Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

If I'm correct, the line of logic goes that 'raw eye candy' teaches boys to treat real girls the same way. I think the main problem is that (most) of the people who argued against Thompson and is arguing against AGG now are normal well adjusted people. And it's ludicrous to suggest that normal people consuming violent media would turn violent themselves. The problem is people who aren't well adjusted, or impressionable young people like pre/early teens and such. And although violence is so obviously wrong to children, it's probably not the best idea to expose them to unrealistically sexual depictions of women even before they have much of an idea about sexuality itself. Basically, it's a less objectionable equivalent to 'Why Children Shouldn't be Exposed to Porn'. Then again, I'm always taken aback by how 'sexual' common American media is anyway. It's a foundational problem. Personally, I think it comes down to being sensible about what we show and teach children and actually using those censorship ratings. E: Anyway, most of AGG's arguments are about purposefully mistaking discrimination for bad taste. I might make or laugh at an occasional black/Asian/Irish/Jew/blonde/[any sort of minority] joke, but that doesn't make me a Nazi per se.

[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;46217048]I've written this somewhere else, but they're not shit non-arguments. Games do influence the way you behave in more ways than one, that's the purpose of all art, as Alan Moore says: [video=youtube;S3w2QjCIgJA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3w2QjCIgJA[/video] While I agree that games don't suddenly make people serial killers, they do change our perceptions about society. This is very clear when you consider that people treat sex and violence very very differently (although this is a problem with all media not only games). People are extremely desensitized to violence while being extremely sensitized to sex. This didn't happen immediately at some point in time, but for whatever reason more violence was accepted in traditional media and so today we can digest violence more than we can sex in that setting. There's another argument that shows an inconsistency with these issues and it has to do with virtual children. Sexualized virtual children (lolis) are not accepted by most people, I'd guess most people here don't think that those things should exist. The argument goes that that type of media is only consumed by pedophiles and that it aids them in their behavior. However, displays of violence towards virtual children seem to be widely accepted as normal: [video=youtube;ialZcLaI17Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ialZcLaI17Y[/video] It either is the case that media influences people in their behavior and ends up encouraging that behavior or it isn't. There are times when it seems to be and there are times when it seems to not be. How arbitrary is this and how can you tell when that's actually true and when it isn't?[/QUOTE] Not to sink your ship, but uh, that's not the case at all. Media has always been a mirror, if you're watching or playing something that's offensive your either doing so to look for the offense or because you already subscribe to the idea. These people waste their energy wagging their finger on an entire industry, an amorphous blob because the moment they actually point at the real source of it, parents/education/peers they're gonna get shit all over. Also, your argument about desensitization would work if we didn't have people flipping out about the violence going on Ferguson, or the violence committed against Occupy Wall Street, or war or school shootings. But that's not what happens, each time this shit happens we get emotionally attached. Desensitization is the wrong word because it ultimately means a collective 'meh'. That's not what's happening. If you made a case for us fetish violence then I'd whole heartily agree, we heavily fetish violence and the gun, but only in the United States. As for the sex and such, that's just the inevitably result of a Puritanical society. Its almost always been like that. You're attaching to blame to objects which definitely have world views and goals and themes running through them. But its up to person playing them to subscribe to these. It'd be like saying we should blame ghost hunting shows for the growing belief and popularity in ghosts. Well no, we should blame the people who've become interested and then watch the shows. Media can influence, but it doesn't do nearly the same amount of influence was peers, education and parents do.

So I found this on my facebook feed: [url]https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508174331243810817/photo/1[/url] I have a feeling GG will last for a very long time, and that isn't a completely good thing.

I wonder if she meant right after 4Chan started giving the boot to GG threads and /v/. Because at that point you're just left with the Goons and other shills trying to cause shit.

The interesting thing about Soul Caliber's character designs is that it's one of the few games that has intensely sexual male characters beside their female ones. It's not quite the same ratio but it is pretty cool to see.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46217507]Not to sink your ship, but uh, that's not the case at all. Media has always been a mirror, if you're watching or playing something that's offensive your either doing so to look for the offense or because you already subscribe to the idea. These people waste their energy wagging their finger on an entire industry, an amorphous blob because the moment they actually point at the real source of it, parents/education/peers they're gonna get shit all over. Also, your argument about desensitization would work if we didn't have people flipping out about the violence going on Ferguson, or the violence committed against Occupy Wall Street, or war or school shootings. But that's not what happens, each time this shit happens we get emotionally attached. Desensitization is the wrong word because it ultimately means a collective 'meh'. That's not what's happening. If you made a case for us fetish violence then I'd whole heartily agree, we heavily fetish violence and the gun, but only in the United States. As for the sex and such, that's just the inevitably result of a Puritanical society. Its almost always been like that. You're attaching to blame to objects which definitely have world views and goals and themes running through them. But its up to person playing them to subscribe to these. It'd be like saying we should blame ghost hunting shows for the growing belief and popularity in ghosts. Well no, we should blame the people who've become interested and then watch the shows. Media can influence, but it doesn't do nearly the same amount of influence was peers, education and parents do.[/QUOTE] I feel that the media's relationship with culture is a two-way street; it can both influence culture and be a reflection of it. Leave it to Beaver reflected the idealized suburban life many in 50s America wanted, while Seinfeld added several phrases that became common in American English. From what I can tell, people like Jonathan McIntosh seem to thing we're simply slaves to the subtle messages that media can tell us, which is ridiculous. People can reject the messages they see in media. For example, I love 24, but I still think torture is wrong under all circumstances. I blatantly commit extreme acts of police brutality in GTA Vice City by killing suspects that are not an immediate danger to anyone when playing the cop mini-game, but I'm still against police brutality. Then again, from what I can tell, the idiots that write SJ stuff on game websites seem to treat people as simply avatars of various archetypes a mystical entity called "culture" instead of being people with our own wants and desires, which explains part of it.

