You could try using a razor to cut stencils from cardboard, and then using dye or paint to apply it to items of clothing you already have.
Assuming, of course, that you are allowed to wear clothes.
2 Likes
I have a feeling (lol) that I am in some form of agreement with your philosophy on the clarity-reducing effects of emotionally engaged thinking. Iâve been mulling this over for a while now (specifically concerning fictive writing on the subject) and, on observation, find that Iâm tripping over this fine line as there just doesnât appear to be the proper nomenclature for it.
âDispassionate emotionalityâ. Nope.
'Cogent, impassioned motivation. Bleurgh.
âEmotionally competent ratiocinationâ. Not quite.
The closest I can get outside of the Buddhist cannon (dispassionate compassion) is Bruce Leeâs âemotional contentâ.
The execution of difficult physical or mental exercises without the clutter of neuroses distorting perception.
So, ânon-neurotic behaviour with emotional contentâ, is about as close as I can get to the idea.
I almost see romanticism (not just romantic feelings but the more formal conjugation of the 18th century literary and philosophical movement) as the âblack magickâ of the emotional world. Instead of trying to find a way of expressing deep emotionality as a clear and steady function of human connectivity, romanticism (IMO) seeks to whip up the waves of the mind to ever greater heights. The rise and fall of the emotional state then becomes the centre of attention and all else can be damned, especially the person or people involved.
But then, who doesnât enjoy feeling romantic with their loved one(s)? Itâs this collision of tropes under the same banner which irks me. I canât quickly and clearly criticise one aspect without drawing in the other.
1 Like
What part of Cosmopolitan magazine am I supposed to enjoy and find valuable? Or Womanâs Day magazine? Or a romance novel?
With some media, itâs like finding things to criticize in a Barney video. It wasnât made for me. Luckily we have lots of other choices within that media.
There is literally no one better qualified to answer those questions than you.
7 Likes
And there are criticisms out there for all of those media. The stuff Sarkeesian is doing is Feminisim 101 critique of media that occurs with all of those other forms of media. But, for some reason, itâs clickbaity if Sarkeesian does it. For some reason, people lose their freakinâ minds over criticism of vidja games.
I wonder what that reason could be? Hmmmmm?
And, in the case of Hitman, the sandbox was built in a fucking strip club. Which is the fucking core of Sarkeesianâs argument.
Thereâs only one person being dishonest in this argument. And itâs not Sarkeesian.
(hint: itâs you)
9 Likes
Are you seriously suggesting that people are only allowed to criticize media that theyâre in the target demo for? Thatâs absurd.
6 Likes
Iâve had mixed feelings about some of Sarkeesianâs criticisms, but I have found those Iâve heard to mostly have some validity. It boggles my mind that some people would get so defensive about her observations. But this is what seems to happen when people get embarrassed for having their heads up their asses, lots of reaction and outrage. IMO anybody who canât respond to criticism calmly without getting defensive is probably lying to themselves and others, regardless of what the criticism even is.
What amuses me about much of the reactions against critique of games is the notion of âethics in game journalismâ versus âSTFU and playâ. Apparently, to many, critique of games should only be âallowedâ to address certain things, while leaving others unexamined. Which is a quite weak position, since it implies that such an examination would not withstand scrutiny. This seems in keeping with many modern reactionary tactics which cryptically preach racism, sexism, and homophobia, while lacking the strength of conviction to say so outright for fear of being unpopular.
GGers and their sympathizers might be surprised to know that, like many content industries, video game studios and publishers are interested to hear what people think of their games! There are many QA jobs and focus groups which involve them actually paying people to critique their games. Itâs part of the games industry. And why would GGers complain about kickback in reviews if the developers were not interested in what people thought of the games? Much of the reaction seems to be thinly-veiled ideology, masquerading as technical concern. Would they find it controversial if somebody such as Sarkeesian complained that a given game was too boring? Not bloody enough? Not scary enough? Had a laggy engine? Was released in a buggy state? Was too derivative? Or too implausible? I doubt if discussion of any of these factors result in the sort of controversy weâve seen here. Not unlike any other media, what content they include is a product of choices. And the suggestion that these choices should not be considered or discussed seems like a poorly-conceived appeal for security through obscurity. Participate in the discussion and join the real world!
