Native Jovian

And this is the thing that we believe the video does a very poor job of arguing. Or rather, it doesn't offer an argument at all, it just states this conclusion as a fact without supporting it. Studies have been cited in this thread both supporting and refuting this assertion. It's obviously not as cut and dry as the video would seem to think. Then you shouldn't be referring to "men" without qualifications. Part of what gets people's backs up in this sort of discussion is the implication that men as a group are being accused of sexism. If you're going to say "men" but actually mean "men who are sexist/misogynistic, or men who enable/allow such behavior", then that's your fault for being lazy in your terminology. Because you seemed to be dismissing it by mentioning it and then completely dropping the subject. Given that in the sentence immediately before that you said that society doesn't change, I just decided to respond to the part of the post that I thought was relevant. No one said that it has? I think you're overreacting to sensationalist news. There's been a steady historical trend over the past century or so toward increasing equality and liberty for basically everyone. If you want to argue that that trend is in danger of reversing, then you're free to argue that point, but I'm extremely skeptical. So, think about it and be a nice person and sexism will go away? I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or we just have very different visions of the world, but I don't think that we can get rid of institutional sexism without a significant push to act on it, rather than just talk about it. It works both ways. If you label someone as less than human, then that tends to make people think of them that way, which is dehumanization in a nutshell. On the flip side, if you already think of them as less than human, then you tend to label them that way. It's not a one-way street.

If it's sexists and misogynists that are the problem, then why talk about men in general instead of sexist or misogynistic men? That's patently untrue. Society has a repeated history of becoming more equal for more of its members as time goes on. Compare the situation for women now versus women 100 years ago, African Americans now compared to 50 years ago, or gay people now compared to 25 years ago. You can't say that improvements haven't happened, my question was how does one help those improvements happen. My point is that even if you agree with everything the videos say, they still don't give you anything productive to do with your new attitude. If you want to fix a problem, you can't just say "there's a problem", you have to follow up with "so this is what we should do about it" -- something that the videos utterly fail to do. Uh. If I'm not supposed to get "dehumanization is a thing that men do to women" from that, then you need to be more careful with what you're saying. She very obviously has a greater point to make than just "here's a compiled list of a bunch of tropes involving women used by video games". If all she was doing was that, then she's done a decent job. But she clearly has a greater point to make -- that the use of said tropes are harmful to society in general and women in particular -- which she completely and utterly fails to support in any meaningful way. You're not allowed to say something without backing it up and then say "well, backing it up is beyond the scope of what I'm doing right now". That's a cop out.

You're correct. The point that they're making is that new game sales are a requisite for used game sales, and publishers, developers et all do get paid for new game sales, so they're not entitled to get paid for used game sales as well. In terms of game sales? Probably not, no. But in terms of console sales it could have a huge impact, especially if the PS4 doesn't end up having this sort of anti-used-game shenanigans (we already know that the Wii U doesn't, but the competition between Microsoft and Nintendo is much less direct than that between Microsoft and Sony). Any really, honestly, we as consumers don't particularly care about Microsoft's bottom line. No one's arguing that it's a bad idea from Microsoft's point of view to encourage (or require) new game sales instead of used game sales. It's certainly a bad thing from the consumer -- that is, our -- perspective, though, since it means that we'll be paying more for games in the future without getting anything additional in return for it.

I'm part of the class. If you're implicating the entire class, then you're implicating me. If you're implicating part of the class, then you should say so -- it's not like it's that much harder to say "sexists" or "misogynists" than "men". You can't blame the group without blaming the individuals that make up the group. As an aside: what exactly does "the system" mean in this context? If the system is sexist, then how does one either a) change the system so it's not sexist, or refuse to participate in the sexist system without withdrawing from society completely and living in a shack in the mountains for the rest of your life? You realize that the problem I had in the first place was your defining of dehumanization as inherently something that men do to women? All I'm saying is that dehumanization is, in general, the act of revoking the status of "human" from any other group, not just "men oppressing women". You mostly hear about dehumanization in terms of war -- eg, they're not human beings, they're "the enemy", so it's okay to kill them. You can't just arbitrarily define terms in ways that support your stance, and then use those definitions as evidence that your stance is correct. That's what you'd call a cop out. If arguing her point is beyond the scope of the video, then the video is pointless. What good does just getting up and saying "SEXISM!" do for anyone? The people who already agree with her will continue to agree with her, the people who disagree with her will continue to disagree with her, and the people who are undecided or uneducated on the subject will have no reason to choose her interpretation over any other, because she gives no reason why they should. Nothing happens, nobody's opinion is revised, and nothing changes. Pointless. And again, we're not asking for in-depth dissertation-level coverage of the topic, just some basic justification for her claims. I don't really think that that's too much to ask for.

