Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Fighter]

Winning the crazy Olympics again. Can they not see how ridiculous and unreasonable this is?

 

I guess it just shows what kind of people they really are. I bet that's exactly how they are in real life and at their jobs too.

[Lexx]

This is way too good to be true. Tensed to see what's going to happen on monday / tuesday.

[TrashMan]

They block KFC (the chicken wings are taunting women), Sommers, Adam Baldwin, David Pakman and many, many others.

 

 

Outrage is spreading.

 

 

GamerGhazi claiming the blocklist is a lie by GG.

Edited November 22, 2014 by TrashMan

[Keyrock]

This has to be the most ridiculous thing anti-GG has done so far. 

That's a bold statement.

[kirottu]

GamerGhazi claiming the blocklist is a lie by GG.

 

Wait, what?

 

 

This has to be the most ridiculous thing anti-GG has done so far.

That's a bold statement.

 

I'm a bold person.

Edited November 22, 2014 by kirottu

[Keyrock]

Being a bit more serious though, this is actually a very important shift in how we approach rape cases.  Instead of placing the responsibility on the victim to prove that she (or he) resisted and was forced to have sex, it is now much more dependent on the accused proving that it was consensual.

 

As a man, I have very little fear here, but that's because I never went around sleeping with people I didn't have a certain amount of trust built up with.  And as a father, it is good to know that my daughter has the full support of the law in such a terrible situation.  My number one goal is to raise her to be careful and always protect herself, but I can't keep her locked in her room forever. 

So you're pro-guilty until proven innocent?  Are you pro-kangaroo court too?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Winning the crazy Olympics again. Can they not see how ridiculous and unreasonable this is?

 

I guess it just shows what kind of people they really are. I bet that's exactly how they are in real life and at their jobs too.

Largely, they don't hold jobs. They live off patreon.

[Longknife]

Someone who is drunk can not give consent? I suppose that means the few times I had sex with my ex while drunk I was being raped then.

 

 

This is a bit difficult to explain but this is standard stuff for the legal system, at least in Germany and very likely in the USA aswell.

 

Basically, the legal system has multiple laws specifically addressing how people who are not in a clear state of mind cannot be charged for crimes, offenses or treated as though they're consenting to their end of a contract. This is to prevent, for example, a crazy person or an incredibly drunk individual from signing a contract that basically gives someone else their house.

 

  In this sense, yes what you said was correct, but it can get very sloppy. How? Well a typical case of a law protecting someone who isn't in a clear state of mind would be that a drunk person who drives under the influence and ends up killing someone would be charged with negligent homicide rather than manslaughter or murder. Makes sense, no? The person is simply outrageously careless to the point where their carelessness and lack of responsibility can cost lives, but they are not a cold-blooded killer or someone who doesn't value human life. This is why these laws exist; why it has to be a law instead of simply saying "well they lacked intent so it can't be murder and it's neglect" would take a little longer to explain and involve a lot of the ins and outs of the general legal system.

 

  BUT that was a typical example, and the thing about that example is that when the police or ambulance arrive, they will likely give the person a sobriety test.

 

 

The problem here is that nobody is doing a sobriety test to both the guy and the girl, nor is anyone monitoring how or why a person drinks at a party. If a guy straight up drugs a girl with ecstacy or spikes her drink with alcohol in the interest of trying to sleep with her later, dude's gonna get slapped with charges should someone find out. If a guy is purposefully trying to get a woman drunk (pressuring her to drink) in the interest of later utilizing that to have sex with her, then yes, you could have a very good debate about whether or not this guy should get in trouble. You could also have a decent debate about a sober guy walking by a totally drunk woman who hits on him and taking the chance; something like that CAN end up in court and the result could vary. (I could look into this if you guys like. This isn't really an area or example I've ever covered much, but I'm curious now)

  But say two people are both drinking and the guy simply thinks that's a good chance to make his move. Say you have a crush on a girl but you're shy, and then when you're both at a party and both consenting to drink, and your advances are successful? Nah, this is fair game. BS to anyone who claims otherwise. It's fair game both because she fully consented to drinking on her own knowing the risks and you yourself were also not in a clear state of mind. There is no such law as "negligent rape" or "negligent sexual harassment" so you would simply be absolved of intentional ones, and at worst you could be hit with a drunk and disorderly charge, but ideally should you be? Not at all.

