Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers takes a look at video games


Video Games

201 to 250 of 597 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:


There's nothing inherently sexist about establishing the evilness of an antagonist through their depraved acts of violence. What is a problem is that it's almost exclusively women who receive this violence at the hands of men.

Its almost exclusively used on women because, said as it is to say, doing it to a man doesn't establish you as a villain. It might just establish you as a badass.

Quote:
The problem isn't necessarily that violence is being done to women, it's that this violence is almost exclusively used as plot-fuel to encourage the male protagonist.

The protagonist is male because its easier for the player to identify with them, which gets you better sales.

Quote:
And a lot of people are pretty tired of seeing women treated as pawns and plot devices in order to bolster the narratives of dudes all the time.

But not enough to move sales onto something else apparently.

Quote:
I'm a guy, and I would take playing a girl with a machine gun over playing a hyper-macho man 100% of the time. I do at every given opportunity.

You're also using a female avatar. You may not have a problem with it, but many people seem to.

Quote:
I don't know who that scowling white guy on the cover of the Mass Effect games is, but I know that Shepherd is a badass woman saving the galaxy from the Reapers. I'm half-surprised at such a broad generalization.

We're talking about a broad subject. You cannot simply embrace the true but broad generalizations that

It's almost exclusively women who receive this violence at the hands of men
Female characters are rarely given the same kind of agency as their male counterpoints

But then reject the idea that, from a marketing standpoint, you will lose more customers than you'd gain with a female protagonist simply because "Guys don't want to play as girls" is also a broad statement.

Quote:
Why are there dudes who are hesitant to shoot at a well-armed
...

Is all of that borne out by the marketing data though? There actually are quite a few popular games in at least some genres that allow play as a female without apparently cutting drastically into sales.

Would Mass Effect really have done that much better if there hadn't been a female Shep option?


Necromancer wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Does anyone have any substantial proof that gamergate existed prior to the Zoe Quinn thing? Because while some deny it, everything I have seen seems to point to gamergate 100% being spawned from her harassment.

"Harassment" is not criticism of a person's professional behavior and their associate's behavior. Adam Baldwin invented the tag after viewing some criticism directed at Quinn and connected journalists.

Soundcloud interview link; Baldwin's segment starts at the five minute mark.

No sane, mature person involved with gamergate condones harassment. And again, criticism is not harassment.

Related articles by the interviewer that I'm aware of.

Wow. Keep it up. You're making our case with those links.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
sexism and how it's not really bad, but modern feminists are.
Let's meet in the middle and agree both are.

But since modern feminists are bad for pointing out sexism, I don't think that works.

Bad for pointing out sexism? Oh no, never. Bad for using dishonesty, bigotry, and broken logic? Oh, very much so. Very, very much so.
Bad for pointing out sexism that isn't apparent to the person calling them bad.

Nope. As I said. For using dishonesty, bigotry, and broken logic. Bad for ignoring sexism, racism, bigotry, and other forms of discrimination when it is convenient and suits them. Bad for using sensationalism and stirring emotions for their own greed and self gain. Bad for pushing for double standards and for insisting that they are champions of unity and acceptance while pushing agenda-driven bigotry through the gate. Bad for exclusion rather than inclusion. Bad for branding everyone and everything that disagrees with them as the enemy of all rather than have real discussions.

Bad for pointing out injustice and prejudices? No. We would all be bad, from adult to child. Anyone who has ever been scorned, or looked down upon, or treated differently. The children who went uninvited to a birthday party or who couldn't participate in a sleepover because they were born a different gender. The man, woman, and everything in between who has been overlooked, over examined, forgotten, or remembered too frequently because of their features, their gender, their skin color, their spiritual beliefs, or their lack of spiritual beliefs. Any person who has been included or excluded from any activity because of arbitrary quotas, limitations, or exclusions, rather than effort, interests, and rights.

No, everyone, everywhere, would be bad if those were the reasons. But not everyone is dishonest, and not everyone wields bigotry and double standards as weapons. Not everyone excludes and makes an enemy out of those who are different. Some are inclusive, welcoming, and able to see that we are one and cast aside illusions through the use of logic, reason, and the willingness to be fair. And when they find a problem, they work on fixing it and being real.

