"Gaming in Color", a Kickstarter Documentary on LGBT+ Gaming

[Darken12]

His point was in fact 'that's your question? well this is the answer' coupled with the point I've been making. He tried to tell you this but just like with me rather than listening you latched onto a phrase you didn't like and ignored the rest. Your point was every bit as invalid with him as it is with me and for the exact same reasons. Getting increasingly condescending does not change that.

You are misrepresenting other's stances. You are making false claims. You are mangling and cherry picking quotes to in a way that is at best dishonest. Once again that this is what you have chosen to do is not my fault, or Darken12's for that matter.

For the record, I completely agree with everything you're saying. For several posts now, you've been saying exactly what I would have replied.

I just want to point out that you're arguing with a wall. runic knight is firmly entrenched in his position and refuses to acknowledge even the most minuscule of possibilities that he could be, in fact, wrong. You cannot argue with people like that. If you want to, by all means, go ahead. But if you're expecting him to ever acknowledge any of your points, it's just not going to happen (hence why I agreed to disagree several days ago).

From what little of this thread I've read, I am indeed worrying this will become a Feminist Frequency 2.0. The comments in this thread are already looking Feminist Frequency-esque.

Oh, it will. And that is a good thing. The best way to prove that this documentary was unneeded was for the community in general to say "This is a great thing! More diversity and education, yay!" or even a "Well, I won't support it, but knock yourselves out, I guess". That would have solidly disproven the need for such a documentary. But the reactions to endeavours like these and Feminist Frequency's prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the gamer community is far from welcoming or positive, even those who believe themselves above the Xbox "kids" and the "dudebros".

Things like these are good, in the end, because they are solid evidence to disprove the people who claim that the gamer community is oh so positive and diverse and completely non-prejudiced.

 

[ajr209]

sinp

His point was in fact 'that's your question? well this is the answer' coupled with the point I've been making. He tried to tell you this but just like with me rather than listening you latched onto a phrase you didn't like and ignored the rest. Your point was every bit as invalid with him as it is with me and for the exact same reasons. Getting increasingly condescending does not change that.

You are misrepresenting other's stances. You are making false claims. You are mangling and cherry picking quotes to in a way that is at best dishonest. Once again that this is what you have chosen to do is not my fault, or Darken12's for that matter.

If someone answers "I don't have to put up with their bigotry" to "You sort of have to expect this sort of question", exactly how am I misrepresenting that? Hell, I have restated that stance is the one I dislike for several posts now and he hasn't refuted it, instead increasingly trying to defend it by appealing to a motivation he can't know and only infers because of the target, regardless the commonality of the questioning to begin with.

So, where is that wrong? Where is the misrepresentation of his stance or the cherry picking of data or quote mining of opinions out of context? Why, if I was so mistaken, was this not sorted out after the first post with "I don't mean all, just some/many/non-all-encomapssing generalization". Why, if I was mistaken, would the defensive be an attempt at justification and defense for what I understood to be his stance rather then an explanation of the misunderstanding of it?

If the answer to my assertion of "you sort of have to expect this sort of question" is "you are bigots", I happen to find flaw there and yes, I will latch onto the flaws. Of course, given that I reply long, and to many points, it is a little hard to claim I am cherry picking things, unless you mean I am doing so to entire posts. Or do you mean how I am now trying to concentrate on more narrow points, in response to getting nowhere attempting to hit them all?

So, for clarity's sake, tell me, what is my stance? If it is invalid as you say, if my claims are false, tell me, what claims are false and what my stance actually is.

Take your own advice and go back and reread his posts. That quote is completely and utterly out of context ,like I said before context is important, and taken in the proper context of the rest of what he was saying and what you were saying it has a completely different meaning than what you are presenting it as (though I'm sure you already knew this and know that purposely presenting a quote in the improper context is lying). Nowhere did he say anything along the lines "everyone who questioned is a bigot" or "Questioning in and of itself is bigoted". If you were to go back and reread his thread you'll see he didn't actually react negatively to those who were questioning civilly. That is where that is wrong.

