Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Somebody at 4chan noticed her kickstarter, posted it on /v/ and things kinda snowballed from there.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Why Are You So Angry?: A 6-Part Series On Angry Gamers"
- Thread starter BUNTING1243
- Start date
Somebody at 4chan noticed her kickstarter, posted it on /v/ and things kinda snowballed from there.
When you offer somebody a sandwich, you are making a personal statement of your politics as to what a sandwich is.
Then again, maybe when you ask somebody if they want a sandwich and they reply "I'm a vegan", maybe they're not judging you and making assumptions and being political as fuck - maybe they're just asking you to make them a vegan sandwich.
Shrike_Priest
Member
Neither would one refusing them. For one, in order to make statements with sandwich-refusals, you have to make sure you're around generous meat eaters. Very inefficient way to push an agenda.
Look. The point is not whether or not they said no first.
The "flow of logic" or whatever is inconsequential to the argument Innuendo Studios is making. If the answers were "No, I'm vegan.", "No, I don't drink", the exact same effect would present itself according to his thesis. It's not the lack of an affirmative/negative comment first that IS claims is the reason for the reaction. It's the notion that someone explaining to someone else that they have made a choice (be it political or otherwise) is an attack on the other party.
The conclusion that anyone who says their vegan is passive aggressive as opposed to just explaining why they just declined something.
And the exact same way that gamers react to Anita when she says that games are sexist and they get mad at her for calling gamers sexist, which she never did (aside from the sexist gamers who harass her).
And so on, and so on. Basically this thing same argument (though this one is tied to Sarkeesian directly)
We've seen this time and time again with regards to Sarkeesian. Lots of her critics (or critics of feminism in general) use the same kind of logic as shown above. That she is somehow critiquing gamers who play GTA5, rather than critiquing the content itself.
I honestly think putting "The Good Guy" at part 5 was kind of burying the lead. It's one of the better cases he makes.
I personally think it doesn't explain all online harassment-type behavior, as some probably has other causes, but it does work to explain a lot of instances. But as someone said above, it's not supposed to be used as a dunce cap, it's supposed to be used as a tool to understand why people would act in that way and react accordingly.
Well being a vegan has obvious connotations tied to it. Vegans have certain opinions about meat, animals and killing them for food. So the answer "I'm vegan" doesn't just mean "No thanks". It projects entire viewpoint that person has about meat. So it can be interpreted as passive-aggressive response.
Offering food to someone is the purest form of showing good will. Invitation too friendship.
Offering food to someone is the purest form of showing good will. Invitation too friendship.
That could be true, but would be better off with a more direct response. The key is to satisfy questions with the best, most optimal answers as possible along with as little assumption and back and forth dialogue as possible too
Vincent Grayson
Member
In my experience, this is not usually the case. It's more the other way around. Someone offers you a drink, or some food, or whatever, and the initial "No thanks" or similar innocuous answer isn't "enough", and the original person then asks "Why not?" or says something like "Come on, not even a beer?" And then people get all weird when you say "Oh, I'm not drinking tonight" or "I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat pepperoni pizza" or whatever.
Yes, there are pushy people in "alternate" lifestyles that are smug assholes that think their decisions to do something differently does in fact reflect better on them as a person, and that they must make mention of it often. But that's hardly the majority.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
What if, by saying "I'm vegan", the person means "I'm vegan"?
Shrike_Priest
Member
Regardless of whether or not it is. That's the point.
Yes, few people go vegan without reasons. Few people are feminists without reasons. But the notion that the mere mention of that fact about themselves is necessarily an attack on the morality of the other person is what is flawed.
People assume it's passive aggressive because they know that someone who makes choices like these make them because they've found them to be morally superior, this causes insecurity they themselves are not fully aware of, and they react with anger at "sanctimonious vegans" etc. Because then they don't have to question why they themselves eat slaughtered baby piglets every day. At least that's the case IS makes.
I know cause I've had the reaction myself. I've complained about pushy vegetarians and how annoying they are. But I realized that few of them were pushy at all.
It depends how this person is saying it. Body language and tone of voice can communicate more than words.
Internet has it's limits. It's harder to be sarcastic on a forum than in real life.
