Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

But Anita doesn't support her statements >_<

[Reelya]

It’s meant to paint the gaming environment with a harsh brush, but it ends up doing so on the backs of women’s bodies, casually sacrificing female characters in the name of setting a ruthless narrative tone.

So it's ok to casually sacrifice characters to set a dark tone - but just don't show it happening to women, plz! Because women special.

No game mechanics are provided to call an EMT, administer first aid or check in on the victim.

Meaning that these female characters exist to be assaulted in order to give the player something to do, a reason to chase down the bad guy, exact vigilante justice on him and gain the allotted experience points. After which the women are casually discarded, forgotten by the game and its characters.

Oh, right because you can't call an ambulance for female characters, that's sexist.

It’s a lazy shorthand for “evil” meant to further motivate the protagonist to take the villain down and help justify the excessive violence committed by the player in these games.

Killing women is portrayed as evil ... whereas killing men is portrayed as normal, or just. You can spin that both ways.

[Neonivek]

It’s meant to paint the gaming environment with a harsh brush, but it ends up doing so on the backs of women’s bodies, casually sacrificing female characters in the name of setting a ruthless narrative tone.

So it's ok to casually sacrifice characters to set a dark tone - but just don't show it happening to women, plz! Because women special.

No, if you pay attention. She is against sacrificing characters in the name of setting a ruthless narrative tone period. It just happens to women more often.

Though given she is one of the assistant writers (or writer) of Mirror's edge 2... It is odd given her view points (and that she calls Mirrors Edge 1 sexist)

[Reelya]

So when games casually use sexualized violence as a ham-fisted form of character development for the “bad guys” it reinforces a popular misconception about gendered violence by framing it as something abnormal, as a cruelty only committed by the most transparently evil strangers. In reality, however, violence against women, and sexual violence in particular, is a common everyday occurrence often perpetrated by “normal men” known and trusted by those targeted.

This is straight up misguided, if you study a little psychology:

presenting something as abnormal actually reduces peoples tendency to do it, whereas saying "everyone is doing it" or convincing people that it's really common, or normalized, actually causes people to accept it more, and do it more, even if you outright say "everyone does it, but it's bad. don't do it".

It's called social proof, and negative social proof. And it always backfires in campaigns.
http://www.futurefundraisingnow.com/future-fundraising/2013/02/how-negative-social-proof-persuades-people-not-to-give.html
http://blog.vkistudios.com/index.cfm/2010/8/12/Persuasive-Web-Design-Part-23-Beware-Negative-Social-Proof
It only works when you highlight that the bad behavior is RARE. COMMON bad behavior gets reinforced.

It's in public service messages that Negative Social Proof most commonly insinuates itself. Take the following messages for example:

    Drinking driving: This year, 20,000 people from all walks of life will be arrested for drunk driving.

    Voting: Last election, 45% of eligible voters didn't bother to show up at the polls.

    Recycling: 75% of people don't recycle everything they could. And 25% don't recycle anything at all.

    Safer Sex: 35% of sexually active teens do not always use condoms.

    Sexual harassment: 50% of women report being harassed in the workplace. (Implication: Lots of men are still doing it.)

Clearly, we can add Anita's statement: sexual violence in particular, is a common everyday occurrence often perpetrated by “normal men” to the above list.

All of the above messages may be well-intentioned. But they'd likely have the exact opposite of their intended effect. They make the undesirable behavior sound popular. They validate the behavior, allowing recipients to rationalize with "Lots of people are still doing it. So it can't be all that bad."

Robert Cialdini ran an experiment* in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park. In addition to a control state (in which no signs were placed) he placed signs that stated either:

    Straight Request: "Please don't remove petrified wood from the park, in order to preserve the natural state of the Petrified Forest" or

    Social Proof: "Many past visitors have removed petrified wood from the park, changing the natural state of the Petrified Forest"

The results were staggering: whereas the straight request reduced theft slightly, the Social Proof message actually increased theft by almost three times the control rate.

Avoiding Negative Social Proof in Your Online Communications

It's not just public interest websites that face this challenge. Say you're selling security systems. If your messaging emphasizes the scope of the problem (e.g. "60% of households are still unprotected"), you're simply validating the behavior of those without alarms.

