Sexism in video games.

[Forsher]

That's not true, though.

[source]

But the point is that horny adolescent males are widespread and, more importantly, are very simple to market to, since they have very simple expectations.

Two things.

Firstly, I'm not sure if you're aware or not but your signature is currently stuffed up. I mention this because it feels like I've been annoyed by that for months.

Secondly, your post demonstrates the other negative of the kind of marketing deployed... what it says to society about "adolescent males".

But the point is that horny adolescent males are widespread and, more importantly, are very simple to market to, since they have very simple expectations.

But I am a horny male adolescent and my expectations are anything but that.

Exactly.

People always complain about sexism towards women in games, but what about all the "dumb dad" and "slacker guy" stereotypes that seem to be in every commercial and sitcom? Seems like a double standard where it's okay to portray men in a negative way.

People do complain about them. So does NSG.

A point no one has contested.




No, it wouldn't, because some people enjoy the over sexualization of males and females, or the exaggeration of certain character traits. For them, it's part of the fantasy, and they like it.

You're simply trying to justify forcing your subjective tastes down the throat of all gamers, and trying to pass it off as some crusade against a moral evil. But it's evident it's just you whining because you don't like something, and think no one else should be allowed to enjoy it either.

Yeah I don`t care much about the subjective opinions of sexists.

Every time I see "subjective" I think of Moving Forward Inc./Acireman (also known as "there's nothing inherently wrong with rape" DOS'd dude) because "subjectivity" was actually his main push and if he hadn't been baited into DOSation (I mean, really full on baited, the thread had nothing to do with rape at all until the guy walked Acireman into his DOS order, which is why said posts are mostly deleted) he'd probably have sent me up the wall with it. "Needs" = subjective, that was the most infamous example. The annoying thing? He was initially just some random Year Nine until the whole rape thing.

Anyway, the point is that since then I really haven't thought much of any argument that's main thrust is "subjectivity".

[Norstal]

No, you just want to shame people out of making them, by rallying people against them.

A soft ban, if you will.

I find that to be ridiculous, especially when you reasoning stems from nothing other than a self-centered "I don't personally like this, so no one else should either".

No. Wow. It isn't a "soft ban." This amount of defensiveness is so weird coming from someone who just said it's okay. Listen, if someone is calling you a sexist or a racist, they're not gonna do anything to you. They're just calling you racist or sexist. If you're okay with that, then why do you care?

It's like, if I call you stupid, but you think you're smart, why would you be angry?

The worst thing that might happen is that women won't play Soul Calibur as noted above. But you know what else? It'll also force developers like the ones who made Rift to make a better quality game. We want the latter to happen. You obviously don't, but, again, why do you care?

Well, if you noticed, I did both. Because it is a ridiculous comparison to make. There is a huge gap between slaughtering a specific racial group, and character models with over sexualized, unrealistic assets. You know, being that racial slaughter (in the real world) is immoral, but having larger than normal assets, and wearing sexualized clothing, isn't immoral in any sense, in the real world.

That's why your comparison is asinine.

No it isn't asinine. We're talking about things happening in video games after all. To you it's all the same. This isn't some kind of slippery slope fallacy. You yourself said that it's okay for both things to have in a video games. That you'd be okay with it.

Or are you saying that you're finally recognizing the impact of racism/sexism that video games can impart upon society?

[Forsher]

Well, considering we live in the real world, where resources and time are limited...

The resources being put into developing video games in 2013 is:
a)more than in 1983.
b)less than in 1983.
c)exactly the same as in 1983.
Care to take a guess? I can't say I know for sure myself, but I know what I'd put my money on.

It sounds a lot like someone has just had an introduction to basic economic (or perhaps I mean microeconomic) concepts and hasn't been taught well enough to recognise how they actually apply to real life situations.

I must point out that their application of the ideas in their response to this post of yours is much better.

I blame feminism and the breakdown of traditional gender roles, in a word. Progress. The idea that women should be protected (ie: they should not be attacked) and honoured has been discarded. Of course, you should also look at the damage done to men. In a way the treatment of men in video games is no better. Both with men as users, but also how male characters behave and are portrayed. If men in video games are hyper mascilinized, what are they saying about what men are suppose to do?

Sure Mario teaches men, that women are passive and that men need to save them, but it also teaches men that they should save women and that they have value. Much worse is the more forward thinking games that teach that people, especially women, exist to be used and that men are basically pigs. Of course the whole internet anonymity plus free speech brings out the whole, the meanest person is cool and insulting people makes you clever mentality.

Because in the Post-Modern society, everyone makes their own rules, and applauded for breaking the old ones, such crudity is bountiful.

I disagree with you.