Messofanego
Banned
But that's all it is, an offer. That can be rejected. You can't force good will. Good will is also accepting a rejection rather than judging the person who rejected.
That's the simplest way to put it.
I remember my father and I when I started adolescence. I began to keep secrets from him, where as before we shared everything openly with each other. I enjoyed keeping secrets, little parts of me that were just for myself, which was something I did little of before. When I told my father this when he asked why I was not telling him something, I explained I just wanted to keep that part to myself. Which he said he understood....and then seemed confused when I continued to not share things with him. He seemed to think that because he accepted my secrets, I would open up those secrets to him in gratitude. He was visibly disappointed when he realized that was not the case. He seemed to think I was judging him unworthy in some way by not sharing my secrets with him. Eventually, he realized that this was not true and if he wanted to be truly accepting of me, he'd have to accept there are simply areas of my mindspace he was not welcome in. Not because I deemed him unworthy in any way, but simply because it was my right to share or not share those pieces of me in whatever way I choose. I respected him a lot more when he accepted that, and not the false "I get you, but do things my way anyway" acceptance he tried before.
True respect for other people means you accept when they reject your offer as much as when they accept.
MrJoobJoob
Member
But what do they mean by "I'm." Are they not saying by implication that you aren't? Is that not a violation of your sovereignty as Man?
Remember when this thread started as a discussion of online hatred and ended up being about whether vegan sandwiches are judgmental political statements?
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
I think one of my questions from watching the videos is; what is this fascination with being a good or bad person? Or better, why are we labeling someone based on the entertainment they enjoy?
At one point the creator does something like this.
Jack plays video games = given
Games are sexist = given
Jack is a bad person for enjoying them = false
Anita is a liar = true
The train of thought here is that Jack reacts the way he does because he doesn't want to believe he is a bad person.
This type of black or white thinking really irritates me.
Is it not possible for people to recognize sexism, and still enjoy a game without being labeled a bad person?
Does enjoying sexist content (like pretty much every movie, game or TV show out there) make you an evil sexist?
I believe the portrayal of Black Widow is sexist in the Avengers movies but I liked both movies and wish she got her own.
Star Wars is my favorite IP out there and it is terribly sexist (slave bikini anyone?) but I don't think people who love it are sexist.
I think this is where the Feminist movement really loses me as a supporter and pushes me to not really care about their plight. They are way to black and white.
Its not enough to recognize and bring awareness to what is sexist and offer options to how it could be different (removal of slave bikini which i am ok with even if I thought Carrie looked hot in it). No, they must now make people feel bad for enjoying the content and label them.
That said, I am not trying to let Jack, or those like him, off the hook here for being willfully ignorant of the sexism. Not at all. But enjoying something sexy is not inherently bad or good. Its just enjoyment, escapism or titillation. There are limits to enjoyment where I believe people fall into the perverse (pedophilia) but, within the norms (and laws) of society, there is nothing wrong with enjoying something.
I mean I have done that for years (granted, like I said before I don't care if you think I am a bad person).
I remember playing MMOs back in the day during the "Tankini" debates. I would always argue for women having a more covered up, realistic, and less sexualized option but I was against the removal of the sexualized option as well. I have always believed there should be more choice in games not less.
I enjoyed the older Tomb Raider games. I see Quiet and think, "well that is ridiculously sexualized", but it wont keep me from enjoying the game. I had female characters in "Tankini" armor in MMOs before and enjoyed those games. I main Cammy in Street Fighter games. My Shepards were all female lesbians.
Those things all label me as a sexist and bad person according to the above metric. Which I am ok with if that is the only metric people want to go off of.
In my opinion though it is ok for someone to enjoy something that is sexualized but it is also ok for someone to wish it wasn't sexualized (or wish they had the option for it to not be sexualized).
Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, not all games can have a main character that comes in two versions (or four versions in some cases). I believe that single player, set character, experiences should be more wary in the future to make sure their characters can be relatable by all genders and even races.
I think the modern Lara Croft is a good example of a well thought out character. She is still sexy and attractive but is far less of a straight sex symbol (weird grunting aside) and kinda hits that Katniss vibe that is popular with young women these days.
