Review = opinion,
quality = quite subjective in video games,
Sterling's reviews = reviews,
and as to Sterling's duty, how about we let the market decide?

Like all things in social sciences.

Good thing no one says that, particularly not Anita Sarkeesian. The secret's in the limitations of cultivation theory, which you have a dire need of reading up on. Because this is just about the strawman you repeat most, like you're really desperate that this claim is made by the people you don't understand.

That's a strawman: The call for diverse characters is an extension of creative freedom, not a limitation. The number of character types that are possible are infinitely extended. The stereotype is not 'prohibited', nor is e.g. a negatively portrayed female character.

http://schedule.gdconf.com/session/immoral-women-and-why-your-game-needs-more-of-them

That's a strawman: The call is to consume with consideration, not to stop consumption. Awareness is key.

That's a strawman: The call is to have more characters with average body proportions instead of removing any and all unrealistically proportioned characters from games. 'Diversity' evidently includes the unrealistic as well as the idealistic.

E.g. the FBI thinks otherwise.

Besides, the progression from hyper consumers feeling insulted by media criticism to gamergate could not be more obvious and has in fact been proposed by gamergate supporters many times. By anyone bringing up the perceived existence of 'gamers are dead' articles, for example.

Perceived insult --> acts of vengeance.

Same logic, same people.

2012, 2014, 2016.

She should be free from the criticism of imbeciles who neither understand sociology nor narratology nor ludology,
from imbeciles who call the tentative identification and mere proposal of prevalent stereotypes 'cherry picking',
from imbeciles who are calling these proposals "dishonest" and "lies",
from imbeciles who ask for "proof" in media i.e. soft sciences analysis,
from imbeciles who feel personally insulted and threatened by mere media analysis,
from imbeciles who, hence, detract from an actually informed critical analysis of her series,
and lastly, evidently, from imbeciles who attack and harass her.

So you're saying gaming should be free from the criticism of non-gamers?

I'm down for that, unless you decide to have a fair discussion regardless of education I'm game for that as well

Harassment is wrong but Criticism & disagreement is NOT Harassment & if she has the "right" to criticize something so should we all.

No, I essentially said Sarkeesian should be free from the criticism of the perpetually and purposefully uninformed, because they just detract from an actual critical discussion of the proposed tropes – best case scenario, by trying to dismiss the method of analysis ("child with the bathwater"), worst case scenario, by making ad hominem attacks on and even threatening the presenter.

And, no, I'm not having a discussion 'regardless of education'; it's been quite a few years for game enthusiasts to get informed about the topic they talk about, and one of the main strategies of gamergate - as was impressively shown by Shadowstalker just now - is to put the discussion back to version 0.1 again and again. There is no starting a discussion this far down. The lack of education is, in threads like this, quite systemic to uphold certain beliefs. As shown above, we have a huge pile of strawmen that I could challenge all day: Tomorrow, Shadowstalker will repeat them like nothing has ever happened.

Yes, absolutely, I demand your education in this matter.



But, sure, non-gamers have scarcely a thing to say about games and gaming fandom. Dismissing Sarkeesian from being a gamer, however, makes you one of the above mentioned imbeciles. Remember, the intricacies of game narratives are rather unlikely to be analysed by non-gamers in this kind of detail – it'd be like deciding to study literature without reading books much.

As a very first step, I'd rather stop accepting opinion from the people who actually and self professedly don't play games. The likes of Adam Baldwin, Milo Yiannopoulos, Christina Hoff Sommers, Mike Cernovich and many more. Basically anyone noncompliantgame would link to in a gamergate thread. Surely they have nothing sensible to say about gamergate, and they have all said that their gamer cred doesn't equal a dollar, but strangely gamergate allies don't have a need for gamer cred.

But, certainly, I agree that if e.g. non gamers who write rape instruction books stopped making gamergate websites... now THAT would be rad, son. Quite, quite rad.



