Why are we afraid of criticism?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Ok... So a link to a branch on her twitter where she isn't even a commentator is right-wing by association. If you looked at the link you'd know it revolves around a jezebel writers comment. So it's left-wing now, right?

A link to a branch on her twitter? I'm not sure what that's meant to mean, guy. Go to YouTube. The Factual Feminist is BY The American Enterprise Institute. It's their show. If that isn't a strong enough correlation for you, nothing will ever be.

Did I link to Breitbart? Not that it matters entirely... If they make sense on a topic then they make sense on that topic, regardless of affiliation... That's the nature of dealing with facts. The negative connotations you might have for them would be meaningless. But... Did I actually link to Breitbart? Not saying I didn't, I just don't remember doing it.

No, you linked to reading the score, which is what I provided a quote from. That's the "About" page from reading the score. One of them just also happens to work at Breitbart.

Well, that's the thing, guy. They are presenting "facts" as they see them. Through a very particular world view. Which is why it belongs in Politics and Religion.

I'm not your "guy", buddy.

I'm sure this is one of those common fallacies that gets bandied around. You know, the one where you use associations to discredit something rather than dealing with it based on the merits.

I don't twitter or facebook or any of that. I don't know the terminology. It was linked on her twitter, but only involves her as a subject.

What are you suggesting, anyway? Is that even original readingthescore content, or did they just host it? Searching for the video, you can find it hosted by a number of people who put their little stamp on it. Judging by the styling, I wouldn't be surprised if that talk actually pre-dates the foundation of all of these little organisations that are hosting it.

None of which make what he said wrong, might I add.

Yes, I know, I know. "This isn't the place for political discussion". Well then, you shouldn't have said what you said, should you?

I'm happy to call it quits here, this is completely lacking in worth. By what you've said, I'm only moments away from some kind of mod-wrath anyway.

Bye bye

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But not every woman we run across in games has to be some kind of badass mercenary who was just waiting for the right time to break out when you came along.

Of course not. That would be stupid.

Trope: b : a common or overused theme or device : cliché

Replacing one form of over-used, lazy creative expression with another wouldn't really be accomplishing very much artistically.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm sure this is one of those common fallacies that gets bandied around. You know, the one where you use associations to discredit something rather than dealing with it based on the merits.

The fuck did I discredit? I said TAKE IT TO RELIGION AND POLITICS. I discredited whatsherfuck, but I did that based on content and I went through it point by point in another thread.

Yes, I know, I know. "This isn't the place for political discussion". Well then, you shouldn't have said what you said, should you?

What's that? Move it to politics? These are pieces as presented by conservative think tanks? They are. What's bad about that? Did I assail conservatism? Did I tell you not to like those pieces? Did I tell you that you can't discuss them?

By what you've said, I'm only moments away from some kind of mod-wrath anyway.

I'm sure the mods would be fine, it's not like you're openly disruptive or attacking, that stuff just belongs in Religion and Politics because it's highly politicized.

 

[Callate]

The problem I have with Anita Sarkeesian, insomuch as I have a problem, is that she appears to start with a conclusion and then work backwards to color it in, and throws a pretty wide net that catches a lot of the wrong fish. I don't think its particularly compelling that she's a lazy critic, though, the world is full of them. This one in particular seems to inspire a new 30 page thread on this website on a daily basis, full of bilious rage and obsessive fixation. Why would that be? Is this site that consumed by lazy criticism? It's not like it didn't exist before that. It's not like HER CRITICS aren't being lazy themselves. Why is this one person the anti-christ? Funny that.

In as much as there is a "problem" with Anita Sarkeesian to distinguish her from any number of other talking heads, it's that she's captured enough attention to be seen as a credible source and a mainstream voice on the issues. She's been mentioned, quoted, and linked in places like Slate, Entertainment Weekly, and Time.

And while there may be a thousand critics on 4chan, Youtube, or Twitter disagreeing with varying levels of coherence, sensibility, and apopleptic-rage-induced-obscenity-laced venom, I'm not aware of any similarly mainstream voice offering rebuttal. The atmosphere is such that for many people who might have the credentials to provide such a counterpoint, it would be career suicide to actually do so.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

In as much as there is a "problem" with Anita Sarkeesian to distinguish her from any number of other talking heads, it's that she's captured enough attention to be seen as a credible source and a mainstream voice on the issues. She's been mentioned, quoted, and linked in places like Slate, Entertainment Weekly, and Time.

And while there may be a thousand critics on 4chan, Youtube, or Twitter disagreeing with varying levels of coherence, sensibility, and apopleptic-rage-induced-obscenity-laced venom, I'm not aware of any similarly mainstream voice offering rebuttal. The atmosphere is such that for many people who might have the credentials to provide such a counterpoint, it would be career suicide to actually do so.

This is true, but Anita Sarkeesian was a relative non entity until a certain sequence of events greatly increased her public profile. Can you recall off hand which demographic was responsible for that? Was it feminists? Was it academics?

If people don't want middleweight critics of dubious quality to get a lot of attention, the quickest route to achieving that is to not give them a lot of attention. If I'm a black man and I do some videos about racism in cricket, and a bunch of self-identifying cricket players respond with "Imma murder you, darkie!", then that becomes the story. You'll notice there usually isn't much conversation around her actual videos because for the most part they are Very Boring. SHE is the story. Her, and her army of detractors, and the screaming match that breaks out every time she hoves into view.

 

[WhiteNachos]

I'm pretty sure Zach is a he. Also if you want there to be no more games featuring say scantily clad women that is taking away things form "the other side" if some people enjoyed those things.

Unless I'm going full blank right now Zach is a woman.

And I would like actual evidence for the statement that games including scantily clad women should not be made which would actually lead to the conclusion that things are taken away. At worst I see request for better representation.

I'd consider the culture of pro Street Fighter (or whatever they were playing) to be different than gaming culture as a whole (that guy even mentioned Starcraft as a fanbase without that problem). Still leaves racism and homophobia unaccounted for.

They are gamers, aren't they?

Gamers (a group encompassing millions of people) can be divided into further subcultures. Professional/Tournament vs. regular play. Hardcore v casual. etc. These were tournament players for Street Fighter and not every gamer even likes fighting games (like Yahtzee), so no they're not the same. Plus I'd wager the community behind the tournament Street Fighter scene behaves differently than the ones from the tournament Super Smash Brothers scene.

Racism and homophobia were both part of the topic around the Cross Assault incident, I frankly don't care enough right now to dig out more.

Then you'll understand why I won't go digging around through comment threads and old articles to find people saying those games shouldn't be made.

 

[Callate]

This is true, but Anita Sarkeesian was a relative non entity until a certain sequence of events greatly increased her public profile. Can you recall off hand which demographic was responsible for that? Was it feminists? Was it academics?

If people don't want middleweight critics of dubious quality to get a lot of attention, the quickest route to achieving that is to not give them a lot of attention. If I'm a black man and I do some videos about racism in cricket, and a bunch of self-identifying cricket players respond with "Imma murder you, darkie!", then that becomes the story. You'll notice there usually isn't much conversation around her actual videos because for the most part they are Very Boring. SHE is the story. Her, and her army of detractors, and the screaming match that breaks out every time she hoves into view.

Not much to say, there; I agree that she wouldn't have gotten as much notice without the rage. Sterling said as much in one of the Jimquisition videos.

It's funny, though- and perhaps a bit sad- that what we think of as "mainstream" news should accept this hatred as a sort of qualification. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." It suggests to me that there isn't quite as great a division between the vaunted halls of journalism and the seedy pits of 4chan as we'd like to think.

I also can't help but think of Jack Thompson.

Disclaimer: I am not comparing Thompson and Sarkeesian beyond that they are/were both critics of the medium accepted by certain parties in mainstream news as "authorities" in their particular fields.

I don't feel like Thompson got quite the same sort of... pushback as Sarkeesian. Certainly there were plenty of people who disliked him, some vocally; "Sarcastic Gamer" wrote a parody of "Hey There Delilah" about him, Penny Arcade had their whole kerfuffle, but Twitter wasn't really a thing before Thompson got himself disbarred and managed to remove himself from the conversation. The noise around Thompson that made him an "authority" was mostly his own; he just happened to show up every time there was an opportunity to suggest that games caused violence.

...Yet there he was on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" as a reliable source on the topic of violence in video games.

