Quote from: Alzrius;919147You're making presumptions, with no data to back them up, to try and invalidate the results of data that doesn't match what you believe. I would strongly advise against doing this, as it's the hallmark of the "feelz not realz" argument that is held as typifying SJWs.

I won't say that the point you've raised isn't an interesting one, but given that we have no data (let alone reliable data) on it, I would recommend sticking with the reliable information that we do have, rather than holding forth with conjecture.



First of all, that's only worse when you limit it to women in the 18-24 age category. As the study notes, when you look at all ages, men are the ones who are harassed more often. Second of all, the data says how much women are harassed in gaming environments (I'm not sure what you mean by "closed"): 11%, which is almost half of the 21% of men who experience harassment in such environments.



I don't believe that to be the case. You seem to be selectively interpreting the data via unsubstantiated presumptions regarding "out" handles in online gaming (which, I should note, seems to be limited to usernames and other textual input only, as opposed to voice-chatting where that would be much harder). You're also limiting your viewpoint to one age segment rather than the whole female population online, the latter of which I think is more salient. Finally, you're presuming that undefined "closed" environments are worse, despite that fact that we have a clear breakdown of the harassment that goes on in online gaming.

As such, the data doesn't seem to reinforce your position if you take away those presumptions and look solely at the information that's presented in the report.

Well okay, I think you and I can have an adult conversation about this.

Can we agree that while the report is useful, the Pew data is nonetheless very limited in general, but especially so when it comes to online gaming harassment?

Can we agree that harassment is more readily inflicted when the harasser has anonymity? (Not to say that it is worse, I think the Pew report indicates that some "overt" stuff can be brutally scary and damaging).

Do we disagree that young women are disproportionately harassed when they are "open" in online gaming environments? Maybe so?
I presented data from the Spurlock documentary - now you are correct that documentary makers have an entertainment agenda, sure they do, but I also think it is a stretch to dismiss the lived experiences of this women who are entirely embedded within the gaming community.

I also stand by assertion that it is not uncommon for female players to deliberately choose to play behind male or gender-blank monikers, whereas it simply doesn't happen the other way around to any great degree. My data is involvement in gaming communities for decades. Not Pew-standard, sure, but not pulled out of my ass either.



My point?
I don't think [male] gamers stand up often enough to slap down their peers that inflict harassment, in any of its multiple forms. There's a bunch of reasons for that, some of those we can be sympathetic about.

But where I lose all sympathy is where the rejection is lauded, under the paper-thin banner of standing strong against those uppity feminazis and their censorship agenda.

Quote from: Motorskills;919151Well okay, I think you and I can have an adult conversation about this.

I'd like to think so. Certainly, it'd be nice to have a debate that didn't devolve into acrimony and name-calling for a change!

QuoteCan we agree that while the report is useful, the Pew data is nonetheless very limited in general, but especially so when it comes to online gaming harassment?

I do agree with you that it's useful, but my agreement is far more reluctant insofar as it being "very limited" goes. The data that's presented does seem to paint a fairly cohesive picture as to the overall distribution of harassment among ages, genders, and Internet venues. I do agree that the data doesn't go very deep into any further breakdown as to the circumstances of harassment in any particular online "neighborhood" as they call it, but I don't think that online gaming is "especially" limited compared to how the report treats, say, social media.

QuoteCan we agree that harassment is more readily inflicted when the harasser has anonymity? (Not to say that it is worse, I think the Pew report indicates that some "overt" stuff can be brutally scary and damaging).

Actually, I'm not sure that I do agree with you here. The report indicated that the bulk of harassment took place over social media, and social media seems (to my mind) to be more likely to make the harasser less anonymous. Most Facebook and Twitter accounts (again, in my perception) seem inclined to openly represent a particular individual or group, though there are certainly plenty of exceptions. By contrast, online gaming handles tend to be less inclined to present the user's real identity.

QuoteDo we disagree that young women are disproportionately harassed when they are "open" in online gaming environments? Maybe so?

Strictly speaking, if we limit this to both "young women" and "online gaming environments," then we do disagree. That's because the study doesn't, that I recall, break down any of its findings across those three categories - age, gender, and Internet venue - all at once, that I recall:

It's possible that I've overlooked something in the report, but while it indicates that young women (ages 18-24) in general experience certain types of harassment at disproportionate levels (e.g. 26% likely to experience stalking, versus 7% of men ages 18-24 and 8% of all Internet users regardless of gender or age; 25% likely to experience sexual harassment, versus 13% for men ages 18-24 and 6% of all Internet users regardless of gender or age), but that wasn't broken down by online environment.

