aluminiumtrioxid

Well, unless this particular scenario involves me harrassing them on social media with my detailed screeds expressing this annoyance, I'm really not seeing how posting an analysis on how sexist/racist/whatever Game X is on Gaming Journalist Website Y would constitute as "foisting [my] annoyance on them" and "not leaving them to enjoy what they do". Well that is what I meant - the whole hand wringing over Hatred for example was that with people getting worked up over a boring slaughter game, I suppose writing articles on why your game is bad (but they don't want to censor its content at all, mind you, just identifying it as having really bad things in it) does count as that as well. Writing articles may sound toothless, but it's how the Outrage Machine gets going these days, though you won't see it as such. ...Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between somebody writing an article you're free to ignore, using their own private platform they (or their employers) have paid for, and somebody actively harrassing you with their grief? Or does the mere existence of dissenting opinion bother you on principle?

I think it takes an extremely uncharitable reading to equate "somebody voicing disappointment over reviewers not mentioning something the speaker finds problematic" with "somebody calling out to reviewers to mark the game down based on that". Especially because the first scenario says nothing about assigning numeric values to the game, whereas doing the same is the whole point of the second one.

I can't call myself the greatest authority on Ms. Sarkeesian's work for obvious reasons (I find her critique to be somewhat shallow), but I'm pretty sure she never assumed that the authorial intent was to be misogynistic. In fact, she often stresses in her videos how unexamined industry standards only become misogynistic in aggregate, when viewed through the lens of a wider cultural perspective. I'm fairly sure this precludes authorial intent even having an effect on the outcome. I'm fairly sure it was some other youtuber's footage. That said, I'm also fairly sure the video in question will never be seen as a high point in her portfolio. ...I'm not sure it's wise to draw parallells between a hate group known for torturing and murdering black citizens and people whose biggest crime is... saying things you disapprove of? Which is weird, because on the other hand when you look at high-profile games being released, you also know how utterly powerless the SJWs are in promoting their agenda. I mean, one would think they'd be more efficient in achieving their aims if they had the influence you credit them with, don't you agree? Or maybe you're less objective than you like to think/operating on flawed data/etc. I mean, I know of no SJWs sheltering child porn enthusiasts, to mention just one notable point of difference.

Well, unless this particular scenario involves me harrassing them on social media with my detailed screeds expressing this annoyance, I'm really not seeing how posting an analysis on how sexist/racist/whatever Game X is on Gaming Journalist Website Y would constitute as "foisting [my] annoyance on them" and "not leaving them to enjoy what they do".

I don't want less stuff. Weird, I thought means "there should be less acid-spitting stuff on the market". Was I misinterpreting something? I'm pretty sure nobody was doing that. People call things sexist for being sexist. The fact that your personal definition of "sexist" is narrower than that of those people has no bearing on the matter. [citation needed] But why not? What does it matter to you if a few losers who are writing for gaming journalist websites because they were unable to get a real job call you bad names?

It totally does! But then again, so does "game journalism has a finite amount of resources, and when a large-ish portion of those resources is tied down in documenting the minutiae of the ongoing drama, coverage of somewhat obscure indie games is the first thing to get the shaft". Or "this guy behaved like an irredeemable ****ing **** in the process of voicing his support for GG, so maybe we shouldn't give him exposure" (different from being blacklisted for a pro-GG sentiment itself [although, if you'll forgive me for saying so, behaving like an irredeemable ****ing **** and being pro-GG seems to have an unusually large rate of coincidence, so it might seem tempting to conflate the two]).

They were all bodybuilding enthusiasts, though, so I'll just chalk it up to the mesmerizing effect of those perfectly-sculpted CGI abs and pecs overriding their common sense

I generally dislike depictions of slave-owning societies as bastions of freedom, even if the whole movie is supposed to be spartan propaganda in-setting. Edit: also, you'd be surprised at how many people I know took it seriously

I can see how that can be annoying to somebody who scare-quotes "injustice" in this context, I just fail to see how people's annoyance at the acid-spitters is somehow more valid than the acid-spitters' annoyance at the games at which they're spitting acid. ...I'm really not seeing the similarity between the two. I'm not sure you can get much closer to holding it as a "subjective interpretation (...) that will not turn little kids into misogynists" than Anita Sarkeesian pointing out in one of her videos how consuming problematic media will not turn those consumers into misogynysts. Which, again, just goes to show how the problem is generally a failure to interpret what the "Team SJW" is saying correctly. It's essentially a communication issue. (Yet my motives are questioned when I'm stressing the need for clean and efficient communication. Such miserable existence!) That said, 300 is more akin to high-budget AAA titles, which remain impervious to being ran out from the industry by the evil SJWs. (Also, propaganda issues aside, 300's handling of its historical subject matter is pretty much objectively repugnant, but that's neither here or there.)

But... why? I mean, why should we clamor for people to create LESS stuff (ie. "stop spitting acid"), when we could just encourage other people to create MORE stuff (stuff not involving acid-spitting) that can coexist with the acid-spitting part of the market? Why is "people spitting acid"* even a problem? It's not like you're forced to expose yourself to their secretions. * Well, metaphorical acid. People spitting real acid would indeed be a problem. Unless it's a weak acid, like acetic acid.

