PC Gamer - Misogyny & Video Gamers

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
I'm afraid it's you who's marked yourself out as a bigot. There are many LGBT individuals who despise the LGBT 'lifestyle' because they see it as a form of stereotype entrenchment rather than continued liberation and social acceptance. By pushing something personal as a 'lifestyle agenda' you run the risk of imposing a 'one voice for all' stigma which has greater potential for alienation rather than inclusion.

Everyone is well aware of gender division throughout the entirety of society and there are plenty of people who discuss this issue on a daily basis, so, yes, this topic is entirely and completely about Anita. If you want to debate the issue generally and to the exclusion of Anita, this aint the thread for you, because this thread is about Anita…

No-one has said gaming is an entirely male activity. As you then go on to say, it's about wallets. People buy the games they want to play. I have no doubt that Call of Duty is not primarily aimed at women, just as Nancy Drew games are not primarily aimed at men.

And what do women buy with their hard earned? Oh… um… let me see… it would be 50 Shades of Grey… THAT'S HELPFUL, THANKS LADIES. (Yes, that was also written by a woman and solely propelled to fame by women). Has Anita discussed this book yet?

"He is not, no you are" arguments are very childish, as well as trollish. Yep, sorry MR, you are now officially on my ignore list as well. You once had some promise for leaving the way of the cesspool, but it looks like you've fallen into it head first.

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
The Amazing Atheist has been taking her to task for years now. Here's one from over a year ago:

I only watched five minutes in. Not watching the rest is one of the good decisions taken today.

Good example how things went that way: while making a point about games, the guy takes as examples movies. This issue is because of players who come to games for story. The guy makes a point about story.
The part asserting that the best way to engage people about a game is this or that representation.
No, the best way to engage people about a game is the gameplay.

As to not getting answers from that woman, I guess that taking the structure of myths crafted by patriacal societies to make the point that the narrative structure does not represent patriatrical societies is not the best path to challenge somebody telling that they represent patriacal societies.

The best way to counter an argument is to watch their entire argument without prejudice so you don't miss their point which answers why your point against them is wrong.

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
Because you're a shit-for-brains?

(Don't worry mods, I'm ignored, he can't possibly be offended by this…)

(Or at least any more offended than I am by his remarks…)

I can read it though.

And which do you find more offensive?

Someone who wishes someone silenced permanently

or

Someone who uses the word shit

?

Has The quality of our Discussions Plummeted?

see this thread -> q.e.d.

(this time with a little help from (Ex?)-Codexians)

I dunno mate, people in this thread seem to spend more time attacking other individuals rather than concentrating on the topic of Anita…

Which is about people attacking someone for saying something…

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
this thread is about Anita…

Sarkeesian is not the only prominent woman in gaming this week to have received death threats.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Has The quality of our Discussions Plummeted?

see this thread -> q.e.d.

(this time with a little help from (Ex?)-Codexians)

I believe the new poll I posted proves less than 40% of our members agree, and 50% don't care, and have no problem with posts like the ones above.

The other 10% have a different opinion. I hate the internet sometimes.

Update: This is in reference to the poll Hidden X mentioned not this topic. It doesn't change what I said though. It just proves a point about our site also.

Update #2: Please use the Ignore button for a poster if they continue to bother you. As the site is very lenient. Though I will step in if it gets out of hand.

Note: I have no problem with banning members either.

One thread is anything but QED. Even multiple threads don't prove a point. It has to be systemic …

Originally Posted by SonOfCapiz
One side deals with disagreement from another side by labelling them (in gaming terms we have "haters" and "fan-boys" ). Those who disagree with a woman's viewpoint (even those not shared by most or many women) are labelled misogynists.

Sometimes, people forget we can disagree without necessarily hating each other.

Best post in the 4 pages thus far.

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
I'm afraid it's you who's marked yourself out as a bigot. There are many LGBT individuals who despise the LGBT 'lifestyle' because they see it as a form of stereotype entrenchment rather than continued liberation and social acceptance. By pushing something personal as a 'lifestyle agenda' you run the risk of imposing a 'one voice for all' stigma which has greater potential for alienation rather than inclusion.

Um, I am not sure whether we just misunderstand each other or … ?

As soon as you call out 'LGBT lifestyle', you are a bigot. Know why? There is NO SUCH THING. The LGBT lifestyle is the HUMAN lifestyle. Therefore by singling out a stereotype for disdain your 'friend' marks himself as a ignorant and discriminatory bigot … and for using that example in this context, so do you.

