With apologies, I'm going to get meta-meta.
At the center of these differing viewpoints we find societal change which has been going on since forever. What people were once okay with and silent about, they're not anymore. What people weren't okay with, they now are.
S**t happens. Welcome to life as an adult where people espouse and analyze their viewpoints as we're constantly finding a new balance. This is what healthy societies do. I was read Uncle Remus and Little Black Sambo stories as a kid. Those books still exist, but my kids see them as strange, uninteresting, and sometimes offensive. This is the way of the world with some things.
If you like and are comfortable with the things that are called out at a particular point in time, and for whatever reason find you simply don't agree with the way things are going, take heart! Most societies right now are capitalist ones, and any sizable population with an interest is going to find products which are marketed to them. Also, no one is going to take away your existing content.
My hope is that we all will intentionally grow in acceptance and understanding of each other and our differing viewpoints with the above in mind. Unfortunately it takes an open mind to do that. I understand that sometimes the drive and the energy aren't there to overcome the obstacles which close us off and, among those obstacles, fear of change is one hell of a big one for all of us.
Since that's meta-meta, I'll just say that I think it's not the same thing that's been going on since forever. These are trickier questions that just "is this offensive?" when the further you get towards not tolerating bigotry, there's no doubt that the answer becomes more and more apparent that "yes, that is offensive."
edit: in other words (in case that doesn't make sense), these are questions where the answers don't reveal themselves so easily just because we're putting more and more bigotry behind us.
With apologies, I'm going to get meta-meta.
At the center of these differing viewpoints we find societal change which has been going on since forever. What people were once okay with and silent about, they're not anymore. What people weren't okay with, they now are.
I don't mean to say that you are saying this personally but progressives have this presumption about what exact form progress will take and believe that a change is going to go in a certain direction because of changes in the past, and that they should. Progressives seem to think that because they are pushing for a certain kind of change that they are the only ones interested in change and the rest of us are trying to cling to the past.
I'm for progress and change, I just differ in many cases with "progressives" on what that change should look like (and no its not heading back in the other direction either, there are multiple paths away from the past towards the future.) Fearing the consequences of specific changes does not make one afraid of change and that is frankly one of the more dismissive arguments progressives and liberals make.
Most societies right now are capitalist ones, and any sizable population with an interest is going to find products which are marketed to them. Also, no one is going to take away your existing content.
What about updated rereleases? They're on Anita's radar. As time passes, systems fall apart, and the libraries and operating systems that support older games become unavailable. Console emulation is under attack by Nintendo. And while the DOS Box works for a lot of the older computer games, the ones that rely on earlier editions of Windows will become increasingly difficult to run. Updated rereleases may end up being the only practical way to play many older games in the future. I don't have discs or cartridges for many of my games.
And I'm not just thinking about MY stuff. In fact aside from Nintendo, the games Anita has been targeting are mostly games I don't personally play (I don't recognize most of what she lists in her second video). I also don't play a lot of shooters. I'm concerned on behalf of those who do like those games.
TvW is now responsible for Nintendo's decade-plus fight against emulators?
Anita Sarkeesian must be a formidable foe, to be equipped with a time machine.
[Edit to add: Look - there are certainly reasonable critiques to be made of TvW. Casting Anita Sarkeesian as a boogeyman who is responsible for every gripe you have with the games industry is pretty much the opposite of one, though.]
How many times will this completely unconstructive conversation get moved out of threads into a new one?
How many times will this completely unconstructive conversation get moved out of threads into a new one?
*InceptionHorn.WAV*
TvW is now responsible for Nintendo's decade-plus fight against emulators?
Anita Sarkeesian must be a formidable foe, to be equipped with a time machine.
I'd comment on your sarcasm but I'm sure it would just earn me more comments about my supposed persecution complex from armchair psychologists.
The updated rereleases are an alternative to emulation. Emulation is not always practical and the legality of it is questionable at best. Updated rereleases are the only clearly legal means of accessing some older games that would otherwise not run on current hardware. But she would call that one option out because it means bringing back old games with old tropes.
I'm not making her a boogeyman. This thread is about her. So I'm talking about her and referring to things she has said (things the close look thread won't get to for a while). She called it these nostalgic rereleases as alarming. She clearly not just going to say "this is alarming, just thought you should know, bye."
