I described that anti-semitic propaganda influences people in the same way as sexist design, through media consumption. And you read into that that I am equating antisemitic propaganda and sexist design.
You knew what you were doing. Irregardless, don't you think that there is the possibility that the media is a reflection of social norms rather than the originator of them?
Do you believe that if you change the media, then you will change the social norms?
By controlling what kind of media people consume you can determine what kind of opinions they will hold.
Now, Cambridge Analytica were amateurs, but the same exact thing is happening at Palantir and these guys aren't amateurs.
Their founder, Alex Karp, is not an amateur:
He specifically studied many of the most renowned people who worked on theories of society as well as theories for human action.
So, what these guys do is basically view humans as agents in an environment. And certain behavioral parameters, environmental parameters and certain external inputs are then taking into account to predict behavior, believes, opinions and ultimately actions.
The science behind this is sound, yet somehow when we talk about video games people act like what we consume has not effect on how we think.
If you do, then do you think it is the responsibility of media creators to design their media in such a way as to only send positive messages about society to others with the express goal of changing the thoughts and feelings of those who consume it?
Sexist design and reproducing sexist stereotypes isn't the intention of creators, its a side effect.
Creators should be aware of these side effects so they can come to an informed decision about their design.
I'm not seeing the distinction. What is an example of a sexy character that is not based on stereotypical and sexualized portrayals?
Here's something I'd like you to be aware of. Ivy is not a person. Ivy is not a she. Ivy is an it. A literal object. It is an object that has been designed to appear as a human female. This is literally the opposite of objectification. This is personification. Ivy cannot be objectification because you can not objectify something that is already an object.
But, you could say that Ivy's portrayal leads others to objectify women. But how do you know?
You don't. But people are still very convinced that advertisement actually has an effect on people.
Another thing you might not have considered is that our definition of sexy is BASED on the social norms. Back in Victorian England, showing a little bit of ankle was considered scandalous. And they had burlesque shows that were designed around showing legs covered in stockings. Could it not be possible that by changing the social norms to where you think is acceptable, we'll just create a new definition of "too sexy"?
If Ivy's outfit is too far now, isn't it entirely possible, even likely, that we'll eventually reach a point where showing a little ankle is too far? What's the point of regressing society's freedoms if the core issue will just follow?
I've seen the first naked people lie around next to river in early Feburary, there was still snow in some shadowy areas.
Nudity is very normal here. But only without the sexualization.
Its a natural process where the norm is shaped by all peoples actions. But if you have an industry creating media(mostly created by men) portraying sexualized norms and send that out to millions of people who will be influenced by this, you don't have a natural process.
That said, sexuality has, at least in the west, for the longest time been strongly connected to shame. It wasn't something people were open about or proud of. This will change in the future. Sexuality will become much more normal and accepted, but that doesn't mean it will be sexualized and fetishized.
Ok, I agree with you on this, but I suspect we differ on what. For instance, I consider a burka to be a sexist design (seeing as it is literally designed to reduce women to objects), but I think a burka could be appropriately used in a game about sexual freedom.
Can you give an example of a sexist design that you think is not inherently bad?
I also don't think that Iyv or Taki are inherently bad. Just problematic and I wish the creators would put more thought into it and consider the messages they send with this.