FlarePhoenix's forum posts

#1 Edited by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

I can see both sides of this argument as valid points.

On one side, inactivity against something abhorrent does mean that...well, you aren't doing anything about the abhorrent thing. At the same time, does that mean that you are a bad person because you aren't fighting against the abhorrent thing?

Let's look at this by putting the idea into perspective:

If America decided to sit aside during World War II rather than being involved, would we be bad guys? Well, we lambasted many countries for NOT participating in stopping the Nazi regime.

If a neighborhood watch program doesn't exist, does that mean that crime is more rampant? No, not necessarily.

I don't know. Every scenario I can find that would say "inactivity = guilt" is based on a case-by-case ideal.

With this "inactivity against sexism is guilt of promoting sexism" argument, I can say that gaming journalism has done a lot to showcase the sexism that exists within video games. At the same time, I can also say that the gamers themselves are generally sexist, even if they don't realize that they are.

So in all honesty, I just don't think there's a winning scenario here. It's an industry full of sexism, but no one wants to stop the sexism en masse. It's a difficult scenario. I don't think Jim is COMPLETELY right, but I think that Jim makes good points.

Except the argument isn't "doing nothing makes you as bad as the sexist" it's "claiming sexism doesn't exist in the gaming community is as problematic as sexism in the gaming community".

#2 Edited by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@tourgen said:

He truly is The Master Baiter.

It's not that hard to bait people when they jump onto your boat, start a fire, cut themselves up and throw themselves on said fire, before you've even bought the fishing line.

#3 Edited by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@flarephoenix said:

@darji said:

@ramone said:

There are ways of encouraging people to not be dicks on the internet without using laws or legislation.

Name just one.

By choosing not to involve yourself with someone being a dick on the internet. Say you're playing an online game, and one of the players starts shouting homophobic slurs. If everyone else playing stopped and left the game (or booted the guy making the slurs if that is an option) it would soon send a message to that person their behaviour is unacceptable. Sure some people might keep doing it just for no good reason, and it's not going to change someone's attitude overnight, but making those kinds of people feel unwelcome will go a long way to changing the attitude of the online community.

Giving those kinds of people any sort of attention, whether positive or negative, isn't going to help anything because attention is all they're really after. They want an audience, and as long as people keep giving them one they'll keep doing what they're doing.

The only thing that would accomplish is to make that person search for other like minded individuals and help unite the assholes.

So again, name just one.

It's a loaded question because, even with laws and legislation, you're never going to get rid of online assholes completely. I mean, so many crimes have laws against them and they still happen. My method may not stop every last person who is an asshole on the internet, but imagine the young kid who thinks spouting racist, sexist, or homophobic slurs makes them seem more mature. Imagine how quickly they might learn if other people refused to play with them, and made it clear that kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

#4 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@darji said:

@ramone said:

There are ways of encouraging people to not be dicks on the internet without using laws or legislation.

Name just one.

By choosing not to involve yourself with someone being a dick on the internet. Say you're playing an online game, and one of the players starts shouting homophobic slurs. If everyone else playing stopped and left the game (or booted the guy making the slurs if that is an option) it would soon send a message to that person their behaviour is unacceptable. Sure some people might keep doing it just for no good reason, and it's not going to change someone's attitude overnight, but making those kinds of people feel unwelcome will go a long way to changing the attitude of the online community.

Giving those kinds of people any sort of attention, whether positive or negative, isn't going to help anything because attention is all they're really after. They want an audience, and as long as people keep giving them one they'll keep doing what they're doing.

#5 Edited by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@ramone said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand most people miss the point and decide to attack Jim and the video, probably without having watched it themselves. Well done guys, seriously.

The video isn't really that controversial and it makes some very similar points to the ones Patrick made in his TEDx speech.

1) Sexist/racist/generally shitty stuff going down on the internet and the subsequent reaction to such events breeds two behaviours that aren't really talked about that often.

2) Some people go out of their way to criticise the harassed person for not expecting to be treated like shit and for not having a thick skin. They also fail to criticise the harassers.

3) Some other people come into the debate solely to say something like "Stop blaming gamers/gaming culture, this is only a small set of people etc." without adding anything useful to the debate or trying to help in any meaningful way.

4) Don't be either of those guys/gals. You're not responsible for the harassment, but in some small way you're responsible for helping to stop it.

I can't really see anything wrong with what Jim said to be honest.

I know, right? I actually found it to be a fairly well thought out argument myself. Unfortunately, too many people have a kneejerk reaction, and react with hostility as soon as one of the -isms is mentioned.

#6 Edited by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@brodehouse said:

@flarephoenix said:

His entire point in the video, if you actually bothered to listen to it, is that people who try to actively claim a distance from the problem of sexism are contributing to the problem itself. In the example he gives specifically, he is talking about the people who tried to shrug off the harassment towards Zoe Quinn by claiming it wasn't done by "real gamers" but by frustrated forum users. He is calling out the people who tried to claim gaming doesn't have a sexism problem by claiming people who are sexist are not true gamers.

And that point is easily made with the No True Scotsman fallacy. It doesn't actually matter whether they are 'true' gamers or not. There is no 'true' gamer. Of course this would make it hard to make the next point.

All he is really saying is trying to claim gaming doesn't have a sexism problem is as damaging as the people who are causing the sexism problem. That's all, really. He never once says doing nothing makes you as bad as the people being sexist. All he is saying, is there is a problem of people trying to claim gaming does not have a sexism problem by coming up with vague and stupid parameters to section off the people being sexist. He just wants people to admit that gaming does have a few problems, one of them being sexist, that needs to get sorted out, and trying to claim gaming has no problems is a problem in it of itself.

While there may be some arguing there is no sexism or harassment related to games whatsoever, that's not what any halfway intelligent person is arguing. What's being argued is that the games industry or gamers as a group are not uniquely sexist or more sexist than any other group. If 'gaming has a sexism problem', then it means you believe gamers are uniquely sexist on account of being gamers, otherwise it would be beneath special consideration.

When sexual harassment has been proven to have happened in a home, we hold the perpetrator guilty. When sexual harassment is proven to have happened in a hospital, we hold the perpetrator guilty. When sexual harassment is twittered as allegedly happened at a gaming con, we hold 'a culture of misogyny' and 'inherent sexism' guilty, and claim that others failing to do the same is what causes harassment to happen. Suggesting to hold the perpetrators accountable instead of an entire community is sexism in itself.

Being a gamer is your original sin, and only through good works and supporting popular causes can you stop being the sexist you are.

Whether or not the idea of a "true gamer" is irrelevant to the discussion, and is simply misrepresenting the argument I was making. Like it or not, there are people who are trying to absolve games of a sexism problem by claiming anyone who is sexist must not be a part of the gaming community. If someone plays video games, even very casually, they are part of the gaming community (even if they don't frequent forums or conventions all the time).

Aren't you doing exactly what Jim Sterling is talking about? By attempting to section off people who try to claim gaming doesn't have a sexism problem, aren't you ignoring the problem rather than confronting it directly. Calling people who try to claim gaming doesn't have a sexism problem "unintelligent" and brushing your hands of the matter isn't helping anything.

Yes, gaming does have a sexism problem, and I'll go as far as to say it has more of a problem than most other forms of medium. But that doesn't mean I believe all gamers are sexist because they're gamers, despite how much you're trying to make it look like I do. All it means is I am willing to admit there are quite a few problems in the community, and burying your head in the sand isn't helping matters.

I would argue gaming does have a sexism problem fairly unique to itself, because, for the longest time, video games were seen as a male-exclusive hobby. Although female gamers have always existed, they didn't exist in any meaningful quantity until much, much later. This means video games were targeted towards young boys, and even to this day they are still seen as the dominant market.

It also doesn't help that games cost a lot of money to make, and not a lot of developers are willing to take a risk and make something that may not return as big a profit as they would like. Since, as I said, young boys are seen as the dominant market, including things in a game young boys like (hyper-sexualised women, action, explosions, etc...) is going to be seen as the safer option.

Gaming has a sexism problem whether you like it or not, and honestly I'm not sure how to solve it. It's become so ingrained in the community, it is often seen as just another part of it. It's going to take a lot of work to fix, and burying our heads in the sand is going in the wrong direction.

Also, I don't know about you, but when it comes to sexual harassment towards women, regardless of location or format, I often see a large amount of people trying to claim that it must be the woman's fault for some asinine reason. Victim shaming exists, and it happens all over the place.

#7 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

Wow, way to totally miss the point of his argument. At no point did he say people who do nothing about sexism in video games are sexist themselves; in fact he even went as far to say if you don't want to discuss that side of games, and only talk about the games themselves, that is perfectly acceptable.

His entire point in the video, if you actually bothered to listen to it, is that people who try to actively claim a distance from the problem of sexism are contributing to the problem itself. In the example he gives specifically, he is talking about the people who tried to shrug off the harassment towards Zoe Quinn by claiming it wasn't done by "real gamers" but by frustrated forum users. He is calling out the people who tried to claim gaming doesn't have a sexism problem by claiming people who are sexist are not true gamers.

All he is really saying is trying to claim gaming doesn't have a sexism problem is as damaging as the people who are causing the sexism problem. That's all, really. He never once says doing nothing makes you as bad as the people being sexist. All he is saying, is there is a problem of people trying to claim gaming does not have a sexism problem by coming up with vague and stupid parameters to section off the people being sexist. He just wants people to admit that gaming does have a few problems, one of them being sexist, that needs to get sorted out, and trying to claim gaming has no problems is a problem in it of itself.

#8 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

I think every console I buy is purely for a game I want. After all, there isn't much point buying a console if there aren't any games you want to play on it.

#9 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

You know, I could make some well reasoned argument as to why one person's opinion on the internet doesn't really mean anything, but let's be honest here: everyone already knows that, but we're so used to having to defend games from someone that we go after the easiest target. With her broad sweeping statements, and no back-up to her words (at least on Twitter), it would be all too easy to just look at her and go "that's nice" and move on. One person saying they don't like a game on Twitter isn't going to change anything. We're so used to having to defend games, we've resorted to turning Anita into a much bigger threat than she really is.

I think it is interesting she voices her opinion, even though I really don't agree with what she has to say (as I said before, it's hard to agree with her when she says things with nothing to back them up). I watched a few of her youtube videos, and found them to be interesting. I may not agree completely with what she says, but she isn't hurting me by saying them. If she believes ICO or DMC are bad games, that shouldn't diminish your enjoyment of them, should it?

Please, can we stop with the whole "she stole money from people" because she didn't. She started a Kickstarter, and people choose to donate to it. It's no different to any other Kickstarter: sometimes you take a gamble, and wind up losing out. She hasn't officially said the videos are not coming, so can we please stop using it as "proof" that she is a horrible person.

Better yet, can we stop making threads about her. She's a person on the internet that just happened to get into the public eye for a brief moment. The only reason anyone still remembers her is because we can't help but keep bringing her up. She voiced an opinion on Twitter; is that really worth making a thread about? Trust me on this, nothing Anita can do will be more damaging to games than how we act whenever she comes up.

#10 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

Alright...

If this is serious, fuck that guy.

If this is a joke, all of the fucks that guy. Seriously, gamers have a hard enough time being taken seriously without us having to explain this shit.

If the people signing the petition are being sincere. Fuck them.

If the people signing the petition are doing it for the lulz. Don't encourage stupidity. It's not worth it.