 

   The issue is that in a practical sense, no one is watching how this goes down or monitoring alcohol levels. No one knows how drunk you are or how drunk she is, and people probably aren't paying attention to how you both got around to drinking (own initiative, peer pressure, drugged, etc). She cannot really feasibly claim you were not drunk yourself, nor can anyone attest to how drunk she was.

 

 

 

  The bottom line is that if you go to a party as a woman and you plan on drinking? You need to be aware of the risks of being drunk. Unless someone is maliciously trying to get you drunk as all hell for the explicit purpose of taking advantage, then no, the guy has just as much defense as you do, so it can likely end up as "sad day for you." Yes, there are laws in place to protect drunk people to an extent, but the intent behind those laws is not to fully absolve you of responsibility, but rather recognize and properly assess the very specific level of intent (or lack thereof) that one has while in an inebriated state.

[Hurlshort]

 

Being a bit more serious though, this is actually a very important shift in how we approach rape cases.  Instead of placing the responsibility on the victim to prove that she (or he) resisted and was forced to have sex, it is now much more dependent on the accused proving that it was consensual.

 

As a man, I have very little fear here, but that's because I never went around sleeping with people I didn't have a certain amount of trust built up with.  And as a father, it is good to know that my daughter has the full support of the law in such a terrible situation.  My number one goal is to raise her to be careful and always protect herself, but I can't keep her locked in her room forever. 

So you're pro-guilty until proven innocent?  Are you pro-kangaroo court too?

 

 

Way to oversimplify a complex legal issue.  

 

[Keyrock]

 

 

Being a bit more serious though, this is actually a very important shift in how we approach rape cases.  Instead of placing the responsibility on the victim to prove that she (or he) resisted and was forced to have sex, it is now much more dependent on the accused proving that it was consensual.

 

As a man, I have very little fear here, but that's because I never went around sleeping with people I didn't have a certain amount of trust built up with.  And as a father, it is good to know that my daughter has the full support of the law in such a terrible situation.  My number one goal is to raise her to be careful and always protect herself, but I can't keep her locked in her room forever. 

So you're pro-guilty until proven innocent?  Are you pro-kangaroo court too?

 

 

Way to oversimplify a complex legal issue.  

 

Call me crazy but this

 

 

 

Instead of placing the responsibility on the victim to prove that she (or he) resisted and was forced to have sex, it is now much more dependent on the accused proving that it was consensual.

sounds an awful lot like guilty until proven innocent.  Sure, the issue is complex, but that doesn't change the fact that what I quoted boils down to the defense having the burden of proof (i.e. guilty until proven innocent).  Nice attempt at deflecting the question, though.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Keyrock

[Hurlshort]

So when someone is murdered, do we put the onus on the murdered person to provide the burden of proof?  No, we we do a full investigation of the likely suspects, and expect them to provide evidence that they weren't involved or at fault.  

[Longknife]

Just in regards to if doing something with a drunk girl counts as rape according to German law...

 

Under German law, Rape is as followers (incoming rough ghetto translation):

 

 

Whosoever

1) Uses violence

2) utilizes threats against one's immediate (present time) life or wellbeing or

3) exploits a situation which the victim is helpless to stop/at the mercy of

in order to force the victim to partake in sexual acts with the suspect or a third party, shall be charged with jail time no shorter than one year.

