The Big Picture: Not Okay

[JohnTomorrow]

I don't believe in heaven. Too fruity for my tastes.

I believe in something greater. You, sir, should earn a place in Valhalla for giving the biggest *****-slap to the pretentious fuck-heads of the Internet world. By the gods, if you were standing before me I'd shake the shit out of your hand. Great show.

 

[John Funk]

A.) 'Starving' is the word of a terrible condition, but it is not one foisted upon somebody by another human being. 'Rape' is.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that using both terms so casually, trivializes both of them. So again, why not ask people to not use the word "starving"?

B.) In trivializing rape, we are indirectly making it easier for someone to rationalize or justify it to themselves.

...what? How do you make that leap? Also does that mean that by trivializing the condition of starving, "we are indirectly making in easier for someone to rationalize or justify [the concept of starving people]"?

C.) Part of it is, admittedly, location and relative class privilege. Not many people are starving here in the States or in the UK. Rape is a much bigger problem than starvation. .

So then would you not have a problem with people from countries where the criminal act of rape is low, to say that a recent exam "raped" them?

See the link I posted earlier re: Rape Jokes, to answer your Point B. And Point A too, now that i think about it.

and re: Point C, no. Nobody should use it, anywhere. "Starving" is an exaggeration of an extant condition - i.e, I am very hungry. It's hyperbolic, and yes unfortunate, but it's at least the same condition being talking about. "Rape" should only be used about the forcible sexual domination of another human being.

Do not trivialize rape. Period. Why is this a hard concept?

 

[TheNose]

This argument keeps running around in circles. It's not okay to trivialize rape, but murder is trivialized more often in real life, especially in video games. Just because it particularly offends people when a rape joke is told, doesn't mean everybody should feel the same way. The only way I can see it being inappropriate if it can be translated into a real threat.

 

[Carbo]

So assuming we're on the same page here;

Saying something like "Oh shit you're killing me" when someone, say, tells you a hilariously funny joke, is completely okay.

Telling someone "Oh shit you're getting completely raped" whenever talking shit with your friends over a game of Twisted Metal or Mario Party is not okay, is sexist and people should feel terrible and burn in hell for doing that.

I can agree on Aris being an asshole taking it too far at a public event and this being exactly the reason why only "community professionals" such as Seth Killian, UltraDavid, James Chen and Keits are the only ones commenting on events like EVO, but I dunno, the above line of discussion kind of reeks of double standards.

 

[Masterdebator]

The whole problem here with this video is that there is nothing we can do about attitudes like this.

As well-spirited as it is, Bob's simply making a very general assault on the gaming community, one that has grown to be so enormous, a term like 'gaming community' becomes redundant.

No one can control what people will do and say, be it going on sexist diatribes or equivocating rape with owned.

The latter is an rather inane thing to get angered over. Yes rape is a serious and traumatic issue, but think about it realistically: Will a 15 year old care in a moment of excitement within a game? No. Over time, they'll (hopefully) grow up and not trivialize the term, and that's all we can hope for.

As for the sexist comments, again, most 15-20 gamers will simply grow out of using them, but there will always be some exceptions, with troubled individuals like Bakhtanian existing in gaming.

However, Bakhtanian has already been called out for his actions, vilified within gaming circles, and forced to apologize. He probably won't be changed as a person by this event, but it shows that the majority of gamers/ people think sexism isn't okay.

And that's where it should end.

But unfortunately, this is a catalyst for Bob to dogmatically looking down on gamers on the whole (again), needlessly insult people with notions of "needing sunlight" (why?), and apply sexism to be some sort of inherent issue within gaming culture.

Problem here is, sexism is a problem within CULTURE. Same as racism or homophobia. And realistically, it's not going anywhere. People have the freedom to say whatever they feel, and while they can be punished and ostracized for it, they nonetheless have that original freedom.

Now, is that a perfect politically-correct world? No, but it's the world regardless, and if we try and stop people from expressing opinions, offensive as they may be, we'll get into the disgusting world that is censorship, which is unacceptable within games or reality.

So what am I supposed to ascertain from this video?

Sexism is not okay? Trivializing words like "rape" is bad?

Last I checked I'd done neither in recent memory and knew both were not socially acceptable.