Well, I dislike the idea of the gender-equality movement being named feminism but that's neither here nor there. People who are not sexist or misogynistic do not like to be labeled sexist or misogynistic. Statements like this imply that men, simply because they are men, are participating in a sexist system, and are therefore sexist themselves. I don't even know if there's an escape clause, here -- what could one do to remove the spectre of sexism from themselves, other than not being male? I honestly have no idea. I hope I don't have to point out the irony of having traits assigned to me by feminism because of who I am, rather than what I do. I was suggesting that applying a negative level to a group whose members cannot help being part of that group (eg "men" or "Americans" rather than, say, "Nazis") is dehumanizing because it attempts to define them as less, or at least worse, than a "normal" person. If women are labelled "subordinate to men", then that's dehumanizing, because it denies them status as equal to other humans (ie, men). If men are labelled "oppressors of women", then that's dehumanizing, because it assigns them a moral failing based on their gender (which they're not morally culpable for) rather than their actions (which they are). See, this is what I take issue with. You're building "only the dominant group can do it to the subordinate group" into the definition of othering, which is begging the question. "Othering" just means defining someone as "different from us" -- usually in a negative way, as in "not as good as us". How is women defining men as "oppressors of women (and thus morally inferior to us)" any less othering than men defining women as "subordinate to men (and thus socially inferior to us)"? You're arbitrarily defining terms in ways that exclude my point again. The only reasonable definition of racism is "discrimination based on ethnicity". It doesn't matter what ethnicity is being discriminated, because the term isn't that specific. If you want to talk about racism by or against a specific group (like whites against non-whites, or non-blacks against blacks, or whatever) then you can do that... by specifying that that's what you mean. Defining racism as, essentially "by white people against non-white people", you obscure the fact that white people can be hurt by racism against them for being white. Is it as big a problem as discrimination against non-whites? Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a problem or we should ignore it. Similarly, defining sexism as "men oppressing women" is something I disagree with for the same reasons. Please stop implying that I'm criticizing her argument because I disagree with her conclusions. I don't disagree with her conclusions, I just think she does a shitty job of arguing them. You're missing the forest for the trees, here. I'm not saying that because she makes "this is so" statements that it's a bad argument. What I'm saying is that she makes only "this is so" statements, and does nothing to support them. In the clip you mention (20:30 - 23:10) she states that while we don't have a simple one-to-one "I saw this in a video game, so I'm going to go do that" relationship between real life and media consumption, "media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect, helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions. So when developers exploit sensationalized images or brutalized, mutilated, and victimized women over and over and over again, it tends to reinforce the dominant gender paradigm which casts men as aggressive and commanding, and frames women as subordinate and dependant." So that's her argument. In short, sexist media doesn't instantly turn you into a raging misogynistic asshole, but it does influence you into believing the sexist narrative in more subtle ways. And she doesn't support it. She offers no reason for why anyone should accept her conclusion, she just states her conclusion and moves on. The next bit of the video is about how female characters in games are generally there only to advance the male protagonist's plot, typically as something that's "unjustly taken from the male hero, the implication being that she belonged to him; that she was his possession." That's another pretty goddamn major claim, which certainly necessitates some support. She doesn't give any. She just says it, expects you to take her word for it, and then continues on. The next part is about how it's not even about the woman at all, it's that the loss of the woman is a blow against the man's manliness so now he has to prove his masculinity by shooting a bunch of people. There's also no support offered for that claim, either. Or, in other words,

Which was fucking awesome, by the way. <3 Crystal Chronicles in general, and Crystal Bearers was a shitload of fun.

Nice! Listened to a few previews and decided to pick it up. I've always liked the Banjo-Kazooie soundtrack, and you've definitely done good things with it.

