[deathfun]

I am proposing a mix of safe and unsafe zones. There needs to be a censored zone (ONLY with respect to harrassment) that you can always retreat to if you need to. If that leads to some segregation, then fine. It's infinitely better than what we currently have.

Question becomes: What's defined as harassment and by whom?

As for the invite system, it could create a community where people are intelligent and discuss things rationally, but then you'd have to ensure only certain people can invite or undergo a filtering process which creates more segregation than just regular strict moderating.

My thoughts on a "safe haven" for female discussion (escaping harassment is one thing, but on equal grounds we're all subject to being harassed. Most people just aren't because they don't make as fun targets and the attention they get is also small) means that the people fighting against it all have won. They successfully beat back the female presence to their own little piece of the internet which is the same as telling them they shouldn't do "x" and therefore should be at "y"

I recall this one gay rights activist who was met with a threat on his life if he stood up and gave a speech to the crowd. He gave it anyways fully knowing what might happen. He didn't run and hide to a safe haven to discuss his ideals, he demonstrated to his opposition that his voice wasn't going to be stopped

Life is unsafe and so is the internet. If you stand for something, have the will to kick ass and chew bubble gum when you do it. Otherwise, you're not suited to spearhead it. Progress has never been achieved without those people being harassed all the while pushing for it.

That's not inaccurate, that is a complete twisting of something to suit her agenda.

Tried to come up with something of what twisting is best described as myself, but decided google was better

"What is the correct term for a person who twists facts and provides misinterpretations in an effort to appear infallible?

The kind of person who is given a simple logic puzzle, fails to solve it correctly and tries to persuade others that he was in fact correct e.g. by denying obvious implications that were necessary to be deduced in order to find the correct solution."

Is she trying to persuade you that her opinion is the one true opinion or interpretation? I've seen her stuff. All she's doing is presenting how she sees it and lets the viewer decide for themselves as they interpret her message. Bias plays a lot into opinionated videos by both the speaker and the viewer. If you're already against her, you're going to pick her stuff apart piece by piece finding each "misinterpretation" (by whose standards does one trust what is and isn't a misinterpretation? Simply because one doesn't agree doesn't make it wrong. Just makes it different)

EDIT: DAMMIT PEOPLE TRYING TO POST HERE TWELVE REPLIES SINCE WRITING THIS MAN I'VE BEEN WRITING THIS TOO LONG HOLY HELL. POST ALREADY D:

EDIT2: Well looks like I made a new page

[Mr. Vega]

Is a game dredging up something really ugly or isn't it? We understand that we don't have to play it. But if if the very best thing you can say about a game is that you do not have to play it, that's not a good sign.

[Akalabeth Angel]

But it doesn't matter if it does get put in either.

There is power in not doing something as well. You get to play the game however you want.

Except Anita is criticizing the game, and the game's enabling of the actions being discussed, not player play styles. So how you want to play is irrelevant and doesn't support your "counterargument"

And Hitman Absolution is very linear compared to previous titles from all accounts so saying that the game encourages you to play the way you want is a joke.

[Mr. Vega]

I am proposing a mix of safe and unsafe zones. There needs to be a censored zone (ONLY with respect to harrassment) that you can always retreat to if you need to. If that leads to some segregation, then fine. It's infinitely better than what we currently have.

Question becomes: What's defined as harassment and by whom?

As for the invite system, it could create a community where people are intelligent and discuss things rationally, but then you'd have to ensure only certain people can invite or undergo a filtering process which creates more segregation than just regular strict moderating.

My thoughts on a "safe haven" for female discussion (escaping harassment is one thing, but on equal grounds we're all subject to being harassed. Most people just aren't because they don't make as fun targets and the attention they get is also small) means that the people fighting against it all have won. They successfully beat back the female presence to their own little piece of the internet which is the same as telling them they shouldn't do "x" and therefore should be at "y"

I recall this one gay rights activist who was met with a threat on his life if he stood up and gave a speech to the crowd. He gave it anyways fully knowing what might happen. He didn't run and hide to a safe haven to discuss his ideals, he demonstrated to his opposition that his voice wasn't going to be stopped

Life is unsafe and so is the internet. If you stand for something, have the will to kick ass and chew bubble gum when you do it. Otherwise, you're not suited to spearhead it. Progress has never been achieved without those people being harassed all the while pushing for it.

