I like that I am a jerk for criticizing someone's opinion and providing actual evidence as to why it is flawed.
From #1reasonwhy to #1reasontobe, and 1,600 Comments In-Between
#livefreediehard
@patrickklepek,
Well I was going to play some Mass Effect tonight, but then I made the mistake of deciding to swing by GB real quick before I turned off the PC and turned on the Xbox. And I saw your damn article about some damn hashtag, and then I'm link-hopping to some blog by a woman game journalist and start reading her freakin' blog because it's damn awesome, and all of that leads me back here reading another damn article about hashtags and women game devs and now I totally don't have time to play Mass Effect tonight. Damn you, Patrick. Damn you for being such a thoughtful and responsible writer about *all* things game related. Damn you (all and straight to hell, BTW) for attempting to raise awareness about an all too prevalent and disturbing aspect of gaming that all too many gamers would like to just ignore. So, you know, damn you. Also,please keep on posting articles like this.
@HellBound said:
I like that I am a jerk for criticizing someone's opinion and providing actual evidence as to why it is flawed.
You provided no evidence, what? You were just attacking me and re-enforcing assumptions.
That's what grinds my gears the most about these two articles. The commenters coming in and lathering praise simply for writing an article about sexism. 'Oh these people in the comments I haven't read, they prove you're right!' It's as much about stroking their ego and making them feel good about themselves for supporting a noble cause, as it is about the issue. I'm sorry, but the lazy and hackneyed writing in these articles is simply an insult, to the readers and the website. There are so many objective flaws in both that have been pointed out ad nauseum, I could make my own list right now. Yet, for some, the fact it's about sexism is an excuse. Because it 'raises awareness.' Having two articles on it, the second partially reporting on itself, insults even further as it conflates the issue as both sexism in the industry and 'those sexist commenters.' Patrick should put down the crayon and allow serious thought on his work when it involves sensitive issues, or he'll continue to split the community and invite chagrin in the comment section.
Honestly I can't even understand how anyone could be against what @EnduranceFun has been trying to do here. None of us here are sexist swine. The only swine here are those who pop in to say something belittling to those who aren't automatically praising Patrick for writing a lazy oneoff article about this issue.
@EvilKatarn said:
Honestly I can't even understand how anyone could be against what @EnduranceFun has been trying to do here. None of us here are sexist swine. The only swine here are those who pop in to say something belittling to those who aren't automatically praising Patrick for writing a lazy oneoff article about this issue.
Because the entire line of his argument, and yours, is a load of nonsense. It's people feeling butthurt by an issue that doesn't concern them, and then spending 1600 comments trying to obscure the fact that it was them who derailed the conversation in the first place.
Feminists are why Masculine groups can't exist. Who's fighting for under representation of men in degrees? What about the mental health epidemic for kids(mostly prevalent in young boys)? I hate feminism, if your going to promote something, make sure its meritocracy, and not arbitrary physical features. Otherwise I might start the blue eyed group to fight for under representation of blue eyed people in gaming. Heck I might fight for tall people for being unrepresented... maybe the beautiful? Feminism is nonsense. Your body-parts don't matter. Women have the same legal rights as men do, probably even more since they receive more funding for health purposes, they can do w/e men can. Equal rights is here, what you are pushing for is unequal rights...towards women.
Although there is merit in making sure no discrimination occurs, the mere fact that this is against a specific type of discrimination is annoying. I think women on average don't play video games very much(those that are not on your phone or facebook), therefore I find it rational to assume first that she does not know very much about it, the same way that if I go to the store and see someone with a badge and their name on it, I assume they work there.
@Rasmoss said:
@EvilKatarn said:
Honestly I can't even understand how anyone could be against what @EnduranceFun has been trying to do here. None of us here are sexist swine. The only swine here are those who pop in to say something belittling to those who aren't automatically praising Patrick for writing a lazy oneoff article about this issue.
Because the entire line of his argument, and yours, is a load of nonsense. It's people feeling butthurt by an issue that doesn't concern them, and then spending 1600 comments trying to obscure the fact that it was them who derailed the conversation in the first place.
Nonsense? It doesn't concern us? What's with these insulting and abating arguments popping up now the article is dead. Comes off as those who failed to actually derail the conversation, now desperately trying to revise the comment section. And he calls me butthurt.
You did not formulate the centre of conversation. You just took the massive derailment of the discussion and made sure it was all anybody could argue about for the last many hundred comments
There were two reasonable responses to the first article if you're a man: take the message of the twitter movement seriously and show support for the women, or you could be sceptical and shut up about it. Instead a ton of people raised a wholly unreasonable stink, escalating the argument, prompting the second article, and now here we are.
