They had time for the recent forum upgrade bullshit, but not to fix that bug. Then again, this is the site that had the forum go unusable when people started embedding redirect scripts in the titles, so...

My main point here was that Sommers' isn't the voice of reason or even science in this debate. She is pouring fuel in the fire. Be it via clear personal attacks or by interpreting a critique of details in some games as a death wish to the entire industry. I do not understand how this can be called "scientific" or "reasoned".

Of course not. She's diverting attention away, euphemizing insults and threats to mean reasoned critique. She's clearly downplaying the number of actual threats made, no doubt about that. The most embarrassing part is of course the whole "if it indeed was gamers" stuff. I'm sure all those profanities, insults and threats were rather made by... oh, I don't know. Who's the next best culprit these days? Oh, I know. Social Justice Warriors.

A lot of assumptions here. First, I wasn't claiming to make a scientific argument. I was claiming that Sommers doesn't make one. Second, first hand experience certainly is "as unscientific as you can get", no doubt about that. It lacks all that critical distance and stuff. But it still is part of "sensible discourse", very much so. If you wish to exclude witnesses of the actual problem from the debate claiming they're biased, I guess you'd have to exclude everyone who is even interested in the medium. In that case, only Sommers would remain.

Sommers quotes popular meta analysis with a cool title that undoubtedly had its striking points, but by its very nature lacked any kind of experimental research. The limitations of that review paper are obvious: best case scenario, previous research that tried to show a correlation between video games and propensity to violence is convincingly shown to be insufficient. "Nice try, better luck next time". Nothing proven, nothing disproven, nothing solved, nothing settled, just a better basis for future research.

For Sommers, the result of that paper was that "concerns died down" regarding that supposed correlation. Really, the concerns about video games causing violence have "died down"? The debate has been settled four years ago? No one in his or her right mind would still try to prove or insinuate that such a correlation might exist? Not sure in what world Sommers lives, but it sure isn't our world. And it is, least of all, the United States of America.

So what is essentially happening here is that Sommers takes a single four year old mere review of some former actual studies about video games' alleged influence on violent tendencies and brings it forward as an argument that sexist attitudes could not be reinforced by sexist tropes in games. Weird science, I'd say.

First, Sommers makes it look like the problem is that blame is shifted to developers and gamers for "being sexist". That's totally off topic. The question is "are video games sexist".

Second, whether a product that actually caters to "different needs and desires" contains sexist material depends on those needs and desires. The argumentative structure here can not be "men want it, developers render it, so it can't be sexist". I think that this is the argument Sommers makes.

Third, I am convinced that the tendencies we saw in video games these last 30 years don't have much to do with catering to a certain factually existant audience and its "needs and desires" and more with a frankly derogatory fantasy some marketing people have about their male target group.

That is so much of a reach that I can not comment too sensibly on it. So adding is good, but "women and groups" are trying to add too much or take too much away so that video games would only display the "ideology" of perfect equality, for which developers and journalists are "schooled" or... nope, sorry, I'm seriously not seeing any sense whatsoever in that fantasy.

This whole idea that there are strong powers at work to change video games according to some agenda, that's conspiracy nonsense. Where is that feminist army? In two women who weren't afraid to raise their fingers while actually showing an interest in the medium, or in a handful of journalists who decided to not partake in personal harrassment? In a few journalists or developers who even thought some of those ideas were not totally off the mark? In a few journalists or developers who were disappointed in the reaction to those raised fingers? That is the army that takes over video games?

At the end of the day, a few overly long youtube videos change shit in video games, and the actually vast marketing army won't let their grip be loosened, not even the slightest bit. And that, of course, is a bad thing.

It kinda sounds like you believe either:
1) women can't dress provocatively (objectively), therefore the provocation is solely in the eyes of the beholder, therefore jefequeso is somehow morally guilty of something. Even accepting the first two premises, I'm not sure how you got to rape.
2) women lack agency, so they may dress provocatively, but it's a choice they make under coercion, or without free will somehow. Even accepting the premises, I would suggest you find some other way to describe this. Rape is kinda extreme in comparison.

Do you actually have anything of substance to say here or are you just going to repost the same tired feminist rhetoric that didn't hold water to begin with?

Hi babark,

You are implying games do something. This perpetuation, if games contribute to it, then without games (or different games) it would be lesser right? So I don't see how you can say you are not implying it... I mean if sexist and degrading games don't cause an increase in sexism and degradation, then what exactly is your goal of changing games? Do you see how someone can look at this type of argument and assume it's all about power, and nothing ethical about it?

Anyway, if someone disagrees on this causal mechanism however, then this reason to change games is not going to be efficient argument, and even considered invalid.

