Adam Baldwin and Conventions

[JD5000]

Ooh, a chance to drop a Trek reference!

From DS9, 'The Quickening'

BASHIR: Trevean was right... there is no cure... the Dominion made sure of that.

But I was so arrogant, I thought I could find one in a week...

DAX: Maybe it was arrogant to think that. But it's even more arrogant to think there isn't a cure just because you couldn't find it.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Wow. That is a terrible post TBS.

I am speechless.

If anything I have said thus far really affected you in such a dramatic fashion, you would avoid the Internet like the plague.

Meh, just another ream of standard 'Gator boilerplate, right down to the "professional victim" terminology. No surprise, considering the source.

Blah blah blah.

I feel I must respond to this because that's not really how empathy works. When we empathize with others we mentally take on their perspective or put ourselves in their place. In doing this we take on the emotional response we would expect ourselves to have in that situation (it's a kind of mimicry).

Empathy is being able to understand another person's situation and why the person is feeling the way he/she feels. You don't necessarily have to have the same emotional reaction, but have an understanding of why their emotions are as they are.

For example, if a teen tells you about her history of physical and emotional abuse, empathy would be seeing how that sort of thing would cause the girl to act out and be angry or depressed. You wouldn't necessarily become angry or depressed yourself, but you could normalize and relate to what the person is feeling.

Unless you're a sociopath, you should feel empathy for most people.

Sociopaths feel empathy for others, but can turn the feeling on and off. As for having it for most people, that simply isn't true. In the vast majority of cases, a person lacks the frame of reference to understand anther person.

What has she done that is so terrible that you lack any empathy for her? Did she kill your dog, threaten you personally or burn your house down? No, she criticized a fucking video game.

I have no idea what she is feeling, and I don't know her personally, so what is there for me to emphasize with? If she were upset over the death and rape threats, of course I would emphasize with her. Since I don't really know how she feels beyond the self-righteous attitude she displays, there isn't much for me to work with!

So in your eyes, she deserves everything she gets. Which apparently is happening to millions of people. Now I've been on the internet for most of my life, this is the first I've heard of it.

Seriously? You have been on the Internet most of your life, and are just now realizing people get death threats from strangers? I find that quite impossible to believe.

Get help.

Get bent.

Sometimes a debate has a wrong and a right side, JD5000, and it's ok to not agree even in the slightest with the wrong side.

I certainly wish I were as brazenly confident in being ignorantly deluded and biased.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Even if you accept the GamerGate position as being about ethics in gaming journalism. They mainly seem be upset that journalists are allowed to give their opinions in game reviews. Which is a requirement for any review. You want to know if it's good or not.

From my understanding, the real issue they have is advertising dollars and personal relationships for certain publications being more important than objectivity. Seeing how the mainstream media works in the U.S., I can believe this to be an issue. For example, the media in Washington right tooth and nail to avoid offending the powers that be, in fear their access to them will be cut off. I could see the same problem happening when you are reviewing a product from a company like EA, Activision, or Ubisoft - companies that could literally sink your website or magazine if they pulled support.

As for the solution - find a more credible source. There are plenty of non-mainstream gaming news resources to go to. I watch ReviewTechUSA and Classic Game Room, among others, on YouTube and have found them to be pretty honest in their opinions. Of course, that doesn't stop certain game companies from going straight to YouTube to try to shut these outlets down *cough*Nintendo*cough*

So either they truly don't understand how reviews work or it's just a cover to trick in stupid people or to cover up it really being a bunch of losers upset that women want to be involved in game development and gaming in general. I guess they're afraid they'll get cooties.

Why would they be upset by women getting involved? I love the idea of women gaming and being involved in tech. What I don't love is the idea of women thinking they need to change the type of games that men predominately play to make them more acceptable for women. There are plenty of games to go around for everybody.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

5. I don't think the majority of the people getting deeply involved in this thing *on either side* believe or care about their own side of it much if at all. It's about 90% celebrities "taking a stand" (Wheaton, Day, etc) on one side and 4Chan trolls doing stuff just "for the lulz" on the other. Which isn't to say that the latter aren't dangerous. They've run young girls and their families out of their homes and into hiding before "for the lulz".

I do see how one could see it like that.

I would ask you to take a deeper look too; to the time before recognizable 'names' began adding theirs. Before it became multiple issues joining, sometimes having reasons that pushed them together.

This is an issue of status quo being challenged and pushing back.

In this case, and growing for a long time now, in gaming for this particular issue, is one gender speaking up about the increasing use in games as being acceptable that their gender is portrayed as disposable and abusable. (don't think that is a word but you get what I'm saying)

Increasingly this abuse is rewarded with points, scores, and with merely free form abuse, violation, mutilation, and killing.

And a growing segment of this gender began saying WTF?! This is not only offensive but it is wrong.