Not only that even out of context as you are presenting it it doesn't back up your claim. Without that out of context quote your claim has no proof. Since that claim is not just the basis of but rather the entirety of your point and that claim is false your point is invalid.

 

[Vegosiux]

There's absolutely no reason to cave in to a person's wilful malice (and it is malice; don't believe for a second that the people asking the point of the documentary are doing it out of ignorance. I would bet that the great majority of them are doing it as an indirect way to express their derision for the subject matter).

That's a bet I'd take you on.

Don't like the documentary? Don't watch it. Don't give it your money.

Well, there's not much use for a documentary if the only people who will see it are the people who already know what it says. Preaching to the choir and all that, it's a waste of time. I mean, you mentioned "education" yourself, but what's the point of that if you're only going to reach those who already are "educated"?

It's like making an "Easy-math for beginners" series of videos to have them only be shown to university-level math students, because, hey, people who don't like math ain't gotta watch it anyway.

And of course, there's this silly question that keeps popping up: How do you know you don't like a documentary if you don't watch it? Documentaries aren't supposed to be entertainment and subject to personal taste.

But there is no reason to acknowledge that kind of malice or treat it seriously. It is to be dismissed, not humoured.

Hanlon's razor. If you really want to establish the presence of this "malice", I'm afraid you'll need to put more than your own words on the table.

 

[ajr209]

His point was in fact 'that's your question? well this is the answer' coupled with the point I've been making. He tried to tell you this but just like with me rather than listening you latched onto a phrase you didn't like and ignored the rest. Your point was every bit as invalid with him as it is with me and for the exact same reasons. Getting increasingly condescending does not change that.

You are misrepresenting other's stances. You are making false claims. You are mangling and cherry picking quotes to in a way that is at best dishonest. Once again that this is what you have chosen to do is not my fault, or Darken12's for that matter.

For the record, I completely agree with everything you're saying. For several posts now, you've been saying exactly what I would have replied.

I just want to point out that you're arguing with a wall. runic knight is firmly entrenched in his position and refuses to acknowledge even the most minuscule of possibilities that he could be, in fact, wrong. You cannot argue with people like that. If you want to, by all means, go ahead. But if you're expecting him to ever acknowledge any of your points, it's just not going to happen (hence why I agreed to disagree several days ago).

Thanks, for the support, the advice, and bringing attention to the project.

I'm not sure how much more attention I'm going to give to runic knight. After all, someone who doesn't want to be taught can't be taught. Not only that he ate through all the patience, benefit of the doubt, and over all good will I had for him a long time ago.

 

[runic knight]

Take your own advice and go back and reread his posts. That quote is completely and utterly out of context ,like I said before context is important, and taken in the proper context of the rest of what he was saying and what you were saying it has a completely different meaning than what you are presenting it as (though I'm sure you already knew this and know that purposely presenting a quote in the improper context is lying). Nowhere did he say anything along the lines "everyone who questioned is a bigot" or "Questioning in and of itself is bigoted". If you were to go back and reread his thread you'll see he didn't actually react negatively to those who were questioning civilly. That is where that is wrong.

Not only that even out of context as you are presenting it it doesn't back up your claim. Without that out of context quote your claim has no proof. Since that claim is not just the basis of but rather the entirety of your point and that claim is false your point is invalid.

ok, lets go reread it.

Yeah, says the same thing to me, the idea that people questioning are doing so because of prejudice and bigotry. This is supported by the multiple avenues of defense in relating to that topic. For instance, his "calling me out on my prejudice", an example of presuming to know my motivation as prejudiced.

