Support NeoGAF

[Shinta]

What moderator told you that? Or did you misinterpret the post earlier in this thread telling you that this wasn't the place to go on a tirade about how "manchildren" is offensive?

Stumpkapow or whatever his name is said that. But we later talked about it in PM and he was very nice and I grew to respect him and his stance on it.

The manchildren thing wasn't a "tirade." I made one comment about it, because I found it sexist and offensive, and not conducive to promoting discussion. If multiple people in a thread are calling people sexist names, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to post one mild-mannered, entirely polite post appealing for people to reconsider. But yes, I got asked to "stop playing the fucking victim" in that thread too by a moderator. The moderator later said he was having a bad day, and I don't hold any grudge about it. He's a nice guy. One commenter called me a "pretentious asshole," and another called me a bigot. This was just a couple days ago, and is hardly the only example.

In that thread, I think you eventually said something pretty close to what I was saying; which I greatly appreciated, and told people to not demonize all men. That's really all it was. I wasn't trying to derail anything.

Saying that dissent is being silenced is silly, because plenty of people who are dissenting in this very thread are still here posting, including yourself.

It's a fine line. I still feel the way I feel about it, but yes, I appreciate never being perma-banned, so points on that.

 

[Gattsu25]

No matter how she steals footage, creates worse videos than random women addressing the same topics on YouTube, and is an enormous hypocrite no one deserves death threats no matter how obviously empty they are. Not even 100% professional trolls like skip bayless or Sean hannity deserve that shit.

I don't even see the motivation of a half passed death threat, all it does is give massive sympathy to the person you're threatening.

Hope whoever sent that shit gets locked up for a long ass time.

May be laying it on a bit too thick with this post, man.

 

[chaobreaker]

Too far internet.

Do these threats ever pan out? like has there been a case where someone actually carried out these threats?

just asking

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Pyke

 

[Lime]

All publications (and developers and publishers and every institution in video games culture and industry) should do like Games.on: http://games.on.net/2014/08/readers-threatened-by-equality-not-welcome/

The terrible future

Literally the worst possible thing that can happen here is equality. That’s the worst outcome, that’s the nightmare scenario. If, today, every AAA publisher said “We will start to include women more in our games and represent them better”, the only actual difference this would make to anybody shrieking about how feminists are destroying games is that they might have to pick their gender in the next Call of Duty game. Terrifying, isn’t it. Stuff of nightmares.

The problem here is that these squealing man-children, so desperate to keep women out of their precious games, want it both ways. They want gaming to be taken seriously as a culture and art form, while at the same time throwing an unbelievable tantrum when subjected to serious criticism. This is ludicrous and immature on so many levels. Gaming isn’t for you, anymore. Gaming is for everyone. Everyone gets to have their say, to make their criticism, and gaming doesn’t need you to defend it.

(Isn’t it weird how AAA publishers with their nine-figure marketing budgets aren’t out there fighting against the destruction of video games? It’s almost like there is no actual war on gaming.)

The only thing left for these people to do is put their toys back in the pram and huddle together as the tide rises against them, until they wake up in five year’s time and realise that Assassin’s Creed 7 was actually a pretty good game, even though they had to waste three precious seconds flicking the gender over to ‘male’ on the character creation screen so they can feel comfortable again. Change is inevitable, especially when half of the freaking gamers in the country are women and actually want to play some games that don’t treat them like disposable trash.

Here’s the door

So, here’s another change for you: if you really think feminism, or women, are destroying games, or that LGBT people and LGBT relationships have no place in games, or that games in any way belong to you or are “under attack” from political correctness or “social justice warriors”: please leave this website. I don’t want your clicks, I don’t want your hits, I don’t want your traffic. Leave now and please don’t come back.

I’m asking politely. You’re free to think whatever you like and to complain about whatever you like, but do it somewhere else. Comments are closed on this article, because this isn’t up for debate. I’m not seeking any input on this, or any carefully worded thoughts on how we need to take these concerns seriously or to hear “both sides of the story”. As long as I am in charge of this ship, I will happily admit to pushing an agenda: I want better representation in games. That’s my agenda. That’s our agenda.