That's not inaccurate, that is a complete twisting of something to suit her agenda.

Tried to come up with something of what twisting is best described as myself, but decided google was better

"What is the correct term for a person who twists facts and provides misinterpretations in an effort to appear infallible?

The kind of person who is given a simple logic puzzle, fails to solve it correctly and tries to persuade others that he was in fact correct e.g. by denying obvious implications that were necessary to be deduced in order to find the correct solution."

Is she trying to persuade you that her opinion is the one true opinion or interpretation? I've seen her stuff. All she's doing is presenting how she sees it and lets the viewer decide for themselves as they interpret her message. Bias plays a lot into opinionated videos by both the speaker and the viewer. If you're already against her, you're going to pick her stuff apart piece by piece finding each "misinterpretation" (by whose standards does one trust what is and isn't a misinterpretation? Simply because one doesn't agree doesn't make it wrong. Just makes it different)

EDIT: DAMMIT PEOPLE TRYING TO POST HERE TWELVE REPLIES SINCE WRITING THIS MAN I'VE BEEN WRITING THIS TOO LONG HOLY HELL. POST ALREADY D:

EDIT2: Well looks like I made a new page

We cannot ask women to be in the same state of mind as that gay man every waking moment! Noone can keep that up. That's why some developers just leave. You want to take abuse 24/7?

[AdmiralRalwood]

Also:

As always, it's important to keep in mind that it's entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable.

Just because a problematic element is pointed out about a game you happen to like does not mean that either the problematic element does not exist or you must immediately disown the game.

[deathfun]

If you're spearheading a movement or advocating for one Mr. Vega, you need to because you're going to be getting a whole ****ton of flak until it ends

And that gay guy was eventually assassinated. He lived that in every waking moment as he was an activist. His name was Harvey Milk

EDIT: I'm also not talking about female developers, I'm talking about activists and those advocating against whatever the crap for women

[Mr. Vega]

If you're spearheading a movement or advocating for one Mr. Vega, you need to because you're going to be getting a whole ****ton of flak until it ends

And that gay guy was eventually assassinated. He lived that in every waking moment as he was an activist. His name was Harvey Milk

EDIT: I understand that women being in a job as developers isn't exactly as grand as what I compared it to, but your existence is the very fight for that idea whether you like it or not

Yeah I'm not buying the apathy or martyrdom dichotomy. It ain't THAT bad.

[MP-Ryan]

Disclaimer:  I've only ever played about an hour of Hitman Contracts out of the whole series, so I have little experience with it.

That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of eliminating settings and experiences that may be viewed as sexist from games if those settings and experiences reflect reality in a game that is set in a realistic universe.

By all accounts, in the Hitman series you can kill basically whomever you please during the missions and experience the consequences of it.  The game does not induce a fail-state for anything aside from a failure condition.  In this context, if one chooses to set a particular mission in a stripclub - another realistic setting that, like or not, actually exists - if rather seems overtly sexist to induce a fail-state only for the killing of one particular class of NPC in that area based on arbitrary political grounds.

There is a great deal of sexism in games that is blatant, overt, and arguably intentional, from the way certain females are dressed to the way they are voiced to the way in which they behave.  I think there's plenty of room to thrash that ecosystem without drifting into areas that are more controversial and range much closer to artistic/narrative freedom.  This is one of the fundamental issues that I, coming as I do from a philosophical bent based on Marx and Foucault, take with much of modern feminism (which derives in part from Marxism too): there is a severe risk of over-reach, a risk that many of the most radical modern feminists seem utterly oblivious to.  There is a principle in democratic legal jurisdictions called de minimis non curat lex, meaning "the law does not concern with trifles," and I note that many people who conduct sociological and philosophical critique could benefit from an understanding of it.

It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists.  It clearly does.  I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.

[deathfun]

Yeah I'm not buying the apathy or martyrdom dichotomy. It ain't THAT bad.