He answered that he did not have to put up with bigotry or prejudice when I said he had to expect that people will criticize a project, including asking what the point was. This was the immediate rebuttal, so one can infer that criticism and asking the point was the same as bigotry and prejudice to him. Furthermore, his case also made many claims relating to knowing motivation for questions, given how he paints the treatment the kickstarter got as abnormal (even though he questions asked are asked of any kick-starter), and those who questioned it were painted as prejudiced several times in his posts. He also said that the people questioning it are doing so out of malice. He made no distinctions about how people where questioning it and you were the first to bring mention of it. He simply paints people questioning it by a motivation he couldn't possibly know and can only preconceive because of the subject matter itself. I'm sorry, but rereading all of that back and forth can only leave me with the conclusion that he is wrong here. The claim people questioning it are bigots is based on the topic itself and not based on people's actual motivations, rather on perceived motivations.
No he did not say it outright, but rarely is any stance stated outright in the start of a casual discussion. He also did not protest nor amend the stance as I argued it time and again, so I had to assume that since we were arguing it back and forth, I had gotten his stance right.

But lets assume I am mistaken, that the time spend defending the idea could have been saved with a simple "Ok, not everyone criticizing it is a bigot", why didn't it? I railed on the point and was quoted time and again. I have been concentrating on it specifically for the last several. Hell, even while he is patting your back, he still doesn't re-explain the stance as anything different, merely saying he accepts you as his mouth piece.
Why the hell has this lasted this long if all it would have taken on that point was "ok, I can't possibly know the motivations of people nor if people questioning it are bigots or not based solely on the topic of the kickstarter". Instead, it is presented that the topic is justification enough to claim to know the motivation of people. Is it for some? Most likely. Is it for all? Hell, for most? No, you can't say based on preconceived notions and nor is it fair to treat people like a dick based on that perception.

 

[ajr209]

snip

You should assume you are mistaken because you are. in every conceivable capacity. The reason... you know what? NO. I refuse to repeat myself for you again. Everything I could possibly say to you in response I have already said. I'm not playing whatever bull shit game you've been playing again.

You want to have an actual honest debate come talk to me again but if you're just going to keep clinging to a false claim after you've been shown that it's false and exactly why it's false by more than one person forget it. I have plenty of walls in my home to talk to if I were inclined to talk to a wall. I don't need you for that. What's more my walls have sure as hell have never been dishonest with me just to get out of having to admit they made a mistake or misunderstood what someone else said.

 

[Darken12]

Thanks, for the support, the advice, and bringing attention to the project.

I'm not sure how much more attention I'm going to give to runic knight. After all, someone who doesn't want to be taught can't be taught. Not only that he ate through all the patience, benefit of the doubt, and over all good will I had for him a long time ago.

No problem, I could say the same to you.

Eh. He strikes me as one of those "Shut up, marginalised person, and let me, the privileged person, tell you what you should be thinking" people. You're never going to get anything productive out of someone like that.

Well, there's not much use for a documentary if the only people who will see it are the people who already know what it says. Preaching to the choir and all that, it's a waste of time. I mean, you mentioned "education" yourself, but what's the point of that if you're only going to reach those who already are "educated"?

I have already answered to this ludicrous statement. It wasn't clever the first time and it's not clever now. People watch documentaries relating to subjects that are new to them. This is a thing that happens.

And of course, there's this silly question that keeps popping up: How do you know you don't like a documentary if you don't watch it? Documentaries aren't supposed to be entertainment and subject to personal taste.

But education is voluntary.

And this is a very obvious (and poorly constructed) Catch-22 as well. Have you taken a look at the first page or so of this very thread? Of people thinking a mere documentary was going to mean enforced quotas and censorship? That we were going to somehow shove this documentary down their throats whether they liked it or not? That was ridiculous. And yet here you are, saying that if we leave it to people's free will (as it ought to be), nobody's going to watch it because people never try new things.

That is patently false.

If you really want to establish the presence of this "malice", I'm afraid you'll need to put more than your own words on the table.

I say literally the same to you, only swapping out "malice" for "stupidity". We're all making assumptions here based on how we interpret the actions of others, so your argument can be picked up wholesale and used against you with just as much ease. You want to think they're being stupid instead of malicious? That's lovely, go right ahead. But don't tell me what to think.