The "women have worth" thing is all well and good but the primary reason why Rapunzel was rescued was because the prince fell in love with her. That's not necessarily any good kind of worth and I imagine that in most cases the stuff you're talking about slots in the same way.

It's not feminism's fault and nor is it the breakdown of traditional gender roles' fault in any way other than as a result we're seeing just how wrong these things are now. I'll be frank, I seriously doubt that 1700's Forsher is going to agree with 21st Century Forsher over this stuff.

Oh, and as I am sure the vast majority of this thread can tell you I'm only reasonably sane.

frankly, I'm a little disappointed in you that it took this long.

I'm trying to get work done in another tab.

My brother's not quite like that, but he does live on Mountain Dew so we laughed. I mean to say he's not on ritalin and is less into swearing but otherwise, it's him.

There's no way you need one hour, 12 minutes and 17 seconds to "debunk" a video that's what, 20 minutes long? This guy doesn't know how to get to the point. That's his problem.

I used to have this problem. It was partly related to the fact I had little to no idea about what exactly I was meant to be doing and somewhat explained by the medium of presentation, but I turned a response to Ozymandias into an eight page dialogue. Clever.

Anyway, I hate videos. Short ones can be okay and for some reason I watched most to all of some of the fire-alarm videos, but as a whole it's a terrible medium... I'd much rather read because a) I can go at my pace and b) because it's easier to respond to. Transcripts make everything cool though.

Not what she said she needed the money for. She said she needed it for research. Considering the game footage she uses is publically available... she probably doesn't even buy the games.

I see Starcraft, on behalf of my friend, she has good taste.

Nope. If you can't read the thread or be bothered to look around and see things that are right in front of your face then I'm not going to waste more of my time on you.

The fact that he hasn't made everyone else's ignore list is actually quite astonishing. I mean, perhaps to some its amusing or cute, but I got sick of his shit some time ago.

What I don't understand is why you don't just recycle old posts against old points.

[Norstal]

Not what she said she needed the money for. She said she needed it for research. Considering the game footage she uses is publically available... she probably doesn't even buy the games.

Noes its obviously photoshopped lulz.

[Phocidaea]

Not what she said she needed the money for. She said she needed it for research. Considering the game footage she uses is publically available... she probably doesn't even buy the games.

If this is supposed to be a defense of Anita "Lottamoney" Sarkeesian, it fails.

It exhibits a completely different problem: she is, in fact, using the money to impulse-buy shitloads of video games under the pretense of "research". Riiiight.

[Forsher]

The fact that he hasn't made everyone else's ignore list is actually quite astonishing. I mean, perhaps to some its amusing or cute, but I got sick of his shit some time ago.

Sometimes he seems a little less dense than the average...


....but yeah, I think he's going to go the way of TJ for me.

TJ changed right about the time it became more who was saying what he was saying rather than what he was saying? Interesting, no?

It's "morally wrong" to say, explicitly, "Your support will go towards production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content," and then spend the money she receives on production costs, equipment, games, and downloadable content?

You have a rather unique definition of "morally wrong."

What's interesting about this is basically the absolute outrage at the suggestion she do her own research. People have actually suggested she just watch someone ELSE'S work.

We have a phrase for that. It's called plagiarism. Serious people tend to frown on it.

It would be research from a secondary source? Surely you've looked in the back of an academic history book. They list all their primary and secondary sources, and tend to have foot or endnotes so that you can find the bits that aren't their ideas (or, for that matter, their ideas that are new to the book in question).

For example, pages 447-451 or Churchill: A Study in Failure 1900-1939, by Robert Rhodes James (was in Thatcher's party in Thatcher's day) form the "Select Bibliography" and practically every page has some form of footnote. I just keep it by the computer for fun.

There are plenty of books that will separate the primary and secondary sources. Even down to the different types. Plagiarism (as I suspect you know) is not what this post of yours says it is.

A thought struck me after I wrote this though. Hard to footnote a video.

Morality is relative, but still there's something icky about what she's doing. Again, she could get just as much information on these games from YouTube by watching, literally, hundreds of other people play rather than enjoying the games herself.

How do you figure that?

She's playing games spanning decades and isn't focusing just on major titles. What makes you think that all the games she wanted to discuss are featured on someone's youtube channel? What makes you think that they're featured on someone's youtube channel without extra commentary and intact cut scenes? What makes you think that it's okay to steal video clips from other people's youtube videos (and what makes you think they'll be reasonable quality)?

I imagine that she'd have had to (in some cases) acquire older platforms (?; a bit out of my depth here with the lingo) because, from personal experience, some games just won't play on newer stuff (i.e. MTW and Windows Vista).