Likewise, insofar as online gaming specifically went, it was perceived by 44% as being more welcoming to men, but 51% perceived it as equally welcoming to both genders (both were without regard to age). Likewise, women specifically perceived online gaming to be more welcoming to men only 40% of the time, versus perceiving it to be welcoming to both genders 55% of the time (again, without regards to age). Men, on the other hand, perceived online gaming to be more welcoming to men 49% of the time, and more welcoming to both genders only 40% of the time (again, without regards to age).

There was a breakdown of harassment by gender and Internet neighborhood - noting that men 21% likely to experience harassment in online gaming versus women being 11% likely to experience harassment in the same venue - but this wasn't broken down by age either.

Finally, there's a comparison of harassment on social media vs. online gaming vs. personal email accounts, but that only takes age ranges into account, not genders.

QuoteI presented data from the Spurlock documentary - now you are correct that documentary makers have an entertainment agenda, sure they do, but I also think it is a stretch to dismiss the lived experiences of this women who are entirely embedded within the gaming community.

I'm not dismissing their lived experiences. Rather, I'm maintaining that the data from the Pew study grants us information that is more holistic in scope, and therefore more reliable and useful, than the documentary. (This doesn't mean that the study invalidates their experiences either; quite the contrary, it's entirely possible to reconcile the two, as they might very well be part of the 11% of women who experienced harassment in online gaming.)

QuoteI also stand by assertion that it is not uncommon for female players to deliberately choose to play behind male or gender-blank monikers, whereas it simply doesn't happen the other way around to any great degree. My data is involvement in gaming communities for decades. Not Pew-standard, sure, but not pulled out of my ass either.

I don't doubt your good faith. But without evidence to support this, it remains an assertion, and because any single person's perceptions are necessarily limited, the utility that this brings to a debate is almost certainly going to be negligible. There's nothing wrong with an anecdote, but that's not evidence unto itself, simply because a single person's lived experiences are so unlikely to be representative of a larger whole (and worse, there's often no way to say for certain).

QuoteMy point?
I don't think [male] gamers stand up often enough to slap down their peers that inflict harassment, in any of its multiple forms. There's a bunch of reasons for that, some of those we can be sympathetic about.

Obviously we'd all like to see less harassment happening, but I think that the reasons for that (and for why it's not self-policed more) is highly nuanced, and can't wholly be relegated to people witnessing incidents of harassment, (correctly) identifying that what's happening is harassment, and simply not caring to do anything about it. As others have noted, there are numerous instances wherein something that one party might identify as "harassment" can be construed by someone else - in completely good faith - as not being harassment at all.

QuoteBut where I lose all sympathy is where the rejection is lauded, under the paper-thin banner of standing strong against those uppity feminazis and their censorship agenda.

Again, I think this is a continuum more than a dichotomy. While there are quite clearly things that cross the line, I do believe that there's legitimate grounds to say that there's very real good-faith disagreements over what constitutes harassment per se. Disagreement, mockery, insults, and even vitriol can have nuance in their use that can make it extremely subjective as to whether or not they're harassment.

Just a placeholder response Alzrius, I'm travelling and working like mad this week, and I want to give proper time to review your comments.

Hey, motorskills- look, I get it.  No one is cool with harassing someone in a game, no one is cool with threats.  But the issue tends to be a bit more complex.  This is what I see:

Some of these people call every little thing that bothers them 'harassment'.  Criticize their opinion?  Harassment.  Tell them they suck after you beat them in a duel?  Harassment.  Roleplay a character that takes a dislike to their character? Harassment. Give them an opinion that is contrary to their ideology, belief, or personal taste?  Harassment.  Flirt with a woman online, and since she lacks the intestinal fortitude to say she's not interested? Harassment. Give their product a negative review?  Harassment. Debunk their theories?  Harassment.  Make a dick/fart joke?  Harassment.  Respond to their insult with an insult?  Harassment.

Hey, I play my share of vidya games.  You know what I do when someone's bothering me?  I use the fucking ignore/block feature.  If that doesn't work, I report it to a GM/Admin and let them handle it.  Shit will happen, I promise you.  (The only exception I've seen is Facebook, where on one particular page there's a guy constantly stating that conservatives are 'traitors' that deserve to be shot or hung, and claims that their 'reckoning' is coming.  After reporting him several times, Facebook seems to find nothing against their terms and conditions policy... but say the word 'faggot', even in the context that "I find the word 'faggot' deplorable", and you'll be out for 30 days.)

