TvW Episode 1 Close Look

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I think at the very least that means she doesn't answer the question here of what she's calling for if not a ban.

I think she quite clearly does:

Beat 26 wrote:

The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.

Yeah, and in the sentence right above the one you quoted I wrote:

She identifies the problem as the DiD being a recurring trend and that the solution is to evolve gender representations.

For all the talk of there being no 'sides' I feel that I'm still being treated like I'm on one and you're reading what I say with that baggage clouding your understanding. Maybe that's not conscious on your part.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Eh, I have a hard time believing that.

Believing what?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I think part of the problem is I don't fit into either of those 'sides'.

Which sides? Neither question brought up a "side."

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I think at the very least that means she doesn't answer the question here of what she's calling for if not a ban.

I think she quite clearly does:

Beat 26 wrote:

The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Interpreting her in a way that avoids conceding any ground to her detractors is possibly playing Angel's Advocate. You can admit that people you disagree with have some truth in what they say while still arguing that they are wrong.

I have no idea what "angel's advocate" means, and what it has to do with the subsequent sentence. Or who/what the subsequent sentence is directed at.

"Sides" is referring to your "inclined to agree" and "inclined to disagree" questions.

Angel's Advocate is a play on Devils Advocate. He means you're defending a little too hard against criticisms I think.

Let me ask something before we proceed that I think would be helpful. What countries are we all from.

I'm from the United States.

I ask because some of our misunderstandings may stem from dialect and/or vernacular.

Okay, so you noticed what she was asking for. In that case, why did you say "what is she asking for if not banning?" I wasn't sure why banning was even included there, as she doesn't bring it up at all. Which leaves the question, "What is she asking for" which you now claim you noticed.

I'm unsure why you self contradicted here.

The sides comment was in direct reaction to this part of your post:

Compared to how you went into this exercise, do you find yourself more inclined to agree with Sarkeesian, less inclined, or about the same and why?
If you were inclined to agree with Sarkeesian, did this close look reveal any nits to pick or major issues for you that you hadn't noticed of before?

If you were inclined to disagree with Sarkeesian, did this close look reveal anything that you agreed with her on?

I think part of the problem is I don't fit into either of those 'sides'. I'm pretty much left wing/progressive/liberal whatever you want to call it, I have confidence in sociology and even the softer social sciences to say something relevant to our world, I'm the last person to say the humanities have no value, etc. But I get the feeling I don't fit in too well with either side, even if I fit in much less poorly with one than with the other. Neither group of 'inclines' seems to fit me well.

But now, you're saying this:

For all the talk of there being no 'sides' I feel that I'm still being treated like I'm on one and you're reading what I say with that baggage clouding your understanding. Maybe that's not conscious on your part.

The first thing is a response you made to some general questions I threw out there. In your response, you started talking about sides - I wasn't sure how that related to the questions you were answering. I asked for clarity, that's all.

Then, you tell me that you feel like I'm treating you like you are on a specific side.

So, to break it down:

I asked X question
In your response to X question, you reacted to Y thing that wasn't in the question, as if it was.
I wasn't sure where Y thing was coming from, so I pointed it out in hopes for clarity.
You respond by conflating Y thing with new Z thing.

In this case, it feels like new Z thing is that you feel as though I'm assuming that you are on some side that is different than mine. Rest assured, I wouldn't be going into your post with any degree of granularity if I wasn't trying to hear what you are saying.

I actually have no idea where you are coming from, so I can assure you I don't think of you as being on a "side." From where I'm sitting it feels like you're trying to actively trying to cloud any hope at understanding anything that you've posted. (I'm not saying you are, just that it feels that way sometimes.)

It also feels like we should maybe take this to PM, as I offered earlier. Because the new Z thing, in combination with a couple other things you've said over the last few posts feels like you have stuff you want to hash out with me that's besides all of this. I'll hit you up there.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Okay, so you noticed what she was asking for. In that case, why did you say "what is she asking for if not banning?"

Because she's asking for game makers to evolve in their gender representations so that the DiD trope is no longer a trend (I'm more precise in my other post about this, but let's keep it simple for now). So she's asking for whatever the gaming landscape will look like when that happens. She doesn't go into much detail there, which is why I wrote what I did. Like there was even a discussion in the meta thread with Chumpy about whether she's asking for more non-DiD's or less DiD's.

Let's establish two things I think we agree on:

--she's clearly saying the DiD is a problem because it's a recurring trend;

--she clearly proposes that game makers evolve to fix it.

Where I think you're having trouble understanding what I wrote is that your analysis of her stops there, while mine (and others) goes on to ask the next questions about the details of what implementing that evolution will look like.

edit: oops, didn't see a PM about this part.

--she clearly proposes that game makers evolve to fix it.

That's not how I'd word it. She's not saying a vague "fix" which could mean anything. She proposes that:

Beat 26 wrote:

The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.

The "evolution" is in the field of gender representation specifically. She's also asking for more women heroes.

Where I think you're having trouble understanding what I wrote is that your analysis of her stops there, while mine (and others) goes on to ask the next questions about the details of what implementing that evolution will look like.

My analysis also doesn't "stop there" and that's kind of a dismissive thing to say, especially considering that you're accusing me of having "baggage" that clouds my understanding of what you mean. I'll leave the rest of this discussion for PM.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
Beat 26 wrote:

The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.

.

[/quote]

So evolve gender representations isn't just "making more women heroes" apparently. So she's asking for more than just "making more women heroes". What she means by "evolve gender representations" is still up in the air at this point. We'll see in episode two.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
--she clearly proposes that game makers evolve to fix it.

That's not how I'd word it. She's not saying a vague "fix" which could mean anything. She proposes that:

Beat 26 wrote:

The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.

The "evolution" is in the field of gender representation specifically. She's also asking for more women heroes.

So the post of mine you're responding to starts out:

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Okay, so you noticed what she was asking for. In that case, why did you say "what is she asking for if not banning?"

Because she's asking for game makers to evolve in their gender representations so that the DiD trope is no longer a trend

and because I don't repeat the entire phrase "evolve in their gender representations" and just leave it at "evolve to fix it" you tell me that's not how you'd word it.

...and people tell me I argue semantics.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

...and people tell me I argue semantics.

If you want to stop arguing semantics I'm happy to.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

...and people tell me I argue semantics.

If you want to stop arguing semantics I'm happy to.

Do you even cheeze_pavilion bro? :-0

This one is out of gas.