Just some examples of people denying sexism in this very thread:

How is it sexism? IT IS MARKETING.

Well, most games aren't sexist, its usually only a few M games that are.

And no, it is not sexist.

Seriously, are you guys trying to find things to complain about?

Sorry but, by calling it "sexism" you remind me of those lesbian vloggers or the other "politcally correct white knight" vloggers

Can you guys give me game explain with sexualised women (as with no personallity?)

Is everything sexism now?

And it's not even necessarily sexist or objectifying to have a character wear revealing outfits.

OH MY GOD!!! You can totally see her arms. Seriously, what kind of sexist BS is this?

Just snips from the first ten pages.

Can we please drop the pretense that everyone understands that sexism happens?

Should Link those you know.

More useful that way.

Some of those may be slightly out of context (I don't think so because I remember some -- but they could be!).

Having female players who wish to play females, be forced to serve as sex appeal as opposed to being able to choose it is misogyny. Just like forcing a woman to go about her daily business in a bikini and heels would be.

You're forcing them to present themselves in a certain manner solely to please the male players. How is that not mysoginistic?

Is it misandrist that the male characters are forced to dress in a manner that makes them hulky and buff, something stereotypically attractive to females?
I'm genuinely asking.
For me it's both or neither. I'm not convinced yet.
It's an escapist reality, and who wouldn't want to be sexy. Most guys will like the way the girls look like that. Most girls will like the way the guys look, so it's just cost-effective.
Character customization, when it expands, will leave this thing in the dust anyway.

I think that these two posts address what I am viewing as the issue with this post.

The link's broken, but given your mentioning of Soul Calibur, I'm pretty sure I know who you're talking about.

My only response is, of course, so what? Why do things need to be realistic? Videogames are fantasy. Part of fantasy is the ability to creatively design characters in whatever manner you please.

Why do you want to take that away from people?

Things don't need to be realistic. For example, I'm pretty sure a dude turning into a great big green thing and then getting killed by some tragic hero and some deal with cursed gold or some crap like that, isn't particularly realistic at all. That's cool.

The problem is that all media, whatever it is, gives off ideas. It reinforces cultural views, generates messages and stuff like that. Basically, the sort of things that gets talked about in secondary school English (for example, Simon as a Christ figure in Lord of the Flies -- although, personally, I think Simon is over-rated as a character, Roger was always more significant in my essays) and, presumably, media studies. In fact, it's kind of the whole point of much of what I've done in drama (very academic subject, sadly tied to the performance which, I've always thought, was my issue last year). But that's side-tracking me, the issue is what the media gives off.

At the start of this post I was talking about women being rescued, right? That's fine until the message becomes something like "women have to be rescued" as opposed to "this character, who is a woman, needed to be rescued". But let's bring it to this case. The second link shows the major problem with the character which is demonstrated by NTTP characterising Ivy's design process as "lol boobies". That's the issue there, the character comes across as existing solely to serve as "eye candy".

Or, at least, that's my take.

There's a difference between choosing not to by a game, and then going out and shaming a trend and those who enjoy it, because you personally don't like it. Trying to somehow finagle it as a female rights issue, and crying about objectification, only makes your behavior scummier.

It all comes back to the three key elements of English, as a secondary school subject. (If you don't know what a secondary school is, I don't think the term is widely used in the States, it's basically what high school/college is.)

There's reading on the lines.
There's reading between the lines. (Some might call this subtext.)
There's reading beyond the lines.

That applies for anything. And the point is that it's not actually that hard to see the three different elements of what there is. Whatever the likes of Neo Art may think, teenagers are capable of thinking like this and, frankly, they're expected to do it at school.

But, this is relevant here because what the last two parts say influences society. It influences cultural ideas. For example, this thread's view of teenage boys is basically "lol, obsessed with titties" and that's as a result of what's going on here. (In case you're unclear, teenagers of both sexes are more complex than this and are capable of being drawn to material because it has seven different shades of blood as well.) I read a fair few Marvel Comics and I used to wonder why the figures that you see in them aren't like what you see in reality, that's the other issue here. (Compare the Black Widow of the comics to the film's version to really see this.) Media influences and mirrors society, it helps perpetuate negative perceptions of the world around us.

If all media came with different kinds of Rapunzels then people are going to be getting quite a few bad ideas about the relationship between women and men. It's also kind of getting a bit of "active" (X happens to events) versus "passive" (events happen to X) views, you know? It's just a matter of sitting down and thinking about it. (I'd also avoid paying too much attention in this thread to a certain manner of posting typified by quite well known Generalites because, I reackon, that how they go about entering such discussions gets a lot of applause from those who agree with them but does very little towards creating more people who agree with them.)

