Discrimination that gamers experience

I didn't invite you here, Setanta. You followed me here. Until you came, every post I made was on the topic of sexism in video gaming. Sure, my opinions might disagree with your ideological purity and sense of political rectitude... but it is perfectly appropriate for me to express opinions about the topic of the thread.

Now, do you have something to say on the topic? Or are you in fact here just to trash the thread?

You're the one who has been trashing the thread. I can participate in any therad whether or not you have "invited" me, and you are not the author of the thread at any event. It is perfectly appropriate for me to point out your bias. Especially when you make snide, unsubstantiated remarks about my "ideological purity."

You keep asking for a "fact-based" discussion, while you make one ipse dixit claim after another about political motives. Upon what basis can you establish such claims as you have made as factual? Can you do that without snide comments about my alleged "purity" and "political rectitude?" How do you know the forum did not need to be shut down? What factual evidence do you have about the hosting of the forum, and any liability or content restraints placed on them by whoever actually did host the form? Do you, for example, know for a fact that the forum was set up and run by any of the participants, and that they paid for a server and bandwidth? Otherwise, shutting down the forum may not have been the decision of the participants.

Of course you can. I am only suggesting that if you are on this thread, you should take at least one comment that has something to do with the topic. You can go back and look, every post I made on this thread before you got here was on topic.

I upset you because my posts (which have been completely on topic until you came here) dare to question your political ideology. But, instead of defending your ideology with reason, you just make personal attacks.

I am a little flattered that you are coming here just to come after me. I seem to be the focus of your posts in several threads in the past few days.

I would be happy to have a reasoned discussion on the topic of sexism in video gaming with anyone here.

For one thing, the fact that you have come into a thread about sexism and video gaming and have not made a single point on the topic.

Again, I am flattered, but it doesn't lead to a real discussion.

Translation: You have no discussion of facts to offer. You have no idea what my political ideology might be. You're substituting personal attacks for actual discussion, and have presented no facts.

I have been offering a reasoned discussion on the topic since the beginning Setanta.

I have my own opinions on the matter, some of them are fact based and some of them are just opinions. I am happy to admit that any of them are just my opinion and are open for discussion. I am even open to change my mind if someone presents an argument that I find compelling.

I have listed several of my opinions on this thread, I will start with any one of them, or you can choose another theme on the topic of sexism in video gaming for us to discuss.

One of the points I made is that many times reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes sexism in video game or in any form of popular art. Does this point interest you?

What do you think, Setanta? If you want to have a reasonable discussion on the topic without personal attacks, I am all for it.

Do the games run differently if it knows your sex?

Dont think so.

So the answer is no.

With Set is has never been clear that he has the self control to operate as he wants. All that hostility, often barely provoked, has a reason for being.

I just wish there were more gamer girls into racing games. Never been much for shooters. High hopes for 'No Man's Sky' though. Should be a good equal opportunity game despite the title.

You have based your opinions on absolutely no facts. You have presented no facts. I've already asked you a series of questions based on what you have already posted in this thread, but you have failed to answer them. It does not appear to me that you are, in fact, interested in a "reasoned" discussion. My past experience with you, when you came raging into my threads and flooded them with your hysteria suggests that you will never be far from accusing me of being the grip os "ideological purity" or "political rectitude." You **** in your own nest long, long ago. Don't whine about it now if people don't see you as anything but a thread-wrecking roll, like your buddy Whackeye here, who has shown up to kiss your ass. You "reasoned discussion" shtick is just a conceit with which you establish your moral superiority before you go for the throat.

Exactly. Women have spoken about the online harassment they've received. There is nothing wrong with that. They are starting a conversation. They have been harassed, they have been doxed, they have been physically threatened with rape and death. Is anyone saying these aren't facts? (I'm sorry, I guess one person is.) A video (likely a prank) was posted online threatening Brianna Wu with the poster saying he was driving to her home. She routinely receives threatening tweets. Does she just ignore this? (The police routinely do.) Anita Sarkeesian had to cancel a speech at Utah State because there were threats of a mass shooting and the university wouldn't check bags for weapons as a basic safety measure. There are plenty of facts here. Where are the "facts" to say this is overblown, not real, etc? Where is the case of the guy receiving death threats for taking the opposite position?

From the Wikipedia article on Gamergate:


Let's see, the movement started when an ex-boyfriend decided to write a lengthy disparaging blog post. Is that a fact to you? I guess he didn't have any nude pictures to harass her with. False rumors of sex for positive press coverage? Is that a fact to you? Is that also a typical ploy to shame women, essentially saying she will prostitute herself for a little positive press? Why would the fine gentlemen of Gamergate use that tactic? Harassment against Quinn et al coordinated to include doxing, rape and death threats? Yes, wonderful approach to civil discourse. I hope those are sufficient facts to go with my opinions. What do you call coordinated efforts to use violence to silence political speech?

Part of the problem here, Engineer, is that we agree on the facts. I don't doubt the online harassment that prominent women, including Briana Wu and Zoe Quinn have faced. You and I and even Setanta are all in agreement on this.