No, I did not formulate the centre of the conversation, I never claimed to. All I did was help to find a consensus with the mass of people also posting a lot in the thread, most of the intelligent ones being against the article. The stupidest posts are like the one you just made - although your one earlier psycho-analyzing my past posts was certainly a contender - where the person blindly dismisses thousands of comments, because it's so edgy to be an asshole like that.
'If you're a man' - what projection and delusion, some users think everyone has to agree with them.
Either there is sexism in the industry or there is not. If there is, the twitter movement and patricks article were justified. If there is not, they werent, but noone on these boards can say for a fact that there isn't.
Therefore the only reasonable response if you're sceptical is to not say anything, since at worst you're making light of a serious problem .
Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed and onto the less important question of whether gb could have done things differently
You then proceded to attack anyone taking exception to this shift of focus, claiming they were being against free discussion and seeking consensus, on a part of the issue that were never the focus in the first place.
@Rasmoss said:
@EnduranceFun You then proceded to attack anyone taking exception to this shift of focus
And here folks we see the true reason for the petty grudge this user has.
I upset you simply for putting my view forward and wanting it heard. I don't care how loudly you shout that your opinion is the correct one, this thread has indeed had the most long and thought-out posts criticise the article, the ones that don't criticise the article tend to be short, 'you go girl,' sort of posts, or replies to the aforementioned, basically just telling them to stop having an opinion. You have brought up nothing new in your post, just restated what some people have said since the beginning, 'DON'T COMMENT IN MY COMMENT SECTION.' Yet again you bring up a post I made, what five days ago, as if it's relevant, and pretending that we didn't just have over three-thousand posts of discourse. You can't reset on an argument just because you failed to shout down the opposition.
@Rasmoss said:
Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussed
Because it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.
I will say, on both sides of the issue, I wish we would stop thinking of it as a zero-sum game. More games targeted towards women does not mean less targeted towards men. That's what market growth is about. If the female market has been underutilized, if it's as viable on its own terms without the 'traditional male' demographic, you can create wholly original games and sell to it. Look at film, or books, or toys. Girl-focused Harlequin romance novels didn't prevent boy-focused action comics from existing. Shonen manga and shojo manga exist alongside each other, not in direct antagonistic war. I think this is a problem on both sides; stereotypical male gamers fear that they're going to lose the games and the freedom of expression they enjoy, and censors such as Anita Sarkeesian give them all the firepower they need by deliberately stating that they want to change games until they're suitable for them, rather than creating their own. For everyone else, the zero-sum game only limits what we can do.
However, the real problem is that no company wants to grow a market; they want to exploit markets that exist. It profits Capcom or Ubisoft none to 'grow' a market of disabled gamers, and then have Activision or Square or whomever to swoop in and sell to the exact market the former companies spent time and money building. That's going to be the challenge. We are seeing something like it in the 'midcore' tier; games that fit as less extreme hardcore games, or deep and more complex casual games.
@Brodehouse@Rasmoss said:
Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussedBecause it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.
I will say, on both sides of the issue, I wish we would stop thinking of it as a zero-sum game. More games targeted towards women does not mean less targeted towards men. That's what market growth is about. If the female market has been underutilized, if it's as viable on its own terms without the 'traditional male' demographic, you can create wholly original games and sell to it. Look at film, or books, or toys. Girl-focused Harlequin romance novels didn't prevent boy-focused action comics from existing. Shonen manga and shojo manga exist alongside each other, not in direct antagonistic war. I think this is a problem on both sides; stereotypical male gamers fear that they're going to lose the games and the freedom of expression they enjoy, and censors such as Anita Sarkeesian give them all the firepower they need by deliberately stating that they want to change games until they're suitable for them, rather than creating their own. For everyone else, the zero-sum game only limits what we can do.
Patrick was clearly speaking as a male member of the games industry. Still, I agree it's a bit of a silly statement, but that does not excuse making it the focus of discussion, completely ignoring the underlying, more serious issue.
@illmatic19: This wasn't an investigative report but a "hey, this is happening right now" alert, as I saw it. And I am glad Patrick posted it here or I would have been unaware of it. I'm assuming you're a male since you are so dismissive of this topic, but complaining in your workplace is not the only, and sometimes is an ineffective, solution. There is also the need for community and being able to speak out and SHARE your experiences with other women. Talking about it relieves so much of a feeling of aloneness, and starts to identify issues and possible solutions to problems, rather than leaving individuals feeling powerless, confused and afraid to say anything. It starts discussion, without discussion nothing changes. If you don't understand why this is important then I can't explain it to you. You obviously can't put yourself in other people's shoes.
