Games and Culture - discussion and debate

[grommit!]

neffer[/url]":2hltyjel]... incoherent nonsense ...

neffer[/url]":2hltyjel]... more inchoherent nonsense ...

Reposting the same sort of shit you did on the front page is beyond the guidelines established for this thread.

viewtopic.php?p=27484123#p27484123

 

[DemonGSides]

bytegod[/url]":iaqrigr6]

Eider[/url]":iaqrigr6]

Frosty Grin[/url]":iaqrigr6]

Camp Freddie[/url]":iaqrigr6]Oh, and the anti-feminist stuff is crazy. For example, that spiderwoman cover was terrible art, adapted from an old erotic art piece. Spiderman does not use that pose in the supposed 'counterexample', and sexual poses are rather different for men and women.
Just look at this for what I mean:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/spiderwoman

Well, the pose of Spiderman certainly isn't a sexual pose for men - so it's deliberately made ridiculous. And, with the focus on the genitals, it's more explicit than the original, so deliberately unfair. If anything, you're showing that it's the "feminist" stuff that's crazy.

Sorry but I am calling BS on this. Spiderwoman is on all fours with her buttcheeks spread. It is a sexual pose, and it is not crazy to point it out.

Spiderman was doing that before it was cool. He's the original sexy.

Seriously. That comic book cover "controversy" was the most dipshitties of all dipshittery from the angry feminists side. It's the exact same pose Spiderman has been doing for years. Jesus the hubbub over that one was just painful to watch unfold.

 

[JonTD]

You called her a "professional victim" and then said "feminism is her job."

You knowingly did a "feminists = victims." And got called on the stupid.

 

[neffer]

Keen[/url]":2wrm82kb]

papadage[/url]":2wrm82kb] The inability to put together canned arguments is kinda funny though.

I kinda wish neffer would just be a straight up loud-and-proud sexist about this. All these dog whistles and derailings and non sequiturs are just tiring to watch.

Kudos to the community to replying to his varied nonsense.

Yea as bytegod posted

Anyone who says these two are in the same pose is "sexist" "loud-and-proud" because obviously this picture doesn't exist because the only thing that can possibly exist is misogyny...

And yea I get it you are trolling me now.

 

[jxl]

neffer[/url]":6omsfw8p]You are right, she's isn't just "some" youtube lecturer, she's a professional victim. Feminism is her job.

This is an incredibly gross mindset. Is every person that points out systemic inequities a professional victim?

I also can't follow what objections you have to the article written for Time magazine; this is the furor over the Guardian article all over again. Time is a grown-up-ass magazine and has paid editorial staff of their own. If they fucked up by not fact checking their shit (and it's not at all clear that they didn't), maybe submit a letter to the editor?

 

[neffer]

thegrommit[/url]":3m7bxqzr]

neffer[/url]":3m7bxqzr]... incoherent nonsense ...

neffer[/url]":3m7bxqzr]... more inchoherent nonsense ...

Reposting the same sort of shit you did on the front page is beyond the guidelines established for this thread.

viewtopic.php?p=27484123#p27484123

I posted nothing on the front page before.

Don't accuse people of stuff when you fail to have an argument.

 

[JonTD]

neffer[/url]":2awcs4dt]

thegrommit[/url]":2awcs4dt]

neffer[/url]":2awcs4dt]... incoherent nonsense ...

neffer[/url]":2awcs4dt]... more inchoherent nonsense ...

Reposting the same sort of shit you did on the front page is beyond the guidelines established for this thread.

viewtopic.php?p=27484123#p27484123

I posted nothing on the front page before.

Don't accuse people of stuff when you fail to have an argument.

Uh.... viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1253975

 

[grommit!]

neffer[/url]":uftrl4o5]
Fact is that "Jenn" as a mature adult should be held to the standard of common sense. A shit is in progress over corruption and misdealing in your in your industry. Your first move? Write an op ed from a deceptive angle, pretending to be a disinterested observer.... sorry it simply doesn't fly.

This ignores the fact that she DID put in the disclosure, only for guardian editorial to then remove it. But of course, it's still somehow her fault? And what's with putting her name in quotes? Are you implying she's a fictional construct now?