Your point? I fail to see how this is in any way relevant to anything I said.

It comes back to the beyond the lines type stuff. Thought process...

Female character is mostly boobs.
Why is female character mostly boobs?
What does the answer to the previous question say about society?
What does this, as a whole, mean for society?

Let's work with the answer to the first question being "to appeal to young males".

I can imagine what the whole thing put together would look like. I believe the character in question is called Ivy.

Ivy's design model can be described as "mostly boobs" as an attempt to make the game (Soul Chorus or something?) more attractive to the young male demographic. This tells us that society thinks women can only appeal to men through their bodies, which is an unhealthy idea to foster. After all, men are capable of liking female characters for other reasons and being drawn to a game for reasons other than sex appeal. Of course, the message that the game sends about women through Ivy is also negative -- women are more than just things to be ogled.

Something like that. Or, because there are people who are better at this than me, something better than that along those lines.

Basically the point is that it's okay to have "sexy" characters, the problem is about how that happens... that's what these posts are getting at.

And, in fact, I think that point there does help answer your question. *Resumes listening to Cars and Girls*

[New Octopucta]

Should Link those you know.

More useful that way.

Some of those may be slightly out of context (I don't think so because I remember some -- but they could be!).

Technically, I think most of those are from one poster whose flag matches him to a t. But the fact remains that it has been established repeatedly in this thread that a great many people either don't think there is any sexism in games or that sexism in games isn't harmful.

[Gauntleted Fist]

(Image)

If this is supposed to be a defense of Anita "Lottamoney" Sarkeesian, it fails.

It exhibits a completely different problem: she is, in fact, using the money to impulse-buy shitloads of video games under the pretense of "research". Riiiight.

It's almost like using the funds you acquire to fund the research and goals stated in your kick starter campaign is immoral to you. What, precisely, should she have used the money that she was given for a specific research purpose for? Hookers and blow?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Should Link those you know.

More useful that way.

Some of those may be slightly out of context (I don't think so because I remember some -- but they could be!).

Technically, I think most of those are from one poster whose flag matches him to a t. But the fact remains that it has been established repeatedly in this thread that a great many people either don't think there is any sexism in games or that sexism in games isn't harmful.

By all means show us these great many people in this thread. Go on, we'll wait.

[Forsher]

I refuse to bring my A-game to tee ball.

I mean, that's the thing right? I get paid a lot of fucking money to argue. We don't expect chefs to cook you a meal or architects to design your house. This is what I do for work. You want my time beyond what I find entertaining

Write me a fucking check.

If I were you I would use NSG like a marathon runner uses a jog in the park.

You know, practice but not serious practice. Just keeping in shape.

Right now I'd say it's more the marathon runner laughing at people who jog in the park.

The latter.

It generates no real harm. "Hurt feelings" are not real harm. They can, you know, not play the game.

ahahaahahahahahhahaha.

Further more, simply playing such a game is not the same as supporting the actions or beliefs therein in real life. Again, it's fantasy. It's not real.

Or do you think every person who kills another "human being" in a video game is secretly a budding murderer?

Nope, but I sure as hell think that it contributes to a culture of violence and people take their cues about the real world from the media. If you present popular media which infantilizes and dehumanizes social groups, then you have people taking their cues from that media and enacting it in real life.

I'm assuming you also think the it gets better campaign is worthless too, eh? Since "hurt feelings" aren't real harm.

Until someone reaches for a razor.

What is the point of watching a video in school assemblies twice within a period of six months if one cannot remember its key phrase? Ah, but I did remember so here's the video as well.

It's got the whole "sticks and stones" unreality bit in there which is why I thought of it.

If the ONLY female characters in a game just walked around in the background and gave you items and info that would be sexist.

Now you're getting it.

Except, no, that wouldn't make it so. That's a bloody asinine argument to make.

You like the word asinine more than MFI liked subjective and Neo Art likes nuance. You're at Sibirsky levels man (except he's this ).

Things are sexist if the ideas they perpetuate/create/exude/posses/a number of other words fit here are sexist. So, the situation above can potentially be sexist because it brings the sexist idea that "women are passive thingummies" (that's what background NPC characters are essentially, they have stuff happen to them, rather than make stuff happen) to the fore and helps perpetuate that idea. To be honest, it'd be bloody hard to not be sexist with that scenario.

Except, no, that wouldn't make it so. That's a bloody asinine argument to make.

"You keep using that word phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Except, no, that wouldn't make it so. That's a bloody asinine argument to make.

Jesus fucking christ somebody buy this kid the other 25 volumes. He's stuck on the "a"s

Is it strange that everyone decided to comment on the whole "asinine" thing following the same post? Probably not.