@Rasmoss said:
@EvilKatarn said:
Honestly I can't even understand how anyone could be against what @EnduranceFun has been trying to do here. None of us here are sexist swine. The only swine here are those who pop in to say something belittling to those who aren't automatically praising Patrick for writing a lazy oneoff article about this issue.
Because the entire line of his argument, and yours, is a load of nonsense.
It's people feeling butthurt by an issue that doesn't concern them, and thenspending 1600 comments trying to obscure the fact that it was them who derailed the conversation in the first place.
Everything but that middle part is 100% true. I think I get what you are saying, but this issue concerns everyone. People just get all defensive when you put a serious issue in their face and say "What are you gonna do about it". Some people can't take responsibility. This article was about gaining awareness for an ongoing issue and what people are doing to spread it. Others came in and made it seem like it was a whole fucking report and research experiment on the issue, then wildly demand "answers" because they have their own personal agenda and don't give a shit what anyone else says. They try to defend their idiocy and left field claims by obscuring what really is being said and happening and then attacking someone else and saying they are the culprit.
@Brodehouse said:
@Rasmoss said:
Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussedBecause it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.
I truly believe you are taking the comment out of context or you are guilt ridden because of an act you may have done that would be deemed sexism. To say Patrick was antagonizing all Males is laughable. Seriously? Get off your high horse. We can do better.
We has a human species, as a species that can actually make and commit change. You are just looking for a reason to get mad so that way you can ramble on and divert the issue to less important ones.
If this were just about the hashtag movement it wouldn't have turned sour.
The problem is Patrick fails to strike the right tone. On one hand he's talking about workplace discrimination, but he forces into the article random bits about video games et al. Basically, the horrendously misplaced Lara Croft and Faith focus that permeates the headers in both articles. Lara Croft is widely derided as a damsel in distress, yet Patrick praises her and calls Faith 'memorable,' while taking the time to note that this is a female writer. This implies male writers can't write female characters as well, even though Patrick has no evidence for this, and the fact both characters are actually not very well liked just makes him seem wrong.
On top of this he has the jab at the DoA DLC, and the jab at AmericanNinja plus much of the community in the second article. Instead of focusing on the Twitter campaign, he lets his two pieces of writing become diluted by half-heartedly picking a battle with gaming in general, or at least it would seem that way to a reader. The article is still a 'news' piece despite having this vague sense of a feminist opinion blog where he's bitching about an unrelated topic concerning characters in video games. I would imagine it's quite insulting as a woman in the work force who has been abused, that some guy compares your plight to the g-strings in Dead or Alive, and as if that is remotely contentious, like DoA having fan service is somehow harmful? Total bullshit.
This is why many people are saying, yo Patrick, try writing a long and substantive article on feminist or sexist issues in gaming overall, but do not intersperse every remotely connected article with little jabs that are especially in this second article, inflammatory toward the larger gaming community. To me, it comes off as preachy when Patrick tries to touch on these issues seemingly whenever he can. As if it wasn't obvious I have nothing against women seeking equality in the work place, but it's not an issue that should be conflated with [what one user called] a 'sophomoric,' amateur analysis from a political perspective.
If Patrick wants to write an opinion piece on gaming that doesn't have heavy supporting evidence, he can make a blog. If he wants to report on the news, he should keep to himself his largely irrelevant opinions as they conflate the issue. If he wants to write a bigger piece on feminist or sexist issues in gaming overall, he should write an editorial. It reeks of unprofessionalism to try meshing elements from all three types into one bloated and confused article that only angers the community. This is why some commenters feel Patrick can in fact do better.
@HellBound said:
@Brodehouse said:
@Rasmoss said:
Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussedBecause it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.
I truly believe you are taking the comment out of context or you are guilt ridden because of an act you may have done that would be deemed sexism. To say Patrick was antagonizing all Males is laughable. Seriously? Get off your high horse. We can do better.
We has a human species, as a species that can actually make and commit change. You are just looking for a reason to get mad so that way you can ramble on and divert the issue to less important ones.
... Pardon me? Do you know the first fucking thing about me, that you believe yourself righteous enough to accuse anyone who has an opinion you don't like of guilt or wrongdoing? To a complete stranger, based on the fact that you don't like that they took offense to being generalized by a news article? Since when is that considered egalitarianism? Dissatisfaction about being generalized is the entire crux of this hashtag movement. What an ass you've made of yourself.
