[Meneldil]

I say specific killing challenge which just happen to be hookers. Could have easily just been any other NPC like "People who wear red")

But there couldn't have easily existed a "violence against people who wear red" article on wikipedia instead of the "violence against prostitutes" one tho, could it?

I'll conclude you're probably a creep who I don't in fact want to be well-socialized with anyway, which I think is a perfectly reasonable conclusion

Yes. Completely reasonable to judge someone you've never met [/sarcasm]

Wait... isn't it?

Well actually no, it isn't unrelated or unwarranted to discuss what we personally do. We're talking about people who play games (I play games) and then upload stuff (I upload stuff). I'm part of those particular individuals who do these things therefore I am EXACTLY the person to at least provide a voice to those who CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES because they DON'T POST HERE and we DON'T KNOW THEM

Feel free to give them your voice, but I'll keep avoiding to engage with it.
First because we're not talking about all the different kinds of people who engage in arguably misogynistic behavior, we're talking about what kind of place video games and internet are for women. Which is I won't hesitate to say a far more important and interesting topic.
Second, if we were to talk about you in particular that would obviously put me in an awkward position with respect to the forum rules.
Third, I still haven't got that diploma, and you're still not paying me.

You can't make broad accusations/judgement on people in an encompassing general form and then dismiss someone who is a part of that broad encompassing general form defending himself. In the end, my point was always "you don't actually have any facts on why they do as they do" so passing judgement on them while it is your purview to do so, doesn't make them as accurate as you make it seem they are.

If I made a broad accusation/judgement on people in an encompassing general form, you are 100% free to think of yourself as an exception, and there's no need for you to convince me you are one.
As for the lack of evidence, surprisingly enough no one's been willing to come out and champion my cause by saying he's exactly the example of what i've been talking about, so it seems it's going to remain circumstantial. I am aware of how unconvincing one could find it, and I'm sorry I can't do better, but we are where we are.

And two: Basing opinions from people you *think* are the ones doing that *who are also a minority*. How many videos I saw just about hookers supports that as those were a small amount amongst a great many. However, you have yet to correlate one to the other. There's a fact gap here. Those people spewing off what they'd do to a gal (something I'm not fond of hearing about but tolerate because it's the internet. You say that to my face however, I'm going to smack you in the back of the head) may not even be the ones making those videos. Until you prove the correlation, it's just a theory making things more complicated than they may actually be. Occam's Razor and whatnot. Simplest answer, is probably the right one. Simplest answer here is they played a game, uploaded the video for ****s and giggles, and didn't give it a second thought. Why did they beat up the hooker and upload it? Because they can. There's may be nothing more to it than that.

No way is there a correlation gap between people talking what they'd like to do if they could and people who do it in a simulation and upload it to youtube.
What you're arguing is that not all latters are the formers. But seeing that I've explained why I think the latter's bad regardless of the motivation, I'm not that bent on pursuing it.

[666maslo666]

It implies women or sex workers are powerless poor creatures that need to be protected by ad hoc game mechanics.

Well they are apparently powerless in-game but no that's not the point and neither was it implied.

But it does imply that pretty strongly. Never including strippers in a game, on principle, just because they are women or sex workers, is sexist against women and demeaning to sex workers. Special game mechanics that prevent you from killing strippers, while other NPCs can be killed, is sexism too. It does put strippers on the mental level of children and is quite insulting, IMHO.

The best way to champion women rights in games is not to ignore potentialy controversial topics, but to portray them in a manner that is realistic and tasteful (as much as a gunfight in a strip club can be), and not overdo it.

[deathfun]

But there couldn't have easily existed a "violence against people who wear red" article on wikipedia instead of the "violence against prostitutes" one tho, could it?

I wasn't aware violence against prostitutes related to violence against polygons

Wait... isn't it?

So you believe it's perfectly reasonable to judge someone you've never met, with just by watching what they do in a video game?
Yes, completely reasonable. It's almost as though they convey everything they've ever wanted to do in real life with what they do in a game. I really want to hunt dragons, take on saving the world quests and [/sarcasm] driving a tank down mainstreet. I actually want to do that last part because man that would be awesome.

Feel free to give them your voice, but I'll keep avoiding to engage with it. First because we're not talking about all the different kinds of people who engage in arguably misogynistic behavior, we're talking about what kind of place video games and internet are for women

So then the behaviour of people in games which you're arguing is fueling what sort of place video games and the internet are women, is unrelated to the discussion of how these places are for women...

you are 100% free to think of yourself as an exception, and there's no need for you to convince me you are one.