Katniss herself, at least as portrayed by J law, also hits this happy medium.
As for the tie of sexiness with feminsm I have a bit of a bone to pick.
It was funny for me to hear people call Mad Max Fury Road both feminist and sexist at the same time. I can see why there could be different opinions though (even if one is wrong).
Feminism, at least in my understanding, is about empowering women and bringing along gender equality. But at some point, how a woman looks or is dressed became more important than her actual characterization. To many, as soon as an attractive woman is showing skin she is automatically just a sex symbol and can no longer be a positive example of feminism.
People saw that the wives were all extremely hot and half naked and said, "this movie is sexist because of this". They ignored the fact that each, in her own way, showed themselves to be strong, brave and pivotal characters. Then you have Furiosa herself who was basically feminism personified and even she looked sexy.
That isn't to say that the objectification of women doesn't exist, because it does and is inherently sexist. But not every woman who is dress provocatively is being objectified. An empowered woman can chose to dress however she likes (just like anybody). The problem of objectification comes when women (or men) are just given a look that either defies the games logic or has no reasoning what-so-ever.
The wives in Mad Max are not being objectified by the movies creators. Their attire fits in with the universe and makes sense with the narrative (they WERE objectified by their captor and escaped hastily with whatever they had on). This is why, just because something is sexy it is not sexist.
Basically I can sum this idea like this. If you want to have characters who are sexualized you better have a damn good reason in the narrative or in the characters personality that is tied fundamentally to the logic and setting of your world.
If your character is a Super Heroine who wears a bikini while everyone else is in full combat fatigues you better have a damn good reason for her to do so. If you never develop this reason, or it isn't the characters choice based on her empowered personality which you developed heavily through narrative, then you are part of what is wrong with the games industry.
At one point the creator does something like this.
Jack plays video games = given
Games are sexist = given
Jack is a bad person for enjoying them = false
Anita is a liar = true
The train of thought here is that Jack reacts the way he does because he doesn't want to believe he is a bad person.
This type of black or white thinking really irritates me.
Is it not possible for people to recognize sexism, and still enjoy a game without being labeled a bad person?
Does enjoying sexist content (like pretty much every movie, game or TV show out there) make you an evil sexist?
I believe the portrayal of Black Widow is sexist in the Avengers movies but I liked both movies and wish she got her own.
Star Wars is my favorite IP out there and it is terribly sexist (slave bikini anyone?) but I don't think people who love it are sexist.
I think this is where the Feminist movement really loses me as a supporter and pushes me to not really care about their plight. They are way to black and white.
Its not enough to recognize and bring awareness to what is sexist and offer options to how it could be different (removal of slave bikini which i am ok with even if I thought Carrie looked hot in it). No, they must now make people feel bad for enjoying the content and label them.
That said, I am not trying to let Jack, or those like him, off the hook here for being willfully ignorant of the sexism. Not at all. But enjoying something sexy is not inherently bad or good. Its just enjoyment, escapism or titillation. There are limits to enjoyment where I believe people fall into the perverse (pedophilia) but, within the norms (and laws) of society, there is nothing wrong with enjoying something.
I mean I have done that for years (granted, like I said before I don't care if you think I am a bad person).
I remember playing MMOs back in the day during the "Tankini" debates. I would always argue for women having a more covered up, realistic, and less sexualized option but I was against the removal of the sexualized option as well. I have always believed there should be more choice in games not less.
I enjoyed the older Tomb Raider games. I see Quiet and think, "well that is ridiculously sexualized", but it wont keep me from enjoying the game. I had female characters in "Tankini" armor in MMOs before and enjoyed those games. I main Cammy in Street Fighter games. My Shepards were all female lesbians.
Those things all label me as a sexist and bad person according to the above metric. Which I am ok with if that is the only metric people want to go off of.
In my opinion though it is ok for someone to enjoy something that is sexualized but it is also ok for someone to wish it wasn't sexualized (or wish they had the option for it to not be sexualized).
Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, not all games can have a main character that comes in two versions (or four versions in some cases). I believe that single player, set character, experiences should be more wary in the future to make sure their characters can be relatable by all genders and even races.
