|
Powercrazy posted:I judge people by their own morals. Since Anita ignores the context of the video game world when she judges videogames as problematic or whatever then that implies that since Anita said she was for segregation in classrooms on the basis of sex and race, that is both sexist and racist. Okay, well I guess if you're willing to look like a complete moron you can take that view. This is really different from your original claim that it's 'straight up racist', your claim now is that it's racist if you purposefully contort yourself because you don't like something else she does so you can call it racist. Also, she doesn't ignore the context of the video game world--it's mostly what she talks about.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Pretening that voluntary segregation is the same thing as forced segregation is a very weird position. It reminds me of the people who point to black people preferring to live in neighborhoods that are majority black as proof that black people are racist and/or that segregation wasn't a big deal. A lot of the time it's not even "preferring". That Trevor Phillips documentary that was brought up earlier pointed out a rather clear truth in Britain, at least, in that there are specific areas where specific people live and this can often be completely beyond their control. Where I used to live in my city a very high proportion of people who lived there were Asians, often with clear distinctions of where east Asians lived as opposed to Indians etc. Virtually all of them lived in council housing. While it's certainly true when you live in a council house you can express a preference for where you want to live I find it improbable that it was vast collusion on the tenant's part to live in these highly clustered areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
Anyone for whom playing video games is their dominant/sole defining personality trait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
Anyone who says they are a gamer without being asked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I judge people by their own morals. Since Anita ignores the context of the video game world when she judges videogames as problematic or whatever then that implies that since Anita said she was for segregation in classrooms on the basis of sex and race, that is both sexist and racist. Can you show me where she actually advocated for it? Like explicitly advocated for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think what that Twitch report showed is that when it's convenient for them to include casual gamers--people playing Candy Crush on their phone--in order to demonstrate supposed diversity, they do so, but that is not the same population of gamers they actually serve, as shown by their streams. Moreover, from any marketing, production, or any other perspective, a casual game like candy crush, delivered on the phone, is as different from, say, Shadows of Mordor as is a "Kids React" video on youtube from Mad Max. They have no real point of connection. I know people who like certain games, I know people who like certain genres, I know people who like certain franchises. I do not know anyone who likes the nebulous thing called "Video games" without nuance. It's like liking "Books." Or "Pie." If someone identifies with or vilifies "Gamer" they are probably being specific about something without really saying it. Hence why the title "Gamers Don't Have to Be Your Audience" is a really vague title and ripe for misinterpretation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:I know people who like certain games, I know people who like certain genres, I know people who like certain franchises. I do not know anyone who likes the nebulous thing called "Video games" without nuance. It's like liking "Books." Or "Pie." I think the above definition of 'gamer' rings the most true in the way it's actually used: Anyone who says they are a gamer without being asked/Anyone for whom playing video games is their dominant/sole defining personality trait. And in that sense, the headline is totally true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, well I guess if you're willing to look like a complete moron you can take that view. This is really different from your original claim that it's 'straight up racist', your claim now is that it's racist if you purposefully contort yourself because you don't like something else she does so you can call it racist. I'm specifically talking about her discussion of Hitman where she claims that the purpose of the game is to kill prostitutes, even though within the game, the prostitutes are just props. She could have discussed the problems with women as props, but instead she decides to say that the game encourages you to kill them. Also it's not moronic to judge people by their own values, in fact that is the only way you CAN judge someone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think the above definition of 'gamer' rings the most true in the way it's actually used: Anyone who says they are a gamer without being asked/Anyone for whom playing video games is their dominant/sole defining personality trait. And in that sense, the headline is totally true. That's fair. The problem is the article's target audience