Jump to content

Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)


Unofficial Who
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dudley said:

It's a shame the net total of GG for me will simply be to tell me how many people I liked to one degree or another are actually somewhere in the spectrum between idiot and complete cunt.

The filpside is finding out that people you read/follow/support for entirely different reasons are utterly awesome.

 

I'm currently enjoying Maciej Ceglowski's (founder of Pinboard) twitter to campaign to be added to this not-at-all creepy list of harassment victi^H^H^H^H^H^HSJW's.

http://sjwlist.com/Main_Page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alex W. said:

Did the "sex worker" stuff ever get any more substantiation than the fact that she had a profile on a shifty site and a public Amazon wishlist? Genuinely haven't been keeping track of this.

 

It seems like it's not in any significant doubt. 

 

Certainly there were the 'teaser' images that she was tweeting on her own Twitter feed, to promote sets of images for sale. The promo images were mildly racy but nothing particularly explicit, basically her lying on a bed in fairly skimpy nightwear with various 'nerd appeal' props including a 3DS. 

 

Someone on here mentioned that she was also a cam performer - it was right before one of the many recent forum outages, IIRC. I think they said something like "It's only a matter of time before the screenshots come out" or words to that effect. I guess whether or not it's sex work depends on exactly what she was doing on cam - the implication was that she's stripping, but I haven't seen anything to corroborate that particular aspect and I don't know what her cam act is meant to have consisted of.

 

And the most recent thing is that she's apparently been found on an escort site, with face partially covered but with identifying tattoos and jewellery. I've seen screenshots in an article about it, claiming that she charged something like $250/hr for personal services. 

 

I'm somewhat reticent to go digging back for the actual links, because I don't really want to give them more traffic. The article about the escorting came up in my Google Now feed on my phone, evidently because I'd been reading various other pieces about Rapp. Suffice it to say that while the photo evidence seemed ostensibly credible, the tone of the piece was anything but sympathetic.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if she was the worst person on Earth. That stuff doesn't even matter. Getting a person fired via means of harassment is the important part. Nintendo saying/doing nothing is the important part. She could have been the main programmer of Sonic 06 for all I care.

 

Making clear what real people are doing to other real people needs to be front and center. Because harm seems to be the legitimate means of communication of getting a point across for some people, which is sad. (but not uncommon, given the state of the world we live in.)

 

Don't feed the troll is not harmful advice, btw. Nor is to just live your life to the best of your ability without falling into dark pot holes. There will always be dark pot holes to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that Biffo advocates not giving people the satisfaction of a response and yet finds himself incapable of not writing articles about something that involves "two sides" he seemingly doesn't want to encourage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh christ, why did you link him to here?

51 minutes ago, NEG said:

Don't feed the troll is not harmful advice, btw.

 

Just remarkably pointless advice, if you're giving it to someone whose livelihood relies on them having an active social media presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PK said:

Just remarkably pointless advice, if you're giving it to someone whose livelihood relies on them having an active social media presence.

 

In which case, the football player knows going in what might happen if they become successful and all the rest, no?

 

But yes, the actual advice does become mute if the person knows what to expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this triggering talk, "are you triggered?", "you sound triggered"...

 

I was thinking about how trigger warnings are just an evolution of when the announcer on TV says "this programme contains scenes that some viewers may find distressing". It blows my fucking mind that people take issue with the concept. Like they've basically just contrived to spit in the face of common courtesy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, matt0 said:

All this triggering talk, "are you triggered?", "you sound triggered"...

 

I was thinking about how trigger warnings are just an evolution of when the announcer on TV says "this programme contains scenes that some viewers find distressing". It blow's my fucking mind that people take issue with the concept. Like they've basically just contrived to spit in the face of common courtesy.

 


I think the issue comes with some university students expecting such warnings on potentially 'provocative' books or courses.  There's a problem with this I think. If you're studying things like English, History, Criminal Law or Philosophy for example you simply have to be prepared to be presented with upsetting or disturbing ideas, concepts and content.  I'm pretty much entirely ambivalent to the phenomenon myself but it seems very out of place in an academic environment.

 

Also I find the terminology itself a bit tactless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, deerokus said:

 


I think the issue comes with university students expecting such warnings on potentially 'provocative' books or courses.  There's a problem with this I think. If you're studying English, History or Philosophy for example you simply have to be prepared to be presented with upsetting or disturbing ideas, concepts and content.

 

Also I find the terminology itself a bit tactless.

 

Sure you should have to expect to deal with disturbing material some times, but there's no harm in giving a gentle warning before hand, is there? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends.  I don't think there's necessarily much of a problem with a gentle vague warning, although I suspect you can make a strong case that giving a warning like that could unduly influence and prescribe someone's reaction to that material, teaching them nothing, or even result in people just entirely avoiding it. At a certain point it becomes a problem and I'm not sure where that is, exactly. Do you give a trigger warning for Shakespeare, soldier's war journals or material dealing with rape laws?

 

In any case, it's less about the warnings themselves and more that it seems to contribute to creating an environment of acceptable and unacceptable or 'dangerous' ideas which I find a bit sad. Certainly the (very) recent belief that seems to have appeared that universities should be a 'safe space' protecting its students from being upset or offended is completely antithetical to the purpose of a university, isn't it?  A safe space where such discussions can happen without fear of what can happen in other spheres of life for saying the wrong thing is more appropriate. Funnilly enough, it's the gamergater types who do this as much as anyone, while crying about trugger warnings, of course. That controversial Alison Rapp essay is the kind of thing people should be able to write at uni without fearing repercussions more serious than a crap grade.

 

I don't know.  One of the best and most profound things I ever read at uni (only 5 years ago) has a very nihilistic worldview, has a section where the protagonist revels in violence, death and gore, and is at times arguably misogynistic, also written by a guy who became an actual nazi later in life. It contains elements that, deprived of context, would definitely be considered offensive! I would probably never have read it of my own volition and am entirely glad no one warned me before reading it, framing my expectations.  I don't want other people to be deprived that joy because they were warned off of something.

 

This is a very long read on this issue, but I like it. The section 'Fortune Telling and Trigger Warnings' is particularly relevant. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've got a few things the wrong way around. The idea of "safe spaces" in education or whatever isn't that no one should be able to be offended. It's that anyone should be allowed to put forward ideas in a safe environment. It is a mechanic which works to facilitate free speech, rather than hinder it. The idea that they are special fluffy zones where no one is allowed to be offended or upset is a misconception on the part of Gamergate types, the vast majority of whom are quite clearly unfamiliar with the dynamics of academic environments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alex W. said:

Biffo condescending to an actual mental health professional about how the practice works is classic mansplaining to boot.

Let's not call it that, it's nothing to do with men, it's cuntsplaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, K said:

This is not particularly directed at you deerokus, but general piss-taking of safe spaces and triggering, and the specific referencing of that Atlantic article really annoy me for two reasons. The first is that various middle aged columnists and comedians are saying that students today are really soft and should be exposed to as much sexism and racism as possible to toughen them up, with this implication that it wasn’t like this back in their day, and that they empowered themselves through various feats of ideological strength, i.e. hanging round with Nazis, becoming a comedian in a working men’s club, being Melanie Phillips, etc. It says that I put my views to the test by exposing them to my enemies, so my views are forged in the heat of conflict and are correct, unlike yours which are flimsy and wrong.

 

The second reason is this other implication that life isn’t like this outside of universities, which in my experience is completely wrong. Articles like that Atlantic piece seem to be saying “what’s that? You special snowflakes think that in the real world you can just WALK up to your boss and say ‘My co-workers are making me really uncomfortable with their sexist jokes, and I’d like them to stop?’ Get real, princess! Man up and get used to it, nobody’s going to just stop saying offensive things because you don’t like it!” That’s exactly what the real world is like, and if there are pockets where it isn’t like that, people should feel free to speak up and to change things.

 

I mean, one of the key examples that piece gives of stupid mollycoddling is students being encouraged not to ask Asian students whether they’re good at maths, or asking ethnic minority students where they’re from. That to me doesn’t sound like some kind of nanny state madness, so much as basic politeness – asking someone with a Chinese name whether they’re good with numbers is just fucking rude. I’m reminded of this line Iain Banks once came out with – political correctness is just what right-wing people call manners.

 

Another key example they give is professors giving warnings before discussing pieces with strong themes. Again, it doesn’t seem to me like the students are the soft ones here. Someone warning you about the content of a piece doesn’t sound that scary or new, unless the concept of film classification is inherently bad, and Simon Bates warning people that an 18-rated VHS might be a bit sexy is likely to turn the viewers into terminal soft cases. It’s a weird kind of liberal moral panic, and it baffles me in the extreme.

 

I don't agree. Safe spaces and trigger warnings have to promote self-censorship and that doesn't help anything. I mean, you're fine to say everything but will you make all the same points if you've got to spend time warning people in advance? Would you not just think it quietly to yourself and let the discussion go on? Both sides of the argument here are very pro-censorship (or pro-something-that-effectively-acts-as-censorship-even-if-it-isn't-actually-censorship) and that's definitely a bad thing. The problem has always been people looking for ways other people could be offended and once you've moved into hypothetical offence there isn't much you can't claim is offensive in some way.

 

I mean, if you're on Twitter and you normally share cat gifs then warn people before you link to some horrible shit. But anyone that needs warnings and safe spaces in an academic is harming the education of the other people just as much as someone being insulting or purposefully offensive is. In both cases they should be removed for the good of the rest of the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rev said:

Safe spaces and trigger warnings have to promote self-censorship

 

Citation needed. Isn't the whole reason people are warning students about content so they don't need to worry about the content itself and just get on with it, safe in the knowledge that both the educator and the student are aware that Serious Business is about to be talked about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the way ideas like "safe spaces" are presented in the media really has much to do with the actual ground truth of what's happening at universities. You get all these editorials about the construction of oppressive ideological fiefdoms, but in practice it amounts student groups protesting at talks by people they disagree with*, and arguing between and amongst themselves about what they want to actually happen. Which is how things should be. We want students to be politically engaged.

 

*In this instance, because those people's remarks against a particular group are in conflict with the student body's efforts to create an inclusive environment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev: That's a really limited view of what trigger warnings are for, though. They aren't just for 'self-censorship' - their purpose isn't purely to ward off people, particularly in an academic context. Rather they allow people to be prepared mentally for certain topics to be discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I find it kind of odd that the majority of people decrying the use of trigger warnings in discussion of various specific subjects have little to no personal interest in discussing said issues in any context, academic or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biffo has written another post 

 

Surprisingly it's yet another situation that's a textbook example of a Drama Triangle! What an amazing tool that is.

 

He's also still referring to everyone who doesn't agree with Gamergate as a "social justice warrior".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wiper said:

Rev: That's a really limited view of what trigger warnings are for, though. They aren't just for 'self-censorship' - their purpose isn't purely to ward off people, particularly in an academic context. Rather they allow people to be prepared mentally for certain topics to be discussed.

 

IMHO, etc...There's no way it can increase the number of people involved in a debate. Either it has no effect, or it causes a reduction. I mean, put a trigger warning on the prospectus and say that you'll be forced to discuss subjects that are likely to cause offence, but to make people constantly think about whether there's a possibility anyone could be offended by what you're about to talk about next is something of a distraction at best.

 

That said, as Spacehost said I don't have something I can cite. Has anyone got a link to a filmed debate that has these sort of conditions fully implemented? Any subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rev said:

 

IMHO, etc...There's no way it can increase the number of people involved in a debate. Either it has no effect, or it causes a reduction. I mean, put a trigger warning on the prospectus and say that you'll be forced to discuss subjects that are likely to cause offence, but to make people constantly think about whether there's a possibility anyone could be offended by what you're about to talk about next is something of a distraction at best.

 

That said, as Spacehost said I don't have something I can cite. Has anyone got a link to a filmed debate that has these sort of conditions fully implemented? Any subject.

What do you mean, "conditions fully implemented"? A trigger warning is when you warn people before the debate about its content. "We are going to have a frank discussion about rape, which may involve discussing specific instances of it, which some people may find distressing". That's a trigger warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.