I'm sorry, what precisely gives you the authority to determine what will and will not trigger someone?

I've never heard of anyone having an episode triggered by a joke. If it's happened, feel free to find the example.
While we're on it though, yes. Noone has that authority.
So what's all this shit about offending people again, what precisely gives you the authority to determine what will and will not offend someone?

I am reminded that I haven't advised anyone watch Cracker in a while.

Watch Cracker. The episode where the ex-soldier who was posted to Northern Ireland murders the American comedian for joking that compared to 9/11 the whole IRA bombings thing wasn't real terrorism. (Note, some details may be slightly wrong but that's the gist of the relevant episode.)

I've never heard of anyone having an episode triggered by a joke. If it's happened, feel free to find the example.

So we're accepting ourselves as sources of authority for determining offence?

What a fucking disgrace.

You should have included the post with the (external) links.

[Hornesia]

ArmA 2 is the most sexist game. Women can't pick up guns or the game will crash.

[Forsher]

I wasn't going to talk about this because, frankly, if you changed Neo Art's name to something else most people would probably accuse him of being the sort of poster he complains about here. Certainly, they wouldn't see the funny side of his baseless accusations. But, then I saw this post.

I second (or third, or fourth) Neo Art's sentiment regarding your posts.

I said before, and I will say again, I think it's high time the actual adult regulars of this forum start to take a good hard look at whether this is really where we want to be, and whether this fourm actually has a place for adults anymore.

It does. It's just that adults tend to try and have adult conversations, rather than just whining about the state of things.

I mean, go to any classroom full of older teenagers (I guess you'd call them seniors). They say the exact same stuff you say about what you'd think of as freshmen.

Trust me, I've done this.

Since the transition from jolt, the quality of this forum has gone progressively downhill, this....complete fucking shit, is now baseline. The minute this website started generating its own advertising revenue from the forum is the minute that posters like this became a revenue stream. You want to talk about media pandering to male children for a buck? Here it is. This is it. This is what happens.

I can't really comment on this, because being around in the Jolt days is really necessary here. I wasn't around then.

We've gone so far downhill, that we've gone from a place where this kind of shit wasn't tolerated to a place where they made a fucking RULE against telling these kids how fucking ashamed of themselves they should be.

Oh yes, trollnaming. It all comes out now, how your problems all come down to mummy taking away your teddy bear.

No, wait, that's not how I post. That's how you post and that posting style is one of the primary problems with NSG.

It's difficult to have a rational conversation when most posters contribute nothing more than snarky little asides that tend to lead conversation into that murky world of "the poster", as opposed to "the post". It was also difficult to have a rational conversation when most of the posts were "troll" and nothing more at all. I mean, how are you meant to raise actual points with the OP's argument when the OP is busy saying they're not a troll? It's difficult.

The reason why "trollnaming" was introduced was because most posters were too lazy, too cocky even, to actually engage in debate. So, now we're at the point where we've got Joe Biden and one of those North Korean Kims running around the forum. I mean, trollnaming hasn't been a solution because many posters have gone from "trollnaming" to circle-jerking.

Seriously, there are threads out there the thread turns out like this:

A: OP
B: No, just no.
C: Yeah, you showed A, right on dude!
A: Er, what? You didn't actually engage with my argument at all?
B: Thanks C, I know I'm awesome. *bro fist*

That's not debating. That's not being clever. That's not refuting an argument. That's hardening A's opinions the easy way. Then a week later you get the same posters talking about the same stuff and they're surprised (despite A's reaction being the logical outcome of their experience) to find that A believes the same stuff as much as ever.

And, then there's the lurkers. Today's lurker is tomorrow's poster. What are they getting? They're seeing an argument and then a "shut up, I'm not talking to you". B and C are surprised to learn that most lurkers agree with A. So they make posts complaining about the state of things.

They actually made a fucking rule against suggesting the precious little dollar signs totally legitimate posters might not actually believe some of what they were saying, or DARING to suggest that a 13 year old child might change his perspective once he grew up a little.

Yeah, you can still call people trolls. I mean, you come across as a pretty hardcore, long term troll to be honest. Antagonistic, rarely actually contributes to (OP directed) discussion and perfectly willing to ignore facts at all costs. That's pretty textbook stuff, you know?

It's only trollnaming when that's all there is.

Trollnaming: Attempting to shut down a thread or poster by labeling it/them a troll with no further discussion. Trolls/trolling needs to be reported in Moderation, not within the thread.

But, I mean, that's a forgiveable error to make. I made it. I've probably made it more than once. But, I mean, you'll want a source, so here it is.