As for 'LGBT issues' … the only one I really see is equal treatment under the law. Whether marriage or right to hold a job without discrimination of fear of firing, they are basic human rights and treatment issues.

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
Everyone is well aware of gender division throughout the entirety of society and there are plenty of people who discuss this issue on a daily basis, so, yes, this topic is entirely and completely about Anita. If you want to debate the issue generally and to the exclusion of Anita, this aint the thread for you, because this thread is about Anita…

You cannot discuss PC game performance without discussing PC hardware performance … and this thread is about 'misogyny and gamers'.

Also, there are several people saying that this entire issue is manufactured by the media for clicks and money. So yeah, the broader context plays into this.

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
No-one has said gaming is an entirely male activity. As you then go on to say, it's about wallets. People buy the games they want to play. I have no doubt that Call of Duty is not primarily aimed at women, just as Nancy Drew games are not primarily aimed at men.

Someone had a reply that they edited that talked about gaming as male-centric similar to sports. That was my context - women account for approximately half of gaming, and also loads of money considering that in most households women hold a higher amount of financial decision-making.

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
And what do women buy with their hard earned? Oh… um… let me see… it would be 50 Shades of Grey… THAT'S HELPFUL, THANKS LADIES. (Yes, that was also written by a woman and solely propelled to fame by women). Has Anita discussed this book yet?

Seriously? This is such a purely idiotic statement that it doesn't even merit response. I am not sure if you are trying to be humorous or prove the point of many others in this thread. But there is no possible way that statement could be intended as rational or intelligent. Because it isn't.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Um, I am not sure whether we just misunderstand each other or … ?

As soon as you call out 'LGBT lifestyle', you are a bigot. Know why? There is NO SUCH THING. The LGBT lifestyle is the HUMAN lifestyle. Therefore by singling out a stereotype for disdain your 'friend' marks himself as a ignorant and discriminatory bigot … and for using that example in this context, so do you.

As for 'LGBT issues' … the only one I really see is equal treatment under the law. Whether marriage or right to hold a job without discrimination of fear of firing, they are basic human rights and treatment issues.

Yes, it's a misunderstanding, but on your behalf. The quote you referred to was someone criticising an LGBT 'lifestyle', not LGBT people. You then jumped down their throats. The question of what is a 'correct lifestyle' for a LGBT person is one that is hotly debated even within the LGBT community and is related to the concept of family/non-family situations.

Yes, you are correct that the main issue for all LGBTers is equality within the law and freedom from general prejudice. However, the question of lifestyle is still a highly flammable debate as the majority of LGBTers will not be engaging in family structures, so there's a social question in to what extent LGBT should be, firstly, heavily promoted as a primary lifestyle choice and, secondly, the extent to which this draws in the issue of monogamy.

To say that an LGBTer "just wants a normal life" is therefore somewhat of a misnomer, because an LGBTer, by being LGBT is making a conscious decision to not have normality. Questioning normality, for intelligent people such as ourselves, is easily done, but, for general social cohesion, it's a different ball park. Take housing, for example. A free housing market relies on 'ability to pay' to naturally adjust house prices. Two well payed male homosexuals who choose quiet normality still disrupt normality by being able to afford a better house. The sap who chooses normal marriage with a wife and three kids then has to send their wife out to work to 'compete'.

You might think this kind of nonsense is nonsense, which it is, but it's nonsense such as this that 'old' socialists used to discuss. Which then leads to the two homosexuals having greater 'power' than 'normality', increasing the number of situations where homosexuals will employ straight boys and financially and statusly encourage them to become homosexual. Ever reducing the continuum of 'governable normality'. [Insert Lesbian instead of Homosexual to save a paragraph].

It's a conflict between a managed society and a free society (a socialist arguing that a free society leads to greater inequality and a return to un-free slavery for the majority).

New socialists, however, are more concerned with ethical equality, as your post describes excellently. In that a managed society is less important if everyone is at least free and equal to choose the lifestyle they personally want. Afterall, inequality will occur whether two gays live it up or a normal couple live it up above someone else. This is where philosophy starts to dominate (early 1980s) and it becomes the traditionalist right-wing who now seems to be the gay-friendly party (economic freedom), even though a staunch wing of the right wing (the religious section) are still, themselves, in great argument about homosexuality. It was when socialism needed to compete with the principles of economic freedom that they then embraced the LGBT community and why the LGBT community has become so politicised in recent years - they are a great pool of politically active floating voters.

