-
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
There have been countless studies and theories on how media does affect us as individuals and as a society. You can go from the propaganda films of Joseph Goebbles to political adds, the youth targeted anti drug and smoking campaigns and there are countless books and tests and surveys done on all of these and more. Games are still fairly new and their impact on society. Sarkeesian's videos and methods wouldn't pass the standards for getting funding for empirical research, but they are talking points of being conscious media consumers, and they could be the starting point for more analytical research into games and their impact, perceived or actual, as a cultural media phenomenon.
That said, we encourage parents to be active participants in what games their kids play. If I told you I was selective in the violent content my child is exposed to, its unlikely you would be asking for some empirical evidence to validate my decision. So how is it different if I want to be careful of the games my 7 year old daughter is exposed to because she identifies with female characters? And trust me, she does, vocally. She can tell in a visual sense who is like her, who is not. If the characters she relates to are often beaten, or murdered or poorly treated, how is she going to interpret that? Tell her games are not real? The monster under her bed isn't real either, but it influences her behavior nonetheless. She is also more likely to find real world examples that could correlate what she sees in the game.
InsaneZero
Member
The only thing that can transcend personal taste and sensibilities, and the only thing that should be given any weight is tangible evidence. If you want to hijack the conversation away from an analysis of a real, quantifiable problem with video games to hold a meta-discussion speculating about the intent or possible consequences of the analysis, then you better have some compelling evidence of your own to substantiate your claims. At least properly discredit the merits of the analysis by providing a direct counter-argument backed up by evidence. If you believe that the analysis is intentionally misleading or that the problem is overexaggerated or that it can produce negative consequences, then prove it. It's like responding to a scientific report that uses established prediction models that ultimately comes to a conclusion that humanity is going to get fucked if nothing changes with a complaint that people with opposing viewpoints weren't consulted for their opinions and then talking only about how this report might make governments more forceful about protecting the environment. Nothing about that response actually changes anything about the claim. It only addresses people's perceptions of it.
A debate is a reasonable, non-emotional conversation that pits two claims against each other, using actual concrete evidence and logical deductions based on that evidence to determine which one is more legitimate. If you really believe that there should be a debate about this, then have some decency to put in the same amount of effort in substantiating your claims. Why should other people care and respect your counter-claim if you can't even do it yourself?
Why?
TakeItSlowDude
Member
You originally stated "Anita does not claim causation or even correlation" if this was meant to be limited to the context of her Tropes series then you are right. The first quote is her words as reported in an article. The two other quotes shine a light on her intellectual world view. It could be that I am extrapolating too far, but for various reasons I doubt that her concerns are aesthetic.
InsaneZero
Member
Extrapolation without any sort of tangible proof, something that clearly demonstrates intent, to establish legitimacy is literally baseless speculation.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
I am not sure what you are getting at. My objection to this video is that it does not engage in any earnest discussion, it is simply another exercise in meta arguments. What empirical analysis is occurring in this video? This video is one guy assigning various motives to another group in effort to explain why that group opposes another group. Do you really think that being skeptical of a guy psychoanalyzing on the internet is being unreasonable?
I am also failing to understand why it unreasonable to be skeptical of various psychological and media theories when both of those fields are full of contradictory and competing theories (and a significant amount of dead theories, many shaped from various ideologies). One could easily point to various theories in Evo Psych or neuroscience to rationalize the status quo. There are so many issues when it comes behavioral research that anyone not making highly measured claims deserve to be questioned.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
The entire social constructionist argument is well known, I am failing to see how my extrapolation is unreasonable.
Okay, as a studying psychologist, you have me curious. As far as I could tell, there were no "psychology" demonstrated here. I mean, yes, he mentioned some projection in regarding the whole "I am an X" thing where angry jack takes things personally and talks about a persecution complex, but he's not clinically diagnosing anyone. You can't clinically diagnose a movement. Simple speculation of motivations and analysis of behavior patterns is not in itself a psychological study. If anything, this is for the most part an argumentative study. It's premises are derived by what the gamergate movement is stated to stand for and compared that against its actions. But that's not psychology. Psychology is taking consenting people into a lab and giving them various kinds of tests. At best, the study of gamergate would be a sociological study, since you are analyzing a population rather than an individual.