 

 

I also looked up cases and hopefully these two will help highlight how unclear such situations can be:

 

In one case a sober man happened across a drunk girl who left a dance club and offered her a ride home, and without utilizing any threats or violence, he instead did NOT bring her directly home and he and the woman ended up having sex. She later tried to charge him with rape but the case was thrown out fairly quickly because the man did not meet the circumstances of rape: there was neither violence nor threats, she was fully consentual while drunk.  (also for those wonder what 3) means in regards to the above law citation, that one is pretty much for situations like "If you don't have sex with me my friend will kill your husband who he has tied up in Chicago right now" or the like)

 

Another case, incredibly similar, involved a girl encountering 3 guys after leaving a dance club and it led to sex with her fully consenting (while drunk, anyways). The next morning she "felt raped" as she got in serious trouble with her father and was worried about now being known as the town s***. Even though there was no threats or violence involved, she constructed a story about rape and the three guys ended up spending a couple months in juvenile whatever-it's-called-in-the-US.(German case, just so we're clear, I just dunno the name of the "prison" for teens in the US)

 

 

 

So as you can see, while it'd be lovely if law were consistent (and boy does it ****ing try to be), even here the issue is a little unclear. Still, I would advise anyone that wishes to claim "if the woman doesn't consent/is drunk it's rape," that may be your own moral opinion about things and it's great you've got a moral vibe you like, but in a practical and legal sense, do not end up surprised if your case is thrown out. Same advice goes for any guys who would think "cool a drunk girl, I can have sex tonight," though I'd hope there's no one like that on these forums.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So when someone is murdered, do we put the onus on the murdered person to provide the burden of proof?  No, we we do a full investigation of the likely suspects, and expect them to provide evidence that they weren't involved or at fault.

 

No, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The suspects may not have proof they are not guilty, but the responsibility to prove that they are guilty lies with the prosecution. This is the way it should be, as convicting someone for not being able to prove a negative is not a very good standard for a legal system. It would certainly suck of someone was convicted because they stayed home alone and didn't have an alibi for a murder that occurred close to them or involved someone they were in conflict with.

 

To get back to this rape law: you're a father I believe? If one of your kids were accused of rape by someone they had casual sex with and could not prove that it was consensual and the accuser could not prove that it wasn't consensual, why should they bear the burden of proof for a baseless accusation? Shouldn't the accuser be required to bring at least some proof of rape before making accusations?

[TrashMan]

 

GamerGhazi claiming the blocklist is a lie by GG.

 

Wait, what?

 

 

 

[Hurlshort]

 

So when someone is murdered, do we put the onus on the murdered person to provide the burden of proof?  No, we we do a full investigation of the likely suspects, and expect them to provide evidence that they weren't involved or at fault.

No, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The suspects may not have proof they are not guilty, but the responsibility to prove that they are guilty lies with the prosecution. This is the way it should be, as convicting someone for not being able to prove a negative is not a very good standard for a legal system. It would certainly suck of someone was convicted because they stayed home alone and didn't have an alibi for a murder that occurred close to them or involved someone they were in conflict with.

 

To get back to this rape law: you're a father I believe? If one of your kids were accused of rape by someone they had casual sex with and could not prove that it was consensual and the accuser could not prove that it wasn't consensual, why should they bear the burden of proof for a baseless accusation? Shouldn't the accuser be required to bring at least some proof of rape before making accusations?

 

 

But this isn't a baseless accusation, this is a woman (or man) going into a police station, going through the interview process, submitting to tests, etc.  It's an incredibly difficult thing to go through for a victim, hence they high rate of unreported assaults.

 

As for my own children, I hope to raise them with the beliefs that casual sex is inherently dangerous.  I want them to take precautions.

 

 

Do you have unprotected casual sex?  Probably not, that would be crazy.  Well, making sure that the sex is consensual should be right there alongside wearing protection.  It's better to be safe. 

[Keyrock]

So when someone is murdered, do we put the onus on the murdered person to provide the burden of proof?  No, we we do a full investigation of the likely suspects, and expect them to provide evidence that they weren't involved or at fault.  

No the burden of proof is on the prosecution representing the murdered person, the murdered person's family, or the state, it is not, I repeat NOT on the defense.

