hahha - perfect

Needs more metal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xugTdAwhUAY

Ok, since this may feel personal let me preface by saying I am replying again out of respect, since I believe you would prefer me to. And I am constantly curious about the rationalizations for these approaches, which you seem at least capable of answering - so let's see if you are another Browder, or you will actually answer me.

Group A wants to change the world, group B does not.
Individual A is trying to have conversations about this topic, individual B is not interested.
Individual B is capable but unwilling to explain his attitude.
What exactly brings about a should at this point?

Because you clearly expect individual B to justify his work (himself), and to me this does not follow. It's intolerant.

Social justice, oppression, sexism, discrimination and prejudice are not black and white terms, which apply to everything in a Yes/No binary.
Even in murder or rape cases the questions of intent, passive cooperation, etc... are grey areas. Even in war topics of collateral damage are hugely problematic.
Such lines are drawn, arbitrarily, so that society can function, and to me that's acceptable because these are high stakes situations.
But why does that approach apply to sexism in media? To such ingrained cultural attitudes and differences, which may even be impossible to modify to a large extent (nature vs nurture)? Where is the harm you are preventing by such forceful approaches? It should be, it must be, it will be ... or else.

Expressions such as moral panic, witch hunt, censorship, purity tests come to mind. In my opinion, many of the folks in Group A would deny this as hyperbolic, but they are mostly in denial.
Because to me, if you want to be an agent of change, your responsibility becomes higher than the passive individual. You do not get a free pass to certain approaches because you feel validated in the purity of you goal.

So, I believe you are not in denial. You are a lucid, rational, direct, honest communicator, and quite self aware.
To again take some of the sting of what I am implying about you, those leadership qualities are precisely why I engaged you :)
Why are so many in Group A taking this "with us or against us" radicalism?
Is coercion the best means of bringing about cultural change?
Are you even able to come out and criticize directly someone in your group? Or do you usually remain silent, passive, neutral when you see something which to you is not black, just a bit grey :) (is social conformity biological or culturally learned psy?)

To me, this is another of those situations where power corrupts. The disempowered became empowered and decided the world should change faster. Or that they deserve some reparation. The pendulum swung, and several oppresive attitudes they suffered are now being dished out on neutral parties, the line has been crossed already. But hey, what's collateral damage in a cultural crusade right? Deus Vult becomes Vagina Vult.

It is impossible to forcefully correct misogyny without being misandric.
Just like it is impossible to forcefully correct racism without being racist. Anyone who does not see the unfairness in something like affirmative action is in denial. But this kind of approaches are being extended to the sexual arena. Hmmm... I guess because it worked so well to reduce racial animosity... :p
Why try to force it at all? What is the quantifiable tragedy that is being prevented?

Now, imo, at this point (at any point) you should have the right to "disrespect" me. :) If you are unwilling to have this discussion, you should be free to ignore and dismiss me. You are even free to ridicule me. If you actually slander me... well that I don't have formed opinion. Slander and calumny is another of those very tricky topics for a libertarian/classical liberal philosophy.

But you are saying that in such cultural, social, political conversations you now have some kind of duty to respond, to explain and clarify your position. You really don't, which is why if you do, I will appreciate it, rather than taking it for granted. As it should be imo - a positive liberating approach, rather and a coercive negative one.

PS: Can I kindly suggest not fragmenting and breaking up my post if you reply? I think it would be easier for you to address my main point (I bolded for emphasis) rather than the several rhetorical tangents.

'Sad. Tears-welling-in-my-eyes-as-I-type-this sad. One of my greatest fears on this Earth is that I might someday sink to that level of cynical jadedness. I worry about it every day.'

Wow, a fully-grown adult male who spends his days sad and crying that there's sexualized depictions of women in video games.

That day will be a sad day indeed. I play video games as a form of escapism - as most people with hobbies do. One of the things I'm happy to escape is the constant stream of "politically correct" BS that gets imposed on us every day. I don't care if a game is sexist or whatever - it's not real life and they aren't real people.

It's bad enough when people get preachy in real life.

Can't think of many things more patronizing than being lectured on issues like this by either game developers or journalists.

Edit: Forget it, couldn't make myself clear and it wasn't worth it anyway.

Not really, actually. It looked like a potentially interesting conversation at the start, but the more it progresses, the more I doubt that anyone (you, me, potential readers - though I kind of doubt that anyone would be willing to wade through our walls of text without being directly involved) will be able to gain much from it. I'll still try to answer the questions that you raise, of course - even though your tone has become a bit derogatory now (for example by dismissing an entire set of arguments as "rationalizations"), which I don't appreciate.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. It's like asking me "Why shouldn't we someone run around punching people in the face?". I can try to answer on a philosophical level, but I still wonder why anybody would feel the need to ask that question in the first place.

To answer the question: It depends. On a general level, I believe (as I already said) that questions ought to be either answered, or at least warrant an explanation why no answer is given. Once statements are in the open, they can be discussed, understood, questioned, agreed to, rebuffed, tested, engaged, they can convince others or maybe the speaker himself can be convinced to change his opinion. I believe this to be a fundamental (and ultimately beneficial) principle of human interaction and communication. No one of us knows absolute truths, no one of us is always right, and so it is our obligation to explain our own opinions and beliefs (if asked to) so that they may convince others or so that others may point out flaws in them.