If you ever want to troll an LGBT forum, just bring up the question of monogomy… because, don't forget, without children to look after, life is just party party party… But for lovers, partying is a bit tedious, they want to be 'normal', but it's a very 'boring' normal, what with no kids to look after, so it's not really normal anyway, so why don't they just let their hair down a bit and party-on. But they can adopt kids, or have various sperm donation what nots, but will the kids be getting a good upbringing? By having kids by some method, are the gays now restricted to normality or can they still party party party.

To which none of this matters except to old socialists or old religion. And then you'll get LGBTers who ARE old socialists or old religion who are happy to provide even weirder advice on how LGBT should be portrayed in media…

To which you are left with the problem that, yes, it would be nice if there was more LGBT non-stereotypicality in games, but what form should it take? Just as with the issue of, yes, it would be nice if male and female characters were all treated equally, but what form should it take?

Anita claims that the 'damsel in distress' is a negative trope. But she is a living example of a damsel in distress. A man would indeed react to her situation differently to how she is reacting to it. You are asking for 'men' to react differently to Anita. These 'men' (or 'gamers') are neither 'men' nor 'gamers', they are individuals who have latched onto someone who is reacting to them. They are stereotypical 'bad guys', and she is now making herself the damsel in distress for them. And she is expecting people to come to her defence for her.

As I have said, a man would likely react differently. The Amazing Atheist spouts some utter crap, but also spouts some great stuff, just like anyone who talks for long enough, and he's had death threats. He's a man, he treats it like a victory if someone sends him a death threat, it means he's winning at something. It means he's a somebody.

While it would be absolutely awesome if death threats were banned generally, so no-one ever had to receive one, so that we could all fully condone death threats as a complete criminal act in themselves (which they are - but heaven help us with 'interpretation' "I wish you were dead" type 'could mean anything' remarks), the mere fact that she is reacting how she is reacting and how the Atheist reacts 'proves' that computer games are not 'forcing' an unreality or inhuman concept when Mario rescues the Princess, but that they are merely displaying life. Her attacks should therefore be concentrated on 'life' rather than one specific industry.

Ergo, if the issue she is concerned about is life in general, then, of course 50 Shades of Grey is relevant. It's an entirely female product. In a completely old school misogynist culture (say, some areas of Iran), the book would not exist. Someone who speaks about such a specific issue with such a specific agenda (images of violence against women) cannot by any stretch of logic, avoid the question of 50 Shades of Grey.

So where is this Ignore button?

You go to the persons profile page you want to ignore. Then select users list, and click add to ignore list . After that you will just see their name, and not their replies.

Aaaand… your reward for a properly unbiased discussion of the topic…

throwaway troll hate-post…

I'm awfully sorry, but I'd be delighted if you classed "I'm putting you on ignore" as a post-removable offence if you're going to remove something as light hearted as "lol, funny…"

If the site has an official stance on this topic then I'm happy to stop talking about it, there's no point talking about Islam on a Christian Worship discussion board, for example. But I haven't been made aware that Anita is a site saint. If that is the case please let me know.

Aaah. That's much better.

The problem I end up having with these debates is that 'winning' is not a matter of correctness but one of endurance. MR is very often wrong, but will never admit it in any way, but instead will try to beat others into submission with walls of words …

So I guess he wins … I am done with this thread. And will never enter a discussion where he is present - because the level of discourse sure to be low, and the overall result unrewarding.

Originally Posted by txa165
The problem I end up having with these debates is that 'winning' is not a matter of correctness but one of endurance. MR is very often wrong, but will never admit it in any way, but instead will try to beat others into submission with walls of words …

So I guess he wins … I am done with this thread. And will never enter a discussion where he is present - because the level of discourse sure to be low, and the overall result unrewarding.

I find the inherent use of "wrong" or "right" on any forum or topic that is opinion based as ludicrous. Opinions are just that. Opinions. There is no win, there is no lose. If someone strongly disagrees with me then that's it. We don't see it eye to eye, thanks for any new info I might have learned from your discussion, see you next thread. I'm not burning down your house, making it my life's mission to hate you or destroying your influence or character in other ways.
Way too many people flip out because someone doesn't have their specific version of "expected attitudes, beliefs or morals".

I agree with both txa1265 Wisdom.

Still sometimes a poster will go to far, and unfortunately MinorityReport does that in almost every thread he posted on.

Everyone knows the mods at RPGWatch don't ban posters that much, but this time it's justified. We don't delete posts much either, but sometimes you have to.

So yes were very tolerate, but it doesn't mean we let everything just happen because it's better that way. It's called respect, and understanding.

I really don't mind off-topic posts that much anymore, as long as the whole thread isn't just full of it. That's all I have to say on this thread as it spiraled out of control.