 

I understand that rape cases have circumstances where the victim is afraid to come forward, and the system, as it stands, can be exploited by perpetrators (any system can and will be exploited).  My argument is that is that a system where the burden of proof lies with the defense can and will also be exploited, and, in my opinion, can and will be exploited more egregiously.  This could and would be a tool used by malicious persons to exercise spite and retribution against people they feel they've been wronged by or just simply don't like.  This already happened with phony rape charges in the system as it was, creating a system where the burden of proof lies with the defense only give that much more power to malicious people looking to ruin somebody's life.  I am against the burden of proof lying with the defense in any case, rape or otherwise.

 

Furthermore, I am against creating special case scenarios where the regular laws and procedures don't apply.  The reason being that it's a very slippery slope and not only can, but in my mind will, eventually lead to the whole system becoming guilty until proven innocent.

 

To tie this back to the GG discussion, the anti-GG side heavily employs the guilty until proven innocent mindset, levying accusations and punishments without a single shred of evidence.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Keyrock

[Meshugger]

Related: The Royal Astronomical Society issues the following:

 

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2538-ras-statement-on-shirtgate-shirtstorm

 

 

 

We therefore recognise that behaviour choices, from clothing to language, can discourage women from pursuing careers in science in general. These are equally important considerations in both the workplace and at public events such as press conferences.

 

There you have it, they think that women are more vulnarable than men, and they can wear what they want while men cannot. Thus we have to judge a book by its cover.

 

I am extremely dissapointed.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

So when someone is murdered, do we put the onus on the murdered person to provide the burden of proof?  No, we we do a full investigation of the likely suspects, and expect them to provide evidence that they weren't involved or at fault.

 

No, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The suspects may not have proof they are not guilty, but the responsibility to prove that they are guilty lies with the prosecution. This is the way it should be, as convicting someone for not being able to prove a negative is not a very good standard for a legal system. It would certainly suck of someone was convicted because they stayed home alone and didn't have an alibi for a murder that occurred close to them or involved someone they were in conflict with.

To get back to this rape law: you're a father I believe? If one of your kids were accused of rape by someone they had casual sex with and could not prove that it was consensual and the accuser could not prove that it wasn't consensual, why should they bear the burden of proof for a baseless accusation? Shouldn't the accuser be required to bring at least some proof of rape before making accusations?

 

But this isn't a baseless accusation, this is a woman (or man) going into a police station, going through the interview process, submitting to tests, etc.  It's an incredibly difficult thing to go through for a victim, hence they high rate of unreported assaults.

 

As for my own children, I hope to raise them with the beliefs that casual sex is inherently dangerous.  I want them to take precautions.

 

 

Do you have unprotected casual sex?  Probably not, that would be crazy.  Well, making sure that the sex is consensual should be right there alongside wearing protection.  It's better to be safe.

Baseless as in "without foundation in fact". Which an accusation without proof is. The problem with this is that between two people who can not prove a positive or a negative, you are putting the burden on the one who stands to face legal consequences. As awful as rape is, instituting a system where it is possible to convict someone without evidence is not a good solution.

 

As to casual sex and your children, no matter how you raise them you can not control their actions 100% of the time. People do dumb **** when they are in college, heat of the moment kind of stuff. In an atmosphere where consensual hook ups involving drugs and booze exist right beside some filth taking advantage of intoxicated people, a system that places burden on the accused creates the possibility of someone being accused of something they didn't do and unable to refute the accusations.

 

As to myself, I have had sex with people I didn't know very well. A lot of them were ****ing crazy, for lack of a better term, but I don't believe I should be subjected to charges of rape for going after crazy ****. I would certainly not want to be put into a situation where I had to prove a girl that jumped on me at a party gave consent when all I had was my word against hers or a girl claiming I raped her because she cheated on her boyfriend with me and didn't want to break up with him(minus the rape accusation, the later has happened to me).