I haven't said that she's going to successfully ban. I've speculated that she would ban if she thought she could and I've speculated that she's going to push for reducing the tropes she doesn't like as much as she can. I think Its reasonable speculation since she wants to change our cultural values and thinks that media reinforces norms. By her logic, feminists have to change media to get society to change the way they want it.
Its more likely to take the form of pressure campaigns since thats already gotten some results.
How many times will this completely unconstructive conversation get moved out of threads into a new one?
Nobody is making you read this thread.
I'm not making her a boogeyman.
Yes, yes you are. The criticism of her trying to ban games and/or get them to no longer be made with a simple sociological critique as if that was a credible threat (which you established, not with any proof, but your own logic train on her and statements she has not made, suggesting your logical conclusion works to prove literally the opposite of what she said) is absolutely making her out to be some kind of boogeyman. All based on a statement that says that we can enjoy this while noting and deconstructing the problematic elements.
I'm not making her a boogeyman.Yes, yes you are. The criticism of her trying to ban games and/or get them to no longer be made with a simple sociological critique as if that was a credible threat (which you established, not with any proof, but your own logic train on her and statements she has not made, suggesting your logical conclusion works to prove literally the opposite of what she said) is absolutely making her out to be some kind of boogeyman. All based on a statement that says that we can enjoy this while noting and deconstructing the problematic elements.
She didn't make this series just to gripe. She wants something done and this thread and the other one are about discussing that whether she has the actual influence to pull it off or not.
Demosthenes wrote:I'm not making her a boogeyman.Yes, yes you are. The criticism of her trying to ban games and/or get them to no longer be made with a simple sociological critique as if that was a credible threat (which you established, not with any proof, but your own logic train on her and statements she has not made, suggesting your logical conclusion works to prove literally the opposite of what she said) is absolutely making her out to be some kind of boogeyman. All based on a statement that says that we can enjoy this while noting and deconstructing the problematic elements.
She didn't make this series just to gripe. She wants something done and this thread and the other one are about discussing that whether she has the actual influence to pull it off or not.
She wants something to change, I'll grant that. You, however, are going for the exact opposite of what she says as what she really wants done without the proof to back that up, just logical arguments and vague paranoid thoughts about "feminists".
SixteenBlue wrote:How many times will this completely unconstructive conversation get moved out of threads into a new one?
*InceptionHorn.WAV*
I've been mightily impressed with the nigh demi-godly even-temper and dedication exhibited by Harpo and Farscry, but I can't help but think the same thing. How many monuments to one person's intransigent self-centered self-loathing is necessary?
Dimmerswitch wrote:SixteenBlue wrote:How many times will this completely unconstructive conversation get moved out of threads into a new one?
*InceptionHorn.WAV*
I've been mightily impressed with the nigh demi-godly even-temper and dedication exhibited by Harpo and Farscry, but I can't help but think the same thing. How many monuments to one person's intransigent self-centered self-loathing is necessary?
Depends. How many condescending armchair psychologists are there here?
I wasn't aware that it took Herculean willpower to talk to people who disagree with you. Funny, I'm talking to even more people who disagree with me.
She didn't make this series just to gripe. She wants something done and this thread and the other one are about discussing that whether she has the actual influence to pull it off or not.
Not helpful content spoilered.
Snake! The Mecha-Droids have infiltrated every aspect of human civilization. Their simu-bots are luring our troops into submission by submissively catering to their every whim while slowly drugging their minds with dopamine! What will you do?
... Get me a writer. I'm making a YouTube video series to teach them how to recognize that the things the simu-bots allow them to do to them is not a healthy way to have a relationship with actual people, and that allowing themselves to take pleasure from the illusion of dominance over the simu-bots actually makes it harder to achieve happiness in life!
SNAAAAAKE!
it's been a very long August.
Way better than last August...
Nobody is making you read this thread.
Yeah, maybe people should open a forum on Get Off My Internets for P&C threads they can't help but hate read?
cheeze_pavilion wrote:it's been a very long August.
Way better than last August...
I think so too. I hope so, that's for sure.
Since that's meta-meta, I'll just say that I think it's not the same thing that's been going on since forever. These are trickier questions that just "is this offensive?" when the further you get towards not tolerating bigotry, there's no doubt that the answer becomes more and more apparent that "yes, that is offensive."
edit: in other words (in case that doesn't make sense), these are questions where the answers don't reveal themselves so easily just because we're putting more and more bigotry behind us.
