Leaderboard

every second post in this thread = "media does not cause violent tendencies in people, therefore it is impossible for media to influence behavior in any capacity" ~ video gamers have you considered that maybe the reason video games don't increase violent behavior is because there are a significant number of social hurdles that exist to prevent violent behavior, which can not really be said for sexist or otherwise discriminatory behavior like maybe you guys can talk about that instead of Strawman Quest (sorry djp your posts are well-typed and long and that's cool and all but it doesn't change the fact that you're trying to argue that someone's stance is wrong by changing it to a different stance)

There is a remix I have been looking for for a long time now. I remember the remix was of the Chai kingdom (World4-1) and is either called Tanaka Waiting or Tatanga's Waiting. thats about all I remember. If anyone can push me in the right direction of how to aquire this remix or just give it to me (On a silver and gem encrusted platter preferably ) I would be happy. I loved this remix and I cant seem to findd it now. Also on a related note, f anyone is willing to remix world 4-1 from Mario land Iwqould also appreciate it. tnx.

I mean it comes down to the question of should a noble goal be carried out with crappy or shaky methods using things like bad rhetoric or logic? I personally don't think it should, and I think that sets a precedent that allows people to be taken seriously regardless of what they say is sound (and if they don't happen to be supporting a noble goal, then that is actually a problem). I don't agree that only the conclusion matters. That's ultimately an "ends justify the means" kind of thing, and as kind of obviously follows, the world is more complicated than can be summed up in single clever sentences. I think the means matter, even in cases where the conclusion isn't expressly pushing for a call to action. That's because if you set an idea in motion using bad rhetoric, people will listen to you, and it will spread, most times at an equal or lesser rhetorical validity as you. If that idea is a bad idea, regardless of whether it's calling to action or not, it certainly is spreading shitty opinions. And when the non-call spreads around, someone is going to feel strongly about it, employ a new call to action, using the bad rhetoric they've been served, and now headaches all around, because now someone is trying to actually do something about it, blow the issue out of proportion or otherwise target blame on the wrong aspects of it. The other people who take it more seriously and look into it get cast aside, as is usually the case with fact checkers being rendered incapable of keeping up with viral internet spreads. And that's drum beating in a nutshell; the internet is an echo chamber, and it is a problem even if it doesn't affect how people do, because it affects what people think. To be specific, actually and irresponsibly correlating behavior in art with behavior in real life (I'm all for believing it if it's been shown or verified, but it hasn't as of yet) and stopping short of saying "let's do something about it" is still bad. Because even if she doesn't say it, someone will, and it'll gain traction. Her goal is noble enough, so why doesn't she bother putting in the effort to solidify her communications? It can only serve to help her.

https://soundcloud.com/detective-tuesday/its-raining-somewhere-elsefeat-doug-perrynew one from Doug and I

Did you read the quote I provided? From http://feministfrequency.com/2014/06/16/women-as-background-decoration-tropes-vs-women/ I'm going to keep this simple: Talks about "profound impacts" without explaining why they're profound, or even what they are... Mentions "all the evidence" without explaining or citing what it is... This is shit you'd lambaste people like Rush Limbaugh for doing - conjuring incontrovertible, "profound" evidence out of thin air. The double standard is painfully palpable. If the effects she's describing are more general, as you've been claiming, and they simply reinforce existing cultural stereotypes, then riddle me this: How could those same effects be measurably "profound"? How could they be measured... at all? How does one quantify the "reinforcement" of a "negative cultural attitude"?? What would "all the evidence" even be? To be sure, there HAVE been studies... some of those studies have repeatedly failed to prove a link between, say, violence in games and violent behavior. Others have found short-term effects and established a thin correlation, but not causation. She's not citing which studies she's talking about, she just talks about "profound" impacts and "all the evidence" - again, if this were right-wing rhetoric, you'd be (rightly) eviscerating it. Sorry... this reeks of hypocrisy; you're bending over backwards, here... When you start wildly overstating the body of scientific evidence & its certitude, sans citation, for the effect of the consumption of media on viewers, you're a heartbeat away from censorship. That's EXACTLY the trick that's been used in the past. Otherwise, why not cite the research that's provided "all the evidence"? Because it's inconclusive? Otherwise, why overstate the effect? PROFOUND impacts, remember... Thoughts? When you say "nothing you've said has budged me even an inch" and again speak in such extremes ("million miles away from censorship", etc.), it sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself, to me...

Wow, I'm loving the sinister atmosphere here. The metallic, digital, granular sounds are really cool too. I thought this did have solid pacing. Might be difficult to "get" for the non-detail-oriented person, but the effort shows in getting this to sound the way it does. 3:38 - 4:20 was a highlight for me. This is definitely worth repeat listens to understand what's going on. Check it out already!

Spitfire has a 30% discount for students or people who work at a University. With no commercial restrictions. Makes things way cheaper if you can get it.

I think it has less to do with the action of portraying women in games in and of itself (i.e. the inclusion of the female sex/female gender/whatever have you in video games and related media) and more to do with the implementation of portraying women in games. If Female-Character X is portrayed as some fuck toy and little more than that in Game X, then it can potentially perpetuate sexist culture, although the effect would be more profound if almost all the female characters in Game X were portrayed similarly. If it's just one character that is objectified in-game out of myriad characters (the rest of which are not objectified), then the problem potentially still exists, but to a much lesser degree? Sorry, I'm just adding in a quick thought; I'll need to sit down and do a little info digging later.

This thread is just a bunch of people yelling at each other and not reading each other's posts

Wait... what? What the what? WHAT? Why is objectification inherently bigoted? Classical art and sculpture, which during certain eras was much more egalitarian in its focus on both female & male forms, was inherently bigoted? Painting the human form is inherently bigoted? Pornography is inherently bigoted? Uhhhh.... why? Because you said so? Major disconnect; don't see where you're coming from.. at all. Objectification can certainly be paired with bigotry, and potentially exacerbate it, but it is not inherently bigoted... appreciating the pure aesthetics of the human form has been a classical & modern tradition in art for centuries; try not to shit on it... I think I covered this in detail; I'd request that you re-read what I wrote. I didn't say racism/sexism/etc. could not or should not be pointed out... If that's what you managed to take away from what I wrote, I'm telling you emphatically that you need to read it again. What I expressed was a difference between pointing those things out in the context of analyzing & criticizing the work - focusing on the work - as opposed to writing a three page rant on how racism is bad and wrong, citing a couple scenes, and ignoring the rest of the film. I'm not sure if you read what I wrote, because your response seems to be to an imagined argument: that I somehow stated that racism should never be pointed out when criticizing a work. The phrase "straw man" has been tossed around a lot on this thread, but c'mon... read what I wrote, please. We are in complete agreement on the patent absurdity and ridiculousness of the claims, but we seem to disagree on whether anyone's actually making them... from http://feministfrequency.com/2014/06/16/women-as-background-decoration-tropes-vs-women/ we see: She's CLEARLY invoking the shoddily-researched, inconclusive, uncited BOOGEYMAN of the corrupting power of art & media, here... see it for what it is, please??? Andy, you too... Andy used the word "fearmongering" earlier... to me, THIS is fearmongering.