[Volourn]

"So when someone is murdered, do we put the onus on the murdered person to provide the burden of proof?  No, we we do a full investigation of the likely suspects, and expect them to provide evidence that they weren't involved or at fault. "

 

That's not how it owrks. That's not how it should work. And, onyl evil nazis think it should work that way.

[TrashMan]

Related: The Royal Astronomical Society issues the following:

 

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2538-ras-statement-on-shirtgate-shirtstorm

 

 

 

We therefore recognise that behaviour choices, from clothing to language, can discourage women from pursuing careers in science in general. These are equally important considerations in both the workplace and at public events such as press conferences.

 

There you have it, they think that women are more vulnarable than men, and they can wear what they want while men cannot. Thus we have to judge a book by its cover.

 

I am extremely dissapointed.

 

 

Do a check to see who forms the RAS. Check their positions, affilation, pay and credentials.

Then laugh.

 

[Darkpriest]

 

Related: The Royal Astronomical Society issues the following:

 

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2538-ras-statement-on-shirtgate-shirtstorm

 

 

 

We therefore recognise that behaviour choices, from clothing to language, can discourage women from pursuing careers in science in general. These are equally important considerations in both the workplace and at public events such as press conferences.

 

There you have it, they think that women are more vulnarable than men, and they can wear what they want while men cannot. Thus we have to judge a book by its cover.

 

I am extremely dissapointed.

 

 

Do a check to see who forms the RAS. Check their positions, affilation, pay and credentials.

Then laugh.

 

 

 

This Political Correctness stuff is just retarded. It intimidates people and organizations into acting like retards, because they do not want to deal with raging idiots...

[TrashMan]

IGDA removed the autoblocker tool from the recommended list..

 

The anti's are throwing tantrums, some are attacking IGDA members and entire organizations in their tweets. The fire is spreading!

 

 

https://twitter.com/Redregon/status/536208940187783168/photo/1

 

https://twitter.com/FartToContinue/status/536204964033728512/photo/1

 

https://twitter.com/eekwat/status/536216998209150977

[Meshugger]

Hahaha

[TrashMan]

LOLOLOLOLOLO

 

http://feelsandreals.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/gamergate-leader-revealed-11-herbs-and-misogynies/

[Nakia]

 

Related: The Royal Astronomical Society issues the following:

 

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2538-ras-statement-on-shirtgate-shirtstorm

 

 

 

We therefore recognise that behaviour choices, from clothing to language, can discourage women from pursuing careers in science in general. These are equally important considerations in both the workplace and at public events such as press conferences.

 

There you have it, they think that women are more vulnarable than men, and they can wear what they want while men cannot. Thus we have to judge a book by its cover.

 

I am extremely dissapointed.

 

 

Do a check to see who forms the RAS. Check their positions, affilation, pay and credentials.

Then laugh.

 

 

Since I have never been raped I am always a bit hesitant to enter into discussions of this type .  I do think Meshugger has a valid point and it also relates to how women are depicted in video games.  I think the subject is a very complicated one and difficult to discuss objectively.  Many things go into making up who and what we are.  To make a general statement which is a bit dangerous men and women are simply not the same.  We have things in common but biologically we are different and our role in Natures scheme of things is different.  I think both men and women need to be more respectful of each other, need to put more effort into understanding the other genders point of view.   We also need to understand our selves better and why we do the things we do.  Society does have a big influence on us and a major role in developing our attitudes.

 

Women at least in the USA are allowed to dress  provocatively in public thus sending off certain signals to men.  Some men can handled it well and others get confused and there are those who just can't handle it.

 

Should women be made to wear kaftans?  I don't think so although some of the modern ones are quite attractive.  It is natural for a woman to want to be attractive and it is natural for men to be attracted to attractive women.  

 

One hundred years ago a woman wearing an outfit in the USA that showed her ankles was considered provocative now women go to the supermarket dressed in tight shorts and tube tops and think nothing of it.  Back to video games I want to know why if they can do that in real life what is wrong with them wearing bikini armour in a video game?

Edited November 22, 2014 by Nakia