No, actually it was because the point being made was poorly constructed.
The Jesus and Markov Chain was a Scotch band of the 80s-90s that had a string of indie and college-radio hits. They are sadly missed by many.
3 Likes
Okay, this seems to be difficult for you to grasp so Iâll work through it step by step. Just for you. When somebody posts a series of videos attacking a specific genre of entertainment; presenting their appraisal of computer games as a quasi scientific study, when it is nothing more than their personal opinion, they invite response. If part of that response is of the form âyes indeed, sexism is rife is computer games. Men are objectified as impersonal obstacles to be disposed of in order to advance in game, and women are objectified as sexual objects or submissive non combatants.â They are both objectified. If you get all hot and bothered about one aspect of this but ignore the other, then you invalidate your argument. I donât need to start my own thread to make this point. Itâs a response to the original argument. Get it?
Actually, mate, that doesnât invalidate an argument. If I am discussing female objectification, I donât have to discuss male objectification. Or vice versa. Youâre getting into moral equivalence fallacy territory.
Donât make me post the Yoda clip again!
7 Likes
No, it doesnât work like that. Either you are grossly offended by the content of a game and refuse to play it. Or you donât. That you received the game as a free add on to your video card is a non issue. In this case pragmatism = hypocrisy.
According to the lead writer, Rhianna Pratchett, ;the sexual assault is âabsolutely notâ a character-defining moment for Lara.â That, âOver the years, as Lara became more capable and more like a female
Batman, I felt her humanity had been lost.â "âTeflon Laraâ was the term the development team used. Nothing touched her, nothing stuck to her.âWe wanted to go back to a time when she was more
vulnerable. Not because she was female, but because she was human, and vulnerable in the way any 21 year-old would be in that situation. Sheâs at an age where she thinks she knows herself, but she doesnât really. Throughout the game, weâre drawing out the strength within that she doesnât realise is there.â
My point is this: In a game which features the protagonist is an unending series of violent confrontations, many of which display very graphic killing scenes, you get upset with a very short scene where a sleazy baddie pins the protagonist against a tree and makes vague threats of a sexual nature, until she kills him in a very violent and graphic manner?
Back to Pratchett: âItâs very honest for those characters at that moment. Itâs not prolonged, itâs not done for titillation. Itâs uncomfortable because it should be uncomfortable⌠If I felt that a female character needed sexual assault or rape as part of their backstory, it would be in there fully. Not as something you might see on Eastenders of a weeknight.â
Like it or not, rape is one of the many odious features of warfare. Itâs not new. The vikings were famous for ârape and pillage.â It is used to terrorise, to subjugate, to weaken. There is also a strong element of âLook at how I control you. I can do to you whatever I care to.â This is, I believe, what Pratchett explored so well in that particular scene.
If the protagonist had been male, would he have been threatened with rape? Probably not. Not least because of the âSo why does the bad guy need to be gayâ backlash from the LGBT community. Notwithstanding this: rape is something that female soldiers have to be cognizant of; male soldiers less so. The game reflected this perfectly well.
Iâm not your mate. If you talk about the objectification of one gender but refuse to acknowledge the objectification of the other, thatâs not a discussion; thatâs a statement. This is what the Israeliâs do. âNever mind the scores of people killed in the latest series of bombings, what about the bombs raining down on Israel?â Itâs a bullshit argument. From them, and from you. Post any pictures you like, if you think it will back up your redundant argument.
First I just wanted to say good morning - you caught me having my first cup of coffee 
.
I (as a consumer) only have so many ways to show my displeasure over something in a game - that is I can rant on the internet (unlikely to do much) or I can not buy the thing (about as much done but itâs the only direct way to affect a developer Iâm upset with). Choosing to keep my cash in hand - as Iâve done with a couple of games over the past few years, doesnât mean that I do not want to play the game. Iâm a big boy and can handle images or scenes that are offensive to me - or even gross. Sometimes I go out of my way to consume that kind of media (I am an avid horror fan - no matter how gory or over the top for instance) - if I donât like a scene I am adult enough to close my eyes or ignore it and move on. I donât feel like a hypocrite for feeling this way - had I not been in the market for a new video card Iâd have not played the newest Tomb Raider yet - I may have bought it from a used bin at some point when I knew the sale no longer benefited the developer - Iâm also aware of the sales concerns that Square had about the game and that could affect if a sequel would be made, but itâs the only real voice I have as a consumer.
Lunchtime here. Enjoy your coffee. 
May I suggest a third option? Write to the developer. Donât just say that you found certain elements of the game offensive. Ask them to justify the content. Tell them that you will not buy any future games from the same develop if these issues arenât addressed. If you, themadpoet, donât buy a game, it has no impact. they are unaware of it. Join something along the lines of sumofus though, and then make the point that, should the developers continue to include objectionable content in their games, you will organise an online petition, using sumofus, to bring the matter into the open glare of the media. Iâm not sure that this would work with Rockstar and the GTA series - the appear to court media controversy, but smaller developers canât take that chance. But follow through on your promise - if they continue to include content that you find objectionable, donât buy any further games from them. Even if they are free!
