Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 not to be released in west, concerned about sparking a "women in gaming" back - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zyler;49342378]It means someone (who considers themselves 'Progressive') believes that removing sexualization of women is a progressive goal. 'progressive' the word isn't the same as 'Progressive' the political stance.[/QUOTE] Which it isn't. Hence calling it a "progressive aversion" is miswording at best, purposefully disingenuous at worst. For most people I'd lean toward the former, but based on his post/ban history I'm betting it's the latter.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49342382]Again though there is nothing inherently progressive about not liking sexy depictions of women in video games. Killuah just happens to (allegedly, I don't even know him) have progressive leanings when it comes to things that actually matter outside the banality of video games.[/QUOTE] It's not really up to you to decide that. A large enough group of people consider themselves to be Progressive and can back it up with logical reasoning while holding those opinions (i.e. they can prove why those opinions are 'Progressive') that you yourself claiming that they are not 'true' progressives reeks of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. They consider themselves to be progressives, and their views stem from the Progressive/Left/Liberal political sphere. I consider myself to be a Liberal, but I can't reasonably just call anyone I don't like conservative unless their views actually stem from conservative talking points. [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;49342399]Which it isn't. Hence calling it a "progressive aversion" is miswording at best, purposefully disingenuous at worst. For most people I'd lean toward the former, but based on his post/ban history I'm betting it's the latter.[/QUOTE] How is it disingenious? They were refering to 'Progressive' not 'progressive', i.e. the political label and not the word. Not understanding something that someone posts doesn't make what they post automatically disingenuous. I was just trying to clarify what Ranger was trying to say.

[QUOTE=Zyler;49342412]It's not really up to you to decide that. A large enough group of people consider themselves to be Progressive and can back it up with logical reasoning while holding those opinions (i.e. they can prove why those opinions are 'Progressive') that you yourself claiming that they are not 'true' progressives reeks of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. They consider themselves to be progressives, and their views stem from the Progressive/Left/Liberal political sphere. I consider myself to be a Liberal, but I can't reasonably just call anyone I don't like conservative unless their views actually stem from conservative talking points.[/QUOTE] You misunderstand. I'm not calling their political affiliation into question. I'm saying it doesn't matter at all. [QUOTE=Zyler;49342412]How is it disingenious? They were refering to 'Progressive' not 'progressive', i.e. the political label and not the word. Not understanding something that someone posts doesn't make what they post automatically disingenuous. I was just trying to clarify what Ranger was trying to say.[/QUOTE] I understand his post perfectly. As for why it might be disingenious? Probably because he has a history of making coy dog whistle posts. Anyone else I'd give the benefit of the doubt to.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49342482]You misunderstand. I'm not calling their political affiliation into question. I'm saying it doesn't matter at all. I understand his post perfectly. As for why it might be disingenious? Probably because he has a history of making coy dog whistle posts. Anyone else I'd give the benefit of the doubt to.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone's political affiliation ever matters, to be honest, at least not to the extent where I'm either willing or not willing to listen to what they have to say. Whether or not anyone calls themselves Progressive and whether or not they have views that line up with what I/you/anyone consider a thing that Progressive should think is as just irrelevant as someone who calls themselves conservative and has political views that either line up or don't line up with what 'conservative' is generally thought to mean. If someone can explain what they believe and how it logically relates to what they call themselves, then I have no problem referring to them as such. Sex-negative Progressives are just as 'Progressive' as you are (assuming you identify as such) because they can explain what they believe and how it relates to the term.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49340927]I'm not seeing the link between a critique of Anita Sarkeesian and the supposed progressive stance against sexy video game characters.[/QUOTE] You were wrong the last two times you stated this and you're still wrong now.

[QUOTE=Zyler;49342515]I don't think anyone's political affiliation ever matters, to be honest, at least not to the extent where I'm either willing or not willing to listen to what they have to say. Whether or not anyone call themselves progressives and whether or not they have views that line up with what I/you/anyone consider what a progressive should think is as just irelevant as someone who calls themselves conservatives and has political views that either line up or don't line up with what 'conservative' is generally thought to mean. If someone can explain what they believe and how it logically relates to what they call themselves, then I have no problem referring to them as such. Sex-negative Progressives are just as 'Progressive' as you are (assuming you identify as such).[/QUOTE] So then we generally agree: There is no "progressive aversion" to sexy video game characters. [QUOTE=27X;49342518]You were wrong the last two times you stated this and you're still wrong now.[/QUOTE] Feel free to illuminate me.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49340927]I'm not seeing the link between a critique of Anita Sarkeesian and the supposed progressive stance against sexy video game characters.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=27X;49342518]You were wrong the last two times you stated this and you're still wrong now.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Raidyr;49342534] Feel free to illuminate me.[/QUOTE] A clique of people who call themselves Progressive have spent the last two (maybe three?) years applying social pressure to Multimedia Devs and Publishers in an attempt to drive them to self-censor due to the social pressure. See the Joker Cover fiasco or The Fable dev Lionhead's International Cleavage Day tweet for a example of this. This clique of people includes media personalities (such as Anita Sarkeesian), writers (such as those from Kotaku, Polygon as well as major news companies like The Guardian), celebrities (such as Joss Whedon) and people with political connections (such as Silverstring media). See the "Gamers are dead" articles and the "Games Journo+" fiasco (which was created under the beheest of the same guy who created JournoList, a similar practice but created for television media instead of video games and was ironically lambasted in the media for being a major breach of television journalism ethics when it was leaked). Many game publishers and developers have come out to say that they are afraid of releasing content because the current climate of political outrage in the west.

[QUOTE=Zyler;49342558]A clique of people who call themselves Progressive have spent the last two (maybe three?) years applying social pressure to Multimedia Devs and Publishers in an attempt to drive them to self-censor due to the social pressure. See the Joker Cover fiasco or The Fable dev Lionhead's International Cleavage Day tweet for a example of this. This clique of people includes media personalities (such as Anita Sarkeesian), writers (such as those from Kotaku, Polygon as well as major news companies like The Guardian), celebrities (such as Joss Whedon) and people with political connections (such as Silverstring media). See the "Gamers are dead" articles and the "Games Journo+" fiasco (which was created under the beheest of the same guy who created JournoList, a similar practice but created for television media instead of video games and was ironically lambasted in the media for being a major breach of television journalism ethics when it was leaked. Many game publishers and developers have come out to say that they are afraid of releasing content because the current climate of political outrage in the west.[/QUOTE] Yes, I understand all of this. I distinctly remember Gamergate kicking off and much to my despair it's continued existence despite me being offline for almost 7 months. What am I wrong about? [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] I want 27X to explain to me himself in excruciating detail what he means, both the alleged two times I've posted that before (despite being gone since April???) and what I'm actually wrong with. PM's work if deviating from his lazy zinger style of posting isn't possible. I appreciate it though Zyler.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49342598]Yes, I understand all of this. I distinctly remember Gamergate kicking off and much to my despair it's continued existence despite me being offline for almost 7 months. What am I wrong about? [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] I want 27X to explain to me himself in excruciating detail what he means, both the alleged two times I've posted that before (despite being gone since April???) and what I'm actually wrong with. PM's work if deviating from his lazy zinger style of posting isn't possible. I appreciate it though Zyler.[/QUOTE] "I'm not seeing the link between a critique of Anita Sarkeesian and the supposed progressive stance against sexy video game characters." -Anita Sarkeesian believes that sexy video game characters cause sexism -A group of people who call themselves progressive believe that sexy video game characters cause sexism -That group of people who call themselves progressive and believe that sexy video game characters cause sexism support Anita in her belief that sexy video game characters cause sexism That's the link. Note that I'm not saying that all people who call themselves progressive believe this, but no group of people who all fall under a political label believe the same things about everything anyway. The use of 'Progressive' in this case refers to the specific group of people who believe sexy video game characters cause sexism and its usage is contextual in the same way I would refer to the conservative support of the pro-life movement (not all people who call themselves conservative are necessarily pro-life). Would you prefer if Ranger used the term 'SJW' or 'Regressive' instead of 'Progressive' to refer to this group of people? I.e. using a pejorative (insulting) term to refer to them instead of what they actually call themselves.

[QUOTE=Zyler;49342626]"I'm not seeing the link between a critique of Anita Sarkeesian and the supposed progressive stance against sexy video game characters." -Anita Sarkeesian believes that sexy video game characters cause sexism -A group of people who call themselves progressive believe that sexy video game characters cause sexism -That group of people who call themselves progressive and believe that sexy video game characters cause sexism support Anita in her belief that sexy video game characters cause sexism That's the link.[/QUOTE] If I'm a conservative and believe sexy video game characters cause sexism, have I now created a "conservative aversion" to sexualized females? If I'm Jewish is there now a Jewish aversion to sexualized females?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49342656]If I'm a conservative and believe sexy video game characters cause sexism, have I now created a "conservative aversion" to sexualized females? If I'm Jewish is there now a Jewish aversion to sexualized females?[/QUOTE] What you believe and what you call yourself relates to how you consolidate the two together. A conservative aversion to sexy video game characters would probably be something along the lines of "These sexy video game characters are corrupting our pure American values", a Jewish aversion to sexy video game characters would be "These sexy video game characters go against the Torah" and the Progressive example would be "These sexy video game characters create the societal notion that women are objects and subtly influence the thought-processes of the viewer to make them more likely to objectify women". To put it simply: a Conservative person, A Jewish person and a Progressive person each have their own 'logic' that comes from their own particular school of thought and/or political teachings in regard to their groupings. Politics is essentially a disagreement over logic, so thinking sexy video game characters cause sexism isn't a politicized belief in of itself, it's the logic you use to rationalize it that is in question.

[QUOTE=Zyler;49342626] Note that I'm not saying that all people who call themselves progressive believe this[/QUOTE] You're not. The problem is Rangergxi did. [QUOTE=Zyler;49342626]The use of 'Progressive' in this case refers to the specific group of people who believe sexy video game characters cause sexism and its usage is contextual in the same way I would refer to the conservative support of the pro-life movement (not all people who call themselves conservative are necessarily pro-life).[/QUOTE] And I don't think thats fair because Progressive is already owned by a political idealogy that is massive in scope and variability. The amount of progressives who actively fight against sexy video game characters is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the group of people who would consider themselves progressive, and it's misleading to imply there is an aversion amongst a group of such size towards that. [QUOTE=Zyler;49342626]Would you prefer if they used the term 'SJW' or 'Regressive' instead of 'Progressive' to refer to this group of people? I.e. using a pejorative (insulting) term to refer to them instead of what they actually call themselves.[/QUOTE] There shouldn't be a reason to refer to their politics at all other than to remark that they use their progressive ideology as a smokescreen for their oppressive intent. Which, frankly, is why I like the rhetoric of a "regressive left". [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;49342674]...the Progressive example would be "These sexy video game characters create the societal notion that women are objects and subtly influence the thought-processes of the viewer to make them more likely to objectify women"...[/QUOTE] Okay, now this makes sense to me and I'm starting to see more where you might be coming from. So the idea of a progressive aversion to xyz is less about physical progressives and more about progressive rhetoric?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49342687]You're not. The problem is Rangergxi did.[/QUOTE] I can't speak for what somebody else thinks, but it's possible that what Ranger said is contextual in the same way I would talk about, for example, the conservative stance on abortion. Not all conservatives necessarily have the exact same stance on abortion, in that case I am merely alluding to a description of a particular mindset and not claiming that all people who assume a label think in the same way. When you talk about what a group of people believe, it always needs to be subjective and contextual, otherwise you'd never be able to say anything about anyone without a page-long disclaimer expressing how you don't want to generalize all the people you aren't referring to into a single entity. I fail to see how what Ranger said is any different than me talking about the "Conservative stance on Abortion" or the "Liberal stance on Gun Control". I don't necessarily disagree that Ranger is politically biased, but I assume that we're all politically biased to some degree. [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;49342687] Okay, now this makes sense to me and I'm starting to see more where you might be coming from. So the idea of a progressive aversion to xyz is less about physical progressives and more about progressive rhetoric?[/QUOTE] Yes, exactly.

[QUOTE=Zyler;49342712]I can't speak for what somebody else thinks, but it's possible that what Ranger said is contextual in the same way I would talk about, for example, the conservative stance on abortion. Not all conservatives necessarily have the exact same stance on abortion, in that case I am merely alluding to a description of a particular mindset and not claiming that all people who assume a label think in the same way. When you talk about what a group of people believe, it always needs to be subjective and contextual, otherwise you'd never be able to say anything about anyone without a page-long disclaimer expressing how you don't want to generalize all the people you aren't referring to into a single entity. I fail to see how what Ranger said is any different than me talking about the "Conservative stance on Abortion" or the "Liberal stance on Gun Control". I don't necessarily disagree that Ranger is politically biased, but I assume that we're all politically biased to some degree. [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] Yes, exactly.[/QUOTE] Okay, that makes more sense. I still don't think Ranger's post is as clear as I'd like it to be (I immedietly understood it the way you contextualized it) but it makes sense. Thanks for being patient and explaining it to me.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49342745]Okay, that makes more sense. I still don't think Ranger's post is as clear as I'd like it to be (I immedietly understood it the way you contextualized it) but it makes sense. Thanks for being patient and explaining it to me.[/QUOTE] No problem, have a nice day.