However, I don't find this general perspective to be terribly useful when evaluating specific bits of conversation, as each situation is influenced by lots of other factors. Should someone be able to engage in a discussion on sexism while he/she is in physical or psychological pain? Of course not, there are more fundamental needs to address in such a situation. Should a spokesperson for a game that is distributed into millions of households be able to formulate a non-evasive stance about a topic that does concern a substantial amount of people, when asked for one by an interviewer in an official interview? Most definitely so.

I do not see a "forceful approach" in asking an official spokesperson a question about his product, and expecting a meaningful answer.

On a general level (again, I do not think that it is conducive or fruitful to take this discussion to these levels of generality, but since that seems to be what you want, I'll follow), the "harm" that is caused by not opening one's opinions and statements to scrutiny is that it increases the chance that ill-founded beliefs are kept, and decreases the chance that well-founded beliefs are spread.

I don't believe that the "with or against us" mentality is limited to any particular group. Rather, it's a logical development in any heated conflict, as all involved groups tend to close ranks by not accepting middle-of-the-road approaches or differing opinions on details. I can see the usefulness of a "with or against us" approach in life-or-death situations, but I generally find it ill-placed in an environment where the free competition of ideas is feasible.

Coercion is never a good solution when the same goal can be reached by other means. However, again, I don't see any coercion going on in the matter at hand. Especially since the members of your proposed "group A", who you seem to associate with coercive methods, lack the power to actually coerce anyone into anything.

I'm appalled that you ask me this question, in this condescending tone ("are you _even_ able") right after me telling you that I "usually speak my mind" in exactly such situations. This gives me the impression that you did not actually read what I wrote. I don't know how to make it more clear. Well, perhaps with another personal bit: I have lost friends, on more than one occasion, because I voiced my own opinion when they expected me to stay loyal to them and "the cause" as they perceived it.

My thoughts about human interaction, and the value of the exchange of ideas, within a group, are no different from my thoughts about the same things between groups. I never found a convincing reason why they should be. The same reasons that make me propagate a free exchange of ideas and opinions between groups, also make me propagate a free exchange of ideas and opinions within a group.

I am not aware of any particular question from you that I haven't addressed. If there is one, the by all means feel free to ask it again. However, as said before, I have the feeling that I'm only understanding about 50% of what you write (the rate may have dropped after your last post), and for the most part I do not see the relevance of the questions that you ask. For the most part, it seems to me that you are entangled in very theoretical and aloof thought processes that seem quite detached from the matter at hand (or from any matter with practical relevance). I can operate on that level, but I don't see the benefit of going to that level for the discussion at hand.

I don't know, but some people, when they look at a game or a movie, the first thing they think of is not "is it fun?", but Is it offensive?

Seriously, they analyze everything from a perspective that "this might be offensive", as the first thing that comes to mind.

this girl speaks the words of wisdom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N6yMvsZLa8

"In my life, sexism I hear more about than I see" - TRUTH

On the topic of people with agendas bringing politics into video games: http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=582

Take a look at the attached image of the X-men drawn by Jim Lee. Now look at the first two images used in the article. Is:

"We’re not sending a message to anybody. We’re just making characters who look cool. Our sensibilities are more comic book than anything else. That’s sort of where we’re at."

so far-fetched and evasive? Both sexes are very often portrayed in comic books wearing skintight outfights with exaggerated athleticism and sexuality. Why does he owe feminists or anyone else an "answer" or explanation for *their* problem with his company's artistic choices?

"But I’ll take the feedback. I think it’s very fair feedback."

Is this really anything more than a polite attempt to decline debating a hot-button issue after being blindsided by the feminidiot interviewer during an otherwise cordial interview?

Would you want to be put on the spot and demanded to an answer a controversial and unexpected question on record without preparation?

Barely, THIS IS METAL!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TrFwFs11Jo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufLs1J8TNYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL2uFRKNYsE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKZoq9ek-aE

P. cool
Reminds me of the Fear Factory stuff I used to listen to years back

Ah, that's not at all what I was trying to get at.

I don't mind these discussions. What I do mind is getting talked down to by people who have no business doing so. Which is why I hate so much of the gaming culture.

I'm not a wise man. I am, however, not an idiot either, which means that the opinions of the RPS guys on sexism or of the Bioware developers on morality are of no use to me. It's one thing to discuss matters on a message board or offline with friends, where you're not necessarily claiming to be well informed about the topics you're talking about, but if you're releasing a video game or publishing a web article that expresses a certain opinion about a certain topic, there has to be the assumption that you have something worthwhile to tell at least part of your audience that they weren't aware of before. And this is where shit starts to fall apart in gaming culture.

Or, to put it another way, realizing that one of the most popular video games is about a little plumber jumping on turtles wouldn't make most of the uninitiated think of gaming as a hobby for immature idiots. However, reading a review by a gaming journalist about one of the GTA titles, in which he expresses his thoughts on modern society, or indeed the thoughts expressed by the GTA developers themselves, very well might.

Stop giving them attention, and if you really have to, don't link to their site. Either quote article or pastebin it so they won't get any clicks.