Really we have to ask is online hacking and threats a problem with "gamers" or a problem with the nature of the internet and the anonymity it can give people? Well let's take a look shall we?

on twitter
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

on Facebook
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/justice/rebecca-sedwick-bullying-death-arrests/

I think it's safe to say harassment is a problem that goes far beyond the scope of "gamers". I have this wild notion that harassment is a problem with all humans that can be instigated by anyone of any ethnicity, sex, intelligence who has an axe to grind. I would hazard against saying a group of people need to be "taught a lesson" for the actions of a few misguided individuals. If someone can point to a legitimate comprehensive study showing "gamers" are more prone to harassing people I will acknowledge an issue.

I would also like to emphasize that we need a more specific definition of harassment. When I play competitively online I get called all sorts of names in free chat by the opposing side sometimes on my own team. These things range from "your cheating" to "your (insert name of sexual organ here)" and that's not even knowing what my sex is. To me harassment is when a troll starts following you on other mediums making threats or literally bugging you mid game catcalling or belittling you during the game for being a certain sex.

Vainamoinen, please stop using the word "sexist" wrongly. Sexism is the act of discrimination based on someone's gender. How are video games supposed to do that? The tropes might be silly, immature or pandering, but if that's the worst you can say about a video game, then there really isn't much to talk about, is there? Or would you say that a movie like Twilight is sexist against men?

I really find it hard to believe that anyone would fall for this SJW trap and actually believe these people are trying to accomplish something good. They are trying to hijack the medium, to redefine what games are and then profit off it. Just look at the insane praise Gone Home received and how every game journalist and their mother screamed like a banshee when people dared to tag it with "not a game" on Steam. What's wrong with something not being a game? After all, Steam sell other non-game software as well? Gone Home is a flagship title for the SJWs and what they want games to be redefined into, while all the actual games are to regarded as garbage.

The perpetuation of something is not an increase. It is more of the same. If a person with understanding and awareness of what is sexist and degrading plays the game, they won't suddenly become sexist.
If a person doesn't have an understanding or awareness of it, they will look at it as more of the same, and nothing wrong.

Thus, nobody is saying "This game causes an increase in sexism", it just perpetuates the sexism that already exists.
Nobody is saying "You are sexist for playing this game", just that the normalisation of those actions and tropes in those games perpetuates and continues sexism and degradation of women in general.

Dude, I don't think perpetuates means what you think it means... ;)

If games contribute to maintain a level of X that would be lower otherwise (perpetuating X), then games are increasing X.
If they don't then why change them? Do you really want to argue games can reduce X, but they can't increase it?

You clearly believe games can reduce sexism, so implying (not explicitly saying, but implying) that they increase it. That's kinda what perpetuates means: without games sexism would not continue, it would die out, it would not remain as is, ergo not perpetuate.

If a person only has access to one slice of bread a day, would you say that slice of bread causes hunger?

I was about to post that video games cannot hold propositional attitudes, therefore a game can be no more sexist than my chair can be racist ;P.
It's a tough spot to be in. It's like that Taboo game: he needs to say these things without using the words "patriarchy", "misogyny", and "privilege".
Making positive claims is also out of the picture, since they'd get thrown out the window immediately - either as outright wrong, or highly debatable at worst.

As far as I can guess, he's experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance right now. He can't claim that games outright CAUSE sexism, more of it, in the world. That would be Jack Thompson all over again. On the other hand - he can't accept that they LOWER sexism, because that would ruin the point he's trying to make. The only way out is to claim that they keep it even... Sexist people play "sexist" games and come out sexist... Non-sexist people play them and don't come out sexist. In other words - people DON'T CHANGE their minds. He can't explicitly say "they have no effect", because that would be admitting defeat, therefore he needs to take the middle road and play with words until they fall apart.
Of course - claiming that non-sexist people can become sexist SIMPLY by playing video games would be ideal, except that people who play video games can't make that claim, since they'd have to admit to being sexist themselves. Saying that violent people will seek out violent games and become more violent, then engage in real-life violence is not really blaming "violent" games but psychos... Oops, sorry! Wrong argument ;D! Change that to "sexist people", "sexist games", etc. Feels like we've been here before...

I don't get the comparison... If it helps, I'm not the one saying bakeries or capitalism perpetuate hunger...

"If games contribute to maintain a level of X that would be lower otherwise (perpetuating X), then games are increasing X". Replace 'games' with slices of bread, and X with hunger. Do you get the comparison now? I was simply illustrating how the logic of your statement doesn't follow. Something perpetuating something is not the same as it increasing it or causing it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 2 different words for it.

If bread contributes to maintain level of hunger high (it would be lower otherwise - it's perpetuating hunger), then bread increases hunger.

There, replaced. The premise is wrong as bread lowers hunger rather than increase it, but the if then logic is valid...

Have you heard about synonyms? I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make... I'm off to sleep, could be I'm too tired.

Let me put this here. Some people find this hand to grasp, but the underlying principle makes sense to me. Protip: it works for "sexism" too.