How can you avoid the pitfalls Negative Social Proof? Simple. Don't focus on how common the undesirable behavior is. Rather, indicate that it is rare and practiced only by the very odd social outcast. Emphasize (where appropriate) that the behavior is:

    Illegal
    Subject to penalties
    Immoral
    Reprehensible
    Irresponsible
    Stupid
    Outdated, no longer acceptable
    Universally scorned

So, Anita's line on domestic violence is almost designed(no literally but might as well be) to actually make things worse if enough people were exposed to her message and believed her. It's just ignorant of best-practice in public service.

[Neonivek]

>_< which video are we on... can we stop skipping around please...

[Reelya]

All the quotes I snipped were from her new one. I think people already covered the old videos.

The thing about negative social proof, and how it's implications completely go against Anita's preferred way of framing issues point out how unscientific her views are, they don't conform to any "best practice" in psychology or public service announcements, and in fact they play into well-known "total backfiring" modes of action.

Saying everyone is the problem is the proven way to get no-one to change. Not only that, it makes your "problem" behavior way more common.

So, that just shows that they're well intentioned but they don't have a clue about what impact their statements even have, nor are they very clued up on psychology or marketing. Negative Social Proof and the Just World Fallacy are two areas I can see the stereotypical feminist jargon backfiring.

[lijacote]

lijacote is basically saying that people are out to get Anita so they will say anything, make up anything, or insinuate anything just to use as ammunition against her.

Basically saying this whole Copyright thing is just another shot at Anita by stupid people.

Well if I am correct that is.

Yes, I would say that people are just throwing everything that they can at her. It's insane, and not helpful in actually considering her damned claims. THE DAMNED CLAIMS. Them and the analysis. I'll also refer you to the comments she gets -- people throw everything and nothing at her. Just blind fury.

I would, however, not say that people are stupid. That's a complete fabrication, and you can't find that anywhere in anything I've said. If I thought people opposing Anita are just stupid, I'd stop trying to talk with them. It's true, some people are stupid, and frankly not worth the time and effort for a response. No point writing anything when your opponent refuses to acknowledge anything and keeps intentionally interpreting what you say with deep hostility.

I just read an article, which made the connection that since Anita is more coherent than her critics, she's "winning" the war on gaming culture.

She is, though. The reactionary gamer is losing. Weep.

[Neonivek]

I would call people who just toss things at Anita because they hate her or even her message/videos are stupid, so I guess that is just my flavoring

I mean I REALLY REALLY don't like Will Farrell but I don't go out and see how many crimes he committed.

I akin this to the whole Obama thing where the ENTIRE controvercy is because Obama sounds like Osama... Now later on he did have legitimate criticisms thrown his way, especially recently, as well as things that could be debated... But until that happened it was just a wall of idiocy.

As for Anita... The only thing she is guilty of is, IMO, making a rather mediocre video series that looks impressively professional (or rather it is more glossy then substantial). Well, that and she did another stupid thing, but I am trying to move past it because frankly she already paid for it.

[lijacote]

I'd rather think that they're enthralled by sexism and racism than that they're stupid. I think that's more helpful. There's no cure for stupid, yet, but racism and sexism are both issues that can actually be approached. Even if you need a big stick to approach some of these people.

[Neonivek]

I'd rather think that they're enthralled by sexism and racism than that they're stupid. I think that's more helpful. There's no cure for stupid, yet, but racism and sexism are both issues that can actually be approached. Even if you need a big stick to approach some of these people.

You should watch her videos before you make that assumption (I know you have >_> I am saying that for effect). She isn't neutral in spite of her disclaimer.

Sexism certainly helped, but I don't think it is the prime factor.

Also racism? Against White People?

[lijacote]

I'd rather think that they're enthralled by sexism and racism than that they're stupid. I think that's more helpful. There's no cure for stupid, yet, but racism and sexism are both issues that can actually be approached. Even if you need a big stick to approach some of these people.

You should watch her videos before you make that assumption (I know you have >_> I am saying that for effect). She isn't neutral in spite of her disclaimer.

Neutral? I have never seen her or anyone on "my" "side" claim they are neutral. The only time someone claims they are neutral is right before making some sweeping, unsupported statement about there not being any racism or any other form of oppression, that it's all in their head or something (or any other statement that's meant to deny some analysis). Because you can't actually point at a molecule of racism or any other social relation, so therefore facts, logic and truth are all in favour whatever reactionary standpoint the denialist is supporting.

No, I'm not neutral. I embrace my lack of neutrality. I have an agenda, I have a goal, I analyze things in a certain way, and I have no way of knowing the truth. I can only approach it. Anyone who tells you that they're "neutral" is full of shit. We're all very much subjective. Doesn't mean our subjective viewpoints are all worth the same, though, that's postmodern bullshit.

This is a bit of a rambly post. Short, though. We're veering way off the tracks, so there's that excuse.

EDIT: Oh. You mean Anita. Well. I can't say for certain what attitudes have contributed to attacking her. Sexism, definitely. Probably not racism, as you say. I was speaking generally about those kind of "stupid" people.

[Leafsnail]

Yes, I would say that people are just throwing everything that they can at her. It's insane, and not helpful in actually considering her damned claims. THE DAMNED CLAIMS. Them and the analysis. I'll also refer you to the comments she gets -- people throw everything and nothing at her. Just blind fury.

I would, however, not say that people are stupid. That's a complete fabrication, and you can't find that anywhere in anything I've said. If I thought people opposing Anita are just stupid, I'd stop trying to talk with them. It's true, some people are stupid, and frankly not worth the time and effort for a response. No point writing anything when your opponent refuses to acknowledge anything and keeps intentionally interpreting what you say with deep hostility.

Stop talking in passive aggressive generalities and engage with other people in this thread if you want to criticize them.  Do you think the copyright/plagiarism criticism is unwarranted?  Why?

[Neonivek]

Ok let me say it a different way.

In spite her claim that she is just criticizing points and it doesn't detract from the overall worth of the product.

Her language suggests the entire opposite. That videogames are terrible and that they are made through the victimization of women more then which they are pieces of media.

She is putting into question the worth of videogames and is debasing games.

You are not going to win popularity contests that way.

She isn't saying that "Videogames are fine, but these are some major issues" which is what I consider Neutral in this case. She is saying "Videogames are crap! Lets fix them!"

Or at least that is an acceptable interpretation if you listen to what she says for a period of time.

[lijacote]

Yes, I would say that people are just throwing everything that they can at her. It's insane, and not helpful in actually considering her damned claims. THE DAMNED CLAIMS. Them and the analysis. I'll also refer you to the comments she gets -- people throw everything and nothing at her. Just blind fury.

I would, however, not say that people are stupid. That's a complete fabrication, and you can't find that anywhere in anything I've said. If I thought people opposing Anita are just stupid, I'd stop trying to talk with them. It's true, some people are stupid, and frankly not worth the time and effort for a response. No point writing anything when your opponent refuses to acknowledge anything and keeps intentionally interpreting what you say with deep hostility.

Stop talking in passive aggressive generalities and engage with other people in this thread if you want to criticize them.  Do you think the copyright/plagiarism criticism is unwarranted?  Why?

By all means. Go and encourage those Let's Players to claim copyright for something they don't own. By all means. You're also mistaking the meaning of plagiarism: the using of source material for analysis is not plagiarism. That's research. I really think that is a completely idiotic line of argument. Go back to complaining about specific games not being totally sexist. Because that means that sexist tropes aren't ubiquitous.
rolls eyes forcefully

That videogames are terrible and that they are made through the victimization of women more then which they are pieces of media.

She has never said that. She has explicitly said that a game can be good while having sexist elements, or even if it uses tropes that are harmful to women. She has never said that games are "made through the victimization of women" -- only that there exist tropes that are harmful to women. Tropes that are harmful to women =/= total saturation of sexism.

I suggest you look into what Anita and other feminists actually think sexism is. It's not some dreadful thing that is only present in some things, and only through the malicious intent of some authors, creators or workers -- it's a pervasive theme that affects the culture that we produce. I'd almost go as far as to say that sexism is in almost everything we do, but that doesn't mean that almost everything we do is BAD and NOT GOOD and COMPLETELY SHIT.

[Neonivek]

Add in that Anita's solution to problems tend to miss the point and are garbage, that she doesn't have games that "do it right", and never dives too deep beyond just stating a problem without support beyond a few examples that tend to be poor.

And frankly I am starting to dislike her more just thinking about it.