I think the modern Lara Croft is a good example of a well thought out character. She is still sexy and attractive but is far less of a straight sex symbol (weird grunting aside) and kinda hits that Katniss vibe that is popular with young women these days.
Katniss herself, at least as portrayed by J law, also hits this happy medium.
As for the tie of sexiness with feminsm I have a bit of a bone to pick.
It was funny for me to hear people call Mad Max Fury Road both feminist and sexist at the same time. I can see why there could be different opinions though (even if one is wrong).
Feminism, at least in my understanding, is about empowering women and bringing along gender equality. But at some point, how a woman looks or is dressed became more important than her actual characterization. To many, as soon as an attractive woman is showing skin she is automatically just a sex symbol and can no longer be a positive example of feminism.
People saw that the wives were all extremely hot and half naked and said, "this movie is sexist because of this". They ignored the fact that each, in her own way, showed themselves to be strong, brave and pivotal characters. Then you have Furiosa herself who was basically feminism personified and even she looked sexy.
That isn't to say that the objectification of women doesn't exist, because it does and is inherently sexist. But not every woman who is dress provocatively is being objectified. An empowered woman can chose to dress however she likes (just like anybody). The problem of objectification comes when women (or men) are just given a look that either defies the games logic or has no reasoning what-so-ever.
The wives in Mad Max are not being objectified by the movies creators. Their attire fits in with the universe and makes sense with the narrative (they WERE objectified by their captor and escaped hastily with whatever they had on). This is why, just because something is sexy it is not sexist.
Basically I can sum this idea like this. If you want to have characters who are sexualized you better have a damn good reason in the narrative or in the characters personality that is tied fundamentally to the logic and setting of your world.
If your character is a Super Heroine who wears a bikini while everyone else is in full combat fatigues you better have a damn good reason for her to do so. If you never develop this reason, or it isn't the characters choice based on her empowered personality which you developed heavily through narrative, then you are part of what is wrong with the games industry.
Shrike_Priest
Member
There is none. He goes to great lengths in part 5 to explain that labelling people good or bad is NOT what the critique is about. But the BELIEF that that's what it's about is what drives Angry Jacks to behave the way it does.
Yes, good, it should. It's to represent how Angry Jack comes to the conclusion that Anita Sarkeesian is an evil feminazi based on the misinterpretation of here critique and failure to see the nuance in critiquing a piece of media as opposed to critiquing the consumer of said media.
Yeah, if this is where feminism loses you, that's great. Because that's not what they're doing. If you are feeling bad about it, and think they label you a sexist, that's because you are mixing up them calling GTAV sexist with them calling YOU sexist for enjoying GTAV. Which is the whole point of the Angry Jack argument.
Yes it is. Watch the video. https://youtu.be/TCqQ9LxzTwM?t=462 Both IS and Anita Sarkeesian make the point. Simultaneously no less.
No. That's exactly what he says it doesn't.
You are literally critiquing THE OPPOSITE of what he and Anita Sarkeesian said.
I think I'll end the vegan discussion by reminding us of something southpark taught us.
Suppose the vegan is judging you to be wrong for eating meat.
The question is, is he tolerating you?
The vegan doesn't have to like you or repress his opinions on the matter, but what he does have to do is tolerate you, the same way you tolerate a baby crying on an airplane or a person smoking, even if you hate them.
You can't be angry at someone for thinking something is wrong. Maybe disagree with them, fault their reasoning if they give bad arguments for it, but you can't say they're wrong for thinking something is wrong that you disagree with.
And they can't either. So if they don't...then they're tolerating you, whatever inner thoughts they have about you.
But really, it'd just be easier for everyone involved if you don't immediately presume a vegan is judging you simply because they are vegan and your not.
Suppose the vegan is judging you to be wrong for eating meat.
The question is, is he tolerating you?
The vegan doesn't have to like you or repress his opinions on the matter, but what he does have to do is tolerate you, the same way you tolerate a baby crying on an airplane or a person smoking, even if you hate them.
You can't be angry at someone for thinking something is wrong. Maybe disagree with them, fault their reasoning if they give bad arguments for it, but you can't say they're wrong for thinking something is wrong that you disagree with.