7 Likes
shrugs Well, hereâs where Iâm at: I think GG started on a false premise. I reckon there are earnest, concerned people who joined GG not knowing this and who have legit concerns about the gaming industry. I think they should leave GG and start their own group with public membership to help ensure accountability for memberâs actions. Therefore I disagree with you about the nature of your Isis comparison as I feel that this sentiment:
applies to GG as well.
There have been issues about the closeness between PR/Journos and devs/journos in gaming for decades. The problem is GG donât seem to understand this either. A movement that originated as a basis to opportunistically lay into ZQ isnât going to have the legitimacy to address this. But the reason people joined the movement after the fact is because people have been worried about these things for a long, long time. But hey, as Iâve stressed, we need a proper consumer advocate group to help address this shit.
Now on the other side of the coin you have people stuck at the wrong end of a power imbalance. Which sucks. But theyâre also all individual human beings with lots of negative and positive traits. Iâll defend them from baseless insults/wonky criticism/death threats/hate speech or any combinations of these things.
What I wonât do is uncritically support their work or uncritically defend their public actions. I never mentioned anyone by name but in the interests of openness I donât know if I could call ZQ an asshole. I think she made a decent, if somewhat overpraised game in Depression Quest.I think releasing it for free was a noble thing to do. I think sheâs at the center of an awful mess that nobody deserves to be dragged through. I also feel that 80% of the stuff released about her by others had no business being made public. All of these things engender sympathy in me. That and the fact that I donât know her personally mean I donât know enough to make the asshole call one way or the other. But I will not simply give banner support for any statements she makes or art she creates. I donât think that helps anyone.
As for Anita Sarkeesian⌠itâs fairly straightforward for me. She received a lot of baseless criticism and was held up to a disproportionate level of scrutiny. Again, this is all very bad and worth calling out. This doesnât change the fact that I donât think her work is very good. In fact, in places I think it misrepresents and distorts the work of other creators in order to make her points. I think that is an assholish thing to do.
It feels like a sloppy, bare minimum effort visual essay. The problem is, those who agree with her ideology but dispute her methodology are in a bind. Any criticism of Anita gets perceived as an attack. Ok this I can live with. There will always be people willfully misinterpreting what you say. What I donât want is to add fuel for those harassing her. So If Iâm discussing her I always couch forthright criticisms in a qualifying phrase to ensure they canât be co-opted for abuse.
I fully believe we can support someoneâs cause without uncritically supporting their work or public actions. I think that is the way forward to some sort of sanity.
Criticize all you want; doesnât change the fact that Barney is a childrenâs show. Itâs not so much that Barney is a terrible show for adults, itâs just not made with you in mind as the audience.
Which is OK, because there are lots of shows to choose from⌠right? And having some shows that are built for women, children, and men differently seems totally normal to me.
OK, and Maxim magazine, Playboy, etc arenât? I just feel like some of the games sheâs âtargetingâ are built with an explicit audience of men. You know, guns, explosions, murder, etc.
Anyway, the idea that an assassin might target a dude in a strip club seems completely plausible. Itâs seedy, itâs a place where sketchy people hang out, and itâs where sketchy men hang out that might be involved in crazy gang or mafia stuff that gets them killed. It wasnât like they took Farming Sim 2014 and added strippers just because. Now that would be a legitimate criticism.
I dunno, it seems like paging through Playboy or Maxim and noticing that women are objectified there. Horror!
1 Like
Seriously, did you even watch her video? Because youâve just summarised her point.
That is the thing she is criticising! Women are frequently used as background dressing to help make things âseem realistic and seedy and yada yada yada grimdark bsâ.
And, all of your subsequent points are ridiculous, because plenty of people actually care about and criticise Playboy, Maxim and all of those things. All of them.
Why is Sarkeesianâs (extremely milquetoast) criticism such a fucking issue?
5 Likes
I feel like you donât understand the point of media criticism. Criticism over Barney (as an example) isnât based around whether itâs enjoyable to the viewer, itâs about the content of the program.