Not trying to convince you I am one, I'm trying to present a theory that the majority could be like me, and polygons be polygons. I could also be the minority, and the behaviour patterns of people in life match up to their actions in game.

No way is there a correlation gap between people talking what they'd like to do if they could and people who do it in a simulation and upload it to youtube.

Again, behaviour patterns and the "why". There are two groups, one that says they will do these things, and people who are uploading videos of them killing (note that sexual assault isn't actually something you can do in most games [I say most because there's probably a game where you can]). I don't deny that one can cross into the other where why they upload and do these things are to satisfy their fantasies, but again, which is the majority, which is the minority. I emphasize that because it highlights whether or not the problem is as deep seeded into our gamer psyches as people make it seem.


And just so that we can conclude all of this, I ask a concise paragraph why it's bad for me to upload gameplay/highlight videos of people/specific people dying.
Mostly because in all this sheer amount of text, sometimes things get lost in translation

[Meneldil]

It implies women or sex workers are powerless poor creatures that need to be protected by ad hoc game mechanics.

Well they are apparently powerless in-game but no that's not the point and neither was it implied.

But it does imply that pretty strongly. Never including strippers in a game, on principle, just because they are women or sex workers, is sexist against women and demeaning to sex workers.

Of course it is, that's why I'm not advocating it.
On the other hand, dealing with killing them in a special way is in no way demeaning because violence against them is a very much a special thing IRL, sadly.

But there couldn't have easily existed a "violence against people who wear red" article on wikipedia instead of the "violence against prostitutes" one tho, could it?

I wasn't aware violence against prostitutes related to violence against polygons

It's a pet theory of mine that thoughts relate to actions.

Wait... isn't it?

So you believe it's perfectly reasonable to judge someone you've never met, with just by watching what they do in a video game?
Yes, completely reasonable. It's almost as though they convey everything they've ever wanted to do in real life with what they do in a game. I really want to hunt dragons, take on saving the world quests and [/sarcasm] driving a tank down mainstreet. I actually want to do that last part because man that would be awesome.

No that wasn't what you asked and what I answered to, but I'll agree it was probably a cheap shot on my part.
As for what you're asking now, I won't be looking at what you're playing over your shoulder anyway.

Feel free to give them your voice, but I'll keep avoiding to engage with it. First because we're not talking about all the different kinds of people who engage in arguably misogynistic behavior, we're talking about what kind of place video games and internet are for women

So then the behaviour of people in games which you're arguing is fueling what sort of place video games and the internet are women, is unrelated to the discussion of how these places are for women...

No, their motivation is irrelevant. To put it bluntly, if someone ****s on your doorstep, it doesn't really matter stenchwise whether it is because they hate you or whether it's because a doorstep is a cuboidal combination of polygons, especially so if you know it for a fact your whole living space is covered in excrement of people that do hate you. That's what I'm on about, actually.

videos of them killing (note that sexual assault isn't actually something you can do in most games

It was beating up and killing in the original post I took issue with, which I do find suggestive either of sexualized violence or hate murdering them
or you know just testing out the polygons, whatever.
Just please don't go write a rapefic and post it on a forum that actually has female readership claiming you're just testing your writing skills. And when someone calls you out on it don't start explaining them how discriminatory they're being for assuming you're writing rapefics because you think rape is sexy, when it's obviously perfectly possible to do it purely to test your writing skills.
No I'm not saying that's on the same level, but I was hoping hyperbole could work as the concise paragraph you requested. Let me know how it went.

[666maslo666]

On the other hand, dealing with killing them in a special way is in no way demeaning because violence against them is a very much a special thing IRL, sadly.

Maybe if you were playing a violent pimp I would agree with this line of thought. Otherwise it is not special since they are just another victim of an assassin and the sexist connotations are merely in your head, not the game itself. And as I said, personally it seems actually more demeaning to me to have special ad-hoc game mechanics and exceptions only for strippers, just because they are sex workers or women.

[deathfun]

It's a pet theory of mine that thoughts relate to actions.

Know what my theory is? Actions in video games do not necessarily reflect the thoughts of a person. You have to actually ask the person what their thoughts are because actions in a game don't mean anything unless there's meaning given by the person doing the action. Polygons are not real people and thus, we aren't obligated to treat them like real people.

No that wasn't what you asked and what I answered to,

No, that's what I asked but what *you didn't think you were answering to*. Context was lost and I wasn't clear either so it isn't surprising. It's cleared up now so whatever

No, their motivation is irrelevant. To put it bluntly, if someone ****s on your doorstep, it doesn't really matter stenchwise whether it is because they hate you or whether it's because a doorstep is a cuboidal combination of polygons, especially so if you know it for a fact your whole living space is covered in excrement of people that do hate you. That's what I'm on about, actually.