So, we're gonna get into burden of proof circle jerk here, explain to me exactly what you think you know of psychology that invalidates whichever theory it is you think is relevant to the discussion.
Edit: This is what I get for paying half attention I guess. I just realized your talking about Anita's videos. Still, yeah, burden of proof is on you in this case. You're making a claim there is high contention regarding the validity of media theories. Okay, provide the contention. Psychology is a soft science, so it's never going to get definitive answers like physics, but we do do plenty of research that answers a good deal of questions. I mentioned some studies back on the other page. So if you feel there is science that disputes Anita's claims, lets hear it.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
That quote was meant to establish my reasons in general for being skeptical of media theories. As for the video I am not saying that it meets any standard of being psychologically sound, but the argument posited is that of Angry Jack being a condition. That this condition is then used to discredit any views held by the generalize Angry Jack. I am guilty of using word psychological argument too loosely, maybe psychoanalyzing would be a better word for it. This type of rhetorical technique comes across as underhanded to me.
I will take a look at what you posted. Though I tend think that claims from the soft sciences are best approach with a high degree of skepticism when they are not heavily measured. I would base my skepticism on the fact that psychology fails to be reproducible Reproducible of psychological and from the debunking/nuancing of previous theories about violence in games Grand Theft Childhood Surprising Violent. I am not even opposed to the majority of what Anita purposes on aesthetic grounds, I am just highly skeptical of why certain things are problems.
InsaneZero
Member
I'm failing to see how observations about stuff that happens often in games and tv shows is meant to be some kind of judgment about the audience that enjoys it.
So we're clear, the author of the video series is not saying anyone who disagrees with Sarkeesian's videos is "angry jack". There isn't anything wrong with criticizing her findings, or asking her to "show me the receipts" so long as its done dispassionately and attacking the argument, not her character or gender.
Thats not angry jack, though. Jack doesn't want to see the receipts, and Jack doesn't want to debate those points. Jack doesn't want his wroldview challenged in any way because he doesn't want to concede he could be wrong.
I'm going to assume that you don't agree with Sarkeesian's videos, and thats perfectly fine. But I assume your rebuttal isn't "I'm going to rape and kill you, you stupid whore". Your response isn't to e-stalk her, hack her social media accounts and post porn. Attack her race, religion or ethnicity. Well, thats the Raison D'etre of the people Angry Jack associates with. Thats the problem. You don't need hard data or the scientific method to determine that how she, or Zoe Quinn or other women have been treated is completely unacceptable.
What you're describing sounds like a strawman argument. An attempt to generalize the entire movement into a sort of stereotype or caricature. Angry Jack is not it. Angry Jack is a model, or roadmap, of what kind of people gamergaters are, but Angry Jack is not the people themselves. Furthermore, the video explored in great depth the various possible origins of Jacks feelings and actions. Strawmen do not get that intricate. The entire point of the strawman is to simplify an argument in order to make it easier to take down. And Angry Jack isn't a replacement for the person you are arguing about with gamergate, he's simply a reference guide in order to know what to look for. That's not underhanded anymore than any kind of generalization is. Generalizations aren't bad, they just need to be more useful than they are vague, and Angry Jack is one of the best generalizations I've ever seen. Every element of Gamergate I've ever seen, I see a significant detail of in Angry Jack. Next time I get into an argument with a GG, the stepping stones of the conversation are easier to follow now. I will listen to their argument, but the model of Angry Jack will let me get through them faster, understand them better.
But as for burden of proof, you can't simply get away with saying "It's a soft science field, therefore its theories are disreputable, approach with skepticism". For one, it's not an even spread of uncertainty across the field. Some stuff is is pretty much a given. Media affecting us is probably one of the easiest things to prove. It's just nearly impossible to quantify how much, because it depends not only on the individual person, but the media piece itself. It's not that it isn't true, it's just hard to measure how true it is, because that is dependent on so, SO many individual and social factors that it is impossible to isolate any particular thing as a deciding element of what makes it work. But virtually every paper on representation I've ever seen reports how media affects us says it does. The only time it doesn't is when we have pre-emptively put up mental defenses watching out for influences.
Soft science, btw, doesn't mean "We're not sure". It means "It's impossible to precisely predict in any particular case" Literally every person is different and reacts differently for millions of reasons. Where as in physics, gravity acts consistantly and the experimentation of a true theory will always validate that theory, because physics are consistent across the universe. They've made machines that calculate specific force to flip a coin, and they can call how it will land each and every time because they have formula involved in the physical act of flipping the coin calculated. You can't do that with people. They aren't consistent. So we have to make due with statistical measures. But that doesn't validate skepticism, it just means you will never produce an experiment that is replicateable to the exact degree each time. Suppose we test with a couple dozen sample sized population with the affects of X. Sometimes it will turn up that 80% of the population was affected. Sometimes it will turn up as 74%. Sometimes 89%. Maybe you get an outlier group of 56%. That's what soft science is. We're never going to be sure of the exact impact on the individual, or even a group of individuals, but we get a statistical chance with a margin of error. There is no skepticism of the product, just the uncertainty of it.
Skepticism only comes into play when you have evidence to the contrary of the prevailing theory.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
I pretty sure that judgment is in implicit in part 5 when it is asserted the (particular set of) things we do in games need to stop.
Fair enough with that distinction.
Okay given the high degree of heterogeneity in how people are effected by media, how would one go about cultivating a set of guidelines or critical values of what is and is not acceptable.
RoninChaos
Member
I'll check it out.
Well, in relevance to Anita's video's, you should ask yourself, how sexist and misogynistic should the world be?
How much should women be paid less than men for equal work? How much should they be victimized? Dehumanized? How many death threats should they receive for speaking their opinion? How many opportunities should they not be afforded based on their gender? Or alternatively, how much should men be told to repress their feelings, even if they're uncomfortable with it? And so on.
For me, the easy answer here is pretty much 0%. But if you disagree, please feel free to elaborate on how much you feel sexism has a place in the world.
Edit: Also, it's impossible to tailor suit a massive media product such as a game or movie. A game isn't going to be played by any one person either, a movie is not tailor suited to an individual. While no one can say for certain to say that your product will affect any particular individual, it will affect many of them to varying degrees. Statistically, it's implausible that it wouldn't. So you have to ask yourself, as a creator, how do you want to affect those that will be affected by it?
TakeItSlowDude
Member
I would imagine that most people are going to say zero for those things or close enough to zero while maximizing the average utility/happiness. Though without a precise or consistent way to understand how/if those things can manifest/evolve from media consumption I am left with no satisfactory way to know what is unacceptable.
Well...first off, I'm not asking what 'most people' would say, I am what you would say. Because that's an awfully evasive answer.
Second, I don't really understand what you mean by 'acceptable'. No one is preventing sexist media from being made. It's just bad form to do so, worse to encourage it. The same way you are perfectly free to promote nazi-ism or child slavery, it's just that most people will call you out on promoting something reprehensible. Things like this shouldn't be accepted in the sense it should be ignored or applauded, but there is no control being asserted here. It's something everyone should agree upon because sexism is blows chunks. No one is proposing unaccepting things in the sense of trying to prevent it's existence.
You're also not going to get anyone telling you here "No, this piece of media is wrong and you shouldn't enjoy it." It's not something ANYONE is bringing up, let alone Anita. So why are you?
Lastly, you're trying to figure this as a way of how much any given particular individual will interpret a piece of media. But no particular individual is the sole reciepient of that media. We can't calculate for individuals, but we can for groups. A movie isn't made for and watched by one person. Neither are games. The are a MASS media consumption product. While no one can say for certain to say that your product will affect any particular individual, you know it will affect many of them to varying degrees. Statistically, it's implausible that it wouldn't. So you have to ask yourself, as a creator, how do you want to affect those that will be affected by it?
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Well for the obvious things on your list I would say zero. Though the extent that feelings should be repressed or dehumanizing someone, I can see contexts were feelings need to be repressed so that people can make rational decisions and dehumanizing is incredibly fuzzy term.
For the second part I trying discern to what extent is indulging in something virtually is an endorsement of that same thing in real life. There is so much distant between what people accept in their media versus what they accept in real life.
The last question is not one that I can give a great or certain answer for, though I would imagine for some of the same reasons why people debate individual tastes on this site.
Explain what feelings related to being discriminated against on sexist terms should be repressed for 'rational' debate. If you have a context where sexism and misogyny is a positive force, please share it. In experience, it has been a pretty much exclusively negative element.
THe reason you are bringing up a concern for an censorship no one suggested is because you want to express individual tastes?
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
You keep bringing that up, but nobody ever said that.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Lol, I think comparing DDead or Alive: Bouncing Boobs to child slavery is itself bad form lol
Anyway:I will point out that there are indeed acts of censorship, I guess because we are on GAF, in gaming media. A recemt example was the banning of GTA5 from selling in certain stores in Australia if I remember correctly.
I do think that Anita is trying to say that a certain trope or game is wrong and you probably shouldn't enjoy it. Like isn't that the whole point of her web series? Isn't pointing out the sexist tropes in games inherently saying that if you enjoy this media piece, you are silently promoting it? This is the sentiment shared by Anti-GG, if you are passive or silent, you are by association, accepting it. Not saying if this is wrong or right just pointing this out.
If I misunderstood anything just point it out to me.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
No?
No?
If you're talking about being passive or silent towards harassment or actually harmful behaviour towards others, then yes. This is quite different than consuming media for your own enjoyment. Come on.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I am disappointed.
Because at first I thought this is about how so many of YouTube gaming personalities are using IMANGRY shtick for their shows. Would be interesting to see.
Because at first I thought this is about how so many of YouTube gaming personalities are using IMANGRY shtick for their shows. Would be interesting to see.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Uh. We have several people on this very site with evidence that popular culture can negitively affect people and perceptions right? Isn't that harmful? There was a thread about the use of torture in the media and one poster brought up the fact that the government actually used 24 as a reference piece. Like subconsciously (excuse my horrible spelling, I'm on my phone and doing stuff) it can affect teenage girls and boys with accepting this as normal and can actually harm people's self esteem.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
The original point I was responding to was "how much should men be told to repress their feelings, even if they're uncomfortable with it". There are all sorts of situations where showing emotion or fear is going to be seen as a weakness. Arguing that these situations should not exist is one thing, denying reality is another.
If there is no precise way of determining what is harmful content then this debate is reduced down to a question of taste.
It is important to consider if one is going to seriously try to cultivate a set guidelines or critical values on what should and should not be acceptable. I can not understand how someone can make an argument that the portrayal of X is reprehensible if we lack a clear understanding of how the portrayal of X effects the actions of others and if the portrayal of X is not an endorsement of X in real life.
For many the answer seems to be no. There is a certain kind of flawed reasoning which presupposes that only Xists do X. Thus if you enjoy sexist media, you must be sexist. Or racist or violent or dumb or indeed whatever other value for X you want to substitute in. One of the nicer points made in the IS videos cuts precisely to the heart of this issue: evaluating your actions against your supposed moral compass is often unpleasant, particularly if in the process of doing so you find yourself coming up short. Far better to remain innocently ignorant.
You're moving the goalposts. That's not a sexist issue, in this case, unless your saying only men should repress those feeling at those moments.
Uh....no. If you have a disease that will affect people to various degrees, it's not a matter of taste whether you should release it.
Like I said earlier, we can't precisely measure individual reactions. We can, however, reasonably estimate group data. Which is what mass media is for, groups of people. Even if people who aren't highly affected a sexist trope present in, say, star wars, those won't be the only ones watching the movie.
You're advocating for a serious false dichonomy, where we have to know EXACTLY the amount of damage it will do on an individual level (which would be worthless data anyway unless we specifically send out mails to each person advising them on what they should watch) or we act like we know nothing at all, which is patently untrue.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying feminists SHOULD censor media if they consider it to be wrong? Because you seem to be taking what we find 'acceptable' to heights no one here is suggesting. "Unacceptable" to me just means we call a duck a duck when it shows up. I am a feminist and can still enjoy and recommend to kids the Princess Bride movie, even while recognizing that it is using the damsel in distress trope pretty typically and recognizing that is both bad and harmful. The extent to which it is unacceptable is "Yeah, that aspect of it sucks" and that's it. You seem to want to do something more.
Lol, I think comparing DDead or Alive: Bouncing Boobs to child slavery is itself bad form lol
LOL, I'm not gonna respond to this whole post, but you know what else is considered bad form? Not understanding how analogies work lolz (´ヮ`)
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Not trying to move goalposts, just how I read the question originally.
If that disease was benign or only harmful in a trivial way while simultaneously having utility for a population a cost benefit analysis could be done. Somewhat like what is done with vaccines.
I find the degree of certainty and the amount of harm too low to advocate anything more than a ratings system. I am trying to understand the reasoning that others are engaging in when they considered particular elements harmful and why their threshold for finding things harmful is so much lower than my own.
I'm not sure this is a good analogy; the use of vaccines is regulated and many drugs are outright banned. There is no strong call for such measures in the case of video games or indeed popular media. Rather, the points being made by feminists et al are:
1. One of the moral values that "western culture" supposedly holds dear is egalitarianism.
2. Many default norms in "western culture" are not egalitarian and end up favouring one or more groups over another in ways that are harmful.
3. Our media reinforces these default norms.
4. By explicitly pointing out how and where these biases occur in our media we can make people aware and thus change the culture to one that is more egalitarian.
Nothing in that presupposes the need to regulate or ban the production of problematic media. It's OK to create, consume and even enjoy such stuff provided provided you do so having consciously decided you are fine with its problematic representations and the messages being sent. It should be clear that doing so does not necessarily make you a bad person.
Man, you keep answering my questions before I get a chance to edit more elaborate responses....
Keep the discussion focused on sexism. If you remove the context of any question as if it's a new question I asked out of the blue instead of contingent upon the ongoing discussion, it just causes confusion. The question was are there examples where sexism is justified. You implied there were. I asked what? You took an example, and removed the sexist context of how this is specifically expected of men, and made it into a general situation where it can happen to a person of any gender, invalidating the argument your trying to give. So, to be crystal clear, are you suggesting there is a context where sexism and misogyny are good things? If so, what is it?
The disease isn't benign. It harms. Some less, some more. It is impossible to tell how much directly. There can be no vaccine produced. That is how this disease is analogous to sexism and misogyny. The disease doesn't function like a real disease, but as an analogy for sexism to help get an understanding of your position on it. Now, as an analogy, do you spread the disease (Sexism) that you know know for a fact will be highly damaging to some individuals but not others, simply because you can't precisely calculate the damage it will spread in regards to which individuals it will be?
And this...rating system thing...No one is suggesting censorship. No one is even suggesting a rating system. No one is suggesting ANYTHING except awareness of what sexism is and how it permeates our culture. You're the one that seems to be trying to create some kind of management system where things certain things can only be approved or disapproved.
I don't even know what your trying to do here anymore. Do you think Anita and other feminists are suggesting some kind of prevention system, or censorship, or rules of management? Or are you suggesting these things are a good idea? I honestly don't know anymore, because literally everyone in this thread has been insisting that the only goal here is awareness, and you keep demanding some kind of standard for a management system only you have tried to bring into realization. Do you simply not understand how it is possible to condemn something without feeling the need to destroy or remove it for others? What exactly are you doing?
Shrike_Priest
Member
Because developers can take the pressure, and because these are the things Anita has criticized so far:
Damsel in Distress: Don't have damsels in distress as this is a tired trope that robs female characters of agency and reinforces the notion that it's the job of "a man to save a woman". Also, try not to get to torture the female victims too much.
Ms Male Character: Don't have female characters who are just a boob skin on a character with otherwise identical attributes to the male character who is the one featured in marketing, as well as being the default option.
Women as background decoration: If you're going to have female NPCs in your game, consider not having them be scantily clad women as background decoration, especially not if your games core mechanics are violent, which increases the odds that any interaction the player has with them will be violent in nature.
Website bonus from this E3: Hey, have some more playable female leads.
Those are pretty much the things she's criticized so far in the Tropes vs Women in Video Games series.
The removal of these tropes make game stories more interesting, more original, and minimize the effect of fostering sexist stereotypes.
Now, if there was made an argument by gamers that THEY liked these tropes. That THEY want to be a hero rescuing a helpless girl (scantily clad), or that THEY are not interested in seeing multi-dimensional female characters, but rather prefer them to be hollow caricatures then gamers could have an argument. They don't. Instead all we get are "it doesn't matter", "sexism in games isn't real", "they're just catering to the market" etc. But if no one criticizes developers for this, nothing will ever change.
The more welcoming gaming is women and minorities, the bigger the market will be.
Let me ask you, why not? Why is this pressure so morally reprehensible?
Is gaming better with damsels in distress?
Is gaming better with women as background decoration?
Is gaming better with women as copies of men?
Is gaming better with fewer female leads?
Listen to this as a concrete example: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...ear-old-girl-takes-on-the-video-game-industry
Is Temple Run a worse game because they now have both a male and a female lead? Is gaming better or worse now that both 12 year old boys and 12 year old girls can identify with their avatar?
It's not about "offending posters" or not. No one is offended when you use censorship as an example. The problem is that both the notion of censorship and/or pressure from outside critics being somehow not morally right is literally a poor argument. It's a defence of the status quo that holds very little merit.
You asked "If we dont get games like GA5 sexualised content like prostitutes and strip clubs in the future, is that a win or a loss ?" he answered "Believe me, you don't have to worry about not being able to visit strip clups or hire hookers in video games. That stuff will always be around." You were literally worrying about games not containing prostitutes or strip clubs, whether that might be a bad thing. He said you don't have worry about them going anywhere. That's a very low bar for "getting personal". If anything, the one you should blame for getting personal would be me, as I took a look in your post history. But to be clear here, what you met was not a barrage of personal attacks, but several people who didn't agree with you.
No, but one should expect to hear some of the most common counterarguments if one argues a point opposite of those who are more versed.
The discussion here was not about what was acceptable in video games. The discussion was about whether it was correct to discuss what should be acceptable in video games. You questioned the idea that it was all right for a critic to criticize games. That was what people debated with you. And the reason they did that so vehemently was because saying that it is "not okay" to criticize developers is literally the same thing as saying "that woman shouldn't voice her criticisms". That is a far more contentious statement than what level of sexyness female game characters ought to have. And whether that was your intent or not, is effectively the same argument used to silence minorities whenever they speak up against inequality.
Yes I see that. And there are loads of arguments to the contrary. You should expect to hear them and evaluate them based on their merit. There is a tendency to dogpile here, but that's more through the nature of many people seeing and disagreeing with posts like that. It's not a concerted effort to oust anyone.
I really don't want to come off as being aggressive to you, and I might have gone overboard in my previous post, as I'm not a mind reader and obviously can't be sure of where you're coming from. But I think I had enough reasons to be suspicious of whether or not you were arguing in good faith. I might have been wrong about that though.
I would like to end with a few questions. I don't expect an answer to these, but I think if you read these you'll understand where someone with an opposing view to yours is coming from, without any judgement on you as an individual (though I'd recommend just watching all of Anitas videos).
What do you think it's like playing games as a 12 year old girl when the character that looks like you is the one captured and saved, not the hero doing the rescuing?
What do you think it's like playing games as a 12 year old girl when many of the young women in the game you're playing are wearing very little clothing and are all attractive and the camera always lingers on their butt?
What do you think it's like playing GTAV as 12 year old girl when the game places you in a strip club and introduces the private lap dance mechanic where you get to fondle a stripper as long as the guard isn't looking (iirc, that sequence is unskippable the first time around, and the game puts you back in the club repeatedly throughout the campaign).
Would a 12 year old boy have the same experience as a 12 year old girl playing GTA?
If none of these questions raise any doubts in you about whether or not there is anything to correct, that's okay. I personally have a very hard time not thinking something has to change when I think about examples like the one above.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Given how you are asking the question, no.
