Game News Video Games And Male Gaze

[Ulminati]

All right, I've been trying to stay out of this since it's flamebait and not the entertaining kind.

But seriously. Bros and Broettes. Take a deep breath, take a step back and ask yourself if it's really worth working yourselves up to the degree you have in this thread.
The other side isn't likely to be convinced at this point since everyone is pretty balkanized. Cut your losses, accept you will never see eye to eye on this and let's go make fun of a AAA publisher instead before this thread takes an even uglier turn. Pretty please?

 

[Stinger]

Even a 'Devil's Advocate' (I don't think you know what that means) has to justify what they're saying or else they should be rightfully disregarded as a shit poster who has nothing to contribute.

You will never "show they can't even survive basic scrutiny" unless you actually critically analyse what people are saying with reasoned arguments and evidence. That's what scrutiny actually is!

Hahaha, your ignorance on formal debate is amusing.

It is impossible to demonstrate something does not exist, idiot. That's basic logic for you. Thus the Devil's Advocate does not have to -demonstrate- anything beyond "the shadow of a doubt remains", for which I need nothing but to use logic and rethorical devices to question their claims and so called evidence.

Also,

During the canonization process of the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against thecanonization of a candidate.[1] It was this person’s job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, and so on. The Devil's advocate opposed God's advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task was to make the argument in favor of canonization. This task is now performed by the Promoter of Justice (promotor iustitiae), who is in charge of examining how accurate is the inquiry on the saintliness of the candidate.

First get an education, then talk back to me.

Let's go ahead and refer to the first part of the wikipedia article you're quoting:

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

A Devil's advocate is someone who points out flaws within someone's arguments in order to encourage more argumentative discussion/better discussion as a whole. If you are taking that stance you don't simply say "LOL DERE IS SHADOW OF A DOUBT XDDDDDDD" without any basis or evidence to explain why that is. If you're being a devil's advocate you're doing an incredibly shitty job of it.

You aren't actually discrediting anything GarfunkeL says because their (I won't make assumptions about gender again) arguments still hold next to your bullshit. GarfunkeL has reasonable arguments with evidence to back it up. You're simply attempting to discredit it without any actual explanation or any proper identification of the weaknesses and flaws in their arguments. And that just isn't good enough.

Actually what you are describing is a troll. Someone who posts unfounded bullshit and then scapegoats behind some shitty cop out about how it's ok that their posts have no substance because they weren't being serious ok?

When you're done being edgy for the sake of it try backing it up.

All right, I've been trying to stay out of this since it's flamebait and not the entertaining kind.

But seriously. Bros and Broettes. Take a deep breath, take a step back and ask yourself if it's really worth working yourselves up to the degree you have in this thread.
The other side isn't likely to be convinced at this point since everyone is pretty balkanized. Cut your losses, accept you will never see eye to eye on this and let's go make fun of a AAA publisher instead before this thread takes an even uglier turn. Pretty please?

Are you trying to silence me you totalitarian Nazi?

ok fine you raise a valid point.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

A Devil's advocate is someone who points out flaws within someone's arguments in order to encourage more argumentative discussion/better discussion as a whole. If you are taking that stance you don't simply say "LOL DERE IS SHADOW OF A DOUBT XDDDDDDD" without any basis or evidence to explain why that is. If you're being a devil's advocate you're doing an incredibly shitty job of it.

Read back what you posted, spawn of public education.

"The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure"

Which is exactly what I have been doing by pointing the fallacies and technical mistakes.

You aren't actually discrediting anything GarfunkeL says because their (I won't make assumptions about gender again) arguments still hold next to your bullshit.

They don't. I called Probatio Diabolica: Show the evidence or shut the fuck up. They have not been able to present evidence not subject to interpretation, and then I call Probatio Diabolica: Show evidence of your interpretation being correct and proper. C'mon, do it. I -dare- you.

Actually what you are describing is a troll. Someone who posts unfounded bullshit and then scapegoats behind some shitty cop out about how it's ok that their posts have no substance because they weren't being serious ok?

When you're done being edgy for the sake of it try backing it up.

Back what up? All I have used to argue against them was:

1. Probatio Diabolica.
2. Pointing a formal fallacy.
3. Pointing at several informal fallacies.

And in every case I explained where the error was.

If you can't into logic then don't talk back to your betters and go back to the slums.

 

[circ]

They don't. I called Probatio Diabolica: Show the evidence or shut the fuck up.

LOL IRONY.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

They don't. I called Probatio Diabolica: Show the evidence or shut the fuck up.

LOL IRONY.

I don't have to provide evidence of nothing as I have made no claim while debating, only while chatting outside the frame of the actual debate. I.E: I have no need to provide evidence during the debate of something I said while resting midway through it.

So nigga, please. School misses you.