I believe in the innate goodness of people though. I don't think that people are bad. I see people like Christina Summers and I am filled with hope that good things will come, because she is interested in working to fix problems and examine real facts and real data instead of sensationalism.

People like Anita Sarkeesian? Their data relies on you not applying it across the board. It's cherry picked, it's frequently wrong and misinformed, and it's biased and bigoted. There's not interest there in helping people be equal. There's lies caught on tape, and drama stirred to line pockets.

Changing the world starts with us, and we're responsible for being critical thinkers, because it is our responsibility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Pan wrote:
So how does this sexism problem get fixed?
Well my parents taught me not to treat people differently. It seems to be working pretty well.
I agree with that but im not after how you personally don't contribute to sexism. I guess what I am after is what needs to be done so that videogames are not sexist.

Take responsibility. Spread truth through living it. Make reasoned arguments and provide real data. Don't demand others conform to your whims, go out and change the world. Vote to abolish all laws that distinguish between people based on race, sex, gender, appearance. Mock and scrutinize those who would draw lines in the sand between us, and ask -- no, DEMAND -- that people are accountable for themselves and their arguments. Cast away foolish shells of opinion, and don't use dirty tactics like trying to make monsters of others.

Inclusion, not exclusion. Take responsibility. Accept that him, her, we, all, are together. It begins and ends with you, and you, and you, and you. Jumping into someone's parade and telling them what bad people they are is unacceptable, no matter who you are or who they are.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
The idea of "modern feminist" is dishonest at best.

No, it isn't. Third-wave feminism is an actual thing (though, arguably, not a particularly cohesive thing).

Quote:
It's a diversionary tactic.

No, it's not. Why do you want it to be a diversionary tactic?

Quote:
By calling the other side "crazy" you don't have to acknowledge them. You don't acknowledge crazy talk.

Or maybe they legitimately see that position as silly. Besides, how is what you're doing here any different? You're effectively dismissing the entire notion that subsets of feminism can be criticized by painting anyone who does so as simply wanting to avoid acknowledging those subsets!

Quote:
So, drop it. Drop this arbitrary division between "feminists" and "modern feminists" because it's starting to sound like the crazy ones are the ones you don't agree with.

I know a great number of men and women (probably the majority of those I know, in fact) who consider themselves feminists (in the equity-feminist sense, and possibly in the gender-feminist sense) but who are terrified of using the word feminist to describe themselves because of the tactics, goals, and beliefs held by the most vocal people who call themselves feminists. It seems, to me, to be very similar to how segments of Christianity have been drowned out by the extreme and the vocal, to the point where some Christians are reluctant to be vocal about their faith for fear of appearing to associate with the extremist fringe.

You don't consider this an identity issue, for feminists?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

I know a great number of men and women (probably the majority of those I know, in fact) who consider themselves feminists (in the equity-feminist sense, and possibly in the gender-feminist sense) but who are terrified of using the word feminist to describe themselves because of the tactics, goals, and beliefs held by the most vocal people who call themselves feminists. It seems, to me, to be very similar to how segments of Christianity have been drowned out by the extreme and the vocal, to the point where some Christians are reluctant to be vocal about their faith for fear of appearing to associate with the extremist fringe.

You don't consider this an identity issue, for feminists?

I cannot favorite your post enough. Most of my girl friends, even my sister would never want to be known as a feminist, because they think they're crazy and hateful. And why do they think that? It's not some unseen boogeyman or the conspiring of a grand-penis-waggling conspiracy. It's because that is how "feminism" has presented itself. It has repeatedly demanded the center stage and acted the fool.

Then we have people like Christina Summers who's not cracked and trying to promote some sort of biased agenda, but interested in actually fixing real problems where they are and also interested in not creating new problems to divide people and create unnecessary conflict. She's real, she's logical, and she's not interested in smoke and mirrors, and I cannot contain my overwhelming respect for her.

People like Anita Sarkeesian? If she were on fire...I would douse her and take her to a hospital to be treated for burns. I'd still think she was an idiot though.


Alceste008 wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No, it's not. That's what some people have made it about, and what Zoe "Drama" Quinn would like to turn everyone's attention to, but that's not what it's about.

It's about journalistic integrity, or lack thereof. Quinn was the catalyst in bring an issue that has existed for a long damn time to light.

If that was actually true, why is Zoe Quinn being the subject of all this hate? Why drag Anita Sarkeesian into it? Why is no one calling Nathan Grayson's mom and yelling "YOUR SON IS A WHORE"? (disclaimer: you shouldn't, but these are things that happens to Zoe right now.)

None of the "breaches" of "journalistic integrity" that sparked gamergate actually happened.

Should we have a discussion about the very close and probably very unhealthy relationship between gaming websites and game publishers? Sure. That would both be interesting and appropriate. But that's simply not what gamergate is about, and anyone trying to have a serious discussion under the '#gamergate' banner are hard to take serious. That tag comes with a lot of unbelievably vile baggage.

Frankly, that so many people here apparently supports that level of harassment has pretty much put me off these forums. Because ew.

Gamersgate has for better or worse come to be tied to the absolutely vile death and rape threats issued against Zoe Quinn. For example, one person said they were going to "harass her until she commits suicide". I as well as most rational people can not and will not condone anything to do with such despicable behavior. Supporting such behavior does not make sense to me.

Gamersgate will always be associated to that behavior due to the fact this behavior outweighs all other factors. Threatening to rape and kill someone simply makes all other discussion seem very minor in comparison.

I'd be careful here, mate. Ignoring an entire issue or movement because it has come to be associated with stupidity and cruelty is just asking for trouble.

For example, since you wanted examples, stuff like this and pretty much anything "Big Red" says is what the feminist movement has become associated with. And that's some of the tamer, more reasonable stuff.

If you want to go even deeper, try looking up the "Femitheist" some time.

Does that mean we should ignore all the valid points and good actual feminism could do for the world?

No, that would be dumb.


Scott Betts wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
The idea of "modern feminist" is dishonest at best.

No, it isn't. Third-wave feminism is an actual thing (though, arguably, not a particularly cohesive thing).

Quote:
It's a diversionary tactic.

No, it's not. Why do you want it to be a diversionary tactic?

Quote:
By calling the other side "crazy" you don't have to acknowledge them. You don't acknowledge crazy talk.

Or maybe they legitimately see that position as silly. Besides, how is what you're doing here any different? You're effectively dismissing the entire notion that subsets of feminism can be criticized by painting anyone who does so as simply wanting to avoid acknowledging those subsets!

Quote:
So, drop it. Drop this arbitrary division between "feminists" and "modern feminists" because it's starting to sound like the crazy ones are the ones you don't agree with.

I know a great number of men and women (probably the majority of those I know, in fact) who consider themselves feminists (in the equity-feminist sense, and possibly in the gender-feminist sense) but who are terrified of using the word feminist to describe themselves because of the tactics, goals, and beliefs held by the most vocal people who call themselves feminists. It seems, to me, to be very similar to how segments of Christianity have been drowned out by the extreme and the vocal, to the point where some Christians are reluctant to be vocal about their faith for fear of appearing to associate with the extremist fringe.

You don't consider this an identity issue, for feminists?

Of course every wave of feminism has faced the same criticism. Often from those who supported the previous one.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Albatoonoe wrote:

The idea of "modern feminist" is dishonest at best. It's a diversionary tactic. By calling the other side "crazy" you don't have to acknowledge them. You don't acknowledge crazy talk.

So, drop it. Drop this arbitrary division between "feminists" and "modern feminists" because it's starting to sound like the crazy ones are the ones you don't agree with.

Actually, there are some interesting distinctions to made between the various waves of feminism.

Mini history of the three waves of feminism:
First wave feminism focused primarily on granting women equal legal rights. This is your Virginia Woolf, your women's suffrage stuff.

Second wave feminism in the mid-to-late 20th century turned its focus on the social aspects of gender inequality. A lot of French feminist writers were involved with this one, and although they had some good points, there were some issues. Namely, that they kind of went too far toward equality and overshot into "here are the things that women are just better at than men," but can you really blame them considering that men had been doing that for basically as long as there was recorded history (hint: men also controlled a lot of what was allowed to count as history)? This is also a problem with gender essentialism, i.e. saying that women at their essential core are inherently X and Y but not Z, etc. This movement also tended to focus on middle- and upper-class white cisgender women.

Third wave feminism, what you could call "modern" feminism moved away from gender essentialism and focused more on the ways that our cultural history created the ideas of gender. See Judith Butler for more (although for ease of reading, summaries and overviews might serve you better, because although I personally like her writing it has been noted for being hella dense and filled with philosophical jargon). Third wave feminism is still focused on gender equality, but is also concerned with addressing the problems of other oppressed groups. It's more about trying to help people (primarily women, largely because there are more problems to address on this front) of all socio-economic backgrounds, races, ability, sexuality, and gender. It's also interested in addressing the unique intersections of how any of these historically discriminated against and oppressed groups come together in individuals and communities (the word for this is intersectionality).


Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Oh right. One of those. Pretending that any acknowledgement of race is racism. When we abolish all the laws that distinguish between people based on race, we lose the ability to know what effects racism is having. If for example, you don't track the race of citizens stopped by police, you can't see if policing is biased.
Race is a lie.
Quote:
You need the data to understand what's happening and then you need to be able to have laws to address what the data shows you.

But not different penalties. And it's nice when the data isn't misrepresented for an agenda. But I think we can both agree with that.

But actually yes. Acknowledging race IS racism. It's the statement that you are different from I and belong in a different subgroup of humanity because you have a different skin color than I do.

It's as asinine as forming into groups because we have green eyes, or brown hair, or height. Teaching people that we are all people however does. We have lived a tribal existence for too long.

If you want to be strictly biological about it, sure. Race is a lie.

Racism however, is very real. Being able to believe race is a lie is something white people can get away with. Trying it gets black people killed. Still.

More accurately, race isn't a lie. It's a sociological construct. But it's very real nonetheless. Maybe we'll get to the point where we can break it down and dispense with it someday, but it would be blindness to do so today.

And your argument leads very quickly from "Acknowledging race IS racism." to "Acknowledging racism IS racism." Which is one of the standard tactics of racists these days.


thejeff wrote:
Of course every wave of feminism has faced the same criticism. Often from those who supported the previous one.

Which obviously means any such criticism is automatically invalid, right?


mechaPoet wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:

The idea of "modern feminist" is dishonest at best. It's a diversionary tactic. By calling the other side "crazy" you don't have to acknowledge them. You don't acknowledge crazy talk.

So, drop it. Drop this arbitrary division between "feminists" and "modern feminists" because it's starting to sound like the crazy ones are the ones you don't agree with.

Actually, there are some interesting distinctions to made between the various waves of feminism.

** spoiler omitted **...

Going back to Dr. Sommers: "Most gamers seem to support equality feminism. What they reject is today’s male-bashing, propaganda-driven, female chauvinism."

Is that "equality feminism" that she identifies herself with and that she thinks most gamers support first wave?

Which brings her and gamers up to about the '20s, right?

Actually I'd peg her somewhere around the middle of the second wave, but probably opposed to most of the arguments and tactics used to get there. After all, she is a scholar, presumably works outside the home and isn't devoted to mostly family and motherhood. Sounds like a 'libber to me.


Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Of course every wave of feminism has faced the same criticism. Often from those who supported the previous one.
Which obviously means any such criticism is automatically invalid, right?

No. But it makes me very suspicious.


I'm a third wave feminist. A "modern" feminist. Am I man hater? "Female chauvinist"? The fact of that matter is, this isn't the movement. That has never been a movement. Maybe a few extremists, but when you paint entire sects of feminism as "crazy man haters", you're just trying to discredit them without talking about what they stand for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
I'm a third wave feminist. A "modern" feminist. Am I man hater? "Female chauvinist"? The fact of that matter is, this isn't the movement. That has never been a movement. Maybe a few extremists, but when you paint entire sects of feminism as "crazy man haters", you're just trying to discredit them without talking about what they stand for.

It's not a "few extremists" at this point. It is all of the visible feminists.

You might be a third wave feminist, but that's not really the wave we're on right now, it's not the movement that anyone talks about, it's not the movement that's in the spotlight, and it's honestly not the one making any sort of strides (positive or negative) into changing the world.

The current trend is "hate group feminists" or Feminazis, for short. They're all you really see. They're the ones that plan protests and events, they're the ones with news coverage, and so on.

Third wave feminism is admirable, but it's a movement that hasn't actually MOVED in quite a while. It made a dent, when it began. Many people consciously or subconsciously agree with its ideals, but as-is it's been subsumed by the hate groups.

Maybe it's time for a fourth wave, same as the third wave, that's a bit better at shouting down the saboteurs within their ranks.


Albatoonoe wrote:
And what, pray tell, is a "modern feminist". Why don't you explain to me what's so bad about them, because I count myself among "modern feminists".

So he's supposed to admit agreeing with the crazy ones?

*ow ow ow ow kidding ow ow ow*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I'm a third wave feminist. A "modern" feminist. Am I man hater? "Female chauvinist"? The fact of that matter is, this isn't the movement. That has never been a movement. Maybe a few extremists, but when you paint entire sects of feminism as "crazy man haters", you're just trying to discredit them without talking about what they stand for.

It's not a "few extremists" at this point. It is all of the visible feminists.

You might be a third wave feminist, but that's not really the wave we're on right now, it's not the movement that anyone talks about, it's not the movement that's in the spotlight, and it's honestly not the one making any sort of strides (positive or negative) into changing the world.

The current trend is "hate group feminists" or Feminazis, for short. They're all you really see. They're the ones that plan protests and events, they're the ones with news coverage, and so on.

Third wave feminism is admirable, but it's a movement that hasn't actually MOVED in quite a while. It made a dent, when it began. Many people consciously or subconsciously agree with its ideals, but as-is it's been subsumed by the hate groups.

Maybe it's time for a fourth wave, same as the third wave, that's a bit better at shouting down the saboteurs within their ranks.

I don't buy it. That whole "bunch of man haters" thing is the same exact rhetoric that has been thrown at feminism since it began. Man Haters are an extremist minority. A very loud one, but they are still a minority.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
I don't buy it. That whole "bunch of man haters" thing is the same exact rhetoric that has been thrown at feminism since it began. Man Haters are an extremist minority. A very loud one, but they are still a minority.

Stop denying that this is a problem. You have a veritable crowd of people telling you that they like your ideals but can't associate with your movement because that vocal minority makes association toxic.

Your job is now to clean house (if you'll pardon the unfortunate chauvinism inherent in that metaphor). You need these people on your side, and bad apples (whether they are few or many isn't the point) are preventing that from happening. Reclaim your movement, stop letting extremists run away with it, and start making popular progress. I'm seeing a lot of parallels in the feminist community right now to what happened with the recent Tea Party movement - it's fun to have the injection of enthusiasm that the Tumblr teenager and radical crowds bring, but those groups cannot be expected to moderate their beliefs or tactics; you have to do it for them, or they will hijack your movement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I don't buy it. That whole "bunch of man haters" thing is the same exact rhetoric that has been thrown at feminism since it began. Man Haters are an extremist minority. A very loud one, but they are still a minority.
Stop denying that this is a problem. You have a veritable crowd of people telling you that they like your ideals but can't associate with your movement because that vocal minority makes association toxic.

That's been true since at least the seventies. You're expecting feminists to modify themselves to suit people who use Limbaugh's Feminazi slur which has been thrown at feminists since the early 90s regardless of what feminists were actually doing. You can't let your enemies define the movement and then change it to mollify them.

This is all about the public image and how it's been shaped by forces ideologically opposed to feminism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I'm a third wave feminist. A "modern" feminist. Am I man hater? "Female chauvinist"? The fact of that matter is, this isn't the movement. That has never been a movement. Maybe a few extremists, but when you paint entire sects of feminism as "crazy man haters", you're just trying to discredit them without talking about what they stand for.

It's not a "few extremists" at this point. It is all of the visible feminists.

You might be a third wave feminist, but that's not really the wave we're on right now, it's not the movement that anyone talks about, it's not the movement that's in the spotlight, and it's honestly not the one making any sort of strides (positive or negative) into changing the world.

The current trend is "hate group feminists" or Feminazis, for short. They're all you really see. They're the ones that plan protests and events, they're the ones with news coverage, and so on.

Third wave feminism is admirable, but it's a movement that hasn't actually MOVED in quite a while. It made a dent, when it began. Many people consciously or subconsciously agree with its ideals, but as-is it's been subsumed by the hate groups.

Maybe it's time for a fourth wave, same as the third wave, that's a bit better at shouting down the saboteurs within their ranks.

I don't buy it. That whole "bunch of man haters" thing is the same exact rhetoric that has been thrown at feminism since it began. Man Haters are an extremist minority. A very loud one, but they are still a minority.

Exactly. And just like back in the 70's they're painted as the whole movement. Just like back in the Suffragist days, if women got the vote they were going to make men wear dresses and clean the house.


Scott Betts wrote:

Stop denying that this is a problem. You have a veritable crowd of people telling you that they like your ideals but can't associate with your movement because that vocal minority makes association toxic.

Your job is now to clean house (if you'll pardon the unfortunate chauvinism inherent in that metaphor). You need these people on your side, and bad apples (whether they are few or many isn't the point) are preventing that from happening. Reclaim your movement, stop letting extremists run away with it, and start making popular progress. I'm seeing a lot of parallels in the feminist community right now to what happened with the recent Tea Party movement - it's fun to have the injection of enthusiasm that the Tumblr teenager and radical crowds bring, but those groups cannot be expected to moderate their beliefs or tactics; you have to do it for them, or they will hijack your movement.

Here's the thing. I've never seen this problem. I've seen people talk about it, but I've never seen the problem. And when they talk about it, I never see any actual proof that it's a common thing. So, I'm not denying a problem. I'm not convinced there is one. By all means, if you have evidence to point to an ongoing and common problem (more so than a perceived problem), then I'll be right on board.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Here's the thing. I've never seen this problem. I've seen people talk about it, but I've never seen the problem. And when they talk about it, I never see any actual proof that it's a common thing. So, I'm not denying a problem. I'm not convinced there is one. By all means, if you have evidence to point to an ongoing and common problem (more so than a perceived problem), then I'll be right on board.

Perception is the problem. It doesn't matter whether it's real (and it is, to some degree - I've seen dozens of angry, hostile, dismissive rants on my own Facebook feed, every one of which I have given a 10-foot pole's berth to) or merely perceived. Your movement is perceived to be toxic and hostile, even to those who aren't opposed to it.

So what do you plan to do about it?


Scott Betts wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Here's the thing. I've never seen this problem. I've seen people talk about it, but I've never seen the problem. And when they talk about it, I never see any actual proof that it's a common thing. So, I'm not denying a problem. I'm not convinced there is one. By all means, if you have evidence to point to an ongoing and common problem (more so than a perceived problem), then I'll be right on board.

Perception is the problem. It doesn't matter whether it's real (and it is, to some degree - I've seen dozens of angry, hostile, dismissive rants on my own Facebook feed, every one of which I have given a 10-foot pole's berth to) or merely perceived. Your movement is perceived to be toxic and hostile, even to those who aren't opposed to it.

So what do you plan to do about it?

It's a perception problem. A PR problem. The fix is a perception fix and a PR fix, not a sanitize the movement so it doesn't scare anyone fix.


thejeff wrote:
It's a perception problem. A PR problem. The fix is a perception fix and a PR fix, not a sanitize the movement so it doesn't scare anyone fix.

I think most PR people would acknowledge that your campaign probably ought to avoid scaring away the people it needs supporting it. The question is whether the movement can keep its goals intact while still avoiding coming across as indiscriminate or out of control.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

When a sensible person of a larger group finds that an extremist, hateful part of the same group is making too much noise, to the point where the actions of the extremists taints the perception of the entire group, that person's job (if they still want to save the group) is to make sure people understand that they personally are taking exception to what the extremists are doing, work to marginalize the extremists within the group by strengthening the more sensible sub-groups, and support movements to exclude the extremists. This goes for ALL groups. If they do not do this, it is going to end up at the point where the sensible person must either break with the entire group or accept sharing the tainted perceptions the extremists gave rise to.