Okay. But what does any of that have to do with what I said? You were saying, in effect, that women can't create artificial divides between themselves and men, or demhumanize men (in other words, women can't "other" men) because the male gender is dominant over the female gender. I don't follow the logic, there. Just because men have tried to shove women into a box labelled "subordinate" doesn't mean that women can't shove men into a box labelled, say, "oppressor". Both are a form of dehumanization, both are a form of "othering", and I don't see how the two are any different. I certainly don't see how the latter is either a) impossible or not "othering", as you appear to be arguing. A hierarchical distribution of power is built out of case-by-case events. You can't simply cry "big picture!" and ignore the little things when the big picture is MADE of little things. She doesn't make any arguments, she makes statements. She says "this is so", and offers no support or evidence for her particular interpretation of the facts that she's presented. She gives no reason for a skeptic to agree with her. Anyway, Radiowar, I do want to say thanks for continuing the discussion. I feel like we're sort of ganging up on you, and it's not deliberate because we hate you or anything, it's just because you're the only one really defending the videos at the moment.

That's one interpretation; the other is that used games provided price competition for new games, so publishers and retailers had to keep their prices somewhat reasonable, or very few people would buy new games, since they'd all be waiting for used ones to hit the market. If that's the case, then eliminating used games will cause the price of new games to rise, since there's still the demand for games but the downward pressure on prices exerted by the used game market is gone. Which scenario is true depends on how much demand there is for games. If there's no way to get cheap, used games, will people stop buying them, or will they just buy all their games at new-game prices? Obviously the answer is "some of both", but which one is the dominant shift in the market will determine whether new games become more or less expensive. Or just if the Xbox One suffers in comparison to the Wii U and PS4, assuming they don't pull similar used game shenanigans.

That is, quite frankly, crap. You seem to be taking the stance that men (or white people, or Christians, or any other majority social group) can't be harmed by an "us vs them" mentality on the part of those outside that group, because they're "dominant" so any harm that comes to them is simply levelling the playing field. That seems incredibly short-sighted and dismissive. It basically allows you to say "oh, you're male[/white/Christian/whatever], therefore you can be ignored (unless you agree with me)". I'm honestly not even sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that it wouldn't offensive for a minority to use whiteface? How is it a "level playing field" when a non-white performing as a white is acceptable, but the reverse isn't? Wouldn't a LEVEL playing field be that either both are acceptable, or neither are? She never actually argues this, though; she simply assumes it. I don't find her non-argument for this to be convincing, and I can't even argue against her points, since she doesn't make any. I don't think we can, actually. We can agree that it has been harmful in the past, and that using it in the present is likely to offend people because of that past (even if the present use is entirely unoffensive), but I don't think that a white actor portraying a black character is inherently harmful, offensive, or wrong.