 

[JazzJack2]

Eh. He strikes me as one of those "Shut up, marginalised person, and let me, the privileged person, tell you what you should be thinking" people. You're never going to get anything productive out of someone like that.

In what way is Runic Knight privileged? And in what way are you marginalised?

 

[Vegosiux]

Well, there's not much use for a documentary if the only people who will see it are the people who already know what it says. Preaching to the choir and all that, it's a waste of time. I mean, you mentioned "education" yourself, but what's the point of that if you're only going to reach those who already are "educated"?

I have already answered to this ludicrous statement. It wasn't clever the first time and it's not clever now. People watch documentaries relating to subjects that are new to them. This is a thing that happens.

My point was that if you keep telling people "Don't like it? Don't watch it" it's less likely that it will happen. If I was you, I'd say "Don't like it? Well how about you watch it first so you can form an informed opinion?" I'd encourage people to get educated, not telling them to stay ignorant because something they don't like came up.

Here, let me quote you for you:

Don't like the documentary? Don't watch it. Don't give it your money.

And of course, there's this silly question that keeps popping up: How do you know you don't like a documentary if you don't watch it? Documentaries aren't supposed to be entertainment and subject to personal taste.

But education is voluntary.

And this is a very obvious (and poorly constructed) Catch-22 as well. Have you taken a look at the first page or so of this very thread? Of people thinking a mere documentary was going to mean enforced quotas and censorship? That we were going to somehow shove this documentary down their throats whether they liked it or not? That was ridiculous.

That is also not even remotely related to what I said, so quit it with cheap diversions and strawmen.

And yet here you are, saying that if we leave it to people's free will (as it ought to be), nobody's going to watch it because people never try new things.

That is patently false.

Strawman. That's what you are saying with all that "Don't like it, don't watch it" thing. You're telling people it's okay to remain ignorant if they don't like what they're seeing. Those are your words so do not bloody dare to pretend it was me who said them.

Again, let me quote you for you:

Don't like the documentary? Don't watch it. Don't give it your money.

If you really want to establish the presence of this "malice", I'm afraid you'll need to put more than your own words on the table.

I say literally the same to you, only swapping out "malice" for "stupidity". We're all making assumptions here based on how we interpret the actions of others, so your argument can be picked up wholesale and used against you with just as much ease. You want to think they're being stupid instead of malicious? That's lovely, go right ahead. But don't tell me what to think.

Shifting th burden of proof, I see. Sorry, no. You made the statement. You were asked to back it up. So either back it up or say that you aren't going to bother, so we can close that line of discussion.

 

[Darken12]

In what way is Runic Knight privileged? And in what way are you marginalised?

You should know that already. You have repeatedly claimed to be gay, right? You shouldn't need further explanations.

My point was that if you keep telling people "Don't like it? Don't watch it" it's less likely that it will happen. If I was you, I'd say "Don't like it? Well how about you watch it first so you can form an informed opinion?"

That's not my place to say. I do not advocate people doing things they don't want to do. That is my stance.

Strawman. That's what you are saying with all that "Don't like it, don't watch it" thing. You're telling people it's okay to remain ignorant if they don't like what they're seeing. Those are your words so do not bloody dare to pretend it was me who said them.

Yes, it most certainly is okay for people to remain ignorant. Education is a choice, not an obligation.

Shifting th burden of proof, I see. Sorry, no. You made the statement. You were asked to back it up. So either back it up or say that you aren't going to bother, so we can close that line of discussion.

I don't have to back it up. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to adopt that same attitude. My original post was a response to runic knight asking me to justify myself as to why I answered in a certain way. I explained why. Don't agree with me? That's perfectly fine. Feel free to have other opinions. I am not demanding that you agree with me.

 

[JazzJack2]

In what way is Runic Knight privileged? And in what way are you marginalised?

You should know that already. You have repeatedly claimed to be gay, right? You shouldn't need further explanations.

Oh right, you believe that silly nonsense about 'straight white male privilege'.

 

[Darken12]

In what way is Runic Knight privileged? And in what way are you marginalised?

