Jump to content
IGNORED

Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)


Unofficial Who
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, grindmouse said:

 

The whole problem here is that attitude of a women, and her attitude to customers within industry circles.

 

You can't apply systemic context to every situation, in spite of evidence and individual context. You're actually removing her agency as a person in doing so. It's illogical. It would be one thing if you disagreed and thought Arenanet were wrong, but you and your smug bellend clique telling other forumites they shouldn't be part of this discussion if they're men, unless of course they agree with you. Let's try that. Let's just let the women of the forum discuss the gender diversity and politics issues. That'll be what... like... a dozen or so active posters, if that.

 

Fucking hell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, grindmouse said:

 

Nearly missed this. So that'll be conspiracy to undermine another user's right to edit their content.

Just another tactic on the frontlines of the big ol' gender battle at the rllmuk Discussion folder.

What do you class as a gender battle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, grindmouse said:

 

For example, a discussion forum when someone says:

 

 

And then when someone responds to point out this is a discussion forum they say:

 

 

I'd say that person is behaving aggressively and combatively, without provocation, because of their view of the gender politics surrounding Prices' firing.

 

If you think that's aggressive or combative, you should check out the replies to women online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, grindmouse said:

 

Hahaha that's priceless.

 

Do the replies to women online say, "Hey sugartits, SMD will use this as a nice bit of whattaboutism to excuse his own dickhead behaviour!"?

Absolutely, sugartits is a synonym for comrade after all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, grindmouse said:

Nearly missed this. So that'll be conspiracy to undermine another user's right to edit their content.

Just another tactic on the frontlines of the big ol' gender battle at the rllmuk Discussion folder.

 

Well it was more a comment on how difficult it is to reply to a post in a discussion thread when it then goes through more revisions than the King James Bible.

 

But if you want use this as evidence that I'm part of the cabal of SJW cucks serving the oppressive matriarchy which is seeking to censor you, then knock yourself out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this goes here but I like how people are moaning that they're getting banned for using toxic language or racial slurs in Rainbow Six Siege. I had one dude on Steam post hard hitting "IMAGE PROOF" (as he called it) of this heinous crime against him and his friends... Needless to say I promptly deleted the fucker from my friends list lol. 

 

882TeDV.png

 

qKIpaUs.png

 

"limit of free speech" :lol:

 

Obviously that guy is as dumb as a rock but it's stuff like this that makes me despair and only see the bad in people these days. Everyone has lost their fucking minds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a significant amount of online players it seems to be a massive effort not to blurt our hate speech randomly. 

 

I mean look look at the amount of YouTubers/Twitch streamers who’ve come a cropper. Hey, you can make loads of money sitting on your arse playing games and screaming incoherently, just don’t use racist/homophobic slurs. Apparently that’s too big an ask for some of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like a modern day of Faust or Achilles, except instead of some supernatural being offering a person infinite wisdom and glory in return for their soul or for some fatal flaw that will kill them young, they're offered millions of dollars and a devoted fanbase and all they have to return is not scream the N-word at the top of their voice in front of millions of people, and these fucking doofuses can't even do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, grindmouse said:

 

For example, a discussion forum when someone says:

 

 

And then when someone responds to point out this is a discussion forum they say:

 

 

I'd say that person is behaving aggressively and combatively, without provocation, because of their view of the gender politics surrounding Prices' firing.

 

55 minutes ago, SMD said:

 

If you think that's aggressive or combative, you should check out the replies to women online.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that women don't get a shitty deal on social media.   They do.  I think I've already pointed out shit needs to change. 

The last discussion was about someone acting like a dick because they assumed someone was being patronising when it's fairly obvious (to me, feel free to disagree)  they're being about as polite as possible discussing a topic that that person started!  Saying that person didn't respond how you'd expect isn't suddenly a comment on the problems women face or even a denial that they face problems. 

 

But you keep trying to turn this round to a "oh you must hate women then" which is a load of balls and a pretty shitty way to try shutting down the discussion. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rafaqat said:

 

 

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that women don't get a shitty deal on social media.   They do.  I think I've already pointed out shit needs to change. 

The last discussion was about someone acting like a dick because they assumed someone was being patronising when it's fairly obvious (to me, feel free to disagree)  they're being about as polite as possible discussing a topic that that person started!  Saying that person didn't respond how you'd expect isn't suddenly a comment on the problems women face or even a denial that they face problems. 

 

But you keep trying to turn this round to a "oh you must hate women then" which is a load of balls and a pretty shitty way to try shutting down the discussion. 

 

 

 

The problem isn't the politeness, the problem is the whole patronising dynamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/07/2018 at 18:16, rafaqat said:

 

Wonderful post mate.  It still doesn't really explain how that tweet was anything to do with gender.  But keep having a go at the people trying to discuss it. THAT always works!