At the same time this gender was growing within the gaming ranks that was overwhelmingly populated by the other gender so the status quo was being challenged there too. There was gender marginalization going on from a percentage of the monopoly gender. (that wasn't a good sentence but you can get my drift)

Status quo challenges are age old and the challenged & challengers have often used some form of angry push back, sometimes even violence. Status quo challenges have been seen in religious ideology, civil rights ideology of races, genders. Genders moving into a field previously held by another gender, the world is flat/the world is round, the Earth is the center of the universe/nuh uh, medicine, science, political ideology, and many many other major and minor things not necessary to this discussion.

Now back to the status quo games issues.

We now have the Internet and anonymity that can be used as a weapon. This is HUGE. A shift in the dynamics of weaponry that can be used in a status quo challenge. And a segment of the gender of the status quo has begun using it. Then organizing and using it.

And the overwhelmingly focused recipients of this weaponry is the gender challenging the status quo. And the weaponry is using VISCOUS AND UNRELENTING attack methods of hate, emotional abuse, harassment, fear tactics, violation of civil rights, etc. Most often with impunity because of technology. Which is feeding it to continue and grow and frenzy.

The issue has evolved from one gender challenging the status quo... into viscous, unrelenting, cruel, illegal acts that are indefensible abuse.

This has now gone on long enough that 'persons' both everyday and celebrity are now involved.

And I can grant your point that a segment of people are "people getting deeply involved in this thing *on either side* believe or care about their own side of it much if at all." That it carries sway for some to align with 'celebrity' because of celebrity.

And I can grant you point that a segment of people ARE the "4Chan trolls doing stuff just "for the lulz".

Though I suggest to you that your '90%' numbers do not approach accuracy, and I encourage you to look deeper into this issue to see if you yourself continue to support this number assessment as an accurate representation.

 

[{ Emilia }]

You said:

I am letting the matter rest.

I figured I'd point that out. I don't get it.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

In this case, and growing for a long time now, in gaming for this particular issue, is one gender speaking up about the increasing use in games as being acceptable that their gender is portrayed as disposable and abusable. (don't think that is a word but you get what I'm saying)

Increasingly this abuse is rewarded with points, scores, and with merely free form abuse, violation, mutilation, and killing.

And this gender began saying WTF?! This is not only offensive but it is wrong.

I can't think of a single game where there is a reward for killing women indiscriminately, other than something incredibly sociopathic, like Hatred. There are plenty of games where it is possible to kill women as well as men, but no game I can think of (please correct me if I am wrong) rewards players for killing innocent people, much less women over men (again, with the exception being Hatred).

If there were such a game, I'd be as disgusted as anybody here. I'm not going to pretend it exists just so I can be outraged, however.

You said:

I am letting the matter rest.

I figured I'd point that out. I don't get it.

Yes. You are right.

 

[Awesome Possum]

What I don't love is the idea of women thinking they need to change the type of games that men predominately play to make them more acceptable for women. There are plenty of games to go around for everybody.

No one but the GamerGate supporters are discussing this. It's a delusion.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I can't think of a single game where there is a reward for killing women indiscriminately, other than something incredibly sociopathic, like Hatred. There are plenty of games where it is possible to kill women as well as men, but no game I can think of (please correct me if I am wrong) rewards players for killing innocent people, much less women over men (again, with the exception being Hatred).

If there were such a game, I'd be as disgusted as anybody here. I'm not going to pretend it exists just so I can be outraged, however.

It isn't just the number of games, so much as the prominence - the Grand Theft Auto series is always at the top of the charts when they come out. And maybe there's no special reward for killing women in that one (I don't know - those games aren't allowed in my home anymore, although I watched a friend play through 3 back when it came out), but there are definitely abusive and violent scenarios aimed at female characters that are not available targeting men.

And there has been a history of such things. Leisure Suit Larry. Custer's Revenge. Lara Croft's original, unrealistic shape - as well as that of the ridiculously busty women in many other games. Untold games where there's a special code or hack to see female characters nude - but not the males.

I could also name many many games that reward killing innocents in general. This all makes me wonder how much of a gamer you actually are, and whether you have any legitimate interest in this topic aside from the opportunities to troll that it offers....

 

[JD5000]

TBS, you are making it more and more difficult to defend your right to your opinion. I'm starting to wish I hadn't even tried.

That statement has nothing to do with what anyone has said to refute your opinions and sources, strictly based on how you present them.

I'm willing to accept that you are doing the 'Devil's Advocate' thing here, and encouraging people to think about their own views. You have repeatedly mentioned that those that disagree with you seem 'locked in' on their viewpoints. I agree with you on this. There's obviously a problem here, like when any group of people hates another group of people, and one can't just say '**** em, they're all a bunch of assholes.' There are underlying issues that should be addressed and resolved.

If you ARE playing 'Devil's Advocate', you're doing a poor job of it. If that's not the case, I really really hope your view of the world becomes brighter in the future.

 

[Amaris]

It's not so much hating haters as it is trying to get these people who are a part of Gamergate to realize "Jesus Christ, leave these women alone!" is an entirely reasonable response to what they've been peddling.

This is why you're awesome, J. Allen. I love your solution!!!!

