Censorship? There is no censorship!

[Akratus]

I'll give Sander that he doesn't know much about doxxing, making death threats to people he disagrees with, stalking, promoting corruption in journalism by affecting the money flow to a web site depending on how much it disagrees with you, or claiming that a war about the preservation of slavery wasn't about the preservation of slavery, but states' rights. The problem is that the GaGa you write about doesn't exist. It never did. It's a toxic blob designed to perpetuate harassment, for no positive net gain.

I appreciate a confession of disconnect with reality, but explain to me how you think this moves the discussion forward? When you say that you've never once looked at gamergate itself, you can do something about it without lamentingly stating so as if it helps things.

Most probably, in your right hand there is a thing we call a mouse. Don't worry, it's not actually that scurry animal. It's a device invented by people to move your mouse cursor. That's the white pointer on your computer screen. When you place it over colored and underlined text it allows you to navigate the internet. You can click on these links, to look at information. The information you need can be found by doing so. I'm sure if you click long enough you'll get to where you need to go, since you haven't learned how to find things on your own yet.

Here are some of these links, to help you along.

http://gamergate.me/
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/
https://twitter.com/search?q=#gamergate&src=typd
https://twitter.com/search?q=#notyourshield&src=typd

claiming that a war about the preservation of slavery wasn't about the preservation of slavery, but states' rights.

But I agree with this. . ?

Have you read my posts at all?

By the way, that GamerGhazi thread went into a fun direction. I particularly like this comment:

I've already said before that harassment is not okay.

SO THERE OKAY
ALL HARASSMENT IS OVER
I HAVE SPOKEN

That you have a penchant for strawmen tells me nothing new.

Reality is a fluid concept.

 

[Atomic Postman]

What a damn shitshow this is.

All I feel I can say is that Feminism should have no place in the Video Game industry, they shouldn't demand and whine when something doesn't suit what they want ("WHAT! YOU WANT AN ATTRACTIVE GIRL IN YOUR GAME PRIMARILY AIMED AT YOUNG MEN!FUCK YOU! SEXIST! SHE SHOULD LOOK LIKE BORING AVERAGE WOMAN! LIKE ME! but keep the big muscly heroic men the same...THEY'RE NOT SEXIST! IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT! THEY'RE A MALE POWER FANTASY!")

Why should Feminists be not only allowed but encouraged to insult Gamers and rapidly change an industry to suit their needs all the while fucking over the people who have supported the industry for decades.

I don't know about you, but I don't like being insulted and patronized for my interests and hobbies by a bunch of people who in actuality, are ignorant, spiteful and have 0 actual interest in the hobby they are singlehandedly destroying.

But I suppose that makes me a sexist right? I've offended someone, somewhere and should just get back to being bent over and watching my hobby get set alight by a bunch of overly-politically-correct cunts.

 

[Sander]

So? For the longest time historians quoted roman sources when it came to ancient civilisations like the gauls, untill someone got the idea that the romans might not be always the best source. And I know of several situations where they revised/disputed historical events in WW2.

History isn't math. Or Physics. Where you come up with laws that count for eternity. I am not an academic, but you can't tell me with a straight face that there is never ever "academic disagreement". That it never happens that two historians have two different opinions about the same source.

Look. Do you get a boner every time you lecture people? I am not trying to convince you from your opinion. I just see the importance of slavery in the Civil war in a different light then you. With all respect to your academic knowledge. Granted, and you probably know more about all the details than I do. But for some reason you kind of sound a lot like some of my teachers in school. As some of them had to be right about everything as well and loved the sound of their own voice.

Yes, history and sources are up for interpretation. And yes, that's why you'll see academic debate in any instance where realistic disagreement is possible. That's why academics do debate why the American South turned into a slave society. It's why they debate the specific reasons why the North opposed secession. It's why they debate the interaction of poor, white labor with slavery. It's why they debate specific Civil War experiences, such as those of black women, or those of foot soldiers. It's why they debate the specific politics and motivations of specific historical actors. It's why they debate the influence of specific economic factors, the way the North and South differed, the influence of free-labor idealism in the North. It's why they debate to what extent the Civil War was inevitable. All of those debates are happening.