But I'm more than aware those opinions aren't a problem solely within the gaming community or communities, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Sexism, racism, homophobia, and general immaturity within people will always exist. People either grow out of it or they don't (and rightly get called out for it, as seen by Mr. Bakhtanian).

Sorry Bob, but I have to echo a previous notion,

"Why are we even talking about this?"

There's nothing we/ you can do about an issue like this.

Your overt feminist ideals are growing rather tiresome Bob.

Stop painting gamers out to be misogynist overweight pigs. Like equivocating the term "rape" with "owned", it's very immature and a narrow outlook on a cultural problem.

 

[Lexxicator]

.........
Your overt feminist ideals are growing rather tiresome Bob.

Stop painting gamers out to be misogynist overweight pigs. Like equivocating the term "rape" with "owned", it's very immature and a narrow outlook on a cultural problem.

I'm here totally agree with you, sir. Of course Bob is right too. But that's the problem here.

Bob, you're trying too hard to be right. The world we live in is not right, and that IS OKAY. Because if you'll try to make it right you might end up being another Hitler or something.

Yeah, some things offend some people. Deal with it! Stop being such crybabies.

Ok, I might not live in America, and I just don't get it. But in my country if someone offend you - you hit them in the face with a big solid stone. And then you drink vodka together.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

Disclaimer: The first sentence or the post that follows it is not meant to be baiting. I am a professor of philosophy and this is a sincere statement of my feelings.

Some of the views expressed in this video hurt me on a deep emotional level. If it was just one man's views then I wouldn't give it much thought since mistakes happen and it's often very hard to see, admit and correct one's own mistake. However, the delusion in question seems to have spread over large portions of humanity, including some of our best and brightest (Movie Bob being an example for both), and I am starting to feel like a the last sane guy in the asylum.

The mistake I am talking about is:


Unlike saying proven objective truths (for example "Randomly attacking people on the street will not make you popular among the police officers."), expressing purely subjective opinions does not obligate other people to agree with you (for example, I believe that the answer to most of philosophical question can be found in one or more episodes of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', but I do not think that the fact Stanford didn't include that show in their curriculum makes Stanford's philosophy program inadequate.)


So far, I am sure that most of you are on board with me. However, for reasons that are entirely mysterious to me, most people believe that, if they wish it REALLY hard, their subjective opinions will MAGICALLY BECOME OBJECTIVE TRUTHS! Aalakazam!

For the betterment of the human race, I present you with a short list of things that DO NOT transmogrify your opinions into objective truths:

1. Shouting.
2. The fact that YOU really believe it to be true, despite the lack of conclusive evidence (unless you are being played by Kevin Costner).
3. The fact that you find the opposing opinion offensive does not make you right, it makes you small-minded (or else every racist, homophobe or fanatic of any kind would be a moral authority by virtue of insanity).
4. Equating the act of expressing an opinion that you disagree with or using an expression that you dislike (but which in itself is not meant as an actual threat against the life or well-being of another person) with an act of aggression does not make you extra sensitive; it makes you insane. (this seems to be stupidity du jour these days. As a method of reality check, I invite all of you 'words can hurt just as bad' people to go to find a rape victim and say to him/her: "What happened to you is terrible. It is just as bad as using 'rape' as a casual synonym for defeat.")

People do not need your permission to have or to express an opinion. If you think that they are wrong - challenge them. If you know them to be logically incorrect - prove it. If you can't but you are still bothered that they are allowed to freely speak their mind -

THEN
GROW
THE
*CENSORED FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THIS WORD EXISTS*
UP!!!

EDITED on 3.7.2012. 9.14h
5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

Mr. Psychology professor. I am aware that this was meant for the non-science crowd. However, being a scientist myself and in the interest of further enforcing the validity of your argument, please provide some references for the points you have made, otherwise you are at risk of finding your own statements fall victim to your line of logic.

I personally find your above, unsupported, statement flawed, without reinforcement, and ignorant of the possibly of collective moralities playing a part in supporting a right or wrong ideal. I am no expert but I am aware of the contention in psychology surrounding the idea of morality. I would love to give references myself but it is late and it is not my field of study so I have no grounding to make an informed search of the literature.