I hope you’ll stay. I hope you’ll be part of a glorious future where a game that treats women and LGBT groups with respect won’t be held up as some weird oddity to praise and encourage. A future where female gamers don’t have to disguise their voice on raid chat, where game developers won’t be threatened with rape. Where people won’t be asking for a “gay filter” on their games because homosexuality makes them uncomfortable. I hope you’ll stick around for that.

But if you’re not on board with that, leave. If you’re not on board, find another ship, and good luck to you because that ship will be sailing against the wind.

Tim Colwill
Editor-in-Chief
Social Justice Druid

 

[RpgN]

May be laying it on a bit too thick with this post, man.

I thought he was being sarcastic with his reply. It turns out he meant every word of it?

How can you say something like this and pretend like you're neutral on the topic?

No matter how she steals footage, creates worse videos than random women addressing the same topics on YouTube, and is an enormous hypocrite no one deserves death threats no matter how obviously empty they are. Not even 100% professional trolls like skip bayless or Sean hannity deserve that shit.

I don't even see the motivation of a half passed death threat, all it does is give massive sympathy to the person you're threatening.

Then we have Shinta playing the victim as usual. Reading his reply sounds so odd and different than how these threads usually go. Members are getting banned, spoken harshly to by mods (and others) for a reason.

 

[Shinta]

All publications (and developers and publishers and every institution in video games culture and industry) should do like Games.on: http://games.on.net/2014/08/readers-threatened-by-equality-not-welcome/

I think it would be counterproductive for journalists to openly declare they are pushing an agenda, and that people who disagree aren't welcome.

Then we have Shinta playing the victim as usual. Reading his reply sounds so odd and different than how these threads usually go. Members are getting banned, spoken harshly to by mods (and others) for a reason.

I object to your false characterization of me and my opinions.

I also ... to be perfectly honest, don't even understand how "playing the victim" is such a slur in this thread, specifically devoted to empathizing with a victim of bullying.

 

[Doc Holliday]

A bit off subject but is there something like this for games that do it right? I feel like we tend to focus on the negatives instead of focusing on games that don't just pander to to young males.

 

[CambriaRising]

A bit off subject but is there something like this for games that do it right? I feel like we tend to focus on the negatives instead of focusing on games that don't just pander to to young males.

At the end of the series there will be a video where she highlights games that are good examples.

 

[mooksoup]

Then we have Shinta playing the victim as usual. Reading his reply sounds so odd and different than how these threads usually go. Members are getting banned, spoken harshly to by mods (and others) for a reason.

It's a strange kind of doublethink that seems to happen quite often in these threads.
People have the option to voice their opinions repeatedly, simply asked to do so without bile & aggression.

But when they are not lauded for their unpopular opinion, not held up on the crowds shoulders as some kind of champion of the people, they cry censorship! Silencing dissent! Fascism!

And it's funny, when this whole thing came about around the huge amount of antagonistic aggression attempting to silence one woman's opinion, and mild feminist critique. Someone who is actually experiencing vicious harassment because of her audacity to politely offer her viewpoint.

 

[Doc Holliday]

At the end of the series there ol be a video she does highlighting games that are good examples.

Ah ok, thanks.

 

[wonderdung]

All publications (and developers and publishers and every institution in video games culture and industry) should do like Games.on: http://games.on.net/2014/08/readers-threatened-by-equality-not-welcome/

They should rail against a stupid caricature that has nothing to do with any of these issues?

I don't see how people can complain about their legitimate concerns being dismissed as "white knighting" and then turn around and call people "man children". Can't have it both ways.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't see how people can complain about their legitimate concerns being dismissed as "white knighting" and then turn around and call people "man children". Can't have it both ways.

Where is that happening?

 

[RpgN]

I object to your false characterization of me and my opinions.

I also ... to be perfectly honest, don't even understand how "playing the victim" is such a slur in this thread, specifically devoted to empathizing with a victim of bullying.

You know, I don't wish to start a heated debate. If you want me to talk more about your posting pattern to support why I'm talking this way in regards to you. It's true that your replies mostly lack the misogynistic tone or aggressive use of words, however your replies are very focused, you sound obtuse and it's rare for you to ever agree with anyone that debates with you. This causes long and heated arguments that stop feeling genuine after a while. Also when you get involved in these type of threads, you often take shots at others, like you're holding some grudge against certain people/members. And lastly, you call yourself an egalitarian, yet you only show up and talk in support of one side.