I know, and I'm not saying she's being deliberately accusatory, just that she comes across that way. If you spend ten seconds saying "I don't hate games and I don't think that you should either" and then spends twenty minutes explaining why games are bad and wrong, then which message do you think people take away from it? I disagree -- that critical thought is exactly what I want to see, but she fails to deliver. That video was essentially a contextless montage of scenes in video games featuring damsels in distress, and little else. If you take out all the clips, there's maybe five minutes of actual content from her, most of which is simply explaining what you just watched/are about to watch. All she's saying is "this is a thing and it's bad", which is neither critical thought nor particularly useful, unless you're trying to argue that things exist in video games which can be considered sexist, which is sort of a "duh". She doesn't even argue that they definitely are sexist, she just presents them and then expects it to be self-evident that they are, indeed, sexist. I'm still not sure what her target audience is, here. If it's feminists, then congratulations, you're preaching to the choir and accomplishing nothing except adding more noise to the echo chamber. If it's gamers, then she's doing a terrible job of actually selling her point -- that sexism exists in video games, and that's a serious problem that we, as gamers, should be concerned about. Sure, no denying that -- but if you choose to address a specific fragment of the overall situation, then you should be prepared to address solutions to that specific problem. Just saying "it's bigger than video games" doesn't remove the necessity of addressing the problem in video games. She is the one who choose to address video games specifically; if she wanted to talk about the larger problem, then why is she making videos about games specifically? You realize that with this single paragraph you've done more to address solutions that the videos have done in 45 minutes? I'm not saying that solutions have to be easy or simple, but just pointing out "the relative lack of women in the computer industry may be responsible for all these things I just pointed out -- we should try to encourage more women to enter the computer industry, and STEM fields in general, to resolve that issue". She doesn't have to go into the details of offering scholarships and who pays for it and outreach programs for women interested in the gaming industry or anything like that. Just saying "there are almost no women in gaming; we should work on that" is a great start, but she didn't even go that far. Well, other than implying that they're complicit in domestic violence by "normalizing" the idea that violence against women is "for their own good", anyway. But that's not my point; I'm saying that she should recognize that need for easy emotional punch, and suggest alternative ways to achieve it that she finds acceptable. She talked a lot about "wife murdered, daughter kidnapped". Would "[male] loved one murdered, son kidnapped" instead be okay in her book? (Though that raises ugly implications about it being okay to kill men, but not women.) Would "bad guys tried to kill wife and kidnap daughter, but they fought off the attempt, now the player has to go fight bad guys to stop them trying again" be acceptable, or is that still sexist (why can't the women be the one to go on a psychotic revenge murderspree, etc)? By doing nothing but pointing out the problem at its most basic level, she reveals nothing of what she considered an acceptable alternative. Even if one takes her message to heart and wants to do something to help, her video gives them no idea of what acceptable alternatives to the unacceptable situations presented are. The three games she mentions are Dear Esther, Passage, and To The Moon -- all three of which are less "video games" and more "stories presented in video game format". Saying that the solution to sexism in video games is to make nothing but artsy indie games is entirely useless when the vast majority of her examples in the video came from FPS games or hack-n-slash action games. I'd agree with that sentiment, with the caveat that "weaknesses/contrivances in the art form" are problems that should be addressed. They're not problems in the sense that they should be banned or that games using them should be shunned, but the fact is that the industry would be better off if they didn't rely on such tropes. The argument could be made that not using such tropes would also benefit society as a whole by presenting a better image of women in media (the video doesn't actually make that argument, it simply takes it for granted and assumes that you agree), but I'm honestly not sure if I find it convincing or not.

This this this this this times a thousand. She's dropping a huge list of "things that are wrong with games re: feminism" and just leaving it there. That's not a conversation, or even the start of a conversation -- that's an accusation, even if she didn't mean it to be. She doesn't come across as saying "a problem exists and we -- as consumers, as developers, as members of the gaming culture -- should try to fix it". She comes across as saying "games are bad and you should feel bad for enjoying them". That's not helpful, because it puts people on the defensive, and the reflexive response is to lash out instead of engaging in any sort of thoughtful, meaningful dialogue. She doesn't have to come up with a road map to a gaming industry that's a bastion of gender equality, she just has to acknowledge the reasons for the tropes being used and point out ways to avoid or improve them. Why are damsels in distress such a popular trope in games? Because it's a quick and easy way to give your story some emotional punch before sending the player character off to shoot things. So how do you provide a player with that emotional drive without using "bad" tropes? All she says is, basically "don't use them". That's a useless answer, because it doesn't offer any alternative -- and since games still need an emotional component, damsels in distress will still be tapped to provide it. Nobody wins. And yet, if someone doesn't start by doing something, then the situation will never improve. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect someone who's arguing that a problem exists to discuss possible solutions as well. Even if she says "this is an enormous issue and I'm not sure what, if any, solution to it exists" then that'd be a step up from what she's offered so far. Yeah, it bothers me that she fails to address this. She does acknowledge that most negative depictions of women are systemic rather than deliberate, but she fails to posit any reason why they've become systemic issues, or offer anything that can be used in their place. Women are depicted as damsels in distress because it's an easy way to add emotional punch to a game. So, the problem is that games need emotional punch, and their current method of providing them is bad. "Just stop doing that" is not a valid answer, because it will never happen, any more than "just stop being misogynistic" is a valid answer to the problem of sexism. I find myself wondering what she would consider an "acceptable" use of a damsel in distress, or if she believes such a thing could exist at all. She talks a lot about how damsels in distress are flat characters with zero depth or development outside their existence as a damsel in distress. So, would a fleshed out, fully realized character (that's then kidnapped or whatever) be acceptable? Or is she arguing that being a damsel in distress invalidates any previous characterization? I honestly don't know.