Rest of the nonsense has been reported for trolling. If you want to despoil the front page, that's fine, but the rules for this thread are well established.

 

[neffer]

jxl[/url]":2x9yruzu]

neffer[/url]":2x9yruzu]You are right, she's isn't just "some" youtube lecturer, she's a professional victim. Feminism is her job.

This is an incredibly gross mindset. Is every person that points out systemic inequities a professional victim?

I also can't follow what objections you have to the article written for Time magazine; this is the furor over the Guardian article all over again. Time is a grown-up-ass magazine and has paid editorial staff of their own. If they fucked up by not fact checking their shit (and it's not at all clear that they didn't), maybe submit a letter to the editor?

No, its financial incentive, and its entirely legitimate.

When someone is paid to have an opinion, that colors the opinion. And she's not just paid to have that opinion, if she stops being "offended", she has no other game plan. This goes far beyond a "you better give this review a slightly higher score because they support us with advertising" type corruption, she literally has to play a part to make a living.

Objections to the time article are pretty clear in the picture, and video which outlines how unclean her hands are in the first place. But its just notable this type of "mistake" or "incompetence" all goes one way...

 

[JonTD]

Re: cherry picking

The original complaint was that Anita cherry picked sexist examples and games as a whole are supposedly so numerous and large these weren't indicative of attitudes towards women in games.

That then became she has cherry picked examples out of context and really they were feminist critiques of the broader portrayal of women in video games that Anita failed to understand ala Joss Whedon's Cabin in the Woods? GTA IV is, then, a subversive feminist work?

The goal post move in and of itself...

I had hope for this thread but it's getting locked soon I'm afraid.

 

[neffer]

thegrommit[/url]":2tb7rf5c]

neffer[/url]":2tb7rf5c]
Fact is that "Jenn" as a mature adult should be held to the standard of common sense. A shit is in progress over corruption and misdealing in your in your industry. Your first move? Write an op ed from a deceptive angle, pretending to be a disinterested observer.... sorry it simply doesn't fly.

This ignores the fact that she DID put in the disclosure, only for guardian editorial to then remove it. But of course, it's still somehow her fault? And what's with putting her name in quotes? Are you implying she's a fictional construct now?

Rest of the nonsense has been reported for trolling. If you want to despoil the front page, that's fine, but the rules for this thread are well established.

Of course your side always resorts to threats when they lack substantive arguments. But thanks for exhibiting one the problems this gamergate issue has been about, your side always resorts to suppressing opposing opinion because you can't argue on the merits. Disagree with Anita Sarkeesian? Oh you are trolling, you are a misogynist. Its invalid reasoning and frankly we're tired of it. Its notable during all this volumes of evidence against your side acting in unethical and unprofessional ways has come up, and you just act like its nothing. Quite literally nothing is enough to get you to change your mind, and that is the problem, and why the resort is always to suppression, because there is no possible rational counter argument.

Jenns in quotes because the name always exposes the gender, and I have a hunch that has a significant effect on lowering the standards of integrity users like you hold people to when something like this happens. She's a big girl, and she should be judged by adult standards. She knew better than to write an op ed which was written to appear as work of a disinterested third party until you got to a foot note, if you ever saw it. Its deceptive by default, and in context of this scandal where people are in trouble for exactly this type of deceptive behavior, she should have known better. This isn't a third rate blogger site, its the guardian, and writers for the guardian can't be held to high standards, no one can.

 

[Paul Hill]

DemonGSides[/url]":2aeb71d8]Seriously. That comic book cover "controversy" was the most dipshitties of all dipshittery from the angry feminists side. It's the exact same pose Spiderman has been doing for years. Jesus the hubbub over that one was just painful to watch unfold.

Oh this is "if a man is portrayed this way then !=sexism"? Cos that's based on the idea that there's some "level playing field" in the way genders are portrayed in media, which is frankly cobblers. Unless you're saying that the marketing purpose of Spider-Man covers showing his butt is "read this comic, there's more nice butt inside" which I'd have no problem with but I suspect is not the case.