It would be easy to say that you only talk like this in regard to this topic, but this is your style of debating also in regard to other topics (FF and SE related). This makes me believe that there's a slight chance that you really do believe everything that you say. It's confusing whether to think you always discuss with an agenda in mind or whether you're being genuine or both...

Sorry if talking like this about you is making you feel uncomfortable. The way I see it, this is the reason why you get in trouble often.

It's a strange kind of doublethink that seems to happen quite often in these threads.
People have the option to voice their opinions repeatedly, simply asked to do so without bile & aggression.

But when they are not lauded for their unpopular opinion, not held up on the crowds shoulders as some kind of champion of the people, they cry censorship! Silencing dissent! Fascism!

And it's funny, when this whole thing came about around the huge amount of antagonistic aggression attempting to silence one woman's opinion, and mild feminist critique. Someone who is actually experiencing vicious harassment because of her audacity to politely offer her viewpoint.

Beautifully told.

 

[FlyinJ]

I thought "white knighting" is a term used when someone comes to a woman's rescue who is being harassed, and feels they are then owed favors for doing so.

 

[Mumei]

I thought "white knighting" is a term used when someone comes to a woman's rescue who is being harassed, and feels they are then owed favors for doing so.

White knight is a derogatory term used to dismiss men who argue on behalf of a woman or in support of women's issues, arguing that they are doing it in the hopes of getting sexual favors in reciprocation for their support. I think it's used less to describe an actual phenomenon and more as a cudgel to discourage men from expressing support.

 

[chaosaeon]

Nobody should be getting death threats. But can someone tell me what became of the weird claims about the legitimacy of the threats ? There were people saying the threat tweets that had her address censored in it didn't actually have the address and that it was made to look censored ? And something about accounts signing in and logging out at convenient times with posts being made seconds after the threat was posted and or even before the threats were posted. Is any of that stuff true ? If the thing about the address not actually being there was true that would be confusing considering it was censored in what she posted ... any of that actually happen ?

 

[Steel]

All publications (and developers and publishers and every institution in video games culture and industry) should do like Games.on: http://games.on.net/2014/08/readers-threatened-by-equality-not-welcome/

I actually completely agree with this, even if the tone is excessively hostile(Which is understandable given recent events).

 

[wonderdung]

White knight is a derogatory term used to dismiss men who argue on behalf of a woman or in support of women's issues, arguing that they are doing it in the hopes of getting sexual favors in reciprocation for their support. I think it's used less to describe an actual phenomenon and more as a cudgel to discourage men from expressing support.

Whereas "manchild" is one of a series of derogatory terms to dismiss men who express any sort of disagreement with feminists or feminism at all. They are equivalent dismissals on opposite sides.

Games.on posting invented a group of people and described a number of negative characteristics of that group, labeled them, and then insinuated that anyone who disagrees with political correctness or the tactics of internet feminism on any level is part of that group. Classic straw-man.

It's just an excellent example of the fact that the rhetoric on every side has degraded so far that it's hard to talk about real issues anymore. It's embarrassing when people hold it up as some standard every site should follow.

 

[Shinta]

You know, I don't wish to start a heated debate. If you want me to talk more about your posting pattern to support why I'm talking this way in regards to you. It's true that your replies mostly lack the misogynistic tone or aggressive use of words

Thank you for that, but I would make an extremely important clarification. They COMPLETELY lack a misogynistic tone. Sometimes it's more aggressive than today, but never a personal insult.

It would be easy to say that you only talk like this in regard to this topic, but this is your style of debating also in regard to other topics (FF and SE related). This makes me believe that there's a slight chance that you really do believe everything that you say. It's confusing whether to think you always discuss with an agenda in mind or whether you're being genuine or both...

I am an opinionated person, and often I find my opinion does not match up with others around me. But I try to argue my position without direct insults or hatred.

And no, I don't hate women, I'm not an MRA, and I've never said anything threatening, racist, homophobic or misogynistic on here even once. If you ever want to ask me about something I think, SQEX or otherwise, I'll get into it in PM if you want sometime.

Sorry if talking like this about you is making you feel uncomfortable. The way I see it, this is the reason why you get in trouble often.

I'd almost rather people ask me directly like this instead of assuming the worst about me based on inaccurate assumptions. But yes, it does feel weird to focus on the person instead of the idea - particularly in this thread.

however your replies are very focused, you sound obtuse and it's rare for you to ever agree with anyone that debates with you.