And they can't either. So if they don't...then they're tolerating you, whatever inner thoughts they have about you.
But really, it'd just be easier for everyone involved if you don't immediately presume a vegan is judging you simply because they are vegan and your not.
We all know it's actually the vegetables who do all the judging anyway.
Fucking broccolis. I'll eat that sundae if i want to
Its not about accepting/rejecting offer. Its about how you do it. When someone gives you a ham sandwich and you're response is "I'm vegan". You are digging a hole for yourself. Even if you didn't mean too.
The other person eats meat. I find eating meat morally wrong. By saying "I'm vegan" I'm showing other person that I'm morally superior to him. Now he feels weird eating that meat sandwich in front of me.
"I'm vegan" is a political statement. Its a pointer. I belong to this group of people that think that way. Same as "I'm libertarian", "I'm Marxist".
Too put it short. When somebody offers you a sandwich just say "No thanks. I don't eat meat".
TakeItSlowDude
Member
This vegan thing is a red herring, the activist position is not analogous to a vegan refusing sandwich because the activist is not passively rejecting something. A vegan may or may not be making a judgement in a passive aggressive way, but an activists is certainly making moral or political judgements in order to evoke change. To not acknowledge this distinction is a significant failure of these videos. I would go as far to say this is intentional obscurantism on Innuendo's part given how he frames the default position and how his claim of non judgement is betrayed in the second video with his loaded descriptions.
No. Their assertion of moral superiority is purely your projection. It may or may not be true, but it's not what their saying. You can't know the reasons they phrase it that way. Few people stop to think about the underlying implications of what they say in the first place. That's why people misspeak so often. But in this case, they're not misspeaking, they are rejecting while also giving a self expressed reason. Which is their right to do so. Them being g vegan means they made some kind of judgement on meat. That's the extent of what you can assume, and it says nothing about you. You can think they are morally judging you when they something to the effect of "You are wrong for not being a vegan".
Anton Sugar
Member
Bingo.
Not trying to sound like a dick, but how the fuck is this vegan discussion still going on?
It's just a simple analogy to explain the reactionary response of Angry Jacks
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
There is none. He goes to great lengths in part 5 to explain that labelling people good or bad is NOT what the critique is about. But the BELIEF that that's what it's about is what drives Angry Jacks to behave the way it does.
Yes, good, it should. It's to represent how Angry Jack comes to the conclusion that Anita Sarkeesian is an evil feminazi based on the misinterpretation of here critique and failure to see the nuance in critiquing a piece of media as opposed to critiquing the consumer of said media.
Yeah, if this is where feminism loses you, that's great. Because that's not what they're doing. If you are feeling bad about it, and think they label you a sexist, that's because you are mixing up them calling GTAV sexist with them calling YOU sexist for enjoying GTAV. Which is the whole point of the Angry Jack argument.
Yes it is. Watch the video. https://youtu.be/TCqQ9LxzTwM?t=462 Both IS and Anita Sarkeesian make the point. Simultaneously no less.
No. That's exactly what he says it doesn't.
You are literally critiquing THE OPPOSITE of what he and Anita Sarkeesian said.
Ahh thank you for clearing that up. I miss understood that section then.
BTW, I don't feel bad when I enjoy something sexist but the idea that enjoying something sexist is bad I cannot get behind (not that I personally care but for some it can lead to Jack like behavior when they are lableled).
I have seen feminists use that logic before. Basically, when someone says "Oh you like that? Well you are part of the problem then."
If that makes sense.
I wish I understood where he gets the idea that people think a sexist is a sexual abuser/rapist. I am 31 and I have only ever believed a sexist to be someone who thinks men are better than women and women should be kept in their place. Nobody I know has the same belief as him.
I am not discounting his work (or the general gist of his message) but that part I think is a bit far fetched for me.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
Whenever I have offered a Vegan meat of some sort and they respond, "I am a Vegan", I say, "Well that sucks", and eat the meat offered in front of them while innocently continuing the conversation.
I have nothing against Vegans, I am just a giant asshole.