Oh right, you believe that silly nonsense about 'straight white male privilege'.

Ladies and gentlemen, please witness malice masquerading as a so-called "innocent" question.

Thank you, JazzJack2, for succinctly demonstrating my previous points regarding malice and ignorance. Quod erat demonstrandum and all that.

 

[JazzJack2]

In what way is Runic Knight privileged? And in what way are you marginalised?

Oh right, you believe that silly nonsense about 'straight white male privilege'.

Ladies and gentlemen, please witness malice masquerading as a so-called "innocent" question.

Thank you, JazzJack2, for succinctly demonstrating my previous points regarding malice and ignorance. Quod erat demonstrandum and all that.

There was no malice or ignorance in my comment nor my question, I just find it cute you would believe in that guff.

 

[Darken12]

There was no malice or ignorance in my comment nor my question, I just find it cute you would believe in that guff.

There was most certainly no ignorance whatsoever in your comment/question.

 

[JazzJack2]

There was no malice or ignorance in my comment nor my question, I just find it cute you would believe in that guff.

There was most certainly no ignorance whatsoever in your comment/question.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't really tell over the internet.

 

[Darken12]

There was no malice or ignorance in my comment nor my question, I just find it cute you would believe in that guff.

There was most certainly no ignorance whatsoever in your comment/question.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't really tell over the internet.

Nope, I am being completely honest. I am completely sure that you knew exactly the answers to the questions you were asking, and only asked them as an indirect way of stating your disdain for such concepts. As you proved with your following response.

Which is, coincidentally, the point I've been repeating throughout the thread: most people know full well the answers to the question they've been asking here. They have not been ignorant people who are genuinely looking for answers and education, they have been the work of people who use the argumentative technique of rhetorical questioning as a way to indirectly express disdain or as a way to have something more substantial to attack.

 

[ajr209]

[edit]: never mind, he responded for himself before I managed to finish my post.

 

[Vegosiux]

Ladies and gentlemen, please witness malice masquerading as a so-called "innocent" question.

Thank you, JazzJack2, for succinctly demonstrating my previous points regarding malice and ignorance. Quod erat demonstrandum and all that.

I'll just note that simply saying "QED" doesn't prove anything, and since neither of us really knows JazzJack's mind, nothing's been "proven" yet, for now, you're only speculating that it's malice, and I'm only speculating that I'm not sure what it actually is.

Oh and you say education is a choice, not an obligation, I wonder what all the grade and middle school kids are going to tell you about how they go to school simply because they just love to go to school and learn new things.

Funny thing, really, I'm all in support of this documentary (not giving it money because I don't have money to spare sadly), yet I'm somehow your "enemy" or something...

 

[Darken12]

[edit]: never mind, he responded for himself before I managed to finish my post.

Your original post was right, though, that was more or less what I meant to say.

I'll just note that simply saying "QED" doesn't prove anything, and since neither of us really knows JazzJack's mind, nothing's been "proven" yet, for now, you're only speculating that it's malice, and I'm only speculating that I'm not sure what it actually is.

I used QED because I considered that the evidence spoke for itself. The overt disdain made it pretty clear.

Oh and you say education is a choice, not an obligation, I wonder what all the grade and middle school kids are going to tell you about how they go to school simply because they just love to go to school and learn new things.

Yes, because clearly documentaries are exactly like school. Because all education is literally exactly the same.

Funny thing, really, I'm all in support of this documentary (not giving it money because I don't have money to spare sadly), yet I'm somehow your "enemy" or something...

There is always the option of letting it go. You know, agreeing to disagree and all that.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes, because clearly documentaries are exactly like school. Because all education is literally exactly the same.

And I was supposed to know you only meant a specific subset of education when you said "education", how exactly...? With that correction, alright, you have a point.

I'll only say that I might be prejudiced against people who choose to remain wilfully ignorant, I suppose.

There is always the option of letting it go. You know, agreeing to disagree and all that.

I think we agree on the fact that this documentary is a good thing, that's why this entire thing seems so weird to me.