That's no cause for namecalling. I'd argue Anita is much the same way. I have acknowledged opinions countering my own a few times, but I'll concede that it isn't often. It has happened though.

Also when you get involved in these type of threads, you often take shots at others.

I just don't think that's true, at all. If it was, I wouldn't still be here. Even when directly insulted, I often just have to take it, because if I responded in kind, I wouldn't still be here.

 

[Aquamarine]

It's a strange kind of doublethink that seems to happen quite often in these threads.
People have the option to voice their opinions repeatedly, simply asked to do so without bile & aggression.

But when they are not lauded for their unpopular opinion, not held up on the crowds shoulders as some kind of champion of the people, they cry censorship! Silencing dissent! Fascism!

And it's funny, when this whole thing came about around the huge amount of antagonistic aggression attempting to silence one woman's opinion, and mild feminist critique. Someone who is actually experiencing vicious harassment because of her audacity to politely offer her viewpoint.

Yeah. You can voice a dissenting opinion, but you really have to do it with respect.

Replies like this:

No matter how she steals footage, creates worse videos than random women addressing the same topics on YouTube, and is an enormous hypocrite no one deserves death threats no matter how obviously empty they are. Not even 100% professional trolls like skip bayless or Sean hannity deserve that shit.

...aren't respectful. It reminds me of a back-handed compliment...you're belittling Ms. Sarkeesian. Yeah you're spinning it into a positive at the very end but it seems almost vindictive.

I've criticised the content in Ms. Sarkeesian's videos ever since the beginning. But when I do that, I take the time to carefully deconstruct parts of her narrative and offer suggestions.

There's a difference between that approach and the "Well she's just a hypocrite bitch who puts no work into her videos and scammed white-knights out of $159,000, but she doesn't deserve death threats" approach.

One is respectful...the other is condescending.

 

[Terrell]

No, the purpose of something being in a video game is it's purpose. I could take out all the destroyed cars in fallout 3, I mean you can't drive them, you don't get things out of them, why even have them? I could take out all the trees in RDR, you can't chop them for wood, they rarely come up in the actual gameplay. They are there for, as Anita said, "background decoration". Because where would it stop?

You have compared representations of human beings to trees and cars as though they are completely equal. I'd like for you to pause and consider the gravity of such a suggestion. You've compared a representation of a human being to a THING. As equal.

I am not going to say I even disagree with the notion that men as bullet fodder isn't problematic. It is very problematic. Regardless of them being good games or not, it's why I make the choice not to play them. The choice for how some of them choose to depict women only solidifies why I refuse to play them, but my core disagreement is in the depiction in totality.

The difference is that such discussion on men as bullet fodder is already well and present in every discussion regarding the shooter genre. That's not a matter of debate: any and all discussion regarding the problems with the genre gravitates towards its depiction of violence against hordes of people.

And the difference between depictions of men and women in such games is clear. Both are problematic, but for very different reasons. And you highlighting how a dead stripper is somehow equal to a broken-down car only highlights the problem further.

They should rail against a stupid caricature that has nothing to do with any of these issues?

I'd think that this "stupid caricature" would be exactly relevant to these issues, as the "caricature" is likely the type of real living person who's sending death threats on Twitter and the kinds of people who have openly rallied against and openly harassed Anita Sarkeesian for having the audacity to present the topic itself, before a single video had ever been posted. You're free to disagree, but I'm not sure how exactly you could. A caricature involves embellishing a real world idea, but the real world examples often exceed any possible embellishment.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

White knight is a derogatory term used to dismiss men who argue on behalf of a woman or in support of women's issues, arguing that they are doing it in the hopes of getting sexual favors in reciprocation for their support. I think it's used less to describe an actual phenomenon and more as a cudgel to discourage men from expressing support.

What puzzles me is since when terms like "white knight" and "social justice warrior" were converted into something bad you're supposed to "avoid" (or at least that's what the anti-feminists, or whatever you want to call them, want). I've spend all my life playing videogames aspiring to do shit like being a knight, a warrior or a friggin' secret agent!

Look for a new "derogatory" insult for those who defend a woman who's being unfairly treated. I, for one, would take the title of White Knight and wear it proudly. It sounds awesome.