To wit: http://www.chavawilliglevy.com/in_print-articles-bad_news_barney.php
Thereâs a fairly large academic body of work about media criticism in general. I guess, given your strong feelings about useless criticizing of media not intended for consumption by the critic, you should maybe lay off the criticism of Sarkeesian. Her work isnât intended for you?
7 Likes
ZING!
3 Likes
In the specific case of Hitman, itâs a completely legimitate location for an assassin to target someone. Certainly no lack of criminal activity in and around strip clubs:
Sure â but Playboy has been around since 1953, and will probably still be here, showing pictures of women, after weâre all long gone.
In this case, it does seem to be based on expectations of the viewer. If youâre reading Maxim or Playboy and objecting to âwomen being used as window dressingâ, then Iâd say ⌠youâre in the wrong place.
I do think there are games where that criticism would be valid. But not Hitman, not GTA 5, etc. Not the shooty, killy, stabby, explody, murdery 18+ Mature games that I enjoy, anyway. These are violent games built primarily for men, who enjoy (er⌠cartoon⌠sometimes) violence.
Hereâs a fun quote:
Indeed, investigators have consistently found that short of criminal activity, men exhibit more frequent and more extreme levels of physical aggression with one exception: in domestic disputes, as we will see, the tables are often turned. In a 2004 mathematical synthesis of 196 studies (known as a meta-analysis), psychologist John Archer of the University of Central Lancashire in England found that men are more physically aggressive (by various measures) than women across all ages, with the difference peaking between the ages of 20 and 30. This sex difference extended to all 10 countries Archer examined, which included the U.S., Finland, Spain, India, Japan and New Zealand. Interestingly, researchers have found men to be more physically aggressive in their mental lives as well. Compared with women, men harbor more frequent and enduring homicidal fantasies, more often think about enacting revenge against their enemies, and report more physically aggressive dreams.
Anyway, my central point is that there is media that specifically targets (and panders to) audiences of women, men, and children â and thatâs OK. Because there are plenty of choices.
Sort of. Where I think it gets sticky is that media is made to not target these people, but stereotypes of these people. And is often devised to, either intentionally or otherwise, create these stereotypes. There are people who question the validity, universality, and desirability of such stereotypes - and see them as in many ways existing to actually reduce options for personal choice rather than increasing them.
Part of respecting men, women, and children would seem to be encouraging their input, rather than fitting them into boxes. In contemporary media, it would be largely considered quite disrespectful to market racial and ethnic stereotypes to push an ideology or make a fast buck. But with regards to sex and gender, these stereotypes are not yet often recognized for what they are.
2 Likes
What games are for men, and what games are for women?
And, with that distinction youâve made â is there an equitable distribution?
And is Discourse designed for men or for women?
So why arenât they gay assasins? Hanging out watching Chippendales? Or female assassins? Hanging out watching Chippendales? Why was that choice made? Because only men are violent, only men are killers?
Is this game for men or for women? Note: seedy locations, prostitutes, johns, and guns. Also: sushi.
1 Like
Is it violent? Thereâs your answer.
Guess who commits 90% of the violent crime in the US?
Facts are a hell of a drug ⌠man.
If it wasnât a legitimate criticism, gamergate has a way of shutting that down.
2 Likes
Iâm not seeing an answer there, unless it is your implication that violence (guns and explosions*] is for men, non-violence is for women. Thus⌠Discourse is for women? Or non-men?
* Is it a fact that women do not like explosions? Wow. I did not know that!
Besides your constant contrasting of criticism vs choice, which I will likely continue to fail to understand, itâs kind of funny that you pick a Clockwork Orange scene:
âMore realisticâ in a dystopian, completely fictional world. Where have I heard something like that before?
Also:
If itâs built around violence, itâs implicitly for men â tons of data supporting the fact that men are by far the more aggressive and violent sex.
For example, Call of Duty, a game about shooting people:
Of course GTA 5 phones it in, having all the main characters be men. At least in Battlefield 4 single player there are a few reasonable female characters, including a female general and a female teammate. But in multiplayer, no ability to select a female avatar.
