Standing Silent in the Echo Chamber

@n1nj4d00m: And why is that? Why are non gamers who couldn't care less about games journalism taking up this cause?

It's not just weak or exaggerated, it's entirely disingenuous and manipulative. That part is also a summation of the entire video, so it doesn't bode well for the rest of it that you consider it to be the weakest part.

Not sure what your last bit has to do with anything though. I'm quite capable of separating my enjoyment of a thing from criticisms of said thing, but I appreciate your concern.

I'm critical of her arguments because suggesting these games were designed for the vile purposes she suggests, that they actively invite that sort of blatently misogynistic behaviour, and that players can't help but objectify, exploit, and punish the representations of female sexuality, is patently absurd.

Awareness of potential behaviour to what end? What's your preferred outcome from developers becoming aware of what players can potentially do in their games? Suppose developers were entirely conscious of what players could do in these games when they released them. Would you accept that? If not, what exactly would you prefer they did?

I had no interest in watching the video when it was released, having stopped watching her videos a while back (they were all pretty bad). I just watched it though (and it's also pretty bad).

But you're right, she wasn't singling out Hitman specifically. She was using ridiculous footage of it to support her argument that many of the games she discussed (Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman: Absolution, Sleeping Dogs, etc.) were meticulously designed to illicit sexual arousal connected to the control and punishment of representations of female sexuality.

Throughout the video she's presuming such malicious and perverse intentions behind the development of these games, as well as the effects these games have on the hapless players forced to act upon those intentions.

That's precisely where the argument leads conmulligan. Establishing a causal connection between the media we consume and our individual behaviour; how it influences our thoughts and ultimately our actions. Be it violence, prejudiced mentalities, or sexual violence.

It's, apparently, undeniable and inescapable. Even if you don't think playing these games will make you a violent misogynist, you're not thinking that it will only signifies just how likely it is that it actually will. Even if you actually don't, that doesn't change the "fact" that these games were designed to facilitate violent misogyny, and consequently will eventually make you a violent misogynist, or at the very least a violent misogynist sympathizer.

That is to say, there's no argument to be made against her assessments.

If that's a difficult pill to swallow, it's because it's not a pill at all. It's a toaster being shoved down your throat. Which is a shame, because there's an actual pill back on the countertop that you should very much try to swallow.

Video games have issues! Mostly they're reflections of larger societal issues, but still! We can genuinely address them without letting the crazies lead the discussion.

Instead we're here mulling over this crap YouTube video. You get some who don't want to look at the particulars of her arguments, because this is a very important issue that shouldn't be bogged down by her ridiculous arguments and deceitful presentation, but also let's raise her up as a spokesperson for the "movement". You get others who just hate the fact that assholes were being assholes to her, so they're on board for whatever. You get the assholes who are just assholes, and yeah, fuck those people. You get the people who vehemently disagree with everything she says and cover their eyes and ears to there even being a problem of representation and depiction.

I'm hardly surprised to see more people wanting out of the discussion period. Folks who even envy those that are oblivious to it, those who just play and enjoy video games on the surface. So burdened has the simple topic gotten that these folks would prefer to wave it off rather than wade into the cesspool of competing echo chambers.

@teaoverlord said:

Agreed, most people aren't, but there are some who do want to ban games with "sexist content" (?). That's the issue I have. For these people in particular they hide behind "it's criticism!" like it's some bulwark of flame retardant +5. Their criticism is often masked cries for censorship because what they say isn't "well I don't like this for these reasons" it's "THIS STUFF IS PROBLEMATIC AND WHY WOULD ANYONE MAKE IT UNLESS THEY'RE A SEXIST." A reasonable adult finds something they don't like and says "well that's shitty" and moves about their day. They leave a comment on a message board or on twitter and they quickly move on to something else.

The best analogy I can think of is people who like anime. I don't like anime personally. I could list a litany of reasons as to why, but ultimately I don't want to waste my time writing them out because what's the point? The people who like anime are free to like and enjoy it. They're free to immerse themselves in the culture that surrounds it, and I don't see a problem with that. I just think it's a much more productive use of one's time to talk about the things they see as examples they want more of. I think at this point it comes down to whether or not you want to have a moan about something that bugs you or do you want to talk about things you want to see more of. I can understand the appeal of having a moan, but when everyone is doing that it gets rather tiresome.