Trollnaming: Attempting to shut down a thread or poster by labeling it/them a troll with no further discussion.

Technically, not a foul. The Batorys' post would stand without the "troll" line as an opinion that the OP has failed to present his argument well or pursue the one point the poster found potentially relevant. Contains a hook on which the OP could hang a counter-argument.

I could search through Moderation to find more posts along those lines to support my claim that I am making right now, but trying to prove that heaps of people have made this error that way would just attract an accusation of "creepiness" from you. Which, by the way, also points at your being a troll... albeit a complex long-term troll. I mean you've even got the whole Karr-mod-complex going on.

Yes, I do say "I mean" a lot but that's because I mean it. But the basic point here is that you can call posters trolls, as long as that's not the entire argument being made. There's got to be "a hook on which the OP could hang a counter-argument", in this case the idea that "you, can still call people trolls as long as you also present a rebuttal to their argument".

But, I mean, it often comes down to how you go about saying the other thing. "You're an uneducated twit, a thirteen year old child" isn't going to be a good way of "DARING to suggest that a 13 year old child might change his perspective once he grew up a little" as you put it. Saying something like,

I see. I would suggest that you do not become to attached to your current politics; they are very likely to change.

And, I was right. That dude went on to get DOS'd. You know, at the start, I liked him. He was just another Kiwi kid and that was fine. And then a few months of NSG later and a hell of a lot of people who don't post anything like how I post and he's saying "there's nothing inherently wrong with rape". Even had an ACT aren't libertarian enough for me phase.

But the point is that tone does matter. How you say stuff is relevant. It does change how it is received, often quite dramatically.

This used to be a place where adults could talk, and the children were generally ignored. And if they had just KEPT IT THAT WAY this place would have been 10 times more popular. Would actually be an interesting place where reasonable discussion was encouraged, not buried under the noise of fucking little children. Now? They fucking run the place.

Because the adults post like the teenagers. Not Children, teenagers. I mean, did the 1950's pass you by?

It's the same place where people think Divair, who is younger than me (and therefore, younger than TSM because we're both 17 but I think I'm older than her, my birthday's later this month), is 30-something. Keronians, about a week younger than me (assuming my memory's correct), is also mistaken for being older than 17. I imagine that TSM is thought of as being older but I'm not sure. Forster Keys has been in his twenties before he got to uni and I think the same applied with Meowfoundland (who has sadly CTE'd). Ovisterra's something like 15, which continually surprises me. Nationstateslandsville comes across as older also. Astrolinium, again, older than his years.

But, when it gets down to it, there are so many people who post younger than they are. And a lot of them are adults. And the actual young ones? Well they get the "wall of snark", "the circle jerk" and others who talk at them like they're children. Posters who think they're above engaging with the ideas of "children" and all that does is make them think their ideas are better (until next week when they've done the whole libertarian to communist thing twice). That said, I'm not so sure that in this increasingly antagonistic NSG that the transition even happens now. I think the reaction they get makes them stick with their ideas because the conversation that greets them is too busy high-fiving itself over seeing off a "troll" with a "no, just no" post.

All for a fucking buck.

What a fucking disgrace, every single fucking person involved in that decision. Fucking disgraceful.

What was that someone wrote about excessive swearing being a sign of teenager-ness? You're no better, in fact, you're part of the problem.

Oh My God, this is hilarious... guy who wrote about excessive swearing (and I wasn't sure if it was going to be a bloke), to quote Eminem (the Stan song and I've probably stuffed it up" was you.

Beyond that, it's a strict rule, nobody under 25. And anything that looks like anything that is considered "teenage" behavior (excessive swearing, rude behavior, antisocial use of chat channels) is an immediate removal.

Shame it's you relating the standards of a group you're part of though because that spoils it.

Let me guess, the response to this will be something along the lines of "creep". You know what? That doesn't convince the lurkers.

But, look on the bright side, posting like this? Well, when I started using NSG this would've been unthinkable. Definitely quite a few shades of the poster coming in there at the end.

[Nailed to the Perch]

*snort*


Sure. Let me just find a feminist who has ever actually said that, and I'll happily oppose it. In the meantime, I'm probably going to stick to concerning myself primarily with actual things, rather than comically over-the-top strawmen.

I think it's very telling you didn't try to address that point.

Yes. It is telling that I don't feel the need to bother addressing the idea that arguing that misogyny is bad is "demanding special concessions to feminists." I also do not bother addressing the idea that opposing racism is a "special concession" to black people. Some arguments are so self-evidently stupid they don't require much in the way of rebuttal.

Funny, I don't recall saying any particular feminist said that. I do recall saying that there is a notion, however. Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but you failed.