 

[maxcriden]

What puzzles me is since when terms like "white knight" and "social justice warrior" were converted into something bad you're supposed to "avoid" (or at least that's what the anti-feminists, or whatever you want to call them, want). I've spend all my life playing videogames aspiring to do shit like being a knight, a warrior or a friggin' secret agent!

Look for a new "derogatory" insult for those who defend a woman who's being unfairly treated. I, for one, would take the title of White Knight and wear it proudly. It sounds awesome.

Great post. Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Photolysis]

White knight is a derogatory term used to dismiss men who argue on behalf of a woman or in support of women's issues, arguing that they are doing it in the hopes of getting sexual favors in reciprocation for their support. I think it's used less to describe an actual phenomenon and more as a cudgel to discourage men from expressing support.

A white knight is just someone who blindly defends someone or takes their side simply because the target has a vagina. And it is pathetic when it's done, regardless of whether it's done opportunistically and cynically, out of some bizarre sense of chivalry, or just plain misguided behaviour.

If it's someone who genuinely needs defending and they happen to be a woman, it's not white knighting. If it's a debate and they're being criticised unfairly and happen to be a woman, it's not white knighting. All you need to ask is if the person would take the same action if in the same circumstance the target happened to be a man, and you'll get your answer*.

* There are some situations that are more likely to affect women, but this does not make it white knighting by itself.

 

[diamount]

Threats from basement dwellers that don't materialise into anything? So scary.

 

[Orayn]

Threats from basement dwellers that don't materialise into anything? So scary.

With her address, and also against her family? Jesus, dude.

 

[AlimNassor]

Where is that happening?

Its the internet. Civil debates are impossible. Neogaf is literally one of the few that doesn't tolerate it.

 

[Fattony12000]

Has anyone made a video game about This Whole Thing, yet?

 

[diamount]

With her address, and also against her family? Jesus, dude.

Of course it might be a concern but nothing has ever happened to internet figures that posted their addreses online, even to someone like Phil Fish who deserves much more ire than her. Nothing at all.

 

[lexi]

Of course it might be a concern but nothing has ever happened to internet figures that posted their addreses online, even to someone like Phil Fish who deserves much more ire than her. Nothing at all.

You're aware of what actually happened to Phil Fish in the last week right?

 

[Orayn]

Of course it might be a concern but nothing has ever happened to internet figures that posted their addreses online, even to someone like Phil Fish who deserves much more ire than her. Nothing at all.

It doesn't matter if it hasn't happened before, specific threats can still very easily make someone feel unsafe and that's not unreasonable.

You're displaying a shocking lack of empathy right now.

 

[diamount]

It doesn't matter if it hasn't happened before, specific threats can still very easily make someone feel unsafe and that's not unreasonable.

You're displaying a shocking lack of empathy right now.

Why would I show empathy? Nothing has actually happened to her, threats of violence, espsicaly when you are semi-noteworthy are commonplace. What do those basement dwelling neckbeards plan to do with her address, send her an angry letter?

 

[EdibleKnife]

Why would I show empathy? Nothing has actually happened to her, threats of violence, espsicaly when you are semi-noteworthy are commonplace. What do those basement dwelling neckbeards plan to do with her address, send her an angry letter?

So everyone should just buck up and take it? You realize you're two completely different people right? If she felt threatened, she felt threatened.

 

[Riposte]

A white knight is just someone who blindly defends someone or takes their side simply because the target has a vagina. And it is pathetic when it's done, regardless of whether it's done opportunistically and cynically, out of some bizarre sense of chivalry, or just plain misguided behaviour.

If it's someone who genuinely needs defending and they happen to be a woman, it's not white knighting. If it's a debate and they're being criticised unfairly and happen to be a woman, it's not white knighting. All you need to ask is if the person would take the same action if in the same circumstance the target happened to be a man, and you'll get your answer*.

* There are some situations that are more likely to affect women, but this does not make it white knighting by itself.

For me another conditional is that the woman in question must be aware of and on communication terms with the so-called "white knight". In other words, there is a possibility of a tangible reward, even just along the lines of a comment of acknowledgement. The guys who buy items on amazon wishlists or give away items in MMOs are prime white knights.

Literally the worst possible thing that can happen here is equality. That’s the worst outcome, that’s the nightmare scenario. If, today, every AAA publisher said “We will start to include women more in our games and represent them better”, the only actual difference this would make to anybody shrieking about how feminists are destroying games is that they might have to pick their gender in the next Call of Duty game. Terrifying, isn’t it. Stuff of nightmares.

