Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

[xPixelatedx]

I still stand by the collectors edition of Dead Island being offensive, but ok. It's a dismembered torso wearing the flag of the country it's being released in... I am pretty sure their goal was to be offensive, regardless of any apology they may have made. But it's merchandise for a zombie game, so I'd expect it to be something horrible.

 

[Legion]

It used to be a case of unless something was deliberately and obviously trying to be offensive, it was taken as a joke, or seen as light hearted banter.

Also, a lot of minorities just took the abuse.

Besides, I think it's more vital to point out sexism and such stuff when it isn't trying to be offensive.
If someone doesn't realise s/he is being offensive, or has certain kinds of attitudes, isn't it good to inform them of it? To challenge accepted norms and our own attitudes?

For example, my grandmother calls black people 'niggers'.
She doesn't mean anything bad by it, when she was young, that was just the way people talked.
But I'm going to do my best to try to make her stop using that word, because it's meaning is different for most people.

I never said I was referring to minorities. I was referring to the general increase in being thin skinned. In the UK for example comedians are constantly bombarded by the press complaining about their "offensive" humour. They aren't even discussing things such as racism, homophobia or sexism. The content has nothing to do with groups that have been persecuted at all.

For example on the 'Big Fat Quiz of the Year' a bunch of comedians made fun of both the Queen and the President of America. Their comments sparked complaints and the front pages of all of the newspapers were plastered with it. It's absolutely pathetic.

I agree with your point that we should point it out when we see it, we shouldn't just accept it. My issue is that people frequently go looking for it when it isn't there.

A vague example and I apologise but this is how it frequently looks to me:

A guy says something nasty to another person of the same race, gender and sexuality = They are just an asshole.
A guy says something nasty to a person of another race = It's racist.
A guy says something nasty to a woman = It's sexist.
A guy says something nasty to a gay guy = It's homophobic.

The assumption frequently seems to be made that if anybody says/does anything about anybody who is different from them, it has to be because they are different from you rather than other reasons.

That is my issue really. The assumption that something is offensive due to the person being affected, rather than why they are being affected.

I apologise if I have worded this poorly.

 

[JudgeGame]

I still stand by the collectors edition of Dead Island being offensive, but ok. It's a dismembered torso wearing the flag of the country it's being released in... I am pretty sure their goal was to be offensive, regardless of any apology they may have made. But it's merchandise for a zombie game, so I'd expect it to be something horrible.

That isn't actually a defense. It actually makes it worse, doesn't it?

 

[Hagi]

The litmus test is:
1) Choose character.
2) Check for fanfiction of character.
Results:
1) There's fanfiction: sexualized.
2) There's no fanfiction: not sexualized.
3) There's queer fanfiction: sexualized but possibly with a queer target market in mind.

Rule 34.

So everything is sexualized?

I mean the logical conclusion of your test is that My Little Pony is full of heavily sexualized characters and also has a queer target market in mind.

I think your test might be wrong.

 

[TwiZtah]

boo fucking hoo, someone gets offended. So what? people who get offended are weak human beings.

 

[lord.jeff]

Great episode it's shameful how often people, myself included, will listen to a person just to argue with them instead of actually hearing them out.

 

[Sylocat]

And of course, people who haven't actually watched the video are simply taking the video description and matching it to a pattern they've trained themselves to hate, and posting lengthy rebuttals to points that aren't actually made in this video, thus making the video's point for it.

So thank you, all you moronic misogynist trolls, for proving Jim's point (and the point of anyone with a brain) for him.

 

[JudgeGame]

The litmus test is:
1) Choose character.
2) Check for fanfiction of character.
Results:
1) There's fanfiction: sexualized.
2) There's no fanfiction: not sexualized.
3) There's queer fanfiction: sexualized but possibly with a queer target market in mind.

Rule 34.

So everything is sexualized?

I mean the logical conclusion of your test is that My Little Pony is full of heavily sexualized characters and also has a queer target market in mind.

I think your test might be wrong.

I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes and quaint, feminine gestures.

In any case, you are supposed to apply a gradient as there is no such concept as a 0% sexualized character or a 100% sexualized character. Dante, has about 5 times more more fanfiction and H-pics made about him than Kratos (very rough). Thus, Dante is about 5 times more sexualized than Kratos.

There are outliers. For example, people with rare fetishes or pedophiles, who are attracted to things most people can't relate to in any way. In that sense, furries are similar, which does explain why MLP is more popular than could be predicted.

I said litmus test and I guess I meant rule of thumb.

 

[mrhateful]

Look everything we humans make is offensive to somebody, the reason why we don't care is because the fact that someone got offended is so trivial so meaningless that there is no reason for us to care. Its not because we are afraid, like the game industry will continue nothing going to stop that. But to get riled up about someone thinking it was offending medieval people used sex to bully a woman in a game, doesn't even show up on my radar of caring.

The reason why some people get upset and flame is because the OP implied we should care and that is pretty stupid and if there is one thing that can get people flaming is when you're being stupid.

 

[MatsVS]

Other than that, you will excuse me if I think that Jim Sterling is yet again not really voicing his actual opinion on the matter, but jumping on the latest bandwagon to what people want to be hearing as his new reformed self.
At least based on past conversations he's had with actual people and his manner of expression I'd rather not repeat here myself: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=4298

Yes, because clearly, when one reads up on a subject and educates himself, and then gradually comes to see the other side as correct, that is nothing but "jumping on the latest bandwagon". Really? I mean, REALLY? Are we all shackled to the juvenile nonsense we spewed when we were younger and dumber?

And it is strange, isn't it, how most the video game writers who are worth a damn seem to reach the same conclusion: that these debates are worth having, and the gut reaction of privileged white troglodytes to silence those who disagree with them is a shitty thing and should be condemned.

We all need to be better at realizing that our favourite games can still be flawed, and we need to be willing to have these discussions. If anything, we owe it to the games themselves, so that they can become better, for everyone.

 

[JudgeGame]

Look everything we humans make is offensive to somebody, the reason why we don't care is because the fact that someone got offended is so trivial so meaningless that there is no reason for us to care. Its not because we are afraid, like the game industry will continue nothing going to stop that. But to get riled up about someone thinking it was offending medieval people used sex to bully a woman in a game, doesn't even show up on my radar of caring.

The reason why some people get upset and flame is because the OP implied we should care and that is pretty stupid and if there is one thing that can get people flaming is when you're being stupid.

Do you listen to your own advice, or does it not apply?

 

[Hagi]

I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes and quaint, feminine gestures.

Wait? What?

That's your definition of sexualization?

Erm... okay... Sure...

I mean if simply having some female attributes is considered sexualization by you then I can understand where you're coming from. But sure, almost all female character, having female attributes, can most surely be considered sexualized by your definition whilst many male characters, having no female attributes, can not be considered sexualized by your definition.

 

[Lieju]

boo fucking hoo, someone gets offended. So what? people who get offended are weak human beings.

So, the next time some misinformed politician rambles on about how video-games makes kiddies violent, all the gamers who protest are weak human beings?

 

[mrhateful]

Look everything we humans make is offensive to somebody, the reason why we don't care is because the fact that someone got offended is so trivial so meaningless that there is no reason for us to care. Its not because we are afraid, like the game industry will continue nothing going to stop that. But to get riled up about someone thinking it was offending medieval people used sex to bully a woman in a game, doesn't even show up on my radar of caring.

The reason why some people get upset and flame is because the OP implied we should care and that is pretty stupid and if there is one thing that can get people flaming is when you're being stupid.

Do you listen to your own advice, or does it not apply?

I didn't give any advice, I merely stated why things occur as they do.

Also I wanna add that not everything offensive is meaningless. For instance misinformation is always good cause to be offended whether its a game stating all homosexuals are dumb or a politician stating games cause people to become violent. Doesn't matter both equally bad, however a game with some content people dislike is not something I care about since it doesn't impact anyone.

 

[Hagi]

Other than that, you will excuse me if I think that Jim Sterling is yet again not really voicing his actual opinion on the matter, but jumping on the latest bandwagon to what people want to be hearing as his new reformed self.
At least based on past conversations he's had with actual people and his manner of expression I'd rather not repeat here myself: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=4298

Yes, because clearly, when one reads up on a subject and educates himself, and then gradually comes to see the other side as correct, that is nothing but "jumping on the latest bandwagon". Really? I mean, REALLY? Are we all shackled to the juvenile nonsense we spewed when we were younger and dumber?

And it is strange, isn't it, how most the video game writers who are worth a damn seem to reach the same conclusion: that these debates are worth having, and the gut reaction of privileged white troglodytes to silence those who disagree with them is a shitty thing and should be condemned.

We all need to be better at realizing that our favourite games can still be flawed, and we need to be willing to have these discussions. If anything, we owe it to the games themselves, so that they can become better, for everyone.

So...

We should silence the 'privileged white troglodytes' instead since we disagree with them?

See, that's the problem with this video. It doesn't take the side of having these issues open to debate. It takes the side of having these issues open to debate but only for everyone who agrees that they're sexist/racist/homophobic.

If someone attempts to silence your point of view then the appropriate reaction is to ignore them, you have a right to your opinion that nobody can take away. The appropriate reaction is not to attempt to silence them in turn, they also have a right to their opinion that you can't take away.

 

[JudgeGame]

I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes and quaint, feminine gestures.

Wait? What?

That's your definition of sexualization?

Erm... okay... Sure...

I mean if simply having some female attributes is considered sexualization by you then I can understand where you're coming from. But sure, almost all female character, having female attributes, can most surely be considered sexualized by your definition whilst many male characters, having no female attributes, can not be considered sexualized by your definition.

Last time I checked, women didn't have giant eyes, their eyelashes are the same length as a man and they can choose to express themselves in a quaint, femenine manner. Oh, I forgot to mention the ponies have massive asses that jiggle like crazy. Most women don't have asses like that.

 

[JudgeGame]

Other than that, you will excuse me if I think that Jim Sterling is yet again not really voicing his actual opinion on the matter, but jumping on the latest bandwagon to what people want to be hearing as his new reformed self.
At least based on past conversations he's had with actual people and his manner of expression I'd rather not repeat here myself: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=4298

Yes, because clearly, when one reads up on a subject and educates himself, and then gradually comes to see the other side as correct, that is nothing but "jumping on the latest bandwagon". Really? I mean, REALLY? Are we all shackled to the juvenile nonsense we spewed when we were younger and dumber?

And it is strange, isn't it, how most the video game writers who are worth a damn seem to reach the same conclusion: that these debates are worth having, and the gut reaction of privileged white troglodytes to silence those who disagree with them is a shitty thing and should be condemned.

We all need to be better at realizing that our favourite games can still be flawed, and we need to be willing to have these discussions. If anything, we owe it to the games themselves, so that they can become better, for everyone.

So...

We should silence the 'privileged white troglodytes' instead since we disagree with them?

See, that's the problem with this video. It doesn't take the side of having these issues open to debate. It takes the side of having these issues open to debate but only for everyone who agrees that they're sexist/racist/homophobic.

If someone attempts to silence your point of view then the appropriate reaction is to ignore them, you have a right to your opinion that nobody can take away. The appropriate reaction is not to attempt to silence them in turn, they also have a right to their opinion that you can't take away.

I for one have no problem letting somebody talk as long as they are going to be civil about it, no matter how wrong their ideas may be. I know a lot of people who are willing to do this.

 

[Hagi]

I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes and quaint, feminine gestures.

Wait? What?

That's your definition of sexualization?

Erm... okay... Sure...

I mean if simply having some female attributes is considered sexualization by you then I can understand where you're coming from. But sure, almost all female character, having female attributes, can most surely be considered sexualized by your definition whilst many male characters, having no female attributes, can not be considered sexualized by your definition.

Last time I checked, women didn't have giant eyes, their eyelashes are the same length as a man and they can choose to express themselves in a quaint, femenine manner. Oh, I forgot to mention the ponies have massive asses that jiggle like crazy. Most women don't have asses like that.

Last time I checked commercials for products to make a woman's eyes appear bigger and their lashes longer through careful application of make-up where pretty common.

As for pony asses I fear I haven't got the faintest clue, it's not something I find myself paying attention to. I'll take your word for it that they're apparently very big and very jiggly and thus highly sexualized.

 

[Devin Barker]

i am somehow blissfully ignorent of the problems with earthworm jims creator... any one have a link to anything i can read up on?

 

[Fiairflair]

People don't seem to understand that not all stories are moral messages. Skyrim has a mission to abduct a priest into a cannibal cult and EAT him, this is not a "pro-cannibal" message. Like-wise the "slut-shaming" quest in skyrim is not "pro slut-shaming". Skyrim is a true RPG in that it gives you the option to be entirely unethical but lets you stop and do something else should you decide to.

Skyrim is a good example of one of the more gender equalised games on the market. The women (in the unmodded versions) are hardly sexualised and you find people of different genders in most professions.

BTW I'm not telling anyone to shut up, I'm disagreeing with you.

Certainly, RPGs should give gamers a diverse selection of roles to act out. But the "The Taste of Death" quest and the "Boethiah's Calling" quest are different to the "Mark of Dibella" quest (these are Skyrim, naturally) in that they present recognizably unrealistic scenarios. I'm not suggesting that the selection of 'bad' options in RPGs must be unrealistic. Rather, it is reasonable that people want to discuss the broader implications of the "Mark of Dibella" quest and not the others. Nobody is concerned that a game will popularize cannibalism or human sacrifice, but the condemnation of women for having sex is real and happens around the world. I agree with Jim that we should be open to discussing it.