That's a fair point about the impact not really mattering, if the analogy was actually the same. Poop at your door is a sleight against you personally. Poop you go out of your way to find isn't, and you're only bringing the stench into your house if you take it with you personally (ie start taking things personally despite them meaning jack)

Gameplay videos are something you go find and watch. They're not forced in your face and thus, benign in nature. There is no political statements or motives behind a video (unless explicitly said by poster) that's just a short clip of a game.

To conclude this in a way that makes sense: Someone directs a violent act in a game and says "This is you", that's **** being flung in your direction. Someone uploads a video to the internet about them doing some violent act in a game, you never see it. It's not **** being left at your door, that person didn't send it your way.

It was beating up and killing in the original post I took issue with, which I do find suggestive either of sexualized violence or hate murdering them
or you know just testing out the polygons, whatever.

I watched that video. This was it's description

In which we Enjoy Talking a Lot and Killing Strippers a Lot. We strangle and kill many strippers, then make piles out of them and watch them ragdoll and roll around the floor. Then we take the piles and make binders out of them. We sell them to Mitt Romney for thousands of dollars. After the event we also murder a considerable amount of police, and chinese merchants, however I rapidly tire of this, because it completely lacks strippers, and I quit before the level is finished.

You see what you want to see out of it. That's the joys of confirmation bias.
I still maintain that even if you find it disgusting, hate murdering or sexualized, the motivations as to why may not be something that supports that. I maintain that you'll just have to ask him. Not really hard to do, I mean, he's on youtube. Send him a message, ask him why, and then we'll both have our answers. (Going back to the previous response, would you have ever known about this video if it didn't come up here? It's not **** on anyone's doors unless someone makes it **** on a door)

What we think is irrelevant to what actually is.

Though, whether or not the game itself is misogynistic, I'm more inclined to lean to yes on that.

Just please don't go write a rapefic and post it on a forum that actually has female readership claiming you're just testing your writing skills

I'll just go on a long winded thing about everything starting with the presentation:

Youtube, you search for something you want to watch, you browse over videos it suggests for you, or you're someone who just watches recently submitted (which is a filter setting, not a category. You still need to search [unless I'm blind and haven't found that category. Please point it out if it's there])

Forums on the other hand (ones like HLP, not reddit or 4chan) while still technically you had to search for (trying to find a community that fits where you want to be), you're not searching for posts (unless you are, but if you're searching for rapefic you're looking for conflict on purpose). Posts are also not displayed to you based on what you watch or how they fit on a search parameter. They're just there (you don't have to be at the right place at the right time to see them), but you still have to click at your own risk (much like a video). If it doesn't interest you and you don't click it, you move on to something that does. If you click it and are horrified by it, you're subjecting yourself to it (unless there was a trick in the title. Then it's malicious. However "Fun with strippers" is a pretty straightforward title).

don't start explaining them how discriminatory they're being for assuming you're writing rapefics because you think rape is sexy, when it's obviously perfectly possible to do it purely to test your writing skills.

I'm not saying anyone is discriminating against anyone (both people assuming and the people killing hookers *in a game*). I'm saying people are assuming motivations from the possibly benign and then making it into a faulty political statement about games/gamers overall.

I understand that some people find this content offensive, but I'm not subjugating them to it. I'm not forcing them to see or read it. I'm harmlessly posting a video that carries no explicit statement and of which you'll have to search to find it. It caters to an audience that enjoys watching this stuff as it entertains.

I'm also not saying anything in the lines of "I'm just testing my writing skills". To stick with the hyperbole, it's more along the lines of "I enjoy writing about this topic, but it does not mean I condone its actual happening".

We are just playing a game, but we also enjoy what we do as it entertains us.

I will also state, that until you find *real people being killed and treated this way* entertaining, you're in the clear.
On the note about viewership, I know my viewer base and I know they'll accept what I do. If I write a rapefic, it'll be going somewhere where the viewers accept it. This guy killing strippers, did the same thing.



As for the more concise paragraph, I understand your position a bit more than I did before.

[Meneldil]

On the other hand, dealing with killing them in a special way is in no way demeaning because violence against them is a very much a special thing IRL, sadly.

Maybe if you were playing a violent pimp I would agree with this line of thought. Otherwise it is not special since they are just another victim of an assassin and the sexist connotations are merely in your head, not the game itself. And as I said, personally it seems actually more demeaning to me to have special ad-hoc game mechanics and exceptions only for strippers, just because they are sex workers or women.