Okay, let's say there's a correlation between him voicing pro-GG sympathies and receiving less coverage. It still does not imply causation. I mean, there are other perfectly legitimate reasons for somebody receiving less coverage after doing so. This is where personal biases come into play; I can name three alternate reasons off the top of my head that are not at all, or only tangentially related to him being pro-GG for receiving less coverage in this period of time, but if one does not stop and consider alternate theories, it's easy for one possible interpretation to seem like the only reason worth considering. Okay, now I'm confused. When Sarkeesian & co. receive graphic death and rape threats, they "just need to grow a thicker skin" and "relax, it's just how the Internet is, it's not real", but when somebody points out that there are no people of color in a game set in medieval Europe, it's an attack on the creator? ...No, I really don't? I mean "I'm trying to phrase this in a way that doesn't sound hostile, because I find hostility to be counter-productive to rational discussion" seems like a relatively reasonable and not very controversial statement to make. To me, at least.

You do not need to cordial with me if you find my arguments frustrating, or just do not like me in general. If it helps your senses, i can tell you that i am an adult man and can take insults pretty well and not some teenage girl that will threaten with suicide for making me ungoodfeel. False niceness is ugly compared to pure passion and desire after all. ...I don't find "pure passion and desire" conducive to rational discussion; overt hostility even less so. You seem to be ignoring the possibility that trying to cause no offense inadvertently when none was meant can also stem from a desire to communicate one's point cleanly and efficiently, not just out of "false niceness". It really, really doesn't? As far as I can see, somebody mentioned that the game "seems white" or somesuch, and asked somebody who specializes in calling attention to historical people of color in medieval Europe whether it's an accurate depiction or not; somebody else took offense and started bashing this person in a manner reminiscent to the hissy fits thrown by 5-year-olds, then this somebody was called bad names. Unless I missed something, or we take "game looks white" as "attacking the creator", I'm simply not seeing any attacks on Vavra taking place in the article. Something something correlation does not imply causation something something? (Actually, I hate this adage, because that's exactly what correlation does: it implies causation. Does not prove it, but in the majority of cases, Occam's Razor says it's very likely.)

This is a very apt metaphor, exactly because there is no such thing as pure water Or rather, it's not for human consumption (and even if you do drink distilled water, you probably won't enjoy it much).

...I've read the article. Then I ctrl+f-d it for mentions of "vavra", just in case I missed something. It literally makes no mention of the gentleman in question. What "treatment" are we actually talking about? Vavra is the creator and producer of the game in question. He was essentially black-listed for coverage until late last year after telling people on twitter that they are wrong about thinking that black people existing in Bohemia in the 11th century. I'm trying my damnedest to phrase this in a manner that doesn't sound hostile and/or overly flippant, but maybe in the future you could consider... erm... linking to sources that actually have a bearing on the point you're trying to make? Anyway, to be more constructive, do you have any proof of this blacklisting?

An intellectual is a person who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and by such discourse in the public sphere gains authority from public opinion.[1][2] Coming from the world of culture, either as a creator or as a mediator, the intellectual participates in politics, either to defend a concrete proposition or to denounce an injustice, usually by producing or by extending an ideology, and by defending one or another system of values.

Please don't consider a career in art history

...I've read the article. Then I ctrl+f-d it for mentions of "vavra", just in case I missed something. It literally makes no mention of the gentleman in question. What "treatment" are we actually talking about?

*Sigh*. Okay, I watched it. Actually, the interesting thing is, he's trying to use a completely different study (by the same academic) as framework, but, hampered by his lackluster reading comprehension, according to Mr. Sargon (ironic, based on his first video, but since I'm lazy to read the study in question, I'll just believe him for the moment), he even fails at that. In any case, I don't think it's fair to say "the study is treated as a framework for how the gamer identity should be treated", when the articles in question have nothing in common with the conclusions of the study in question. "The study was name-dropped in a vain attempt to lend academic credence to an argument it actually had no bearing on" would be more accurate (y'know, aside from the "completely different study than the one we were talking about" thing). If we are to believe Mr. Sample-Size-27-Is-Good-Enough-For-Me. (Which we shouldn't, because he has demonstrated how "analysis" means "skimming through the abstract" to him, but that's beside the point.)

[citation needed] Amazing. I just gave a well-considered analysis why the guy shouldn't ever be treated as a reliable source, and what's the first source popping up when I ask somebody for citation? I'll probably watch it sometime later, but I've heard enough from the guy for the week.

^This.

[citation needed] Edit: I mean, his problem was that the evil, evil feminists were "hiding the research away because it didn't fit the narrative". You can't simultaneously do that and "treat it as a framework for how gaming identity should be treated"! It's either one or the other. You mean, all the horrible, horrible forced diversity like... urm... what exactly? I literally can't recall any high-profile games with "forced diversity" in them. Then again, it's not like I follow high-profile gaming too closely, so I'm honestly curious.

...Is this the same Sargon of Akkad who managed to simultaneously fail at statistics and interpreting basic research in his "why gamers don't need diversity" video, or some different clown? I haven't seen the video, why does he fail? He basically takes a research paper with a sample size of 27 (that would give you a confidence level of around 40, by the way, which, I note, is below the odds of a coin toss) with very specific questions about identification with characters in games, and treats it as ultimate, objective proof that the feminists are lying and gamers really don't need diverse characters, because they can identify with their on-screen avatar just fine. (Simultaneously proving that he also doesn't understand why feminists think games need more diverse characters, but that's beside the point.) Edit: oh, then he also charmingly accuses the person who made this paper with "trying to downplay this finding because it doesn't fit the narrative".

...Is this the same Sargon of Akkad who managed to simultaneously fail at statistics and interpreting basic research in his "why gamers don't need diversity" video, or some different clown?

Fix'd.

Me neither. Unregulated capitalism is capable of unleashing just as great horrors as communism. But it's not like our only options are the libertarian utopia where the free market reigns supreme, and Stalin's wet dream. Hungary. Funny thing is, we were considered to be a good place by USSR standards. Or so I'm led to believe.