Gamers who harass women are literally losers
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
Hrm... I'm not sure the Quickening is a reliable method for long-term survival, but I guess if he's already immortal...
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
Hey man, some of us have inside us blood of kings.marurun wrote:Hrm... I'm not sure the Quickening is a reliable method for long-term survival, but I guess if he's already immortal...
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
Kings are often quite promiscuous, so likely many of us.Ack wrote:Hey man, some of us have inside us blood of kings.
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
Whatever, dude. Just take me to the future of your world.
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
You don't LOOK like Freddie Mercury...
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
People have gotten too side tracked with Anita Sarkeesian and Highlander references. There can be only one thread topic.
My contributions to the Racketboy site:
Browser Games ... Free PC Games ... Mixtapes ... Doujin Games ... SotC Poetry
Browser Games ... Free PC Games ... Mixtapes ... Doujin Games ... SotC Poetry
- Key-Glyph
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:38 am
- Location: Summer Games Challenge!
- Contact:
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
I haven't washed my hands of the conversation, I'm just discouraged and tired.
I do appreciate that you all want to put a certain amount of weight to my words, but I am also wary of inadvertently becoming some kind of Female Ambassador. I can't speak for all women -- being that we're complex individuals and all, just like the next human being -- and one of the big problems is not having enough female voices to represent a big enough picture.
A part of me also doesn't want to keep discussing Anita Sarkeesian's opinions when we're supposed to be addressing the harassment of female gamers in a multiplayer setting. But now I feel like I have to defend her as a woman.
It is true, the makeup question is infuriating from a lady's perspective. I don't go around judging a person's artistic integrity by the clothes they wear. I don't judge a person's piety by how many religious trinkets they display.
If you spend a bit of money on a gold necklace with a crucifix on it, does that make you a hypocrite and bad Christian for not having given that money to the poor instead? Should I henceforth consider everything you say about your religion, and your own religious feelings, suspect and tainted? And if you are a Christian who does not wear a crucifix, does that make you a bad Christian for not publicly proclaiming your pride in your faith? Should I never take your religious opinion seriously because your necklace ambivalence obviously belies an uniformed or strange spirituality?
Does the concept that a person might even consider these trains of thought about some random Christian, much less draw conclusions on a person's integrity based on them, not seem a little bizarre?
That's the bind that Anita Sarkeesian is in. And since she in particular has been zeroed-in on and proclaimed a Female Ambassador by groups that have very, very few female voices in them (and this is, in fact, how one becomes a Female Ambassador, as I noted above), her every behavior becomes politically charged when really she just wanted to get up and have a conventionally normal day. Which she is allowed to do, by the way.
My point here is, the choices women make are not always meant to be statements -- but they are put under a microscope, and those choices are treated as such. (See also: every minority ever.)
Do you love your pet, but eat other animals? Are you horrified by sweat shops, but don't know where your clothes come from? If this is you, congratulations: you are like most people in this country. No one gives these kinds of behavior a second thought. But for some reason a woman in makeup trying to speak up about sexism in a particular industry is perceived as so incongruous, so outrageously hypocritical, that it's worth derailing countless conversations on the internet for.
I do appreciate that you all want to put a certain amount of weight to my words, but I am also wary of inadvertently becoming some kind of Female Ambassador. I can't speak for all women -- being that we're complex individuals and all, just like the next human being -- and one of the big problems is not having enough female voices to represent a big enough picture.
A part of me also doesn't want to keep discussing Anita Sarkeesian's opinions when we're supposed to be addressing the harassment of female gamers in a multiplayer setting. But now I feel like I have to defend her as a woman.
It is true, the makeup question is infuriating from a lady's perspective. I don't go around judging a person's artistic integrity by the clothes they wear. I don't judge a person's piety by how many religious trinkets they display.
If you spend a bit of money on a gold necklace with a crucifix on it, does that make you a hypocrite and bad Christian for not having given that money to the poor instead? Should I henceforth consider everything you say about your religion, and your own religious feelings, suspect and tainted? And if you are a Christian who does not wear a crucifix, does that make you a bad Christian for not publicly proclaiming your pride in your faith? Should I never take your religious opinion seriously because your necklace ambivalence obviously belies an uniformed or strange spirituality?
Does the concept that a person might even consider these trains of thought about some random Christian, much less draw conclusions on a person's integrity based on them, not seem a little bizarre?
That's the bind that Anita Sarkeesian is in. And since she in particular has been zeroed-in on and proclaimed a Female Ambassador by groups that have very, very few female voices in them (and this is, in fact, how one becomes a Female Ambassador, as I noted above), her every behavior becomes politically charged when really she just wanted to get up and have a conventionally normal day. Which she is allowed to do, by the way.
My point here is, the choices women make are not always meant to be statements -- but they are put under a microscope, and those choices are treated as such. (See also: every minority ever.)
Do you love your pet, but eat other animals? Are you horrified by sweat shops, but don't know where your clothes come from? If this is you, congratulations: you are like most people in this country. No one gives these kinds of behavior a second thought. But for some reason a woman in makeup trying to speak up about sexism in a particular industry is perceived as so incongruous, so outrageously hypocritical, that it's worth derailing countless conversations on the internet for.
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
I find whenever things get heavy, a bit of levity, sometimes with brevity, is pretty much heavenly.J T wrote:People have gotten too side tracked with Anita Sarkeesian and Highlander references. There can be only one thread topic.
- Exhuminator
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 11573
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:24 am
- Contact:
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
If this thread has taught me anything about this forum, it`s that it doesn`t matter what you actually say or explain, people are going to read exactly what they want in your words to meet their own agenda. And then they won`t miss a chance to project that agenda against a supposed boogeyman that`s not actually in the same vicinity.
I`m taking a break from this ghost town.
I`m taking a break from this ghost town.
PLAY KING'S FIELD.
Re: Gamers who harass women are literally losers
Why are you using backticks instead of apostrophes?
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