No one deserves to get death/rape threats.  But at the same time, no gamer deserves to be lumped in with those making death/rape threats, just because he didn't pander to and kneel before someone.  Those people making those threats- how many of them do you honestly think are adults?  Take it from a guy that left the FPS games behind a long time ago- those are the squeakers saying vile shit in the headset because no adult is around to beat them or take away their electronics.  

The thing that these women keep forgetting is that every possible place for us to exchange ideas and play games together has some means to report people.  If you're getting legitimately harassed in a game, trust me- they'll fucking do something about it.  That loon may come back later on a new account, but he'll behave differently or the same thing will happen.  This has always been the case.  Think about that.  Now, with that being said:  Why, all of a sudden is harassment 'out of hand'?  It isn't because the places hosting gamers is slacking off.  It's because these fucking loons want anything that upsets them to be considered harassment.  

Dude, women didn't suddenly become gamers in 2013.  But during that time frame, we simply got a shitload of charlatans and hucksters looking to exploit maladjusted and disillusioned young outrage fetishists.  Tell someone they're a victim, and they will eat it up like candy.

I fucking hate SJW's and hipsters, and I openly identify as a leftist (I voted for Bernie Sanders in the Virginia Primary and intend to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election this November). It's pseudo-progressive/pseudo-intellectual "indie" hipster douchebags that are ruining everything. My brother happens to be one of them (and an openly identifying "Anarcho-Communist" to boot).

Not everything has to be "High Art", because most of the time the media that attempts to be "Art" comes across as pretentious, asinine, and boring.

Look at William Shakespeare, now he's considered High Art, but in his own time, his plays were pop entertainment no different from modern video games or summer blockbuster movies. But they were good enough on their own merits that over time, they became High Art.

If you're actively trying to be "cultured" or "High Art", chances are your work will have little actual artistic merit and be forgotten.

I'd rather play a fun and entertaining fanservice game like "Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 3" than boring hipster garbage like "Gone Home".

Fuck, just let Xtreme Beach Volleyball 3 be released in America for fuck's sake! So what if it "objectifies women"? It's harmless pop entertainment that even comes with a rating/warning. Stop acting like it's hardcore porn, you annoying hipster fucks.

Don't like it? Then don't play it! Stick to Gone Home and Revolution 60 and keep sucking Brianna Wu's she-cock. Leave the actual activism to us actual progressives who care about actual issues in the world.

Quote from: Crüesader;919179Hey, motorskills- look, I get it.  No one is cool with harassing someone in a game, no one is cool with threats.  But the issue tends to be a bit more complex.  This is what I see:

Some of these people call every little thing that bothers them 'harassment'.  Criticize their opinion?  Harassment.  Tell them they suck after you beat them in a duel?  Harassment.  Roleplay a character that takes a dislike to their character? Harassment. Give them an opinion that is contrary to their ideology, belief, or personal taste?  Harassment.  Flirt with a woman online, and since she lacks the intestinal fortitude to say she's not interested? Harassment. Give their product a negative review?  Harassment. Debunk their theories?  Harassment.  Make a dick/fart joke?  Harassment.  Respond to their insult with an insult?  Harassment.

Yes, some folks are thin-skinned, some folks are on a perma-crusade, and some folks just like to fight. (In fact we have folks that fit those descriptors in this forum, just from the other side!).

But even if we assume everything on your list is true, it doesn't change my basic position. The gaming community has significant toxic elements, and rather than direct energy at rooting those elements out, the energy is instead directed at closing ranks and shooting the messengers. Every mis-step, every over-reach, all the things on your list....I'm not asking [you] to ignore them, or to excuse them. I am asking you to putting at least as much energy into dealing with the core issue within our hobby.

Quote from: Alzrius;919157I'd like to think so. Certainly, it'd be nice to have a debate that didn't devolve into acrimony and name-calling for a change!

Excellent stuff!
That said, I'll probably need to step back from this thread for a bit, since I have a commitment to One Horse Town to keep.

QuoteI do agree with you that it's useful, but my agreement is far more reluctant insofar as it being "very limited" goes. The data that's presented does seem to paint a fairly cohesive picture as to the overall distribution of harassment among ages, genders, and Internet venues. I do agree that the data doesn't go very deep into any further breakdown as to the circumstances of harassment in any particular online "neighborhood" as they call it, but I don't think that online gaming is "especially" limited compared to how the report treats, say, social media.

Hmm I won't debate the point, but I do think their poll group is made up primarily of folks that use social media (if anything at all).

QuoteActually, I'm not sure that I do agree with you here. The report indicated that the bulk of harassment took place over social media, and social media seems (to my mind) to be more likely to make the harasser less anonymous. Most Facebook and Twitter accounts (again, in my perception) seem inclined to openly represent a particular individual or group, though there are certainly plenty of exceptions. By contrast, online gaming handles tend to be less inclined to present the user's real identity.

Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes here? I agree that harassers on social are likely to be known (or at least identifiable) to the victim, whereas the reverse is usually the case in gaming environments.
My point was that the threshold for deciding whether to harass someone is lower when you know that your victim can't identify you.
(That said, being able to put a face to someone who posts something you don't like about [X] might actually be the trigger for some folks to post their diatribe.)

QuoteStrictly speaking, if we limit this to both "young women" and "online gaming environments," then we do disagree. That's because the study doesn't, that I recall, break down any of its findings across those three categories - age, gender, and Internet venue - all at once, that I recall:

Way more maths than I have time for at the moment. But I don't think we are too far apart in general terms, I'll happily accept your analysis for now.

QuoteI'm not dismissing their lived experiences. Rather, I'm maintaining that the data from the Pew study grants us information that is more holistic in scope, and therefore more reliable and useful, than the documentary. (This doesn't mean that the study invalidates their experiences either; quite the contrary, it's entirely possible to reconcile the two, as they might very well be part of the 11% of women who experienced harassment in online gaming.)

I think we would go round the houses on this one, and not get very far. But again, maybe we are basically on the same page. I think both sources are interesting and of use, but both have their limitations.

QuoteI don't doubt your good faith. But without evidence to support this, it remains an assertion, and because any single person's perceptions are necessarily limited, the utility that this brings to a debate is almost certainly going to be negligible. There's nothing wrong with an anecdote, but that's not evidence unto itself, simply because a single person's lived experiences are so unlikely to be representative of a larger whole (and worse, there's often no way to say for certain).

Well sure, I haven't submitted my findings as a paper for peer-review. Is it possible I'm wrong on this? Sure.
But equally, I'm surprised you aren't nodding in agreement, I don't think what I am saying is particularly controversial.

QuoteObviously we'd all like to see less harassment happening, but I think that the reasons for that (and for why it's not self-policed more) is highly nuanced, and can't wholly be relegated to people witnessing incidents of harassment, (correctly) identifying that what's happening is harassment, and simply not caring to do anything about it. As others have noted, there are numerous instances wherein something that one party might identify as "harassment" can be construed by someone else - in completely good faith - as not being harassment at all.

Again, I think this is a continuum more than a dichotomy. While there are quite clearly things that cross the line, I do believe that there's legitimate grounds to say that there's very real good-faith disagreements over what constitutes harassment per se. Disagreement, mockery, insults, and even vitriol can have nuance in their use that can make it extremely subjective as to whether or not they're harassment.

I don't disagree with any of this.

But per my response to Cruesader, I think way too much energy is put into those efforts, and not enough into addressing the core issues. Some of it is legitimate pushback (by folks who have been unfairly called out), some of it is distraction-du-jour.
And some of it, way too much of it, is by folks who refuse any efforts to deal with the toxic elements within the hobby (for a variety of reasons).

Quote from: Motorskills;919833Yes, some folks are thin-skinned, some folks are on a perma-crusade, and some folks just like to fight. (In fact we have folks that fit those descriptors in this forum, just from the other side!).

But even if we assume everything on your list is true, it doesn't change my basic position. The gaming community has significant toxic elements, and rather than direct energy at rooting those elements out, the energy is instead directed at closing ranks and shooting the messengers. Every mis-step, every over-reach, all the things on your list....I'm not asking [you] to ignore them, or to excuse them. I am asking you to putting at least as much energy into dealing with the core issue within our hobby.

How to deal with the core issue in our hobby in one easy step:

Ignore the fucking trolls.

Quote from: Motorskills;919840Excellent stuff!
That said, I'll probably need to step back from this thread for a bit, since I have a commitment to One Horse Town to keep.

No worries; that's the nice thing about a message-board conversation - it takes however long it takes, and that's okay.

QuoteHmm I won't debate the point, but I do think their poll group is made up primarily of folks that use social media (if anything at all).

Looking through the section that goes over the methodology and data that was gathered for assessment, there's nothing there (that I found on a quick skim) that speaks to the overall amount of time spent online, or what online activities/communities were utilized. It mentions only that respondents self-identified as Internet users.

That said, this is another area where I'd be very cautious about casting aspersions as to the reliability of the data based on a lack of evidence one way or the other. There's nothing here that tells us what area of the Internet the respondents "primarily" used. While it would certainly be nice to have more data in that regard, a lack of evidence doesn't invalidate anything unto itself.