 

It’s interesting that you interpret a comment on the differences between responses from different people on issues of gender to be me having a go at you. It’s never women who want to avoid “turning everything into a conversation about gender”, it’s always men. Because women have to live their whole lives knowing that every conversation they have has a subtext of being about gender. It’s only if you’re a man that you can choose to ignore those issues, but we still have innumerable men suggesting that would be a solution, when it really only benefits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Broker said:

 

It’s interesting that you interpret a comment on the differences between responses from different people on issues of gender to be me having a go at you. It’s never women who want to avoid “turning everything into a conversation about gender”, it’s always men. Because women have to live their whole lives knowing that every conversation they have has a subtext of being about gender. It’s only if you’re a man that you can choose to ignore those issues, but we still have innumerable men suggesting that would be a solution, when it really only benefits them.

So every conversation a man has with a woman is sexist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone was fired because of mob mentality. 

 

Yes, if you are linked to your employer on social media, you need to not make disparaging remarks. 

 

However, if your employer encourages you to interact with its customers on social media they need to accept that things easily blow up and get taken out of context. 

 

Not fire someone for a pretty small transgression. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SMD said:

It'd be massively hypocritical of me to speak on behalf of women

12 hours ago, SMD said:

The problem isn't the politeness, the problem is the whole patronising dynamic.

 

Is it not patronising to criticise patronising behaviour on their behalf? Some of my female friends'd call me a wuss for white-knighting on something like this. They just call me a dick if the need arises and I stop doing whatever I was doing.

 

8 hours ago, Mallet said:

So every conversation a man has with a woman is sexist?

 

My convos have the subtext of me being a baldy who lost his looks ten year back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Escaped said:

 

Is it not patronising to criticise patronising behaviour on their behalf? Some of my female friends'd call me a wuss for white-knighting on something like this. They just call me a dick if the need arises and I stop doing whatever I was doing.

 

 

My convos have the subtext of me being a baldy who lost his looks ten year back.

 

No? It's not white knighting to call out a behaviour and whatever relationships you have with your mates, I'd be surprised if they had the same response to criticising prevailing attitudes.

 

They might be able to tell you you're a dick but the whole point is that women generally don't feel comfortable doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, grindmouse said:

 

 

SMD is surprised if any women would act the way Escaped’s friends act because women don’t generally feel comfortable doing “that”. SMD knows women! He’s read the articles!

 

Are u ok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've still got several pages of this thread to catch up with (the ArenaNet discussion has been moving quickly), but here are a couple of recent links unrelated to that.

 

First, Forbes (which, remember, publishes the writing of Gamergater, mechA-enthusiast, and former forumite Ollie "Cacophanus" Barder) has published this piece about TotalBiscuit and how he became a figurehead for Gamergate and didn't go enough to extricate himself from associations with them:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/07/10/totalbiscuits-legacy-and-the-collateral-damage-of-gamergate/#531042c132ae

 

 

Second, a few days ago the person who created KotakuInAction looked in horror at what he'd created, deleted the whole subreddit, and posted this:

 

 

Alas, they resurrected it:

 

 

Polygon's summary:

https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/7/13/17568556/kotakuinaction-reddit-mod-shut-down-administrator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2018 at 07:10, Alex W. said:

 

Smitty, the reason why you don't think it has any meaning is that you obviously don't have the first clue what it means. A working definition would be "a man explains something trivial to a woman who is an expert on that topic, because - as she is a woman - it has not occurred to him that she is an expert and already knows this". It's not even a hostile intent, it's an unconscious bias thing, and it is very well defined.

 

Spend five minutes taking people at face value and figuring out what they're actually saying and it might turn out not to be some absurd horror story you've dreamed up based on your own ignorance and paranoia.

 

I know what the concept is. The idea that I don't think it has any meaning is ridiculous. It's a real thing and had a real meaning, once. I literally state in the post you quote that it has a meaning that is being eroded by casual misuse. So good fucking luck with an obvious lie like I believe it has no meaning.

 

But you can't demonstrate the example in question (or many others) is proof of that. 

 

You don't seem to care one bit about proof. As far as you're concerned, if you can imagine it to be so - if you suspect it - then it is prima facie proven.

 

That's the problem. All of you can go around casually accusing anyone you like of sexism and misogyny and the only evidence required is your own speculation.

 

I have no problem with the idea of mansplaining. I have a serious problem with firstly continuing to widen the definition to the point of uselessness - where it essentially becomes 'when a man explains something to a woman and I think I can make hay with it - and then on that basis casually slandering strangers with very serious charges like misogyny. 

 

You have no grounds at all for accusing this guy of hating women simply because he made a suggestion to a woman. If it was you, you'd be outraged that you could be convicted and sentenced by a group of strangers based on this interaction .

 

These discussions cannot go anywhere because your side cannot drop the impulse to slander everyone who disagrees with you. The whole tone of these debates is always 'tow the line or get the paint brush'. It's pathetic to pretend it even is a debate when to express any kind of contrary opinion is to immediately be cast as suspect. 