So it's particularly striking that you don't see any academic debate on the subject of the ultimate cause of the secession. Again: there is no disagreement over the cause of the Confederacy's secession. There is none. There really, truly is none. There are no published, peer-reviewed papers from the past 20+ years arguing that the secession was about anything other than slavery. You will not find any academic histories arguing that. You won't find them, because there is no debate on the subject, because academic historians agree that slavery was the ultimate cause of the Confederacy. Still don't believe me? We can look at the main monographs on the subject over the past two decades.

• Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion: Southern secession commissioners and the causes of the Civil War (Charlottesville 2001). Review: "the author's intent clearly is to disabuse them of the (incredibly) still popular notion that secession was not about preserving slavery and racial subordination (and the southern culture based on them), but rather to assert some sort of abstract commitment to states' rights. Academic historians, of course, have long-since concluded that states' rights was the means, not a primary motive, for secession and war"
• John Ashworth, The Republic in Crisis, 1848-1868 (New York 2012). Review: "He not only states forcefully one of his great contributions to the literature, the argument that "slave resistance was a fundamental, perhaps the most fundamental, cause of the Civil War" (p. 2), but also richly supports that argument throughout the book."
• John Patrick Daly, When slavery was called freedom (Lexington 2002). Review: "Although Daly concedes that this attempt to tout the advantages of slavery was fundamentally "delusive" (114), he also insists that pious white Southerners so blurred the theoretical distinctions between slave labor and free labor that they genuinely believed secession was necessary to defend the freedom of slaves and slaveholders alike"
• William W. Freehling,: The road to disunion: volume II: secessionists triumphant, 1854-1861, (New York 2008). Review: "the first volume of his study of Southern secession--Freehling argues that the tension resulting from the presence of slavery and the growth of political democracy in the Union drove the movement for secession [..] His second volume [..] argues that the advocates of immediate secession (a minority of Southern voters, even in the Deep South) took control of the situation and led the South out of the Union to ensure slavery’s survival."

To find examples of books portraying the Civil War the way you do, you have to go all the way back to the 1970s. There is no academic debate, here. And that's because all of the evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction.

Look, I was educated as a historian, with a minor in socio-economic American history. I know how academic historical debates work, and I've looked them up in this case. When I tell you that there's no academic debate on the causes of the Civil War, I know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't try to tell you anything about graphic design, or anything else you're an expert on. Please don't try to tell me about historical debates.

What a damn shitshow this is.

All I feel I can say is that Feminism should have no place in the Video Game industry, they shouldn't demand and whine when something doesn't suit what they want ("WHAT! YOU WANT AN ATTRACTIVE GIRL IN YOUR GAME PRIMARILY AIMED AT YOUNG MEN!FUCK YOU! SEXIST! SHE SHOULD LOOK LIKE BORING AVERAGE WOMAN! LIKE ME! but keep the big muscly heroic men the same...THEY'RE NOT SEXIST! IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT! THEY'RE A MALE POWER FANTASY!")

Why should Feminists be not only allowed but encouraged to insult Gamers and rapidly change an industry to suit their needs all the while fucking over the people who have supported the industry for decades.

I don't know about you, but I don't like being insulted and patronized for my interests and hobbies by a bunch of people who in actuality, are ignorant, spiteful and have 0 actual interest in the hobby they are singlehandedly destroying.

But I suppose that makes me a sexist right? I've offended someone, somewhere and should just get back to being bent over and watching my hobby get set alight by a bunch of overly-politically-correct cunts.

Why do you think feminists have no actual interest in gaming? I'm a feminist. I agree with almost all of those feminist critiques. I've been an admin here for, what, ten years? Am I not interested in gaming? Or am I "ignorant and spiteful"? Why do you think feminists are "singlehandedly destroying" your hobby, when all they've done is put out some critiques of narrative tropes in video games? Why do you characterize their critiques as "demand[ing] and whin[ing] when something doesn't suit what they want", instead of just another opinion on cultural products? Why is their critique "demand[ing] and whin[ing]", but why is your demand that nothing change not that?

Also your portrayal of feminist critique of video games is a massive straw man. They're not calling you a sexist. They're not saying that idealized, muscular men are fine. They're not saying that characters shouldn't be attractive. These are not things they are arguing. They're arguing that female characters are overused in specific ways and underrepresented in others. And that female characters are often represented in limited ways in video games. And that that's a bad thing. That's it. That's all Anita Sarkeesian and other cultural critics are saying.

What feminists are asking for is better and more varied representation of female characters in video games. Is that really such a terrible thing?

 

[Akratus]

Why do you think feminists have no actual interest in gaming? I'm a feminist. I agree with almost all of those feminist critiques. I've been an admin here for, what, ten years? Am I not interested in gaming? Or am I "ignorant and spiteful"? Why do you think feminists are "singlehandedly destroying" your hobby, when all they've done is put out some critiques of narrative tropes in video games? Why do you characterize their critiques as "demand[ing] and whin[ing] when something doesn't suit what they want", instead of just another opinion on cultural products? Why is their critique "demand[ing] and whin[ing]", but why is your demand that nothing change not that?

Also your portrayal of feminist critique of video games is a massive straw man. They're not calling you a sexist. They're not saying that idealized, muscular men are fine. They're not saying that characters shouldn't be attractive. These are not things they are arguing. They're arguing that female characters are overused in specific ways and underrepresented in others. And that female characters are often represented in limited ways in video games. And that that's a bad thing. That's it. That's all Anita Sarkeesian and other cultural critics are saying.

What feminists are asking for is better and more varied representation of female characters in video games. Is that really such a terrible thing?

Alpha's post is pretty silly, and doesn't really apply to the thread. But you do realize not all feminists are cultural critics, right? Have you never been to tumblr?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni, Sander (and possibly I) may sound like teachers, because you are factually wrong. I don't think you are sympathetic to slavery or systemic racism, but when you claim that the ACW was based on something else than defense of slavery by the South, a claim that's fundamentally wrong, you are going to get corrected.

Things have many reasons. I just place a different weight on it. Guys. I will not discuss this part anymore anyway. I am nota historian. So it's alright. You are right.

 

[Tagaziel]

I appreciate a confession of disconnect with reality, but explain to me how you think this moves the discussion forward? When you say that you've never once looked at gamergate itself, you can do something about it without lamentingly stating so as if it helps things.

I did. Then I looked at your posts. Then I looked at what GamerGate actually does. If anyone's disconnected from reality, it's you, because you consistently refuse to acknowledge facts, no matter how many are presented to you. We've been over two threads and 120+ pages going in circles, because you refuse to even allow for the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you support the bad guys.

But I agree with this. . ?

Have you read my posts at all?

What do you agree with? That the American Civil War wasn't fought by the South over slavery?

That you have a penchant for strawmen tells me nothing new.

Do look up the definition of the fallacy, because that ain't it. It's pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.

Reality is a fluid concept.

No better example than your history of posting.

All I feel I can say is that Feminism should have no place in the Video Game industry, they shouldn't demand and whine when something doesn't suit what they want ("WHAT! YOU WANT AN ATTRACTIVE GIRL IN YOUR GAME PRIMARILY AIMED AT YOUNG MEN!FUCK YOU! SEXIST! SHE SHOULD LOOK LIKE BORING AVERAGE WOMAN! LIKE ME! but keep the big muscly heroic men the same...THEY'RE NOT SEXIST! IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT! THEY'RE A MALE POWER FANTASY!")

Why should Feminists be not only allowed but encouraged to insult Gamers and rapidly change an industry to suit their needs all the while fucking over the people who have supported the industry for decades.

I don't know about you, but I don't like being insulted and patronized for my interests and hobbies by a bunch of people who in actuality, are ignorant, spiteful and have 0 actual interest in the hobby they are singlehandedly destroying.

But I suppose that makes me a sexist right? I've offended someone, somewhere and should just get back to being bent over and watching my hobby get set alight by a bunch of overly-politically-correct cunts.

No, it makes you a person who has no clue what he's talking about. Nobody is destroying your hobby, nobody is insulting you, and nobody is patronizing you. Assuming that you aren't a misogynistic asshole who attacks people who dare criticize his precious games in a way different than "LOL THIS GAME IS NOT LIEK COD IT SUX". What you wrote has no basis in reality.

Explain to me why you find the concept of people providing cultural critique of gaming so disagreeable? Is it the plurality of opinion? The fact that you might feel compelled to evaluate your own gaming habits with a critical eye? That compelling arguments endanger your vision of reality?

 

[Kilus]

Just a couple of hours till the 4 month anniversary of this on NMA. Around 18.3 posts per day on GD.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Tagaziel.


If you really don't think that Gamers are being insulted and patronized by SJWs, you're out of touch.

Look at a lot of Gaming Journalism websites, when an article is about social discrimination in Video Games (Which isn't a real problem) they're usually patronizing to the readers and gamers in general.


I dislike SJWs and their social "critique" of Video Games because they are absolutely pointless and cause lots of trouble over problems which really don't exist and really don't matter, often twisting creator's artistic visions to comply with their pointless standards, often times the people who make these critiques don't play Video Games at all (Chief point here is Anita.). All they do is cause trouble and complain, they never improve anything, they just make things worse.

The SJW movement has began to paint Video Games in a new negative light, as sexist, just when we thought we had escaped the "Video Games make people violent" movement these idiots come along and start a new problem out of nothing.

The biggest question I have is why? Why do they care so much about these issues? They obviously dislike the industry they are involved in and show no REAL passion beyond their surface level critique, why bother getting involved at all?

 

[Sander]

What's stopping you from just not reading critiques you don't like? What's the problem, here? No one's calling for the destruction of video games. They're just calling for better representation within video games. And the're doing so by critiquing the content in video games, just as cultural critics critique any other cultural product -- be it movies, TV series, books, music or any form of art. This is not Jack Thompson's crusade to ban video games. It's an effort to get the video games industry to be better about its representation of women, people of color and other minorities in their games.

Also, I'm a feminist. I agree with all of those critiques. I've been admin here for ten years. I've been a gamer my entire life. So are many of the people offering cultural critiques. They're offering those because they want games to be better, not because they don't care. Let me quote N.K. Jemisin on why she critiques Dragon Age Inquisition:

"When I see a company that at least tries, I give them my full attention -- the love & the WTF. Bioware has earned that. I give them my money, my time, what small platform I have to let the world know their work is worth time and monetary investment. When a company doesn't try, they get nothing from me. No crit, no mention, no money, no love. I ignore them and hope they go away."

Does that sound like someone who doesn't care about games to you?

 

[Tagaziel]

If you really don't think that Gamers are being insulted and patronized by SJWs, you're out of touch.

I play games. Sander plays games. Crni Vuk plays games. I don't think either of us feels insulted and patronized by SJWs

snip

Can you provide some proof that discrimination and lack of representation in video games is unimportant or doesn't matter? Or back up your statements with any kind of proof? All of the points you raise, which are, frankly, ridiculous, have been addressed in the close to 120 pages this discussion has lasted.

 

[Akratus]

See, the thing is, that's all fine. But when we're talking about the personal space, rather than anything directed at the industry, it becomes shit flinging. We all know that by now, having dirty hands ourselves.

And besides, critique goes both ways. Feminist critics in games get a lot of things wrong according to some, so that's expressed here and there. What's the problem with that? You can just ignore those you don't like.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Sander


I sort of get what your saying.


The main problem is the way these SJWS go about it, they don't forward it as constructive critique to help improve the industry.

They attack Developers with accusations of Misogyny and all sorts of nasty terms, much of the time they don't try to understand why the Devs do certain things and what possible reasons could be behind them (Take MGSV's Quiet for example, there is a plot reason yet to be revealed why she dresses the way she does, but the SJWs didn't care, they wanted Kojima's head.) #

They also go about critiquing games in the wrong way too, they seem to ignore everything that isn't about social diversity. Dragon Age:Inquistion is a shitty game by many means, the same goes for Gone Home,but they are praised endlessly for their diversity, but those people never criticize the other elements of the game (The obviously more important parts) and simply stamp it as a great game because it's diverse. It also works around the other way too.


As to address that quote, that seems silly...why should games that feature no or little diversity be stamped out? Take Dark Souls for example, it had very few characters, should that be stamped out and ignored because it's not diverse? To me that seems to encourage ham-fisted diversity in games, something which nobody wants.


Something to add is that it seems that the people crying for diversity and oppression usually aren't the ones being "oppressed"

If you really don't think that Gamers are being insulted and patronized by SJWs, you're out of touch.

I play games. Sander plays games. Crni Vuk plays games. I don't think either of us feels insulted and patronized by SJWs

snip

Can you provide some proof that discrimination and lack of representation in video games is unimportant or doesn't matter? Or back up your statements with any kind of proof? All of the points you raise, which are, frankly, ridiculous, have been addressed in the close to 120 pages this discussion has lasted.

....Okay.

You're leaning on the personal attack side now, which seems a bit petty.


Can you provide evidence as to why it DOES matter?

Surely there are much more important things in games....like the gameplay perhaps? We should be encouraging new ways to explore experiences like Immersion and Atmosphere building, not squeezed in diversity.

There are much more pressing matters to criticize in the industry too, like the growing number of games being butchered into DLC, or games being unfinished and rushed out the door, or the general growing laziness in development in general, or the lies made about the next-gen consoles and their supposed 1080p 60fps games.

Compared to all that, the way someone writes a character or whether one out of three characters is black all seem like petty issues that really don't deserve all the fuss the get.

Next time you debate someone, maybe don't take it so personal okay? There's no need to be a condescending cunt on an internet forum for no reason, I haven't personally attacked you, there isn't any reason to personally attack me.

 

[Sander]

See, the thing is, that's all fine. But when we're talking about the personal space, rather than anything directed at the industry, it becomes shit flinging. We all know that by now, having dirty hands ourselves.

And besides, critique goes both ways. Feminist critics in games get a lot of things wrong according to some, so that's expressed here and there. What's the problem with that? You can just ignore those you don't like.

Sure. They can publish their disagreements. I get to disagree with those disagreements. No problem.

@AlphaPromethean: All Anita Sarkeesian has done and most others like her is present polite, constructive critiques. You can disagree with them, that's fine. You can ignore them, that's fine too. They're not trying to take your games away. They're not attacking you. They're just saying that, in their opinion, games would be better if they were better about presenting equal representation. And yes, that means they highlight games that do that. What's so weird about that? Why is that "the wrong way", instead of just highlighting the area they care about more? What's wrong with that?

But no, they don't really care what the internal justifications are, because they don't really matter. If you construct a plot or setting that features no diversity, that's critiqued regardless of the justification given in the game -- because the choice to construct a plot or setting with no diversity is a choice in and of itself.

Also, no one's saying that games that feature no or little diversity should be "stamped out". It's also not what N.K. Jemisin said. She just hopes that everyone gets better about presenting diversity in games, because there's so very little of that. So she'll just ignore those who don't try to do that, hoping they'll go away. There's rather a big difference between hoping people go away and trying to stamp them out.

 

[Kilus]

The thing about this situation is no one on either side have any realistic goals, in the short term or the long term. All there is fight. The only sensible thing to do if fighting isn't your reason for having a dog in this fight is to work on disarmament on both sides.

 

[Atomic Postman]

"But no, they don't really care what the internal justifications are, because they don't really matter"

Uh yeah they do, what if I created a game setting where the KKK or the Nazis had dominated the world and exterminated or at least enslaved other races to the point where white people were the only race that exists in the Upper and Middle Classes, as with the majority of the working class.

That's an explanation as to why there is a lack of diversity in the game, it's part of the plot.

By your logic if such a setting was made, I should just make random characters black for the sake of diversity so I don't upset anyone.


She says she hopes they'll go away, to me that says her ideal gaming world would be one filled with ham fisted diversity and games without diversity (Such as Dark Souls, which has a VERY small set of characters) would not exist because she doesn't like them.

To me that seems INCREDIBLY shallow and irresponsible.

Are you seriously trying to say to me that Anita is a calm and collected critic that wishes for the gaming industry to get better?

I'm assuming you've not seen the video where she admits she doesn't like or even play video games.


Still, nobody has answered why Diversity actually matters in gaming, I don't feel oppressed and like I want to cry forever when I play Lara Croft, I judge characters by their personalities, not their genitals or skin color.

The thing about this situation is no one on either side have any realistic goals, in the short term or the long term. All there is fight. The only sensible thing to do if fighting isn't your reason for having a dog in this fight is to work on disarmament on both sides.

The goals of the Anti-SJW is for them to leave us the fuck alone and let Devs just make good games without having to try and squeeze as much ham-fisted diversity into gaming as possible.

 

[Sander]

"But no, they don't really care what the internal justifications are, because they don't really matter"

Uh yeah they do, what if I created a game setting where the KKK or the Nazis had dominated the world and exterminated or at least enslaved other races to the point where white people were the only race that exists in the Upper and Middle Classes, as with the majority of the working class.

That's an explanation as to why there is a lack of diversity in the game, it's part of the plot.

By your logic if such a setting was made, I should just make random characters black for the sake of diversity so I don't upset anyone.

No, I'm saying that your choice to make that very specific non-diverse setting is a choice, and that as with any other choice, that choice gets to be critiqued. You don't get to insulate yourself from critiques by claiming that that's just the setting -- the setting is not an objective reality, it is designed by people as is any other aspect of any cultural product.

I should also note that most of the "historical" justifications used to exclude women or people of color from games are actually quite ahistorical and often based on a warped idea of the period based on cultural products that (surprise!) tend to minimize the role of women and people of color.

 

[Akratus]

Well, fiction and even non fiction doesn't get history right the majority of the time, so that's at least par for the course.

If there's one thing I love it's realistic fiction, and history is obviously a vital component in that, in incorporating it or using it as a setting. But I won't touch it if it's done as badly as it is usually done.

You know how Dark Souls is based on western legends, folktales, myths and fiction? Imagine one using japanese myths and fiction, or middle eastern, or african ones. Damn, I sure would love that if it's done as excellently as Dark Souls 1.

But to me it's extremely egregious that anyone would claim that mere diversity and political messages would elevate the level of artistic achievement in games. The exact opposite, I would say, was the cause for artistic achievement in Movies, Comics, Books etc.

I'm not one of those silly sods that would say any group I disagree with is "taking muh games away!" But in an industry heavily steeped in progressiveness, could Watchmen be made? With it's rape scene? Or V for Vendetta, with it's far right and fascistic subject?

Apparently a game trying to show people what the experience of a US marine is like is too sensitive for some people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_in_Fallujah

I hate it when people are outraged about something I don't like! But when I'm outraged, I'm completely justified!!

"But no, they don't really care what the internal justifications are, because they don't really matter"

Uh yeah they do, what if I created a game setting where the KKK or the Nazis had dominated the world and exterminated or at least enslaved other races to the point where white people were the only race that exists in the Upper and Middle Classes, as with the majority of the working class.

That's an explanation as to why there is a lack of diversity in the game, it's part of the plot.

By your logic if such a setting was made, I should just make random characters black for the sake of diversity so I don't upset anyone.

No, I'm saying that your choice to make that very specific non-diverse setting is a choice, and that as with any other choice, that choice gets to be critiqued. You don't get to insulate yourself from critiques by claiming that that's just the setting -- the setting is not an objective reality, it is designed by people as is any other aspect of any cultural product.

I should also note that most of the "historical" justifications used to exclude women or people of color from games are actually quite ahistorical and often based on a warped idea of the period based on cultural products that (surprise!) tend to minimize the role of women and people of color.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on Game of Thrones. I think it shows quite a realistic society, with both opressed women, empowered women, etc. There's also quite a lot of nudity, which I would very nearly say is hamfisted, but in almost all scenes seems to be a natural thing, that fits neatly enough into the plot and the context of their scenes. But then there's also a scene like the rape of Cersei in the room where Joffre's corpse was placed. I heard the scene was not a rape in the books. And that to me seems like mere marketing-based shock value. It seemed out of character too, for Jaime.

 

[Sander]

She says she hopes they'll go away, to me that says her ideal gaming world would be one filled with ham fisted diversity and games without diversity (Such as Dark Souls, which has a VERY small set of characters) would not exist because she doesn't like them.

To me that seems INCREDIBLY shallow and irresponsible.

She would like to see humanity represented in humanity's cultural products, yes. She would like to see a world where white male is not the assumed default, and any deviation has to be justified explicitly or be judged "ham fisted". She would like to see that, because that's what we see everywhere in history and in humanity: there were always women present, there were always people of different ethnicities. Having people of color, or queer people, or women in your games is not "forced" -- in fact, not having that in your video games is forced. Because while that is far too often the default in cultural products, that's a false representation of humanity.

And that's a real problem, because it creates a warped view of reality -- yes, cultural products, even those set in fictional settings, do have small effects on how people view reality. We also have lots of research noting that not seeing yourself represented in the cultural products you consume affects your self-image, which in term affects real-life performance. All of that trickles through.

But finally, even if you don't buy all that, there's a much simpler argument: what's wrong with representing all of humanity in games and other cultural products?

Are you seriously trying to say to me that Anita is a calm and collected critic that wishes for the gaming industry to get better?

I'm assuming you've not seen the video where she admits she doesn't like or even play video games.

Yes, that's exactly what Anita Sarkeesian is. It's also pretty obvious if you actually watch her videos with an open mind. You don't need to agree with her, but she's certainly polite and calm. She emphasizes repeatedly that there's nothing wrong with liking products with problematic elements, but that's important to be aware of them nonetheless. She gives repeated examples of games that avoid the misuse of the tropes she's critiquing. She notes that she's not saying that those tropes can't ever be used, but that they're used far too often and to the exclusion of other issues in games.

Those are the things she does in her actual videos. You can go watch them, or not. I don't really care. But your view of what she's saying is at odds with reality.

Spending a few seconds on Google looking up the context of that video where she "admits" she doesn't like video games will lead to several articles explaining why that's not what she actually did. Like this one. Not that it matters: whether or not she personally likes video games has nothing to do with the validity of her critiques, but it does fit the weird need to invalidate her -- like the "con artist" and "professional victim" claims. Not saying that you're making those, but you see them all the time -- and while they're nonsense, it wouldn't even matter if they were true, because her arguments are still valid.

But in an industry heavily steeped in progressiveness, could Watchmen be made? With it's rape scene? Or V for Vendetta, with it's far right and fascistic subject?

Yes. Some elements of those products might be different, or they might not. They might be better in some respects. It's been a while since I've read them, but I don't think they're particularly good about presenting racial diversity.

Incidentally, Alan Moore is probably one of the most progressive and far-left comic creators out there.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on Game of Thrones. I think it shows quite a realistic society, with both opressed women, empowered women, etc. There's also quite a lot of nudity, which I would very nearly say is hamfisted, but in almost all scenes seems to be a natural thing, that fits neatly enough into the plot and the context of their scenes. But then there's also a scene like the rape of Cersei in the room where Joffre's corpse was placed. I heard the scene was not a rape in the books. And that to me seems like mere marketing-based shock value. It seemed out of character too, for Jaime.

I like Game of Thrones. I think it's worse than the books in some respects, and better in others. Overall, I think it handles its female characters better: more agency, more nuance, more complexity. I do think its portrayal of people of color/other cultures is pretty bad -- it goes with almost all of the classic Orientalist tropes in portraying the cultures Daenerys comes into contact with, has the whole white savior complex going on. That's all kind of icky. But overall it's a good show.

The rape scene was terribly handled, by the way. The creators' comments after the fact showed that they didn't want to portray rape -- but that's exactly what they did. And because they didn't want to portray rape, they never handled it -- no contextualizing, no repercussions, no character implications, nothing. Terribly, terribly handled.

 

[Tagaziel]

Can you provide evidence as to why it DOES matter?

Right after you prove your claim. Onus probandi lies on the person making the claim and you have claimed first that Diversity doesn't matter.

Surely there are much more important things in games....like the gameplay perhaps? We should be encouraging new ways to explore experiences like Immersion and Atmosphere building, not squeezed in diversity.

Explain why Diversity is bad in games or why such a fundamentally easy to implement concept should be glossed over.

There are much more pressing matters to criticize in the industry too, like the growing number of games being butchered into DLC, or games being unfinished and rushed out the door, or the general growing laziness in development in general, or the lies made about the next-gen consoles and their supposed 1080p 60fps games.

Compared to all that, the way someone writes a character or whether one out of three characters is black all seem like petty issues that really don't deserve all the fuss the get.

Nobody's denying that, but these are issues not relevant to the lack of diversity in gaming. These are entirely separate issues and trying to trivialize one set of issues because a completely alternate, unrelated set of issues seems more important to you (mostly because you're not affected by the former) is a fallacious line of reasoning.

Next time you debate someone, maybe don't take it so personal okay? There's no need to be a condescending cunt on an internet forum for no reason, I haven't personally attacked you, there isn't any reason to personally attack me.

Now you did attack me, whereas all I did was point out that your claims are ridiculous.

Let me make this straight: Use the word cunt in any context again, especially against another user and you'll be taking time off.

 

[Atomic Postman]

Man, I just want to play some damn games without them being screamed at for being sexist and me being called sexist for liking them over more "diverse" games.


I just don't understand what the fuss is about, why it has been made to seem more important than the actually more pressing issues such as butchered games and rushed releases, that's all I want to know.

I never said that diversity is inherently bad, that's not my point at all.

I'm not against diversity, I am against SJWs attacking and calling names because a game doesn't have diversity, I'm against the rabid feminism which goes WAY overboard.


The last line of my first post wasn't directed at you, either, it was directed at the mouth breathing rabid tumblrites who want to ban all non-diverse games and burn devs who create a sexually appealing character alive.