Feminism Vs Gamer Gate

Ok, let me explain myself from my previous post, since it was too short, due to not wanting to go into too much detail.

It is true, and I agree, that there are much more female sexualized characters than males.

However, I really want to stress that a "female character" does not equate a "woman" or a "female player" in real life. As Cruz stated, at the end of the day, that is a fictional chatacter (be it male or female) which exists within the boundaries of whoever developed that wold.

Another important fact is that, the most "popular" or the most "advertised" game are games whose target market are male players, be it good or bad, that cannot be changed and it has been proven that "sex" sells, so it is not something you can really "enforce" or "control" as you would measure water for example.

As Rbz pointed out, not every game is like TERA, but then again, what I was referring was that both characters get "equally sezualized" not in quantity but in quality (absurdly sexualized), I have to admit I poorly selected my words, I do apologize for that.

Another point to take into account is, generally, female players do not play RPGs, Fighting or similar games. Does this mean no female player play those games? Hell no! Does this mean it is justified? Hell no! However, this neither means developers must be "forced" to change the way they decided (for whatever reason, maybe was even the Company enforcing it) their character designs, much less when they have a target market, say male players, that will feel more compelled to buy it.

Not sure how many videos from TL;DR have you seen Rbz, but in one of those he linked a study (2 or 3 years old IIRC) in which it is catalogued the "preferred" type of games for males and females. Unsurprinsingly, males focused on some, whereas females did on others. So, genders seem to have "default preferred" type of games, which is not bad nor good, just different tastes.

I am not going to quote what TL;DR quote from the paper, but an overview is, male players tend to look for competitive, conflictive, violent type of games, say RPG, RTS, Fighting, etc games, whereas female players tend to look at problem solving, task completion, narrative, type of games, say Graphical Adventures, Puzzle Games, etc. Again, I want to make clear this does not apply to the 100% of male and female players.

Knowing this, which I guess (maybe I am guessing too much here) is known by developers when they develop a fighting game, they are going to target mainly male players, so characters, specially female characters, are going to be sexualized. However, if we look at the other extreme, say Solitaire or Bejeweled, those do not rely characters to be played, or if they do, they tend to be something non-human or, at least, not sexualized characters, why? Because IMHO they are not targeted at male players (I am not sure if they are targeted at female players either).

I do apologize if my previous post seemed short sighted, I just wanted to avoid this. :S

Anecdote: In the 2014 Conference in Malta University (I did not attend but my coworker did) a research was carried about how players identify themselves with the avatar they are presented and if that boost their performance. Surprinsingly, men felt empowered when they were playing as an "Alien" (not a traditional Alien from the movies) Avatar and the researchers note an increase in performance, whereas for women was not the case. Again, this was conducted over Virtual Reality and no at all men overperformed and some women overperformed too.

What I try to say with this anecdote is that male characters get sexualized, probably, not because of female players (which might be the case), but because of male players too.

Now I am wondering something, what makes female characterters sexualization a big deal? I am NOT trying to dismiss the concern, I am genuinely asking. Personally, I do not get upset if I see a sexualized male character, even I find some attractive and apelling. I understand that there are much more female sexualized characters than males, but then again, originally games were targeted for male players, and despite there are a similar amounts of both gender players, males still dominate those games in which characters are sexualized.

>being tolerant of people's views and opinions that oppose mine means I'm fine with murder
Okay, because that conclusion makes total sense. Heard it here first folks, advocating freedom of speech means I think murder is a-okay! I'm probably also advocating racial profiling and sexism too!


Maybe...just maybe I was talking about people making blacklist, or trying to stop any discussion from taking place. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to listen to a certain viewpoint or partake in a certain discussion, but there's a fair amount of people on multiple sides wanting to completely shut down someone else.

Go ahead and play moral and thought police though.

Just to be clear about how I'm approaching this discussion, I despise modern feminism. You seem to think I'm arguing the feminist viewpoint.



Awkward way of wording that as you're talking about me, rather than at me, in a response to me. But I suspected as much that was what you meant and waited to let you clarify your position. To respond to that I will say that "quality" is not pertinent. The statistical trend is what matters in this discussion. That is,






This is one comment of yours that makes it seem as if you're not talking to me, as it has nothing to do with anything I ever said.



Again, you're talking past me, not at me. I literally condensed everything that was just quoted from you into two sentences:



Later followed by my evaluation of that fact:







What isn't justified? It's not clear what you're declaring unjustified here.



Every one in his feminism playlist. They were good entertainment. I vidya while listening to long youtube videos.



The point was that women tend to play games that aren't focused on having a protagonist, which is why they're exposed to less sexualization.



Fair enough, I'm not saying everything I could on this matter either. I once wrote a great text wall of china essay on why sexualization in video games will never go away so long as human nature remains as is, so I know the amount of detail I'm leaving out of my posts for the sake of a modicum of brevity.



Again, I can't tell if you're actually directing this at me, as I couldn't give a fuck about the sexualization of any gender. But according to dipshit feminists, they think it degrades all women when a man "objectifies" a woman. You know, sees her as a sex object. Then they go on about the "male gaze" and whine some more about their stupid interpretation of reality. Unlike you, I'm very willing to dismiss this concern. Fact is, every straight man who sees an attractive woman is looking at her as a sex object; it's instinct. Sexualization in video games is just an extension of the human propensity to sexualize those they are attracted to in real life. Pornography is just an extreme form of sexualization. If porn isn't "a big deal" to these people then I don't see why sexualization in video games should be either.

---

>Can't into reading comprehension

It was an example to demonstrate the silliness of the line of thought I quoted from you. Nothing unflattering was implied about you personally.

Incidentally, I wanted to bring up Hitler, but he wouldn't return my call as he was too busy being summoned elsewhere. Fucker's always busy. You should hear how he argues with himself about this Godwin fella.


Take a chizzle pizzle and listenizzle. I don't care why you wrote that pointless platitude, but being the pedantic cock that I am, I couldn't help but demonstrate the simple minded lack of nuance in that thinking. Again, I don't care what you were talking about when you said what I quoted, thus I quoted only the part to be addressed.

If anything, I blame myself for bringing it up in the first place. This is why I stay away from SD. The path to insanity is just a few clicks away.

Also, when the fuck did greentexting becoming a thing here? I remember the good old days when I had to manually sexify my language.

Sorry Rbz, my previous post was not directed at you, was just an explanation of my previous poorly worded post. :(

My bad for not clearing that up in the post.

>can't into reading comprehension
Yeah except bringing up an unrelated crime isn't actually picking apart the argument.
You're practically committing a slippery slope fallacy.(with a bit of strawman thrown in there, because why the fuck not? Might as well go full SJW!)

Also
>It's the context, the "why" that matters
>I don't care why you wrote that pointless platitude
Yeah, okay. I hear you loud and clear.

[edit]
>greentexting
It's called quoting.

More dense than a black hole. Let's go over this nice and slow.

You wrote: "Intolerance for the intolerant is still intolerant." This is a saying like "an eye for an eye makes the world blind," or, as Socrates once said, "move bitch, get out the way." A platitude trying to express some kind of philosophical idea. You then started going on about implying implications and how strawmen ride the slippery slope into your expectant buttocks as if I gave a shit about anything you said regarding gamergate. What I wanted for you to do was to separate that statement from the general thrust of your post, because I wasn't responding to, nor judging anything else you said. Taking the statement by itself, I was remarking on how fatuous a sentiment that the statement advocated was, then explained why with 'it's the context, the "why" that matters . . .' which you took out of context to contrive some gotcha moment. Oh, the ironing. I then concluded with an example of the statement's philosophy in practice (to demonstrate its absurd logical conclusions) with some contrived bullshit that, once again, had nothing to do with anything you said. Since you're hot for SJWs, let's concoct a satirical example with them:



House Nigger: I'll [reprehensible behavior] all ya'll cracka ass crackas.
Whitey: Das raciss, bruh. I won't stand for that.
SJW:
>2015
>Not tolerating intolerance
>Not checking your privilege
>Muh safe spaces

Thus, being intolerant of intolerance isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor hypocritical. Regarding gamergate, I did not disagree with anything you said in your initial post. Imagine a bobblehead. For the brief moment I read your post, that was me.


>>greentexting
>It's called quoting.
My bad. That button I pressed to "quote" you must have been reprogrammed for targeted shitposting. The more I know.

An eye for an eye is not an adequate comparison. I know you were just picking at something I said. I do that all the time, but I just don't agree with your criticism. Principles on Crime and law is fundamentally different from one's view on freedom of expression or belief. There is no logical way to take the statement itself and come to the conclusion that being for freedom of speech means you're okay with hate crimes. Your new example can kinda just be construed as a death threat, again fundamentally different.
If someone said a slew of profanities about my race/ethnicity/identity/whatever, of course I can disagree, ignore, or tell them to fuck off. Maybe you're mistaking disagreeing as intolerance? Assuming you meant to write it in a way where it's not a death threat, would you have that "House Nigger" in your example be hauled of to jail?

>shitposting
It's always been a way to quote people. Just because /b/ or other places use it for greentexting stories doesn't mean it wasn't meant to quote people.

But it is, in the sense that it and "intolerance for the intolerant is still intolerant" are both statements expressing some sort of value. When you read the eye for an eye statement you understand it has no relevance to anything you said in your post. It's just something people say when they want to express a value in a pithy manner. "Intolerance for the intolerant . . ." is also such a statement, which can be used in countless contexts that have nothing to do with anything you said. The early bird catches the worm. With great power comes great responsibility. No man is an island. Et cetera. What I did was examine the statement by itself, devoid of the context it was used in.


It isn't logical, and that's because I wasn't talking about any of that, as explained above. I'll use what you just wrote to demonstrate my point about that philosophical statement I outed: rejection of hate crime and the unwillingness to allow it to occur unchallenged is intolerance of intolerance, which in this case, is a good thing, I would think.


Not disagreement in and of itself, but if you go out of your way to prevent yourself from being exposed to such a bigot, then you're exhibiting intolerance of they who are themselves intolerant, which, again, isn't a bad thing in this case.


Nothing so extreme. Intolerance of his bigotry can be as simple as being censured and shamed by the rest of the community. BTW, it was inspired by a real world example (exaggerated for comedic effect). SJWs have convinced themselves that bigotry against whites and men is not bigotry.

Shit, if I ever go full SJW, then believe you me, I'll be the first in line to kill me.


Oh, I'm well aware of how it's used on 4chan, but I was seriously wondering when it became a thing on fakku, because all of a sudden my text
>hulks the fuck up.

Also, I'm loving your ava. Palutena is fucking thick, just the way I like 'em. Reminiscent of this artist. My ava is basically a reaction image.

Apparently Gamergate is going to take over Mars if we don't act fast.