Indeed - you said MANY feminists say that. So it should be super easy for you to find an example of one feminist doing so. Or, you know, you could admit that you're talking out of your ass and you know it.

[Solidariteit]

Anyone else noticing the ad here that says "male gamers only"? With a picture of a sexually objectified woman of course.

Anyway, me, I'm not much of a gamer. Doesn't interest me. But you'd have to be blind not to notice that video games tend toward the sexist side. I've also frequently heard tell that gamer culture is highly misogynistic, from more than a couple of women gamers.

So. Would anyone like to share their opinions or thoughts on this?

That's because most (majority) of gamers are male.

Besides, did you ever hear a woman complain about this?

[Nailed to the Perch]

Just like housewife characters(none exist, BTW) are the ideal female architype.

......the people defending sexist video games are totally not sexist, you guys! See? Nothing sexist here! Move right along!

[Shaggai]

Anyone else noticing the ad here that says "male gamers only"? With a picture of a sexually objectified woman of course.

Anyway, me, I'm not much of a gamer. Doesn't interest me. But you'd have to be blind not to notice that video games tend toward the sexist side. I've also frequently heard tell that gamer culture is highly misogynistic, from more than a couple of women gamers.

So. Would anyone like to share their opinions or thoughts on this?

That's because most (majority) of gamers are male.

Besides, did you ever hear a woman complain about this?

Ummmm... I'm going to have to go with "yes" on this one. Source: This entire thread. Besides, even if only males complained about it, would that make their complaints invalid? What if I want to play a game where the females dress realistically and are realistically proportioned?

[Sommorragh]

Just like housewife characters(none exist, BTW) are the ideal female architype.

......the people defending sexist video games are totally not sexist, you guys! See? Nothing sexist here! Move right along!

We're discussing whether or no rthe content in certain games is inherintly sexist. Whether or not people who defend the topic are, is a different matter. You can consume 'sexist' entertainment and still not be an asshat to/objectify/discriminate against women.

[Nailed to the Perch]

(Image)

If this is supposed to be a defense of Anita "Lottamoney" Sarkeesian, it fails.

It exhibits a completely different problem: she is, in fact, using the money to impulse-buy shitloads of video games under the pretense of "research". Riiiight.

You know, it's already been pointed out how transparent this nonsense is. Bouncing straight from "she probably didn't even BUY the games, that bitch" to "she probably BOUGHT the games, exactly like she said she would, that bitch" does not exactly make the anti-Sarkeesian crowd look like you guys have measured, thoughtful criticisms of Sarkeesian's work. so much as like your next comment will be, "Oh yeah, well, she probably BREATHES AIR, that bitch."

(Incidentally, I fucking love the sour grapes of throwing that "Lottamoney" into her name. Trying to turn "lots of people supported her of their own free will because they like what she does and don't like dipshits who make rape and death threats" into an insult to her is one of the single most hilariously stupid things I've seen in this thread - and that's coming right after a post in which someone seriously argued that the female counterpart to "big strong smart handsome hero" is "housewife," so it's not like there's been any shortage of hilariously stupid things.)

[Nailed to the Perch]

Anyone else noticing the ad here that says "male gamers only"? With a picture of a sexually objectified woman of course.

Anyway, me, I'm not much of a gamer. Doesn't interest me. But you'd have to be blind not to notice that video games tend toward the sexist side. I've also frequently heard tell that gamer culture is highly misogynistic, from more than a couple of women gamers.

So. Would anyone like to share their opinions or thoughts on this?

That's because most (majority) of gamers are male.

Besides, did you ever hear a woman complain about this?

How do you non-ironically post this on the sixty-seventh page of this thread?

[Solidariteit]

Ummmm... I'm going to have to go with "yes" on this one. Source: This entire thread.

Allright then, but I think that's more to decide for the companies who they advertise for, not the goverment

Besides, even if only males complained about it, would that make their complaints invalid? What if I want to play a game where the females dress realistically and are realistically proportioned?

That's up to the Dev company.

[Forsher]

I used to think that. I really did. I used to think it was just a matter of staffing.

And then "trollnaming" happened.

I thought that was to prevent debates from degenerating into "you're a troll!" "no, you're a troll!" I could be wrong though.

That's exactly what happened.

Like almost every person with an anti-mod streak, Neo Art's got a pretty long list of entanglements with them. Helps to remember that when he talks about this stuff.

Although, they are flawed. The "Why are you a feminist thread?" or whatever it was should've been given to Cogitation or someone and ended with a ton of red-text. They just locked it for thread-jacking and all of us who made it a mess just walked free.

Maybe there aren't enough of them.

I mean, really, if they had to deal with everyone on here who should be banned, I don't think they'd ever sleep (let alone do their jobs that actually pay them).

Personally, I think that other forums got it right when a lot of them encouraged BYOM. They not only broadcasted using the ignore function but also told players to encourage others to do the same. Instead, we got a rule against suggesting that someone use their ignore function to avoid conflict.

You mean Ignore Gloating? Which bans "hahaha I'm ignoring you, lol"?

Perfectly reasonable. Which is why the mods often continually say "ignore them". In fact, there was a bit of a hoohah over whether "ignore each other" was a suggestion or a ruling... I think it ended up as suggestion but the confusion created a fair bit of trouble.

Personally, I think that other forums got it right when a lot of them encouraged BYOM. They not only broadcasted using the ignore function but also told players to encourage others to do the same. Instead, we got a rule against suggesting that someone use their ignore function to avoid conflict.

Or moderation puts you in the situation I am in, where I am literally forbidden from interacting with a certain player (no, seriously, I've been banned just for asking him to clarify something) because dissent, no matter how reasoned, is apparently a huge trigger for him.

Okay, maybe it was a ruling.

We even let fucking child molesters post here as long as they don't scream at the top of their lungs "I LIKE HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN!"

Oh, don't worry, if they did, the mods would just say "hey, we're not the police!"

talking about smoking pot? Bad

Raping kids? Cool.

That was about "promoting illegal behaviour" and you know it. Unless you're thinking of a different instance?

Frankly, this is why I've been saying that most of the worthwhile posters here should just fucking make one.

I would love a place where I can read news articles posted by other junkies from all over the world without dealing with fucking children.

And who are the worthwhile posters? The ones who agree with you?

ehh, I've been tinkering with a place.

Of course, I can't give you a link because that would be "advertising".

Yeah, it's against forum rules to give links to places where posters might want to have a discussion that isn't nationstates. Tell me again how this isn't all about money.

It can go in a sig, I thought

I think it's cool as long as the player doesn't stand to profit from it.

I did. I just don't bottom post. I interleave.

I love that there is a wikipedia entry on this and I am going to throw it at people until they interleave more.

Where do you stand on numbers? Because a while back I found that really annoying. It's one thing when you've got only a few actual points but with more than five it just gets to hard to find the context of each point.

So, basically the reply to this post would be:

1) Where do you stand on numbers? 2) Because a while back I found that really annoying. 3)It's one thing when you've got only a few actual points but with more than five it just gets to hard to find the context of each point.

1)
2)
3)

But with considerably more points and a couple of lines each to both rebuttal and argument. I mean, some of the stuff consisted of quite lengthy paragraghs. Drove me mad.

Only problem is, you can get some really long posts. Source.

[Zweite Alaje]

......the people defending sexist video games are totally not sexist, you guys! See? Nothing sexist here! Move right along!

We're discussing whether or no rthe content in certain games is inherintly sexist. Whether or not people who defend the topic are, is a different matter. You can consume 'sexist' entertainment and still not be an asshat to/objectify/discriminate against women.

Thank you!!! Goddamn!!! People get too worked up over videogames, those are the people that get trolled in online matches cuz vidyagamz r so cereal goiz.

[Forsher]

That's because most (majority) of gamers are male.

Besides, did you ever hear a woman complain about this?

How do you non-ironically post this on the sixty-seventh page of this thread?

I started somewhere like page 27 and are still only at page 49 hours later. Might be finished by now if I hadn't been posting in a few other threads but I doubt it.

[Forster Keys]

It's the same place where people think Divair, who is younger than me (and therefore, younger than TSM because we're both 17 but I think I'm older than her, my birthday's later this month), is 30-something. Keronians, about a week younger than me (assuming my memory's correct), is also mistaken for being older than 17. I imagine that TSM is thought of as being older but I'm not sure. Forster Keys has been in his twenties before he got to uni and I think the same applied with Meowfoundland (who has sadly CTE'd). Ovisterra's something like 15, which continually surprises me. Nationstateslandsville comes across as older also. Astrolinium, again, older than his years.

There are 13 to 14 year olds who seem more intelligent and elequent on a lot of topics than anyone I know. Then there are people who are middle aged that I've mistaken for junior high students. Age is not really the issue.

But people in society like to considers themselves part of some sort of an elite, hearken back to an golden age that may or may not have existed. The result being that posters I admire end up subtly and openingly trashing each other. If there's anything that's making the community unhealthy it's the constant assertion that the community is unhealthy. The way I see it, if you don't like the quality of the conversation, create a new one and speak with your mates there.

[Choronzon]

Uh, right. FYI, I play almost exclusively with females characters in games I play.

This is your fucking argument?