Without the rage, would Sarkeesian have managed to make herself omnipresent in a similar way...? I genuinely don't know. She doesn't have the superficial authority that being a lawyer granted Thompson. Prior, her biggest claim to fame was a few Youtube videos and a Tedx talk.

As far as getting people not to talk about something or someone, well... That seems to be a bit of a "don't think about a pink elephant" situation.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I also can't help but think of Jack Thompson.

Disclaimer: I am not comparing Thompson and Sarkeesian beyond that they are/were both critics of the medium accepted by certain parties in mainstream news as "authorities" in their particular fields.

I don't feel like Thompson got quite the same sort of... pushback as Sarkeesian. Certainly there were plenty of people who disliked him, some vocally; "Sarcastic Gamer" wrote a parody of "Hey There Delilah" about him, Penny Arcade had their whole kerfuffle, but Twitter wasn't really a thing before Thompson got himself disbarred and managed to remove himself from the conversation. The noise around Thompson that made him an "authority" was mostly his own; he just happened to show up every time there was an opportunity to suggest that games caused violence.

I think the best way to draw an analogy between Sarkeesian and Thompson is thus...

Sarkeesian made some videos suggesting gaming culture had a sexism problem. In reaction, she was met with an angry, sexist tirade. And before any clowns get up in here with the NOT ALL GAMERS yes I am aware of that Wilbur thank you, you can take your seat again. Enough to make her argument for her rather tellingly.

Thompson made some statements suggesting gaming culture had a violence problem, and that playing games made people violent. A lot of people laughed at Thompson and called him names. What we would've needed to see was Thompson getting violently beaten by outraged gamers. Then suddenly Thompson would have had his argument made for him, and we'd all be very sad about it.

Notably, "Gaming has a sexism problem" =/= "Gaming is sexist". If one wanted to get reductionist about it, you could say Gaming has an ASSHOLE problem. It's one we've all been aware of for a very long time, we just didn't try and defend it until the discussion became "gendered". Then suddenly it's waves of bullshit about fake geek girls and feminazis and a liberal conspiracy come to steal our hobby.

 

[Lightknight]

Wait... you think I was being literal when I said it's because it makes her sad? That I hold a direct and literal position that she dislikes it solely because it saddens her heart and makes her cry at night? Nope, I was employing sarcasm and jest.

No, you were employing pejorative and hyperbole because it helps you discredit the other individual because it makes them look like a fucking moron.

Huh? How is "pejorative and hyperbole" mutually exclusive from sarcasm and jest? They aren't. Yes, my comment was pejorative but sarcasm usually is. My intention is to make her look idiotic or dishonest because she can only be one or the other if her using six figures gets her to start off with a major flaw in her premise.

So I find her reasoning faulty and worthy of ridicule. Is there an issue with that? Do you believe I haven't presented a legitimate case to feel that way about her work?

Why is it prudish?

Because, if you believe that porn has a right to exist then you shouldn't give a fuck if a character has cleavage showing. If you believe that porn doesn't exist then I would consider it to be prudish.

Why characterize the complaint negatively? If you think there's merit to it, which you imply when you say "she does have an argument", why not let it stand on its merit? Is this not meant to be a rational discussion? "Prudish" is a value judgment. It's an emotional judgment. It's not a rational refutation.

Yes, prudish is a subjective term, you are correct. Did you think I was attempting to make and objective claim and then fell short? I just don't think there's anything wrong with sexy characters anymore than I have an issue with the half naked galloping Fabio-esque males depicted on the cover of romance novels. I think humans are prone to desire and want sexually desirable depictions and are not wrong to do so. From ancient stone carvings of large breasted women and well endowed men to any modern art. We are evolved to enjoy this.

Anyone who says that we are bad for desiring that sort of thing is indeed being prudish and trying to force their own moral values on us. Would you agree or disagree?

The problem I have with Anita Sarkeesian, insomuch as I have a problem, is that she appears to start with a conclusion and then work backwards to color it in, and throws a pretty wide net that catches a lot of the wrong fish. I don't think its particularly compelling that she's a lazy critic, though, the world is full of them. This one in particular seems to inspire a new 30 page thread on this website on a daily basis, full of bilious rage and obsessive fixation. Why would that be? Is this site that consumed by lazy criticism? It's not like it didn't exist before that. It's not like HER CRITICS aren't being lazy themselves. Why is this one person the anti-christ? Funny that.

Eh, if you look at my original post, I was just using her as an example of someone saying it's bad for us to enjoy X as an example for why the poster we were talking about would be against that sort of behavior.

I certainly don't hate the girl. I don't know anything about her. She's just a very public and easy example that most people on this forum should be aware of without me having to provide additional context.

Do you feel like I've been lazy in my assessment of her arguments or do you get any sort of feeling that I've listened to and considered what she said enough to have valid points to make? Even if you disagree wish said points, that is.

If you'll go to the Religion and Politics forum, you'll find a thread on the "Factual" Feminist there (where it was moved by site moderators, because that is where it belonged). I gave my impression of her "facts" in that thread. I'm too lazy to go dig them up, and I'm sure as hell not watching that fucking thing again to repeat them.

Ok, and you've decided to assume anyone suspecting the gender wage gap is automatically right-winged because...? My issue with you doing this is because you are stereotyping, not because you stand on one side or the other. That's wrong of you to do.

Aside from dabbling in right-wing politics in my youth I've made a decidedly strong break with the republican party among nearly every front from social to financial policies. Yet, I have several criticisms to why the wage gap isn't the problem people make it out to be.

1. Women do take more time off than men. Even if it's for reasons like having children it still shouldn't mean that they're treated the same as the people who stayed at the company and gained the experience and continued the work. I understand that it's harsh, but I do not believe anyone should be rewarded for not working. Especially not if they took years off. Why should someone take years off of work and expect to be paid the same as someone with those years of experience under their belt?

2. Women often pursue lower wage work like in the social work industry or part time jobs to be able to stay home with their kids. I'm not sure what kind of changes we should make there.

3. Few studies are actually talking about women in the exact same positions with the same background (experience/education). For example, let's talk about the tech industry. This wasn't an industry women generally pursued until recently. So you have a LOT more men with decades of experience. Are we really supposed to expect industries with a disparity in human capital by gender to devalue the more valuable assets? Take me for example. I've got more than five years of experience in my job but someone could technically be hired into the same position I work in at any time. Well, they would be paid less than me because I'm far more the senior. Not because I'm a man. Why would we expect companies to do otherwise? Experience should be valued.

I fully believe that anyone who has the same experience, performance and education level and is in the same position should have a similar wage. The only exception I could think of is if one person negotiated a higher salary when another one did not. But I would consider that a difference in performance. But that should be a case by case example and not aggregate.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Huh? How is "pejorative and hyperbole" mutually exclusive from sarcasm and jest? They aren't.

We have different words for those things because they have different definitions. Jest in particular is not indicative of tone, and one can be sarcastic without straw-manning. I should know, I'm sarcastic almost by reflex, because I'm an asshole.

My intention is to make her look idiotic or dishonest because she can only be one or the other if her using six figures gets her to start off with a major flaw in her premise.

People with larger salaries than that start off with major flaws in their premises all the time. And the disparity between one's income and the quality of one's work is not any kind of indicator of intelligence. We can't even measure intelligence properly in people we know intimately, never mind public figures who we see on the internet and are predisposed to disagree with.

So I find her reasoning faulty and worthy of ridicule. Is there an issue with that? Do you believe I haven't presented a legitimate case to feel that way about her work?

If you want to take a certain point made, and ridicule it, be my guest. When you straw man, you make it very, very easy to respond in kind. You can't count on people knowing if you've debunked her at length in the past. All they see is you making sweeping, off-base generalizations. You invite sweeping, off-base generalizations back. That pretty much sums up the tone of the vast majority of the discussion we have on these issues here. Polarized idiocy with people tilting at windmills left and right, attacking phantoms, and arguing past one another. I find it rather enervating myself, which is why I'm critical of hyperbolic assertions, even if you think they're hilarious.

Because, if you believe that porn has a right to exist then you shouldn't give a fuck if a character has cleavage showing. If you believe that porn doesn't exist then I would consider it to be prudish.

It this porn we are discussing? Do we apply the standards of porn to all our popular entertainment? Should the rule of thumb be "If it's okay for porn, it's ridiculous to complain about it anywhere else"?