/edit: Just got a really funny PM from someone who seems to think that going to a scientific congress as a layman and incessantly asking the most basic of questions, making imbecilic accusations and not listening to answers seems to be a good exercise of "free speech".

Journalists' duty is defined in all journalist's ethics codes because the word of the journalist is deemed to be more trustworthy and well researched than that of the common man. In law it is known as strict duty, where the person is held to a higher standard because of the nature of the subject they are dealing with or their own skills. Ie a common man isn't obligated to to save a drowning swimmer but a lifeguard is.

If people who render a specific skilled service are not limited by an ethics code, there is more loss to the consumerbase overall than what a free market can bring in good in return. If you think otherwise, then feel free to only get checkups from absolute free market doctors. Once a few people die, we can be sure they're not very good. Same with journalists.

Seems legit. There should be a free flow of ideas and discussion to weed out the incorrect ones. I don't have a problem with people saying there is a patriarchy or anything. But people who claim so without proof should not be given validity by journalists who exempt by omission.

The theory that says the longer a person spends in a fictional world, the more they believe they're in that world. I'd think that as long as the person playing the game / consuming the media in question is still living in a real world where they move and do real things, they're safe. Also, if cultivation theory is what you use to justify your theological belief that games cause sexism, wouldn't the brand of sexism be old school by the time the long term effects take effect on the media consumer?

I don't know if you know what a strawman is. If anything I'd say I wasn't being specific.

Then why was the ''transphobic'' joke not supplemented with normal-phobic jokes but removed outright in PoE? Why was the petting minigame removed? Why was R Mika's buttslap animation removed? No diversity here. Only the united opinion that if it touches your feelz, it don't need to exist. You call strawman and link the one article where someone opines that all should be included. Just pointing that out. Where was all that accepting mentality when the above cases happened?
And if you're aware that something you don't like is in there, you don't buy it. Why else are tags like ''gambling'', ''nudity'', ''intense violence'' there at all? They serve to inform, and the information is used to in the process of considering whether to buy the game. Let the free market decide, as you erroneously mis-spoke. And you suddnely decide what the ratings are there for.
Then explain the many instances of bodies being modified to look more realistic. Glad you see the light that fantasy needn't be realistic.
So nice of you to say. It would be even nicer of you to link. And again, what exactly does ''from gamergate'' mean? Anyone who used the hashtag? Anyone on KiA? Anyone on the blocklist?

''We don't need evidence; its obvious'' -Vaina, 2016
Gamers are dead is condemned because of collusion. I also feel you that most people give more heat than its due, but collusion is my main gripe with it. And even if it was vengeance because of insult (and I challenge you to actually do some work and link some proof of this vengeance for once), it would just bring GG down to the journo's level.

Proof or GTFO. Or please quote a gator saying SJWs doxxed the SPJAirplay participants and blaming that amorphous circlejerk of fascists that is gamerghazi.
So if the prime minister of your country is an economist, no non-economists shouldn't criticize her economic policy decisions?
Prevalent stereotypes without considering how wide of look she took into games. Tell me Vaina, out of how many samples of games did she point out these prevalent stereotypes? Or is it that she said something you hunched at and you use it as legitimacy for your argument? Did she look at mobile games? PSP games? Flash games?

Or are you just trusting her blindly because she agrees with you? If I ask Anita or you how many games have this ''problem'', can you give me a close to accurate answer?

Proposals can't be lies. They are not assertions.

I don't ask for proof in media. I ask for proof because you are claiming something as fact. If it ain't a fact, it ain't worth brigading and censoring major game devs over and should be left at the mercy of consumers on the (FREE) market. Because games are for everyone and no one should demand changes to original art without proof that it is harmful in some way.

And please define ''imbecile'' because you are using it as a defining word to rob people of their freedom to criticize a public figure.

Took the attempt to be no more tonal than you. Get what you put in I say.

Gamers should be free from the criticism of the perpetually and purposefully uninformed. Why didn't she even mention any of the capeless men's costumes & caped women's costumes in the batman game she showed. But I do agree that "intricacies of games" are lost on the "gameplay is bad" crowd.