 

[Stinger]

And again I quote:

Someone who posts unfounded bullshit and then scapegoats behind some shitty cop out about how it's ok that their posts have no substance because they weren't being serious ok?

If I say anything else I'm worried I'll become as pathetically whiny and desperate to resort to ad hominem without substance as what I'm so frustrated with.

I'm done. Congratulations, persistently being a dipshit wins arguments on the internet.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Stinger

Your declaration would have made sense if I had not declared myself what I said was nothing but anecdotical and that he had to choose whether he wanted to debate or just chat, because I don't mix both. *shrug*

Learn2read, etc.

 

[circ]

Your declaration would have made sense if I had not declared myself what I said was nothing but anecdotical and that he had to choose whether he wanted to debate or just chat, because I don't mix both. *shrug*

Learn2read, etc.

That ALMOST made sense.

 

[Ulminati]

Great. Just great. You've reduced me to posting lolcats. I hope you're happy.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Ulminati

Alright, alright. Just because it is teddy dwarf who says so.

 

[almondblight]

All right, I've been trying to stay out of this since it's flamebait and not the entertaining kind.

But seriously. Bros and Broettes. Take a deep breath, take a step back and ask yourself if it's really worth working yourselves up to the degree you have in this thread.
The other side isn't likely to be convinced at this point since everyone is pretty balkanized. Cut your losses, accept you will never see eye to eye on this and let's go make fun of a AAA publisher instead before this thread takes an even uglier turn. Pretty please?

Which puts this in the same league as just about every other Codex debate.

 

[Dexter]

Then you have articles like these

Obviously what some mostly emasculated "gaming journalist" castrati that give Dragon Age 2 94% calling it the best game ever and calling Skyrim, Gears of War and Mass Defect 3 GOTY! BEST GAEM EVER! as well as the rare few feminist influenced writers have to say on the issue is the epitome of society that should be considered over anyone else, since they obviously know their shit. And NOW you care about their opinions?
I also notice that they're usually either US or UK-based, most Eastern/Western European/Asian/Russian etc. people or "journalists" don't seem to have much of a problem with it or give a fuck about it (or making games regarding their own values e.g. Roll-playing game Twitcher 2 and having their own opinions and even defending them against said castrati: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/21/cd-projekt-on-game-of-thrones-sexs-place-in-gaming/ or all the weird shit that comes out of Japan and Korea), yet it's the US and UK overlords trying to domineer western culture and their supreme values over them and change their wrong and perverted medieval way of looking at things so they can step into the light (e.g. business as usual)

That's five minutes in Google. The issue exists.

You know what kind of imaginary (even misantrophic political/racial/social/sexual) issues I can come up with spending five minutes in Google?

Would Anita Sarkeesian receive 158,922 dollars from 6,968 backers if no issue existed? I think not.

What it proves mostly is how you can manipulate said castrati into doing your bidding and banking in on it, after initial success is minimal and you're standing there with ~$2000 pledged after two weeks, unsuccessfully having trollbaited 4chan and similar places: http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/139813364/#139813364 just set up a YouTube video, deliberately make it trollish, bait some more and leave the comments open: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8I0Wy58adM

NOTE ON COMMENTS & TRIGGER WARNING: Comments on this video were closed at midnight June 16th 2012. I left the comments open on this video (until 24 hours after the kickstarter was finished) as a way of showing why this topic is so important. I apologize for all the hate speech, misogyny, racism, threats and ignorance that were left below over this 2 week period. The trolls only managed to prove to everyone that sexism in gaming is indeed a huge problem.

No new comments will be approved for this video.

Then complain on your blog over vicious attacks stemming from misogyny and play yourself up as the defenseless victim while deleting all the good ones and cherry-picking the idiots and let the dough roll in:
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/13/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games-vs-the-internet/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...arter-Video-Project-Attracts-Misogynist-Horde
http://kotaku.com/5917623/awful-thi...-to-make-a-video-about-video-game-stereotypes

etc.

This shouldn't be new, it's the standard BiowEArian PR defense, whenever someone has something against their games it's the "gay bashers" or "religious nutters" and usually leads to similar amounts of support.

 

[SerratedBiz]

When I mentioned the earlier thing I was not -debating-, I was just having a chat. Thus no more evidence was needed than was asked of him. When he decided to get serious with all that shit about evidence I abandoned the claim, as I neither said it was true and he had to believe me nor I need to do so to win.

I see. I guess that, when discussing a topic, one should feel free to draw whatever arguments out of one's ass as they should feel the need to do, regardless of whether they are true or not - but only until the other party feels the need to inquire as to their veracity, then you should just drop it and act cool! Wouldn't want to look like you're bullshitting, right?

And you're the smart one.

 

[Oriebam]

dis thread

 

[Sukeban Cho]

I see. I guess that, when discussing a topic, one should feel free to draw whatever arguments out of one's ass as they should feel the need to do, regardless of whether they are true or not - but only until the other party feels the need to inquire as to their veracity, then you should just drop it and act cool! Wouldn't want to look like you're bullshitting, right?