First of all, I am not a psychology professor, I am a philosophy professor. The only reason that I have mentioned that in my post has been to explain why I care deeply about people making the mistake that I described in my post. The validity of my objection should be judged solely on it's coherency and the quality of my reasoning. I do not believe that my academic title, by itself, makes my reasoning more or less sound. For the same reason, I see no need to make a reference to other people's work in order to strengthen my case. Non quis, sed quid. (it doesn't matter who said something, it only matters what they said)

As for collective moralities, I believe that, while it is true that many groups of people share certain moral beliefs or whole moral systems, I do not believe that an opinion, moral or otherwise, becomes more valid simply because more people believe in it. Just because something IS does not prove that it OUGHT to be (Hume's Law). The fact that many people believe in something does not prove their belief to be either correct or moral (the moral system shared by the majority of Germans during Third Reich is a commonly quoted example).

In fact, that whole "many people sharing an opinion make that opinion true, will make a nice rule 5 for my original post:

5. The fact that many people share your opinion does not prove your opinion to an objective truth (if you disagree, then please prove me wrong. Gather a herd of people who also don't believe me and win the lottery 10 times in a row by making everyone share your belief that you are going to win.

My issue was less against your argument and more that your argument is unsupported. As best I am aware, even philosophy requires that positions be backed up by some 'evidence', in the case of philosophy I know it to be the opinion of other noted Philosophers.
So please find some references to support your position otherwise your distinction of being a philosophy professor (in support of your position being informed) becomes only as valid as any of the other posters here.

The well informed inform, the Scientific refer.

This is because you do not understand what 'evidence' means. Which would be excusable were it not for the fact that, despite your ignorance of this you are trying to teach me what evidence means. Since you have not even bothered to wiki 'evidence' or 'proof', I most certainly will not do that work for you. I will, however, demonstrate why your opinion (that a 'proper' philosopher can not make an argument without supporting it with a quote of other 'notable' philosopher saying the same thing) is wrong. This is called reductio ad absurdum (again google it or wiki it)


Let us suppose that it is true that every 'proper argument' in philosophy must be supported by quoting a 'notable philosopher'.

For example, let's say that I support argument A, by quoting Kant who also said wrote that A is true. However, if we are considering Kant to be a 'notable philosopher' and are quoting him as such, then we are surely not quoting some trivial thing he said but a 'proper argument'. Then, ex hypothesi, Kant himself must have had quoted some notable philosopher before him, say Plato, who in turn quoted Socrates. But, alas, Socrates quoted no one, because he is the first philosopher to have come up with argument A. This means that A was not a 'proper argument' when Socrates said it, which means that any argument based on A is also not a 'proper argument'.

In other words if there are such people as philosophers (and supposing that human race does not exist eternally , but that it had a beginning) there must have existed one among them who has been the first philosopher. However, since you claim that it is impossible to be a philosopher without quoting philosophers who came before you, there couldn't have been a first philosopher. Which means that there are no such thing as philosophers.

Or you are simply wrong about your hypothesis.

So in effect, no, you have nothing to support your view so it is just your opinion and your status does not add or subtract any more to it. Just wanted to clarify that.

 

[JLF]

I agree completely and I'm happy that somebody points out that people have obligations as well as rights. I do not know how it is in the States, but at least here in Finland we seem to have all the rights but almost no obligations (with the exceptions of having to pay taxes and the obligatory army/civil service). One should take responsibility for the actions even if they seems insignificant to some.

PS. Please do not refrain from making more of these "non-fun" episodes. It is one of the reasons I enjoy checking out the Escapist Magazine almost every other day.

 

[Votejim]

I literally have nothing to add to this. A great video, a great point once again expressed with balance and finesse. Keep it up, Bob

 

[Aircross]

I hereby vow to never ever use the word "rape" again as a casual synonym for defeat.

You have my word Bob.

 

[TheNose]

I hereby vow to never ever use the word "rape" again as a casual synonym for defeat.

You have my word Bob.

Then you might as well go through your entire vocabulary and start rooting out any other terms that may offend people.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I agree with pretty much everything there EXCEPT slut shame, because THAT does need to be called out, on both genders, because it de-humanizes sexuality and is the reason for rape and sexual assault TO BEGIN WITH.

I would like to see your proof that it dehumanises sexuality. Also, are you aware you posted that comment 4 times?

Nobody has the right to make assumptions about someone elses behaviour. If someone is promiscuous let them be that way, it does not effect you in any way, shape or form and is just another form of people expressing their own sexualities.

Dehumanises sexuality or just people having a bit of fun? *sigh*

You can state that a lifestyle is not for you without insulting it or declaring it to be worth less than the lifestyle you choose to persue. Let it be stated here that I am far from being promiscuous. Hell, I have kept with my new years resolution of no sex till 2013 (Getting into university matters more to me than getting into bed with someone.) and, bar once, all the sex I have ever had has been within a loving relationship.

But someone can sleep around and still have a loving meaningful relationship with someone. It does not lesser their ability in any way, shape or form. The "Slut Hate" you get from gamers to me sounds too much like, well, gamers being annoyed at the lack of sex they get.

Finally...

Wow. It is amazing how little I care about this.

Seriously.

You could probably replace the slides with just a great big picture of a white knight.


Although, could someone explain to me why it's considered alright for women to bang on about how men are pigs, but the moment a constantly spurned young man starts to vent, hecklers crawl out of the fucking wood work to call him a misogynist douche?

Well, nothing against you for not caring about issues. Took me till the age of 20 to stand up and start taking a stand within the field of gender politics. Although... Just on a side note, I find it weird how "White Knight" is now used as a derogatory term for... A male who cares about sexism? I guess I just find it weird that there is a derogatory term for men who hate chauvinism.

Anyway, as to your actual point?

Society is inherently sexist. It has been for years. Men enjoy far more perks than women (Tis fact. I will not bother trying to back it up. Because you will ignore my entire argument and label me as a white knight anyway. Which makes me question why I am bothering to reply to your statement. Oh well). Due to the different equality of means enjoyed by different layers of society, well, different parts of our communities can say different things.

Within heterosexual relationships (Let us keep that in mind, we are talking about sexism)...

88% of spouses abused are female, 12% male. So that is a reason why women are allowed to rag on about men.
Rape can only be committed by men (In British Law) and sexual assaults in general are FAR more likely to be committed by men.
Roughly 1 in 5 women will be raped over the course of their lifetime.

Well, those are a few reasons.

So!

Considering women will face constant sexual harassment, greater risk of assault at the hands of the opposite sex and inequality within the home, within the workplace and within society as a whole, they can rag on about how men are bastards all they like.

And considering there are relatively few crimes committed against men by women, when a dude starts to mouth off about how horrible his lot is due to women it comes across as rather rich.

Finally?

It is all about context. Are you blaming WOMEN or A WOMAN? It can make all the different. I blame A WOMAN for my life going off the rails. I do not blame WOMEN for anything.

And, outside of radial feminist movements, it is hard to find women that blame MEN for things and not A MAN. This is an important distinction.

Not all feminists are feminazis.

And not all "White Knights" are limp-wristed apologists or people who worship the ground that women walk on. Some people just care about equality. Because, perhaps, they grew up in a conservative muslim country (Like I did) and saw the true face of inequality.

Oh, so sexism is okay as long as a it's a woman being sexist towards men because they get the short stick the most?

That is the very definition of a double standard. The original thought of the video was that SEXISM IS BAD, it shouldn't matter if it's a man or a woman.

By "white knight" I'm referring to people who crusade against a perceived or actual injustice long past the point most people stopped giving a shit.

Also, I don't care about whatever shit hand you were dealt in life. You're just a voice on the internet, one of a vast tremulous throng I have no emotional connection to.

Oh, and one more thing... thanks for responding.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Do not trivialize rape. Period. Why is this a hard concept?

It "hard" for my to get how using the word starving is ok, or saying that "my backpack is so heavy, it's killing me" can be considered ok. Yet somehow using the word rape is crossing the line.

 

[Strain42]

The main reason why I get annoyed seeing rape as a synonym for defeat is because...well...it doesn't make sense. When used in video games, the definition just doesn't match up for what's happening. It's not even like saying "I killed you" where it's at least in the ball park, if just a bit hyperbolic.

Using rape as your verb in a situation like that doesn't fit. You may as well say you baked them or you climbed them for all the sense it actually makes