After admitting in this thread that I didn't know much about the SXSW forum that was canceled I went back and did a little reading. It turns out it was the organizers of the entire SXSW conference, not the organizers of the forum, that canceled the forum. They have faced extreme condemnation from this and have taken steps to make up for it next year.

All these facts are things that we all agree on. I like having reasonable discussions looking at different viewpoints. I have no trouble publicly agreeing with Setanta (or anyone) when he makes a point that I find compelling.

The point that I am trying to make is that the issue of gender roles in gaming goes much, much deeper. If the only thing you want to talk about is the acts harassment in the gaming community that we all agree happened and we call condemn, then there is much to talk about. We all agree.

But what about the other issues. Who decides what constitutes sexism in a popular art form like video games. And what are the effects of political and economic pressure being put on the industry in terms of stifling creativity?

Shouting "gamergate" when when anyone tries to talk about the roles of gender in gaming is not a way to have a thoughtful dialog where different perspectives can be explored on interesting issues. It is a way of shutting down dialog. After all, this thread was not about gamergate.

Let me an intellectually fair question (although one that might send Setanta on another vulgar tirade).

Do you feel that threats and insults toward women should be treated any differently than threats and insults toward men?

The fact is that men fact threats of violence online slightly more than women, and men are more likely to be victims of violence then women. You can look up the link on this from Pew Research site.



http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

By no means am I saying that threats against women shouldn't be taken seriously, but I am saying that being a public online figure with a public face means getting theses threats whether or not you are a woman.

I think the police reaction is a reflection of this.

Here is another interesting question for you Engineer.

Do you consider the death threats against Kim Davis (county clerk who refused to authorize same sex marriage licenses) in the same way you consider the death threats against Anita Sarkeesian?

Both of these women jumped into the public limelight on contentious issues. I have never seen the threats against Kim Davis listed as an example of misogyny.

Are they an example of misogyny?

OK, let's talk about that (although once again, you ask the question without offering an opinion.) Zoë Quinn, game developer, released Depression Quest. The game isn't about sexism, it is about depression and a man's attempt to work through it. For her efforts, she was attacked in ways we discussed earlier. Why is that? Do you consider that discrimination? Are male independent game developers exposed to such harassment? Is this promoting creativity in the gaming world? I would argue that it is not. I'd further argue that relying on worn stereotypes and caricatures of women is not creative, it is lazy.

Let's talk about the "economic pressure being put on the industry in terms of stifling creativity?" Of course, there is one really, really clear example here where a group organized a letter writing campaign and online effort. Gamergate, who was actually success in getting Intel to drop ads in one magazine for a while. Who are the feminazi's stifling creativity on the other side?

How about "who decides what constitutes sexism in a popular art form like video games?" I'd argue that anyone can put forth their opinions in a free exchange of ideas. I'd further offer that if I want to know about the effects of racism, I'd definitely listen to the experiences of someone who was the victim. If I want to learn about and debate sexism in gaming, I'd listen to the arguments of women game designers and players. That doesn't mean that men don't have a voice, but when that voice is automatically dismissive, that's not going to do it for me. If you have an argument that women are shutting down creativity by pointing out sexism, you should make it.

Ironically, my window into this world is through my daughter.

My understanding is that Zoe Quinn was attacked publicly by an ex-boyfriend who set her up. He accused her of sleeping with a journalist in order to get good reviews for her game.

I don't know if you have any different facts. The accusation was that she was cheating to get good reviews. This was picked up by a bunch of immature jerks who called themselves "gamergate".

I don't think we would disagree in any way with your reaction to this episode. I don't support this any more than you do.

Anita Sarkeesian is the far more interesting story to me. She is a feminist blogger/ thought leader. And she is a public polarizing figure in the gaming industry and pop-culture in general.

She is a political figure that is putting political and economic pressure on companies and trends in the industry. She even went after Legos and they are feeling the pressure.

Obviously I don't support the harassment and threats against her (any more than I support them against Kim Davis). I do think that the backlash (when expressed in an appropriate way) is understandable.

So how do you feel that Anita Sarkeesian (and I assume her series Tropes vs. Women in Video Games) has stifled the video game industry? You say that she is "putting political and economic pressure" on the industry. Why do you say that? How has it manifested? If she is successful in getting more diverse storylines into video games, why do you feel this is bad? Doesn't that increase the storytelling range and creativity of the games?

Here is the first of her videos. You say you want a conversation, she looks like she wants a conversation too. She makes a reasonable point about how women are always the victim to be saved by dashing, strong male characters. Why you think having this conversation with her is to the detriment of the industry. Fully recognizing that you do not support the actions taken against her, why do you think this video produced a violent backlash (since you say it is understandable.)

IT runs very parallel to the argument that most porn is sexist because it is male centric, it freezes out what women want to see (this is assertion by the way not fact). The problem is that when women make "porn for women" it does not sell, because for the most part even the women find it boring. But hey, if someone wants to make games where the females save the males by all means lets not stand in their way, lets see what the market thinks of their ideas, but if I am making a game I will make the game I want to make, not the game Anita Sarkeesian wants me to make. She is just one of over 300 million people, and while her money is as good as anyone else if she does not like my game she does not need to buy it.