didn't follow that definition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I'm specifically talking about her discussion of Hitman where she claims that the purpose of the game is to kill prostitutes, even though within the game, the prostitutes are just props. She could have discussed the problems with women as props, but instead she decides to say that the game encourages you to kill them. I'm not going to accept your characterization of anything she said, since you've shown you have zero problems in mischaracterizing something she said. And even if that one claim were true, you made it a blanket claim, not a specific one. quote:Also it's not moronic to judge people by their own values, in fact that is the only way you CAN judge someone. No, I judge people by my values. If I judged a white supremacist by his values, he'd come off looking fine. Did you think about this at all before you posted it? InsanityIsCrazy posted:That's fair. The problem is the article's target audience didn't follow that definition. I'm sorry, I honestly don't know the article you're talking about. It's entirely possible it's a Bad Article, and that it's referring to gamers as people beyond those who self-identify as gamers while simultaneously having that headline. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm sorry, I honestly don't know the article you're talking about. It's entirely possible it's a Bad Article, and that it's referring to gamers as people beyond those who self-identify as gamers while simultaneously having that headline. Gotcha covered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Witcher 3 The ThirdLet us English posted:And since we're back onto the Witcher 3, I'll post this again. It's good that we have writers like Tariq and Austin talking about racial diversity and Anita talking about sexual diversity and in a way both Maciak and Chmielarz talking about cultural diversity with respect to The Witcher 3. Uh, I suppose someone is talking about diversity in sexual preferences too. While I see your point about "hanging your hat" on one game specifically, I do think it's useful that both Tariq and Austin mention The Witcher 3 in a larger discussion about race in games as a whole. For example, Tariq starts off by mentioning all the RUST players getting mad at not being able to choose their race in game (it sounds like skin color and other appearance factors are generated procedurally based on your Steam ID?), even though they could never choose before, everyone was just light skinned before. And Austin mentions that it's more like one link in a long chain of issues with race in games, each issue defended by fans of each specific game: "Coupled with the argument that Americans should “butt out” of this topic is another argument that pops up a lot: “I agree with the call for diversity generally, but The Witcher 3 isn’t the right target for critique.” Well, as someone who has written about games and race a few times over the last few years, I’ve gotten used to that defense. As are many of the others who’ve tried to tackle difficult issues in the games they love and care about. When we note that a game is filled with slurs and offensive caricatures, we’re told that we should be less offended because, hey, it's just satire. When we point out how a game leverages a history of racialized, coded imagery to elicit fear, people link us to wiki articles and explain the deep lore as justification. When a game made me spend a half hour of my real time every day just to keep my skin color on point, I was told that, no no, of course games have a problem with race, but why did I have to go after Animal Crossing? You know that joke Vinny tells about having a baby? "If you wait until you're ready, you'll never have a baby." Well if we wait until the “perfect time” to tackle these issues, nothing will ever get done. Yes, writing about diversity and The Witcher 3 is especially complicated because of the perspectives involved. Polish history is filled with outsider groups minimizing, controlling, ignoring, and erasing the nation's unique ethnic and cultural character. At the same time, people of color in white-dominant spaces have struggled to develop the vocabularies of critical race studies and post-colonialism only to then be told to mind their tone. These things mix here in an especially volatile way. But this doesn't mean that we should shy away from addressing it, afraid of stepping on toes, afraid of what we don't know. It means we step forward in good faith, with sympathy for the other perspective, and with a willingness to incorporate the complexities of someone else's view. Real talk: I'm never kidding when I say that this stuff is complicated. Trying to unwrap this stuff is loving brutal. And because issues like racism are systemic and cultural (and more than just some bad, violent men in white hoods), it's difficult to tackle them. The best we can do is address them honestly, actually engage with the tough stuff, and resist the urge to boil things down into simple binaries. Sometimes that means repeating ourselves, again and again: “No, I don’t think CD Projekt Red is racist; Yes, I still wish there were some people of color in the game. Yes, I still like The Witcher 3 a lot. No, those three statements do not