 

[Frosty Grin]

neffer[/url]":20z0zttq]Yea as bytegod posted

Anyone who says these two are in the same pose is "sexist" "loud-and-proud" because obviously this picture doesn't exist because the only thing that can possibly exist is misogyny...

And yea I get it you are trolling me now.

It's not exactly the same pose, but it's actually Spiderman who's more... uhm, open... for... uhm...

I'll be in my bunker. :bigdumbgrin:

Paul Hill[/url]":20z0zttq]Unless you're saying that the marketing purpose of Spider-Man covers showing his butt is "read this comic, there's more nice butt inside" which I'd have no problem with but I suspect is not the case.

That's not the case for Spiderwoman either. They're not making an erotic spin-off.

 

[krimhorn]

DemonGSides[/url]":2tn5rnlk]Seriously. That comic book cover "controversy" was the most dipshitties of all dipshittery from the angry feminists side. It's the exact same pose Spiderman has been doing for years. Jesus the hubbub over that one was just painful to watch unfold.

Yeah, except they're not. Spiderman's all fours poses can be described as "stalking" or "ready to spring into action". Note the fact that his "all fours" poses tend to have a straight back. Which is critical when considering an action-ready pose and is consistent with how stalking animals hold their back when they are getting ready to pounce. An arched back like that cover has would make it impossible for her to spring into action.

There is a time when animals tend to have their backs arched like that.

Hint: that's a cat in heat.

 

[krimhorn]

neffer[/url]":speylmhi]Perhaps, but you simply can't make statements about her work being good without being laughed out of the room at this point. And the term fits because based on rational argument, her work can't be defended. By "academic" standards, her work is simply a fail. So if someone is still finding excuses to defend discredited work after a mountain of evidence has been leveled at them and her, well its going to be hard not to say you aren't just horribly misguided.

If her arguments are so easily refuted then why aren't you, you know, refuting them instead of attacking her character and "credibility"?

Answer: you simply don't like what she has to say and have no arguments against them.

 

[grommit!]

neffer[/url]":2y0tu7wp]

thegrommit[/url]":2y0tu7wp]

neffer[/url]":2y0tu7wp]
Fact is that "Jenn" as a mature adult should be held to the standard of common sense. A shit is in progress over corruption and misdealing in your in your industry. Your first move? Write an op ed from a deceptive angle, pretending to be a disinterested observer.... sorry it simply doesn't fly.

This ignores the fact that she DID put in the disclosure, only for guardian editorial to then remove it. But of course, it's still somehow her fault? And what's with putting her name in quotes? Are you implying she's a fictional construct now?

Rest of the nonsense has been reported for trolling. If you want to despoil the front page, that's fine, but the rules for this thread are well established.

Of course your side always resorts to threats when they lack substantive arguments. But thanks for exhibiting one the problems this gamergate issue has been about, your side always resorts to suppressing opposing opinion because you can't argue on the merits. Disagree with Anita Sarkeesian? Oh you are trolling, you are a misogynist. Its invalid reasoning and frankly we're tired of it.

If you'll notice, I bypassed the front page discussion a long time ago. This thread has been largely constructive and civil. Until now.

Jenns in quotes because the name always exposes the gender, and I have a hunch that has a significant effect on lowering the standards of integrity users like you hold people to when something like this happens. She's a big girl, and she should be judged by adult standards. She knew better than to write an op ed which was written to appear as work of a disinterested third party until you got to a foot note, if you ever saw it. Its deceptive by default, and in context of this scandal where people are in trouble for exactly this type of deceptive behavior, she should have known better. This isn't a third rate blogger site, its the guardian, and writers for the guardian can't be held to high standards, no one can.

And what does her gender have to do with her opinion? John Walker from RPS is male, and would likely hold the same opinion, as would many other writers of both genders. Why would their gender matter?

Do you also understand what the role of editors and sub-editors (aka editorial staff) are? Hint: they're not the same people as writers.