My overall point is that if you're going to take a stance on something that means a great deal to you, you don't back down or flee to some safe haven to talk about it to like minded individuals. You fight and rise above your critics

I just used some extreme examples to highlight that point. Seems it got lost in translation because of the severity and for that I apologize

EDIT: It could just be because people don't see it as much of a big deal as most other rights/status pursuing endeavours, but anything that yearns to change societal norms is still just as important, even on the internet.

[Flipside]

Thing is with that particular situation is finding the line between 'game' and 'simulation', people demand the freedom to do what they wish within their own little sandbox in games, but there's a massive difference of opinion on what defines a sandbox and what simply defines gratuitous content, and with the increasing demand for freedom of action within these sort of open world games, it's going to become more predominant.

[deathfun]

I say next time someone tries to kill a stripper, she pulls out a Dirty Harry special and caps yo ass

[AdmiralRalwood]

It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists.  It clearly does.

Boy, I wish systemic feminism existed.

I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.

The existence of bigger problems does not make smaller problems irrelevant; pointing out smaller problems is not trivializing bigger ones.

[MP-Ryan]

In watching some of her latest Tropes Vs Women, I note that a number of these critiques focus on depictions that could be considered historical in nature.  Audiences are already very familiar with the historical inequality of women, and it makes sense in a historical context to use these sorts of quasi-realistic depictions to advance narrative and setting, particularly in game worlds that rely on immersive settings that are not present-day reality.  She critiques that violence against women is used as a setpiece, but ignores the fact that it is a realistic setpiece based on material we are all familiar with from history and even modern day life.  I agree that gratuitous use of this is inappropriate, but there are a number of scenarios in which this makes contextual sense.  At what point is displaying objectification gratuitous, versus simply factual?

[Scotty]

In watching some of her latest Tropes Vs Women, I note that a number of these critiques focus on depictions that could be considered historical in nature.  Audiences are already very familiar with the historical inequality of women, and it makes sense in a historical context to use these sorts of quasi-realistic depictions to advance narrative and setting, particularly in game worlds that rely on immersive settings that are not present-day reality.  She critiques that violence against women is used as a setpiece, but ignores the fact that it is a realistic setpiece based on material we are all familiar with from history and even modern day life.  I agree that gratuitous use of this is inappropriate, but there are a number of scenarios in which this makes contextual sense.  At what point is displaying objectification gratuitous, versus simply factual?

I'd say right around the point where it does nothing without which its lack would be notable.  I could come up with some examples, but they would be by their very nature artificial.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Disclaimer:  I've only ever played about an hour of Hitman Contracts out of the whole series, so I have little experience with it.

That said, I'm not sure I like the idea of eliminating settings and experiences that may be viewed as sexist from games if those settings and experiences reflect reality in a game that is set in a realistic universe.

By all accounts, in the Hitman series you can kill basically whomever you please during the missions and experience the consequences of it.  The game does not induce a fail-state for anything aside from a failure condition.  In this context, if one chooses to set a particular mission in a stripclub - another realistic setting that, like or not, actually exists - if rather seems overtly sexist to induce a fail-state only for the killing of one particular class of NPC in that area based on arbitrary political grounds.

There is a great deal of sexism in games that is blatant, overt, and arguably intentional, from the way certain females are dressed to the way they are voiced to the way in which they behave.  I think there's plenty of room to thrash that ecosystem without drifting into areas that are more controversial and range much closer to artistic/narrative freedom.  This is one of the fundamental issues that I, coming as I do from a philosophical bent based on Marx and Foucault, take with much of modern feminism (which derives in part from Marxism too): there is a severe risk of over-reach, a risk that many of the most radical modern feminists seem utterly oblivious to.  There is a principle in democratic legal jurisdictions called de minimis non curat lex, meaning "the law does not concern with trifles," and I note that many people who conduct sociological and philosophical critique could benefit from an understanding of it.

It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists.  It clearly does.  I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.

Are there legitimate consequences in Hitman for killing innocents?

Let me tell you a story.
In Surrey, British columbia, a sub-urb of Vancouver there was a gang war going on between rivals and for the most part I think most people didn't care because as long as they killed eachother, that was fine.

Then one day, six people were executed in an apartment building and two of those people were not criminals but innocent bystanders including a furnace repairman and a teen-aged tennant. And overnight the whole lower mainland woke up to the violence that was happening in the city and were wondering why something wasn't being done about it.

It's an event like this that makes me question the "realism" of such games. Including a realistic environment because it exists in real life doesn't have nearly the same credibility when the actions that a person perpetrates on that establishment don't have real world consequences. If you can kill a slew of civilians, women or otherwise, and not instantly have a massive man hunt for your character that ends with you hiding in a bush in some guys backyard before getting shot 15 times. Or having your contractor string you out to dry or kill you themselves out of fear that your actions will ultimately lead back to them.

Without those real world consequences, these real world locations become cartoon caricatures. They're places the designers deem interesting to serve as a backdrop to different missions, at which point you have to question "why is this location interesting?". Well it's interesting because it's full of naked women of course. They're just window dressing, like crates in a warehouse to be shot apart or kicked. And they're chosen not because it's true to life, but because it will move games and appeal to a male demographic which is young and explorative or still thinking fondly of Sopranos or Duke Nukem.

It's a real world location but not treated with real world respect which is the fundamental problem with portraying women (and people) in video games from the outset.

[MP-Ryan]

Boy, I wish systemic feminism existed.

Holy **** was that a swing and a miss at making my point.  Systemic sexism

I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.

The existence of bigger problems does not make smaller problems irrelevant; pointing out smaller problems is not trivializing bigger ones.

It's like I just wrote a whole post about the concept of de minimis which was promptly ignored.

Psychologically and sociologically, we know that there are a limited number of concepts, causes, and issues that people will care about at any one time.  Ergo, for maximum impact, it makes sense to focus on the largest of these issues throughout.  Focusing on smaller issues allows for the trivialization in public consciousness of the issue as a whole, and is counter-productive as a force for change.

There is a reason police don't typically arrest you, throw you in jail, charge you, and a judge ultimately sentences you to prison for driving 1 km/hr over the posted limit.  Is speeding a systemic problem?  Hell yes.  Does it have all kinds of negative consequences?  OH hell yes.  Is expending resources on very trivial offences [compared on a relative scale to others in the same category] a good way to use resources and effect change?  Nope.

[MP-Ryan]

It's an event like this that makes me question the "realism" of such games. Including a realistic environment because it exists in real life doesn't have nearly the same credibility when the actions that a person perpetrates on that establishment don't have real world consequences. If you can kill a slew of civilians, women or otherwise, and not instantly have a massive man hunt for your character that ends with you hiding in a bush in some guys backyard before getting shot 15 times. Or having your contractor string you out to dry or kill you themselves out of fear that your actions will ultimately lead back to them.

Without those real world consequences, these real world locations become cartoon caricatures.

This is much more of a legitimate critique than one that focuses on the inclusion of the setting in the first place, or the game mechanic that allows you freedom to murder as you please but heaven forbid the prostitutes in the strip club.

Some games focus on consequences for game-world actions quite well (Dishonored, which I've been playing the crap out of lately, makes strides in this direction).  Some aim for realistic settings, but place no emphasis on gameplay.  I'd argue those are inferior games on that basis.

[666maslo666]

If a game has killable NPCs, and there is a level in a strip club, then there is absolutely nothing sexist about killable strippers. In fact, it would be sexist to have a special exception for strippers to not be killable!! So that is not a valid argument at all.

The existence of a strip club level itself is another matter, however I think it fits into the criminal underwordly narrative of Hitman games so I hesitate to call it sexist.

[deathfun]

I'll admit I rather enjoyed picking up hookers then beating them with a baseball bat in an alley in all GTAs (also driving off docks, jumping out of C4 covered vehicles, taking a selfie of my myte in GTA V getting a blowjob before pulling her out of the vehicle and having the other myte run over her)
Cops came after you if you did that. Suppose that's a consequence eh

[Mr. Vega]

It's to our detriment to focus our attention on her critique of hitman to the exclusion of the other games she discusses.