Vault101's guide to gender debates

[Vault101]

If this is an attempt to point out my hypocrisy, sorry sweetheart, it ain't working.

I'd rather you not resort to borderline creepy condescending "pet" names ...thankyouverymuch

[quote/][b/]I'm just playing by the rules you gave me.[/b] You don't get to make up the game and then call me a hypocrite for joining in.[/quote]
no you're not because you broke rule 3/4 several times...now I assume you were aware of that...if not then...yeeeeah

again its very easy to label people something scary like "feminist" so you can create a large group of bogeywomen...without even knowing what some people actually do think

that everyone who may think this is a feminists, or that all feminists think that or that you can't think this or that and be a feminist at the same time or that feminists all want the same thing

 

[Vault101]

Regardless, I often find your posting style a little difficult to digest, Vault. It's very ramble-y, and I'm not sure I understood all that you tried to say. It just sort of goes all over the place after your initial points, though it manages to come full circle by the end.

rambly huh? well I don't often go back and edit...even big posts like this so that may be true

[quote/]I don't enjoy the use of labels in debates of recent events because there really are so many unique perspectives that people have on this issue that discrediting them by labeling them an 'MRA' or 'SJW' such-and-such is just fishing for a way to justify not listening to a differing (heaven forbid opposing) perception of events.
[/quote]
exactly, its reductive

 

[Sleepy Sol]

If this is an attempt to point out my hypocrisy, sorry sweetheart, it ain't working.

I'd rather you not resort to borderline creepy condescending "pet" names ...thankyouverymuch

[quote/][b/]I'm just playing by the rules you gave me.[/b] You don't get to make up the game and then call me a hypocrite for joining in.

no you're not because you broke rule 3/4 several times...now I assume you were aware of that...if not then...yeeeeah

again its very easy to label people something scary like "feminist" so you can create a large group of bogeywomen...without even knowing what some people actually do think

that everyone who may think this is a feminists, or that all feminists think that or that you can't think this or that and be a feminist at the same time or that feminists all want the same thing[/quote]

I would argue that the same tactic has been turned onto individuals (again, just with a different label) who have disagreed with the handling of recent events in the 'gaming journalism' world as of late.

There is no "feminist" or "feminazi" conspiracy. I personally don't feel 'feminism' (or TEH SJWS) should have ever been used as part of an argument against anything in this case, because all it did was make legitimate criticisms easier to dismiss for people who didn't perceive there to be any problems in the industry, or just didn't care (understandable considering it's long been present).

But again, 'teh MRAS' has been used as an argument as well. It's just a huge, terrible storm of dismissing opposition.

So yeah, I was just dropping by. I'm not going to argue about feminism or whatever because it was never what this whole ordeal was about to me. I identify as a 'feminist' (humanist as well I suppose) anyways. Whatever those terms happen to mean to people.

 

[Saetha]

[quote/][b/]I'm just playing by the rules you gave me.[/b] You don't get to make up the game and then call me a hypocrite for joining in.

no you're not because you broke rule 3/4 several times...now I assume you were aware of that...if not then...yeeeeah

again its very easy to label people something scary like "feminist" so you can create a large group of bogeywomen...without even knowing what some people actually do think

that everyone who may think this is a feminists, or that all feminists think that or that you can't think this or that and be a feminist at the same time or that feminists all want the same thing[/quote]

I broke rule 3? Where? I don't recall likening feminists to the Illuminati. I do not recall labelling them as a threat to art. And rule 4 - I wonder how you can preface a rule about not using the word "feminism" by repeatedly using the word feminism, telling other people that they just don't know what it means, and then ending it by saying to just refer to it as something else completely because - Gasp! - you don't want to take responsibility for the word's baggage. One would think if you wanted feminism to be left out of the debate, you wouldn't have broken your own rule by dragging it in.

Again, I'm just playing the game you made.

 

[Vault101]

But again, 'teh MRAS' has been used as an argument as well. It's just a huge, terrible storm of dismissing opposition.