contradict each other.” Those of us who write about things like race, gender, class, and sexuality in games do so because we loving love games. And you know, most of us actually spend the majority of our time in any given year writing about weapon design, death mechanics, art style, game preservation, "virtual worlds," weird little import gems, explosive and private narrative experiments, rad Japanese robots, and the billion other things that make our favorite medium so great. And sometimes, we want to take the things we love seriously enough to offer analysis and critique that goes beyond "I like this" or "I don't like that." We want to figure out how a game might fit in a larger cultural context or try to communicate how it fit just so into our lives. We often see the faults in these games we love because we're so close to them. And sometimes, pointing out those flaws doesn't mean we love them any less. Even our most brutal critiques–the ones that come closest to head shaking and dismissal–are rooted in a broader love for the medium." INH5 posted:...Given how common explicitly racist attitudes were back then, whatever effect fictional portrayals might have had would be completely lost in the general noise. More likely, the fiction was simply made that way to avoid offending "polite society." INH5 posted:The point is that the game was made by and primarily for people with a very different perspective on these kinds of issues than Anglosphere countries, so judging them by our cultural standards is silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:
Because gaming journalists hate their audience and have a long track record of calling them every name under the sun, entitled and sexist being the most common. Their reactions on twitter when gamergate broke out reinforce that. From the article linked a couple posts above quote:
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Okay, that article uses a different definition of gamer, but it uses it consistently. " You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff. " and "angry young men ". It defined it that way for reasons that are well-laid out in the article. I'm not seeing anything bad there. Can you explain what's bad about it? It's saying that gaming culture and 'gamers' have been identified with that group, because they were the original adopters and the core audience for a long time. This is true. Totalizator posted:Because gaming journalists hate their audience and have a long track record of calling them every name under the sun, entitled and sexist being the most common. Their reactions on twitter when gamergate broke out reinforce that. The article is saying that group is not the real audience for games now, though. Do you get that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, I judge people by my values. If I judged a white supremacist by his value, he'd come off looking fine. Did you think about this at all before you posted it? Actually he wouldn't. Because his values require a bunch of subjective opinions to be true. The biggest one is "what is race." There is no way he could defend being a white supremacist because race is a social construct and trying to define it as black or white will quickly lead to a contradiction. So he wouldn't be fine. If you judge everyone based on your values, then I guess you view everyone as inferior to you, the enlightened one? Seems pretty narcissistic to me. Anyway, I don't really care about Anita, since she her views are trivial and therefore not interesting to discuss. She also doesn't demonstrate any attempt to understand context within the game world, nor even the social context of which the game was created. She just assumes everything is sexist, which while trivially true, requires rigorous examination to get any value out of the observation. Since she is unwilling to provide any depth to her opinions, her opinions are worthless and can be summed up in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJmxrksPGvM
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:54
|
|
Totalizator posted:Because gaming journalists hate their audience and have a long track record of calling them every name under the sun, entitled and sexist being the most common. Their reactions on twitter when gamergate broke out reinforce that. Why do you think of yourself as racist?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, that article uses a different definition of gamer, but it uses it consistently. " You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff. " and "angry young men ". It defined it that way for reasons that are well-laid out in the article. I'm not seeing anything bad there. Can you explain what's bad about it? It's saying that gaming culture and 'gamers' have been identified with that group, because they were the original adopters and the core audience for a long time. This is true. Bad to me, personally? Nothing. It reads more like One Womans War Against Capitalism, but there's nothing above and beyond what I've seen from other articles. Most likely many of the people offended never made it past the first couple paragraphs. Though I can see articles of this type, where they rail against a part of their target demographic, as what Auerbach describes as "ragequitting your audience."
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The article is saying that group is not the real audience for games now, though. Do you get that? And that's bullshit, so what you're saying the article is malicious bullshit and not just malicious, gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Actually he wouldn't. Because his values require a bunch of subjective opinions to be true. The biggest one is "what is race." There is no way he could defend being a white supremacist because race is a social construct and trying to define it as black or white will quickly lead to a contradiction. Not according to his values, though. According to his, race is not a social construct. If you're trying to say that you'll judge people by their values and objective reality, then again, what she said in that tweet is true, objectively. quote:If you judge everyone based on your values, then I guess you view everyone as inferior to you, the enlightened one? Seems pretty narcissistic to me. No, what a weird thing to think. I'm not a superhuman, I don't actually do a perfect job of upholding my values. I know people who are far better people than I am, by my values. You think very, very strangely. quote:Anyway, I don't really care about Anita, since she her views are trivial and therefore not interesting to discuss. Oh okay, we won't bother to talk about her any more then--- quote:She also doesn't demonstrate any attempt to understand context within the game world, nor even the social context of which the game was created. She just assumes everything is sexist, which while trivially true, requires rigorous examination to get any value out of the observation. Since she is unwilling to provide any depth to her opinions, her opinions are worthless and can be summed up in this video: Oh, I guess you do want to talk more about her. Wow you're good at clowning yourself. Totalizator posted:And that's bullshit, so what you're saying the article is malicious bullshit and not just malicious, gotcha. Sorry, what is 'bullshit'? And no, I'm not saying the article is malicious bullshit. You can tell because I said I didn't see anything bad in the article. InsanityIsCrazy posted:Bad to me, personally? Nothing. It reads more like One Womans War Against Capitalism, but there's nothing above and beyond what I've seen from other articles. Most likely many of the people offended never made it past the first couple paragraphs. Though I can see articles of this type, where they rail against a part of their target demographic, as what Auerbach describes as "ragequitting your audience." Kind of, but I think that the author is right that the audience has expanded, especially with smartphones and especially tablets. I think you can get deeper play out of smartphones than most people have, but tablets can definitely support some pretty 'hardcore' games. It's certainly, however, written with a clear emotional goal in mind so you're totally right about how it resembles ragequitting. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Hey i heard some of you guys like video games c/d?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:Hey i heard some of you guys like video games c/d? I hate video games. But strangely, I love them too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:I know people who like certain games, I know people who like certain genres, I know people who like certain franchises. I do not know anyone who likes the nebulous thing called "Video games" without nuance. It's like liking "Books." Or "Pie." I know plenty of people who say they like "books" and when pressed will become as specific as "all books". Same with games. There are tons of people who do this, so many so I suspect your either lying or don't get out much when you say you've never seen anyone who does. Powercrazy posted:I'm specifically talking about her discussion of Hitman where she claims that the purpose of the game is to kill prostitutes, even though within the game, the prostitutes are just props. She could have discussed the problems with women as props, but instead she decides to say that the game encourages you to kill them. Give me a time stamp for these exact words please. And no, judging people by their own morals is not the only way you can judge someone. You can, in fact, judge them using your own morals or anyone else's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:I know people who like certain games, I know people who like certain genres, I know people who like certain franchises. I do not know anyone who likes the nebulous thing called "Video games" without nuance. It's like liking "Books." Or "Pie." You don't know people who wear those dumb D-Pad shirts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:And that's bullshit, so what you're saying the article is malicious bullshit and not just malicious, gotcha. How is it malicious to say that gamers are not the core audience of games? Malicious indicates harmful intent. Who is harmed by an op-ed saying more people play games than self-identified gamers? Where is the injury?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I know plenty of people who say they like "books" and when pressed will become as specific as "all books". Same with games. There are tons of people who do this, so many so I suspect your either lying or don't get out much when you say you've never seen anyone who does. Yeah that worked out well when Sarah Palin said the same about magazines, didn't it? computer parts posted:You don't know people who wear those dumb D-Pad shirts? I can never tell who wears them ironically, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I know plenty of people who say they like "books" and when pressed will become as specific as "all books". Same with games. There are tons of people who do this, so many so I suspect your either lying or don't get out much when you say you've never seen anyone who does. To be fair, those people are annoying as gently caress and I'd prefer to forget they exist. I also know people who like 'pie'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I also know people who like 'pie'. the only acceptable pie is pumpkin pie
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Actually he wouldn't. Because his values require a bunch of subjective opinions to be true. The biggest one is "what is race." There is no way he could defend being a white supremacist because race is a social construct and trying to define it as black or white will quickly lead to a contradiction. You really seem to care a lot about Anita, given how much you have to say about her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Totalizator posted:And that's bullshit, so what you're saying the article is malicious bullshit and not just malicious, gotcha. Hey, wanna answer this for me? Who What Now posted:The tweet directly mentions her referencing some studies. Did you even consider for a single second that perhaps you should take some time to find out what those studies might be before jumping to the conclusion that she was actually advocating for segregated classrooms? I'm serious, did the thought of actually obtaining some context ever cross your mind? InsanityIsCrazy posted:Yeah that worked out well when Sarah Palin said the same about magazines, didn't it? I never claimed they were smart, just that they existed. quote:I can never tell who wears them ironically, unfortunately. None of them. EDIT Goddamnit the one time the thread slows down for a second I make a double post
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I'm specifically talking about her discussion of Hitman where she claims that the purpose of the game is to kill prostitutes, even though within the game, the prostitutes are just props. She could have discussed the problems with women as props, but instead she decides to say that the game encourages you to kill them. I cannot believe I am replying to this thread but you are wildly mischaracterizing her argument in that video, and you are not even logically consistent in your summary of it. You claim she says the games "purpose" is to kill prostitutes and then a sentence later downgrade it to saying she says the game "encourages" it. EDIT: Neither of which is accurate. She says the use of prostitutes as a prop which can only be interacted with meaningfully with violence creates a reality where the only two possible interactions are to ignore them or to wholesale slaughter them. Both of these outcomes objectify the women in the most literal meaning of the word.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Not according to his values, though. According to his, race is not a social construct. If you're trying to say that you'll judge people by their values and objective reality, then again, what she said in that tweet is true, objectively.  vquote:Oh okay, we won't bother to talk about her any more then--- I was supporting my reasoning for why I didn't care about her. That should be obvious in the context. Anyway, looks like a few more people are realizing that "SJW" isn't something to be proud of (remember the term is a parody term and actually means you hold regressive beliefs.) https://twitter.com/EthanJamesPetty/status/616055125539454976
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I try to be consistent in my beliefs, and I expect the same of others. I guess that is strange. v Hey, will you please answer my two direct questions I made to you? TIA
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:
Actually it's the "politically correct" of the 21st century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
I am genuinely surprised the writer of Watch_Dogs is twittering his opinions and not hiding in a shame cave away from human society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hey, will you please answer my two direct questions I made to you? TIA It's about a subject I don't care about, so no  Mel Mudkiper posted:I am genuinely surprised the writer of Watch_Dogs is twittering his opinions and not hiding in a shame cave away from human society. Maybe he is trying to maintain relevancy? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:That's fair. The problem is the article's target audience didn't follow that definition. They didn't? People in the industry weren't the ones who blew up at that article. The outrage came from people outside of the publication's target audience. Gamasutra is a trade publication, aimed at people working in the video game industry. That's the audience for that article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:They didn't? People in the industry weren't the ones who blew up at that article. The outrage came from people outside of the publication's target audience. News to me. I don't follow them, and considering how many "gamers" latched on to it, I figured it was aimed at them in some manner 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I try to be consistent in my beliefs, and I expect the same of others. I guess that is strange. v quote:
Yes, you put a lot of detailed stuff about how you don't care about her, it's totally convincing in the claim that you don't care about her Really it is. Glad to see I was right about you completely mischaracterizing what she said, that's also something people do about people they don't care about at all. quote:
What is the point of quoting a single tweet? I don't get it. Also, SJW is a parody term that parodies the user more than who it's aimed at, because it has the idea that 'social justice' is something not actually worth fighting for. And: Who What Now posted:Hey, will you please answer my two direct questions I made to you? TIA
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's about a subject I don't care about, so no Sweet! So I'm going to take that as an admission that you outright lied about what Anita said. Glad we got that out of the way!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not going to accept your characterization of anything she said, since you've shown you have zero problems in mischaracterizing something she said. And even if that one claim were true, you made it a blanket claim, not a specific one. So going back to the hitman thing, do you think she skewed the facts to her advantage to show hitman as a very creepy game? Going through the Tropes vs Woman videos thats one thing that kind of bugs me is how the game is represented to promote her argument. Do you think "gamers" or the general audience would of been affected as much if the hitman footage wasn't shown? Edit: here is the transcript Hitman footage starts up "players are invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play-through" Hitman footage plays, showing 47 beating up female strippers "The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the evnrionment for that singular purpose." Hitman footage goes to dragging a stripper spread eagle to a dumpster "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecration the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concoted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality" Exmond fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 17:24
|
|