Maybe some people feel uncomfortable with what is being discussed so they latch on to the first argument they have against the video so they don't have to continue paying attention to it: Fuck this nonexistent vegan because of what I'm projecting onto it.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Sorry for derailing the thread about an otherwise very interesting video series (although it wasn't getting a ton of traction beforehand so I'd like to think it's extra discussion instead of replacing discussion that would otherwise occur). Read through everyone's responses and I just want to succinctly affirm/clarify (and try not to talk too much, no promises). But first I just want to stress something I mentioned in my first post which is that:
Now it's totally fair to complain, well then you're not addressing the central issue/subject of the video. And while that is true, specific discussion can coexist with generalized discussion. I also think it's important to interrogate the way we make arguments and whether we might be using a bad or improvable argument for a good cause. We should also be cautious of arguments or ways of thinking that tend to diffuse us of any responsibility for self-reflection or interrogation, that put all the blame on outside parties. As for why am I being so analytical about this one weird point, I think Veelk is familiar enough with my past posts that he can vouch when I say that I like getting heavily into the weeds of something extremely specific or nuanced.
I think there's also probably a tendency to think that, because I'm being critical of something said in the video, I support GamerGate or I'm just saying this to defend GamerGate by proxy. Quite the opposite in fact. I just think the way he is analyzing that particular issue in video 2 is too simplified and that it's much more complicated than that (not that his overarching argument is devoid of meaning or that he's bad or anything like that). Okay, quick affirmation/clarification.
I completely agree with those who mention that offering beer is a political action and carries its own ramifications (and other posts to that effect). I just think people are wrong when they say that because it would be exhausting to consider the political impacts of everyday behavior that we shouldn't consider everyday behavior to carry political connotations. I also took great care to mention that I wasn't saying that political injection or political behavior is a bad thing or should be discouraged, I was just arguing that it wasn't neutral. And while the offer itself isn't neutral in these scenarios, because it adheres to the dominant political culture (not that that's a good or bad thing), the degree to which it does so is much lower because it's inherently self-conforming (again, not necessarily a good or bad thing).
Second, I disagree with postulations that identity politics does not carry implicit judgments along with it (I would actually argue that this is a good thing as it helps fosters conflict* (loose definition) that helps develop and mature people and societies). In particular, when I discussed a variant of this issue: If I invite someone to my gay friend's anniversary party, and they respond with "I'm a Christian", is that an apolitical or neutral statement? I think people are cheating a bit when they say things that basically relegate that to an exception so that they don't have to admit that other forms of identity politics do the same thing. Our identities should reflect critical thought and reasoned conclusions about the way people/society works; society advances through this communal conflict of ideas. People usually don't change their minds on their own absent any inputs, reshaping culture and politics demands that we interact in deeply personal ways with one another (see racism, sexism, etc).
Now it's totally fair to complain, well then you're not addressing the central issue/subject of the video. And while that is true, specific discussion can coexist with generalized discussion. I also think it's important to interrogate the way we make arguments and whether we might be using a bad or improvable argument for a good cause. We should also be cautious of arguments or ways of thinking that tend to diffuse us of any responsibility for self-reflection or interrogation, that put all the blame on outside parties. As for why am I being so analytical about this one weird point, I think Veelk is familiar enough with my past posts that he can vouch when I say that I like getting heavily into the weeds of something extremely specific or nuanced.
I think there's also probably a tendency to think that, because I'm being critical of something said in the video, I support GamerGate or I'm just saying this to defend GamerGate by proxy. Quite the opposite in fact. I just think the way he is analyzing that particular issue in video 2 is too simplified and that it's much more complicated than that (not that his overarching argument is devoid of meaning or that he's bad or anything like that). Okay, quick affirmation/clarification.
I completely agree with those who mention that offering beer is a political action and carries its own ramifications (and other posts to that effect). I just think people are wrong when they say that because it would be exhausting to consider the political impacts of everyday behavior that we shouldn't consider everyday behavior to carry political connotations. I also took great care to mention that I wasn't saying that political injection or political behavior is a bad thing or should be discouraged, I was just arguing that it wasn't neutral. And while the offer itself isn't neutral in these scenarios, because it adheres to the dominant political culture (not that that's a good or bad thing), the degree to which it does so is much lower because it's inherently self-conforming (again, not necessarily a good or bad thing).
Second, I disagree with postulations that identity politics does not carry implicit judgments along with it (I would actually argue that this is a good thing as it helps fosters conflict* (loose definition) that helps develop and mature people and societies). In particular, when I discussed a variant of this issue: If I invite someone to my gay friend's anniversary party, and they respond with "I'm a Christian", is that an apolitical or neutral statement? I think people are cheating a bit when they say things that basically relegate that to an exception so that they don't have to admit that other forms of identity politics do the same thing. Our identities should reflect critical thought and reasoned conclusions about the way people/society works; society advances through this communal conflict of ideas. People usually don't change their minds on their own absent any inputs, reshaping culture and politics demands that we interact in deeply personal ways with one another (see racism, sexism, etc).
I feel like you haven't watched the videos in this topic, and you should probably watch the videos in this topic.
Ok last comment about that vegan thing 
Meat is inanimate object. From what I understand. They opposed to act of killing an animal. Not to the meat itself because it doesn't taste that good. So they make judgement about killing and eating animals. Term Vegan is associated with certain philosophy. So its says a lot about me when I offer that ham sandwich...
If 90% of people were vegans there would be laws forbidding killing animals.
Angry Jacks are afraid of feminists in the industry because they can change things. Every movement/minority have ability to change things when they become strong/vocal enough. Same with vegans
Meat is inanimate object. From what I understand. They opposed to act of killing an animal. Not to the meat itself because it doesn't taste that good. So they make judgement about killing and eating animals. Term Vegan is associated with certain philosophy. So its says a lot about me when I offer that ham sandwich...
If 90% of people were vegans there would be laws forbidding killing animals.
Angry Jacks are afraid of feminists in the industry because they can change things. Every movement/minority have ability to change things when they become strong/vocal enough. Same with vegans
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Perhaps you should make an actual counter argument instead of assuming.
The argument is silly and it has derailed the discussion for four pages. He was simply mentioning situations where we sometimes feel we are being judged, even though that's a projection. And we do that sometimes! I do it sometimes! And that doesn't make us bad people!
I think your issue is that you're running with the idea that if "No thanks, I'm *this *political identity*" can come with a judgement in certain situations, it always happens 100% of the time and therefor this imaginary vegan is judging me. which is silly thinking
As an Atheist I've declined invitations to religious events from friends, acquaintances, and strangers along with telling them because I'm an Atheist. And sometimes, hell more often than not, I wasn't judging them!
MrJoobJoob
Member
Are the Vegans judging you? And if so, why do they hate America?
Anton Sugar
Member
Do all Vegans clap when refusing a meal?
"Why don't you just say "No thanks" when you're not judging them, Odrion?"
Because 99% of social interaction is on the fly thinking and reactions, and my identity is important to me because I'm a human with an id and ego, so naturally it comes up. If I was a vegan, I'm sure I'd bring it up innocent of judgement sometimes as well rather than just grunting "no" to everyone.
Because 99% of social interaction is on the fly thinking and reactions, and my identity is important to me because I'm a human with an id and ego, so naturally it comes up. If I was a vegan, I'm sure I'd bring it up innocent of judgement sometimes as well rather than just grunting "no" to everyone.
I never understood why ethics in journalism was so important to some people, even if it was somehow legitimate. Most of the media is corrupt that's the way it's always been in all media's as if somehow the gaming press is a beacon of pure shining hope. And these gamer gates I bet would be the sort to complain when a preview is too negative. I guess gamers are just crazier than other fan's or it's the internet spend to much time on it and you end up wacko one way or another.
Now you judge people that project being judged by vegans.
Ethics in real journalism is very important. Telling what happened and stating known facts without taking sides. When we talk about "game journalism" it all breaks apart. What real stories can "game journalist" present? Game is announced. Trailer is shown. Game is released. Everything else is marketing. Sponsored or free doesn't matter. Same applies to every "journalism" that talks about products not events. So yeah ethics in "game journalism" is just a fantasy.
I don't believe that Sarkeesian is a proponent of the media magic bullet theory, that media consumption has an instant immediate impact on the people who consume it. That theory has long been disproven. Her videos are more about awareness of current tropes, why they can be harmful, and about representation, what could be changed. A lot of the tropes and cliches we encounter in any media have been around for generations. Nobody is saying, well you killed a hooker in GTA, you are a bad person, its more what that content is saying about our society. Some of these instances are the results, not causes of the society we live in. Are they still relevent, are they harmful, what can be done to change them. Thats what her video series is about. I don't even agree with all her examples, but its still a good conversation to have.
Just because you or I may not see a problem in the content, doesn't mean there isn't one. Everyone can see things differently.
Great and enlightening series. He articulates his points incredibly well and presents them in a way that's easy to understand. I appreciate the amount of focus he puts on our tendency to think of things in absolutes; in particular, the idea that sexism consists mostly of masked rapists in alleys. I think this makes it easy to both ignore (or not recognise) more insidious forms of sexism and indignantly feel accused when it's pointed out that we might enjoy media that includes it.
The admission that most of us have been, and could occasionally relapse into, Angry Jack at some point is a tough one to make and I'm glad he does.
The admission that most of us have been, and could occasionally relapse into, Angry Jack at some point is a tough one to make and I'm glad he does.
MrJoobJoob
Member
Am... am I the real Angry Jack?
That's probably the most poignant part of the video for me. I think maybe 10 years ago under the right circumstances I could have been a GamerGator. I'm not saying I'd have been a harasser, but I easily could have been someone who completely believed the strawman of Sarkeesian, the idea that she's an outsider "injecting" her personal brand of politics, that she's judging men and me personally as being bad, etc.
On a more daily basis though, I can admit to being an Angry Jack during my commute in traffic.
DAREALGUMMY
Member
Oh. I thought this was about angry guy yells about a bad game.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Except it explains nothing, it is speculation and quite possibly a projection. A projection that is used to make the opposing viewpoint unworthy of any consideration and allows one to wave away counter arguments without directly addressing them. One could just as well say that the reactionary response is a product of the unwillingness of activists openly debate the merits of their criticism.
Sure have the conversation, but this debate is about more than just personal taste and sensibilities. Central to this debate is that games have non-trivial real word effects, that there is a moral component to games and media consumption. All I have seen is unsubstantiated theories, various meta arguments, and a lot of speculation. These things may be sufficient for developing personal taste and a set of critical values, but they fail to transcend the personal as to why games should change.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not sure I get what you're asking for. "Scientific", "objective" proof that sexism is bullshit?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Eew, 50ppp instead of 100
The whole argument I'm making is that I don't agree that it is a projection caused solely by an unwarranted inference of the other person. We may not intend to do it but that doesn't mean that political values and associated judgements (not necessarily about the individual by the way) don't get expressed through our actions and behaviors (see my earlier comment about micro-aggressions as one possible model/example). I would actually agree that it always happens 100% of the time, that's kind of the whole point.
And if I was to use your structure, I would say, why are people getting derailed when I'm simply mentioning situations where we mistakenly feel we are being apolitical even though that's a projection. And we do that sometimes! I do it sometimes! And that doesn't make us bad people.
I think you're being a bit hyperbolic to try to smooth over a difficult point; acting as if there is no conscious decision making in what we say to one another is a little much. The bolded is exactly the kind of implicitly political action I'm talking about. That you conceive your motivation in bringing up your identity as one being motivated purely by internal psychology does not make that expression (or your possible motivation) apolitical. If subjective intent was all that mattered I think we would have very different discussions in the realms of sexism and racism for example (not to equate those with this by any means, just using it as an example/model again).
QuantumZebra
Member
It boils down to a bunch of angry (mostly male) gamers who recoil in horror at the thought of someone criticizing their hobby (especially a gasp... female) and lash out accordingly.
No. That is not even part of this debate. It never has been and never will be. Anita does not claim causation or even correlation. Her videos highlight tropes involving women in various forms of media.
Now if you want to talk about unsubstantiated theories, various meta arguments, and a lot of speculation, then you might want to explore Gamergate.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
A more nuanced view of media consumption. One that can admit that people indulge in virtual activities and consume media that contradict their real world beliefs and actions. That speculative and ideological theories of media are not sufficiently backed by empirical evidence to serve as moral arguments.