Eh, it wasn't a plot-driven series. It was a character study; that's why there's a new focus character every episode. The later stuff is more abstract and not as strong as the initial few episodes, but ultimately, Paranoia Agent isn't about "what these people do", it's about "who these people are".

How the hell does the whole card thing even work? I joined the beta, but haven't had a chance to play any of games that are part of it. Do you just get cards as random drops like any other item in TF2, or do you have to do achievment-style things to earn them, or what?

Paranoia Agent was awesome, though. It's literally about how moe is rotting Japanese culture from within. (Okay, it's more like how moe is a symptom of that, not a cause, but still.) It's trippy as balls, but there is actual meaning behind the craziness, unlike a lot of trippy-for-trippiness's-sake anime.

Sounds like you should check out Black Lagoon, if you haven't yet. Gritty, flashy, profanity-laden action is that series in a nutshell. (warning, three minutes of various people saying "fuck") was actually the first thing I ever saw of Black Lagoon.

Sigh. This is why sub-vs-dub conversations never go anywhere. People are apparently incapable of discussing their opinions without insisting that THEIR WAY is the best and anyone who prefers otherwise is DOING IT WRONG.

I'm... not really sure what you mean by that. Either no one bought games that haven't come out yet (which is nonsensical) or no one bought the previous games in those series (which is untrue)?

You realize that Cloud's not even in that picture? Cloud's never been a super buff lantern-jawed manly man, and not every project involving him has been androgynous or effeminate, but it's not hard to argue that he's gotten more so as time goes on. Let's have a look at the various Clouds: FFVII Cloud (1997) Final Fantasy Tactics portrait and sprite (1998 ) Kingdom Hearts Cloud (2002) Advent Children Cloud (2005) Crisis Core Cloud (2007) Dissidia Cloud (2009) Honestly, what annoys me more with his appearances post-FFVII is that everyone seems to forget that Cloud got over his mopey emo angsty phase. He regresses to that every time he shows up again. ...no? Maybe you're conflating what I said and what Sixto said. I said I'd buy an HD remake of FFVIII as long as a) it actually looked good, and they didn't try to charge full price for a remake of a 15 year old game. Sixto said he'd buy a new version of FFVII as long as it wasn't "just" an HD remake. Either way, I'm not "demanding" anything, I'm just saying what I'm willing to pay for. I'm not willing to pay new-game price for a 15 year old game with better graphics, and I'm not going to pay any price for a rerelease that doesn't significantly improve the graphics. The former's not worth it to me, and the latter I'd just go replay the original. If that means that it's not worth Square Enix's time to make, then... well, okay. I can understand that.

I'd buy a FFVIII port with updated graphics, assuming they were significantly better and it was priced appropriately (ie, $20ish instead of $60). I loved the hell out of FFVIII, but it hasn't aged particularly well (though not nearly as badly as FFVII, at least).

Agree'd. (ten characters)

I'll watch dubs 99% of the time. I cannot name an anime where I'd rather watch it subbed than dubbed. (Actually, I take that back -- I need to rewatch Gundam Wing subbed instead of dubbed, because I hear Heero doesn't use emotionless monotone in Japanese. But that was a deliberate choice, which means it was a bad directorial decision, not bad acting.) I generally don't give a shit whether you like dubs or subs as long as you aren't all "zomg dubs are teh suck, watch animu like it was MEANT to be seen!", but seriously? Calling Cowboy Bebop, Ghost in the Shell, or Gurren Lagaan poorly dubbed? Madness.

Yeah, an SSD will increase load speed for anything read from it, compared to a regular HDD. I did notice TF2 loading maps a lot faster once I switched to an SSD, but that's about the only difference.

That's awesome. I'm amused by the fact that he accounted for the entire RED team. Spy (starring), Solder, Engy, Medic (band), Demo, Heavy, Pyro, Scout (assisting Spy with punishments), Sniper (backstabbed by Spybot *sadface*).

I was going to complain because that link mentions that they've un-shared common files between Source engine games so installations will probably get a few GB larger, and my SSD is running low on space as it is, but then I realized that TF2 is the only Source game I have installed anyway.