QuoteMaybe we are talking at cross-purposes here? I agree that harassers on social are likely to be known (or at least identifiable) to the victim, whereas the reverse is usually the case in gaming environments.
My point was that the threshold for deciding whether to harass someone is lower when you know that your victim can't identify you.
(That said, being able to put a face to someone who posts something you don't like about [X] might actually be the trigger for some folks to post their diatribe.)

I suppose that I can agree that giving someone anonymity can, in general, serve to diminish inhibitions with regards to behavior that one would be more hesitant to engage in if their identity could be determined at will. That said, I'm inclined to believe that this downside to anonymity is lesser than the benefits said anonymity brings, not the least of which is a shield (albeit a far-from-impenetrable one) that protects against harassment or more serious offenses from following someone offline (e.g. it's harder to dox someone when you don't have their real name handy).

The Pew poll reflects this; 63% of respondents agreed that online environments made people more anonymous than in offline environments. However, while 92% of respondents agreed that online environments allowed people to be more critical of others (note that "being critical" isn't the same as harassment; also, this wasn't predicated on being anonymous), 68% thought that online environments allowed people to be more supportive of others (again, not predicated on anonymity). Even if an overwhelming majority agree that being anonymous has its downsides, there's still a very large number who see benefits to it.

Throw in the fact that harassment is more likely to occur on social media than on online gaming and personal email accounts put together (summarized below) - and here I'm still purporting (albeit without any evidence, just my perception) that social media users are less inclined to use an anonymous method of self-presentation - and this seems to undercut the idea (at least, to me) that anonymity is a facilitator, or at least a major facilitator, in harassment.

• On social media, harassment was 74% likely for 18-29 year-olds, 70% likely for 30-49 year-olds, and 44% likely for 50+ year-olds.
• On online gaming, harassment was 26% likely for 18-29 year-olds, 10% likely for 30-49 year-olds, and 9% likely for 50+ year-olds.
• On personal email accounts, harassment was 10% likely for 18-29 year-olds, 14% likely for 30-49 year-olds, and 28% likely for 50+ year-olds.

QuoteWay more maths than I have time for at the moment. But I don't think we are too far apart in general terms, I'll happily accept your analysis for now.

To summarize, I was saying that the report only seemed to index two factors at any given time at most, whereas asking about people who were "young," and "female," and in "online gaming" was asking for a more specific section of data than the report provided for.

QuoteI think we would go round the houses on this one, and not get very far. But again, maybe we are basically on the same page. I think both sources are interesting and of use, but both have their limitations.

I suspect that you're probably right, here.

QuoteWell sure, I haven't submitted my findings as a paper for peer-review. Is it possible I'm wrong on this? Sure.
But equally, I'm surprised you aren't nodding in agreement, I don't think what I am saying is particularly controversial.

I may have been unclear before. I don't think that what you're saying is controversial in terms of the practice (e.g. that women will choose an online handle that is either masculine or non-gender specific so as to deliberately obscure their true gender) being believable. Rather, I'm somewhat skeptical with regards to how widespread this particular practice - or rather, that particular motivation for this practice - is. Most of the women I know who are online with regularity choose a handle for the same reasons that men do; because they like how it sounds.

Admittedly, I'm not one for online gaming, so I can't add very much where that particular realm is concerned. That said, most of the second- and third-hand stories I've heard have been entirely absent with regards to that particular motivation.

QuoteI don't disagree with any of this.

But per my response to Cruesader, I think way too much energy is put into those efforts, and not enough into addressing the core issues. Some of it is legitimate pushback (by folks who have been unfairly called out), some of it is distraction-du-jour.
And some of it, way too much of it, is by folks who refuse any efforts to deal with the toxic elements within the hobby (for a variety of reasons).

This, I suspect, is where we have the most to hash out; that's largely due to (as I see it) questions of the overall nature and prevalence of harassment (let alone who receives the brunt of it) tend to be secondary to questions of how to respond to it.

The issue here, as I see it, is that a significant amount of proposed responses tend to come with a very heavy tone of "blame the bystanders." This seems to be largely due to the recognition that the only real way to formulate any sort of widespread response (at least without radically changing the entire structure of the Internet, which most people don't seem to want) is to push for a general groundswell of self-policing. The problem with this approach is that, by working off of the presumption that everyone is guilty, it tends to engender responses that run counter to its goal.

To put it another way, trying to say that all women on the Internet are Kitty Genovese and all men are the witnesses (or however the "victims" and "bystanders" groups are arranged) is going to accomplish little besides getting pushback from people who don't want to be told why they're guilty of moral turpitude simply because they haven't done more. (To be clear, there are instances when action is - to my mind - morally required, and so failing to take action therefore qualifies as a moral failing. However, the bar for such actions tends to be notably higher than is typically set in indictments like "called offensive names," which is the most common form of harassment for both genders according to that poll.)