They are highly sexualized women you can brutally murder without any real consequence in the world in which every video game that feasibly can features either highly sexualized women you can brutally murder without any real consequence or someone else brutally murdering highly sexualized women just to prove that he is in fact a bad guy. You say we need video games with strip clubs, but why every game needs a strip club or a brothel where women can be or are being murdered in such a way that they are nothing more than sexual objects even in death is beyond me. And when a game does feature a strip club or a brothel it is perfectly reasonable that it would be treated with special care because there is a difference between how strip clubs work in real life as opposed to say bakeries, seeing that the rape culture is something a sickening number of real life women are constantly getting raped for, but there's no bakery windows getting broken because of a bakery window breaking culture. Games don't exist in a limbo.

But anyway, I made a very big mistake of only watching the two latest Sarkeesian's videos just now - a mistake because they're far more thorough than I thought and because she's already addressed a good amount of potential criticism in a very satisfactory manner.

That's a fair point about the impact not really mattering, if the analogy was actually the same. Poop at your door is a sleight against you personally. Poop you go out of your way to find isn't, and you're only bringing the stench into your house if you take it with you personally (ie start taking things personally despite them meaning jack)

based on it being very well known and public, i consider youtube to be a very public space, and public spaces to be the ****ty doorsteps of our lives :deep:
and i think it's wrong to say women take depictions of their gender in public discourse and media too personally, seeing how personally it affects them.

[666maslo666]

You say we need video games with strip clubs, but why every game needs a strip club or a brothel where women can be or are being murdered in such a way that they are nothing more than sexual objects even in death is beyond me.

Why every game? I am not aware of many games that feature murdering prostitutes. I am not saying games dont have some issues with sexism, but this particular example is just not very valid.

[Droid803]

It's a pet theory of mine that thoughts relate to actions.

Then I hereby arrest you for thoughtcrime.
Don't lie to me, you thought about punching someone in the face before.

Cause you know, thinking relates to doing, so better arrest everyone that thinks of murdering strippers because they're all going to murder strippers in real life, amirite.
Entertaining the thought of something, engaging in a simulation of something, is equivalent to doing the action!

[Phantom Hoover]

It's also a theory that makes pretty strong empirical claims, which makes the paucity of empirical evidence whenever it's discussed pretty glaring.

[Spoon]

I have had a lot of relationships with a wide variatie of female shaped polygons and pixels. Most of these have probably been consensual, 99% of these have been sensual in nature.

Am I a criminal yet?

[An4ximandros]

I think this thread could learn from this:



This has turned toxic. I'd recommend everyone to calm down and thoroughly think your arguments.

[Mongoose]

Somewhere Battuta is shuddering uncontrollably right now, and he has no idea why.

[Meneldil]

It's a pet theory of mine that thoughts relate to actions.

Then I hereby arrest you for thoughtcrime.
Don't lie to me, you thought about punching someone in the face before.

Cause you know, thinking relates to doing, so better arrest everyone that thinks of murdering strippers because they're all going to murder strippers in real life, amirite.
Entertaining the thought of something, engaging in a simulation of something, is equivalent to doing the action!

It's also a theory that makes pretty strong empirical claims, which makes the paucity of empirical evidence whenever it's discussed pretty glaring.

I have had a lot of relationships with a wide variatie of female shaped polygons and pixels. Most of these have probably been consensual, 99% of these have been sensual in nature.

Am I a criminal yet?

ok so this is what happened (and i apologize if i'm distorting deathfun's post in any way):
deathfun points out that people getting beaten up in a video game could just as well have been people wearing red
i of course agree that anything is possible, but generally speaking people don't get beaten up in real life for wearing red, but they do for being female sex workers to the point where there's a dedicated encyclopedia article on the subject
deathfun points out that polygons aren't real people
i point out that in this case it's safe to assume that people acting on one thing and not the other implies they think about one thing and not the other, which in turn implies they play one thing and not the other, so no, statistically speaking it couldn't just as easily have been the other
deathfun points out that it still could have been, which is true, and that i still haven't shown the reverse, that actions in video games reflect thoughts, which is also true, but i'm not even claiming they do so i leave it at that
then the three of you take literally the most banally true sentence i could've written, and point out how dumb i'd look if i said it implied something dumb
then i come and write a dumb "no wait thats not what i meant " post and i really don't see how all of this helps us move the conversation any further, especially so since i think it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this

[Note that the closest I came to mentioning "thought crimes" is saying that thinking misogynist thoughts makes you a misogynist, which is a tautology, and that if you do something that could easily be seen as misogynistic in a video game and then use it as a conversation opener I'd see it as a no-no to us becoming bffs. But for better or for worse misogyny and not being friends with me are not crimes.]

[Bobboau]

not that I've been keeping up on this thread and so I might be missing some important subtle nuance, but you know what else you get to kill a lot of with little to no consequence in video games other than sex workers?


...literally ...every ****ing other thing in reality or imagination.




also, since when did Jack Thompson get proven right? I mean I remember one game where I single handedly overthrew the martian colonial government by using nanites to deconstruct their orbital warships. I suppose I had better be put on a watch list.

[Akalabeth Angel]

not that I've been keeping up on this thread and so I might be missing some important subtle nuance, but you know what else you get to kill a lot of with little to no consequence in video games other than sex workers?


...literally ...every ****ing other thing in reality or imagination.

Yes you did miss the nuance.
The nuance being that some people want video games to evolve. Not be stuck in whatever point or perception of their reality that you find comforting.

[deathfun]

ok so this is what happened (and i apologize if i'm distorting deathfun's post in any way):
deathfun points out that people getting beaten up in a video game could just as well have been people wearing red
i of course agree that anything is possible, but generally speaking people don't get beaten up in real life for wearing red, but they do for being female sex workers to the point where there's a dedicated encyclopedia article on the subject

This is also where I point out how the real life connection is irrelevant to someone's intent in a game
Then if I recall, that was where you pointed out where the impact to seeing it is the same

deathfun points out that polygons aren't real people
i point out that in this case it's safe to assume that people acting on one thing and not the other implies they think about one thing and not the other, which in turn implies they play one thing and not the other, so no, statistically speaking it couldn't just as easily have been the other

You're... going to have to rephrase that by defining "thing" and "other" for the sake of people knowing what you're talking about

deathfun points out that it still could have been, which is true, and that i still haven't shown the reverse, that actions in video games reflect thoughts, which is also true, but i'm not even claiming they do so i leave it at that

Which basically ended the two of us discussing about it since it'll be just repetition until new facts are introduced

then the three of you take literally the most banally true sentence i could've written, and point out how dumb i'd look if i said it implied something dumb
then i come and write a dumb "no wait thats not what i meant " post and i really don't see how all of this helps us move the conversation any further, especially so since i think it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this

I agree with Mene here. What you guys basically did was take things way out of context.

[Note that the closest I came to mentioning "thought crimes" is saying that thinking misogynist thoughts makes you a misogynist, which is a tautology, and that if you do something that could easily be seen as misogynistic in a video game and then use it as a conversation opener I'd see it as a no-no to us becoming bffs. But for better or for worse misogyny and not being friends with me are not crimes.]

based on it being very well known and public, i consider youtube to be a very public space, and public spaces to be the ****ty doorsteps of our lives :deep:
and i think it's wrong to say women take depictions of their gender in public discourse and media too personally, seeing how personally it affects them.

Youtube is yes, very public and so are forums. However, the videos themselves are more difficult to randomly come across than browsing a forum hence why I took issue with the analogy

Depictions? Yes, you can take that personally. Someone's actions (unless specifically made as an attack)? No. That was my point. Taking someone's gameplay video as a sleight against your gender (unless specifically said it's a sleight or statement by the author) isn't reasonable grounds to take it personally. They're not doing it to you or your gender, they're doing it to polygons in a game who just so happen to be your gender.

Take issue with the game itself for depicting, not the person who's just enjoying himself (again, unless he specifically makes it a sleight). You could argue that a ganers choice to play a game depicting women as this are them being complacent to the oppression they face.

[666maslo666]

not that I've been keeping up on this thread and so I might be missing some important subtle nuance, but you know what else you get to kill a lot of with little to no consequence in video games other than sex workers?


...literally ...every ****ing other thing in reality or imagination.

Yes you did miss the nuance.
The nuance being that some people want video games to evolve. Not be stuck in whatever point or perception of their reality that you find comforting.

Removing realism from games and adding limitations to not offend anyone is not evolution, its degeneration.

[zookeeper]

it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this

Indeed I can't but wonder how so many people seem so unable to see how going into the details of a single person's individual in-game actions is so completely useless, and completely beside the point.

[deathfun]

it's the sarkeesian's general point that needs to be talked about and not this

Indeed I can't but wonder how so many people seem so unable to see how going into the details of a single person's individual in-game actions is so completely useless, and completely beside the point.

When the actions of a gamer doing a playthrough is being used to justify Anita's point, it becomes relevant