Aw, thank you galleywest! It seems simple enough, you know? You'd think it would be that simple, anyway. If you don't like someone, just leave them alone. The death threats, and the rape threats, the doxxing, and all of this awful treatment of women over such pettiness, it's terrible.

 

[JD5000]

Dude, every single time I reply to a conflict-based discussion, I wish that too.

Dear Santa...

 

[Rincewiend]

It isn't just the number of games, so much as the prominence - the Grand Theft Auto series is always at the top of the charts when they come out. And maybe there's no special reward for killing women in that one (I don't know - those games aren't allowed in my home anymore, although I watched a friend play through 3 back when it came out), but there are definitely abusive and violent scenarios aimed at female characters that are not available targeting men.

Well, the GTA games are very male-centric criminal power fantasies..
But there is no specific focus on women in those games, like you get more money from female pedestrians than from male ones if you kill them...
In GTA V you pull some heists and have to make a crew, you get male and female crew members and some of the best choices are actually the female ones...

And there has been a history of such things. Leisure Suit Larry. Custer's Revenge. Lara Croft's original, unrealistic shape - as well as that of the ridiculously busty women in many other games. Untold games where there's a special code or hack to see female characters nude - but not the males.

That's just plain sexism, i'm all for equal nudity, ehm, opportunity!

I could also name many many games that reward killing innocents in general. This all makes me wonder how much of a gamer you actually are, and whether you have any legitimate interest in this topic aside from the opportunities to troll that it offers....

Reward in what way?!?
I know you can pick up money from civilians you can kill (indiscriminately) in games like GTA or Saints Row or the old Carmageddon, not sure about other games...

Also, i think the only type of game where you have to kill women are strategy games that have female units or even all-female, amazonian, sides, like the night-elf archer in Warcraft 3...

 

[Amaris]

Dude, every single time I reply to a conflict-based discussion, I wish that too.

Dear Santa...

Santa? Oh my, no. Santa doesn't handle conflict based discussion. You're looking for Satan. Satan handles that kind of thing. Easy to mix up.

<rummage> <rummage> <rummage>

Here, I have his card if you need to contact him.

Oh wait, that's the blood of the innocent neatly pressed into a wafer for easy consumption by the initiated damned.

<upon closer inspection>

Oh, no, wait, that is his card. Sorry, they look a lot alike. Here you go.

 

[HIjol]

Wow!

Holy Crap!

What a Thread.

I can remember a time, not so long ago, when we could draw Lines between Right and Wrong, Good and Bad, Ok and Not Ok. No discussion, no need for stating cases or parsing words, just a very easy-to-draw Line. And everyone knew where it would be drawn, and agreed.

Wonder if that time ever really was? Swear I can remember it.

 

[JD5000]

God I hope it's never that simple. I'll donate my brain to science, if science actually wants it for some weird reason. Like comparing it to rodent brains or something.

 

[Amaris]

Wow!

Holy Crap!

What a Thread.

I can remember a time, not so long ago, when we could draw Lines between Right and Wrong, Good and Bad, Ok and Not Ok. No discussion, no need for stating cases or parsing words, just a very easy-to-draw Line. And everyone knew where it would be drawn, and agreed.

Wonder if that time ever really was? Swear I can remember it.

For individuals? Sure, anyone can draw lines. For whole groups of people, however, there has always been a bit of fuzziness when it came to good, bad, and how far each could go before transgressing into the other's territory. What I'm trying to say is that the human experience is subjective, and has always been subjective.

 

[Avon]

if one side says 'the women are coming to take our man games, we must silence them by any means'

and the other side says 'stop making rape threats'

yes. so hard to where good and bad is.

 

[JD5000]

If no one gets raped, and the term 'man game' is fucking ridiculous, and you can't be in the middle....what's left? Or right?

 

[Amaris]

If no one gets raped, and the term 'man game' is fucking ridiculous, and you can't be in the middle....what's left? Or right?

Actually, what it is is this:

Posit: "I believe women are misrepresented in gaming, treated as sexual objects instead of equal partners. I believe this might lead to men treating women poorly in every day life."

Response: "You're trying to take our games away from us! You don't even play games, you cunt! Fuck you, you whore slut hag. I'm going to fucking rape you! I'm going to kill you, you fucking bitch! Watch out because you don't know when I'll do it, but you're going to be fucking dead, bitch!"

Choose which side you want to be on.

To add, the moment you say "but..." then you have picked a side. You have decided both ideas have enough merit that you're willing to mount a defense for those whom you feel may have been misconstrued, even as their comments are anything but vague.

By the way, feel free to look up some of the responses from people to Anita Sarkeesian's discussions on women and gaming. I am not exaggerating at all when I cobbled that response together, because it was from real responses to her. They caused real life harm. This is the face of what TBS and those like him represent. There aren't two sides here. This isn't a case of the correct answer being somewhere in the middle. There is no middle.

 

[JD5000]

I think I'd like to stay in my apparently imaginary grey area, in which women that play games are not treated as 'sex objects' which is bizarre enough as a concept, nor called 'cunts' for any reason really. It's kinda pleasant here, I welcome anyone who wants to join me to do just that.