Your argument is completely invalidated because you have not addressed my pet issue of ammunition objectification, you homo-centrist. Unless you include everybodyâs arguement, you can have no point at all. For example, when discussing the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, we must also discuss the US Invasion of Vietnam, the French invasion of Vietnam, the German invasion of Poland, the Polish invasion of Lithuania, the Lithuanian invasion of Poland, the Roman invasion of Greece, the Greek invasion of the Thousand Islands, Hidden Valley Ranchâs Invasion of Radio Ranch, and the time that the dinosaur invaded the cave and kidnapped the Cute Chick. To start with. Once this list is complete and you have included all aspects and ignored no other, then we can have a discussion. I donât need to start my own thread to make this point.
9 Likes
Donât assume âMelindaâ is female.
A discussion about sexism in computer games posits that women are objectified. Asking about the objectification of men in computer games is a valid response. Your conflated argument serves nothing beyond your ego.
Oh my - first off in regards to Anitaâs work she never funded a kickstarter to produce a discussion - and therefore you have no point.
When somebody posts a series of videos attacking a specific genre of
entertainment; presenting their appraisal of computer games as a quasi
scientific study, when it is nothing more than their personal opinion,
they invite response
Criticism is not an attack. Criticism is not - and will never be a scientific study. Criticism is always an opinion. You can not invite a response unless you say âplease comment and let me know what you thinkâ - if someone wants to post an opinion and doesnât care what the feedback is - your right to free speech actually doesnât include forcing someone to listen.
This isnât something new. People have been giving opinions and or speeches without allowing feedback for as long as recorded history.
4 Likes
This, Iâm afraid, I donât agree with. Quite probably 70% of my friends are (or were) in the games industry. I know men and women, artists, programmers, developers, and producers. Every single one of the men I know would call themselves feminists. Most of them are married. Three of them just had their first children this year. While some of them may be annoyed by being lumped in with the cretins, theyâre not the ones issuing death threats. Thereâs a subset of the gaming public that even the developers hate; this is them.
What the videos are for is calling out to unexamined cliches that govern storytelling in our culture in general. Like I asked Maxwell previously: how many games are there where you rescue the husband or son of a female character, versus how many where you have to rescue (or avenge) some manâs female relatives?
2 Likes
Of course men are objectified in computer games. However, (a) there are also commonly non-objectified men in computer games, and (b) men have not suffered the kind of historical discrimination women have.
Itâs like the âWhat about anti-white racism?â gambit. It seems like a reasonable question while totally ignoring hundreds of years of societal context.
6 Likes
This discussion is not about sexism in computer games. This discussion is about comprehensively addressing the stupid, intellectually dishonest critique of Anita Sarkeesianâs analysis of sexist female tropes in computer games. Not âsexism in generalâ not âmale sexismâ not âother-gender sexismâ (thereâs more than two, you know).
This discussion is not invalidated by its lack of addressing your pet peeve. Your argument is invalidated by its own stupid, intellectually dishonest self-righteous ego.
NB: I am not calling you stupid and intellectually dishonest; Iâm calling your argument stupid, intellectually dishonest, self-righteous and ego-centric.
6 Likes
In the interests of full-disclosure, I should point out that Iâve mainly been posting in this thread to impress @catgrin and @anon50609448
Iâve also posted way too many times. Hopefully, this is my last post, here.
3 Likes
I never said she did. I was replying to the previous posterâs 'If I am discussing female objectification, I donât have to discuss male objectification.â
And what qualifies you to say why Sarkeesian started these videos?
And donât be stupid. Every comment invites a response; itâs implicit in human discourse.
[quote=âthemadpoet, post:246, topic:40229â]
People have been giving opinions and or speeches without allowing feedback for as long as recorded history.[/quote]
In totalitarian countries, yeah. Luckily, we in the West enjoy a reasonable degree of free speech. You say, âI donât like that movie. Itâs poopoo!â and I respond, âI donât like you. Youâre poopoo!â Itâs what makes living in a free society great. I donât want to live wherever it is you live. Or aspire to live.
Wow, just wow. âYou canât be discriminated against because you belong to a group which discriminates!â Jesus wept. âI refuse to listen to your complaint because mine is the only valid complaint.â Wonderful bias youâve got going there.
I live on an island, which was almost torn apart by âhistorical discrimination.â It never justifies ongoing discrimination. Ever.
Wow, just wow. Thatâs such a massive and obvious strawman I wonder how you imagined youâd get away with it.
3 Likes
I know, I can read the title of the post just as well as you.
I havenât spoken of âsexism in generalâ in my posts. I have adressed Sarkeesianâs contention that only women are objectified in computer games. Others have expanded the issue and I have replied.
The inclusion, by you, of the wikipedia link on gender 'thereâs more than two, you knowâ simply continues your condescending diatribe.
I donât have a pet peeve. I play FPS games because I like them. I kill countless males in these games. If it was a âpet peeve,â I would not play the games. When somebody opines, however, that these games objectify women, without addressing the objectification of men, I call it for what it is. Bullshit. You, however, are too busy trying to impress your two vaporous paramours to grasp this.