 

[Hangfire]

Eider[/url]":1u03mp20]

Frosty Grin[/url]":1u03mp20]

Camp Freddie[/url]":1u03mp20]Oh, and the anti-feminist stuff is crazy. For example, that spiderwoman cover was terrible art, adapted from an old erotic art piece. Spiderman does not use that pose in the supposed 'counterexample', and sexual poses are rather different for men and women.
Just look at this for what I mean:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/spiderwoman

Well, the pose of Spiderman certainly isn't a sexual pose for men - so it's deliberately made ridiculous. And, with the focus on the genitals, it's more explicit than the original, so deliberately unfair. If anything, you're showing that it's the "feminist" stuff that's crazy.

Sorry but I am calling BS on this. Spiderwoman is on all fours with her buttcheeks spread. It is a sexual pose, and it is not crazy to point it out.

I'm calling BS on you calling BS

 

[Schpyder]

Frosty Grin[/url]":119mlf7q]That's not the case for Spiderwoman either. They're not making an erotic spin-off.

Do you have any idea who Milo Manara even is?

 

[grommit!]

Why the fuck are we discussing comic books in this thread?

viewtopic.php?p=27484123#p27484123

 

[papadage]

Because some people need to reach to post additional anti-SJW content, even if it is OT.

 

[Tijger]

thegrommit[/url]":1gcm6aki]

neffer[/url]":1gcm6aki]... incoherent nonsense ...

neffer[/url]":1gcm6aki]... more inchoherent nonsense ...

Reposting the same sort of shit you did on the front page is beyond the guidelines established for this thread.

viewtopic.php?p=27484123#p27484123

More than once, actually, its getting rather annoying.

 

[Tijger]

neffer[/url]":3r4hcbvh]

thegrommit[/url]":3r4hcbvh]

neffer[/url]":3r4hcbvh]
Fact is that "Jenn" as a mature adult should be held to the standard of common sense. A shit is in progress over corruption and misdealing in your in your industry. Your first move? Write an op ed from a deceptive angle, pretending to be a disinterested observer.... sorry it simply doesn't fly.

This ignores the fact that she DID put in the disclosure, only for guardian editorial to then remove it. But of course, it's still somehow her fault? And what's with putting her name in quotes? Are you implying she's a fictional construct now?

Rest of the nonsense has been reported for trolling. If you want to despoil the front page, that's fine, but the rules for this thread are well established.

Of course your side always resorts to threats when they lack substantive arguments. But thanks for exhibiting one the problems this gamergate issue has been about, your side always resorts to suppressing opposing opinion because you can't argue on the merits. Disagree with Anita Sarkeesian? Oh you are trolling, you are a misogynist. Its invalid reasoning and frankly we're tired of it. Its notable during all this volumes of evidence against your side acting in unethical and unprofessional ways has come up, and you just act like its nothing. Quite literally nothing is enough to get you to change your mind, and that is the problem, and why the resort is always to suppression, because there is no possible rational counter argument.

Jenns in quotes because the name always exposes the gender, and I have a hunch that has a significant effect on lowering the standards of integrity users like you hold people to when something like this happens. She's a big girl, and she should be judged by adult standards. She knew better than to write an op ed which was written to appear as work of a disinterested third party until you got to a foot note, if you ever saw it. Its deceptive by default, and in context of this scandal where people are in trouble for exactly this type of deceptive behavior, she should have known better. This isn't a third rate blogger site, its the guardian, and writers for the guardian can't be held to high standards, no one can.

His side? You mean normal men who dont feel threathened by Ms Sarkeesian and who dont feel the need to act like 13 yr old adolescents, well, count me, a 50 yr old long time gamer among that side then too, please, and rather proudly.

 

[Frosty Grin]

Schpyder[/url]":23d8pusj]

Frosty Grin[/url]":23d8pusj]That's not the case for Spiderwoman either. They're not making an erotic spin-off.

Do you have any idea who Milo Manara even is?

Oh, for fuck's sake...

Frosty Grin[/url]":23d8pusj]
The fact is that the cover was drawn by a renowned erotic artist. It is erotic, and intentionally so.

The point is that it's just a one-time cover - and not particularly explicit.

 

[papadage]

Tijger[/url]":1e53u32a]

neffer[/url]":1e53u32a]

thegrommit[/url]":1e53u32a]

neffer[/url]":1e53u32a]
Fact is that "Jenn" as a mature adult should be held to the standard of common sense. A shit is in progress over corruption and misdealing in your in your industry. Your first move? Write an op ed from a deceptive angle, pretending to be a disinterested observer.... sorry it simply doesn't fly.

This ignores the fact that she DID put in the disclosure, only for guardian editorial to then remove it. But of course, it's still somehow her fault? And what's with putting her name in quotes? Are you implying she's a fictional construct now?

Rest of the nonsense has been reported for trolling. If you want to despoil the front page, that's fine, but the rules for this thread are well established.

Of course your side always resorts to threats when they lack substantive arguments. But thanks for exhibiting one the problems this gamergate issue has been about, your side always resorts to suppressing opposing opinion because you can't argue on the merits. Disagree with Anita Sarkeesian? Oh you are trolling, you are a misogynist. Its invalid reasoning and frankly we're tired of it. Its notable during all this volumes of evidence against your side acting in unethical and unprofessional ways has come up, and you just act like its nothing. Quite literally nothing is enough to get you to change your mind, and that is the problem, and why the resort is always to suppression, because there is no possible rational counter argument.

Jenns in quotes because the name always exposes the gender, and I have a hunch that has a significant effect on lowering the standards of integrity users like you hold people to when something like this happens. She's a big girl, and she should be judged by adult standards. She knew better than to write an op ed which was written to appear as work of a disinterested third party until you got to a foot note, if you ever saw it. Its deceptive by default, and in context of this scandal where people are in trouble for exactly this type of deceptive behavior, she should have known better. This isn't a third rate blogger site, its the guardian, and writers for the guardian can't be held to high standards, no one can.

His side? You mean normal men who dont feel threathened by Ms Sarkeesian and who dont feel the need to act like 13 yr old adolescents, well, count me, a 50 yr old long time gamer among that side then too, please, and rather proudly.

Ditto. I don't feel the need to hole up in my fort if a woman makes her opinion known to me, and I don't support arguments by shitty human beings.

 

[grommit!]

Tijger[/url]":zmmzsnp5]
His side? You mean normal men who dont feel threathened by Ms Sarkeesian and who dont feel the need to act like 13 yr old adolescents, well, count me, a 50 yr old long time gamer among that side then too, please, and rather proudly.

Exactly. None of what she pointed out in the videos stopped me from playing Hitman Absolution, but I appreciated the points she was trying to make and why others might feel uncomfortable. That I didn't think it was a very good Hitman game is a different topic.

 

[gijames1225]

papadage[/url]":38szqiub]Because some people need to reach to post additional anti-SJW content, even if it is OT.

While it is off topic, I saw stuff on that pose show up on Kotaku and a few other gaming sites that are neck deep into the whoe sexism debate, so at least there's a slight precedence by gaming journalists to just bring in possible examples of sexism from geek / nerd culture at large. That said, this thread should probably reorient itself a little bit back to civility and gaming culture as it seems like it's gotten into a lot of name calling and accusations of misogyny or SJW at this point, neither of which is probably a fair evaluation of what I've seen in the last couple of pages.

 

[Schpyder]

Frosty Grin[/url]":1ld217ft]

Schpyder[/url]":1ld217ft]

Frosty Grin[/url]":1ld217ft]That's not the case for Spiderwoman either. They're not making an erotic spin-off.

Do you have any idea who Milo Manara even is?

Oh, for fuck's sake...

Frosty Grin[/url]":1ld217ft]
The fact is that the cover was drawn by a renowned erotic artist. It is erotic, and intentionally so.

The point is that it's just a one-time cover - and not particularly explicit.

Oh OK, I forgot that was you that posted that, and read that post (the one I quoted) as you saying the cover wasn't intentionally erotic, when it very clearly was. We're on the same page!

 

[SituationSoap]

neffer[/url]":1wfancao]Of course your side always resorts to threats when they lack substantive arguments.

This is pretty ironic for someone defending people who've issued death/rape threats to people to the point of forcing them to move from their homes and/or quit their jobs.

Projection is a hell of a drug.

 

[jxl]

neffer[/url]":2o7l35g1]word soup

I don't know what you are responding to, but it is not me.

If you're unhappy with the editorial decisions a publication made, why is it that you are calling out the author and not the editorial staff by name?

