The Big Picture: Not Okay

[Vankraken]

I agree with most of what bob says except when it comes to the casual use of the word "rape". In my and a lot of peoples mind the message you send by speech or text is based on context and meaning.
Saying "I played like shit" or "This game is fucking hard" is far less offensive than saying "I hope you die in a fire" because of the intent and meaning of those words and not the words themselves.

Sure saying rape is a bit tasteless and you wouldn't want to use it around children or in proper conversation just as any other "inappropriate" words but with all words it about the intent and context. If rape is a taboo word then why isn't murder or owning also bad? Killing and enslavement are two very serious things as well. Why is it ok to use words that mean ending somebodies life or taking somebody as your property but sexual assault is off limits?

We got owned
We got murdered
We got raped
We lost horribly

In this context they all mean the same thing and yet saying raped is somehow much worse. I don't know where the line should be drawn on word choice but I personally fear that for every line drawn somebody is going raise hell until its moved further and further until words you can only say darn, shoot, dang, etc but it doesn't stop little raging Timmy for yelling on xbox live for somebody to "get AIDS", "die in a fire", or "go drink bleach".

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

Agreed. Rape is not sexist simply because it involves sex. Rape can happen to both genders. People are raped in prison all the time, and it's generally understood that the person being raped is not homosexual. I don't think the problematic thing about rape is that it's sexist. The objectionable thing about rape is that it is a violent act of sexual penetration that is both physically and emotionally traumatic, regardless of the gender of the victim.

Would it be better if people went around saying "I just totally skull-f@#$ed you!" after they got a headshot? Skull-F@#$ing doesn't seem to be tied to gender, and yet (I'm going out on a limb here) I think it might be a bit more offensive than 'rape'.

I was just thinking on this point. At first I was obviously on Bob's side, because rape is bad and we shouldn't be using it as trash-talk or to "proclaim victory". But then I had to think about the meaning of rape.
In our culture it is predominantly women who are raped, likely due to the strength difference between the sexes, so I can see where Bob is coming from on that. But the word "rape" isn't gender-specific. Neither is "murder" or "destruction".
So why don't gamers say "you got killed/squashed/crushed/shot/etc" more often? I think it's because rape implies a state of complete empowerment over another being's mind and body. Similar terms often used are "dominated" and "owned". Most people don't picture the emotional trauma or consequences of rape when they use it in a gaming situation, they imagine the implications of the act itself.

That being said, the gaming/internet community is undeniably sexist. Some of our often-used phrases are:
Get back in the kitchen
Make me a sammich
There are no girls on the internet
Tits or GTFO

Anyhoo, I'll take this episode to heart and start cutting back on such language.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Bob, you're one of the few reasons why I still visit The Escapist. Stay classy.

1) Your liberal opinion is, while contrary to the racist/homophobic/sexist sub-culture (and sub-par sub-culture) of some video games, is not especially unusual or unrepresented.

I'm confused. What does not being a scumbag have to do with liberalism?

Edit:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion

Nevermind. I was thinking "Liberalism = center-left-wing."

 

[theultimateend]

There is some associative error in equating the term rape with the act rape. A free use of the term is in no way free support of the act.

It's moronic to think so and the morons that would use that as justification for their actions would have been rapists and terrible humans regardless.

I have friends who use it, many of them are female, and I am certain to the deepest level of my being that they all feel (as I do) that it is a vile thing.

The inability to separate the term from the act is a bit troubling to me. But I do understand that the brain is big on associations.

In our culture it is predominantly women who are raped, likely due to the strength difference between the sexes, so I can see where Bob is coming from on that. But the word "rape" isn't gender-specific. Neither is "murder" or "destruction".
So why don't gamers say "you got killed/squashed/crushed/shot/etc" more often? I think it's because rape implies a state of complete empowerment over another being's mind and body. Similar terms often used are "dominated" and "owned". Most people don't picture the emotional trauma or consequences of rape when they use it in a gaming situation, they imagine the implications of the act itself.

I tend to say "I got nuked." But I in no way support the nuclear strikes on Japan and I find the bombs horrifying.

But you said it much more eloquently than I could.

Edit...that reminds me. The following thing actually happened to me yesterday.

We had a project with the Japanese publishers of one of the F2P games I manage in the US. I told my translator to tell them "If they don't want to do the project as X we should just nuke the entire thing."

He then translated to them, afterwords I face palmed. I don't even know if he said exactly what I said or if he caught the poor word choice.

At any rate, I was reminded of that.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

good times, the assholes need a good ripping into. People like Aris are a blight on the community

 

[kuolonen]

I understand your position but I reserve my right to say "gg noobs get raped" when pwning some scrubs online.

And I reserve my rights to report you to the proper authorities and/or kick you off my server. That isn't acceptable behavior, and it is sexist.

Contrary to popular belief, rape is not in fact exclusive to females.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report.html#_1_3

I feel bit silly for having to explains this. Why do you force this burden on me?

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Remember people, be politically correct and watch your language. Because that is what gaming should be about.

Captain, scanners are coming up with high liberal hubris.
Great mother of the respectocracy!

 

[Shjade]

The following thing actually happened to me yesterday.

We had a project with the Japanese publishers of one of the F2P games I manage in the US. I told my translator to tell them "If they don't want to do the project as X we should just nuke the entire thing."

He then translated to them, afterwords I face palmed. I don't even know if he said exactly what I said or if he caught the poor word choice.

You, sir, are one smooth operator.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Remember people, be politically correct and watch your language. Because that is what gaming should be about.

Captain, scanners are coming up with high liberal hubris.
Great mother of the respectocracy!

Gaming should be about being a bag of douches instead? I don't follow.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

No it shouldn't, and I do somewhat agree with bob (I have a leftist degree from a leftist uni). But Bob should understand, that if he tries to force everyone to hold his liberal opinions, it is not going to work with the whole anonymous online gaming crowd.

 

[killercyclist]

RIGHT ON! i agree on all your points, gaming need not be a boy's club for bigots and angry shut in's. gaming is and should be for all that care to try it, maybe it's cheesy but to me "do unto others as they would do to you," rings totally true and should be held as gospel. thank you for another important piece for people to grow on.

 

[mandalorian2298]

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.

 

[theultimateend]

The following thing actually happened to me yesterday.

We had a project with the Japanese publishers of one of the F2P games I manage in the US. I told my translator to tell them "If they don't want to do the project as X we should just nuke the entire thing."

He then translated to them, afterwords I face palmed. I don't even know if he said exactly what I said or if he caught the poor word choice.

You, sir, are one smooth operator.

I honestly felt like an ass after, but joke was on me in the end, we spent the next 2 hours arguing about that same issue (they wanted to give players crap).

And then today we find out they are making cards out of >gold< to give to the top 5 players after some event there.

I don't understand Japan...

but I'm getting off topic from seriousness of bob thread.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

No it shouldn't, and I do somewhat agree with bob (I have a leftist degree from a leftist uni). But Bob should understand, that if he tries to force everyone to hold his liberal opinions, it is not going to work with the whole anonymous online gaming crowd.

How's he 'forcing' his opinion. He's publishing a response to published comments. You're free to agree or disagree with him, but what reason do you have for doing so? What do we have to gain when we have people who disparage women for participating while being women?

What do we have to gain when we have people who disparage women for participating while being women without people like Bob calling them out?

 

[Seydaman]

Damn straight BoB.
Damn straight.
I read an article on Kotaku about this, it is a great article.

http://kotaku.com/5868595/nerds-and-male-privilege

 

[Mirrorknight]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

You can swing your fist around all you want. The moment you try to take a swing at someone, those rights end.

Same goes for speech and the freedom thereof.

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

UltraDavid, someone who could be considered a leader in the fighting game community, did a fantastic write-up that touched on this topic on shoryuken.com. True, the main topic is fighting games as esports, but the argument for why this sort of thing happens in the fighting game community is pretty well explained. It's LONG AS HELL and can be found here [http://shoryuken.com/2011/12/12/guest-editorial-momentum-matters-a-historical-perspective-on-the-fgc-and-esports-communities-2/].

Really great read, thanks for the link. I recommend it to anyone with free time and an interest in differing videogame demographics to give it a look.

 

[duck-man]

I've been bugged by that free speech thing so much! Well done on articulating your points so clearly.

 

[xdom125x]

Good episode, Bob.

Also, while I want trash-talking in general to go away, I doubt it will anytime soon because talking smack about your competition has probably been around as long as people have had enemies, but we should at least try to get rid of the sexist, homophobic, and racist trash-talk that goes on now.

It isn't okay to enjoy your hobby while degrading women and making other members of your hobby look like dicks who you assume share your messed-up view of the world.

Why should people have to censor themselves when their playing things like Xbox live? Last I checked, you can mute people

The burden to change behavior should not fall on the innocents.

Plus, this isn't specific to online play. In tournaments and other gaming events people experience racism, sexism and harassment.

well if your play Call of Duty Multiplayer and my saying something offensive gets you thinking about what is being said and not on the game, which in turn gives me a window of time to catch you off guard, why shouldn't I use that technique?

Because if you have to distract your opponent from a game to beat them in a game, it shows a lack of skill in the game and a lack of civility. I don't know about you, but a lot of people like to play against other people to see who is actually better at the game as oppose to who can come up with the most obnoxious/obscene things to say.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Good episode, Bob.

Also, while I want trash-talking in general to go away, I doubt it will anytime soon because talking smack about your competition has probably been around as long as people have had enemies, but we should at least try to get rid of the sexist, homophobic, and racist trash-talk that goes on now.

It isn't okay to enjoy your hobby while degrading women and making other members of your hobby look like dicks who you assume share your messed-up view of the world.

Why should people have to censor themselves when their playing things like Xbox live? Last I checked, you can mute people

The burden to change behavior should not fall on the innocents.

Plus, this isn't specific to online play. In tournaments and other gaming events people experience racism, sexism and harassment.

well if your play Call of Duty Multiplayer and my saying something offensive gets you thinking about what is being said and not on the game, which in turn gives me a window of time to catch you off guard, why shouldn't I use that technique?

eh, a free points are free points. Its just another technique as far as I'm concerned. Ironically, I don't own a mic, so I've never done this before.
Because if you have to distract your opponent from a game to beat them in a game, it shows a lack of skill in the game and a lack of civility. I don't know about you, but a lot of people like to play against other people to see who is actually better at the game as oppose to who can come up with the most obnoxious/obscene things to say.