There's plenty of criticism to be had that is both intelligent and reasonable. Kill Screen has a ton of good stuff. Tom Chick - who I rarely agree with - always puts up an interesting perspective on games. I'd rather have more rational discourse like that than the latest click bait article or youtube video.

Please link me to some of these people that want to ban games. Please. Further link me to the definition of censorship that states critics voicing their displeasure is a form of it.

There have certainly been voices throughout gaming's history that have called for governmental regulation of content (for example California State Senator Leeland Yee, ironically later arrested for gun trafficking) but, to my knowledge those have been almost exclusively been tied to the general concept of violence in video games and not sexism/misogyny.

I would think, from context, you would know I'm talking about banning for sexism reasons.

@defaultprophet: I'm well aware, I'm actually trying to confirm what you were saying.

Maybe 1% of my social circle offline follows video game news. Even then, those people seemed to have heard about this issue in passing and didn't care enough to follow up on it.

It really isn't an issue to the world at large, for whatever that is worth.

(Interestingly: I've been called an 'ignorant socialist' and worse to my face in real life, but it's only online that I've been called a misogynist.)

I do sort of agree with the thought that the violence against cops is over-the-top, but does that mean that if killing hookers was presented as equally over the top, it would be more acceptable? There's a strange thought.

Also, violence against cops isn't a societal issue? It seems like you're suggesting that if a man kills a hooker, it's because a certain element of society has convinced him that her life is without value. Does that mean if a man kills a police officer, that has nothing to do with a certain element of society convincing him that officer's life is without value? Are you saying certain elements of society do not have issues concerning trust, fear, and hatred when it comes to how they view the police? If so, wouldn't that make it a societal issue?

Are you suggesting that the women in that Hitmen scene are ineffectual sex objects? They have no more or less agency when it comes to player interaction than any other civilian in the game, male or female. And their dialogue concerns one of the men working at the club being a jerk, to which the other replies that it's the price you pay to work in their industry, and that any strip club like that is bound to have some jerk working there. So not only do they have agency on display by showing that they choose to work there, but they're given dialog that humanizes them beyond their polygonal form, which allows the player to better sympathize with them, and helps show that they ARE people rather than just sexy dancers.

Absolutely none of that dialog is heard in Sarkeesian's video, because it completely goes against the story that she's trying to create.

As for cherry picking, it's one argument that Anita chose herself, and worded herself in a way that completely misrepresents the game that is being talked about. It's also an incredibly brief part of the game, and one of three ways you can accomplish that mission, all of which specifically discourage you from attacking the dancers or any other random citizen. It's ironic that the people criticizing Anita for the way she talked about hitman are being accused of cherry picking her argument. You don't cherry pick specific examples provided by an individual, you cherry pick from thousands of sources. If I find the most man-hating feminist video I can come up with and say "see, this is what feminists are really like!" that is cherry picking, and it's dishonest.

Ban games? No, but more than ever I'm now convinced this is often an issue of censorship, and people trying to impose their personal values on everyone else.

The argument: "No one is coming for your video games! This isn't at all about censorship, or controlling game developers, and no one is trying to bully or shame anyone into doing anything. This is just about variety and diversity, and it's just a simple request that game developers think more about these issues when they're making their games. That's all. This isn't a zero-sum game, and there's room enough for all types of games, and all types of characters. There's nothing wrong with male protagonists, and we're not suggesting anything of the sort."

I've heard this for a while.

Then the new Assassin's Creed game was announced to feature a male protagonist and three male co-op characters, and the same voices who claimed the above turned around and scolded Ubisoft like they were a dog who just made a mess on their new living room rug. Actually, I think they would have been a lot more respectful to the dog.

And don't even get me started on the Far Cry 4 promo art reveal.

While I do support the argument above, I think that it's frequently not the truth for those who claim otherwise.

That's what I was getting at. I blame being dead tired when I wrote that post for not clarifying my point all that well.

Very well put.

@jesus_phish said:

Wow this thread sorta blew up.

About Ubisoft, I don't have any problem with the flak they got. That's a perfect example of "No zero-sum", it's a huge oversight that no female avatars are included. When you're making a single player game, you're fine having a specific race or gender for your character, but in a multiplayer game, it's quite obvious that people usually prefer to embody someone of their own ethnicity or gender. I think Ubisoft assumed (rightfully so) that 50% or more of the people purchasing their game are white males and catered to them, understanding that the other 50% of people or less would roll with it. And it's perfectly fine for those not represented to band together and say, "Hey don't forget about us, we'd like to have an avatar".

The Far Cry 4 promo art hate however seemed to stem from the same crowd that thought A Modest Proposal was a recipe.

Back further when we're talking about Anita, I think the biggest fault I have in her isn't necessarily with her arguments (though I find many of them to be flawed), it's the fact that they go unchallenged. Her Youtube videos all have comments blocked, so no discussion can happen there, and where comments are not blocked on the matter, any intelligent discourse is fairly often lost in a sea of unreadable nonsense of other comments. If Anita wants to strengthen the communities opinion of her argument and make actual change, she needs to show their worth against actual counter argument. I don't think this means she should wander into a comments section or defend it on twitter, but be involved in a debate or respond to any of the multitude of her critic's youtube videos. Or she could just continue to ignore anything counter to what she's saying and continue milking her supporters for funding. Which, to be fair, I may disagree with, but would probably do myself.

Part of the issue in this particular case with Ubisoft is that they fumbled with the "corporate speak". People would have been okay with only one character especially if it is construct of the game's story line (there was only one historical person but multiple people can interface with the memory in the Animus, so for those story missions they are locked into playing person no matter how large your team is) but instead they gave some mumble jumbo about stuff that wasn't really that wasn't accurate at all. If Ubisoft had just simply said "The team made a design choice" instead of "Its hard!" people would have been far less critical.

So gamers hate the marketing and corporate speak especially when they have a hunch it isn't true. And yeah it happen to touch one of those nerves that sets off the internet too.

This is what I mean, the people pointing out sexism in games don't want to ban video games. This criticism of games is different than the outrage about video game violence because most of the critics play games themselves (I know there's controversy over whether Sarkeesian is a "gamer" or not, but these critics include game journalists who certainly play games). These people are often criticizing games that they really enjoy other than the sexist content in them, so their criticism seems much more honest than senators trying to ban violence in games or conservative columnists calling Mass Effect "virtual rape".

@extomar: I agree. The initial response by Ubisoft to the question concerning female playable characters was very poor, especially considering their track record with female characters in Assassins Creed games. They had done it before and there were no issues, so their initial "It's too expensive and hard!" didn't ring true to many familiar with their games. Then, we get the second answer, which made much more sense and fit the game story, "You play as Arno so everyone is Arno in co-op because you all play as Arno!" and that was perfectly reasonable and fit what they were obviously trying to do in the game.

My reaction has always been that their first answer was Grade A bologna, based on the their stellar track record creating and implementing female characters in both the single player and multiplayer facets of the AC games, and their second answer was always what they should have gone with. Their PR speak got bungled and that's the problem. Sure, some people may not like that they can't be female in co-op, but I would assume that most level-headed people (me, us, whatever) see that their reasoning is sound and their true failure was fumbling how they answered that question the first time. Saying "it's too hard" or "it's too expensive" doesn't ring true when your multiplayer is rife with ladies and one of your main protagonists was a lady. It's a perfect example of saying something stupid when put on the spot.

My girlfriend and I have a lot of fun reading through the latest "developments" within the "honesty in journalism" "movement". A few minutes ago I was thinking to myself in the shower how hilarious it is that all the people who actively despise and vilify these women and women like them have inadvertently made them the most prominent, important and famous/infamous voices in video games.

It's highly probably that I would have never seen Anita's critique of the manic pixie dream girl trope so many years ago if some knucklehead hadn't linked it decrying her as some kind of big bad wolf outside our straw house full of chest bumps.

You're looking at AC from a super narrow perspective. The issue wasn't just that there wasn't a female co-op character. The issue was in the past Ubisoft has been good about including at least one in that scenario. They also compounded the issue by claiming it would take double the time to include one even with ex-Ubi employees saying that simply isn't the case and the majority of animation is shared between the male and female characters in AC. Nobody who complained called for banning the game. Given all of that, do you think the response was more reasonable or does it not matter?

@jadegl: Also that affair showed imo, how easily games writers find something to be outraged over which is really not a big deal to begin with. But I do agree that Ubisoft's initial statement didn't do themselves any favours either. But hey, all these "controversies" , like AC Unity, Far Cry 4 and Tomodachi Life do generate quite the traffic don't they? But that's just the ever present sceptic in me I guess. I'm sure all these stories are done with zero business motives in mind of course....

That's exactly what the GTA V developers said, and it changed absolutely nothing. Rockstar was still "wrong" for not including a playable female character in their campaign.

That's a fair point, although this is the first AC game to feature co-op. Women were only playable in competitive multiplayer so far, with the exception of using one female protagonist for an entire game.

The response was reasonable when it specifically concerned what Ubisoft said rather than the lack of playable female characters in Unity, but the initial question was not reasonable. I fully agree that the Ubisoft's handling of the issue was very stupid, but I have to ask why was it an issue in the first place? If the argument is "nothing is wrong with male protagonists, we're not telling developers what to do, there's room enough for all types of games" why even call Ubisoft out on the issue to begin with?

"Why France? Why male characters? Why the focus on co-op?" all seem like fair questions concerning the new Assassin's Creed game, and would give a good sense of the direction that Ubisoft decided to go with in the game.

"Why not Israel? Why no playable women? Why not change the combat to feature a Batman / Sleeping Dogs style of counters and combos?" are not questions so much as requests. And "why no playable women?" isn't a request that should be made of any specific game when the argument is "nothing is wrong with male protagonists, we're not telling developers what to do, there's room enough for all types of games."

Also, while a lot of the rage toward Ubisoft was focused on that PR rep's stupid comment, it was very often used as a springboard to specifically complain about the lack of female character options in the new Assassin's Creed. This coming from the same journalists who fall back on "the argument" whenever anyone calls them on their aggression.

And like I said earlier, the same thing happened with Rockstar and GTA V without any ridiculous foot-in-mouth "women are hard to make" statements.

Keep on fighting THE MAN for the men where they have to protect their tempests in teapots from...something? You seem to think these people can make Rockstar bow to pressure which seems laughable but whatever. I see GTA 5 videos all over Twitch and YouTube with people having fun playing GTA Online which allows open character creation.

And really that is the thing everyone should take away. So what if someone is unhappy with what someone said? If one is happy then it is okay to continue on to be happy.

I don't think that at all, but the actions of game journalists still go against "the argument" that they defend themselves with, and I'm happy to point out that sort of hypocrisy when I see it.

I can only speak for myself, but in any game featuring a character creator, it has literally been years since I created someone of my own ethnicity and gender.

I pretty much agree with every the TC said. There's little to no actual debate or discussion happening with these issues, and that's what has exacerbated it all. Polygon just published an article that step by step takes apart the Christina Sommers video, and that's great, we need more of that. The problem is that no one outside of smaller youtube channels have done that for Anita's videos. I'm not saying even one games journalist has to disagree with Anita, they can all agree with her 100%, but they should make a greater effort to actually present this as a discussion with varying viewpoints. There's a common ground that can be reached, it just seems like very few people are actually trying to get there.

Edit: I realized I should have linked the article, here.

This seems like a good time to link to this: https://medium.com/@cainejw/the-factual-feminist-a-factcheck-f5ae584f56da

And for the record, I didn't at all care for the tone of the Christina Hoff Summers video, just as I don't care for the tone that most social justice advocates use. As I've said before, it seems neither side of this debate can talk about the other without insulting, generalizing, misrepresenting, condescending, "I'm right and you're wrong" bullshit. All anyone ever seems to want to do is preach to the choir, and I'm getting sick of it.

@brackstone: I would love if the reaction to a video from Anita Sarkeesian was even half as critical and contemplative as the reaction to that video from Sommers was. Polygon has flipped their shit and posted at least three different articles complaining about the video that came out, what, about that many days ago?

I don't even think the video is all that good, but the reaction has been ironic. She's called "dangerous" by people from Polygon and Gamespot; call Sarkeesian "dangerous" and you get mocked. One article from Polygon written by Colin Campbell complains that he's been called a "mansplainer" and a "misogynist" for criticizing Sommers. Yeah, what's that like? And spending a bunch of time on Twitter complaining about a women making a political point you dislike? Never heard of that before.

Though I will say that running into a Colin Campbell article has made me very tempted to buy and review his book. It seems as compelling as a Chick Tract.

That is part of a bigger problem, game journalists haven't found the fight or passion to ever take any one Anita's points line by line. The fact that we call these people journalists is an insult. They aren't out seeking the truth, they only want a truth they have created that fits their ideology. It doesn't matter how rationale and respectful we as gamers are, if you aren't pouring accolades of their ongoing effort to segregate gamers into a group of spiteful men you will never be heard. Game journalism has no problem pointing fingers, but they aren't prepared to stand up under any scrutiny themselves. Honestly, the big message for the talking heads fanning the flames is to change tactics, this current campaign is not working and gamers can remain as gamers by virtue of hobby. Game journalism typically requires readers, so maybe this whole plan of attacking everyone including those you claim to be defending should be on hold for awhile.

@oldirtybearon: "Well I just don't get why people want to point out sexism in popular culture and say they don't like it. I don't like anime, but you don't hear me screaming that from the rooftops!"

are you for real dude?

This kind of hypocrisy from the gaming media is part of the reason why people won't shut up. It's disgusting to be honest.

@pcorb: That's not what I said. good try though.

Yea, I did a double take on that, all I saw were the quotes initially and thought he was actually replying to something you had said, I see where you had mentioned anime but not in the context he suggested.

A word like hypocrisy implies that Sommers and Sarkeesian are two sides of the same coin. Sommers shills for an arch-conservative think tank (for probably a whole lot of money) and hasn't done any research on the subject that I'm aware of and has been busted citing academic studies that don't back any of her claims (presumably because she doesn't think her target audience would notice). Sarkeesian is doing her Feminist Frequency series on her own steam, does many hours of primary research and actually attempts to use legit academic research to back up some of her ideas. Given the fact that Sommers is a hack who gets paid by right-wingers specifically because she's a woman with a doctorate willing to attack feminism and she happens to be saying some things that the anti-critical-thinking segment of the "gamer" population wants to hear, dismantling her arguments is a little bit more important. If they treated them the same, it would be a false equivalence worthy of the shittiest South Park episode.

@oldirtybearon: If it didn't quite capture your meaning, you may need to explain your whole "people who like anime analogy" in a little more detail, because that's exactly how I read it!

I think the better analogy is that sexism in games is like having a bunch of games celebrating racism. People who like anime isn't a group who run a higher chance of getting shot by a cop or getting sexually harassed at their work place where they earn less money simply because they where born with a certain gender.

Interesting how stuff like this doesn't get called out by those games journalists that pretend to fight for the good of gaming and women in gaming.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bxo8xWiIUAEum6Y.png:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bxo8xWzIcAAye3C.png:large

@pcorb: I was replying to a woman who was talking about people seeing sexism where they want to see it with her whole talk about the Dead or Alive franchise. I was talking about that. It had fuck all to do with sexism in and of itself. Furthermore, I elaborated on a theory that some people are just prudish and don't like depictions of sexy people in any form of media. Which is fair enough and I can understand that. This is where the anime comes in: I personally don't like anime so I don't go out of my way to bitch about anime on the Internet. I then casually suggested that if people really have a problem with sexualized characters that maybe they'd be better served by championing examples of things they do enjoy instead of storming into a conversation to try and shame people into their way of thinking.

I have no idea where the hell you got the idea I was talking about sexism as a whole from.

How and why should they call that out? That just proves that most things have supporters that are idiots.

It's important to understand that the stance of gaming journalists is completely in favor of attacking women, this is common now. That is the message for women, especially those sporting the #Notyourshield. The journalistic gang doesn't care what your gender is, it doesn't matter to them that you are a female gamer. You are a hurdle they can't jump through as much as they try to demean and attack while hiding behind claims of equality. This is overwhelming evidence they don't want or care about minorities in gaming, they care about USING minorities in gaming to meet their ends. Having a voice is what they disdain, they want victims not women.

EDIT:! "How and why should they call that out? That just proves that most things have supporters that are idiots." credit: @tirion

See... attacking women is fine, even around here. It's all about which side you are on, hateful things can be spewed all day without any real pushback just as long as you are attacking someone with a view in favor of Gamergate or Notyourshield. If we are aiming for equality then these points of views should have just as much right to exist and be heard as Anitas. Gaming journalism is not above intimidation as it suits their needs.

@oldirtybearon: You're saying that people complaining about the sexualisation of women in games (or a game in particular here) is like you complaining about anime. You are, in essence, saying "if you don't like it, ignore it! It's not for you!" with no hint of self-awareness.

At this point it looks like you are, in fact, for real. May God have mercy on us all.

@pcorb: Let's try not to be sarcastic; doesn't really help things.

@wolfgame: Your logic here is somewhat similar to people who say stuff like "Republicans all hate gay people," when in fact there are socially liberal Republicans, Log Cabin republicans, etc. You're extrapolating one person's actions to indict an entire industry. Isn't that kind of like people who accused all #GamerGate people of harassment because of the actions of a minority of the people involved?

Yeah it's easy to forget that the hordes of people harassing others on Twitter are not people from every corner of the web; they're the table full of assholes in the cafeteria that act like jackasses that the rest of the grade hates; they just so happen to not be so confined on the internet so they appear to be some sort of "average" or to be spread out, when in reality they're just those same shitty kids from that lunch table. Would you say "my class hates me!" if only that one table harassed you? Probably not. It's not Frank's fault for not viewing it like this, but I wish she had.

@brackstone: I think that labelling someone a "hack" and a "shill" without even linking to any assertions of these claims doesn't really help the rhetoric in this thread. Let's try to keep the language calm.

@pcorb: Are you ignoring the part where I said "champion the examples you want to see more of"? I get that it's popular to misrepresent someone's argument, but come on man, I'm having a conversation with you. There's absolutely no need to be a dick about it.

So while we're being civil to each other, perhaps you can explain this to me; why is sex a bad thing? Why are sexy women a bad thing? For that matter, why are sexy men a bad thing? I've seen a lot of people talk about "sexualization" like it's Original Sin, and absolutely nobody can explain why it's bad.

@chrissedoff: I would ease up on terms like "hack" and "shill" unless you're willing to link to some refutations of what she's saying. It's fair to think that, I guess, but it seems like an attempt to just dismiss someone with biased language rather than attack what they're actually arguing.

I'm not an expert on these arguments (and I'm not making this argument myself), but at a glance I would guess that most people argue that it's not that great to have a very narrow kind of "big tits/huge muscles" physique being held up as the arbiter of what sexy people are supposed to look like. Very, very few people look like that naturally, and it's not difficult to see the anxieties that it produces in people both male and female: steroid uses, eating disorders, etc.

I feel like you are completely missing the point. This whole issue is about women getting attacked simply because they are women. There is a difference between attacking people who say stupid things and attacking people because they are of a certain gender. I'm all for free speech and all that, but some views just creates a horrible society. I don't want a society where I have daughter that grows up and earn less just because she is a woman and some people feel like their shitty views should exist.

I hear where you are coming from, if I had to assume a political leaning myself I would probably be inclined to say republican, but as you mentioned that can mean almost anything depending upon additional factors. Conservative, moderates, independents... It gets a whole lot more varied then one clear ideology. Is it unreasonable to identify isolated incidents such as the one posted by @LunarJetman and attribute them to gaming journalism as a whole? I have to imagine it would be frustrating to someone in the industry to hear my remarks without taking into account the diverse group of gaming journalists who are working hard to pursue their passion and career to be demonized by the actions of a smaller few. Of course, that has been my response to gamergate as well, I don't even have a twitter account, I am no where nearly as engaged with this as it may seem on this site. However, I have seen significant resistance from gaming journalists to acknowledge that the despicable actions of certain users posting under #GamerGate is not indicative of the gaming community as a whole. When you look at it that way this whole thing is being waged with very similar disingenuous tactics from both sides. I'll atleast admit that it is not an exchange of ideas in the most sincere manner, but I doubt I will see such concessions from the other side.

@rorie: I totally understand that. I can agree with it to a degree. There should be wider ranges of people and wider ranges of aesthetics represented in media as a whole. The part where this whole thing falls apart to me is when it's heavily implied that people are bad people for enjoying aesthetically pleasing representations of a given gender. I don't think people should be spanked with a switch because they enjoy looking at a sexy person whatever their preference. Nor do I think artists should be shamed for depicting aesthetically pleasing representations of a given gender.

If this argument was about wanting a greater range of tastes represented, I can get behind that. I've been saying for the last however many months that there's room for everybody and everything; what I take issue with is how dangerously close to demonizing sexiness some of these arguments get.

Yeah it's really one of the hardest problems of the internet to solve, how do you deal with that fraction of people who always seem to drag any discussion down to their level? Do you ignore them? Can you even now that they've started to wage large scale campaigns of harassment in the real world against people with opposing views? How can anyone have a reasonable discussion or even interaction when any percentage of people large or small is bound to derail everything?

Well I have to be on UPF for a bit, so keep this thread calm, por favor, and I'll try to hop in later when I can. Not that you need me to talk about this stuff, though, of course!