That's not surprising, since for most people any single incident of harassment is not going to be something that they've witnessed, so holding up any incident, or even string of incidents, and saying "this is why you all need to step up your game," is going to make them feel unfairly targeted, and in all likelihood cause them to resent the person saying that, and so reject the accompanying call to action.

While some might think it cynical, most people only tend to take action with regards to things that either affect them personally, or affect someone they know. Otherwise they'll be far less likely to care. This is an aspect of humanity that has long, long been known to philosophers and other observers of human nature. That's why people aren't likely to give more than a shrug when they hear that someone is upset by how they've been treated, but will go up in arms when an accusation is leveled against them (even when "them" means "leveled against a demographic that they occupy").

This isn't even getting into issues of how to respond in situations where a response is warranted. If someone is being a vicious troll towards someone else, what can you do besides hitting the "report" button and going on your way?

Quote from: Motorskills;919833Yes, some folks are thin-skinned, some folks are on a perma-crusade, and some folks just like to fight. (In fact we have folks that fit those descriptors in this forum, just from the other side!).

But even if we assume everything on your list is true, it doesn't change my basic position. The gaming community has significant toxic elements, and rather than direct energy at rooting those elements out, the energy is instead directed at closing ranks and shooting the messengers. Every mis-step, every over-reach, all the things on your list....I'm not asking [you] to ignore them, or to excuse them. I am asking you to putting at least as much energy into dealing with the core issue within our hobby.

Dose gaming have some toxic people yes but hears the kicker SO DOSE EVERY OTHER HOBBY.
It might be your tone in your posts but your rally agents every thing i bring up in my anti censorship stance comes across more as trying to link every problem in gaming to "to sexy costumes'' "overly exaggerated women" and the whole objectification of women who ha the sjws use while ignoring the and doing nothing to deal with the under lying problems.
And hears the other problem most of the so called messengers in your post arnt saying the gaming community has toxicity issues we need to work on they try and say we are bigots by default and if we disagree with the slightest iota of what they say that we are guilty of "bad think" in some flavor or another.
And I say this as some one who will regularly calls some one out on being a douchebag while gaming.
Frankly the people who call for this dont care about helping to make the community beater they care abut power to lord over other people and controlling what other people get to play and do for THERE enjoyment.

This is a hip-hop album.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]388[/ATTACH]  

It is not much different from tens of thousands of other hip-hop albums.  In this, you will find:  Glorification of criminal activity, trivialized violence against women, blatant racial stereotyping, death threats to critics and competitors, glorification of violence and gun, objectification of women, outright sexually explicit language, disparaging body types, etc.- the entire gamut of horrible shit that these triggered outrage fetishists hate is sitting right here.  It's a exponentiall worse, and reaches a far broader audience.

Why isn't his their target?  

Easy.  Because stereotypically, gamers are a bunch of pussies.  They are coming after your stuff because they think you are a pussy.

Stop being a fucking pussy.

^The same people who vilify gamers will declare that to be a "legitimate expression" and dismiss criticism.

Quote from: Motorskills;919833. Every mis-step, every over-reach, all the things on your list....I'm not asking [you] to ignore them, or to excuse them. I am asking you to putting at least as much energy into dealing with the core issue within our hobby.

What is "the core issue"?  Some would have us believe that it's hatred of women but I have seen little to no convincing evidence that this is the case.  There is evidence that men and women tend to experience different sorts of harassment but no real evidence that women are uniquely target for harassment because they are women.  The most common forms of online harassment are experienced by men more often than women.  This narrative of "the core issue" being hatred of women rather than toxic behavior in general is what is being questioned.  This narrative is just not supported by good evidence.  There is no good evidence that women are targeted more but there is evidence that they tend to be more upset about it than men which might be where the anecdotes you cited earlier come from.  Men get harassed just as much as women if not more but they we are less upset about it so we hear less about it.

Quote from: kosmos1214;919909It might be your tone in your posts but your rally agents every thing i bring up in my anti censorship stance comes across more as trying to link every problem in gaming to "to sexy costumes'' "overly exaggerated women" and the whole objectification of women who ha the sjws use while ignoring the and doing nothing to deal with the under lying problems

wut? :confused:

Quote from: Opaopajr;911360Actually, Poison (Roxy) started as cis-women in Japan, as women fighting in gangs was not a wholly foreign concept. (It's not a wholly foreign concept in the West either, but whatever.) The kerfuffle started when one Western SNES localization male playtester (that's right, just one) objected to any man hitting a woman. That was enough to throw a justification that Poison (Roxy) is a male transvestite (this later changed to transgenderism in both pre-op & post-op variants, as Japan really just doesn't care).

"This game is sexist, so lets make it transphobic instead."

#Facepalm

Coincidentally not condoning violence against women was the same excuse the developers of 'Walk the Plank!' used for not including female pirates. Of course their first excuse was there just weren't many female pirates historically. Regardless you shouldn't need any excuse to follow your artistic vision.

Quote from: kosmos1214;915030Ok its been a while since i posted an up date in this thread and i dont have a lot of time iv got more to post then this about overwatch but this takes the cake and needs to be seen.

Just to reiterate, this petition is satirical, as are most of the comments. It's sad to see how much of a joke these petition sites have become.

#TheCakeIsALie

Quote from: AaronBrown99;915045I've never understood how a suggestive cartoon image of a gorgeous woman implies hatred of women.

Neither have I...

Quote from: AaronBrown99;915045Or is misogynist another co-opted word, meaning 'anything ugly women don't like?'

...and yet you present a sound basis for that assumption.

Quote from: Motorskills;915106I'm not sure this deserves a sensible answer,

That's OK, because I'm pretty sure you didn't give a sensible answer.

Quote from: Motorskills;915106But these images aren't suggestive, they are caricatures. They are perverted depictions of women, not celebration of the female form.

That's why it's hateful. And as a male gamer it's frustrating to me that it's 2016 and we still can't get beyond this bullshit.

So caricatures of the female form are hateful? Got it.

Quote from: Motorskills;915188Caricatures are not inherently hateful, of course not. Hell, one can buy caricatures of oneself if one wants.

So caricatures of the female form are not hateful? Got it.

Quote from: Motorskills;915188And it's not (simply) a matter of artistic license, it's a matter of intent. And that's what terrible.

So sexy caricatures of the female form are hateful? Got it.

Quote from: Motorskills;915195If I drive 100mph past a kid's school, so I can deliver beer to my mates on time, my behaviour is hateful, even if my audience loves the end product.

No, your behavior is irresponsible, which is a distinction all of western law makes. And it's not even that when it happens in Grand Theft Auto because it's a fucking video game.

Quote from: Motorskills;915243Rosa Parks would have been proud of you, standing up for freedom like that. The rest of us can pack up and go home!

Wow, you're all over the place looking for relevance, aren't you?

And Rosa Parks, standing up... I see what you did there

Quote from: Necrozius;915848A certain manga artist that I used to love certainly was. His "erotic" manga was mostly images of women being tortured, cut into pieces and crying. THAT'S misogynistic. Fuck that guy.

And yet somehow most of the people reading his erotic works don't end up becoming slashers or harassers. Fetish is not philosophy.

The Catcher in the Rye on the other hand...

Quote from: Alzrius;916061Thanks for these, but I have to say...linking to Polygon? Really? They're an exceptionally biased site that pushes an SJW agenda; if you have to link to them, please us an archive.is of their pages so they don't actually get the clicks.

Complaints about linking? Really? I thought we were past that bullshit.

Quote from: Spike;916074Its enduring popularity, however, was with women. Mothers and daughters would play it together.

Why?

Because they loved the social aspects of the gifting mechanics and the collecting of cute (skimpy) outfits.

Shocking to some I know, but women like cute sexy outfits for other reasons besides appealing to the 'male gaze'.

#NotAllWomen

Quote from: kosmos1214;918293Now when the change came out Blizzard had changed it to match a rather famous pin up picture and the sjws ragged and dont seem to have gotten any where since on the issue.

*video of the story

Blizzard gave'em a brilliant middle finger with that one.

Quote from: kosmos1214;918293Ok this is the last one and i big one rather recently a Hindi Regulus leader had a fit about overwatch  degrading his religion because symmetra had 2 costumes based off one of the hindi gods.

I know as many indians who were offended at depicting Kali on the Empire State Building as not, and at least one cosplayer of color who considers the depiction of Kali in the game Smite to be "cultural appreciation vs appropriation". There's no winning when it comes to using religious iconography.

Quote from: Motorskills;918812Needless to say, the pro women had all experienced horrific abuse online, and get it every time they are recognisable online. Credit to them they pushed past, and are likely much better players than their abusers ever will be.

But are sexy caricatures of women the cause of this abuse?

Quote from: Motorskills;918812Our society is lot freer, and a lot more open and relaxed than at almost any time in history.

No. Even the recent 60's-80s were more permissive. They paid for it, but we're paying a different price for the opposite.