 

It's like the right and their 'everyone who disagrees with me is a Marxist'. When the very act of disagreeing regardless of meaning, intention or  context is painted as traitorous and vile then there can never be a good faith discussion. This is all bad faith because you all know that anyone who doesn't immediately agree in every last detail is ONE OF THEM.

 

This forum and indeed the whole social media culture of the internet is rife with this ONE OF THEM thinking, this extremely polarised view of each other and demonising of each other. We're all at each others throats morning noon and fucking night accusing each other of being the devil. Arrgh! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let me set out my rather obvious take on all of this, for the idiotic and casually slanderous: I don't think this woman didn't anything more than get irritated. There's nothing ourageous with her conduct, although I think it was wrong to respond in that way. It's rude but it's not a big deal, it also is entirely understandable given the wider context. 

 

I personally would rather she hadn't been fired from her job because I believe in free speech and largely in keeping employers out of public affairs. I believe in strong employee rights. I would never have agitated for her to be fired and I would have argued against that position if I'd been in the midst of this argument on twitter. 

 

That said it is also not that surprising that a company would respond like this. It's sad and bad for her (again Which I am sympathetic to) but it's not a shock. And as much as I would prefer a world where we are not so beholden to our employers on matters of speech, it is not unreasonable to fire or discipline somebody if it is explained in your contract that you are liable for it. 

 

Of course a lot of fuss here is from sexist morons (although it is not possible to quantify) but it is mixed up with some people being offended by a company's representative being shitty with them. If some Amazon dev was needlessly ride with me in a conversation I would at least feel annoyed if not actually complain about it online. I wouldn't personal, probably, because I'm not a fucking narc and I don't like to get people into trouble or fuck with their life. I have explored the fetid arenas of right wing UK Facebook with a friend and we have both been aware that we had the power to publish some people's disgusting comments and get them in the shit with their employers but personally we both felt that this wasn't right or fair and we weren't comfortable with interfering with people's lives. 

 

Anyway. 

 

So there's no hatred from me towards this perfectly normal woman and professional, although she was arguably rude. If I was at the company I would keep her 100%. 

 

You'll notice that my first post contains zero criticism of her or support of the sexist side of the farrago surrounding this or the actions of her employers (although they are within their rights). 

 

What I had a real problem with was the casual slagging off of this guy - a stranger - based on this and how this is a good example of the general trend of grossly abusing important terms and casually slandering not only individuals but great swathes of people. 

 

It is wrong to make these extremely broad generalisations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2018 at 11:56, Mallet said:

Or it could just be people attributing motives where there are none.

 

You really don't understand how it works anymore. They don't need evidence. They only need innuendo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smutty, if you understand what people are saying when they talk about mansplaining here, act like it. And if you’re going to go off on a page-long screed about me accusing people of being sexist you have absolutely no place demanding a good faith argument from anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

Smutty, if you understand what people are saying when they talk about mansplaining here, act like it. And if you’re going to go off on a page-long screed about me accusing people of being sexist you have absolutely no place demanding a good faith argument from anybody.

 

Smutty? Oh, mature. 

 

I have just explained that I disagree with how it is increasingly used. I understand how it is being used in practice.

 

As for casual accusations of sexism I am referring to the general milieu of this thread and beyond, who are those responsible for the casual slander that in criticising.

 

I invite you to explain how the definition now in common use doesn't equal what I described it as with reference to my original post asking stiff to tell me why those tweets were mansplaining. 

 

Those tweets provide evidence of nothing negative. If mansplaining isn't simply now used to mean 'instance of man explaining something to woman that I feel i can use to make a point' than please explain and evidence what sexist attitudes or statements the tweets display. 

 

If the only 'evidence' you or anyone else has is their own speculation than simply admit that you have no evidence. Imagine it's a court. They don't accept hearsay. Then imagine it's you or someone you care about. 

 

You've started off with an insult and the general tone of your post is 'i hope the whole female thread clique shows up quickly to shame Smitty for me because I'm running on empty', so I imagine your next post will evade answering the question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alex W. said:

I’m sorry my iPhone doesn’t have your name in its autocorrect dictionary but if that’s the attitude you’re approaching this with then I don’t see any point in continuing the conversation.

 

Oh, how fucking convenient. One challenge and you evaporate. 

 

Better not come at me in future when you slink away from answering one question, after calling me ignorant and paranoid. There's nothing paranoid about what I'm saying - need I really go back and quote all the stuff either directly or indirectly implying this guy is a bad 'un? 

 

You're all addicted to these accusations, I think. When challenged you circle the wagons, hope the group will back you up and often shoot out fresh accusations. 

 

But I'm sorry - however much backslapping you get from your tribal sychophants it isn't going to hide your inability to answer a question. And people like me don't care about the inane fear-based popularity contest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.