[url]http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-all-time-worst-people-in-history[/url]

[QUOTE=Dermock;46217761][url]http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-all-time-worst-people-in-history[/url][/QUOTE] moot confirmed twice as bad as hitler

[QUOTE=Dermock;46217761][url]http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-all-time-worst-people-in-history[/url][/QUOTE] moot is listed several times on that list

[QUOTE=Helelos;46217911]moot is listed several times on that list[/QUOTE] Literally worse than moot.

Living where I live and hanging around some of the people that I do, I can't seem to escape this crap nor effectually confront it much of anywhere I go. [IMG]http://i60.tinypic.com/241ktbo.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;46218053]Living where I live and hanging around some of the people that I do, I can't seem to escape this crap nor effectually confront it much of anywhere I go. img[/QUOTE] you missed covering a name [editline]asdad[/editline] nope you got it

[QUOTE=Dermock;46217761][URL]http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-all-time-worst-people-in-history[/URL][/QUOTE] I think by the end of this week the top 10 will just be some variation of moot and then LW 1 and 2 will end up being 11 and 12. (edit) and "end of week" could be end of today at the way things are going.

Really guys? Worse than hitler? I know Moot is a jackass and he probably deserves half the things that happen to him, but saying hes worse than hitler is like saying Pro GG is worse than ISIS. Moot may have enacted mass censorship, but last I checked he didn't establish death camps and he hasn't used said death camps to kill 6 billion people.

The internet always doesn't make sense in their opinions. That's how EA got the golden poop one time, pretty much.

We should knock them off the list, seriously they are hacks who dont deserve notoriety ,infamy ,or fame.

[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;46217048]I've written this somewhere else, but they're not shit non-arguments. Games do influence the way you behave in more ways than one, that's the purpose of all art, as Alan Moore says: [...][/QUOTE] Not quite. There are studies about this precise assumption that show that the effect simply doesn't exist long-term, and by "doesn't exist" I mean it's significantly below what you'd get if the result was uncertain. All a message [I]that isn't falsehood[/I] can do is transmit ideas, and whether they are accepted depends entirely on the receiver. As far as I can tell this goes for every single medium that has been studied. ("Falsehood" here doesn't refer to showing what could be or what isn't, but asserting that what isn't is.)

[QUOTE=JesseR92;46218210]We should knock them off the list, seriously they are hacks who dont deserve notoriety ,infamy ,or fame.[/QUOTE]They deserve one thing, and one thing only. The boot.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;46217299]My question is: How is this a problem to the world? How does this hurt women, and why does it need to be fought against? Yes, it might be dumb; might be stupid choices from a character design standpoint to make her wear less, but again, how is it sexist to the point where it affects the real world? It's not implying that all women need to wear less, it's not insinuating that all women are sex objects. These are things that fans of the series have gripes about, and rightly so if they think it's wrong. But why is the gradual sexualization of a fictional character a topic that the whole of feminism needs to battle, as opposed to actual inequality happening in reality?[/QUOTE] It's not quite that people in general become more sexists in response to exposure to such media, but studies have shown that women [I]themselves[/I] react badly to objectification and perform worse on unrelated tasks. I think it's surprising but proper statistics don't lie and a well done study is very rarely outright wrong. I think there are even multiple ones on the topic. [editline]edit[/editline] Besides that, the supposition that it doesn't affect anything is exactly as ridiculous that it does affect something specific. [I]Everything[/I] affects everything, it's just usually really surprising how (much) something is (not) affected in a meaningful way.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46218220] All a message [I]that isn't falsehood[/I] can do is transmit ideas, and whether they are accepted depends entirely on the receiver. As far as I can tell this goes for every single medium that has been studied. ("Falsehood" here doesn't refer to showing what could be or what isn't, but asserting that what isn't is.) [/QUOTE] You're going to have to rephrase this for me. I don't understand what you mean with your definition of falsehood.

[QUOTE=adnzzzzZ;46218269]You're going to have to rephrase this for me. I don't understand what you mean with your definition of falsehood.[/QUOTE] A fictional story by itself isn't a lie. However, if it's presented in such a way as to seem real it is. I have mixed feelings about alternate-reality games btw, most likely for this exact reason. [editline]edit[/editline] Most people are usually fairly good at differentiating between the fictional and reality, even if they completely mush up things otherwise. However, when e.g. the Discovery Channel starts to pull them closer together a lot of nasty stuff happens and people get confused. Ad-hominem attacks seem to be almost universally effective to some extent though, likely because the differentiation is between different areas of non-fiction. [editline]13th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=FangLargo;46217447]If I'm correct, the line of logic goes that 'raw eye candy' teaches boys to treat real girls the same way. I think the main problem is that (most) of the people who argued against Thompson and is arguing against AGG now are normal well adjusted people. And it's ludicrous to suggest that normal people consuming violent media would turn violent themselves. The problem is people who aren't well adjusted, or impressionable young people like pre/early teens and such. And although violence is so obviously wrong to children, it's probably not the best idea to expose them to unrealistically sexual depictions of women even before they have much of an idea about sexuality itself. Basically, it's a less objectionable equivalent to 'Why Children Shouldn't be Exposed to Porn'. Then again, I'm always taken aback by how 'sexual' common American media is anyway. It's a foundational problem. Personally, I think it comes down to being sensible about what we show and teach children and actually using those censorship ratings. E: Anyway, most of AGG's arguments are about purposefully mistaking discrimination for bad taste. I might make or laugh at an occasional black/Asian/Irish/Jew/blonde/[any sort of minority] joke, but that doesn't make me a Nazi per se.[/QUOTE] American media sexual? I thought they censored everything :v: Anyway, that's what age ratings are for. Children aren't supposed to play the kind of stuff these depictions usually appear in, and I haven't yet seen them in anything aimed at children who'd still be impressionable like that.

Its becoming more sexual as stations like HBO take riskier and riskier movements forwards.

[QUOTE=Dermock;46217761][url]http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-all-time-worst-people-in-history[/url][/QUOTE] The fact that Mao isn't near the top of the list is extremely disconcerting to me.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46218404]Its becoming more sexual as stations like HBO take riskier and riskier movements forwards.[/QUOTE] It's probably still nowhere close to what European media does. That said, judging by the difference between US and German porn the US media tends to paint a relatively unrealistic/polished image of sexuality. (I actually got that from a documentary that ran on TV here I think, so there's no personal bias involved...)

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46218283] [editline]13th October 2014[/editline] American media sexual? I thought they censored everything :v: Anyway, that's what age ratings are for. Children aren't supposed to play the kind of stuff these depictions usually appear in, and I haven't yet seen them in anything aimed at children who'd still be impressionable like that.[/QUOTE] Yeah, ok. So when I said 'sexual', I meant 'vague sexual features', the way the AGG use the term. You know, butts and cleavage and stuff. American media censors outright explicit sex and clearly objectionable stuff, but not really the other stuff. The American music industry, especially the women and their music videos, especially stands out to me. Also, they shouldn't be marketed at kids, but kids end up getting their stuff anyway. Parents are so lazy and clueless.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;46218421]The fact that Mao isn't near the top of the list is extremely disconcerting to me.[/QUOTE] Mao just isn't that popular. History classes are usually extremely skewed based on a countries history, more or less half of what we have here in Germany (in total across all subjects!) is WWII-related. [editline]13th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=FangLargo;46218498]Yeah, ok. So when I said 'sexual', I meant 'vague sexual features', the way the AGG use the term. You know, butts and cleavage and stuff. American media censors outright explicit sex and clearly objectionable stuff, but not really the other stuff. The American music industry, especially the women and their music videos, especially stands out to me. Also, they shouldn't be marketed at kids, but kids end up getting their stuff anyway. Parents are so lazy and clueless.[/QUOTE] That much I can agree with, but it still doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all. If people made more games that didn't do this (or had the opposite bias) then you could easily offset it for lazy/uninformed parents picking things at random.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46218513] [editline]13th October 2014[/editline] That much I can agree with, but it still doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all. If people made more games that didn't do this (or had the opposite bias) then you could easily offset it for lazy/uninformed parents picking things at random.[/QUOTE] Oh, I'm not arguing against it. What people make and people consume is Not My Business, until it is. I'm just worried that all these lazy moms are going to cause some sort of dilution of culture because of it.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FnrHhUJMxc&feature=youtu.be[/url] rip boogie

is swery65 (deadly premonition) on our side?? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/u7xv25B.png[/IMG] [URL]https://twitter.com/Swery65/status/521279014229393408[/URL]

[QUOTE=Helelos;46219415][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FnrHhUJMxc&feature=youtu.be[/url] rip boogie[/QUOTE] Everything this guys says is right, but some people are going to think it's wrong and call him out for it in the worst way possible. Ya know, as if they already haven't.