Support NeoGAF

[Hecaton117]

They are welcome to disagree, but anecdotal evidence is not sufficient for something as serious as claiming that real harm can come to someone because of an entertainment medium.

I could claim your refusal to accept what I have said as "harmful". You are "delegitimizing my struggle". Here I am trying to tell "My story, My truth" and you are tearing me down. In fact, you are "normalizing and providing a platform for" hate-speech that makes me feel excluded from GAF.

See? It's so effortless and just as empty.

The problem is mainly that it sits within the same space as the religious/traditional arguments that we used to hear about all the time in that they are based on subjective morals and anecdotes without a significant body of evidence to back up the claims regarding the supposed effects on those exposed.

That's why you don't see too many of those arguments anymore since the evidence doesn't support the claims, and when you do see something like a study being posted, it's not uncommon to find evidence of poor methodology or people using a single random survey that they found as a silver bullet to prove all of their claims regarding sexualization.

In order to make that claim you need a significant body of evidence in order to do so.

Thinking that any random study you can pick up from a quick google search is proof that sexy clothing for example is bad and makes people do bad things isn't any different and in fact is on the same tier as someone like Jack Thompson making the claim that video games makes kids commit violent crimes because he saw a study on google that said that children who play violent games are temporarily aggressive during/after play.

Also on to the second point, I am glad you pointed out that example. I think that particular language is manipulative in that you can use it to say that someone who doesn't agree with your arguments is doing so disingenuously or maliciously. It's non specific and vague enough so that you don't have to actually articulate why the person who disagreed with you has done so for the wrong reasons. It can be used pretty much anywhere just as you have demonstrated.