Certainly I wouldn't turn to CHS for gametips but as a "factual feminist" (don't you say she isn't a feminist) I will listen for a "rational" inclusive POV. Isn't it a bit telling that "gators" likes to include rational people man or woman, in all shades of color or hobbies.

You talking about Roosh here? I'm not a big fan of him so unless I missed something.please let me know

I do that, no one basts an eye on me, but I am not trans, I am just a weird shitbag.

Also, I needed this clarification from you, because I have to ask, since you doubt the constant configuration of the human code to which changes in the first place for the preservation and existing on our entire species, apparently is useless for the ACTUAL identification of a body function to which many trans don't have it in the form they want, which is that they can't procreate except for the opposite sex of which they were assigned to be in the first place, two wrongs don't make a right (or in the case of girls, two X's don'ts make a Y) What are you exactly studying or what have you seen that led you to this beliefs? Logic dictatse we are inpeached this information to the formation of our logic, you seem to be jumping around the argument and going over the place within your own standards as to why Trans ARE, therefore they exist, to which I can recognize the point of the argument, but you are not really being concise, you are using flammatory examples to which lead to a neutral response really, so what has led you to believe this, in case of a study or "drinking the kool-aid"?

But you are problably playing devil's advocate for the sake of the debate, I don't know, I DO however you know that, and the information would help.

I remember a SJW burning a fucking stake that was to mourn on the deaths that the holocaust caused

Sarkesian is deeply uninformed about what she criticizes and I need to read that she should not be criticized because her critics are uninformed...

LOL

Welcome to WONDERLAND, I am not Asian, but living in Asia so many years I do feel like Asian, ergo I am Asian!!! ah! but RACE is a Non Political Correct term, so I should use ETHNITICY, but the problem is maybe in 10 years, ETHNITICY will also point some difference and it will be a very bad word, and we should use PSIPIPIPI, or PARAPOPOPI... then those ones will turn too in a bad word... until everything will be named EQUAL! oh! in the name of mandatory equalism... who the hell is SO SO SO afraid of the difference?

It is funny how much you people talk about BS about how we all feel inside, and you need to change the meaning of words because you are so so so afraid of the differences... to the point where FACTS should be bellow social constructs ... something you criticize to automatically build other social constructs... GOOD JOB xDDD

Good luck surviving in this Cosmos if your SODOSOPA way of life gets fucked up by any kind of crisis.

that's like me saying " Wanting to walk is the same as being able to, legs don't matter." It doesn't work that way

Note: I have Cerebral Palsy, Had it since birth. I have legs & they are not paralyzed ( have feeling in them but very limited mobility with them)

Here is something to consider:

To check for Cerebral Palsy, one can ask the person to perform a physical test. In your case, this would be a test of your leg's mobility, which you would have trouble with (in a way that an able-bodied person would not).

Chromosomes, however, can't be checked so easily; one actually has to extract the chromosomes in question and actually look at them. You can't safely assume that, for example, a person who is pregnant has no Y chromosome.

If you don't believe that last paragraph (or even if you are just curious), read this paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

Creationism also twist Science all the time to "match" their own believes, twisting the reality with words will only bring you to lose all we hardly fight for, rights included, because no one is going to take these things seriously anymore, and you are doing a very weak favor to people, transsexuals included.

I'm the exact opposite of mentioned tomboy daughter and I even got two long black skirts I like to wear occasionally and many women envy me for my incredibly long blonde hair. Most people don't care and if they do, I don't care about them, it's as simple as that.
Everybody gets strange looks for something.

Aren't we all? ;)

Refer to me as a Vorlon in the future then, I don't feel connected to humanity at all most of the time anyway.

Yup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgtd8ZsXzI
well, as long as it's for business, who cares?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaPbgNVuaEI

Because she was largely talking about game protagonists. That last video made a really good and relatable point once she compared female representation and male. And the fantastic Batman cape part was damn funny to boot, as it put Sarkeesian in creeper shoes. That smutty woman.