To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction. What's the subject, who does "we" represent here? Sexists, or males? Patrick is not a sexist, at least he claims not to be (though I consider infantilization of grown women to be sexism, let's focus on the sentence here). So he can't be referring to sexism. He must be referring to his maleness, the one thing that, barring surgery, he has no control over. Who else could he possibly be talking about? Now, "can do better". This isn't a complete sentence, but the topic at hand, the tweets in question are mostly sexist generalizations in the workplace. In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault. So the predicate is "make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it." Men make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it. It's not sexists we're scolding in today's fit of hand-wringing, it's men. There is no other way to construe it, and it's offensive to every man who isn't a sexist to be generalized and associated with men who are merely because we share gender. It would be unacceptable of any other social group in history.
It's even more sexist to assume that any man who dares defend himself from generalizations and sexism is "guilt ridden" on some level. Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful.
@Brodehouse said:
@HellBound said:
@Brodehouse said:
@Rasmoss said:
Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussedBecause it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.
I truly believe you are taking the comment out of context or you are guilt ridden because of an act you may have done that would be deemed sexism. To say Patrick was antagonizing all Males is laughable. Seriously? Get off your high horse. We can do better.
We has a human species, as a species that can actually make and commit change. You are just looking for a reason to get mad so that way you can ramble on and divert the issue to less important ones.
... Pardon me? Do you know the first fucking thing about me, that you believe yourself righteous enough to accuse anyone who has an opinion you don't like of guilt or wrongdoing? To a complete stranger, based on the fact that you don't like that they took offense to being generalized by a news article? Since when is that considered egalitarianism? Dissatisfaction about being generalized is the entire crux of this hashtag movement. What an ass you've made of yourself.
To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction. What's the subject, who does "we" represent here? Sexists, or males? Patrick is not a sexist, at least he claims not to be (though I consider infantilization of grown women to be sexism, let's focus on the sentence here). So he can't be referring to sexism. He must be referring to his maleness, the one thing that, barring surgery, he has no control over. Who else could he possibly be talking about? Now, "can do better". This isn't a complete sentence, but the topic at hand, the tweets in question are mostly sexist generalizations in the workplace. In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault. So the predicate is "make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it." Men make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it. It's not sexists we're scolding in today's fit of hand-wringing, it's men. There is no other way to construe it, and it's offensive to every man who isn't a sexist to be generalized and associated with men who are merely because we share gender. It would be unacceptable of any other social group in history.
It's even more sexist to assume that any man who dares defend himself from generalizations and sexism is "guilt ridden" on some level. Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful.
This whole statement is based around the fact of YOUR belief that his statement was antagonizing. It has nothing to do with "knowing anything about you". I am taking a statement you said and giving my opinion on why I believe it is wrong. Like certain other people in this thread, you take that statement, and instead of truly refuting it or saying why it was wrong or why you truly believe that, you apply insults to various people because they don't agree with you. You then make absurd correlations to help prove a defend a point that you are making up.
"To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction." You make an opinion appear as fact.
"In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault." This is not true at all and just another example of taking something out of context for the sake of having a reason to be angry and carry a pitchfork. You don't have to do something wrong to do better. I am getting a B in my psych class. I am not doing anything wrong, but I know I can do better. Or in relation to this topic; I am not doing anything wrong in terms of sexism. I don't talk badly to women etc. etc., but I do nothing to stop it. I don't speak about it or raise awareness myself. I CAN DO BETTER, but I am not doing anything wrong.
I can see how the term "Better" could be associated with "you are doing something wrong", but barely (and that might only be because of how many times it has been repeated in this thread). You are looking for a bone to pick and miss the issue entirely. You take offense to something many others did not take offense to, and in your eyes it seems they must be blind idiot fanboys then.
"Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful." This statement is just you trying to force a similarity between two unsimilar actions and ideas. Instead of saying "Could he have done better" it should be "Could I have done better to help this man". That is the correlation you SHOULD have been trying to make because this whole article is about SELF REFLECTION.
We can do better, but some people would rather avoid that issue completely and say why it is hurtful antagonizing. This is why change is so fucking hard. People make absurd correlations and avoid the real issues because they can't handle it.
You are offended? Boo-hoo. Cry me a river. Get a fucking band-aid. You can do better then to just sit here and whine.
I would like to quote what Jeff said a few pages back
"It's sad to see some of you people get so furious over the basic idea of equality, as if that's something that should be argued about instead of just being implicitly understood. I mean, did you grow up with mothers that were constantly putting cigarettes out on your arms or something?
Or are you just currently growing up as an outsider and feel the need to lash out whenever anyone claims that there are groups of people out there that somehow have it even worse than you do? I was like you once. I was angry all the time. As I grew up I cooled down and gained a little perspective on the world. I hope, for your sakes, that you have a similar experience and get out of your weird, little bubble, at least for a little while. It gets oppressively ignorant in there".
@Shtinky said:
@TheFrostedGamer said:
Patrick's Logic:
It's okay to offend people with casual racism. No articles pertaining to this.
It's okay to play video games where the antagonist is always someone other than America, because that's healthy for the young american mind, as well as our relationships with those abroad.
It's okay to play violent video games which downplay how serious violence really is, like Call of Duty, Halo, Fighting Games, etc.
It's okay to swear a lot on podcasts and in his articles (because swearing doesn't offend anyone ever for any reason).
It's okay to work with people everyday who think nothing like you and don't uphold any of your morals, as long as you need a paycheck and the pay is good.
It's okay that heterosexuals are mistreated by homosexuals, and males are mistreated by females. Not gonna see any articles relating to that. Keep moving.
But as soon as a gay person gets offended while playing a violent videogame with other humans (who were BORN with a violent, competitive nature), then it's time for an article. Because that's edgey, noble, important, challenging the system, etc.
But as soon as a female, who may or may not have deserved it based on her own biases and half-stories, gets mistreated by someone, somewhere half-related to the development of videogames, its time for Patrick to become the noble, exalted third party and write an article "challenging the system".
Patrick, you sir are thee biggest hypocrite to ever grace the pages of a website. Jeff and Ryan should feel bad for allowing you to RUIN what once was.
I should not even bother, the fact you can't even formulate your own opinion is deterring enough.
I would like to address the last sentence. Jeff and Ryan should feel bad huh? Interesting that Jeff (at least from what I gather out of this post) supports this whole thing
"It's sad to see some of you people get so furious over the basic idea of equality, as if that's something that should be argued about instead of just being implicitly understood. I mean, did you grow up with mothers that were constantly putting cigarettes out on your arms or something?
Or are you just currently growing up as an outsider and feel the need to lash out whenever anyone claims that there are groups of people out there that somehow have it even worse than you do? I was like you once. I was angry all the time. As I grew up I cooled down and gained a little perspective on the world. I hope, for your sakes, that you have a similar experience and get out of your weird, little bubble, at least for a little while. It gets oppressively ignorant in there."
@HellBound said:
this whole article is about SELF REFLECTION.
The fuck has that got to do with the news? You openly admit this article is personalised, and therefore conflates the issue as a news story, but agree anyway and pretend this is a victory. This is the fucking point of the people you have mindlessly argued against for hours. Do you not understand what journalistic integrity is, or the effects of improper reporting? It is pants-on-head retarded to consider random opinionated garble about 'doing better' in an unrelated article, fair and impartial.
Just to get away from sexism here... imagine if Patrick reported on THQ's financial collapse. The header image, though, is a picture of EA headquarters, the caption is "EA, run by a competent businessman." Throughout the article, totally irrelevantly, he states that "THQ should do better," without any point or reason.
Not that I expect you to understand. This is merely so that people don't assume your post is anything more than an angry rambling user who can't accept the slightest of compromises in an argument. You'll be arguing against a wall I'm afraid, as I'll never agree with your liberal as fuck interpretation of this article and how it's at all appropriate considering the circumstances.
@EnduranceFun said:
@HellBound said:
this whole article is about SELF REFLECTION.
The fuck has that got to do with the news? You openly admit this article is personalised, and therefore conflates the issue as a news story, but agree anyway and pretend this is a victory. This is the fucking point of the people you have mindlessly argued against for hours. Do you not understand what journalistic integrity is, or the effects of improper reporting? It is pants-on-head retarded to consider random opinionated garble about 'doing better' in an unrelated article, fair and impartial.
Just to get away from sexism here... imagine if Patrick reported on THQ's financial collapse. The header image, though, is a picture of EA headquarters, the caption is "THQ should do better." Throughout the article, totally irrelevantly, he states that "THQ was run by morons," without giving any source.
Not that I expect you to understand. This is merely so that people don't assume your post is anything more than an angry rambling user who can't accept slight compromise in an argument. You'll be arguing against a wall I'm afraid, as I'll never agree with your liberal as fuck interpretation of this article and how it's at all appropriate considering the circumstances.
If you ever want anyone to take your views and claims seriously, not just here, but in life in general, don't do what you just did there at the end. You lose all credibility. Even if I was a liberal, I would not let it dictate what I say or what I believe. Sadly most of politics is that way now, where people lean one way therefore "I must have to agree with this". Even if I am taking a liberal interpretation, you are also making an interpretation so that argument really does not make sense. If you are trying to make fun or discredit me because of my liberalism, that is pretty hilarious.
@HellBound said:
If you ever want anyone to take your views and claims seriously, not just here, but in life in general, don't do what you just did there at the end. You lose all credibility. Even if I was a liberal, I would not let it dictate what I say or what I believe. Sadly most of politics is that way now, where people lean one way therefore "I must have to agree with this". Even if I am taking a liberal interpretation, you are also making an interpretation so that argument really does not make sense. If you are trying to make fun or discredit me because of my liberalism, that is pretty hilarious.
I thought it was obvious I was using the adjective definition of liberal, not as an improper noun. The fuck?
And the rest of this post equally is nonsense.
@EnduranceFun said:
@HellBound said:
If you ever want anyone to take your views and claims seriously, not just here, but in life in general, don't do what you just did there at the end. You lose all credibility. Even if I was a liberal, I would not let it dictate what I say or what I believe. Sadly most of politics is that way now, where people lean one way therefore "I must have to agree with this". Even if I am taking a liberal interpretation, you are also making an interpretation so that argument really does not make sense. If you are trying to make fun or discredit me because of my liberalism, that is pretty hilarious.
I thought it was obvious I was using the adjective definition of liberal, not as an improper noun. The fuck?
And the rest of this post equally is nonsense.
This was the response I was hoping for. Thank you.
@HellBound said:
This was the response I was hoping for. Thank you.
You wanted me to point out your glaring misinterpretation on the basis of basic grammar?
Somehow, I really doubt this is true.
The sentence would work to the same effect if you instead used the word 'loose.' This is not hard to grasp.
@HellBound: Trying too hard.
@EnduranceFun: You're not going to get anywhere with him. Walk away and pursue a more worthwhile discussion.
I'm just glad Patrick stopped after this article. Hopefully it means he realized where he went wrong, but most likely he was just told not to pursue this.
@HellBound said:
@Brodehouse said:
@HellBound said:
@Brodehouse said:
@Rasmoss said:
Instead you, as i've shown, and many others came from a viewpoint that the article was antagonizing all males and generally shifting the focus away from the potentially serious issue being discussedBecause it does antagonize all males. It does not antagonize all misogynists, it antagonizes all males. For the actions of criminals who happen to be black, no politician would ever dare say "blacks can do better". For the actions of violent terrorists, no person would ever dare say "Muslims can do better". Even rational, peaceful Muslims would not say "we can do better" because they do not believe they should be lumped in with violent murderers. Because they're not guilty of violent murders. Patrick has inarguably placed guilt for the actions of sexists on the whole of the male gender, both misogynists and everyone else. There is nothing egalitarian or even equitable about that. That is pure sexism.
I truly believe you are taking the comment out of context or you are guilt ridden because of an act you may have done that would be deemed sexism. To say Patrick was antagonizing all Males is laughable. Seriously? Get off your high horse. We can do better.
We has a human species, as a species that can actually make and commit change. You are just looking for a reason to get mad so that way you can ramble on and divert the issue to less important ones.
... Pardon me? Do you know the first fucking thing about me, that you believe yourself righteous enough to accuse anyone who has an opinion you don't like of guilt or wrongdoing? To a complete stranger, based on the fact that you don't like that they took offense to being generalized by a news article? Since when is that considered egalitarianism? Dissatisfaction about being generalized is the entire crux of this hashtag movement. What an ass you've made of yourself.
To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction. What's the subject, who does "we" represent here? Sexists, or males? Patrick is not a sexist, at least he claims not to be (though I consider infantilization of grown women to be sexism, let's focus on the sentence here). So he can't be referring to sexism. He must be referring to his maleness, the one thing that, barring surgery, he has no control over. Who else could he possibly be talking about? Now, "can do better". This isn't a complete sentence, but the topic at hand, the tweets in question are mostly sexist generalizations in the workplace. In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault. So the predicate is "make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it." Men make sexist generalizations in the workplace, and must correct it. It's not sexists we're scolding in today's fit of hand-wringing, it's men. There is no other way to construe it, and it's offensive to every man who isn't a sexist to be generalized and associated with men who are merely because we share gender. It would be unacceptable of any other social group in history.
It's even more sexist to assume that any man who dares defend himself from generalizations and sexism is "guilt ridden" on some level. Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful.
This whole statement is based around the fact of YOUR belief that his statement was antagonizing. It has nothing to do with "knowing anything about you". I am taking a statement you said and giving my opinion on why I believe it is wrong. Like certain other people in this thread, you take that statement, and instead of truly refuting it or saying why it was wrong or why you truly believe that, you apply insults to various people because they don't agree with you. You then make absurd correlations to help prove a defend a point that you are making up.
"To say Patrick is antagonizing and generalizing all males as sexists and misogynists? He did. It's grammar school sentence construction." You make an opinion appear as fact.
"In order to 'do better' at anything, it has to be assumed that you are doing wrong in the first place, you can only correct things that are at fault." This is not true at all and just another example of taking something out of context for the sake of having a reason to be angry and carry a pitchfork. You don't have to do something wrong to do better. I am getting a B in my psych class. I am not doing anything wrong, but I know I can do better. Or in relation to this topic; I am not doing anything wrong in terms of sexism. I don't talk badly to women etc. etc., but I do nothing to stop it. I don't speak about it or raise awareness myself. I CAN DO BETTER, but I am not doing anything wrong.
I can see how the term "Better" could be associated with "you are doing something wrong", but barely (and that might only be because of how many times it has been repeated in this thread). You are looking for a bone to pick and miss the issue entirely. You take offense to something many others did not take offense to, and in your eyes it seems they must be blind idiot fanboys then.
"Do you do this same thing on the street, if you saw a man defend himself from an attack, would you assume that on some level, he must have deserved it? Shameful, absolutely shameful." This statement is just you trying to force a similarity between two unsimilar actions and ideas. Instead of saying "Could he have done better" it should be "Could I have done better to help this man". That is the correlation you SHOULD have been trying to make because this whole article is about SELF REFLECTION.
We can do better, but some people would rather avoid that issue completely and say why it is hurtful antagonizing. This is why change is so fucking hard. People make absurd correlations and avoid the real issues because they can't handle it.
I'm truly nonplussed. That you could accuse anyone else of being 'insulting' when you couldn't make it a single sentence without accusing someone of some mysterious, unspoken guilt is mind-boggling. Your 'opinion' is not based on fact or any kind of logic, it's a pure ad hominem personal attack. You aim accusations of 'you don't try refuting' when you ignore the entire content of my post. Callow, very callow. Along with your accusations of 'you have a bone to pick'. Well, actually, no, I have about as much a bone to pick as any of the lady developers who decided to take to twitter to air their grievances with sexual generalizations. Sexism sucks, and it happens even when people aren't aware of it. And the article is not about self-reflection. You may need to look up what self-reflection means as much as the meaning of 'wrong' and 'better'. If you've done right, it is impossible to do better, we have phrases; 'can do no better'. The only way you can possibly 'do better' is if you've made a mistake, a flaw, an error; if you've done wrong. The grand assumption of 'we can do better' is that all men are either directly or indirectly at fault, and only men are capable of correcting it. Ironically, another way that people actually trying to help women take their agency away; hold on, honey, let the men fix men.
And clearly, you have lost the plot on my 'man on the street' example. I'm asking why is it when you see someone defend themselves, you assume immediately they're "guilt ridden" about some past crime? You were falling over yourself to try to affix guilt and wrongdoing to me for the crime of disagreeing. Why is that?
You are offended? Boo-hoo. Cry me a river. Get a fucking band-aid. You can do better then to just sit here and whine.
This one really takes it. I have stated that a generalization of myself, and my gender, to be debasing and sexist. And what's the response? "Boo-hoo." "Cry me a river."
Would that be your response to any woman who spoke up when someone made a generalization about women, or even just women in the games industry? "Boo-hoo"? "Get a fucking band-aid"? You would never dare disregard and dismiss the feelings of women who felt offended by someone's loose speech. What is it about the offense of women that you find more valid, more relevant, more acceptable than offense taken by a man? Do you consider that to be egalitarian, equality, do you think that's not sexism?
"You can do better than to just sit here and whine."
Unbelievable.
Remember, I'm not looking for a reason to be angry; I didn't start this thread. I merely respond to articles within it. Do you consider my ability to speak, or defend myself from accusations to be 'looking for a reason to be angry and carry a pitchfork'? What do you consider it when any other person speaks their mind about any other topic?
@Milkman said:
@TheHumanDove said:
I'm just glad Patrick stopped after this article. Hopefully it means he realized where he went wrong, but most likely he was just told not to pursue this.
Who exactly do you think told him not to pursue this? And why would you possibly think this?
The man.
@TheHumanDove said:
@Milkman said:
@TheHumanDove said:
I'm just glad Patrick stopped after this article. Hopefully it means he realized where he went wrong, but most likely he was just told not to pursue this.
Who exactly do you think told him not to pursue this? And why would you possibly think this?
The man.
CBS.
@Milkman: Most of these replies do not pertain to sexism one way or the other, they're criticizing or defending the article and Patrick. There's also no new hashtag to report.
At best I could see an editorial come out of this that largely ignored the comments. One that has, I dunno, an 'introduction' and a 'conclusion' would be a decent start.
@JasonR86: @TheHumanDove: @EnduranceFun: I'm not saying that Patrick will write another article because I have no idea. I'd say that he's probably not going to write another one since there's not much of a point anymore. But I can tell you will almost absolute certainty that if Patrick WANTS to write another article, he will. And no one is going to tell him that he can't.
Is the twitter thing still going? I'm in a part of the world where twitter isn't available.
@Milkman: I don't really see your point. I inferred Dove was arguing Patrick has no reason to continue making these articles. Isn't it a bit defeatist to pose that Patrick doesn't care what we say? Especially on Giant Bomb, I don't think it's a positive that an editor doesn't listen to feedback, and no one has suggested Patrick hasn't, not yet anyway.
@Brodehouse: Just wanted to point out, as the risk of drawing your ire, an exhortation to do more is almost never wrong. We aim for the sky and often miss. It is great to be recognized for our achievement and better to be directed toward improvement.
If you think of fighting sexism as some sort of objective, you can certainly think of a time you let a "bitch" slip or accidentally demeaned. I know I have. Our imperfection, our room to grow, is constant and it is great to become better.
And the thing I have had the hardest time coming to grips with is the inherent, unearned power of my gender. Men in western society forced their agendas, their swords, their patriarchy onto what they considered the weaker sex, the lesser race, the poorer class, the less aggressive nation--they did so for hundreds, thousands of years.
I was simply born with a penis. I was born with white skin. I was born into wealth. I can't help any of that. I should not be pilloried.
No, but I should be humble, giving, caring, and aware of those who were not. I was born lacking little. I should help others around me who were not rise up to meet my unearned podium.
You truly think it a damnable slight to be exhorted to work harder to undo what members of our overpriviliged sex have wrought?
@Kierkegaard: And this has what to do exactly with women seeking equality in the workplace...
If Patrick wanted to make an article about feminist issues in gaming, he should have. Your philosophy, free you are to have one, does not factor when this is meant to be an impartial piece of journalism. You've already lost if you accept that this article steps into preaching even your own ideologies.
Heck, he barely says anything, to that end, in this article at all, it's all in quips.
Though then again, I'm not sure if you're in the same argument as me, or on the same planet.
Let's talk about this idea of forced overprivilege. The idea that men are capable of anything on this earth without the assistance of women is a historical oddity. That men could find a way to dominate the earth, to survive against an incredibly hostile environment, against the abject revolt of their suffering women is a fallacy. There's a reason why, in every corner of the world, in societies that couldn't be more different, the societies that survived were those that put women's safety above all; reproductive necessity. Any society is limited by the reproductive capability of their women; one man can do the reproductive work of 100, not so with women. And in those old days, the old 'patriarchy', men were required to do what was once dangerous work in the public sphere. You could not have your most valued members of society in danger. Men were given the privilege of life in the public sphere (jobs! property!) and the obligations that come with it (war! work!).
Now, things are way different now. We've moved technologically past the point where we struggle against the natural world. Women don't need to be protected from every threat in the world, and with the pill and fertility meds, we have control of our reproduction as well. We can move beyond outdated models, women are eligible for 'male' privileges, and responsible for 'male' obligations. I would never go back. Conservatives who want to return to a world that we've moved past are sad, indeed.
I'd actually go on a little more, but I have other responsibilities cropping up. But I'd urge you to actually look into this further. And I'll add one last thing; you are not responsible for the sins of your ancestors (or, in a phrase that pretty much explains it, sins of the father). You are only responsible for you.
@biosfear said:
@FierceDeity: must be nice to be so privileged that you can pick and choose what you feel like caring about.
No, I'm just human.
As if being privileged confers apathy or being disadvantaged confers empathy. Replace the term "privilege" in your post with anything else and you sound like a bigot. But because "privilege" is a nice, meaningless term you can get away with being a hypocrite.
Just like the twitter movement, this conversation has come and gone, and everyone got their panties in a bunch, and now the wedgie is gone.
2 things
1.Don't expect the internet to solve anything that's dependent on human beings. I know the internet is fun and easy, and that's the problem. Climate change, raising taxes, supposedly ending -isms are not easy problems. Some are so hard, they cost billions of dollars just to get started on a solution.
2.Start from an honest assessment of the problem. 47% of the entire gaming audience includes what? People who play solitaire built into Windows? We're talking about hardcore games. With hardcore games, most likely 1% of the audience is female, if it comes close to that. You really expect to not see dismissal from an overwhelming majority of the audience? If ladies feel so bad working in the hardcore gaming industry, there's the softcore industry where there are more ladies and hardly any complaints about -isms.
Nope, still not gonna touch it!
Good write up Patrick, and great point at the end. No one is forcing people to go on this post.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment