defskyoen said:
It?s the way you worded it in that entire sentence that made me think of orgy, ?cheerfully pander? takes an entirely different connotation.
That's fine, but that's still your projection.
defskyoen said:
Well, you?re using it wrong then, because the concept of ?objectification? only applies to persons.....
You're actually perfectly aware of the context in which it is being used, and what it is being applied to. Because you disagree, you are laboring on with this semantic bog that isn't compelling to read and cannot have been invigorating to write.
defskyoen said:
Are you saying what I think you are saying? Is it the old ?violence in video games might create murderers?, ?Bulletstorm causes rape? or how Anita put it ?violence against women in games might lead to increased domestic violence? (paraphrased).
Quite a gap there. Influencing attitudes is a long way from influencing actions. I'm going to ask you again...do you believe black face was harmless fun that existed in a vacuum, or do you believe...
Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrels not only played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide, but also in popularizing black culture.
If you accept the above can be true, then why wouldn't portrayals of other ethnic groups, or genders, or religious parties, or ANY group potentially contribute to "images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide"? I'm not asking you whether you think it's right, or wrong, or whether uppity minorities or genders or social groups should just keep their mouths shut about their issues. I'm asking whether you think art influences society. Yes or no.
defskyoen said:
If so, surely you will be able to provide some data to back your claims?
When Fox News claimed that Bulletstorm might cause rape they at least went to the trouble of contacting a neuroscientist and an actual child psychologist: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107628-Fox-News-Says-Bulletstorm-Could-Make-You-a-Rapist
Of course, back when this happened almost every gamer was up in arms and you could find infinite articles trying to disprove said claims (and question the qualifications of said professionals): http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/02/15/bulletstormgate-lieberman-offers-evidence/
But when a feminist says something like that it?s apparently suddenly reasonable to a lot of people and makes obvious sense?
Again, you're trying to equate attitudes with actions. I'd actually be ASTONISHED to learn you believed that societal perceptions do not influence personal perceptions. Even the most ardent critical thinker is seldom on point 24/7. I'd also be ASTONISHED to learn you believed playing a violent video game could or would cause an otherwise peaceful person to pick up a weapon and go on a spree.
defskyoen said:
I make no secret of believing that some people calling themselves ?feminists? nowadays are batshit insane, I even opened an entire separate thread about that: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.409404-Criticism-of-Modern-Feminism
And I?ll say it outright that as someone with academic background I was rather dubious of ?social sciences? for quite a while, but after watching this entire documentary series: http://www.dailymotion.com/BrainwashingInNorway (I?d highly recommend it, it was rather good, no matter on which side of the debate you fall) I?m more dubious than ever.
No, you don't. You show evidence of a truly massive confirmation bias, to be honest, but I suspect your reaction to that will be to simply accuse me of the same.
Your academic background is completely irrelevant to anything, by the way. You know better than to weasel something like that into a discussion. =P
But...yes. It stands to reason that some people calling themselves "feminists" do indeed show signs of being batshit insane. Where I become confused is how that then becomes a criticism of feminism, rather than an illustration of how those people
are not feminists. If I call myself a Maoist but behave like a capitalist, the proper conclusion to draw from that is that I am not, in fact, a Maoist...regardless of my claims. It is not to conclude that Maoism has gone off the rails and must be abandoned.
Although honestly I couldn't really say whether or not Maoism should be abandoned. If there are any Maoists in the audience, speak up!
defskyoen said:
I might agree with a lot of their goals, for instance I believe in the same rights for everyone (especially political, judicial and in the workplace) and I generally trend to the far left.
Well then you'd match up nicely with the dictionary definition of feminism, wouldn't you? You might seek to distance yourself from third wave feminism, which seems primarily concerned with self criticism and chasing it's own tail. And you might sensibly distance yourself from fruitcakes who claim to be feminists whilst demonstrating none of its tenets. You'd hardly be alone in that.
defskyoen said:
I have a big problem with their theories and methods though, not with most of their goals and I?m not pretending as if I have the moral upper hand.
Who is "they"? Is it your conjecture that individuals self-identifying as "feminists" speak with a unified voice?
defskyoen said:
Just, a lot of the stuff being said by some of the debaters kind of reminds me of this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
Well that's confirmation bias and attitude polarization, though, isn't it? It's also a case of misleading vividness, where you're concentrating on what "some of the debaters" have said, and applying it to an entire philosophical school of thought. Which a lot of people are fucking bent about because it has "fem" in it. Ironically, probably the same people who rightfully thought the thankfully brief movement to rename "history" was retarded.
defskyoen said:
Personally I don?t want a medium I like influenced and censored by blind ideologues, be they anti-violence, religious groups, PETA or feminists. If they want to impinge their ideologies on game making and game design and portray people who don?t agree as ?bad? then they are my enemy.
You've spent the better part of this thread portraying "these people"...whom you don't agree with...as bad. You compared their criticism of video games to the Crusades for heavens sake. As for the medium...don't we all want the medium to give us more of what we like, and less of what we don't? I don't see why the inevitable outcome of criticism must necessarily be "censorship".
defskyoen said:
I?ve just compared the ideology behind it. Many of these social movements, be it Marxism, Nazism, Religious extremism in the past were initiated by ideologues, with a lot of people behind these movements genuinely believing they would create a better form of society for everyone and did and said a lot of things because of that (including vilify certain groups of people that didn?t agree with them). I?ve compared general feminist sentiments to that.
And again, no, it's not remotely comparable. "You believe in a different God, therefore you must die" is not comparable to "I disagree with the artistic choice you've made in Game X for Y reasons". Not as an action, and not as an ideology.
defskyoen said:
He'd probably agree with you: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Carmack since this is a famous quote from him:
"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."
But you see, that would be subjective criticism instead of the moral kind since you didn't call him a sexist, misogynist, a 14 year old, a bad human being, his work offensive or anything of the kind and thus implied judgment and that he did something universally bad.
I don't recall calling anyone any of those things at any point during this discussion. Are you suggesting we simply CANNOT criticize any form of art in terms of it's portrayal of gender? Just gender? What about race? Or age? Or social class? Is any of that up for criticism? Or must we be silent, in case we are seen as impugning the artists moral character?