Yes, that last part is somewhat hard to understand. Hard to reconcile that people can condemn something while not feeling the need to change that same thing. I can see how consciousness raising is a way in which people do this, though it is hard to see how people would stop at this step.
At no point does anyone, Anita included, say that such media "endorses" that behaviour, but it does perpetuate the imagery and ideas behind it to an alarming degree.
And perpetuation in this way, if repeated often enough, can lead to normalization when confronted with the reality of such things in repetition, especially in an impersonal or second-hand way via news media or social interactions. It can sometimes even first-hand, as well, but much MUCH more rarely. And that's the problem. If these things merely existed in the virtual space for a particular individual, the amount in which it could effect people is minimal to zero. But they don't. So while they don't have a direct effect, you can see such replications in the media as being a weak "echo" of a reality. It can gently re-enforce (again, only through perpetuation), but never enforce without the existence of the issue in the real world to draw from.
This is why some individuals claim that it's "not a big deal". These people have likely never been exposed to the reality of the situation in any context, it's merely a complete abstraction devoid of the horrors and dehumanization it causes. It's why you'll see people who are for, say, racial diversity in games, but addressing gender issues is a step too far for them and seen negatively, because they have not been exposed in their own existence to the harmful things it is intended to be an echo of.
It's the fact that it's so rampant in media, including (and sometimes especially in) games, that people see as the problem. No one is saying that we remove this stuff from games entirely, but we should be concerned about how heavily it's perpetuated.
And yes, we should be concerned now, before the harm is measured. If you found an alien device, would you be concerned about its existence and want to start making considerations about it, or would you want to try and use it first to see what kind of damage it can cause first before we bother with a discussion? No, the conversation of concern regarding this thing that we wouldn't clearly understand is still warranted and there are options to understand it without seeing the result of its implementation.
How you see the situation depends entirely on your real-world exposure to what is being perpetuated and the individuals in question.
That's a very totalitarian perspective you have there, TakeItSlowDude. With that username, I thought you'd be more chill with other people's viewpoints. People have to be allowed to make the wrong choice. That's what freedom, generally speaking, is.
Smoking for example. Harms yourself and harms everyone around you. It's empirically and demonstratively true. There is nothing good to be had from doing it. Assuming you agree smoking is wrong, do you think there should be laws prohibiting it? Or take a moral action for example. Lying. I'm not talking about lying for a good reason or to get a good result, I'm talking about lying when you know it's fundamentally harmful. Should people be prosecuted for telling lies if we agree they are fundamentally bad?
No. Those things are bad, but allowed. Even if they do cause harm, the restriction of freedom is not justified by it. Similarly, people have the freedom to be sexist. It's not a good thing to be sexist, or racist, or a neo-nazi, but people do have that freedom. This stuff isn't illegal and shouldn't be. Whats illegal is trying to act on those beliefs to the extent where they interfere with other people's lives. But if a person isn't doing that, any repercussions should come in the form social reaction. Otherwise, you're suggesting that we be living in a fascist state. And not to mention we are talking about art. In art, you are and should be free to depict whatever kind of world you want. Art is the ultimate freedom. And it's very obvious how it can cause harm. You don't even have to look at prejudice for that, just look at how torn up people are reading GRRM's ASoIaF series.
The point of what Anita and feminist try to do is point out that sexism is an asshole thing to have in society. Now, you have a right to do the asshole thing and perpetuate sexism. No one is going to stop you from doing so. But you're also going to be called out for doing the asshole thing if you do it. If you don't want to be treated like an asshole for doing the asshole thing, that's tough, because it's a better world if we're not going to let you keep pretending your asshole doesn't stink. Because it does and a lot of people don't know it, or are pretending it doesn't, but it does. So Anita is raising awareness, pointing out how prevalent sexism is, and it's stinking up the room. You have the freedom to keep stinking up the room, but as people become more aware of how much of an asshole thing it is to keep doing so, you're going to get more pushback from society. But at no point is this any kind of legal control. It's just people slowly realizing that it's an asshole thing to do and it shouldn't be done anymore, not because we are compelled by higher forces, but just because it's wrong.
I don't know if you have a daughter that age, but I do. She is a gamer (video and board). What games are the girls you know playing that have lingering butt shots? I have never seen her play anything like that. GTA V for a child? These point to poor and uninformed parental choices. If the parents don't care what media their child consumes, then it will be difficult for society in general to assist.
Seriously... How does a child end up even playing a stripper scene in a video game without parental supervision, and if they do, are we obligated to step in? This could be reduced to "is there a such thing as private morality", which is an unending subject of debate.
To address the video series directly, I enjoyed watching it, but I suppose I am not the target audience, as the final video gave instructions on what "we" can do.
She wouldn't have nearly as much influence without that, hehe suckers keep fueling her speech with that nonsense.
its like they just don't get it...
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Good set of videos.
To play devil's advocate, I don't think TakeItSlowDude is advocating totalitarian measures for regulation, but he can see that being the end result. I think he is trying to determine if there is a consistency or method in trying to determine what is harmful, to what degree, how do we know, etc. Since this issue is subjective and varies from person to person, and group to group, how does one advocate for awareness with any sort of regularity. Your average joe may see how the swimsuit issue of sports illustrated is sexist, but he may have a harder time identifying the issues with rescuing the princess from the dragon, just as an example.
Keep in mind that he's the one who seems to be suggesting there should be some kind of management of content, not any of us. I realize you're trying to just see his perspective, but explain to me how a movement (we're talking specifically about Anita's arguments here) can result in a totalitarian enforcement when it specifically avoids management of any kind. It's not ever going to happen like that. That's insane. It's the same kind of outlandish paranoia that had conservatives thinking the world would end if gays were allowed to be married.
What TakeItSlowDude is trying to do, atleast from my understanding of the conversation, is establish some kind of scientific measurement that we all agree upon where he can precisely predict at which point feminist movements wants to control media in some fashion. Which is an insane thing to think can possibly exist, let alone ask for. As you say, it varies from person to person, group to group. But then he argues that because it's different from person to person, there is no common basis of understanding it whatsoever, which is equally insane. One thing pretty much everyone agrees upon is that sexism has a negative effects, so the only thing we definitively state is that one should be aware of it's implications. From that awareness, people are allowed to do what they will. And awareness isn't a tangible, quantifiable aspect. There's no regulating it, how would you even do that? All people need to do is keep in mind "Does this treat women unfairly in any way?" when they see something. That's pretty much it. There is no sort of enforcement that can come out of this. Any change this brings about will be willing from people themselves, not any outside force.
Honestly, that totalitarian measures of any kind can result from this is absurd, and TISD is the only one that is even vaguely suggesting they should be brought up.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Censorship is BAD (except when it's actually advocating for censorship):
https://twitter.com/JR_O6/status/624317727419711488
Angry Jacks never cease to amaze.
https://twitter.com/JR_O6/status/624317727419711488
Angry Jacks never cease to amaze.
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
I agree how GamerGate is a complete cluster fuck of hate speech and bad people aligning them selves with good intentions but to say the reason "Angry Jack" is against people like Anita Sarkeesian is because she just speaks so much truth that "Angry Jack" subconsciously hates her for this making him feel bad is a crock of shit, It is also a really good way negate criticism of Anita Sarkeesian and other Extremist Feminists by saying it's because you fear change and subconsciously know that their right. For instance I dislike Anita Sarkeesian because she misinforms, manipulates and straight-out lies in her videos in order to support a out of date Feminist view point.
BUNTING1243
Banned
real talk, because i've heard this a lot but can never find actual evidence, when has she misinformed, manipulated, and lied in her videos?
yeehamuffins
Member
And for bonus points, see if you can tell us about her relentless and constant misinformation without using the words "Hitman" or "Absolution." Since she does it so frequently, I imagine that shouldn't be too difficult.
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
Both of these videos highlight her dishonesty.
https://youtu.be/WuRSaLZidWI
https://youtu.be/x9_MVPq1SJY
Or you can just watch here videos and think about her logic for a few seconds, especially if you have played any of the games she examines.