Sissyl wrote:
When a sensible person of a larger group finds that an extremist, hateful part of the same group is making too much noise, to the point where the actions of the extremists taints the perception of the entire group, that person's job (if they still want to save the group) is to make sure people understand that they personally are taking exception to what the extremists are doing, work to marginalize the extremists within the group by strengthening the more sensible sub-groups, and support movements to exclude the extremists. This goes for ALL groups. If they do not do this, it is going to end up at the point where the sensible person must either break with the entire group or accept sharing the tainted perceptions the extremists gave rise to.

This.


Sissyl wrote:
When a sensible person of a larger group finds that an extremist, hateful part of the same group is making too much noise, to the point where the actions of the extremists taints the perception of the entire group, that person's job (if they still want to save the group) is to make sure people understand that they personally are taking exception to what the extremists are doing, work to marginalize the extremists within the group by strengthening the more sensible sub-groups, and support movements to exclude the extremists. This goes for ALL groups. If they do not do this, it is going to end up at the point where the sensible person must either break with the entire group or accept sharing the tainted perceptions the extremists gave rise to.

What makes you think we don't do this? We certainly do, but it doesn't account for much. We live in the information age where anyone can talk to anyone. We can ostracize extremists but they can still be heard. Then the opposition takes that as our gospel. We freaking try, but the internet makes that mighty difficult. It's a Sisyphean task you're asking us to undertake just to get some credibility.

I'll get back to you when I also solve how to turn lead into gold.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:


Your job is now to clean house

Oh, and make me a sandwich, too.

:P


Albatoonoe wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
When a sensible person of a larger group finds that an extremist, hateful part of the same group is making too much noise, to the point where the actions of the extremists taints the perception of the entire group, that person's job (if they still want to save the group) is to make sure people understand that they personally are taking exception to what the extremists are doing, work to marginalize the extremists within the group by strengthening the more sensible sub-groups, and support movements to exclude the extremists. This goes for ALL groups. If they do not do this, it is going to end up at the point where the sensible person must either break with the entire group or accept sharing the tainted perceptions the extremists gave rise to.

What makes you think we don't do this? We certainly do, but it doesn't account for much. We live in the information age where anyone can talk to anyone. We can ostracize extremists but they can still be heard. Then the opposition takes that as our gospel. We freaking try, but the internet makes that mighty difficult. It's a Sisyphean task you're asking us to undertake just to get some credibility.

I'll get back to you when I also solve how to turn lead into gold.

...except you don't. You do not declare that you take exception to the extremists and what they are saying, do you? Because that's what you can do to not get lumped in with them. If you don't, people will assume these extremists have your support.


Scott Betts wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
I don't buy it. That whole "bunch of man haters" thing is the same exact rhetoric that has been thrown at feminism since it began. Man Haters are an extremist minority. A very loud one, but they are still a minority.

Stop denying that this is a problem. You have a veritable crowd of people telling you that they like your ideals but can't associate with your movement because that vocal minority makes association toxic.

Your job is now to clean house (if you'll pardon the unfortunate chauvinism inherent in that metaphor). You need these people on your side, and bad apples (whether they are few or many isn't the point) are preventing that from happening. Reclaim your movement, stop letting extremists run away with it, and start making popular progress. I'm seeing a lot of parallels in the feminist community right now to what happened with the recent Tea Party movement - it's fun to have the injection of enthusiasm that the Tumblr teenager and radical crowds bring, but those groups cannot be expected to moderate their beliefs or tactics; you have to do it for them, or they will hijack your movement.

I just find it odd given that this is largely what I would say to those on the side of GamerGate. For every comment that actively condemns a lot of the bile I saw, there is another that supports, justifies, or casually dismisses comments made for the general cause.


Albatoonoe wrote:
What makes you think we don't do this? We certainly do, but it doesn't account for much. We live in the information age where anyone can talk to anyone. We can ostracize extremists but they can still be heard. Then the opposition takes that as our gospel. We freaking try, but the internet makes that mighty difficult. It's a Sisyphean task you're asking us to undertake just to get some credibility.

Welcome to movement politics. No one said it would be easy. What you have encountered here is a hard problem. It is not an insurmountable one. Merely hard. Start coming up with solutions.

201 to 250 of 597 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Video Games / Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers takes a look at video games All Messageboards