live in a basement with a landlady (not parents but close enough?), play games 8+ hours a day, poor, obese, glasses, balding, single, completely anti-social, not remotely driven to obtain any kind of improved social status in terms of my profession or lifestyle. So yeah..sorry? I'm very happy with who I am and I'm not planning to make any drastic changes any time soon.