I feel like that would be an even worse misuse of a label since the whole MRA thing seems rather specific and easyer to pin down

I mean you gotta use broad words to refer to groups of people, but I think mixing it with specific ideologies is problematic

 

[Sleepy Sol]

But again, 'teh MRAS' has been used as an argument as well. It's just a huge, terrible storm of dismissing opposition.

I feel like that would be an even worse misuse of a label since the whole MRA thing seems rather specific and easyer to pin down

I mean you gotta use broad words to refer to groups of people, but I think mixing it with specific ideologies is problematic

I agree here. Specific ideologies got associated with issues that had nothing to do with them (in my eyes).

I'm too tired to type more text, but I may contribute tomorrow. Thanks a bunch.

 

[Vault101]

I broke rule 3? Where? I don't recall likening feminists to the Illuminati. I do not recall labelling them as a threat to art.

you've used Feminist as an all encompassing umbrella term to group all opinions you don't agree with, as I said people are multifaceted and can have a range of views while aligning themselves with certain ideological movments

[quote/]And rule 4 - I wonder how you can preface a rule about not using the word "feminism" by repeatedly using the word feminism, telling other people that they just don't know what it means, and then ending it by saying to just refer to it as something else completely because - Gasp! - you don't want to take responsibility for the word's baggage. One would think if you wanted feminism to be left out of the debate, you wouldn't have broken your own rule by dragging it in.
.[/quote]
I don't know where I've thrown the term around but the point was not using the term Feminist unless its absolutely relevant...and you know...the fact it pays to look these things up

 

[Saetha]

I broke rule 3? Where? I don't recall likening feminists to the Illuminati. I do not recall labelling them as a threat to art.

you've used Feminist as an all encompassing umbrella term to group all opinions you don't agree with, as I said people are multifaceted and can have a range of views while aligning themselves with certain ideological movments

[I/]3.what is your argument based on?[/I]

are you frightened there are forces similar to the illuminati led by you know who waiting to destroy all good things? well fear not! this is merely a mass hysteria populating forums and not really indicative of real life

films have been under such examination far longer than ever and they are still [strike/]sexist as ever[/S] not PC centric pillars of inclusivity

no friends, the true threat to "art" is when the commercial side takes over, a push for better representation is not and will never be a "threat" to what we hold dear, and if you enjoy projects made from the heart with compelling and diverse characters this should not be a worry

Rule 3 says nothing of the sort. It makes no mention of people being multifaceted or generalized. It speaks solely of people who claim that this philosophy is a threat to art, better representation is a destroying what we hold dear, etc. I never mentioned any of this, never mentioned anything of the sort. Perhaps your rules could do with some revisiting, no?

[quote/]And rule 4 - I wonder how you can preface a rule about not using the word "feminism" by repeatedly using the word feminism, telling other people that they just don't know what it means, and then ending it by saying to just refer to it as something else completely because - Gasp! - you don't want to take responsibility for the word's baggage. One would think if you wanted feminism to be left out of the debate, you wouldn't have broken your own rule by dragging it in.
.

I don't know where I've thrown the term around but the point was not using the term Feminist unless its absolutely relevant...and you know...the fact it pays to look these things up[/quote]

The entire preface to rule four - hell, the bloody thing is named feminism.

 

[Vault101]

Rule 3 says nothing of the sort. It makes no mention of people being multifaceted or generalized. It speaks solely of people who claim that this philosophy is a threat to art, better representation is a destroying what we hold dear, etc. I never mentioned any of this, never mentioned anything of the sort. Perhaps your rules could do with some revisiting, no?

well rule 3 and 4 are closely related and cover varying degrees..you have created an "other" and labelled them Femenists

3.creating a fictional "other" or shall we say straw man
4.throwing the word feminism/feminist around without regard to its meaning or relevance

back to your original post

[quote/]We just want to write up an arbitrary set of rules that obviously favor us with no input from non-feminist or feminist-critical persons[/quote]
[I/]non-femensits think this way...femenists think that way...I have decided who thinks what, so I can neatly put people into boxes[/I]


[quote/]
The entire preface to rule four - hell, the bloody thing is named feminism.[/quote]
I didn't say you literally couldn't use the word [b/]under any circumstance[/b]...jeez

 

[Nieroshai]

My problem with this is that I feel it shuts down the central pillar of the entire debate, its heart and soul, the very reason we even have it: misrepresentation. Not just of each other, which is clear; the misrepresentation of language itself. What IS feminism? What IS an SJW? We're running off of derisive made-up definitions of both of those things and it harms debate when a true feminist and a female sexist become the same idea, or when any serious doubt about an opinion is chalked up to SJW-ism, or when any possible real-world outside interest such as profit, propaganda, and the Hype Machine CAN'T possibly exist, YOU CONSPIRACY THEORIST REPUBLICAN! You see, we're fighting a war mostly because we think we're speaking the same language. But we're not. And the accidental insults drag out into real ones.

 

[Vault101]

Your logic is circular.

You say you don't like people to use "feminist", but when they just say "people who do XYZ" you call it a strawman.

actually I'd prefer if they just said "people who do XYZ"

 

[Something Amyss]

I feel like that would be an even worse misuse of a label since the whole MRA thing seems rather specific and easyer to pin down

Ehhh...It can go either way.

The Men's Right's Movement dates back quite a ways, and doesn't necessarily just mean internet sociopaths who respond to any mention of women with "but men are X too!" Complaining about MRAs could easily be seen as the equivalent of complaining about feminists or "Tumblr feminists" or whatever, even if it seems like a more unified front (in fact, it scares me that when the "reasonable" MRAs talk about the "good" movements, they tend to be ones which have policies of inequity, like preventing marital rape laws...I'm not even kidding).

I've been guilty of this myself, and I'm trying to be mindful of it. The fact is, labeling them as MRAs just isn't necessary and is possibly even harmful. Remember the thread about a new name for harassers? The answer there is the same here: it's usually better to just call an asshole an asshole.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not exactly joining the Men's Rights Movement or anything like that, but....it's not conducive to a discussion.

 

[Saetha]

Rule 3 says nothing of the sort. It makes no mention of people being multifaceted or generalized. It speaks solely of people who claim that this philosophy is a threat to art, better representation is a destroying what we hold dear, etc. I never mentioned any of this, never mentioned anything of the sort. Perhaps your rules could do with some revisiting, no?

well rule 3 and 4 are closely related and cover varying degrees..you have created an "other" and labelled them Femenists

3.creating a fictional "other" or shall we say straw man
4.throwing the word feminism/feminist around without regard to its meaning or relevance

back to your original post

I fail to see how they're related at all, with the exception that they both dismantle talking points you don't like. Regardless, I did not engage in the behavior forbidden by rule 3, despite any similarity you prescribe it.

And for the record, I'd say I have a pretty good regard of the word's meaning and relevance, considering how I'm a former feminist. Former, partially because of stuff like this, but mostly because of stuff that's much worse.

Which means, ironically, you've yet again broken this newly introduced rule - you made a strawman out of me, assuming I have no knowledge of feminism's meaning or relevance, despite you having no knowledge of me, beyond what I've presented in this forum - which is to say, very little. Certainly not enough to go generalizing me.

[quote/]We just want to write up an arbitrary set of rules that obviously favor us with no input from non-feminist or feminist-critical persons

[I/]non-femensits think this way...femenists think that way...I have decided who thinks what, so I can neatly put people into boxes[/I] [/quote]

Did I make any mention of what I think non-feminists think? No, I simply said that including one to review your little write-up would've benefited.

[quote/]
The entire preface to rule four - hell, the bloody thing is named feminism.

I didn't say you literally couldn't use the word [b/]under any circumstance[/b]...jeez[/quote]

No, you said you can only use it under relevant circumstances. Methinks that taking a potshot at people who disagree with you, implying that they just don't know what the word really means, that they need to go look it up, was not relevant or necessary to rule 4 - mentioning feminism as a word to steer clear of is obviously relevant and necessary, yes. But that wasn't the only mention.

 

[Something Amyss]

My problem with this is that I feel it shuts down the central pillar of the entire debate, its heart and soul, the very reason we even have it: misrepresentation. Not just of each other, which is clear; the misrepresentation of language itself. What IS feminism? What IS an SJW? We're running off of derisive made-up definitions of both of those things and it harms debate when a true feminist and a female sexist become the same idea, or when any serious doubt about an opinion is chalked up to SJW-ism, or when any possible real-world outside interest such as profit, propaganda, and the Hype Machine CAN'T possibly exist, YOU CONSPIRACY THEORIST REPUBLICAN! You see, we're fighting a war mostly because we think we're speaking the same language. But we're not. And the accidental insults drag out into real ones.

IF you can tell me what a "true feminist" is, I'd be interested. Because beyond the most basic idea that women deserve equal rights, I doubt there is one.

However, when we discuss these things, it is best to define our terms, and "feminist" and "SJW" are used rather ambiguously, and shift between definitions as is convenient. The issue, there, is that I'm not sure people want to define the terms, as they're more useful this way.

 

[Vault101]

I fail to see how they're related at all, with the exception that they both dismantle talking points you don't like. Regardless, I did not engage in the behavior forbidden by rule 3, despite any similarity you prescribe it.

you've labelled other people "feminist" inaccurately

[quote/]And for the record, I'd say I have a pretty good regard of the word's meaning and relevance, considering how I'm a former feminist. Former, partially because of stuff like this, but mostly because of stuff that's much worse.

Which means, ironically, you've yet again broken this newly introduced rule - you made a strawman out of me, assuming I have no knowledge of feminism's meaning or relevance, despite you having no knowledge of me, beyond what I've presented in this forum - which is to say, very little. Certainly not enough to go generalizing me.[/quote]
I never implied you didn't know the term Feminist or the ideas therein.....I just think you're using it as a blankest term unfairly

[quote/]
Did I make any mention of what I think non-feminists think? No, I simply said that including one to review your little write-up would've benefited.[/quote]
which to me seems to basically say that "non feminists" would automatically disagree with me, and that "feminists" would automatically agree with me

also assuming I'm a feminist

[quote/]
No, you said you can only use it under relevant circumstances. Methinks that taking a potshot at people who disagree with you, implying that they just don't know what the word really means, that they need to go look it up[/quote]
I stand by the sentiment that a lot of people really should and not just use it as a stand in for "those I disagree with" or assume anyone who holds a certain opinion is automatically a feminist

 

[Vault101]

I really, really couldn't care less about semantics. Whatever you want to call [b/]the people who complain about games because they have a white male protagonist, or see it as a flaw, or want to ban fanservice, or otherwise want to push a political agenda over just relaxing and having fun, or over creating content, whatever you want to call those people, i'll call them that.[/b]

So tell me, are you actually going to drop the circular semantic deflection and have a legitimate discussion, or did you just come here to troll people and waste everyone's time?

that doesn't make that bolded part any less of a straw-man

just 1 strike instead of 2

[sub/]although it was under the pretense of "this is what I think a feminist is"[/sub]

 

[Vault101]

But see that's your problem. Without a name for things, which you won't accept, you just call things a straw man. Even when i'm very narrowly identifying a set of ideologies i'm opposed to, you pretend that none of these ideologies exist.

So it's either use a regular term, and you say "that's a blanket statmenet"
Or use a specific term, and "that's a strawman"

You're basically claiming radical female sexists, and people that try to push political agendas, or people that want to ban fanservice don't exist.

oh I'm sure they exist

however

1.are they actually in any position to negatively affect videogames?
2.do they represent the majority of people who think videogames have some issues?

I'd answer no to both