The worst case scenario being equality doesn't say anything. Equality is an imaginary perfect ideal that has little to no meaning until you contextualize it. By contextualizing it as gender choices in Call of Duty I do not think you would be describing the worst case scenario (that actually sounds like a very amicable one!). I think the worst case scenario would be somewhere south of the casual dismissal of games like Dragon's Crown and mockery for its developers and players as 14 year old boys being spread throughout the industry (i.e., it becomes "smut"). The worst scenario I can envision goes as far as applying similar attitudes to highly violent ("masculine" branded) games.

 

[sephi22]

I saw someone make the point that Anita's tweet:

"Not giving the benefit of the doubt to women targeted by harassment is a reaction rooted in sexist ideology. Its called victim blaming."

Should actually state:

"Not giving the benefit of the doubt to a person targeted by harassment is a reaction rooted in sexist ideology. Its called victim blaming."

What do you guys think?

 

[kirblar]

What do you guys think?

The double standards ("gigolos" vs "prostituted women") are going to show up because they're part of her personal ideology/dogma.

 

[APF]

I think the worst case scenario would be somewhere south of the casual dismissal of games like Dragon's Crown and mockery for its developers and players as 14 year old boys being spread throughout the industry (i.e., it becomes "smut"). The worst scenario I can envision goes as far as applying similar attitudes to highly violent ("masculine" branded) games.

So the worst possible thing in your mind is that games receive the same level of criticism as movies?

 

[aeolist]

I saw someone make the point that Anita's tweet:

"Not giving the benefit of the doubt to women targeted by harassment is a reaction rooted in sexist ideology. Its called victim blaming."

Should actually state:

"Not giving the benefit of the doubt to a person targeted by harassment is a reaction rooted in sexist ideology. Its called victim blaming."

What do you guys think?

men do not generally suffer from sexism, and this sounds like exactly the same kind of derailing argument people make against her videos all the time when they say "but what about men in games? they have it worse!"

1. no they don't

2. that's not the point

 

[EdibleKnife]

The worst case scenario being equality doesn't say anything. Equality is an imaginary perfect ideal that has little to no meaning until you contextualize it. By contextualizing it as gender choices in Call of Duty I do not think you would be describing the worst case scenario (that actually sounds like a very amicable one!). I think the worst case scenario would be somewhere south of the casual dismissal of games like Dragon's Crown and mockery for its developers and players as 14 year old boys being spread throughout the industry (i.e., it becomes "smut"). The worst scenario I can envision goes as far as applying similar attitudes to highly violent ("masculine" branded) games.

People already do the bolded now though due to the very fact that they are starved for choice. It's the same way with RPG's at the moment. People complain about RPGs with lame stories and moe characters because of the piddling amount of the alternative. If we did have a wealthier amount of variety, there'd be no need to complain about the moe stuff because people would have their pick of choosing something else. Same way with violent stuff. It's already vilified because of the overwhelming amount. From within and outside the industry, people shake their heads at it but if we had more experiences from the industry titans that ran the gamut from violent to non-violent, there would be little backlash to the violent stuff because it would just be one choice in a wealth of experiences.

 

[APF]

Same way with violent stuff. It's already vilified because of the overwhelming amount.

Exactly. I think a lot of the critical praise for "walking simulators" over the last few years has been largely due to just pure fatigue over violent, rollercoaster experiences, and a sense of how refreshing it is when someone does something else really well.

 

[Riposte]

So the worst possible thing in your mind is that games receive the same level of criticism as movies?

My first response is that videogame criticism ideally should not be film criticism; the "level" is actually being lowered if appreciation of mechanics and aesthetics can be boiled away by the disapproval with the superficial. My second is that I hold very little in the way reverence of film criticism, for most mainstream critics often fail to criticize the craft of films (i.e., maybe the "film criticism" I mentioned in response one isn't that characteristic of good film criticism). Third, in this specific case, I dislike the notion using "maturity" as a weapon whenever convenient to your morals, when most adults engage in so-called "immature" things. Finally, and perhaps most importantly to the subject as the rest has just been my personal issues, even if this sounds like a good idea to you, why shouldn't those who will come to be shamed as being mentally compared to little boys be defensive? One hand says inclusion, the other says exclusion, but people doing their best to make it sound like they are only extending one hand, making the conclusion obvious, and I don't like that nor am I surprised such good intentions can see resistance. (In other words, no matter what you believe in, saying gender select options is the "worst" that can happen is dishonest.)