Also, the "professional victim" paintbrush is one I'd leave in my holster, unless you'd like someone to ask you to explain how you feel about MLK or Gandhi.

 

[Blacken00100]

jxl[/url]":3nijxxjx]explain how you feel about MLK or Gandhi.

MLK had a problem with white people* and I identify as a white people** so man fuck that guy if he was alive I'd so send him some death threats**.




* - he didn't; he had a problem with the white-dominated culture that made people like him into second-class citizens wait that sounds familiar

** - well, when not identifying as "a human", which I tend to go to first

*** - I wouldn't because I'm not a monster

 

[Eider]

bytegod[/url]":i87frv5n]

Eider[/url]":i87frv5n]

Frosty Grin[/url]":i87frv5n]

Camp Freddie[/url]":i87frv5n]Oh, and the anti-feminist stuff is crazy. For example, that spiderwoman cover was terrible art, adapted from an old erotic art piece. Spiderman does not use that pose in the supposed 'counterexample', and sexual poses are rather different for men and women.
Just look at this for what I mean:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/spiderwoman

Well, the pose of Spiderman certainly isn't a sexual pose for men - so it's deliberately made ridiculous. And, with the focus on the genitals, it's more explicit than the original, so deliberately unfair. If anything, you're showing that it's the "feminist" stuff that's crazy.

Sorry but I am calling BS on this. Spiderwoman is on all fours with her buttcheeks spread. It is a sexual pose, and it is not crazy to point it out.

Spiderman was doing that before it was cool. He's the original sexy.

Thank you for posting that. I admit my error.

Edit: I'll bring up one point though. It is easy to think that is supposed to be a very sexual pose since well, it kind of is, but it appears that it is well used Spiderman pose. So I will relent and admit my ignorance.

 

[gijames1225]

SituationSoap[/url]":2047266e]

neffer[/url]":2047266e]Of course your side always resorts to threats when they lack substantive arguments.

This is pretty ironic for someone defending people who've issued death/rape threats to people to the point of forcing them to move from their homes and/or quit their jobs.

Projection is a hell of a drug.

It is cetainly ironic, but if you've followed the discussions a lot of the articles on have caused both sides have generated a nice little number of threats, name calling, and people generally acting like petulant twelve year olds.

And dang it, that may actually be the best example that maybe gamer culture as a whole is pretty fucked when you're literally unable to find anybody who can discuss this topic and not just assume the other side (or worse, people in the middle who dare to have problems with both sides) are all psychopaths.

 

[SituationSoap]

gijames1225[/url]":33vfr9wl](or worse, people in the middle who dare to have problems with both sides)

There's no such thing as a middle side. That's ridiculous. The middle side says "Maybe the people who think women should only make babies and sandwiches actually have some good points".

Either women are actually human beings and deserve to be treated as such, or they're not. There's no "maybe" in there, and there's no "some of the time". Either they're human beings or they're not. The middle side is fundamentally misogynist because they're not convinced women are actually people.

 

[Huma_22]

The only thing missing from the huge gamergate images are zoomed-in insets of the all-seeing eye.

 

[papadage]

And breasts.

 

[Keen]

The all-seeing breast?

 

[Zastava]

Well thanks for that mental image.

 

[cf18]

SituationSoap[/url]":3qhrxufu]

gijames1225[/url]":3qhrxufu](or worse, people in the middle who dare to have problems with both sides)

There's no such thing as a middle side. That's ridiculous. The middle side says "Maybe the people who think women should only make babies and sandwiches actually have some good points".

:facepalm:
Ok just WTF is this bull shit? People complain about gaming forum censorship or if the censorship is to cover up those corruption accusations, are they also just "people who think women should only make babies and sandwiches"?

 

[papadage]

You mean the forum censorship to remove the repeated posting of personal information for harassment purposes?

Every little gripe is related to defending really shitty people.

 

[SituationSoap]

cf18[/url]":3fvddoe5]Ok just WTF is this bull shit? People complain about gaming forum censorship or if the censorship is to cover up those corruption accusations, are they also just "people who think women should only make babies and sandwiches"?

The corruption accusations which are actually just ever more thinly veiled attempts at attacking Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian?