Sly Cherry Chunks wrote:^I don't think it's worth bothering with labels like 'left' and 'right' now that we've reached the point in history where "Maybe videogames don't brainwash people into violent misogynists" is considered a conservative opinion.
Milo talks a lot of shit about transsexuals and circumcision (and Digimon) but if Christina H Sommers is a 'right wing huckster' then the terms truly have lost all meaning.
Yeah, and that's so sad.
Milo's opinion on transexuals has really made me think. He has some good points. But it's so un-PC to talk anything other than "they're the best!", I'll hold back. I have NO ill will towards them. But I think a lot of it is a mental issue. I could be wrong. But whatever.
Yeah, Mrs. Sommers is a Democrat. I dunno what's going on with the weird labels she is getting.
I actually was upset about something a while back (well, OK, I was fighting with a girl on the phone), and I got choked up. It was sad, and I said "sorry, I'm a pussy". And she said that was misogynistic. "Comparing yourself to a female body part, to explain that you're weak is misogynistic". So, I was having a fight, and was upset, and then this crap got thrown at me.
I really can't escape this insanity. It's nuts. REALLY bad with the younger set.
Last edited by evil_ash_xero on Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
evil_ash_xero wrote:I actually was upset about something a while back (well, OK, I was fighting with a girl on the phone), and I got choked up. It was sad, and I said "sorry, I'm a pussy". And she said that was misogynistic. "Comparing yourself to a female body part, to explain that you're weak is misogynistic". So, I was having a fight, and was upset, and then this crap go thrown at me.
I really can't escape this insanity. It's nuts. REALLY bad with the younger set.
Too bad - and there was definitely a time where I would have cowed to the same sort of tactics. That seems to be the first lesson of Gamergate - to recognise and walk away from babby-tier shaming tactics like this. The fact that she thinks you're a misogynist really has no value and if shes more interested in scoring 'virtue points' off you when you're upset, then she's probably a terrible person.
Last edited by Sly Cherry Chunks on Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
She was actually one of the harshest women, I have ever known. Brutal.
But she was a pastry chef, had lovely red hair, and a nice smile. She was also pretty smart, but not as smart as she thought she was.
It didn't make up for the other stuff.
evil_ash_xero wrote:I actually was upset about something a while back (well, OK, I was fighting with a girl on the phone), and I got choked up. It was sad, and I said "sorry, I'm a pussy". And she said that was misogynistic. "Comparing yourself to a female body part, to explain that you're weak is misogynistic".
Tell her to quit being a dick!
Two working class dudes, one black one white, just baked a tray of ten cookies together.
An oligarch walks in and grabs nine cookies for himself.
Then he says to the white dude "Watch out for that black dude, he wants a piece of your cookie!"
evil_ash_xero wrote:I actually was upset about something a while back (well, OK, I was fighting with a girl on the phone), and I got choked up. It was sad, and I said "sorry, I'm a pussy". And she said that was misogynistic. "Comparing yourself to a female body part, to explain that you're weak is misogynistic".
Immryr wrote:i think anyone who describes themselves as a gamer is a tit. and I really don't see why
anyone would want to buy whole heartedly into something as stupid as being for or against "gamergate". it really smacks of desperation and seeking validation to me, especially when you're willing to jump on board with any odius arsehole who chimes in with something vaguely in line with whatever side you have bought into.
Yatta, it has little to do with games, as everyone knew from day one.
In this instance, to use PJ's framing device, the inner narrative is "I am a worthwhile person". Games are just an excellent way for lonely people to kill huge amounts of time and stay sane.
It does take a certain excessive amount of victim mentality to see some woman go "hey, there are a lot of high budget games made for children and men, but almost none made for women. What's up with that?"* and hear "you're a horrible person, just die already." And then spend the next 60 years explaining to anyone who'd listen why she's a cunt for talking out loud.
Not exactly sure who's supposed to be the Jesus/John Galt archetype in this story, though. Nor the form the "great battle" is supposed to take or how the world's supposed to change after its won. For the rest of us, Doom 4 still lets you murder things with a chainsaw, Korea will still offer large breasted space bimbos as playable characters, and I'll still be eating fried chicken.
* An assertion I find hard to argue against. What is there besides The Sims**? The Sims - the game where you can impregnate an entire harem, murder people in your pool, or trap them in a room to piss themselves and starve to death. Basically it's the movie Saw in colors.
** I do think it's impressive how this one taps into the nesting drive as much as say Diablo taps into the hunter-gatherer drive.
BryanM wrote:It does take a certain excessive amount of victim mentality to see some woman go "hey, there are a lot of high budget games made for children and men, but almost none made for women. What's up with that?"* and hear "you're a horrible person, just die already." And then spend the next 60 years explaining to anyone who'd listen why she's a cunt for talking out loud.
You missed a part of this conversation - the part where the question is answered: "Because women, in general, don't like games, don't design games and don't buy games". Then we get into "you're a horrible person, etc".
This "problem" is then framed as some sort of patriarcal conspiracy - 'no male-dominated corner of culture can exist unless there's a deliberate sexist plot to keep women out' A conclusion which was decided long before a $165,000 video series was funded to cherry pick examples that support the claim.
The good news is that Social Justice will eventually win. If enough girls really are into gaming, then creators and content will come. Take a look at western animation if you want to see an example of Social Justice infiltration done right. Plenty of female creators producing quality content with the kind of 'diversity' SJWs demand. (Steven Universe is frikkin' excellent). Of course, children's TV isn't perceived as a male-only club so we don't see the same kind of anti-male, anti-white brow-beating we get with this shit-fest.
The bad news is you aren't going to get a reward for sticking up for girls.
Is there a better way to end Gamergate?
AEsop wrote:THE WIND and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger. Suddenly they saw a traveller coming down the road, and the Sun said: “I see a way to decide our dispute. Whichever of us can cause that traveller to take off his cloak shall be regarded as the stronger You begin.” So the Sun retired behind a cloud, and the Wind began to blow as hard as it could upon the traveller. But the harder he blew the more closely did the traveller wrap his cloak round him, till at last the Wind had to give up in despair. Then the Sun came out and shone in all his glory upon the traveller, who soon found it too hot to walk with his cloak on.
Sly Cherry Chunks wrote:You missed a part of this conversation - the part where the question is answered: "Because women, in general, don't like games, don't design games and don't buy games".
Not that I've done much research into this topic, but I know others have take the "chicken-or-egg" angle on this front, i.e. are there few "women gamers" because women innately just don't like games, or has the fact that the industry has worked so much harder to appeal to men over the years led to fewer women gamers? Did they tell gaming that they weren't all that interested in it, or did gaming say it wasn't all that interested in them?
^Well yeah it's a chicken and egg style paradox. Girls don't traditionally like games so the market produces content that in turn, does not appeal to them - keeping them out of gaming.
Does this sound like oppression? Is there a good reason to smash gender stereotypes like this other than "because they exist"?
evil_ash_xero wrote:She was actually one of the harshest women, I have ever known. Brutal.
But she was a pastry chef, had lovely red hair, and a nice smile. She was also pretty smart, but not as smart as she thought she was.
It didn't make up for the other stuff.
But onto other topics.
Haha. The pastry chef chick I knew was short and liked the pretend she was a cat!
Would be great if somehow it turned out to be the same person.
BryanM wrote:It does take a certain excessive amount of victim mentality to see some woman go "hey, there are a lot of high budget games made for children and men, but almost none made for women. What's up with that?"* and hear "you're a horrible person, just die already." And then spend the next 60 years explaining to anyone who'd listen why she's a cunt for talking out loud.
Not exactly sure who's supposed to be the Jesus/John Galt archetype in this story, though. Nor the form the "great battle" is supposed to take or how the world's supposed to change after its won. For the rest of us, Doom 4 still lets you murder things with a chainsaw, Korea will still offer large breasted space bimbos as playable characters, and I'll still be eating fried chicken.
* An assertion I find hard to argue against. What is there besides The Sims**? The Sims - the game where you can impregnate an entire harem, murder people in your pool, or trap them in a room to piss themselves and starve to death. Basically it's the movie Saw in colors.
** I do think it's impressive how this one taps into the nesting drive as much as say Diablo taps into the hunter-gatherer drive.
...
Did you just say the only videogames made for women are the ones about keeping house?
Waitaminit, am I supporting the patriarchy or smashing it, here?
Anyhoo, if there's a huge market of girl gamerz just dying to play a game featuring a strong female protagonist washing the dishes, why did Sunset fail so spectacularly?
Two working class dudes, one black one white, just baked a tray of ten cookies together.
An oligarch walks in and grabs nine cookies for himself.
Then he says to the white dude "Watch out for that black dude, he wants a piece of your cookie!"
Unbeleivable sexism. I told you about projection, dog.
I've always thought of Portal as a girl's game. 10 years into my relationship and I still can't get my girlfriend to play a game with me, not even the sit down DariusBurst AC cab when we visited London. Yet somehow her online friends and whatever podcasts she listens too convinced her to go out and buy both Portal games and beat them on her own.
Sly Cherry Chunks wrote:Does this sound like oppression?
Methinks "oppression" is too strong a word to use here, and I think most people would agree, though I'd also argue that the same principle applies to those who insist that the "SJW" people are "trying to take away everything I love about gaming" or something along those lines when the former want to bring a different point of view (or whatever you'd care to call it) onto the stage. Again, I don't keep up particularly closely with this topic, and I'm sure there are examples of people who take the concept too far, but I very much doubt that many people who would place themselves in the "social justice" camp really care all that much about what other people play, as long as there's enough stuff for them to play as well. Of course, those sorts tend not to make as much noise or make many headlines, but I think it's reasonable to assume that most "socially aware" gamers fall into that camp, the same way that most "pro-GamerGate" people aren't sending death threats.
Is there a good reason to smash gender stereotypes like this other than "because they exist"?
On the same note, methinks "smash" is too strong a word - I would guess that for most people a term like "question" might be a more accurate one. Do men like sports and women like shopping? In many cases yes, and few folks of any stripe would see any reason to apologize for those facts, but at the same time few would see any notable aberration from those norms as a "senseless attack" of any kind on anybody; either way, they ain't going anywhere.
In any event, as others have said, even if the Sarkeesians of the world really, truly wanted to ban every game that didn't star Wonder Woman (or that showed more of her than her ankles), there's no way it would ever come even remotely close to happening. Hell, in some respects we're moving in the opposite direction - not long ago there would have been no way something like Senran Kagura or GalGun (or, heck, Otomedius) would make it out of Japan, but the former's already here and the latter's on its way, along with a host of other not-even-remotely-politically-correct titles plastering Gamestop's shelves. "Guilty pleasure" gaming is alive and well, and always will be no matter who complains; at the same time we're also seeing more strong female protagonists and other "alternate perspectives" making their way (albeit slowly) into the mainstream, so I honestly don't see the need to make a big fuss either way.
I agree but I'm going to counter that "big fuss" is too strong a term. More like "gentle push back" against so-called moral authoritarians. At least it would be - it could be - if we weren't stuck in the era of Listen And Beleive Neo-gaf hive minds and disabled comment sections.
And no, I don't think they can take away our games even though they want to. However - when I read about Gregory Elliot, Donglegate, Cecil The Lion and every other instance of call-out culture (which Kotaku and Polygon frequently instigate) - is it unreasonable to wonder whether a Steam buddy might contact my employer because I'm playing Gal Gun or Hunnie Pop*
No bad tactics, only bad targets, remember? Is this justice?
Can you express that solid number as a percentage? I know a few girl gamers, a couple with way more expertise than me but it's still probably less than 5% of the girls I know. My Mum's a bigger gamer than I am.
Closely know 4 women, 2 of them play games (actually I'm just assuming my brothers wife doesn't, never actually asked). 50%.
That's not counting internet acquaintances, girls I've met in class but not talked to more then once or twice, female fighting game players I've seen/met at tournaments, girls of various age groups playing various new games at comic con each year, etc. Seen quite a few in those departments though.
RegalSin wrote:Japan an almost perfect society always threatened by outsiders....................
Instead I am stuck in the America's where women rule with an iron crotch, and a man could get arrested for sitting behind a computer too long.
evil_ash_xero wrote:Why? I mean, if you hunt a lot, you're a hunter. If you fish a lot, you're a fisherman. If you do whatever sports a lot, you're an athlete.
I game a lot, so I'm a gamer. It doesn't define me, or anything. But it's a big part of my life.
When someone says "gamer", you know what they mean. Someone who games a lot, and may be into the gaming culture as well. I wouldn't look that deep into it.
what do you call someone who watches a lot of stuff on Netflix?
^Good point. I'm surprised that a small subculture using a niche, narrow market appeal service like Netflix hasn't validated itself with a label yet. Net-heads? Flickers?
evil_ash_xero wrote:Why? I mean, if you hunt a lot, you're a hunter. If you fish a lot, you're a fisherman. If you do whatever sports a lot, you're an athlete.
I game a lot, so I'm a gamer. It doesn't define me, or anything. But it's a big part of my life.
When someone says "gamer", you know what they mean. Someone who games a lot, and may be into the gaming culture as well. I wouldn't look that deep into it.
what do you call someone who watches a lot of stuff on Netflix?
Sly Cherry Chunks wrote:And no, I don't think they can take away our games even though they want to.
Do you really believe that there are that many people who would ever think for a moment of supporting such a notion? We're talking hobbies here, not religious convictions, and even there you can find loads of Catholics who use birth control and Jews that celebrate Christmas. It's only the furthest edges of the lunatic fringe that would even approach such a degree of absolutism that they'd suggest policing the actions of others to such an extent - you see the same thing with the very nuttiest "hardcore" gamers who would delete every "art game" ever made if given the chance, but most people are reasonable enough to mostly ignore stuff that doesn't appeal to them and go about their business.
is it unreasonable to wonder whether a Steam buddy might contact my employer because I'm playing Gal Gun or Hunnie Pop
Frankly, I find such a scenario highly, highly unlikely, unless you have incredibly bad taste in Steam buddies.
BulletMagnet wrote:Do you really believe that there are that many people who would ever think for a moment of supporting such a notion?
We're talking about the people who colluded to produce a smear campaign against their own audience to cover up their own corruption. Sure, they might be a tiny San Francisco based clique but they exist and yes, they want to take away our games. How else would you interpret 'gamers don't have to be your audience'?
is it unreasonable to wonder whether a Steam buddy might contact my employer because I'm playing Gal Gun or Hunnie Pop
Frankly, I find such a scenario highly, highly unlikely, unless you have incredibly bad taste in Steam buddies.
Yet Mischeif Maker was able to quickly dig up yet another example of exactly what I was talking about. So it's definitely happening and people are noticing. Last year there was a 200+ man demonstration at the University opposite my house because a student had made a rude sex joke. On facebook. In a private group. Details.
"I ate breakfast this morning. I think I oppressed someone."
"+UndeadTurning If it was Lucky Charms then it's me, I'm Irishkin." - Garth Algar
There was also a rude but accurate explanation of why Anonymous went from the Church of Skintology to being SJWs. Herd behavior.
BTW, if people were actually interested in talking about SWJ that matters in gaming, how about the fact that none of the cops-and-robbers type games, or even the military themed games, even pay lip service to the concept of only killing in self defense and respecting rules of engagement? Of course feminist theory and critique has its place, but if you want to talk about something that probably actually gets people killed, it's that everybody (including today's police) plays games that are basically murder world simulators, with almost nothing countering that trend. I won't say that feminism has "enough" attention, but there are a lot of folks who would be interested in dealing with other issues in gaming, but either are distracted, or are having difficulty talking about that message now. It's almost as if all the feminists and feminist supporters agreed that portraying outright murder is OK, but (insert variety of other problems feminism attempts to address which are other than the portrayal of murder).
"Gamers don't have to be your audience" is fine. We're talking about a massive multibillion dollar industry. There's room in there for it to be more diverse than it is. The only people who might conceivably suffer are people who need 20 minutely variant breeds of sports game or competitive online FPS, every year. I got mine years ago, so I'm good. Incidentally, I stopped really liking these types of games when they stopped being new and lost some of the diversity from early experimentation - so I think that, in some ways, this is something even "gamers" should agree with, even if they don't think it's about doing feminist-approved things in particular. But again, the slogan is just saying that there's a bigger potential market out there.
That said, of course they want to take games away! Were you not paying attention to all the thought police going insane these last couple years, BulletMagnet? The video linked just above is a perfect example of this, and the InternetAristocrat type videos have a basically infinitely deep cesspit of material to dredge up and flog for our amusement and ridicule. There's a minute of hate, every minute, when it comes to SJWs, because unlike even the astonishingly badly run economy of 1984, SJWs will probably not admit even that you have to breathe and sleep if it's not in service of their cause.
Gamers have been guilty, if of anything, in being too accepting of the status quo, including in many issues that feminists and other SJW types are trying to raise (man, I keep trying to write SWC, semi-wadcutter). But the hate campaign of activists against this goes beyond trying to shape behavior that affects others - it is clearly focused on an attempt to stop people from enjoying certain games, jokes, or even harboring certain thoughts. Sure, broad social activist movements don't set out with the idea that they will attack one small issue and then fold. In many respects, today's SJW movement is much like many previous movements.
What seems different to me from successful movements is that the movement bleeds over into futility, attempting to police thought crime, instead of being focused on more pressing effects of injustice. Furthermore, and I don't think this is just me not being forward-thinking, I don't see a future when I would be able to say "oh, giving SJWs everything they want led to a better world." Civil rights and gay rights have clearly made the world (that accepts those rights) better for all, even the bigots, even though at the time many people thought it would harm their rights. But in the current climate, it feels like people are being told that nothing will be acceptable other than working 24/7 as a hostage to somebody else's agenda. There is ironically no respect for the right of other people to be stubborn cusses. Even if there are centuries or more of wrong to be righted, it seems to me that this goes against the good liberal traditions of modern civilization which say that everybody is free to try and pursue their own path.
Trying to pursue somebody to the ends of the earth, eliminate their online and offline havens, and generally persecute them because they like to tell off-color jokes is literally as inane and useless as petitioning the fictional Oscar the Grouch to be nicer, because just as Oscar teaches kids that there are grumpy people in the world, SJWs and friends cannot be protected from the general cussedness and, ironically, the diversity of the world's viewpoints. It's almost literally impossible. The methods and targets of these campaigns threaten to suck all the oxygen out of pretty much every conversation, but especially those of real injustices that aren't fortunate enough to get the SJW treatment. A bunch of people deciding to march because some dental students traded some off-color jokes means that there's a bunch of bodies that could have been doing more important social work but did not. Of course, I'm not going to be relentlessly utilitarian here - I'm fond of saying that good things can come from less than ideal circumstances, so let them march. However, if they were being honest, the rhetoric and logic behind the SJW mindset should have led them to conclude that the bigger injustices and problems should have been the first target, before going after the incredibly unripe and far-away fruits of changing "gamer culture." Instead, we have a weird mix of hangers-on with no sense of the value of their time, and probably a core of people who want nothing other than to have their every whim and need fawned over. None of the SJW types embroiled in this controversy strike me as having potential to become successful leaders.
Sly Cherry Chunks wrote:Sure, they might be a tiny San Francisco based clique but they exist and yes, they want to take away our games.
That's just the thing, it's an incredibly small and incredibly loud group that the vast majority of "socially aware" people are nowhere near on the spectrum - however much bluster they make, their efforts are going to go nowhere, because even more "progressively-minded" people will look at what they're doing and say "yeah, I'm out". They're basically the Westboro Church - highly visible, highly irritating, highly reviled and highly ineffectual. If what they're doing is that distasteful their support will remain minuscule and flat whether we "remain vigilant" or not.
Yet Mischeif Maker was able to quickly dig up yet another example of exactly what I was talking about.
Is this the post with the spoiler tag in it? I'm just seeing "image" text when I click it.
because a student had made a rude sex joke. On facebook. In a private group. 