People already do the bolded now though due to the very fact that they are starved for choice. It's the same way with RPG's at the moment. People complain about RPGs with lame stories and moe characters because of the piddling amount of the alternative. If we did have a wealthier amount of variety, there'd be no need to complain about the moe stuff because people would have their pick of choosing something else. Same way with violent stuff. It's already vilified because of the overwhelming amount. From within and outside the industry, people shake their heads at it but if we had more experiences from the industry titans that ran the gamut from violent to non-violent, there would be little backlash to the violent stuff because it would just be one choice in a wealth of experiences.

In other words, "more of everything"; a very amicable idea that is hard to find fault with. I think the arguments and attitudes being made have a way of changing that message though. For example, turning Dragon's Crown into smut, despite it's mechanics and aesthetics quality (I think it has more of the latter than former if you ask me), is trying to establish a rank of status for these games and their audiences, not just a leveled playing field with more options. It's an offensive play, with a defensive response.

 

[aeolist]

Finally, and perhaps most importantly to the subject as the rest has just been my personal issues, even if this sounds like a good idea to you, why shouldn't those who will come to be shamed as being mentally compared to little boys be defensive? One hand says inclusion, the other says exclusion, but people doing their best to make it sound like they are only extending one hand, making the conclusion obvious, and I don't like that nor am I surprised such good intentions can see resistance.

there's a big difference between criticizing a game (it contains immature content) and criticizing the players (it is for immature people) and the vast majority of criticism i see is the former that people conflate with the latter, thus proving themselves to be immature anyway

 

[APF]

even if this sounds like a good idea to you, why shouldn't those who will come to be shamed as being mentally compared to little boys be defensive? One hand says inclusion, the other says exclusion

Well, people already shame gamers as little boys etc. The inclusion you are skeptical of will only make this less of an issue, not worse (demographic and content shifts will make the landscape less one-sided and the stereotype less accurate). But really I think the problem I have with the point you're making here is that it's entirely focused on people talking about games, not about people creating games. Which... to me doesn't actually sound like a real concern?

 

[Seeds]

I saw someone make the point that Anita's tweet:

"Not giving the benefit of the doubt to women targeted by harassment is a reaction rooted in sexist ideology. Its called victim blaming."

Should actually state:

"Not giving the benefit of the doubt to a person targeted by harassment is a reaction rooted in sexist ideology. Its called victim blaming."

What do you guys think?

The second one wouldn't make sense since I'm sure the reason someone like Michael Brown isn't given the benefit of the doubt isn't because of some sexist ideology.

 

[Moon_frogger]

A bit off subject but is there something like this for games that do it right? I feel like we tend to focus on the negatives instead of focusing on games that don't just pander to to young males.

Playing through state of decay right now and woman are equal represented with good characterization all around, which honestly was glossed over by every publication that reviewed it. Particularly exasperating when some of these outlets will go on a crusade to point out perceived misogyny where it sometimes doesn't even exist, yet they fail to point out great examples of equal representation in a game like state of decay.

 

[SmokyDave]

All publications (and developers and publishers and every institution in video games culture and industry) should do like Games.on: http://games.on.net/2014/08/readers-threatened-by-equality-not-welcome/

Oh, those 'man-children'. When will they learn, eh?!

These 'I'm going to be totally obnoxious to show you how correct I am' articles really aren't helping anything to my mind. I'm just looking at a battlefield full of arseholes and I don't wish to be associated with either side.

 

[aeolist]

Oh, those 'man-children'. When will they learn, eh?!