I read this last night, and put it down to read again this morning. Are you refuting my argument that societal change is at the center/root of this discussion? All I'm saying is that it's centered around questions which involve "If women are now equal in society, then..." That society word is the key. Generationally our mindset shifts a bit about something's role in society, and new questions are uncovered. Whether it's alcohol, education, or ethnicity - we're constantly at work on these things. Just because I think it's normal does not make it easy.
This is merely a 5,000ft view I'm using to try to be inclusive of opposing viewpoints and gain some perspective. Writing it helps me, and maybe sharing it will help too.
LouZiffer wrote:With apologies, I'm going to get meta-meta.
At the center of these differing viewpoints we find societal change which has been going on since forever. What people were once okay with and silent about, they're not anymore. What people weren't okay with, they now are.
I don't mean to say that you are saying this personally but progressives have this presumption about what exact form progress will take and believe that a change is going to go in a certain direction because of changes in the past, and that they should. Progressives seem to think that because they are pushing for a certain kind of change that they are the only ones interested in change and the rest of us are trying to cling to the past.
I'm for progress and change, I just differ in many cases with "progressives" on what that change should look like (and no its not heading back in the other direction either, there are multiple paths away from the past towards the future.) Fearing the consequences of specific changes does not make one afraid of change and that is frankly one of the more dismissive arguments progressives and liberals make.
As long as it makes you happy to post your argument against someone who isn't me and didn't say what I said, I'm happy.
LouZiffer wrote:Most societies right now are capitalist ones, and any sizable population with an interest is going to find products which are marketed to them. Also, no one is going to take away your existing content.
What about updated rereleases? They're on Anita's radar. As time passes, systems fall apart, and the libraries and operating systems that support older games become unavailable. Console emulation is under attack by Nintendo. And while the DOS Box works for a lot of the older computer games, the ones that rely on earlier editions of Windows will become increasingly difficult to run. Updated rereleases may end up being the only practical way to play many older games in the future. I don't have discs or cartridges for many of my games.
And I'm not just thinking about MY stuff. In fact aside from Nintendo, the games Anita has been targeting are mostly games I don't personally play (I don't recognize most of what she lists in her second video). I also don't play a lot of shooters. I'm concerned on behalf of those who do like those games.
While I find her critiques to be edifying I really couldn't care less what's on Anita's radar or what Anita wants the gaming industry to do. She's one opinion among the masses. To think she has the power to triumph over those with purely economic concerns is, to me, laughable. Speaking plainly: As long as you continue to make this argument without supporting data which clearly demonstrates she wields this superhuman dictatorial power, I will continue to ignore it.
Let's go over what I said and clarify it a little.
...any sizable population (<- don't ignore that) with an interest is going to find products which are marketed to them. Also, no one (individual/government/company - not Father Time who turns all things to dust) is going to take away (as in remove from your possession) your existing (legally owned and used) content.
If it's important to you, save it. It's all digital media where these games are concerned, so find a way to keep it and run it. If you want to join the emulation battles being fought in the courts, donate to those who stand up for this method of preserving digital history and let your voice be heard. I have.
I'm not making her a boogeyman. This thread is about her. So I'm talking about her and referring to things she has said (things the close look thread won't get to for a while). She called it these nostalgic rereleases as alarming. She clearly not just going to say "this is alarming, just thought you should know, bye."
I haven't said that she's going to successfully ban. I've speculated that she would ban if she thought she could and I've speculated that she's going to push for reducing the tropes she doesn't like as much as she can. I think Its reasonable speculation since she wants to change our cultural values and thinks that media reinforces norms. By her logic, feminists have to change media to get society to change the way they want it.
Its more likely to take the form of pressure campaigns since thats already gotten some results.
I think it would help some if you pointed to specifics. One reason why people are pushing back against you is that all they have to go on is your interpretation of what she said. Can you provide a link to where she said nostalgic re-releases are alarming?
In the same way, your speculation about what she (or other progressive) might do comes off as pretty paranoid. Unless you can point to specific instances of it happening, or specific statements that someone wants it to happen, it is basically the slippery slope fallacy. Presenting a parade of horribles is only convincing if you can show us that they will actually occur. I know that you think that they will, but since we're not in your head you'll have to work a little harder to convince us before assuming them as fact.
So let me ask then. Let's say all she wants us to do is think. Let's then say that I declare that I've thought about it and I'm still going to have naked women, male gaze, damseling, all possibly in the same scene even in my next game and that it's there purely for appeal without even the pretense of a justification?
Somehow I doubt feminists would respect that and leave me alone.
If they really believe these tropes are so pernicious then they'd feel they have to take action.
So let me ask then. Let's say all she wants us to do is think. Let's then say that I declare that I've thought about it and I'm still going to have naked women, male gaze, damseling, all possibly in the same scene even in my next game and that it's there purely for appeal without even the pretense of a justification?
Somehow I doubt feminists would respect that and leave me alone.
If they really believe these tropes are so pernicious then they'd feel they have to take action.
What action do you think would be taken?
Somehow I doubt feminists would respect that and leave me alone.
Are feminists routinely contacting you directly to tell you you're a horrible person for liking naked ladies? Or are they forcing you to watch their videos and read their threads?
So let me ask then. Let's say all she wants us to do is think. Let's then say that I declare that I've thought about it and I'm still going to have naked women, male gaze, damseling, all possibly in the same scene even in my next game and that it's there purely for appeal without even the pretense of a justification?
Somehow I doubt feminists would respect that and leave me alone.
If they really believe these tropes are so pernicious then they'd feel they have to take action.
I think that given the current state of the art, feminists would like to be able to point on that all of these are going on in your next game, so that people who do take offense, or dislike those tropes, or just are bored from seeing them over and over again are able to skip the game, or take it with a grain of salt going in. They would also like a broader variety of games to be made that deconstruct, or entirely avoid those tropes so that alternate entertainments exist.
Just because The Expendables gets feminist critique doesn't mean that they want every film to be the Bridges of Madison County.
I read this last night, and put it down to read again this morning. Are you refuting my argument that societal change is at the center/root of this discussion? All I'm saying is that it's centered around questions which involve "If women are now equal in society, then..." That society word is the key. Generationally our mindset shifts a bit about something's role in society, and new questions are uncovered. Whether it's alcohol, education, or ethnicity - we're constantly at work on these things. Just because I think it's normal does not make it easy.
This is merely a 5,000ft view I'm using to try to be inclusive of opposing viewpoints and gain some perspective. Writing it helps me, and maybe sharing it will help too.
No, I totally agree with you about how societal change is at the center of this conversation. What I'm saying is this change isn't a straightforward as other kinds of change. Like you put it, saying people are equal has a knock-on effect. Stuff that was okay before is not okay now.
What I'm saying is different is that there's no back-and-forth over the years over whether the examples you used are offensive, right? There's not much debate to be had: the more opposed you are to bigotry, the more you say those images should be left behind as history. There's no controversy among people who feel the same way about bigotry on how offensive those images are.
Well, there's a lot of back-and-forth over this stuff. We've had lots of disagreement over Bayonetta on here, and I think we brought up that Sarkeesian and Leigh Alexander have differing opinions. If you take all the female characters out of pretty dresses and put them in overalls, are you sending the message that women who like to wear pretty dresses are less competent? What about all those women who dress up in Slave Leia cosplay? Those are all tougher questions with much more back-and-forth among reasonable people than the examples I think you have in mind.
In other words, there's a reason terms like "problematic" were coined. There's stuff that's not patently offensive, but there's still an issue there. What's been going on since forever is stuff that was okay is later considered not okay as we make progress. These questions are ones that aren't as simple as okay vs. not okay.
So let me ask then. Let's say all she wants us to do is think. Let's then say that I declare that I've thought about it and I'm still going to have naked women, male gaze, damseling, all possibly in the same scene even in my next game and that it's there purely for appeal without even the pretense of a justification?
Somehow I doubt feminists would respect that and leave me alone.
If they really believe these tropes are so pernicious then they'd feel they have to take action.
For what it's worth, I believe the "feminists" don't care. If they've stated their case and you don't get it or don't feel it's important, then I believe they would respect that and leave you alone.
However, i was unaware of these TvW, and unaware of how they might make people feel and unaware of the culture they might be creating for my little girl to grow up in. I'm not putting all of my games in a pile and burning them, but I'm aware and a bit more sensitive to the issue. If I were in the industry, I would take this into account during game development. I believe they would view me as a success story for their TvW project.
What I'm saying is different is that there's no back-and-forth over the years over whether the examples you used are offensive, right? There's not much debate to be had: the more opposed you are to bigotry, the more you say those images should be left behind as history. There's no controversy among people who feel the same way about bigotry on how offensive those images are.
I think you're just coming in after decades of that back-and-forth have settled those debates, rather than living through them, as we are with issues of feminism. If you go back to the 40s-70s, gollywogs, blackface, minstrel shows and all sorts of things were stridently defended. There wasn't an 'off' switch; there were decades of struggle, both academic and otherwise, to convince people that they weren't good for what American society was evolving into.
So let me ask then. Let's say all she wants us to do is think. Let's then say that I declare that I've thought about it and I'm still going to have naked women, male gaze, damseling, all possibly in the same scene even in my next game and that it's there purely for appeal without even the pretense of a justification?
Somehow I doubt feminists would respect that and leave me alone.
If they really believe these tropes are so pernicious then they'd feel they have to take action.
(Dear Gearbox and future Duke Nukem team)
Are "the feminists" in control of your business? Are they going to take you out of your home and beat you on the street? If I were someone that's going to sell more games based on the extra advertising, I would say a little thank you for the feminists prayer at night before bedtime and sleep easy. If it's economically viable, it'll receive a place. Once it isn't, it won't.
cheeze_pavilion wrote:What I'm saying is different is that there's no back-and-forth over the years over whether the examples you used are offensive, right? There's not much debate to be had: the more opposed you are to bigotry, the more you say those images should be left behind as history. There's no controversy among people who feel the same way about bigotry on how offensive those images are.
I think you're just coming in after decades of that back-and-forth have settled those debates, rather than living through them, as we are with issues of feminism. If you go back to the 40s-70s, gollywogs, blackface, minstrel shows and all sorts of things were stridently defended. There wasn't an 'off' switch; there were decades of struggle, both academic and otherwise, to convince people that they weren't good for what American society was evolving into.
That's what I'm attempting to get at without going down in the weeds, Tanglebones. Thanks.
So let me ask then. Let's say all she wants us to do is think. Let's then say that I declare that I've thought about it and I'm still going to have naked women, male gaze, damseling, all possibly in the same scene even in my next game and that it's there purely for appeal without even the pretense of a justification?
Somehow I doubt feminists would respect that and leave me alone.
If they really believe these tropes are so pernicious then they'd feel they have to take action.
A doesn't follow from B. Just because someone believes something is bad doesn't mean that they believe that any and all means are justified in response.
I wasn't aware that it took Herculean willpower to talk to people who disagree with you. Funny, I'm talking to even more people who disagree with me.
You're actually talking at people who disagree with you, often in the form of posts that feel like MadLibs where every blank space is labelled either "[Anita Sarkeesian / Progressives / Feminists]" or "Fanciful Conspiracy Theory". That said, I suppose that still counts for something.
It's clear you feel very threatened by the examination of any problematic aspects of either games or gaming culture.
It's less clear that you've made a case that there's anything in those examinations that a reasonable person (gamer or not) should feel threatened by.
I think you're just coming in after decades of that back-and-forth have settled those debates, rather than living through them, as we are with issues of feminism. If you go back to the 40s-70s, gollywogs, blackface, minstrel shows and all sorts of things were stridently defended. There wasn't an 'off' switch; there were decades of struggle, both academic and otherwise, to convince people that they weren't good for what American society was evolving into.
You're misunderstanding me--I'm not talking about time, like one day it was okay and the next day it wasn't. I'm talking about that struggle being between bigotry and anti-bigotry. This is a struggle inside the anti-bigotry camp, among equally enlightened people.
edit:
That's what I'm attempting to get at without going down in the weeds, Tanglebones. Thanks.
Crossed in posting. I feel we need to get down into the weeds, because that's where the differences show up, in stuff like those examples I gave. Think of it this way: a guy in pretty makeup is not the equivalent of blackface.
So let me ask then. Let's say all she wants us to do is think. Let's then say that I declare that I've thought about it and I'm still going to have naked women, male gaze, damseling, all possibly in the same scene even in my next game and that it's there purely for appeal without even the pretense of a justification?
Somehow I doubt feminists would respect that and leave me alone.
If they really believe these tropes are so pernicious then they'd feel they have to take action.
Why? Porn exists. Porn games exist. No one is suggesting they have zero place at the table at all. There's a large number of feminists, myself included, who have NO proble, with that. The concern of the series is the PREVALENCE of these tropes.
But again, you're logicing out a rebuttal... not providing proof that they would stop you with efforts to ban based on past bans.
Pages