I don't even understand your tangent, so I'll reiterate. Sterling is a reviewer. He gets paid for his opinion. He is bound by his personal ethics code to not lie and to call out what he thinks is bullshit. He has an obligation towards the people who pay his bills, i.e. his patreon supporters. It is his journalistic duty to educate himself on the games, developers and proceedings he talks about and to visibly correct mistakes he has made. He does both, unlike a whole lot of perpetually uninformed, non gaming actual journalists who love to report on and put logs on the fires of gamergate.

We can be absolutely sure his reporting doesn't cause deaths due to neglect of journalistic principles.

You still don't get it. Social sciences. "Soft" sciences. Infinitely complex system to be investigated with our rather limited minds. The concept of "proof" has no meaning here. Proposal – theory – strengthening and weakening evidence. Going with the theory that best describes observed phenomena. Phenomena like the massively disproportionate distribution of power (say, female members of parliament – with the US at 19.4%).

If it's a theory, it's not proven, OK?

So stop using that word. Feminist theory isn't proven, and neither are matters of e.g. theoretical physics. That's why it's called a "theory". We're basing the science of satellite navigation on the theory of relativity. We're getting nice results, but that doesn't 'prove' the theory.

Newton's theory of gravity rendered nice results for hundreds of years, but that didn't prove it. With spacetime curvature, we can now predict occurring phenomena much more accurately. We can't prove that as well and may deal with a much more accurate theory in another hundred years, who knows? Of course, we won't be able to prove that one as well.

No, sir, that's convoluted. The theory asserts that [some] people are influenced by [whatever] media in such a way that the longer they consume such media, the more they think that the real world may actually reflect the world portrayed in the media. They don't mistake the fictional world for the real world. And the reaction to what you perceive to be 'real' is totally out in the open.

Let's say you go to Roosh V's website and read all that crap day in and day out.

Let's also say you're the consumer type, think you're not influenced by anything you don't want to be influenced by (except of course 'gay propaganda'), so you're probably pretty damn influenced by it. You could come back from that site thinking that all women are whores and are trying to gain some kind of exaggerated privilege because they refuse to be raped even though in reality, they really really want it.

However, you could e.g. ALSO come back from that site thinking that a large percentage of men think like Roosh V, hence the world is pretty damn fucked and overrun with uncontrollable, sex obsessed rapists that absolutely need to be put down, with guns if need be.

And there are plenty of other possibilities what people could take away here if they assume that this consumed media reflects, in one way or another, 'the truth'. That's something you need to understand about cultivation theory. It doesn't predict the kind of change in world view, and definitely doesn't predict some kind of resulting prejudice or even behavior.

Sorry, but that's another strawman, a pretty damn big one. I won't accept the false presupposition and will ask you again to educate yourself first. "Games cause sexism". Fuck me running. That's like the core gamergate strawman. Like version minus one hundred of the discussion. Not an entry point for anything, least of all debate.

No idea what the petting minigame refers to, but I sincerely don't see how a few gamer created lines of text that were deemed transmisogynistic and were therefore substituted with different content created by the very same user are held to the sun as the epitome of censorship following public outcry, while some other in my opinion unneccessary self censorship by a few Japanese developers (who couldn't ever be edgy anyway even if they really tried) is attributed to criticism that hasn't even taken place anywhere.

And then, of course, there are the many cases of sexualisation of minors that are removed from some Japanese games, which is then called 'censorship'. Sure, the cultural tolerance of western countries for creations that suggest that underage girls are pretty damn fuckable is rather low, I'll give you that.

Evidently to solve the problem at hand, we need a "boring story with sterotypical characters" tag. Oh, no, wait! We have plenty of brave journalists to warn you about that (those who put "their political opinion" in their reviews, evidently).

However, also consider the usual gamergate amnesia stuff – re. disappointing elements in the games we actually love, no way to vote with your wallet because you have no choice to make etc.

If one scale is filled to the brim, you take from that scale and pour it into the other. That's how balance is usually achieved.

To abuse that Sarkeesian suffered? No need. I'm a witness.

If you say 'I'm in gamergate because [evidently 'all'] journalists have insulted us [gamers]", gamergate is a revenge fantasy for you. There's a long line of coordinated gamergate attacks that are to be classified as exacting revenge, with Operation Disrespectful Nod probably being the most known one.

As to journalists 'exacting revenge', that is a spectacular claim. I don't think it can be backed up by much. Particularly not by articles proclaiming "gamers are dead", most of which only just describe the cultural identity suicide that gamergate indeed is, in my opinion.

Non economists are possibly less capable of criticizing her decisions, certainly. However, they may be able to contrast and critique drawing on principles of economy, about which they have educated themselves.

However, if the criticism focused on declaring economic principles defunct in order to devalue the entirety of the prime minister's work, we'd have the gamergate situation.

Dig out my long, long, long reply from somewhere in this thread.

Short version: The prevalence of a stereotype can not be defined by number of instances, that's a completely absurd idea. You'd probably agree that there's a funny sweaty clumsy fat man stereotype in movies, I guess, but I assure you that you'll never have supporting statistics to back up your claim – just a few chosen examples.

However, the more cultural reach the chosen examples have, the more certain we can be that the stereotype – as long as one recognizes it from personal experience – is prevalent. Judging by her examples and the fanbase outcry, she picks examples with quite an excellent cultural reach.

Though of course: we can not quantify that reach.

Oh come on. You can not as stupid as Klumpen. And that's his trademark bigotry, repeated just a few hours ago. Put your arguments under the same scrutiny first, then the arguments of the people you think on 'your side' in this thread.

Big surprises coming up. Subject predicate object is not "claiming something as fact", all right?

Ah well... I have a joke I want to make so I'll brave the downvotes and make a few points to Vaina as well. I will even avoid the more obvious ones on ethics and morals and stick to the boring stuff.

1 - on proof: your position is so post modern is hurts. The way you describe it the concept of proof is some kind of category error... if you're doing philosophy of science it's very well to go to the extreme position you are expressing, in the real world however (including theoretical physics) proof may not be perfect but it is also far from meaningless.

2 - on cultivation theory: I'm no expert but the way you describe it - it sounds like cultivation theory is just an expression of confirmation bias + taking the part for the whole?

3 - what is political about "boring" or "stereotypical"? The first is quite subjective I'll give you that, but stereotypes are something that's been studied quite well by the social sciences. The Hero Journey and all that jazz you are likely aware of... Jungian stuff in psychology as well. Far be it from me to argue the social sciences are completely valueless heh? ;)

4 - methodological question now. If the prevalence of a stereotype cannot be defined by the number of its instances (which seems to me an almost tautological affirmation) how the heck do you prove it? Oh right, you don't even believe in the concept of poof, hence a few examples suffice to determine truth value - not subjective opinion mind you, but the existence of a stereotype has just been affirmed based on anecdotal evidence. Mind blow... o_0

Yeah... much as you downplay them as throwing the baby out with the water, the methodological issues with the kind of critique that is so fashionable now go quite deep, to wrong (IMO) conceptions of truth. Rejection of objectivty for the win... NOT.

Here's the joke. And I apologize if it will offend dtgreene, whom I consider a fairly singleminded but earnest and honest advocate for transgender causes.


Rusty, although I see your point that the percentage of being right when assigning a specific gender or chromosomal expression to a pregnant individual is very high, with low risk, and therefore high safety of making a correct judgement - maybe you should consider that the intended meaning is:

"You can't assume a pregnant person has no Y chromosome. If you do you are transphobic. That is offensive and therefore abusive. So if you do assume so you are compromising my safety. It's not safe for me despite being 99.99% a sure thing."

;)

Again - I don't actually think dtgreene intended it like that - they likely wanted to say absolutely and used safely instead.