And you're the smart one.

Alright, I oficially retire that "argument" I never made to begin with.

And then in passing remember you that as long as a single one of the Devil's Advocate's counters remain in place the argument is void and worthless.

Which means we are exactly in the same place we were before I retired it, as it was never one of my actual arguments to begin with and nothing was riding on it.

Your genius is so vast.

 

[SerratedBiz]

I'm not following the discussion and I don't know who's playing what or which side is supposed to be winning, because I don't care.

I just found it amusing that you find "state fact -> support fact -> no it's a lie I take it back" an acceptable strategy, one which arguably puts all your arguments under a different light. It's a shitty thing to do in a serious discussion and a shitty thing to do in a light one, as well.

Don't let that get in the way of your witty remarks though, the shame is unbearable.

 

[circ]

I see. I guess that, when discussing a topic, one should feel free to draw whatever arguments out of one's ass as they should feel the need to do, regardless of whether they are true or not - but only until the other party feels the need to inquire as to their veracity, then you should just drop it and act cool! Wouldn't want to look like you're bullshitting, right?

And you're the smart one.

Alright, I oficially retire that "argument" I never made to begin with.

And then in passing remember you that as long as a single one of the Devil's Advocate's counters remain in place the argument is void and worthless.

Which means we are exactly in the same place we were before I retired it, as it was never an actual argument to begin with and nothing was riding on it.

Your genius is so vast.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

I just found it amusing that you find "state fact -> support fact -> no it's a lie I take it back" an acceptable strategy,

That I don't feel like wasting time looking for sources of something I did read years ago makes it a lie now?

It's closer to "It's not worth my time, take that point if you want." *shrug*

one which arguably puts all your arguments under a different light. It's a shitty thing to do in a serious discussion and a shitty thing to do in a light one, as well.

That was never an argument to begin with, so it was never something I did "on a discussion." I just mentioned something I remembered, then he decided we actually were having a serious debate. So I retired did withdraw it, as I said several times before.

If you want I retire withdraw everything I said between the last thing I answered to Rogey and the moment I noticed Garfunkel wanted to debate, too. I don't mind. Nothing of that was part of my argument to begin with.

My argument is entirely technical, otherwise I would not argue to begin with. *shrug*



And there are no "light discussions." Either we discuss formally or we do not, to discuss outside the framework of formal rules is worthless for all those involved.

 

[Oriebam]

BC do you mind corrections

"retire" is not synonymous with withdrawing

 

[Sukeban Cho]

BC do you mind corrections

"retire" is not synonymous with withdrawing

Ah, sorry. Mixed my languages here.

 

[Oriebam]

just sayin

 

[SerratedBiz]

snip
.

Again, I'm not following the discussion, and whether any given point was made or stated in earnestness or rather "off a discussion" is irrelevant to me. I simply pointed out a glaring mass of retardo, which shouldn't be part of an "exchange of ideas" or whatever it is you might call this before you got "technical" (which is arguable, apparently your standards do not match mine).

 

[circ]

Someone really needs to go back to school.

But... I'm not the one with incomprehensible grammar problems.

 

[Sukeban Cho]

Again, I'm not following the discussion, and whether any given point was made or stated in earnestness or rather "off a discussion" is irrelevant to me. I simply pointed out a glaring mass of retardo, which shouldn't be part of an "exchange of ideas" or whatever it is you might call this before you got "technical" (which is arguable, apparently your standards do not match mine).

Which is fine. I did already withdraw what you felt was wrong, why are we keeping at it?

And by technical I meant I only care about breaches in formal logic that make the conclussion uncertain, as it is impossible to demonstrate the conclussion -wrong-. If you believe I have used a technicism or maneuver in a way that was wrong, please tell me. I actually do care about that.

But... I'm not the one with incomprehensible grammar problems.

When you read, write, and speak the number of languages I do while being just seventeen it is impossible not to mix up the flow and mess up the grammar every now and then. It is quite inevitable. *shrug*

 

[SerratedBiz]

And by technical I meant I only care about breaches in formal logic that make the conclussion uncertain, as it is impossible to demonstrate the conclussion -wrong-. If you believe I have used a technicism or maneuver in a way that was wrong, please tell me. I actually do care about that.

Yeah, well, my background is in SCIENCE!! so what caught my attention was that which was already discussed.

Which is fine. I did already withdraw what you felt was wrong, why are we keeping at it?

I don't know, stop quoting me.

ETA: Rather, I still think there's an underlying background of wrong in taking the on or off discussion approach, which is a cop-out at best. But this has quickly lost my interest and the cost in effort of going further with it (time) vs. the benefit of actually doing so (nothing, for me) prompts me to go elsewhere.