Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[Fighter]

I don't understand your point and I think it looks interesting?

 

Are you saying Destructoid needs to be more sympathetic towards Thompson health? And if so why should they ?

 

No. I'm saying they have double standards.

 

What Leigh Alexander is saying there about Thompson is actually pretty damn nasty. It's the definition of the abuse they claim is unacceptable when you do it to people they agree with.

[Nonek]

https://archive.is/77wqO

 

Once upon a time... there was a white male so it was ok.

 

Some gamers may be nasty but at least they are not hypocrites.

 

You're not really surprised are you Mr Fighter? I mean by now the fact that SJFs are hypocrites, engage in toxic hate speech and would mock the infirm is hardly news, after all these are the people who lie about harassment, mock the victims of bomb threats and support genocide, as well as argue for unethical behaviour and corruption. They're scum and they will always rise to the top as scum does.

 

There is not an ounce of empathy, decency or humanity within them.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Nonek

[Meshugger]

Slightly related to GG, or more like anti-GG:

 

[Fighter]

Well, damn. That's heavy...

 

Anyway, another related subject. "Why are people so worried about SJWs?" Because if they can they will turn everything they touch into this, including your games:

 

"Multiple professors at Washington State University have explicitly told students their grades will suffer if they use terms such as “illegal alien,” "male," and “female,” or if they fail to “defer” to non-white students."

 

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6770

[Barothmuk]

The article didn't explain why the terms male and female weren't allowed.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The article didn't explain why the terms male and female weren't allowed.

I believe they just read the syllabi linked.

 

https://ccgrs.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/2015/08/20153_Breikss.pdf

 

Gross generalizations, stereotypes, and derogatory/oppressive language are not acceptable. Use of

racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist, or generally offensive language in class or

submission of such material will not be tolerated. (This includes “The Man,” “Colored People,”

“Illegals/Illegal Aliens,” “Tranny” and so on - or referring to women/men as females or males) If I see it or

hear it, I will correct it in class since it can be a learning moment for many students. Repeated use of oppressive

and hateful language will be handled accordingly – including but not limited to removal from the class without

attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and - in extreme cases - failure for the semester

I believe this is what they may be referring to.

[Hurlshort]

If you are describing people with words like tranny and illegals in an academic setting, you should get docked points.  It's pretty sad that even needs to be in a syllabus.  The whole female male thing sounds pretty unclear.  But yeah, how hard is it to use academic language in an academic setting?  You can go back to the frat and talk any way you want.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If you are describing people with words like tranny and illegals in an academic setting, you should get docked points.  It's pretty sad that even needs to be in a syllabus.  The whole female male thing sounds pretty unclear.  But yeah, how hard is it to use academic language in an academic setting?  You can go back to the frat and talk any way you want.  

I'm not defending their opinion mate, I'm just showing where they got it.

[Barothmuk]

 

Gross generalizations, stereotypes, and derogatory/oppressive language are not acceptable. Use of

racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist, or generally offensive language in class or

submission of such material will not be tolerated. (This includes “The Man,” “Colored People,”

“Illegals/Illegal Aliens,” “Tranny” and so on - or referring to women/men as females or males) If I see it or

hear it, I will correct it in class since it can be a learning moment for many students. Repeated use of oppressive

and hateful language will be handled accordingly – including but not limited to removal from the class without

attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and - in extreme cases - failure for the semester

I believe this is what they may be referring to.

 

I guess topics like reproduction or female genital mutilation are a no-no then.

[Oerwinde]

Really though, what do you expect from womens studies and multiculturalism focused courses. Only hardcore SJ types are going to be teaching or attending these classes unless they are required.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Oerwinde

[Meshugger]

I always get a chuckle when ideologues seem to have either no idea on how mankind got where he is now, or where he should be going. Like the inherit competitiveness in games, the challenge itself is something bad or alien to them.

 

What's that got to do with language and hurtful words on campus? Same arrogance, but for the human mind.

[HoonDing]

Is one required to use gender neutral pronouns too?

[Barothmuk]

Really though, what do you expect from womens studies and multiculturalism focused courses.

Unless you're triggered by words like patriarchal they're usually quite tame.

[Meshugger]

Is one required to use gender neutral pronouns too?

 

Just wait until we reach the singularity where we have self-serviced robots capable of conciousness. Since they can reassign their gender identity literally at whim, the amount pronouns will go through the roof!

 

There will be a quite a demand for pronoun-specialized psychologists in the future, i can tell you.

[Malcador]

Really though, what do you expect from womens studies and multiculturalism focused courses.

In my experience, be easier than your Engineering classes and fulfill the humanities quota they pushed on us

[kirottu]

Be aggressive: Recent APA video game study on violence fails to find anything.

[Amentep]

TV shows are the tools of oppression.

 

//edit, somewhat related to topic.

 

Why the right to offend is important:

 

 

...and why it isn't? i guess

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkEVDnV0-LE

 

//edit 2: I highly recommend the last video, just to see Peter Hitchens', which is an awesome guy btw, facial expressions. Simply priceless.

I recommend watching all 6 videos; it was a fairly interesting debate.

 

From what I could tell the arguments boiled down to -

 

Pro: Offensive ideas challenge social norms; for social development to happen in positive ways, all social norms must be challenged whether we're happy with the challenge or not.

 

Con: Offensive ideas can lead to offensive (criminal, horrendous) action, therefore the free expression of offensive ideas have to be built with no protection for offensive speech that leads to offensive action.

 

The con side kind of fell down because while they present a justification for limiting free speech (stopping inciting words), they don't make the necessary connection - to my mind - of how the offensive speech automatically creates offensive action. As the third pro-commenter, Shami Chakrabarti, mentioned that approach is akin to victim blaming (its Charlie Hebdo's fault they got killed because they were offensive).

 

They're also vague on who determines intent and it basically seemed like their criteria was "I don't like it so it shouldn't exist".

 

If you are describing people with words like tranny and illegals in an academic setting, you should get docked points. It's pretty sad that even needs to be in a syllabus. The whole female male thing sounds pretty unclear. But yeah, how hard is it to use academic language in an academic setting? You can go back to the frat and talk any way you want.

 

Bans devoid of context are problematic. For example the ban on the use of the term "colored people" means discussing the NAACP is now verboten. It also prevents discussing gender in animals & pets (you don't have a woman or man dog); in fact the ban on male and female actually might make it more difficult to discuss transgenderism since gender is male/female not man/woman.  And it also prevents discussing a whole lot of stuff within its historical context, or to discuss offensive things that use those terms.  Not all of that may be within the scope of the Women's Studies course, but it points to the problem of arbitrary limitations which are devoid of the ability to consider context.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Amentep

[Hurlshort]

The right to offend is extremely important and I will defend publications like Charlie Hebdo with my last breath.

 

 

 

But that doesn't mean I want the editor of Charlie Hebdo running the country.  

[Hurlshort]

Even in a history class, I don't know why I would even need to use the word colored to describe black people, unless I was quoting an older source or talking about etymology.  But yes, context is important.  I doubt this professor put this in the syllabus on a whim though, clearly they have been dealing with students who lack the ability to grasp how to use academic language properly.

[Fighter]

I would be more comfortable with the editor of Charlie Hebdo than one of the nutjobs who thinks you need less rights to speak because "privilege".

[Hurlshort]

I would be more comfortable with the editor of Charlie Hebdo than one of the nutjobs who thinks you need less rights to speak because "privilege".

 

Just because some crazy people talk crazy on twitter does not mean:

 

A: you are going to lose your rights to free speech.

 

or

 

B:  you need to adopt their language and start talking like a crazy person.

[Amentep]

Even in a history class, I don't know why I would even need to use the word colored to describe black people, unless I was quoting an older source or talking about etymology.  But yes, context is important.  I doubt this professor put this in the syllabus on a whim though, clearly they have been dealing with students who lack the ability to grasp how to use academic language properly.

 

I'm sure they didn't put it in on a whim; I disagree with the professor putting it in the syllabus at all though.  Absolute prohibitions don't leave room for context and, IMO, that isn't a good thing.  The professor runs the risk of appearing hypocritical if they try to address historical perspectives and they use something that uses the very prohibited language that they've called out in the syllabus.

 

Proscriptive syllabi are fine provided the absolutes are maintainable, but most absolutes are not.

[Fighter]

Just because some crazy people talk crazy on twitter does not mean:

 

 

A: you are going to lose your rights to free speech.

 

or

 

B:  you need to adopt their language and start talking like a crazy person.

 

 

Some of the stuff you hear from these American colleges is crazy. And it's not done by random people on twitter but by people in prestigious professions with power over others.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Fighter

[Malcador]

Just noticed this, but come on, banning the use of "The Man" in an artsie course ?

[Hurlshort]

 

Some of the stuff you hear from these American colleges is crazy. And it's not done by random people on twitter but by people in prestigious professions with power over others.

 

 

Colleges as a hotbed of liberal gibberish?  Le Gasp!  A liberal studies professor talking crazy?  Double Le Gasp!

 

 

 

If only we could go back in time to the 60's and 70's where everyone at American Colleges was conservative and respectable.