Quote from: Alzrius;919084Documentaries need to be taken with a major grain of salt, because by their very nature they're going to discard a lot of the footage they get in favor of what makes for the better story. As a general rule, a documentary should be taken in the same manner as a flyer or a pamphlet with regards to whatever issue they're examining; they're good for generating interest, but you should always follow them up with your own research rather than letting them do your thinking for you.

No. A documentary is supposed to be as unbiased as possible, and good documentarians keep this in mind throughout their work. What you're thinking of is propaganda.

Quote from: Motorskills;919108Actually the point of this thread seems to be having a love-in that conflates pushing back against over-reach with promoting inappropriate treatment [of women].

Actually I thought it was about the inability to differentiate between representation and reality.

Quote from: Alzrius;919084Insofar as online harassment goes, the Pew Research Center has found that not only are men more likely to experience it than women (44% for men vs. 37% for women), but this is also true for most (and the most prevalent) forms of harassment as well:

Uh oh, a survey from a reputable source. What could the response possibly be?

Quote from: Motorskills;919151Well okay, I think you and I can have an adult conversation about this.

First Motorskills grants their opponent 'adult' status, which implies their detractors lack such, they have such status to grant, and that such status in required to debate the premise.

Quote from: Motorskills;919151Can we agree that while the report is useful, the Pew data is nonetheless very limited in general, but especially so when it comes to online gaming harassment?

Then they try to get their opponent to agree the evidence presented is limited when it comes to the premise.

Quote from: Motorskills;919151Can we agree that harassment is more readily inflicted when the harasser has anonymity? (Not to say that it is worse, I think the Pew report indicates that some "overt" stuff can be brutally scary and damaging).

They follow that by asking speculative questions which are at best peripheral to the premise.

Quote from: Motorskills;919151Do we disagree that young women are disproportionately harassed when they are "open" in online gaming environments? Maybe so?

And finally they end with restating the premise as a question while still not establishing a cause.

Also notice how these are all questions? It's almost as if Motorskills is asking his opponent to agree with him.

Quote from: Motorskills;919151I also stand by assertion that it is not uncommon for female players to deliberately choose to play behind male or gender-blank monikers, whereas it simply doesn't happen the other way around to any great degree. My data is involvement in gaming communities for decades. Not Pew-standard, sure, but not pulled out of my ass either.

My data is just as valid, and I've found crossplay to be just as common for both genders, though they may do it for different reasons.

Quote from: Crüesader;919179Some of these people call every little thing that bothers them 'harassment'.  Criticize their opinion?  Harassment.  Tell them they suck after you beat them in a duel?  Harassment.  Roleplay a character that takes a dislike to their character? Harassment. Give them an opinion that is contrary to their ideology, belief, or personal taste?  Harassment.  Flirt with a woman online, and since she lacks the intestinal fortitude to say she's not interested? Harassment. Give their product a negative review?  Harassment. Debunk their theories?  Harassment.  Make a dick/fart joke?  Harassment.  Respond to their insult with an insult?  Harassment.

Quote from: Crüesader;919179No one deserves to get death/rape threats.  But at the same time, no gamer deserves to be lumped in with those making death/rape threats, just because he didn't pander to and kneel before someone.

Yeeep.

Quote from: Motorskills;919833But even if we assume everything on your list is true, it doesn't change my basic position.

I suspect no amount of evidence will. That's the problem.

Quote from: Motorskills;919833The gaming community has significant toxic elements,

No more so than any other hobby...

Quote from: Motorskills;919833I'm not asking [you] to ignore them, or to excuse them. I am asking you to putting at least as much energy into dealing with the core issue within our hobby.

...and it isn't the core issue within it.

Quote from: Motorskills;919840I'm surprised you aren't nodding in agreement, I don't think what I am saying is particularly controversial.

Ah the Appeal to Popularity. Just goes to show how important group approval is when it comes to these things and why people without supporting facts seek it out.

Quote from: Crüesader;919973This is a hip-hop album.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]388[/ATTACH]  

It is not much different from tens of thousands of other hip-hop albums.  In this, you will find:  Glorification of criminal activity, trivialized violence against women, blatant racial stereotyping, death threats to critics and competitors, glorification of violence and gun, objectification of women, outright sexually explicit language, disparaging body types, etc.- the entire gamut of horrible shit that these triggered outrage fetishists hate is sitting right here.  It's a exponentiall worse, and reaches a far broader audience.

Why isn't his their target?

You know, answering your own questions is kinda smarmy, but that doesn't mean it isn't a damn good question.

Do you think including the Roman Catholic "pantheon" in Smite would be offensive to people?