Anyone who says that we are bad for desiring that sort of thing is indeed being prudish and trying to force their own moral values on us. Would you agree or disagree?

Sure, but I don't recall anyone being quoted as saying "you're bad for enjoying this". Nor do I feel any of her videos were "forcing moral values on me". They were just Feminism 101 babble by a woman in an ugly shirt. If someone told me I was bad for enjoying some ridiculous video game I would ask them if they'd lost their mind. If they wanted to criticize that game, I would listen, and respond based on how insightful I found their criticisms. Because let's face it, the hobby is hardly above criticism when it comes to being juvenile.

Do you feel like I've been lazy in my assessment of her arguments or do you get any sort of feeling that I've listened to and considered what she said enough to have valid points to make?

I felt like you were strawmanning that one time, which you were, and I called you out on it. What you've done past that I have absolutely no idea. You could've written a dissertation on it for all I know.

Ok, and you've decided to assume anyone suspecting the gender wage gap is automatically right-winged because...? My issue with you doing this is because you are stereotyping, not because you stand on one side or the other. That's wrong of you to do.

Nothing to do with the video or the opinions within, I noted that the source was a conservative website that presents itself as "attacking the left" at every opportunity, and that input from that source is probably best directed to Politics and Religion.

I fully believe that anyone who has the same experience, performance and education level and is in the same position should have a similar wage.

That's fine. We are in agreement. And I'm aware of some of the mitigating factors that contribute to the wage gap.

 

[Lightknight]

But not every woman we run across in games has to be some kind of badass mercenary who was just waiting for the right time to break out when you came along.

Of course not. That would be stupid.

Trope: b : a common or overused theme or device : cliché

Replacing one form of over-used, lazy creative expression with another wouldn't really be accomplishing very much artistically.

The Greeks had already recognized in their day and age that there are a finite number of permutations that story telling can go through. There are finite genres, finite personality types, finite motivations and other plot mechanics.

There is nothing that isn't over-used except that which has been censored socially or otherwise. Just the fact of life.

Additionally, altering the character of the individuals isn't changing the theme or making it not a trope. The damsel being smart and capable isn't thematically different than the damsel being unknown.

There is nothing that hasn't been told and retold a million times. So sorry to burst the bubble of "tropes" being a bad thing because they are by definition overused.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There is nothing that hasn't been told and retold a million times. So sorry to burst the bubble of "tropes" being a bad thing because they are by definition overused.

"Trope" used in this context doesn't mean "bad". It just means "overused".

"Has been used before" doesn't mean "overused". Certain storytelling formula are seen more often at certain points in time, to the point where they can start to feel exhausting, commonplace, predictable, etc.

Criticizing something for employing a tiresome trope is a perfectly valid avenue of criticism. I criticize games all the time, most particularly RPGs for their relentless employment of the Monomyth as the central narrative structure. Doesn't mean I dislike them all, or even think they're bad. Many of them are amongst my favorite games of all time.

Just means it could use some shaking up.

 

[Lightknight]

There is nothing that hasn't been told and retold a million times. So sorry to burst the bubble of "tropes" being a bad thing because they are by definition overused.

"Trope" used in this context doesn't mean "bad". It just means "overused".

"Has been used before" doesn't mean "overused". Certain storytelling formula are seen more often at certain points in time, to the point where they can start to feel exhausting, commonplace, predictable, etc.

Criticizing something for employing a tiresome trope is a perfectly valid avenue of criticism. I criticize games all the time, most particularly RPGs for their relentless employment of the Monomyth as the central narrative structure. Doesn't mean I dislike them all, or even think they're bad. Many of them are amongst my favorite games of all time.

Just means it could use some shaking up.

In what way do you propose? If you were going to shake up the damsel trope, how would you do it in a new way?

And you're right. Criticizing overuse of something is a valid criticism. However, Anita isn't just doing that. In fact, she says it's fine to do it to men when discussing spleunky (some game with cave diving in which you can swap out the damsel). No, her argument is that it's bad to do to women.

So, try not to project your reasonable criticisms onto her. Just because you think something reasonable doesn't mean that's what she said.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

In what way do you propose? If you were going to shake up the damsel trope, how would you do it in a new way?

There's lots of ways.

1. Direct subversion. A woman is rescuing a man. Kind of boring though, and painfully on the nose.
2. Indirect subversion. Turns out she didn't need rescuing, or it was a trap and she was behind it, or there was never a girl in the first place and the hero is hallucinating, etc, etc.
3. Don't put a human in the role of a MacGuffin in the first place. Give your humans motives, agendas, personalities, etc, etc.

And you're right. Criticizing overuse of something is a valid criticism. However, Anita isn't just doing that. In fact, she says it's fine to do it to men when discussing spleunky (some game with cave diving in which you can swap out the damsel).

Because of #1. It's a direct subversion. I think it's a bit boring and on point though.

So, try not to project your reasonable criticisms onto her. Just because you think something reasonable doesn't mean that's what she said.

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't care for her as a critic and thinks she makes lazy, sweeping conclusions. I'm not sure why me taking one stance...say that a particular criticism of her is hyperbolic or unfounded...automatically means she is my waifu and I want to come screaming to her defense on every issue.

She lost me when she said 500 Days of Summer reinforced the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope. Watch the fucking movie first, Anita. WATCH THE MOVIE THEN TALK ABOUT IT YOU CLOWN.

 

[Something Amyss]

How is that not true? I've seen tons of critics saying 'stop doing X, stop doing Y'. X and Y might be things people enjoy.

If that's your standard, why are you not raging at Yahtzee?

At this point, you've basically cast the net so widely I wonder why SJWs even appear on your map.

 

[WhiteNachos]

How is that not true? I've seen tons of critics saying 'stop doing X, stop doing Y'. X and Y might be things people enjoy.

If that's your standard, why are you not raging at Yahtzee?

At this point, you've basically cast the net so widely I wonder why SJWs even appear on your map.

Oh criticizing them is raging, by your book? Man you just have like a million different ways of dismissing people you don't like. Still waiting for you to show my track record for not having good discourse or whatever.

And you seriously don't see the difference between a request and a demand? Between "I don't like this" and "this is misogynist" or "this causes sexism" or whatever.

I've yet to see Yahtzee demand an end to fighting games or games he doesn't like.

 

[Lightknight]

Huh? How is "pejorative and hyperbole" mutually exclusive from sarcasm and jest? They aren't.

We have different words for those things because they have different definitions. Jest in particular is not indicative of tone, and one can be sarcastic without straw-manning. I should know, I'm sarcastic almost by reflex, because I'm an asshole.

Do you have a point to make here or are we just going to ***** about whether I was being sarcastic vs pejorative when I've already stated that my intention was exactly as you thought? Is there something additional that you want from me? Do I need ten hyperbolic lashes and five hyperbolic hail Mary's to proceed or do you think maybe we can just leave it at me not thinking very much of her argument and believing that she likely spent six figures on vacations with money that people who actually trusted her premise gave her with the understanding that she was going to give it a decent effort for what should have been a good cause?

People with larger salaries than that start off with major flaws in their premises all the time. And the disparity between one's income and the quality of one's work is not any kind of indicator of intelligence. We can't even measure intelligence properly in people we know intimately, never mind public figures who we see on the internet and are predisposed to disagree with.

What's your point? Are you saying that it's unreasonable to expect better work from someone if they're paid more to accomplish a task? I don't think it's wrong to expect more from a person paid six figures for the task than you'd get if you paid them $10k.

I think, as you already stated, that she came up with the conclusion she wanted to reach as the point of here kickstarter and only found out after the project how hard it is to connect the dots in an ethically imperative manner.

If you want to take a certain point made, and ridicule it, be my guest. When you straw man, you make it very, very easy to respond in kind. You can't count on people knowing if you've debunked her at length in the past. All they see is you making sweeping, off-base generalizations. You invite sweeping, off-base generalizations back. That pretty much sums up the tone of the vast majority of the discussion we have on these issues here. Polarized idiocy with people tilting at windmills left and right, attacking phantoms, and arguing past one another. I find it rather enervating myself, which is why I'm critical of hyperbolic assertions, even if you think they're hilarious.

So people on the internet make you sad/unhappy/whatever? Perhaps you should deal with that on your own time and spend less time tilting your lance in my direction, eh?

It this porn we are discussing? Do we apply the standards of porn to all our popular entertainment? Should the rule of thumb be "If it's okay for porn, it's ridiculous to complain about it anywhere else"?

Sure, where porn is the most extreme example then its permissibility is relevant to lesser extremes regarding the same theme. People can complain about it all they want, what they can't do is prove that it is somehow unethical or even necessarily a bad portrayal of women. Women who get breast augmentation and jog down the street in "Juicy" booty shorts and sports bras which are little more than underwear are no less legitimate a representation of females as some woman in a suit. Men are not evil for preferring to see the former over the latter either. But I can equally understand why Anita may dislike it. Still not an ethical imperative.

If it is not wrong to show images of real people fucking then it is not wrong to arrange 1's and 0's in an attractive manner.

Sure, but I don't recall anyone being quoted as saying "you're bad for enjoying this". Nor do I feel any of her videos were "forcing moral values on me". They were just Feminism 101 babble by a woman in an ugly shirt. If someone told me I was bad for enjoying some ridiculous video game I would ask them if they'd lost their mind. If they wanted to criticize that game, I would listen, and respond based on how insightful I found their criticisms. Because let's face it, the hobby is hardly above criticism when it comes to being juvenile.

Saying that something is bad is indicating that it's negative for it to be created or consumed. That's what bad means.

I felt like you were strawmanning that one time, which you were, and I called you out on it. What you've done past that I have absolutely no idea. You could've written a dissertation on it for all I know.

Oh, then how about you start with at least the conversation we've already had just a few posts ago? Post 332 has you quoting me discussing my complaints about her argument. Can we not be bothered to assume you read posts you responded to?

Nothing to do with the video or the opinions within, I noted that the source was a conservative website that presents itself as "attacking the left" at every opportunity, and that input from that source is probably best directed to Politics and Religion.

How did the wage gap even get brought up here?

I fully believe that anyone who has the same experience, performance and education level and is in the same position should have a similar wage.

That's fine. We are in agreement. And I'm aware of some of the mitigating factors that contribute to the wage gap.

Fair enough.

Hmm, looking back at this post it looks terse. I am somewhat miffed at you pushing the issue of sarcasm/hyperbole like I actually owe you the slightest explanation but I don't mean to offend you generally. I apologize if this post has done so but hopefully you don't feel directly insulted.

 

[Callate]

I think the best way to draw an analogy between Sarkeesian and Thompson is thus...

Sarkeesian made some videos suggesting gaming culture had a sexism problem. In reaction, she was met with an angry, sexist tirade. And before any clowns get up in here with the NOT ALL GAMERS yes I am aware of that Wilbur thank you, you can take your seat again. Enough to make her argument for her rather tellingly.

It's unfortunate that it's gotten to a point that that rage provides cover for a lot of, well, other rage. It's gotten to the point that it's very easy to write off someone who disagrees with you, even if their grievances are legitimate. Some of what Sarkeesian has to say is worthwhile. Some of it is bullshit. But because of the raised voices, in many circles it's become an all-or-nothing proposition.

Thompson made some statements suggesting gaming culture had a violence problem, and that playing games made people violent. A lot of people laughed at Thompson and called him names. What we would've needed to see was Thompson getting violently beaten by outraged gamers. Then suddenly Thompson would have had his argument made for him, and we'd all be very sad about it.

And yet... I can't help but wonder if Thompson was in his prime during Twitter, if someone might not have given him that evidence. One jackass threatening to burn down his house. That's all it would have taken.

The worst voices echo, these days. (He said, gazing wistfully into a sepia-tinted age when everyone was nice to each other, chewing on the end of a piece of grass.)

Notably, "Gaming has a sexism problem" =/= "Gaming is sexist". If one wanted to get reductionist about it, you could say Gaming has an ASSHOLE problem. It's one we've all been aware of for a very long time, we just didn't try and defend it until the discussion became "gendered". Then suddenly it's waves of bullshit about fake geek girls and feminazis and a liberal conspiracy come to steal our hobby.

You're right about that presumption that the two are equal, but I have to note that assumption is visible on both sides of the argument. There are people who are perfectly willing to assume that liking something they find offensive means that there's something wrong with you, or that a character doing something or being able to do something is the same as the creators condoning that action.

(One hopes that wiser heads will prevail on both sides. Then one has a hearty laugh and begins to contemplate the liquor cabinet.)

I don't doubt that gaming is in the process of changing. But I have to wonder if the way things are being framed is putting the most extreme people at the helm of that change. If twenty years from now we have independent games full of sex objects coming to violent ends on one hand and shallow, flawless paragons of feminine strength on the other, I guess we'll know.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Do you have a point to make here or are we just going to ***** about whether I was being sarcastic vs pejorative when I've already stated that my intention was exactly as you thought? Is there something additional that you want from me? Do I need ten hyperbolic lashes and five hyperbolic hail Mary's to proceed or do you think maybe we can just leave it at me not thinking very much of her argument and believing that she likely spent six figures on vacations with money that people who actually trusted her premise gave her with the understanding that she was going to give it a decent effort for what should have been a good cause?

No that's fine, I made it pretty clear to what degree I think hyperbole of that nature helps the discourse. If you don't give a shit about the quality of the discourse, than naturally you're going to shrug and say "so?".

What's your point? Are you saying that it's unreasonable to expect better work from someone if they're paid more to accomplish a task? I don't think it's wrong to expect more from a person paid six figures for the task than you'd get if you paid them $10k.

I don't "expect better work" from anyone that I'm not paying to do something for me. It's totally irrelevant to me whether people I have no interaction with and I'm not buying products from are doing their jobs well or not. That's between them and their audience, or them and their boss.

So people on the internet make you sad/unhappy/whatever? Perhaps you should deal with that on your own time and spend less time tilting your lance in my direction, eh?

I am "dealing with it", by responding to your public statements made in a public forum. Sorry if you feel attacked, chum.

Sure, where porn is the most extreme example then its permissibility is relevant to lesser extremes regarding the same theme. People can complain about it all they want, what they can't do is prove that it is somehow unethical or even necessarily a bad portrayal of women.

So this demands proof, then? As in measurable proof? What metric would you use to determine that? Do we apply the same demand for objective proof in other areas of media criticism? If I called a film's cinematography pedestrian, would you demand "proof"?

Saying that something is bad is indicating that it's negative for it to be created or consumed. That's what bad means.

Thanks tips. I'll ask again...show me where someone said "You're bad for enjoying this". Or shall I assume this is another case of whimsical hyperbole and leave it be?

Oh, then how about you start with at least the conversation we've already had just a few posts ago? Post 332 has you quoting me discussing my complaints about her argument. Can we not be bothered to assume you read posts you responded to?

The rambling bit about objectification wherein you state women are universally physically weaker than men? That one? That's the argument you want me to address? Seems like a sloppy generalization to me.

How did the wage gap even get brought up here?

Whathisname posted it a couple pages back.

Hmm, looking back at this post it looks terse. I am somewhat miffed at you pushing the issue of sarcasm/hyperbole like I actually owe you the slightest explanation but I don't mean to offend you generally. I apologize if this post has done so but hopefully you don't feel directly insulted.

It read as terse! That's fine though. I'm not upset or anything. I'm sure my posts read as terse as well. As previously stated, I can be an asshole.

You don't owe me explanations because I'm not a moderator and I'm not your mother. I have a particular viewpoint on this whole furor, and it's the most moderate position I can bring myself to assume. And that position is that people need to settle the fuck down and talk to the individual human beings on either side of the debate, learn their position, and at least try to come to a friendly understanding if not an agreement. Hyperbolic slings and arrows do nothing to accomplish that, and attitude polarization has poisoned the discourse.

But hey, I like using hyperbole for comic effect too, especially when I don't like something, so it's not like I don't know where you're coming from.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't doubt that gaming is in the process of changing. But I have to wonder if the way things are being framed is putting the most extreme people at the helm of that change. If twenty years from now we have independent games full of sex objects coming to violent ends on one hand and shallow, flawless paragons of feminine strength on the other, I guess we'll know.

I think gaming will continue to closely resemble the same breakdown that we have now, although hopefully with better writing to accompany better tech. Film, comics, music, etc...they've all faced this same kind of criticism before, and they are just as diversified as ever. If you want tits and ass and screaming maidens and husky men who hail from a time when men were men and women were chattel, well, you've got that. There's plenty out there to consume. No one made it go away forever by criticizing it. If there's a market, SOMEONE will supply that market, you can be guaranteed of that.