These 'I'm going to be totally obnoxious to show you how correct I am' articles really aren't helping anything to my mind. I'm just looking at a battlefield full of arseholes and I don't wish to be associated with either side.

we're talking about people who cannot accept any level of social criticism directed at video games they play, people whose self-image is so totally defined by a commercial media product they had no hand in creating that they blindly attack anyone they perceive as being its "enemy"

if you do not understand the concept that one can like a game and still be critical of it, or if you cannot accept the idea that a game can contain sexist content or themes without being 100% misogynistic and entirely for women-hating losers then you are an immature person. there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

 

[Riposte]

there's a big difference between criticizing a game (it contains immature content) and criticizing the players (it is for immature people) and the vast majority of criticism i see is the former that people conflate with the latter, thus proving themselves to be immature anyway

At their most separate they are different but I don't think they are always separate, especially when criticism is inarticulate of what makes something bad or good (and when you move away from examining craft however so, it is moving away from the need of articulation). The negativity bridging the material and audience seems common enough to me. The dudebros, the rabble/masses, the otaku, the manchildren (or should we say "the gamers"), etc., these are criticisms which loop between material and audience and adds an active element of status to the equation (this can also be manipulated to one's advantage, adding a value of "rarity" to works, which is all too common in the art world). If I haven't made it clear, I think status interferes with my ideal form of criticism and sometimes can dominate certain fields for the worse (the given example of the "art world").

Well, people already shame gamers as little boys etc. The inclusion you are skeptical of will only make this less of an issue, not worse (demographic and content shifts will make the landscape less one-sided and the stereotype less accurate). But really I think the problem I have with the point you're making here is that it's entirely focused on people talking about games, not about people creating games. Which... to me doesn't actually sound like a real concern?

I can't say you are wrong in saying this is mostly a matter of how people talk about games, but I would say creation is very much affected by "talk" (such as by means of attributing lower or higher status) and it doesn't really change why people are defensive against a cause that can sometimes be made to sound as impossible to oppose in any reasonable way (e.g., "the worst case scenario is equality" and bringing up gender select in Call of Duty). My ideals on criticism are probably not very interesting, but I would think my claims of dishonesty or inconsistency are.

EDIT: It's is worth remembering this conversation began on the idea of what would be the worst case scenario, something I don't think can happen quite exactly, but highlights what the conflict really looks like.

EDIT: Also, I'm not justifying how people act on those defensive feelings or their failure to examine them.

 

[EdibleKnife]

In other words, "more of everything"; a very amicable idea that is hard to find fault with. I think the arguments and attitudes being made have a way of changing that message though. For example, turning Dragon's Crown into smut, despite it's mechanics and aesthetics quality (I think it has more of the latter than former if you ask me), is trying to establish a rank of status for these games and their audiences, not just a leveled playing field with more options. It's an offensive play, with a defensive response.

I agree with the fact that their are annoying attitudes that seem to establish rank ("Plebeians and pathetic children play Call of Duty, while thinking, rational people play Gone Home"). But I think in a more creatively interesting industry, that type of attitude will slink to the background more and more. I love Dragon's Crown and I also love Gone Home, so I know it's possible to like things all across the spectrum (and it's much easier to do with contentment when a wealth of experiences exist). As trope-light experiences rise from not only the small but the big names in the industry, I think most rational people will calm their attitudes toward stuff like violent games, etc, because they'd realize the same thing. There's little need to aggressively point out an "us vs. them" existence if the line between "us" and "them" started to blur.

 

[JMargaris]

More options is great. I'm don't think too many people, at least on Gaf, are upset at the possibility of more options.

However when you argue that something is not just tasteless or immature but harmful there's then a moral imperative to suppress that thing. Harm is bad, minimizing harm is good, so suppressing work of that sort is also good.

There are many examples of this in recent history, so it's not outside the realm of possibility. It's essentially impossible to make an NC-17 film. It actually is impossible to sell an AO game on consoles - think about that for a minute. The rating exists, it means for "adults only", but you literally cannot publish an adults-only game on consoles. The CCA prevented comic book stories that depicted drug use, even anti-drug stories, because depicting drug use was considered harmful.

Once we determined that second-hand smoke was harmful it wasn't enough to mandate non-smoking sections - instead smoking was banned. (At least in some states) That was the moral thing to do.

If you believe that big tits in games hurts society then simply offering games with small tits doesn't fix that problem.

Now, this discussion does get complex because maybe you believe it's not big tits that hurt society, it's the prevalence of big tits. So maybe offering alternatives does alleviate the harm. But that said, I'm much more comfortable when the argument is made in favor of better taste or more intelligent fare rather than for less harmful, more moral fare.

I don't believe Anita is going to take our games away, but when people crusade against things on moral grounds that's not outside the realm of possibility.